this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
33 points (94.6% liked)

Green Energy

2194 readers
126 users here now

everything about energy production

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Carbon in the atmosphere is a major driver of climate change. Now researchers from McGill University have designed a new catalyst for converting carbon dioxide (CO2) into methane -- a cleaner source of energy -- using tiny bits of copper called nanoclusters. While the traditional method of producing methane from fossil fuels introduces more CO2 into the atmosphere, the new process, electrocatalysis, does not. "On sunny days you can use solar power, or when it's a windy day you can use that wind to produce renewable electricity, but as soon as you produce that electricity you need to use it," says Mahdi Salehi, Ph.D. candidate at the Electrocatalysis Lab at McGill University. "But in our case, we can use that renewable but intermittent electricity to store the energy in chemicals like methane."

By using copper nanoclusters, says Salehi, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere can be transformed into methane and once the methane is used, any carbon dioxide released can be captured and "recycled" back into methane. This would create a closed "carbon loop" that does not emit new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The research, published recently in the journal Applied Catalysis B: Environment and Energy, was enabled by the Canadian Light Source (CLS) at the University of Saskatchewan (USask). The team plans to continue refining their catalyst to make it more efficient and investigate its large-scale, industrial applications. Their hope is that their findings will open new avenues for producing clean, sustainable energy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This is great in theory, but all it really does is give us a reason to cling onto a dirty, leaky natural gas grid. Much like CCS, this technology allows fossil fuel producers to continue business as usual under the promise of one day maybe sortof going green, and if this system leaks much more than ~1%, its not actually "carbon neutral" in useful human timescales, because its converting CO2 into something 50-100x more impactful on the climate

[–] ericjmorey@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

If it can be done cheaper this way than extracted via drilling (fracking) wells, then it's a pure win because it will displace the activity that increases CO2 and the vast majority of Methane leaks while the transition to other technologies occurs. It would be a tremendous benefit in terms of eliminating the acceleration of greenhouse effects.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If it can be done cheaper this way...

That "if" is doing a lot lot of heavy lifting, and exactly the excuse a lot of fossil fuel companies and municipalities will use for inaction.

[–] ericjmorey@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If it can't be cost effective it won't happen. It won't slow down solar or other green house gas emission neutral options. I'm not rooting for that scenario.

[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's the thing, it doesn't have to happen. It has to catch enough headlines that Shell can say:

"As part of our environmental commitments we plan to sell only carbon neutral methane by 2040"

Then they proceed to do nothing in the "hopes" that this becomes cost effective in time, while continuing to invest in natural gas infrastructure, and while we continue to investing in using their "soon to be neutral" fuel.

Finally, when 2035 or so rolls around they quietly shift the goal posts and we keep on letting them pollute.

And if you're wondering why this sounds familiar...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/shell-abandons-2035-emissions-target-and-weakens-2030-goal/

All getting hyped about CCS or "renewable" "drop-in replacements" for fossil fuels does is further entrench fossil fuel companies as the "center" of our carbon commitments, while they are 100% disincentivized to act.

Unless this tech is paired with a $1000/tonne carbon tax, its a scapegoat.

[–] ericjmorey@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We don't need Shell to install solar arrays. Thinking that the companies that are causing the problem will fix it for us is what will delay indefinitely any solution. Being able to synthesize methane or not has no influence on whether or not a carbon tax is appropriate. Greenhouse gass emission taxes are appropriate under either circumstance.

[–] Dogyote@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 months ago

How would you feel if those fossil fuel producers stopped extracting fossil methane and instead were producing methane from atmospheric CO2 and fossil free energy?