BONDING TIME When hexamethylbenzene loses two electrons, it rearranges from a flat hexagonal ring into the five-sided pyramid shown here. The carbon atom on top of the pyramid bonds to six other carbon atoms as opposed to the usual four.</s>According to organic chemistry 101, carbon can form up to four bonds because it only has four shareable electrons. In certain conditions, however, this limit can be broken as German chemists from the Free University of Berlin recently showed.

In the 1970s, another group of researchers from Germany made some intriguing observations about a molecule called hexamethylbenzene which can exist in a stable configuration of six carbon atoms arranged in a flat hexagonal ring. Off each vertex of the ring, an extra carbon atom sticks out where it’s bonded to three hydrogen atom. Finally, leftover electrons which hadn’t been shared zip around the middle of the ring.

More than 40 years ago, the researchers proposed that if you removed two electrons from hexamethylbenzene it would drastically change its shape. According to their calculations, the exotic molecule would rearrange itself into a configuration where one carbon atom was bonded to six other carbons. The implications were staggering but, at the time, no one confirmed the structure experimentally.

ADVERTISEMENT

Moritz Malischewski and colleagues from the Free University of Berlin decided to sweep the dust off this old paper and try it out. It was a bit difficult at first because the original paper was poor on details but the researchers eventually managed to make the charged hexamethylbenzene molecule.

After the molecule was crystallized, a 3-D map of the crystal’s structure was made using X-rays. Strikingly, the experiment proved that when hexamethylbenzene lost two electrons, it reordered itself in the six carbon bond configuration. Specifically, one carbon atom jumped out of the flat hexagon eventually turning the structure into a five-sided carbon pyramid. The carbon right atop the pyramid was bonded to six other carbon atoms: five in the ring and one above.

Previously, other molecules with a carbon atom associated with more than four bonds have been demonstrated, like Si 2 (CH 3 ) 7 +. This is, however, the first molecule associated with six bonds, as reported in the journal Angewandte Chemie.

It’s important to note that the carbon at the top of the hexamethylbenzene reconfigured pyramid still only has four electrons to share. “The carbon isn’t making six bonds in the sense that we usually think of a carbon-carbon bond as a two-electron bond,” Dean Tantillo, a chemist at the University of California, Davis who wasn’t part of the study, told Science News. Instead, the carbon shares electrons among the six bonds. Case in point, when the researchers measured the molecule’s chemical bonds, these were longer than the typical carbon-carbon bond, which means they’re weaker.</s>The side that defines the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate. So we could ask: as we fight the global-warming scam, why are we using the language of the scammers? It’s harder to combat “carbon” taxes, “carbon” credits and callow “carbon” appeals if we accept that at issue is “carbon.”

Calling CO “carbon” is like calling H O “hydrogen.” Carbon is about as useful to a plant aspiring to photosynthesize as a tank of hydrogen is to a dehydrated man in a desert. Carbon dioxide and carbon are not the same thing any more than a fox and foxglove are the same thing.

If chemical formulas are meaningless and one element or atom between friends can be ignored, try inhaling copious amounts of CO. It’s also “carbon,” being in fact more “carboney” ratio-wise than CO . But carbon monoxide is poisonous to fauna and flora while carbon dioxide is plant food, which is why botanists pump it into greenhouses.

Likewise, would you like some chlorine with your food, sir? Sodium is poisonous; chlorine is poisonous. Combine the two — NaCl — and you have table salt. Chemistry is our friend.

It would be nice to think that the carbon crew is just being friendly and familiar. But not only would calling CO Mr. Dioxide be just as inaccurate, there’s clearly an agenda here. Carbon, the primary element in coal, conjures up images of spewing sky-blackening soot into the air. It’s a dark brand of marketing.

In fact, I challenge those crafting “carbon tax” bills to call CO “carbon” in their legislation’s text. They won’t because I suspect it wouldn’t stand up in court, as factories don’t actually emit carbon. The alarmists will either specify carbon dioxide or define, tendentiously, what “carbon” means for the “purposes of the bill.”

Of course, carbon isn’t really a villain, either. It’s the fourth-most abundant element in the universe, and man is known as a “carbon-based life form.” Given the latter, if extra atoms and elements and how they react with each other can be ignored when formulating labels and definitions, we could say that Al Gore’s birth was a carbon emission.

