Recapturing Carbon - Again?

[hazelm]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181130111637.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29

 

Achieving artificial photosynthesis using a copper complex and a manganese-based catalyst.

 

The story makes no comment about this but I often wonder.  With all the recapturing and/or creating of stuff that we then bury in the deep earth,  what can eventually happen "way down there".  When do all those concrete blocks start talking back to us?  Another topic, yes.

[Maine farmer]

I would think capturing carbon in solid form would be far preferable to merely pumping carbon dioxide gasses under ground, because gasses are far more easily and quickly released.  Good topic.  

 

I think we could eventually be able to accelerate photosynthesis in a directed manor to grow buildings, or at least the frames of buildings.

[hazelm]

I would think capturing carbon in solid form would be far preferable to merely pumping carbon dioxide gasses under ground, because gasses are far more easily and quickly released.  Good topic.  

 

I think we could eventually be able to accelerate photosynthesis in a directed manor to grow buildings, or at least the frames of buildings.

 

But, is the solid form of carbon doing us any harm?

[Maine farmer]

But, is the solid form of carbon doing us any harm?

Not unless you pulverize it into a dust, or burn it    and inhale.  That is why storing it in solid form is such a good idea.

[hazelm]

Not unless you pulverize it into a dust, or burn it    and inhale.  That is why storing it in solid form is such a good idea.

My mistake.  I thought they were capturing CO2 in a gaseous form.  Then my last comment referred to how we encase dangerous products  in concrete blocks and bury them.  We don't just bury a gas in free form.  We encase it in concrete blocks.  Or so I've read.  It all started with the question of what to do with spent uranium.  Encase it in solid concrete and bury it.  Perhaps I am wrong?  Thank you.

[exchemist]

My mistake.  I thought they were capturing CO2 in a gaseous form.  Then my last comment referred to how we encase dangerous products  in concrete blocks and bury them.  We don't just bury a gas in free form.  We encase it in concrete blocks.  Or so I've read.  It all started with the question of what to do with spent uranium.  Encase it in solid concrete and bury it.  Perhaps I am wrong?  Thank you.

No Hazel you were right at least about the first article you posted. That process reduced CO2, but only to CO, so still a gas. I have not seen a process that reduces CO2 to elemental carbon. 

 

But there are quite a few ideas that involve absorbing CO2 to form a solid -  and not always with the substantial energy input needed for chemical reduction. This sort of thing, for instance, involving slag from steelmaking: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es050795f

[hazelm]

No Hazel you were right at least about the first article you posted. That process reduced CO2, but only to CO, so still a gas. I have not seen a process that reduces CO2 to elemental carbon. 

 

But there are quite a few ideas that involve absorbing CO2 to form a solid -  and not always with the substantial energy input needed for chemical reduction. This sort of thing, for instance, involving slag from steelmaking: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es050795f

 

Right.  Some re-reading told me you were posing a different idea.  I didn't realize you could do that.  I'll check your reference when I get back from packing in supplies to last the snow storm which may not hit.  Never know about NOAA.   

 

Last night I read a sentence that said bacteria (back when bacteria ruled the planet) were using CO2 but (quote) "did not invent oxygen".  I kept asking myself how they got oxygen in CO2 if it didn't exist.  Now I am thinking the author may have meant "did not invent (retrieve?) "free oxygen".  Does that make sense?  Free oxygen came later on the time line scale.

 

Be back.  Hazel

[exchemist]

Right.  Some re-reading told me you were posing a different idea.  I didn't realize you could do that.  I'll check your reference when I get back from packing in supplies to last the snow storm which may not hit.  Never know about NOAA.   

 

Last night I read a sentence that said bacteria (back when bacteria ruled the planet) were using CO2 but (quote) "did not invent oxygen".  I kept asking myself how they got oxygen in CO2 if it didn't exist.  Now I am thinking the author may have meant "did not invent (retrieve?) "free oxygen".  Does that make sense?  Free oxygen came later on the time line scale.

