Making Batteries from Carbon Dioxide: An Idea That Will Almost Certainly Never Come To Fruition

Making Batteries from Carbon Dioxide: An Idea That Will Almost Certainly Never Come To FruitionHere’s another example of a phenomenon so plentiful in cleantech: it’s doable, but there are no economic reasons that it will ever be done.  It’s a battery system that is built by taking carbon dioxide, perhaps from a point source like a fossil-fuel electric station or a concrete manufacturing plant–or even atmospheric CO2, to create batteries whose electrodes are made from carbon nanotubes.

In the process of coming up with the couple of dozen solid cleantech investment opportunities that I support, I’ve looked at many hundreds of concepts that lie in this camp.  Interesting but irrelevant.

Tagged with: , , , ,
3 comments on “Making Batteries from Carbon Dioxide: An Idea That Will Almost Certainly Never Come To Fruition
  1. Breath on the Wind says:

    An interesting concept worth saving. It may be viable if economic as suggested or if paired with carbon credits.

  2. marcopolo says:

    Hi Breath,

    Craig is quite right. It’s always very difficult to explain the reasons why some, seemingly valuable, ideas will never be commercialized.

    Unfortunately, carbon taxes, emission trading schemes etc, never work the way they were envisaged.

    Like most government impositions, they quickly become bureaucratic, expensive, often corrupt, and impediments to economic growth and activity. Seldom such imposts achieve even a fraction of the benefits intended while creating a less competitive economic environment. The costs are either transferred to consumers, or the problem is simply exported along with employment and economic growth.

    Tax incentives,subsidies and especially non-economic benefits for consumers work better. (an example is access to priority lanes for EV’s on freeways etc.).

    Government involvement in the economy is seldom beneficial. Governments have a legitimate, even essential, role in providing appropriate regulatory infrastructure to ensure fair competition and public safety. Governments are also charged with the duty of managing the national economy and providing services inappropriate or unable to be provided by the private sector.

    Governments (both political and bureaucratic) generally have a poor record when it comes to managing the implementation of projects.

    Governments are most successful as investors and shareholders on behalf of the taxpayer, while allowing the private sector to implement policy.

    The temptation to help seemingly good ideas by using government mandates, taxes, or other coercive devices inevitably ends with disappointing and expensive results very difficult to dismantle. (think corn-ethanol)

    I know carbon taxes seem appealing, but they become just another method of creating an artificial environment where inefficiency and economic loss can be disguised, even institutionalized, for ideological reasons.

    I believe in this new economic and political reality it will prove even more important to focus on clean technology that can prove it’s economic value without relying on vague assessments of “externalities”.

    I’m not saying that environmental considerations shouldn’t be advanced, but as one commentator pointed out, it’s the singing that needs to change, not the song!

    In this new political, social environment in will be more effective to focus on practical, economically beneficial initiatives, and clean tech proposals should be advanced with strong business models, and less idealistic rhetoric if progress is to be achieved.

    Conciliation, consideration, co-operation and persuasion should replace crusading confrontation, ideologically driven fanaticism.

    I was most impressed by the contribution of a young entrepreneur explaining a project to build a solar powered desalination plant in California. I found his approach appealing. Instead of ranting about alternate energy, carbon emissions etc, he talked about providing cheaper, cleaner water, and why solar was the most economically viable energy source.

    The first impression of his business model created interest, it’s an argument even the newly elected president could understand and support. (Who doesn’t need more cheap, clean water?)

    The point I’m making, (and have been for several years;), is for clean tech to survive and prosper it must be disengaged from ideological and political rhetoric.

  3. Breath on the Wind says:

    It is curious to me that while,I sometimes agree with your theories the words are more difficult.

    I was only trying to put the most positive spin I could see on what I called an interesting idea. It is a bit like saying to a cousin or niece that the dress she was wearing in the picture is a nice color when the expression on the face was a bit more “colorful.”