Honest people should reclaim the language and reboot the debate by rejecting “carbon” talk. As for those knowingly using the term for propaganda purposes, they should have a huge carbon footprint placed firmly on their carbon-based posteriors.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com</s>Indian chemists took part in the battle for climate change. The Indian company processes the captured carbon dioxide emission into chemicals such as baking powder.

The captured carbon dioxide from a coal-powered boiler is being turned into a chemical such as baking powder. In the city of Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu, India, it is where the chemical process took place. The Carbon Clean Solutions, which is an Indian firm, also aids the company. The chemists have claimed that 60,000 tons of CO2 emission have been saved a year.

The owner of the plant, Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals, Ramachadran Gopalan, told BBC News that, "I am a businessman. I never thought about saving the planet. I needed a reliable stream of CO2, and this was the best way of getting it."

Two young Indian chemists led the Carbon Clean project. They used the salt technique to bond with the CO2 molecules in the boiler chimney from flue gases. The process of carbon capture alters from the others. As it uses a new chemical to strip CO2, it is more efficient than other chemicals. The chemists said that more than 90 percent of the CO2 is captured.

The Guardian reported that the production of soda ash has a variety of uses. These include sweeteners, detergents, glass manufactures and paper products. The plant is supposed to run zero emission by now since the project has utilized the technique.

On its website, the Carbon Clean has estimated that the captured carbon could reduce approximately 20 percent of the total greenhouse emissions. This emission has been contributing to climate change. The reduction could run within the next four decades.

The chemists shared that, "Major carbon dioxide emitters like power plants and manufacturing facilities, in the future, may be asked to install carbon capture technologies or pay the carbon tax. Carbon Clean Solutions is innovating and working with customers to develop technologies that will cost effectively reduce the CO2 emissions from such large point sources," according to IFL Science.</s>The NDP’s risky carbon tax is now in effect – and the cost of everything is going up.

The price of gas is now 4.5 cents per litre more expensive.

Diesel is now 5.4 cents per litre more expensive.

Natural gas prices will increase between 30 to 40 per cent.

Gas taxes have gone up nearly 100 percent since the last election.

When fully implemented, the NDP and Trudeau carbon tax will cost the typical household $2,500 per year. Alberta is already the most expensive government in Canada, but this carbon tax creates new expensive bureaucracies to hand out billions in green slush funds.

Wildrose is the only party that has stood up and said we’ll repeal the NDP’s carbon tax immediately after being elected government in 2019.

We’ll also take the steps necessary to fight Trudeau’s federal carbon tax.

Any carbon tax will not only increase costs for families and those doing business in Alberta but gut Canada’s ability to compete globally, especially since our top competitor, the United states, will not be imposing one.

Carbon taxes will make life even more challenging for small businesses, charities, municipalities and school boards. Carbon taxation will reduce the level of services, choice and competition. With companies already citing the carbon tax as the reason for increased prices, some business will be forced to close.

Given these tough economic times when Albertans could use a break, the NDP has made everything more expensive.

The vast majority of Albertans do not support a job killing carbon tax, no matter the millions of taxpayer dollars the NDP waste on ads promoting it or how many ministers the NDP sends out to spin this tax.

The NDP want the Wildrose to “put down our swords” in our opposition to the carbon tax.

The vast majority of Albertans who oppose the NDP’s job killing carbon tax would rather the NDP stop the higher taxes that are raising the cost of everything

If the NDP want us to stop fighting for Albertans against their carbon tax, it’s not going to happen.

Environment Minister Shannon Phillips said we need the carbon tax because Albertans were tired of being “laggards.”

Albertans are sick and tired of being talked down to by the NDP. Our oil and gas industry continues to be the best in the world and is the pride of many everyday, hardworking Albertans.

When asked in a news conference about how the carbon tax will impact Albertans, Premier Notley said when gas prices go up because of the tax, taking the bus or walking are other options.

You and I both know that simply isn’t an option for many families going about their daily lives, trying to make a decent living. Especially those with lengthy commutes.

The fact is, walking or taking the bus to get groceries just isn’t an option for those of us in rural Alberta, neither is turning off the heat. This carbon tax is nothing but a tax grab from hardworking people who deserve a break.

