World's first reactor converts ocean CO₂ into biodegradable bioplastic feedstock

[sue4e3]

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/ocean-carbon-capture-bioplastic
In a groundbreaking development, researchers in China have engineered an artificial ocean carbon recycling system that captures carbon dioxide (CO₂ directly from seawater and converts it into succinic acid, a key ingredient for making biodegradable plastic.

The study was led by GAO Xiang from the Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology and XIA Chuan from the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China.
The innovation lies in a clever combination of electrochemistry and microbial fermentation. Seawater flows through a specially designed five-chamber electrochemical reactor, where an electric field triggers water splitting.
WeThe resulting protons acidify one chamber, transforming dissolved carbonate species into gaseous CO₂.

[efhmc]

1. Why can't we do this instead of destroying our history so a man who has not sense of rhythm can do his weird dance.

[Easterncedar]

4. NSFW, but

I think it was Jeff Tiedrich who described the weird dance as jerking off two giraffes

[NNadir]

2. Heather Willauer at the US Naval Research lab has designed and piloted plants to recover CO2 from seawater...

...to make synthetic fuels (FT jet fuels).

Succinct acid is simply another possible product along these lines.

Both systems require primary energy input.

[sue4e3]

5. Well,

At least we would finally be using primary energy input for something other than just killing ourselves.Anyway, I didn't particularly look for their methodology I just assumed some form of energy was required.And, even though there are a few ways to create energy without a direct ghg output;I assumed someone here would be more than happy to point out that there can't possibly be anything remotely hopeful ever because it requires energy. But thank you for that information

[NNadir]

6. I am sorry if you're offended by my simple statement of a fact.

Most of the world's primary energy, roughly 80% consistently over many decades is generated using dangerous fossil fuels.

This said, to your point, it is definitely true that if one were to desire to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, capture from seawater is thermodyamically superior to the much studied direct air capture.

On the energy beat one does here a lot of rhetoric that amounts to perpetual motion machines.

Dr. Willauer's work, which I have followed many years in the primary scientific literature is based on the input of necessary primary energy to create a cyclic system that does not reduce the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere, whereas the use to which you have pointed in theory does, coming in under the rubric of CCU, carbon capture and use. In this sense, what you point to is environmentally superior.

The primary energy utilized in Dr. Willauer's work is nuclear. It is designed to generate jet fuel at sea on nuclear powered aircraft carriers. This closed system would not remove carbon dioxide overall, but would result in eliminating additions to the atmosphere when utilized.

Succinyl based polyesters by contrast would effective remove CO₂ sequestering by use. This is obviously a superior approach.

I do appreciate your point but in the ongoing climate disaster, one needs to be clear on the distinctions. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that there is no free lunch.

I did not mean to offend you by commenting on your interesting post.

[sue4e3]

7. I was not offended

I was irritated. We all know the result of doing nothing.There are ways to create energy without nuclear that will generate more energy than they create. Yes , yes waste , slavery and a plethora of god knows what else, before we get it to the table, but beating someone over the head with a bat every time someone even mentions anything in the right direction has the same result as doing nothing. I am a proponent of nuclear, And you are in a community of people who are all pissed at the roads we didn't take. If this were any other forum I would say beat away; but here almost everyone here is doomers. We don't need anyone telling us," of course it isn't worth it". Most of us find something like this and go ," oh look 1 out of the bazillion articles that isn't about how we're all gonna die badly" " maybe someone else would like to see that one" . I don't think anyone here is thinking wow we're all saved . I've come to expect your comments, there a staple here. I prefer the science over whatever would fill the " never get hopeful" vacuum if you stopped, anyway. So it's good

[NNadir]

8. I don't think the statement that I am beating anyone over the head with a bat...

...by stating my opinions based on decades of study of issues in energy and the environment, this at a level of considerable detail, is warranted.

I work hard on these issues and have spent thousands upon thousands of hours of my free time on reading and understanding the scientific literature on this topic over many decades, indeed decades before DU existed.

I was immediately familiar with Dr. Willauer's work as a result of that effort.

The simplest approach to avoid feeling that I am swinging a bat by stating what I've learned is to put me on the DU ignore list, particularly, as seems to be the case, you have no use for what I say.

The ignore list works great and certainly avoids being offended, irritated or whatever by my commentary, or anyone's commentary, in what I regard DU to be, a public forum for liberal thinkers to express opinion on the issues before the country and the world.

I have a wonderful ignore list myself. There are definitely people who go beyond irritating me, and there is no use in engaging them.

Thanks, though, for the interesting reference to succinyl esters, which couples nicely among the many similar approaches to CCU I've studied, the majority of which are based on MTO, methanol to olefins chemistry. I'll put it in my files.

Have a pleasant afternoon and evening.

[sue4e3]

9. i don't have an ignore list

and I generally don't want one, it's not your knowledge or your commentary that is like beating someone over the head with a bat, it's the idea that we know there is going to be a problem with anything we try to do. And, in many cases we don't need it pointed out, because it's still better than doing nothing. It is a kin to a paper I read a few weeks ago about CO2 storage and how we don't have the room we thought we did because many of the sites could hurt nature or be re released . And I think to my self do these people hear themselves? we are a cancer , everything we do is going to hurt the environment, so we shouldn't do anything in the right direction because we'll what? kill it a little less. There are many papers that you posted that I read and found interesting. You are actually one of the people I consider to be more intelligent, in the circles I move in and that is saying something because my son has an IQ 165 and yeah I know that IQ is not THE gauge but I'm his mom so..My point is many of the more intelligent (intellectuals) people I am acquainted with and speak to in person and on line often annoy me because the more you know the more bleak things become and I don't need any help in that department, anyway I'm not putting you on any list and I hope you don't me

[Clouds Passing]

3. As DumpCo cuts research to fund his "hegotballsroom"

[NNadir]

10. The full scientific paper can be accessed here:

https://rdcu.be/eMwNF