Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Have Created Batteries Using Carbon Dioxide From Atmosphere (thelatestnews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new dept.

An anonymous reader writes: While climate change talks progress on how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, an interdisciplinary team of scientists have worked out a way to reduce carbon dioxide already existing in the atmosphere. The focus is on the batteries used by electric automobiles. Researchers have found out that the graphite electrodes in the lithium-ion batteries could be replaced with carbon electrodes sourced from atmospheric carbon dioxide. The experiment started with the use of a solar-thermal electrochemical process (STEP) to convert carbon dioxide into carbon. STEP uses solar energy as the source of the thermal and electrical energy required for the dissolution of the atmospheric carbon dioxide to its constituent elements -- carbon and oxygen. The team then used the carbon generated to create carbon nanotubes/nanofibers. They then incorporated these carbon nanotubes into lithium-ion batteries by using them as the positive electrode or anode. While the carbon is used in the manufacture of carbon nanotubes, the oxygen is channeled back to the generator to boost the combustion efficiency of the generator. The increased efficiency will balance the electricity consumption of STEP. In the end, the fossil fuel electrical power plant could have zero net carbon dioxide emissions.

63 comments

  1. How much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, how many tons of additional CO2 were released in order to remove a tiny bit of CO2 from the atmosphere?

    1. Re:How much? by VernonNemitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "In the end, the fossil fuel electrical power plant could have zero net carbon dioxide emissions."
      Looks to me that in the end it will actually be solar power replacing fossil-fuel power.

    2. Re:How much? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      So, how many tons of additional CO2 were released in order to remove a tiny bit of CO2 from the atmosphere?

      According to TFA, the process is solar. Solar processes are automatically exempt from any quibbles over land usage, maintenance requirements, useful life, or carbon generated by mining and manufacturing. Such objections may only be raised if someone mentions nuclear.

    3. Re:How much? by peragrin · · Score: 2

      Over the 15-20 year lifespan of solar. Even the land usage and manufacturing carbon footprint is minimal compared to coal.

      Also if every home that could had a solar panel that provided just 30% of its electrical needs we could turn off the coal plants entirely.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:How much? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rooftop solar does a good job of zeroing out the power usage of the single-family home under it, but what happens when those solar panels are on the minuscule roof of a high-rise apartment complex?

      And most especially, what happens when your country wants to smelt steel? I suppose you can outsource all the steel production to a nuclear country like South Korea.

    5. Re:How much? by pla · · Score: 1

      Solar processes are automatically exempt from any quibbles over land usage

      Land usage... You mean like Bagger 288 eating whole towns at a time, and fuck the residents because MINERAL RIGHTS, BITCH?

      maintenance requirements

      Yeah, hosing those bad-boys off and giving 'em a quick wipe a couple times a year really ruins 15 minutes on a nice weekend.

      useful life

      You've got me there. Power plants just run for decades without having any major components replaced on a regular basis. Meanwhile, the bearings and toxic particulate filters on my solar panels barely last a year at a time!

      or carbon generated by mining and manufacturing.

      Did you actually manage to write that last bit with a straight face? You realize coal doesn't come from free-range unicorn shit, right?

    6. Re:How much? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well presumably 4.3 kilos of CO2 would be removed from the atmosphere for every kilo of battery produced, given that CO2 is roughly 23% carbon by weight and 77% oxygen. You'd need to make a lot of batteries to do any kind of significant offset of 40 billion tons of CO2 human activities release into the atmosphere every year. Somehow I can't see us neutralizing our carbon emissions by turning them into 9.2 billion tons of batteries. You might as well try some other kind of sequestration.

      So this process is interesting, but not likely to be significant in terms of climate impact.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:How much? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      I had to look that up, but apparently the Bagger 288 is for mining COAL. Most especially, for use in the two enormous lignite strip mines that Germany intends to replace its nuclear baseload with. Whatever the German Energiewende is supposed to prove in the long term, it's nothing to do with reducing carbon.