Our economy is struggling. Over 100,000 Albertans have lost their jobs and the NDP’s solution has been to add another tax onto hardworking families in our province.

We stand with the hardworking Albertans across the province, and 27 months from now a Wildrose government will repeal the carbon tax if elected.

Drew Barnes is the Wildrose Shadow Energy Minister and MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat</s>A new environmentally friendly technology being used by a factory in southern India to convert carbon dioxide into useful chemicals has won attention for contributing to the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 The industrial plant in Tuticorin in Tamil Nadu state captures carbon dioxide emissions from its own coal boiler and uses it to make soda ash – a base chemical with uses that include the manufacture of glass, sweeteners, detergents and paper products.

 

 The factory’s owner, Gopalan Ramachandran, estimates his plant could save up to 60,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year.

 

 He gives a satisfied laugh as he tells VOA “I feel really proud about it whenever I see the chimney, OK – clean. Earlier there used to be lot of smoke there going out, now you find that everything is neat and clean.”

 

 Carbon capture

 

 Across the world, many projects are focusing on carbon capture because environmentalists believe this could be key to keeping global warming in check. Some have worked on storing the carbon dioxide, others on converting it into plastics and fuel. But high cost has remained a key concern.

The new technology used by Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd appears to have overcome that hurdle and environmentalists say it represents a significant breakthrough in capturing carbon dioxide for use by some industries in an economically viable manner.

 

 Ramachandran, who adopted the technology from a pure business perspective rather than environmental concerns, says the expense he incurs is just marginally more than what he spent when he bought the gas from a nearby fertilizer plant. He began exploring how to utilize carbon dioxide from his own factory last year after the fertilizer plant could not supply it any longer.

 

 The technology has been developed by Carbon Clean Solutions – a start-up by two Indian engineers based in London focusing on carbon dioxide separation technology.

 

 Arun Kumar at New Delhi-based The Energy and Resources Institute is optimistic such initiatives will go a long way in helping the goal of reducing carbon emissions. “Where the captured carbon dioxide can be utilized for industrial production would be most cost effective compared to say when we talk of carbon capture storage from power plants,” he says.

 

 Many other businesses in the country could use such technology. “There are many chemicals exported out of India where CO2 is the raw material. Definitely you will find this a much, much simpler solution,” says Ramachandran.

 

 Carbon footprint 

 

 India is the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the populous country will make a key difference in how the world’s battle to fight climate change pans out in the coming years. Although the energy sector, which relies heavily on coal-based thermal plants, is the biggest contributor to emissions, industrial emissions are also significant.

 

 India has pledged to slash the intensity of its fossil-fuel emissions by one-third by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, largely by making a big shift to renewable energy sources such as solar. But initiatives by industry to reduce emissions will also go a long way in contributing to that goal.

 

 India is also looking at converting waste carbon dioxide into bio fuel. Pointing out that India will be using coal for a long time to come, Kumar says “if we are to fight climate change, and we have to look at climate mitigation action, then carbon capture technology, if it can be used in a productive way, it is a very good option.”</s>CARBON, Alta. – As the thermometer barely budges above -30 C, Heather Boyd gears up for the lunch rush at her small diner.

On the first business day after the New Year’s holiday, the bitter winter weather outside hasn’t lowered appetites inside the nine-table cafe at the Village of Carbon’s curling rink.

But what is making the mercury rise inside is a different kind of carbon — Alberta’s new carbon tax, which came into effect this week.

“My opinion is this is no way to put Carbon on the map,” says Boyd, who also serves on the village’s council. “I’d rather we be known for our generosity and our beautiful town than a tax.”

Welcome to the community where its own name is suddenly a dirty word.

In places like Carbon, which has roots in the coal industry older than the province itself, the Notley government faces a tough haul to convince people that Alberta’s climate levy makes sense.

As the province struggles through a prolonged economic slump, opposition is rife throughout the community of 600, located a little more than an hour’s drive northeast of Calgary.

“I’m not very happy,” says Perry Metzger, a 50-year-old oilpatch mechanic who stopped by for a bowl of soup. “You’re taxing people in a tough time and to me, that’s not right.”

His criticism underscores the perception problem facing the NDP government as it promotes the merits of a broadly based carbon tax charged on fuels that emit greenhouse gases.

