
Converting atmospheric carbon dioxide into carbon nanotubes for use in batteries - yuhong
http://www.kurzweilai.net/converting-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-into-carbon-nanotubes-for-use-in-batteries
======
narrator
Let's not put asbestos like fibers in everything please:
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-
nanotube-d...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-nanotube-
danger/)

~~~
sp332
Asbestos is only a problem if you inhale a reasonably large amount of it.

~~~
jacquesm
There are _two_ (main) kinds of asbestos, what you write is true for _one_ of
those two, the other kind you should not be exposed to at all if it is
airborne, it is super dangerous (the other is dangerous as well but not nearly
as much).

Never ever grind/saw/sand/drill anything made with asbestos in it, just take
it apart gently while wearing respiration gear and pack it in plastic, then
deliver to a facility set up to handle it (where I live that is the
municipality).

If you're dealing with sprayed on asbestos then let a professional company do
the demolition, it is not worth lungcancer to save a few bucks and those
people will have all the right equipment and will be able to remove it without
releasing it into the environment.

------
redthrowaway
Why would you use atmospheric carbon? It's incredibly energy-intensive to do
so, and there are plenty of far saner sources available.

~~~
RainforestCx
It's for carbon capture and storage, as a mechanism for slowing climate
change.

~~~
redthrowaway
A mechanism, maybe, but one so expensive, ineffective, and impractical as to
be fantastic.

Splitting CO2 will _always_ require more energy than was released in making
it. Where does that energy come from? They say solar panels. Because of course
they do. But why would you burn fossil fuels to make energy, then use solar
panels to turn CO2 into batteries? Why not just use solar panels in the first
place? It would be _far_ more efficient.

Also, we put about 10 Gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. 2.7Gt of
that is carbon. Just how many batteries are you planning on making from that?
Does each person on Earth need half a ton of batteries?

Who's absorbing the astronomical costs of making batteries with atmospheric
CO2, rather than with any of the sane carbon sources just lying around?

This plan is nonsensical. It's like solar roadways. It's stupidly expensive,
and it just won't work. It's another bogus project dreamed up to make use of
green tech research grants that will never see the light of day.

~~~
kristopolous
I suppose you've read James Hansen or Kevin Anderson's latest work on climate
change, right?

~~~
drcross
Please illuminate us.

~~~
kristopolous
They represent their research better than I can. Just search for the names
followed by "2016" and pick your favorite source...

The basic idea is that we are well beyond reasonable co2 levels and that
geological time is just catching up. But again, I'm no substitute for these
well regarded scientists so it's best to read their research. There's a
science based show named radio ecoshock if you're interested.

------
tdaltonc
When we get the political consensus to put a price on atmospheric carbon, it
will give a subsidy to anyone who can make a solid material out of carbon.
What will be the most economical way to get those subsidies? I don't think it
will be making carbon nanotubes. That requires an extremely pure source of
carbon. I think the biggest application will be construction materials:

Mine CaO, use atmospheric CO2 to convert it to CaCO3 this use that as feeder
stock for making limestone-like and marble-like construction materials. These
could be premium materials -- I could easily see Salesforce paying a premium
to cover the floors of Salesforce tower in 'reclaimed atmospheric marble' to
advertise their green creds -- or a down market material -- just mix it in to
drywall to get the CO2 credits. Either way, this process would be much less
fussy about the purity of the CO2 source.

------
ianai
If we ever do clean up the CO2 produced from consumption of oil the energy
cost will be greater than the power gained from the initial consumption. I.e.
Every watt of energy paid with oil must be paid with another form of energy
plus interest.

~~~
pygy_
Mostly, yes... You don't necessarilly need to turn CO2 back to hydrocarbon,
there may be less expensive ways to capture and store that carbon. Still,
you're correct that the costs will be gigantic.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Why do the costs need to be gigantic? Trees (and other plants) already do it
for free, and they cost next to nothing to plant and maintain.

~~~
pygy_
It depends on the timescale you want to operate with.

Also, you'd need to reverse the topsoil destruction and the spread of
agricultural exploitation, which is not going to be easy when the population
keeps on growing.

~~~
dredmorbius
Check your assumptions.

Population frequently finds itself checked, one way or another.

------
sawes
Carbon Nanotubes are the next "leaded gasoline"

~~~
JBReefer
They're asbestos after a week long meth binge. They treat your lungs like a
paper target of Bernie at a Texas gun range.

~~~
ianai
Any source on that?

~~~
vorotato
He huffed some nanotubes before writing that.

------
m_mueller
How can this powerplant idea work? You get the binding energy from carbo
hydrates, then you need to add back more thsn that energy to capture and
convert all CO2 back to nanotubes and oxygen. The excess energy comes from
solar? Fine, may make sense, but that's not going to be an electrical
powerplant anymore. It's a battery factory.

~~~
ianai
A solar battery factory would be great.

------
jackfoxy
If you can cost effectively extract large quantities of CO2 from the
atmosphere, the oil industry would be very interested. CO2 flood is one of the
most effective enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods. The problem is a lack of
sources convenient to the oil fields.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_flooding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_flooding)

------
corecoder
How much CO2 does a square meter of this remove from the atmosphere compared
to a square meter of the most efficient plants?

~~~
mitchtbaum
Take for example moringa. It uses CO2, of course, _and_ its leaves have tons
of digestible nutrients. If an animal eats them, it can help maintain good
health (separate measurement). If an animal who plants these trees eats them
to maintain good health, then you would need to measure many more factors
about that animal's life and other interconnected lives to understand the
long-term emergent dynamics of healthy life and its effects on CO2.

------
kgc
Do carbon nanotubes biodegrade?

~~~
raverbashing
It's graphite basically

I would say it does

~~~
adrianN
About as quickly as a lump of coal. There aren't many things that feed on raw
carbon.

~~~
typon
We need bacteria that does