    8. Re:How much? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Bagger 288 eating whole towns at a time

      Won't somebody think of the poor excavator? I mean the way it chokes and gags every time a town goes down the wrong way is just heartbreaking.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    9. Re:How much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most solar panels will work for well over 25 years. I think 50 years wouldn't be too unlikely in most places.

    10. Re:How much? by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      I've got 20 year old solar panels. Output is about 100W/ sq m at best. So their efficiency has dropped by at least 30% in 20 years. Of course, that is actual data, not pie in the sky optimism.

    11. Re:How much? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      This, and if we start making any significant difference by any scheme to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, I can see it quickly becoming a dependence, where we need to take ever increasing amounts out to keep our junky planet from slipping into decline, and the further it goes, the harder the withdrawal symptoms will get.

    12. Re:How much? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Your -30% isn't really data, it's just a single point linked to an inaccurate measure. Literature (e.g. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11o...) usually mentions degradation rates of -0.5%/year, so about -10% in 20 years.
      But talking about optimism : Your glass is still less than 1/3 empty, so it's still more than 2/3 full ;)
      Even -30% in 20 years is actually not so bad for a system that delivers free power without maintenance.
      If you clean your modules, check the cables+junction boxes and replace your inverter, you'll probably get much more than 70% of the original output.

    13. Re: How much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is information.

      Data would be the two numbers used to determine the percentage and the two time stamps. When you put all of that together it becomes ingormation.

      Data>Information>Knowledge>Wisdom.

  2. The thermodynamics is a off here... by Hussman32 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they are going to reduce carbon dioxide to carbon and oxygen, then at a minimum they will need to add -394.39 kJ/mol of CO2 to the system because of the Gibbs Free Energy of Formation, which would yield 12 grams of carbon. and 32 grams of oxygen.

    If we're looking at replacing one metric ton of carbon per hour, then this process would need 1,000,000/12 = 83,333 moles carbon*393 kJ/3600 seconds hour = 9.1 MW of energy minimum, assuming 30% efficiency, would yield the need for 30 MW of solar panels. At 5 acres per megawatt, they would need 150 acres of land.

    Again, trees look like the better option for carbon removal.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    1. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have not checked your math, but I assume you are correct. There is one flaw in your logic, however. Batteries do not grow on trees.

    2. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Why extract from the atmosphere? Just use plain old dirty coal mines, but instead of burning it make a battery element out of it. Oh wait, that's how it's done already, and it's obviously evil because... something something Al Gore.

    3. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by fizzup · · Score: 1

      You are 100% right, but one should add that removing one tonne of carbon removes 3.7 (=44/12) tonnes of carbon dioxide.

    4. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by fizzup · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Again, trees look like the better option for carbon removal.

      Let's see!

      According to these guys, a tree removes about 22kg of co2 per year. How much space does a tree take? I would guess about 10 square meters. It depends a bit on the tree, I guess. 150 acres is 600,000 square meters, or about 60,000 trees.

      There are about 8,800 hours in a year, so we can now estimate the removal rate of carbon dioxide in metric tonnes per hour for a forest. Whee!

      0.15 tonnes per hour = (60,000 trees x 22 kg/tree-year) / (8,800 hours/year * 1000 kg/tonne)

      Your one tonne of carbon represents 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Under the assumptions of your post (which I'm a little unsure of), this proposal is almost 25 times as effective as a forest!

    5. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      Depends on your basis, I've seen both metric ton as Carbon and metric ton as CO2.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    6. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      My math is probably off in a million different ways, but there must be better ways to get carbon nanofibers than this process. Cool science, but the implementation wouldn't work.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    7. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      If this machine were solar powered, it would run on average 6 hours a day, so we're down to 4 times as effective as a tree. Add in the inevitable inefficiencies of the process (cleaning, outages, etc), and I'm betting on the trees again.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    8. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also trees can be used for their wood, as long as you don't burn them, tree farming is carbon negative.

    9. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      In a sense trees are nature's batteries.

      Tree absorbs carbon during its lifecycle. Tree matures, the wood is harvested and sold to a restaurant that cooks you a pizza in a wood-fired oven. CO2 is released and absorbed by the forest and the charcoal is buried to improve soil quality (terra preta)

    10. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OK, I want to understand this correctly...