Despite the support of pundits, politicians and economists who believe it’s the most efficient way for Alberta — the country’s largest producer of GHGs — to lower its carbon emissions, many inside the community see it as simply a tax grab.

Seated with his wife, Mitch McClarty says it’s clear the plan was designed for people who live in big cities and can more easily curb their fuel use by taking mass transit, as Premier Rachel Notley recently suggested.

But in a small village 37 kilometres from the nearby town of Drumheller where some residents work, “it certainly doesn’t work as well,” says McClarty, a power line consultant.

His wife Margaret says she might be persuaded to support the efforts, if she thought it would make a real difference to the environment and wasn’t creating any bureaucracy to collect the revenue and then administer rebates back to Albertans.

The government is “more concerned about our reputation in the international community than in the actual people it’s going to affect,” she says.

Carbon is fertile ground for anger toward the carbon tax.

It’s a staunchly conservative area, sending Wildrose MLAs to the legislature in the past two elections and Tories before that.

Founded as a ranching community in the late 1800s, early settlers dug their own coal from the outcrop along the nearby Kneehill Creek.

The first coal mine opened just before the 20th century dawned. The name Carbon was adopted in 1904 and more than a century later, the local economy remains closely tied to the fortunes of the energy sector — oil and gas — as well as agriculture.

Despite a barrage of government advertisements, Carbon residents are dubious about the strategy, even though the prime minister has said the plan helped Alberta win federal approval for new oil pipelines, something folks here support.

Opposition to the new $20-a-tonne levy comes in many forms.

Some dispute Alberta’s overall impact on global climate change or believe the province is trying to introduce a backdoor sales tax.

Others question the effectiveness of taxing fossil fuels to lower energy use, saying it’s impossible in rural areas to curb gasoline consumption when you often live far from work or services.

Many don’t believe they’ll receive any rebates, even though the government insists about two-thirds of Albertans will be eligible, and payments started going out this week.

And some simply don’t like the NDP.

“I just think it’s bullsh–,” says businessman Roger Chapman, who owns a local oilfield services firm. “Notley is just throwing money out the window.”

Under the new levy, gasoline prices have risen by 4.5 cents a litre, diesel is up 5.4 cents a litre and natural gas costs have risen about $1 a gigajoule. Farmers who use marked gas and diesel on farms are exempt from the charge.

With some of the carbon revenue, the province is cutting the small business tax rate by one-third. It’s also providing full rebates to individuals who earn less than $47,500 annually, or couples making under $95,000.

Andy Kim, who owns and operates the Carbon Grocery, says everybody is talking about the tax and no one seems happy, rebates or not.

He hasn’t yet seen any increase in his own bills, but expects that’s coming as trucking companies introduce a surcharge to cover their higher fuel costs, which will then be reflected in the liquor and groceries his store sells.

Kim anticipates the shop’s heating bill will increase by about $100 a month in the winter. Despite a drop in the business tax rate, he simply doesn’t believe it will make up the difference.

“All my suppliers will jack up their driving costs to deliver stuff here. I will have to do some price adjustments and that’s not going to be good.”

Changing perceptions is a huge task facing the government in the months ahead.

Environment Minister Shannon Phillips and other cabinet ministers have been on a public relations blitz recently, holding a string of news conferences to discuss how the levy will not only drive emissions lower but help diversify the economy.

Money from the tax will fund the reduced business tax, go into green programs and pay for new energy efficiency initiatives, among other things.

“This is a fairly large change for Alberta. It’s a big change with big rewards,” Phillips said at a news conference this week to promote the small business tax cut.

“There’s a lot of work to do, so a lot of different details to communicate and lots of questions to answer.”

Phillips notes the NDP’s election platform made commitments around enhancing rural bus service and the government is “examining how we can make sure we move that forward through green funds that are being generated by the carbon levy.”

At Carbon’s gas station, Alternative Auto, where the pump prices rose on New Year’s Day due to the new tax, co-owner Marty Morgan isn’t convinced.

A village councillor and the local fire chief, Morgan says the levy is stoking frustration in smaller communities such as his hometown.

“Call it what you want, it’s a tax … and it’s hated everywhere,” he says.

“The end user is the one that gets hit. As a person running a gas station, you can’t take the loss. You have to pass it on.”

Such sentiment rings throughout the village, from the diner to the community’s wellness centre.