 

Be back.  Hazel

Exactly. As oxygen (O2, the gaseous element) is so reactive, the supposition is that there was little or no free oxygen when the Earth formed. There is however a lot tied up, in oxygen-containing compounds such as CO2 and in the rocks (which are largely oxygen, combined with silicon and other elements). Free O2 arose when photosynthesis began, as this releases free oxygen. The earliest life forms would not have  photosynthesised, until things like cyanobacteria developed, leading to what is called the Great Oxygenation Event, which is when the atmosphere as we know it (Jim) first arose.    

[hazelm]

Exactly. As oxygen (O2, the gaseous element) is so reactive, the supposition is that there was little or no free oxygen when the Earth formed. There is however a lot tied up, in oxygen-containing compounds such as CO2 and in the rocks (which are largely oxygen, combined with silicon and other elements). Free O2 arose when photosynthesis began, as this releases free oxygen. The earliest life forms would not have  photosynthesised, until things like cyanobacteria developed, leading to what is called the Great Oxygenation Event, which is when the atmosphere as we know it (Jim) first arose.    

 

Thank you, exchemist.  I had read that about oxygen being in rocks some time ago.  I found it almost hard to believe but it came from a good source.  Our world is fascinating.  This book by Fritjof Capra is really good.  Several reviews say it has mistakes in it and that may be.  But, on the whole it teaches a lot.    Although - forgive me - I do object to biology - a nice, simple, easy to understand subject - being written in mathematics equations.  Isn't physics hard enough?  :-)

Edited December 3, 2018 by hazelm

[exchemist]

Thank you, exchemist.  I had read that about oxygen being in rocks some time ago.  I found it almost hard to believe but it came from a good source.  Our world is fascinating.  This book by Fritjof Capra is really good.  Several reviews say it has mistakes in it and that may be.  But, on the whole it teaches a lot.    Although - forgive me - I do object to biology - a nice, simple, easy to understand subject - being written in mathematics equations.  Isn't physics hard enough?  :-)

Glass and quartz are SiO₂, so consist of 2 atoms of oxygen for every atom of silicon. Granite is made of minerals such as CaAl₂Si₃O₈ , part of huge family called aluminosilicates which includes the clay minerals as well. Oxygen is everywhere in the Earth, outside the core at least. 

[hazelm]

Glass and quartz are SiO₂, so consist of 2 atoms of oxygen for every atom of silicon. Granite is made of minerals such as CaAl₂Si₃O₈ , part of huge family called aluminosilicates which includes the clay minerals as well. Oxygen is everywhere in the Earth, outside the core at least. 

 

Now that is a better picture than just plain "rocks contain oxygen".  Besides, as every rockhound knows,  it's "rocks and minerals".  Two different creatures.  :-) 

 

There's a nitpicker in every crowd. :-)  Thank you

Edited December 4, 2018 by hazelm

[exchemist]

Now that is a better picture than just plain "rocks contain oxygen".  Besides, as every rockhound knows,  it's "rocks and minerals".  Two different creatures.  :-) 

 

There's a nitpicker in every crowd. :-)  Thank you

Steady on. Rocks are composed of minerals.

 

A mineral is simply one of the individual chemical compounds (or classes of compounds) present in a rock.  For instance, granite (rock) is generally made up of feldspars (orthoclase and plagioclase types), mica and quartz. All these are minerals. Even mud is made up of clay minerals (a family of hydrous aluminosilicates).

 

There is no rock that is not made of minerals. 

[hazelm]

Steady on. Rocks are composed of minerals.

 

A mineral is simply one of the individual chemical compounds (or classes of compounds) present in a rock.  For instance, granite (rock) is generally made up of feldspars (orthoclase and plagioclase types), mica and quartz. All these are minerals. Even mud is made up of clay minerals (a family of hydrous aluminosilicates).

 

There is no rock that is not made of minerals. 

 

You are right, of course but a rockhound will make a distinction based on,  I suppose, value.