OneGuyFromBarlick

Here's some great news about making fuel from CO2. Scientists have been working towards this goal and now announce a major step forward. The Argonne National Laboratory and University of Illinois scientists have a good reputation for this type of work.

`A new leaf: Scientists turn carbon dioxide back into fuel'
Press release from US Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Illinois at Chicago, 29 July, 2016

As scientists and policymakers around the world try to combat the increasing rate of climate change, they have focused on the chief culprit: carbon dioxide. Produced by the burning of fossil fuels in power plants and car engines, carbon dioxide continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, warming the planet. But trees and other plants do slowly capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, converting it to sugars that store energy. In a new study from the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory and the University of Illinois at Chicago, researchers have found a similar way to convert carbon dioxide into a usable energy source using sunlight.

One of the chief challenges of sequestering carbon dioxide is that it is relatively chemically unreactive. "On its own, it is quite difficult to convert carbon dioxide into something else," said Argonne chemist Larry Curtiss, an author of the study. To make carbon dioxide into something that could be a usable fuel, Curtiss and his colleagues needed to find a catalyst — a particular compound that could make carbon dioxide react more readily. When converting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into a sugar, plants use an organic catalyst called an enzyme; the researchers used a metal compound called tungsten diselenide, which they fashioned into nanosized flakes to maximize the surface area and to expose its reactive edges.

While plants use their catalysts to make sugar, the Argonne researchers used theirs to convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide. Although carbon monoxide is also a greenhouse gas, it is much more reactive than carbon dioxide and scientists already have ways of converting carbon monoxide into usable fuel, such as methanol. "Making fuel from carbon monoxide means travelling 'downhill' energetically, while trying to create it directly from carbon dioxide means needing to go 'uphill,'" said Argonne physicist Peter Zapol, another author of the study. Although the reaction to transform carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide is different from anything found in nature, it requires the same basic inputs as photosynthesis. "In photosynthesis, trees need energy from light, water and carbon dioxide in order to make their fuel; in our experiment, the ingredients are the same, but the product is different," said Curtiss.

The setup for the reaction is sufficiently similar to nature that the research team was able to construct an "artificial leaf" that could complete the entire three-step reaction pathway. In the first step, incoming photons — packets of light — are converted to pairs of negatively-charged electrons and corresponding positively charged "holes" that then separate from each other. In the second step, the holes react with water molecules, creating protons and oxygen molecules. Finally, the protons, electrons and carbon dioxide all react together to create carbon monoxide and water.

"We burn so many different kinds of hydrocarbons — like coal, oil or gasoline — that finding an economical way to make chemical fuels more reusable with the help of sunlight might have a big impact," Zapol said. Towards this goal, the study also showed that the reaction occurs with minimal lost energy — the reaction is very efficient. "The less efficient a reaction is, the higher the energy cost to recycle carbon dioxide, so having an efficient reaction is crucial," Zapol said. According to Curtiss, the tungsten diselenide catalyst is also quite durable, lasting for more than 100 hours — a high bar for catalysts to meet.

Much of the experimental work was performed at the University of Illinois at Chicago, while the computational work was performed at Argonne. The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science and the National Science Foundation.

`Nanostructured transition metal dichalcogenide electrocatalysts for CO2 reduction in ionic liquid, by M. Asadi et al. Science, 2016; 353 (6298): 467 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf4767 Press release downloaded from here: LINK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a footnote to this development. You'll note that the catalyst is a tungsten compound. We obtain tungsten by mining a valuable mineral ore called wolframite, so this mineral will be in even greater demand than at present. The extra good news is that the old Drakelands wolframite mine at Hemerdon in Devon has been opened up and modernised in recent years and is now producing ore. A heavy lump of that ore is part of my mineral collection and sits by me on the window ledge as I write! And here it is, the black stuff is the wolframite...