“I’m very skeptical,” says Kym Hackett, a service provider at the centre who offers Reiki, an alternative healing program.

“If the government has money to spend, there are other areas that could better use the money, like the homeless people … or the hungry.”

Back at the curling rink, Boyd stays busy feeding customers throughout the lunch hour.

She doesn’t know yet how much the new levy will cost the cafe in higher expenses — or the village — but is resigned to the fact the carbon tax is here to stay, in Carbon and across Alberta.

“It is what it is,” she laments. “There’s really no choice, we have to pay it.”</s>The economists' guide to arguing about the carbon tax

Alberta just wrapped up its first week with a carbon tax.

And according to the current federal government, by 2018 all provinces must have in place a floor-price on carbon, be it a tax or cap-and-trade system.

So, whether you've got a new carbon tax or cap-and-trade scheme, or will get one in the near future, chances are you've got opinions on the matter. The 180 reached out to multiple economists for their advice on the best way to argue about the merits of carbon pricing.

In this audio essay featuring Nic Rivers from the University of Ottawa, and Jennifer Winter of the University of Calgary, we'll hear some pet peeves about how online conversations about carbon taxes usually go...

And we'll hear how to separate arguments about whether a carbon tax is good or bad for the economy, from whether the carbon tax actually works.

Listen to the audio for an exciting journey into the economics, ethics, and values of arguing about carbon taxes!</s>In the age of climate change, carbon dioxide emissions produced by burning fossil fuels present a liability that many investors fear might one day bring down oil companies. But scientists and policymakers are asking what would happen if carbon dioxide had a value the same way oil, gold and coffee do. What if it could be used to produce goods and even fuels — the way plants and trees use carbon dioxide to keep themselves alive?

It’s not an entirely new concept. For decades, industries from oil to soft drinks have bought small amounts of carbon dioxide, piped in from underground caverns where it was trapped eons ago. But now the outgoing Obama administration, along with partners from both environmental groups and the oil and gas industry, is hoping to create a much larger market that will not only keep carbon out of the atmosphere but create a new engine for the U.S. economy.

“They need scientific breakthroughs, but this is a very important research direction,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said. “It could be building materials, road materials. A holy grail, in a certain sense, would be to use CO2 plus other ingredients like water and sunlight to convert to a hydrocarbon liquid fuel.”

Such breakthroughs are likely a long way off, but if they materialize, it could prove vital to the oil and gas industry. Solving the challenges and economics of carbon capture could keep oil, gas and other fossil fuels viable over the long term as international efforts to slow climate change lead to ever tighter restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions that accelerate global warming.

Burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and other industries is a major source of the carbon dioxide that traps heat in the Earth’s atmosphere. For now, even the initial step toward putting carbon dioxide to use — separating it out of the emissions streams rising out of the country’s smokestacks — remains prohibitively expensive.

But as engineers work out the kinks, costs are coming down to the point that by 2025 it should be competitive with naturally occurring stockpiles, said Douglas Hollett, principal deputy assistant secretary for fossil energy at the Energy Department. He said carbon capture is on a similar trajectory as earlier energy technologies.

“Think about where solar PV, onshore wind [turbines], LED [light bulbs], and shale wells were not too long ago,” he said.

Colorless, odorless and noncombustible, carbon dioxide has a long list of theoretical applications. It can be used to make cement, feed algae, produce the bubbles in a can of soda, and even make fuels like methanol and ethanol. A report by the Energy Department’s scientific advisory board last month identified more than two dozen possible applications for carbon dioxide.

Turning those possibilities into reality is becoming increasingly important. As countries like Canada and Norway, and states like California increasingly move to put a price on carbon emissions, polluters are left with two options: Pay to have the carbon pumped underground or find someone to buy it.

By far the biggest use to date — and the one to which industry and policymakers are pinning their hopes for the foreseeable future — is within the oil and gas industry. Known as enhanced oil recovery, drillers for decades have pumped carbon dioxide into older oil fields to push the last barrels to the surface.

Since the Paris climate change pact, in which close to 200 world leaders last year agreed to control carbon emissions, most of the attention has focused on renewable sources like wind turbines and solar power. But in an Energy Department report this summer, scientists estimated that if the world were to meet the 2050 goal set in Paris, one-sixth of emissions reductions would need to come from carbon capture systems.

