University of Amsterdam Find New CO2 Conversion

O, wow. I am always amazed with catalysis.

This is good news. There was no doubt CO2 could be broken down at low energy. Plants have been doing this for some time now, even using the low concentrations present in the atmosphere.

Yes, and plants do not have to go through CO (toxic) as an intermediate, either. Isn't that wonderful.

Perhaps, but plants don't do anything in the carbon credit scam system plus when they convert atmospheric CO2 into O2 they do it for free and not just free, willingly and nontaxable free.

I had understood that CO2 was a more 'greener' gas than CO. Because that this has less green house effects than CO. Have all this time, I've been wrong?

It comes down to that pesky 'Potential' part in 'Global Warming Potential'.

Just because something shows the 'potential' to do something doesn't meant it actually does every time. In fact most things with potential generally don't achieve their maximum value.

Also there is the actual as found in real life working conditions volume behind other gasses. A particular gas may have a very high CO2 equivalent and relative GWP value but if its total volume equates to few PPM ratios to present CO2 it's not that big of contributor.

It may have a high GWP value but when it's only found in trace volumes it's actual impact is minimal to non relevant.

Everyone seems to be majoring in minors again. CO2 is not a useful chemical intermediate as such. CO is a vastly more useful chemical intermediate. That is basically the entire point. If "renewables", or advanced nuclear energy make Hydrogen production really feasible financially, then coupling that hydrogen to something that converts to a readily transportable liquid fuel is a quantum leap. Especially if it comes out the nozzle as gasoline, diesel, JP7, etc.

Allam cycle plants will burn coal directly with oxygen, release small amounts water, large amounts of CO2 not to the air, but to pipeline. The products will be essentially food grade, well, maybe not the water, depends on what gets cleaned out of the turbine exhaust.

Then the next step downstream is conversion of the CO2 to CO, then combination with hydrogen to make synthetic gasoline. Granted if oil is cheap, this might not happen, but what if suddenly coal got a lot cheaper? Economics is a wonderful subject. BTU for BTU, coal is way cheaper than oil.

Breaking news: this conversion was reported as long ago as 2002, using iron as the catalyst. At the end of that article it was pointed out that various bacteria are quite capable of synthesising methane from CO2. As a non-chemist, I would believe it to be much easier to synthesise higher hydrocarbons from methane than from CO. Since trees and other plants are also capable of reducing the world's CO2 load, let them get on with it.

I think it is not just iron, but a mixed iron oxide in a particular physical size form and distribution. As you know, iron oxides can readily take part in redox reactions.

I think we are speaking of kinetic differences. The physical process maybe many orders of magnitude more rapid and suitable for chemical engineering whereas the biological pathways not as much, or rely upon harvesting of bagasse and breaking it down to hydrocarbons +.

No one is knocking the biological pathways, and I suppose that algae will be the winners in that class by far, as to tonnage per volume, or even tonnage per area.

I was going to ask where the hydrogen for producing hydrocarbons from CO came from, but this story seems to have all the angles covered.

It does lend credence to the axiom: "With enough gold you can turn anything into anything else, and get what you want." ...and its corollary: "You may not take just anything, throw away your fortune, and turn it into gold."

There does seem to be good science in that if you want CO to result from water electrolysis, you have to prevent proton reductions as much as possible.