School biology lessons have long included an explanation of lichens as being a combination of a fungus and an alga living together in a symbiotic relationship. The fungal cells and algal cells could be seen under the microscope. Now scientists have found that lichens have three, not two, components: an alga and two different types of fungus. The newly-discovered fungus is a yeast which has small single cells and was not visible in the normal microscope observations. What's especially interesting is how they discovered the new fungus - they were studying the genetic code of lichens and found that there was a third set of genes. Then they had to figure out what organism this third set belonged to. It's the first time that we've known the genetic code of an organism before we even knew that the organism existed! LINK

Lichens tend to get overlooked in ecological surveys, yet they grow undisturbed on back street kerbstones, till some bright road rebuilder decides to ditch the stones for neat concrete blocks.

Wolframite - presumably why Tungston had the letter 'W' in the periodic table.

Yes, it's a confusing story. The word `tungsten' in Swedish means `heavy stone' and was originally used as the name of a mineral that we now call scheelite. The Swedish name for tungsten is `volfram'. The Germans called it `wolfram' and some say this is because it interfered with their extraction of tin from ore, so they thought it was like a wolf eating their tin (sounds like a dubious explanation to me!). In those days woframite was still of no value to the miners and was just a nuisance until the hardening properties of tungsten metal were discovered. Tungsten metal (wolfram) and tungsten ore (wolframite) are often confused in the literature. Wolframite is an iron manganese tungstate mineral with the formula (Fe,Mn)WO4. In recent times it became even more complex when mineralogists began to distinguish between two types of wolframite which they called ferberite (iron rich) and hübnerite (manganese rich) .

And talking of ecological surveys, people tend to regard ecology as a relatively new science of the last few decades. I was being taught ecology around 1970 but I've recently found a textbook on ecology owned by Mrs Tiz's botanist mother and bought in the 1940s. Looking in the front pages, it was first printed in 1933!

Should we convert the Churches into homes for immigrants ?
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_ ... terrified/

I think the article is a case of taking a piece of scientific work that merely helps confirm what is already understood and boosting it up into `a startling new discovery'. Very common these days, especially as a vehicle to attract advertising aimed at the aspirational, technically aware types. If all the conditions are just right and in the right order then what we call life will emerge from non-living material and energy. What is more exciting is that we are the result of all these requirements being met. Even with the right conditions, there have been numerous times when life on Earth could have been completely annihilated in a big event (several times it has come close) or just died out due to a gross change in conditions. And perhaps one day it will happen.

Dr Brian Cox said much the same thing on one of those recent BBC programmes recently (particulary the role of photons on carbon/hydrogen binds. But , what I find interesting is that the order the science thinks it should happen in, is pretty much the same as the Genesis Chap 1 order of things, which given that is a 1 page, text summary , in poetic form of a reason for things being, is pretty good closeness.

This development is going to help us better understand the structure of our planet. It'll help scientists like Mrs Tiz's nephew Andrew who is an exploration geologist, as well as giving more understanding of earthquakes.
`North Atlantic 'weather bomb' tremor measured in Japan' LINK

Fascinating what is going on out there under the blanket of the pap the politicians and media feed us......

There are now millions of scientists, technologists and engineers working around the world and interesting discoveries, inventions and developments are reported every day of the year. The news media could find lots of useful material to tell us about if they looked for it and, importantly, if they employed scientists, technologists and engineers to interpret it accurately. But they don't and so we mostly only get what they see as mega, sexy, jokey etc.

For about 10 years now the airlines have been looking at alcohols made by fermentation as a biofuel to replace petroleum fuel. In particular they want to use isobutanol because it has about 30% higher energy content (w/w) than ethanol and can be made from wood waste. Regulators are about to endorse the fuel for aviation use but others are opposed and say it won't be a viable replacement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37108962

I was amused by the BBC's news report where it states: "The new biofuel is made from a type of alcohol called isobutanol, which occurs naturally in the fermentation process and can be found in many items including bread and scotch whiskey." No doubt it is present in all products made by fermentation as are a wide range of other alcohols but isobutanol will only be present in very small amounts. If there was much more present we'd be ill after a glass of wine or beer! When you try to find out how much isobutanol there is in these foods and drinks there doesn't seem to be any information. What's happening is that someone, somewhere has made that statement and now everyone else repeats it.