So far, political support has been hard to come by. Legislation introduced in Congress this past session would not only have increased incentives for carbon capture but fixed them permanently in the tax code. Despite bipartisan support — drawing together everyone from the environmentally minded Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., to pro-oil Texas Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis — the legislation never even got assigned to a committee in the House or Senate.

But the new Petra Nova plant about to start running in Thompsons, Texas, about 30 miles southwest of Houston, is a bright spot for the technology’s supporters. It is being completed essentially on time and within its budget, unlike many previous such projects. When it fires up, the plant, which is attached to one of the power company NRG’s hulking coal-burning units, will draw 90 percent of the CO2 from the emissions produced by 240 megawatts of generated power. That is a fraction of the roughly 3,700 megawatts produced at this gargantuan plant, the largest in the Lone Star State. Still, it is enough to capture 1.6 million tons of carbon dioxide each year — equivalent to the greenhouse gas produced by driving 3.5 million miles, or the CO2 from generating electricity for 214,338 homes.

Petra Nova, a billion-dollar joint venture of NRG and JX Nippon Oil and Gas Exploration, will push compressed CO2 through a new pipeline 81 miles to an oil field, where will be injected into wells. That should increase production to 15,000 barrels per day from about 300 barrels per day. And since NRG owns one quarter of the oil recovery project, what comes out of the ground will help pay for the carbon capture operation.

The New York Times contributed to this report.</s>A chemical plant in India is the first in the world to run a new system for capturing carbon emissions and converting them into baking soda.

The Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals plant, in the industrial port city of Tuticorin, is expecting to convert some 60,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually into baking soda and other chemicals – and the scientists behind the process say the technique could be used to ultimately capture and transform up to 10 percent of global emissions from coal.

While carbon capture technology is not a new thing, what's remarkable about the Tuticorin installation is that it's running without subsidies from the government – suggesting the researchers have developed a profitable, practical system that could have the commercial potential to expand to other plants and industries.

"I am a businessman. I never thought about saving the planet," the managing director of the plant, Ramachadran Gopalan, told the BBC.

"I needed a reliable stream of CO2, and this was the best way of getting it."

The inventors of the new technique, London-based Carbon Clean Solutions, developed the system in the UK after receiving finance from a British entrepreneur support scheme. Their process uses a patented chemical to filter out CO2 molecules.

In the Tuticorin setup, the plant runs a coal-fired burner to make steam that powers its various chemical-manufacturing processes. A mist containing Carbon Clean's chemical separates the CO2 emissions in the burner's chimney, which are then fed into a mixing chamber with salt and ammonia.

The end product can then be used to produce baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) or a range of other compounds, for use in things such as glass manufacture, detergents, disinfectants, and sweeteners.

The overall idea of separating CO2 molecules from flue gas may not be new, but the team behind the system say that their filtering chemical is more efficient than the amine compounds that scientists have previously used, and requires less energy to run.

According to CEO Aniruddha Sharma, the company's approach is to think realistically, partnering with modest, low-risk enterprises as it builds itself up – and he says the same strategy should be implemented by the carbon capture industry as a whole.

"So far the ideas for carbon capture have mostly looked at big projects, and the risk is so high they are very expensive to finance," Sharma told Roger Harrabin at The Guardian.

"We want to set up small-scale plants that de-risk the technology by making it a completely normal commercial option."

The other compelling aspect of the system is that it actually does something positive with the carbon – making new chemicals and products – rather than simply storing it somewhere in a useless, dormant state (such as burying it underground).

That distinction is the difference between carbon capture and storage (CCS) and what's called carbon capture and utilisation (CCU).

And given the expense involved with building carbon capture systems, the ability to on-sell a byproduct could be incredibly important in making this technology financially viable in the bigger picture.

"We have to do everything we can to reduce the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels," Lord Ronald Oxburgh, the head of the UK government's carbon capture advisory group, told the BBC, "and it is great news that more ways are being found of turning at least some of the CO2 into useful products."

Read the original article on ScienceAlert. Copyright 2017. Follow ScienceAlert on Twitter.
Free University of Berlin chemists confirm that carbon can bond with more than four atoms, previously seen as its limit because carbon has only four shareable electrons. The researchers used X-rays to, for the first time, map the molecule — a carbon atom bonded to six other carbon atoms.