8

Straight off I want to say, I never took chemistry classes, so my understanding is very limited. My question is considering the equations below, why is it so hard to reduce greenhouse gases? Is it simply a matter of conversion requiring too much energy?

Can't we remove carbon dioxide & methane from the atmosphere by converting them into water and carbon?

$$\ce{CO2 + CH4 -> 2H2O + 2C}$$

Or by converting them into water and propane?

$$\ce{CO2 + 5CH4 -> 2H2O + 2C3H8}$$

andselisk
  • 37,604
  • 14
  • 131
  • 217
  • 5
    One problem is that there's a couple hundred times as much CO2 as methane in the atmosphere. Also, there is the energy problem you brought up. Pretty much any reaction to convert atmospheric CO2 or methane to something else will be energetically uphill. Tough problem. – airhuff Jul 20 '17 at 01:19
  • What about capturing it at the source of emission? – Rubellite Fae Jul 20 '17 at 01:21
  • But then what do you do with it? There have been lots of ideas, like storing it at the bottom of the ocean, but anything like that will be costly. I think the best solution is to reduce production through conservation and alternative fuels, but we currently burn so much fossil fuels that even that transition is a long-term endeavor. – airhuff Jul 20 '17 at 01:35
  • Well, for example one, it would be solid carbon, right? So it could be used to make graphene and other carbon nanostructures. So, for example, coal plants could make money from their waste. In example two, you could sell the propane. So, for example, industrial farms could make money from their waste. – Rubellite Fae Jul 20 '17 at 01:44
  • 2
    Well your understanding is quite in track. Forget the equations you wrote but in principle yes it is possible to reduce CO2, obtaining new fuel or useful chemicals while reducing (or not increasing) the carbon content of the atmosphere. And again yes you are right, this is not really viable as it is an energy consuming process with limited efficiency. As in the case of water splitting to produce H2 as fuel, processes like these have cheap/ green energy production as prerequisite. – Alchimista Jul 20 '17 at 01:57
  • 1
    I see. It's a bit of a catch 22, then. Someone feel free to write up an answer so I can select it. – Rubellite Fae Jul 20 '17 at 02:07
  • There are many such schemes as you suggest, most have one drawback or another as pointed out in the comments. If it could be made to work properly 'carbon capture and storage' (ccs) methods could be a good way of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. – porphyrin Jul 20 '17 at 09:32
  • The problem isn't the chemistry, it is the economics. If we knew a good way (other than growing plants) to sequester carbon from the atmosphere we would be very happy even if we didn't convert ti to fuel (|there are good ways to store CO2). But they all cost too much right now to be remotely practical. We need more and cheaper carbon-neutral energy plus better ways to capture the CO2. – matt_black Nov 29 '18 at 23:01

2 Answers2

11

There are a few problems with what you're proposing:

  1. The reaction requires energy.
  2. Where do get the methane from?
  3. What will you do with the carbon you're generating?

The energy problem can be solved by using surplus energy from renewable source like solar and wind, but, as airhuff also mentiond in a comment, there is much more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane. Also capturing CO2 from the air isn't simple, and finally why would you use a valuable fuel like methane to create carbon or propane?

In any case I think a much more useful reaction is $$\ce{CO2 + 2H2O -> CH4 + 2O2}$$

Water is split into oxygen and hydrogen using electrolysis. The hydrogen reacts with carbon-dioxide to form methane. There are already small plants that do this, but AFAIK the idea hasn't really caught on yet. This may have something to do with the cost and/or the availability of carbon dioxide or surplus energy.

More recently scientists did something even cooler; they captured CO2 directly from the atmosphere and turned it into methanol (CH3OH) using Ruthenium as a catalyst. A drawback is that the reaction works at high temperatures (about 150 degrees C).

THelper
  • 299
  • 5
  • 19
  • Industrial farms. 3. If pure carbon, sell for use in graphene or bucky balls, etc??? If propane, sell as propane fuel? "Why use methane to create...?" Because livestock manure and farts contribute to more than 1/3 of current methane emissions in addition to CO2. Also, it's my understanding that when methane hits ozone, even more CO2 (& H2O) is produced. So, if we capture these on-site, industrial farms could immediately & dramatically slow down climate change while also making a buck. "CO2+2H2O⟶CH4+2O2" But, global clean water supplies are dwindling as well. :/
  • – Rubellite Fae Jul 20 '17 at 21:50
  • 2
    IIRC the price of propane is lower than that of methane so if you can capture and isolate methane it's more economical to use that as a fuel. Perhaps carbon is an option but I think it depends on how high quality you can achieve. – THelper Jul 21 '17 at 19:45