IMHO, real big use of this tech maybe space/moon/mars-stations!
I think, currently, oxygen for astronauts, is either produced from (one-time-use) chemicals, or, by splitting water (again, one-time-use)!
IMHO, a tech that, efficiently, takes CO2 from air & converts to oxygen (to release back to air) & carbon (powder to dump away), using only electricity, in room temp, should be invaluable for astronauts in space!
(Because, it would mean a huge drop/savings in amount of cargo, which needs to be carried into space, for astronaut life support!!!)
So many scientists pushing this hard in the age of computer learning will find a solution very soon, and become billionaires doing so.
The final link in the article allows you to read the full paper for more details.
The YouTube video is a puff piece and not worth viewing IMHO.
The planet's climate has been changing for the past 4.5 billion years. The climate swings dramatically from glacial to interglacial largely due to our planet's orbit being affected by Venus and Jupiter every 405,000 years or so. And contrary to what many anthropological climate scaremongers say, the climate has actually changed much more rapidly on many occasions in the last few hundred million years.
The Antarctic used to be a tropical paradise. Today's tropics used to be covered in snow. Land bridges used to link Pacific islands with the Asian mainland.
Instead of spending hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars fighting nature, shouldn't mankind be using our resources in order to better adapt to the changes that naturally occur over time?
So how many tons of gallium would be needed for the emissions from one power plant?
Bob Stuart
More research is not needed to know that this requires more renewable energy input than just not burning the coal. It can't overcome the initial inefficiency, however efficient the catalyst makes it at using the electricity.
Unless there is surplus renewable energy this is a waste of time as more CO2 would be produced creating the energy required than it captures.
Simon Redford
Carbon Capture is a wasteful con - don't use renewables to capture CO2 - what a waste of a resource. Put more money into the less exciting ways to avoid using as much energy in the first place (insulation) and into having cost effective renewables and storage options. Best 'capture' technology is planting more trees, managing forests effectively and not de-foresting for agriculture. Whenever I hear about carbon capture and carbon harvesting from the atmosphere I think (expensive) snake oil. The headline "..back into coal" had me immediately thinking of a perpetual motion machine!
Mother Nature figured this out eons ago. Trees.
Expanded Viewpoint
Waaaay back in about 1969 or so, I was taught that about 70% of Earth's Oxygen comes from the plants in the ocean. These green organisms (algae) living there take in Carbon Dioxide, use some sun light and Hydrogen to create sugars and give off Oxygen as a waste product. The Carbon is recycled like water, by Nature. Let Nature do its thing.