      We can solve global warming by going on an entirely pizza diet?

    11. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sort of but not really. Not all pizza makers use wood fired ovens and the oil from teenager zits would likely clog up the sewers and catch fire rereleasing much of that carbon.

    12. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Because we already have graphite the way you suggest and this is about doing something new.

    13. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      His math is right. The bulk of the energy release when creating CO2 is from the step going from atomic carbon and atomic oxygen (dG = 0).to CO2 (dG = -394.4 kJ/mol), not the decomposition of for example CH4 (methane, dG = -50.8 kJ/mol). In fact it would take more energy to go from CO2 to atomic carbon and oxygen, than was originally released when you burned the CH4.

      Basically, this process amounts to you taking the exhaust and soot from someone else burning a tree, then you burn 2-3 trees to generate enough energy to convert that soot and CO2 back into its atomic constitutents, then you convert it into a battery. So yeah batteries don't grow on trees, but it would take less energy to make the battery starting with the tree than what these guys are doing.

      CO2 and H2O aren't just byproducts of chemical reactions which can be converted into C, H2, and O2 if you "just" knock the atoms apart. They sit very far down the energy potential well. All the energy that you get when you burn fossil fuels comes from lowering the C, H, and O down the energy potential well (creating CO2 and H2O in the process). Decomposing them back into their constituent atoms (knocking the atoms apart) requires pumping an equivalent amount of energy back into them.

      Factor in inefficiencies and you're usually looking at having to put 2-3x as much energy in as you originally got out when you burned the fossil fuel. At that point you're better off just using that energy directly as electricity to power society - prevent the fossil fuel from being burned in the first place, instead of trying to uncreate the CO2 that was formed from burning the fossil fuel.

    14. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Dantoo · · Score: 2

      They could though. Instead of getting the carbon from an expensive solar plant why not use an inexpensive solar plant - like a tree?

      Plant tree. Grow tree. Convert tree to charcoal. Make battery. Plant tree. Seems simple from my uncaring and uninformed desktop position.

    15. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Time_Ngler · · Score: 2

      Because Rube Goldberg wouldn't be satisfied

    16. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His math is right. The bulk of the energy release when creating CO2 is from the step going from atomic carbon and atomic oxygen (dG = 0).to CO2 (dG = -394.4 kJ/mol), not the decomposition of for example CH4 (methane, dG = -50.8 kJ/mol). In fact it would take more energy to go from CO2 to atomic carbon and oxygen, than was originally released when you burned the CH4.

      Basically, this process amounts to you taking the exhaust and soot from someone else burning a tree, then you burn 2-3 trees to generate enough energy to convert that soot and CO2 back into its atomic constitutents, then you convert it into a battery. So yeah batteries don't grow on trees, but it would take less energy to make the battery starting with the tree than what these guys are doing.

      CO2 and H2O aren't just byproducts of chemical reactions which can be converted into C, H2, and O2 if you "just" knock the atoms apart. They sit very far down the energy potential well. All the energy that you get when you burn fossil fuels comes from lowering the C, H, and O down the energy potential well (creating CO2 and H2O in the process). Decomposing them back into their constituent atoms (knocking the atoms apart) requires pumping an equivalent amount of energy back into them.

      Factor in inefficiencies and you're usually looking at having to put 2-3x as much energy in as you originally got out when you burned the fossil fuel. At that point you're better off just using that energy directly as electricity to power society - prevent the fossil fuel from being burned in the first place, instead of trying to uncreate the CO2 that was formed from burning the fossil fuel.

      I hear you, but wasn't it solar power that was used to determine the actual composition of diamonds? Diamond in a pure oxygen ampule was places under a large lens and sunlight was used to vaporize the diamond. What was left was CO2. This was done with solar energy, so what you are saying about the energy needed to "Knock the atoms apart" is true, but irrelevant because the extra energy being put into the process to accomplish this is being achieved by way of solar energy, which does not, in itself have a carbon emission as part of it's process. You are essentially removing carbon from the atmosphere using solar power to do. Very simple.

