This new technology is based on carbon capture and utilization (CCU)
Oh, so it’s bullshit.
“The biological process operates at much lower temperatures, and our microbes are resistant to the other gases in the flue gases. But microorganisms need hydrogen for their process, which we get via electrolysis."
Oh, so this is going to increase CO2 output by using up even more energy. Yep. Bullshit.
Notice they also don’t say what this sustainable fuel is. Because I’m guessing, what with it being literally created from carbon, it’s not the fuel we want to be using in the first place.
Near the end of the article it says that methane is one of the products from the microorganisms. Seems kind of counterproductive. Not only would burning methane release CO2, but methane itself is one of the worst greenhouse gases.
Michael Vedel Wegener Kofoed is an associate professor at the Department of Biological and Chemical Engineering at Aarhus University and is affiliated with The Novo Nordisk Foundation CO₂ Research Center (CORC). His research focuses on microbial processes, biomethanation, Power-to-X technologies, CO₂ utilization, and industrial microbiology.
A central project in his work is ReMeSh (Redox Mediated Microbial CO₂ Reduction), funded by nearly 5 million DKK from the Novo Nordisk Foundation’s Interdisciplinary Synergy Programme. The project, a collaboration between Aarhus University and Aalborg University, aims to enhance the understanding of microorganisms’ ability to convert CO₂ into methane using bio-electrochemical systems. The ultimate goal is to develop a technology capable of accelerating this conversion up to 1000 times faster than current methods, enabling efficient production of sustainable fuels while reducing CO₂ emissions.
That doesn’t sound like a bullshitter to me.
You can feel free to check on the legitimacy of the multiple other authors in the peer-reviewed study too:
Just because they have money from a private partner doesn’t mean it’s valid or built on actual science. Steven Jones was working catalytic hydrogenation that were formed around a real idea for cold fusion but was beaten to the punch by Pons and Fleischman. In the end, none of what those people had was real science or technology and yet had millions of dollars poured into it from real companies.
Novo Nordisk is a healthcare company and all carbon capture is bullshit. In this case, they’re capturing the carbon by using a ton of energy, releasing methane and creating a different carbon-based fuel.
Andrew Wakefield had academic bonafides and and worked for the Wellcome Trust. He was also full of shit.
The fact that the technology works does not mean it’s a good idea to use it.
As always. The most efficient way to capture carbon is to never dig it up in the first place.
Carbon capture is an action of desperation and would only possibly make sense if we were already fully transitioned to renewable energy. It’s all bullshit unless we’re stuffing the carbon back in the ground and even in that case it’s unlikely it’ll ever make sense.
The Novo Nordisk Foundation is a charity which owns a holding company with a majority stake in Novo Nordisk the pharma company.
Anyway, my whole point was that arguments to authority (these researchers published this, so don’t question it) are not valid. You’ve used them against people challenging research papers for which you agree with the conclusions.
I never said anything about the scientists who did this at all. I never even said this doesn’t work as described.
The bullshit part is that this is some sort of way out of global warming and a way to develop sustainable green fuel and I’m not sure why that isn’t clear to you.
Oh, so it’s bullshit.
Oh, so this is going to increase CO2 output by using up even more energy. Yep. Bullshit.
Notice they also don’t say what this sustainable fuel is. Because I’m guessing, what with it being literally created from carbon, it’s not the fuel we want to be using in the first place.
Near the end of the article it says that methane is one of the products from the microorganisms. Seems kind of counterproductive. Not only would burning methane release CO2, but methane itself is one of the worst greenhouse gases.
You’re right, I forgot to even mention the methane!
This is the corresponding author of the study:
That doesn’t sound like a bullshitter to me.
You can feel free to check on the legitimacy of the multiple other authors in the peer-reviewed study too:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51700-3 https://lemmy.world/comment/12934351
Just because they have money from a private partner doesn’t mean it’s valid or built on actual science. Steven Jones was working catalytic hydrogenation that were formed around a real idea for cold fusion but was beaten to the punch by Pons and Fleischman. In the end, none of what those people had was real science or technology and yet had millions of dollars poured into it from real companies.
Novo Nordisk is a healthcare company and all carbon capture is bullshit. In this case, they’re capturing the carbon by using a ton of energy, releasing methane and creating a different carbon-based fuel.
Andrew Wakefield had academic bonafides and and worked for the Wellcome Trust. He was also full of shit.
The fact that the technology works does not mean it’s a good idea to use it.
As always. The most efficient way to capture carbon is to never dig it up in the first place.
Carbon capture is an action of desperation and would only possibly make sense if we were already fully transitioned to renewable energy. It’s all bullshit unless we’re stuffing the carbon back in the ground and even in that case it’s unlikely it’ll ever make sense.
The Novo Nordisk Foundation is a charity which owns a holding company with a majority stake in Novo Nordisk the pharma company.
Anyway, my whole point was that arguments to authority (these researchers published this, so don’t question it) are not valid. You’ve used them against people challenging research papers for which you agree with the conclusions.
I never said anything about the scientists who did this at all. I never even said this doesn’t work as described.
The bullshit part is that this is some sort of way out of global warming and a way to develop sustainable green fuel and I’m not sure why that isn’t clear to you.
Thanks for the summary, so your saying this no different from hydrogen as fuel?
This is worse. This is basically taking carbon soot and turning into diesel or something.