My body is slightly radioactive. Discuss....

So is mine and some of it probably from Windscale and Chernobyl which is not good. I would think most folk will carry a radioactive signature as a matter of course. Everyone will have the background radiation and then inherit a bit more from medical procedures and simply living in the "modern" world.

Better stay away from bananas......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

One of the daily checks I carry out (After I have assessed current pain levels when starting my morning walk) is to take a very deep breath. If both these tests check out it's a good day! One of the things that continually surprises me is how well I have withstood the various dangerous substances I have inhaled during my working career ranging from Asbestos and particulates to vaporised metals. (Not to mention pipe smoke!) I have my own theories as to why I am still on my feet and functioning but never forget my mates who have been struck down. Life is a bit of a lottery!

Many scientists now want to distinguish another geological period, the Anthropocene, and use the presence of dispersed radioactive elements from atomic bombs as the indicator of the beginning of the period. Anthropocene

I thoroughly approve the proposed change. We could end up manufacturing the biggest mass extinction event ever!

There has been note of an increase of incidence in UK childhood cancers (better detection? more children - is the change in the rate of cancers showing a similar increase?)

It's difficult if not impossible to separate increased detection from increased incidence. A graph is shown here... LINK

The following was reported on the Science Alert web site on 6th September 2016 but The TImes has got onto it today so we might hear more in the general press. It's very controversial and there's much squabbling among scientists about whether it really does break the laws of thermodynamics or the observations so far might be simply due to error or some other effect.

The 'impossible' EM Drive is about to be tested in space LINK
"An actual EM Drive is about to be launched into space for the first time, so scientists can finally figure out - once and for all - if it really is possible for a rocket engine to generate thrust without any kind of exhaust or propellant. Built by American inventor and chemical engineer, Guido Fetta, the EM Drive is as controversial as it gets, because while certain experiments have suggested that such an engine could work, it also goes against one of the most fundamental laws of physics we have. As Newton's Third Law states, "To each action there's an equal and opposite reaction," and many physicists say the EM Drive categorically violates that law. This is because in order for a thruster to gain momentum in a certain direction, it has to expel some kind of propellent or exhaust in the opposite direction. But the EM Drive simply goes in one direction with no propellant, and thus violates the law of conservation of momentum, which Newton derived from his Third Law. And not only that, but it could produce enough thrust to blast humans to Mars in just 70 days."

What's the betting that whatever the result of the test in space the argument will continue?

The new British £5 `polymer' banknotes are in the news. There was some disagreement on the Today programme about whether they were polymer or plastic. The answer is, both. They are a plastic polymer, biaxially-oriented polypropylene (BOPP). This is polypropylene which has been stretched in two directions at right angles to each other. Polymers are simply long molecules formed by stringing together small molecules; plastics are organic materials that can be moulded into shapes, including sheets. Polypropylene is the plastic used in bottles for packaging milk and soft drinks. Note the word `organic' in the definition of plastics - in purely physical terms metals can exhibit plasticity (irreversible deformation) but we don't call them plastics, which is more of an industrial than scientific term. There is more on the new banknotes on this BoE page: LINK

I saw them first in Australia many years ago and thought what a good idea they were....

There was photo in the news today of Mark Carney in a cafe or canteen and he was dunking a plastic fiver in the tray of something like curry to show how resistant it is (the fiver, not the curry). I'm not sure the people in the queue behind him were impressed!

I think the emphasis on calling them polymer banknotes is probably because they associate the word plastic with cheap and poor quality. It's all spin - let's keep on calling them plastic!

I was showing some Chinese university students a few examples of different currency and I asked them what was different about the Hong Kong note I held up. It was made of plastic but they didn't come up with the answer. So I wafted it around so they could hear the difference. Right before our eyes in mid-air the note split into two pieces and one fell to the ground, which made the students laugh. 10 HK dollars down the drain! I left the two halves with them.

I know polymer notes are strong but don't take that strength for granted. I suspect mine must have had a nick in it already.