Skip to content

CO2 Wizardry or Hype?

November 11, 2016

The headlines read:

“Scientists accidentally discover a method to turn carbon dioxide Into ethanol.”


“CO2 may help renewables industry.”

While stories in the media read:

“The [CO2 to Ethanol] process could be used to store excess electricity generated [by] wind and solar. … It could help balance a grid supplied by intermittent renewable sources.”

And, more dramatically:

“This low-cost electrochemical reaction may come to the rescue of the earth’s climate.”

Photo from ORNL, catalyst of copper nanoparticles embedded in carbon nanospikes.

Photo from ORNL, catalyst of copper nanoparticles embedded in carbon nanospikes.

While most people would applaud being able to dispose of unwanted CO2, this wizardry, from DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, may just be hype.

First, there is the scientific fact that the process requires more energy to produce ethanol from CO2, than is in the ethanol that’s produced. The energy input is greater than the energy output. (This is the same basic problem with fusion.)

We have not yet discovered perpetual motion. Electricity is required to produce ethanol from CO2, and the process only has a yield of 63%.

Unless the source of electricity doesn’t use fossil fuels or the electricity would otherwise be wasted, the process would ultimately add CO2 to the atmosphere. (I.e., generating electricity for the process produces more CO2 than would be absorbed by the ethanol.)

For example, if wind turbines generate electricity that cannot be used on the grid, this electricity could be used to produce ethanol and remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

But this is a very limited case, since selling the electricity to the grid has a greater economic value than using the electricity to produce ethanol. Excess electricity from wind energy usually only happens at night when the grid is lightly loaded and represents a small fraction of the electricity produced by wind turbines.

Rephrasing the issue:

Why build wind turbines and solar farms to generate electricity to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, when they could, theoretically, be used to displace the electricity generated by fossil fuel power plants and prevent the CO2 emissions in the first place?

Amazingly, if the foregoing isn’t sufficient to demonstrate that the media headlines are hype, the scientific paper describing the process contained the following conclusion:

“The process probably precludes economic viability for this catalyst.” And,

“The entire reaction mechanism has not yet been elucidated.”

This discovery does nothing to change the fact that wind and solar are unreliable, or intermittent. Neither wind nor solar generate the electricity required for the reaction when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine: I.e., no electricity, no ethanol.


The media created the impression that a process was accidentally discovered that could remove CO2 from the atmosphere and “come to the rescue of the earth’s climate” while also mitigating the intermittent problems associated with wind and solar.

Both propositions are false.

It’s merely media hype.


* * * * * *

Nothing to Fear, Chapter 6, Wind Energy, explains why wind energy is expensive and unreliable.

Nothing to Fear is available from Amazon and some independent book sellers.

Link to Amazon:

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

Book Cover, Nothing to Fear

* * * * * *


It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

18 Comments leave one →
  1. November 11, 2016 9:31 am

    Thank you for the explanation of this scam . I knew there was a hook in there somewhere I just didn’t what . Plus the fact that CO2 isn’t a pollutant but necessary for life

  2. donb permalink
    November 11, 2016 12:27 pm

    Another uncertainty about this new method is that the conversion occurs on an almost micro scale. A major question is whether it could be scaled up to the enormous volumes of CO2 and ethanol that would be involved with commercial energy. What can be done in the lab often becomes difficult on an engineering scale.

  3. Neil Jones permalink
    November 11, 2016 1:19 pm


    Enlightening as usual and well said. Thanks.


  4. November 11, 2016 2:52 pm

    Who ever came up with this one seems to be in love with perpetual motion . Seems to be fairly common among the green left who have lost touch with reality

    • November 11, 2016 2:58 pm

      I think you are correct in that the Green movement has lost touch with reality and treat climate change as a religion that can’t be questioned.

  5. FLRETIREE permalink
    November 11, 2016 3:05 pm

    Thanks for debunking this one. It’s the usual uninformed media stuff. I agree with your comment about climate change being a religion.

  6. Don Shaw permalink
    November 11, 2016 9:41 pm

    Thanks for another great article. I can’t wait for some intelligent work process to be implemented by the government which requires those requesting a grant to actually have a potential scientific accomplishment that can be verified by the laws of thermodynamics. Unfortunately many of the funded projects seem to rely on “perpetual motion” . Clearly the staff in the various agencies appear to not have a grasp of the laws of physics and thermodynamics. Their goal is to get the $$ out regardless of technical viability. I have spoken with several DOE employees and find them lacking the necessary skills to handle our tax dollars. Also in many cases they choose to respond to requests for progress reports.
    Let’s hope for a better use of our resources in the next administration. .

    • November 12, 2016 10:42 am

      Thanks. I’m hopeful that Trump can change the caliber of people working on energy issues. Perhaps they should have some understanding of the basic laws of physics.

  7. Sandro Desideri permalink
    November 13, 2016 4:53 am

    Donn, often I don’t like what you write because it looks biased or lacking of the details to understand where the truth is, however I die in order to allow you to keep writing it. We need always to see the 2 sides of the coin. Thanks

    • November 13, 2016 9:23 am

      Sandro: Thanks for your comment. I guarantee that everything I write is factually correct, but don’t always have space to detail the backup facts supporting my articles. I find it’s important to keep the articles short, so that people will read them.

  8. November 13, 2016 9:13 am

    Loisannjohnson: Good point.

  9. November 14, 2016 9:31 pm

    It’s good to recall that photosynthesis in plants uses the energy red photons and splits water; it tacks the hydrogens on CO2 to make carbohydrates and releases the O2 into our air.

    Animals do the reverse and strip hydrogens off of carbohysrates and tacks these on oxygen to make water and dumps the CO2 skeletons into the air.


  1. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #248 | Watts Up With That?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s