>This process has several advantages when compared to other methods of converting CO2 into fuel. The reaction uses common materials like copper and carbon, and it converts the CO2 into ethanol, which is already widely used as a fuel.

>Perhaps most importantly, it works at room temperature, which means that it can be started and stopped easily and with little energy cost. This means that this conversion process could be used as temporary energy storage during a lull in renewable energy generation, smoothing out fluctuations in a renewable energy grid.

Is it too much to ask that a science journal report on science in, like, quantitative terms to support a headline? Specifically: What's the efficiency (or how much energy is required per mole)? Estimated overall costs compared to batteries or grain ethanol? Other available chemical processes for capturing CO2, and their efficiency? Not reported. I have no idea what their arbitrary cut-off for "efficient" is, but if they say they want to make it more efficient, it obviously isn't efficient enough. Actual numbers might help to judge.

Something that annoys me with these articles is that such processes are usually praised as carbon capture at the same time as it is energy storage. Well yes, but not both at the same time. And I really doubt its effectiveness as energy storage in the first place - why would you burn fossil fuels (with a loss), then gather energy with renewables to capture back the CO2 (with a loss) and then use the energy of the ethanol again (again with a loss)? Just store the energy from the renewables in batteries.

I don't get the point of this. We already have a self propagating machine that can turn carbon dioxide into a useful carbon substrate that is stable over long time periods, and is a thoroughly proven carbon sequestration technology. It's called a tree.

>The catalyst’s novelty lies in its nanoscale structure, consisting of copper nanoparticles embedded in carbon spikes. This nano-texturing approach avoids the use of expensive or rare metals such as platinum that limit the economic viability of many catalysts.

How about large scale production of the catalyst? Do we have any idea of how to produce efficiently a "nanoscale structure consisting of copper nanoparticles embedded in carbon spikes" in large quantities?

>potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change

>The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles.

I am no scientist, my question is this: wouldn't it be a zero sum game at best? You are taking C02 out of the atmosphere, turning it into fuel, which then is used in C02 emitting engines.

Except it also generates CO and methane in nontrivial amount (something like 5-10% apparently), one of which is a highly toxic pollutant and the other is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

I used to read PopMech in the bathroom, but years ago it fell far below even that modest standard. Today, I wouldn't wipe myself with it.

"By using common materials..." Which ones? In what arrangement? How would it scale to the level of atmospheric scrubbing?

They mention copper and carbon later, but fail to mention if that carbon is in the form of nanotubes, or some more easily mass-manufactured form. If you read this article and come out of it with fewer questions than you did going in, you're doing it wrong.

Is there a way to cheaply store ethanol long term and prevent it from turning back into co2?

"Efficient" here does not imply "economic viability," which the original article suggests is out of reach for this technique.

Should click-baity science articles be flagged on HN? I don't know.

So, basically, we can fight Global Warming and get hammered doing so? Now that's what I call a win-win! (Seriously, though, one could do other things with ethanol besides burning it.)

Could we run this process on Venus for terraforming?

We got moonshine, yes we do!

"Great, now we can go back to using coal!" - said coal industry supporters.

This strikes me as a Hail Mary play by the fossil fuel industry to make us think--for a little more profit for them--that it's okay to burn carbon.

I don't buy it.