      Carbon from this process need not be atomic carbon always, It can be of many compounds or allotropes of pure carbon. So the carbon sequestration of this type can be used in many processes, not just battery making.

    17. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by slashping · · Score: 1

      Again, trees look like the better option for carbon removal.

      Trees aren't very efficient at converting energy. Solar panels are much better. The trick, however, is not use electricity to sequester carbon (which is inefficient), but to use solar to replace coal fired plants.

    18. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to include the carbon release from the manufacture of the panels.

    19. Re:The thermodynamics is a off here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You are essentially removing carbon from the atmosphere using solar power to do. Very simple.

      Yeah, but it's important to notice that solar energy has no variable costs, so in a sense it's essentially free to operate. This is meaningful in the long term, when fixed costs can and will be reduced.

      > So the carbon sequestration of this type can be used in many processes, not just battery making.

      Yeah, well put. We could make anything that is carbon-based, like... human beings!

  3. Expect those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    to block this as they blocked all of the other battery advancements we read about here almost weekly.

    1. Re: Expect those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicants don't want better batteries

    2. Re: Expect those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were RepubliCANs rather than RepubliCAN'Ts, imagine how much better life would be.

    3. Re: Expect those Republicans... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Republicants don't want better batteries

      Of course we do, in milking our gay space cows.

    4. Re: Expect those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't funny and you should feel bad...

    5. Re: Expect those Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck... Deserves a "+1 (Sad but True)" mod.

  4. stop spraying crap in our skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    plus use the batteryless solar graphite magnet engines? sleek is an understatement? 100s of 1000s of km on a single self charge? sleek///

  5. Why? by penguinoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Researchers have found out that the graphite electrodes in the lithium-ion batteries could be replaced with carbon electrodes sourced from atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    Why? What's the benefit of getting the carbon from the atmosphere, as opposed to from less energy-intensive sources? Especially since a large proportion of our energy sources put carbon into the atmosphere.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't any. It's cool that they can make CNT electrodes to replace the graphite ones, though. There are easier/better places to get the carbon for that than atmospheric carbon dioxide . . .

    2. Re:Why? by slashping · · Score: 2

      Why? What's the benefit of getting the carbon from the atmosphere, as opposed to from less energy-intensive sources?

      You get much better press.

  6. "the oxygen is channeled back to the generator" by Punto · · Score: 1

    where it becomes CO2 again?

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  7. skim read much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The gas-powered generator efficiency increase proposed at the end is a completely different proposal than the battery manufactury (which doesn't involve anything besides solar generated heat and electricity.) Sometimes it's worth while reading every bit of an article, even if you get turned off by the author speaking as if carbon nanotubes just got invented just now by this project by the fifth paragraph.

  8. I don't get it... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    In the end, the fossil fuel electrical power plant could have zero net carbon dioxide emissions.

    Uh, so... does this mean coal-burning power stations will be churning out tons of carbon electrodes and we'll end up with a mountain of lithium batteries?

    I really have no idea what's going on.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:I don't get it... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Until they start bitching about a lithium shortage.

    2. Re:I don't get it... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      With all the depressed people in society can't they just 'mine' the lithium from waste treatment plants using osmosis?

    3. Re:I don't get it... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      They use solar power to create the carbon nanotubes using CO2 from the atmosphere. This creates oxygen which could be released into the atmosphere or compressed and sold into industry. But they are suggesting putting the plant next to a fossil fuel electrical plant and piping the oxygen gas into the combustion chamber to increase the efficiency of the burn process.

      Of course:
      - If you are going to use CO2 why not just use the CO2 from the emissions from the power plant instead of the atmosphere? It would be a lot easier but then it's just carbon capture which is just a bunch of garbage and doesn't work.
      - It would be much more efficient to just use the electricity from the solar panels and feed it into the power grid instead of splitting CO2. That way CO2 doesn't get generated in the first place.
      - Just how many batteries do they really think we are going to need? I mean society is going to need a lot of batteries for the future but to avert any damage from climate change there is no way we could use, let alone store, the number of batteries that would have to be made with the Carbon taken out of the atmosphere. We could probably make all of the batteries we will ever need and not make a dent in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    4. Re:I don't get it... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      On what planet? There are plenty of salt lakes, including the biggest one on the planet, that are full of it. That's without even having to crunch up rock or get it out of seawater.

