This is not an article but our request for your help. However, we are not interested in your money but in something more valuable – your time.
We are looking for information that will help us move forward and – as we believe – even closer to a functional solution to our common problems. If you find the answer to this question, we will be grateful if you write this information, including the source, in the comments below or send it to our email helpus@piqaso.com.
Thank you!
PIQASO team
Why do we ask this question?
Splitting carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon and oxygen can in fact be accomplished, but there is a catch: doing so requires energy. If hydrocarbon fuels, which produce the greenhouse gas in the first place, supply that energy, thermodynamics tells us that the net result will be more CO2 than you started with.
Consider the proposal as a chemical reaction: CO2 plus energy yields carbon and oxygen. This formula essentially reverses coal combustion (carbon plus oxygen yields CO2 and energy). If energy from coal were applied to drive the decomposition reaction, more CO2 would be released than consumed, because no process is perfectly efficient.
Another option would be to harness a carbon-free energy source to drive a reaction that does not merely undo the combustion process but instead uses carbon dioxide as an input to generate useful, energy-rich products.
NASA’s Mars rover is carrying a device that turns CO2 into oxygen, like a tree.
