Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World's First "Porous Liquid" Could Be Used For CO2 Sequestration (gizmag.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the cooling-things-down dept.

Zothecula sends word that scientists have developed the world's first "porous" liquid that can potentially be used to capture carbon emissions. Gizmag reports: "The Italians have a colorful expression – to make a hole in water – to describe an effort with no hope of succeeding. Researchers at Queen's University Belfast (QUB), however, have seemingly managed the impossible, creating a class of liquids that feature permanent holes at the molecular level. The properties of the new materials are still largely unknown, but what has been gleaned so far suggests they could be used for more convenient carbon capturing or as a molecular sieve to quickly separate different gases."

17 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is a wonderful step towards engineering The Blob!

  2. Everyone's down on CO2 by blogagog · · Score: 2

    I'm beginning to think carbon dioxide is the new 'black'. Everyone is so negative about the wonderful molecule.

  3. Re:Soda by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The porosity in question is different, more like zeolite than a liquid with bubbles in it. Plus, the liquid in question has permanent porosity, unlike soda (or any liquid with bubbles in it) which has only temporary porosity.

    --
    A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
  4. I don't see it. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, we're going to synthesize even more products from oil (at who knows what contribution to the CO2 problem) to temporarily sequester the CO2 ... temporary because any molecule that is a better "fit" for the molecular cage will displace the CO2. Plus all the energy implementing the sequestration process by injecting it into the ground... Sort of like fracking ...

    Why not just cut back on fossil fuel burning? Oh no's, can't have that, can we?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:I don't see it. by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Informative

      I hate to ask such a dumb question, but why do we refer to them as "fossil fuels"?

      Actually, that's quite a reasonable question to ask and as your post appears genuine enough here you are...

      Oil (petroleum) and coal are both the result of geological processes (heat/pressure) acting on the fossilized remains of ancient organic (carbon based) life. Plankton and algae in oil's case and trees for coal. Natural gas is usually found with or near the other two and formed with similar processes. A fossil is basically any trace of life preserved in rock which does include dinosaur bones...but also anything else that used to live on this planet. And alliteration is always catchy.

    2. Re:I don't see it. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why not just cut back on fossil fuel burning? Oh no's, can't have that, can we?

      Actually, no we cannot cut back all that much. Unless you are figuring on systematically reducing the world's population, or hell, just starving them to death. You see, petro-chemicals are used extensively to create fertilizer, and if you stop doing that with oil people are going to starve. Of course we can all just go back to horse and buggy, whale oil lamps and the supportable population of the world we can support with that technology, but somehow I don't figure that the third world is going to accept going backwards further....

      Best we can hope for is to cut down *some* on fossil fuel use by developing other energy sources. Fusion comes to mind as a promising solution..... But that's decades out....Just figure that CO2 emissions are here to stay for your lifetime, because even if you are a baby, they are....

      If we don't cut back population over the long term. we'll all starve to death. And let's be honest, oil is not an infinite resource. Even ignoring global warming, there comes a time when the well goes dry.

      And the problem is not that far away 2050 projections:

      NEW population forecasts from the United Nations point to a new world order in 2050. The number of people will grow from 7.3 billion to 9.7 billion in 2050, 100m more than was estimated in the UN's last report two years ago. More than half of this growth comes from Africa, where the population is set to double to 2.5 billion. Nigeria's population will reach 413m, overtaking America as the world's third most-populous country. Congo and Ethiopia will swell to more than 195m and 188m repectively, more than twice their current numbers. India will surpass China as the world's most populous country in 2022, six years earlier than was previously forecast. China's population will peak at 1.4 billion in 2028; India's four decades later at 1.75 billion. Changes in fertility make long-term projections hard, but by 2100 the planet’s population will be rising past 11.2 billion. It will also be much older. The median age of 30 will rise to 36 in 2050 and 42 in 2100—the median age of Europeans today. A quarter of Europe's people are already aged 60 or more; by 2050 deaths will outnumber births by 32m. The UN warns that only migration will prevent the region's population from shrinking further.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:I don't see it. by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well the correct term is petroleum... petr from petra which means rock, and oleum means oil, so "rock oil". Quite appropriately named. Perhaps the supergroup which includes gaseous deposits should be called "organic fuel", since carbon chemistry is organic chemistry.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:I don't see it. by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      And alliteration is always awesome.

      FTFY

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  5. Yeah, well, naturally. by JMZero · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean, this is like the core principle of homeopathy. You make permanent holes in the water, and the holes are just the right size for the class of toxins you're dealing with. Then if you want more holes, you dilute the water to make the holes split (obviously you want to be careful with this in practice).

    I thought everyone knew this? How did you guys all think homeopathy worked? Magic?

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  6. Re:Soda by zieroh · · Score: 2

    Americans. You call a liquid "gas" and now you call another liquid "coke".

    Can't be any worse than referring to a flashlight as a torch.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  7. Re:Soda by Xenx · · Score: 2

    He's far from right, as are you. As a whole, sugar is rather necessary. Consuming processed sugar at the levels many of us do isn't good for us, but it is not poison. Like most anything else in life, moderation is the key.

  8. Re:Soda by graphius · · Score: 2

    or underwear as pants...

  9. Re:"Sequeseter" and just pass it on by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Molten salt reactors are said to have, in theory, fuel remnants with storage needs of a few centuries rather than tens of millennia.

  10. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Bengie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bad idea. When CO2 levels get too high, water becomes more acidic. This reacts with minerals, causing CO2 to get sequestered faster than we could hope to do ourselves. Even worse is it would be very difficult to get the CO2 back out.

  11. Re:Total Waste of Funding by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

    When methane reaches sufficient concentration in our O2-rich atmosphere the problem will literally take care of itself. I don't want to be around when that happens though.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. C'mon - we're not even TRYING! by avocanite · · Score: 2

    Two words: Holey Water :-)

  13. Re:"Sequeseter" and just pass it on by mr_mischief · · Score: 2

    The main experiments were back in the 1960s. There are some proof-of-concepts for future commercial plants from what I've heard and read. There are some being used to provide power to high-use single users like high-energy research labs I think.

    Nobody's producing power to sell just yet. It's supposed to be soon, though. A Canadian company has a design they're putting into pre-licensing review in the coming months to hopefully be online around 2020. The US DoE which first developed MSRs (a program which Nixon axed) is helping China build a full-scaled 100 MW preview unit to be operational by 2024.

    These things are safer (thorium vs. uranium for the bulk of the fuel, lower pressure inside the reactor), more efficient (higher temperatures transferred to the water/steam so more work gets to the generators), have easier spent fuel requirements (the half-lives are much shorter and it's much easier to keep them from breeding bomb-grade elements). They'll be cheaper to operate and produce cheaper, safer electricity. China's into the hundreds of millions researching building these things. It should happen.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
    http://fukushimaupdate.com/tho...
    http://www.technologyreview.co...
    http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/...
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ke...