    5. Re:I don't get it... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah. That's all why I thought the line about making a fossil fuel station carbon neutral sounded completely bogus.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. Source? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Before we get too far into the celebration over the fact that we'll be able to use all the fossil fuels forever and there will never be a downside, I'm just curious. Does anyone know anything about the website that is the source for this story? thelatestnews.com, it's called and it looks a little weird. There isn't a single link in the actual article to anything related to the actual scientists or anything published about this work. Just a YouTube video. I also found this story in the "Business" section of the site:

    http://www.thelatestnews.com/b...

    They start by saying in the title that this "bitwalking" thing is financial nonsense, but by the end of the article, they're saying why they think it's a brilliant idea.

    I'm just a little concerned about who is behind this news site, but then I'm naturally suspicious.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re: Source? by c.s.carlson6 · · Score: 1

      I found this link in the post. It looks pretty legit. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...

  10. Why the batteries? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Burn carbon in a base load generating plant. Capture the CO2 and store in a big tank. When the sun comes out, reduce the CO2 to carbon using this STEP process. Throw the carbon into a big pile and shovel it into the powerplant as needed for electrical power independent of short term solar availability.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Why the batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but that's boring. Propelling science does not require energy but grants. Grants are attracted to interesting things. If you dress up your fallacies, they become more interesting than the facts they are obscuring.

      A fashion show is more expensive than a night at the strip club.

    2. Re:Why the batteries? by PPH · · Score: 1

      A fashion show is more expensive than a night at the strip club.

      Oh, I don't know about that. Priced a lap dance lately?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  11. You eco-ninnies make me laugh by amightywind · · Score: -1

    But I'll be happy to give you all of the CO2 your need!

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  12. Wont work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    If this should be found feasible the liberals will sue the EPA because the evil white capitalists are altering the earth's atmosphere purely for their obscene profit. Liberals hate humans. Sure they hate white humans most of all, but in the end they hate everyone. Protecting the environment and disadvantaged minorities is just a ruse. No matter what you do to protect mother earth and desert tortoises from the dangers of progress, the liberals will find fault. Hell even if every white male killed themselves tomorrow, a left leaning liberal would have a problem because all teh white people decided to kill themselves without any thought what so ever to the sudden explosion of nitrogen they are adding to the soil.

    Yes if you are white; you are guilty. Might as well just torch old growth forest and lynch black people just for the hell of it. You are going to be blamed for it anyhow.

    There is no hope. Give up now.

    1. Re: Wont work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sardonically, if all the white people killed themselves tomorrow, there would be other people enslaving themselves to other people worldwide. The environment would be worse, more warring, and don't look at nature, look at nurture. Why would you move out of your home country? Wanderlust? Or freedom? Meaning, why would you move away from an area that's home, and you are adapted to live in? As tribes grow, so does the idea of warring, prisoners or slaves? Executed or kept alive? Warring, a tribe needs land to survive. So you raid for resources. So you have to establish some reason, hate. Now it's skin color, and blaming some one else for your hate? How short sighted and inhumane. How illogical. How racist. And you claim to be the educated ones, shakers of dolls to the winds, calling to the spirits of the past, have better thoughts.

  13. LOL at 'Climatedot' bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is just sickening. Every.Single.Fucking.Day. 'Climate change' bullshit, as if repeating it enough times makes it true.

    www.wattsupwiththat.com
    www.climatedepot.com

  14. Extremely inefficient by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 1

    The buzzword here is that they use solar power to extract and convert CO2. Sounds nice for those not into the pysics of energy conversion and chemistry.

    It is a lot more efficient to use the solar power to reduce CO2 emissions by replacing the burning of fossile fuel with solar energy. Pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere is extremely costly on the energy balance, and should be avoided, except in the form of planting some trees.

  15. Buzzword compliant "research" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to get funding?