Comparative Analysis of Amine, Lime, and Molten Carbonate Electrolytic CO2 Carbon Capture

Conventional industrial decarbonization uses energy-intensive CO _2 concentration methods such as lime or amine methods. In contrast, the electrochemical C2CNT (CO _2 to Carbon Nanomaterial Technology) directly converts CO _2 into graphene nanocarbon materials (e.g., carbon nanotubes) using molten c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kyle Hofstetter, Gad Licht, Stuart Licht
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: IOP Publishing 2025-01-01
Series:ECS Advances
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1149/2754-2734/adf56a
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850044027985985536
author Kyle Hofstetter
Gad Licht
Stuart Licht
author_facet Kyle Hofstetter
Gad Licht
Stuart Licht
author_sort Kyle Hofstetter
collection DOAJ
description Conventional industrial decarbonization uses energy-intensive CO _2 concentration methods such as lime or amine methods. In contrast, the electrochemical C2CNT (CO _2 to Carbon Nanomaterial Technology) directly converts CO _2 into graphene nanocarbon materials (e.g., carbon nanotubes) using molten carbonate electrolytes. This process selectively dissolves CO _2 , integrating carbon capture, concentration, and conversion in one step, while amine and lime methods require additional separate technologies for sequestration or conversion. C2CNT offers a more efficient, scalable alternative for decarbonization and carbon utilization.
format Article
id doaj-art-a607e26ffb4840978247cd1ee89c2fb4
institution DOAJ
issn 2754-2734
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher IOP Publishing
record_format Article
series ECS Advances
spelling doaj-art-a607e26ffb4840978247cd1ee89c2fb42025-08-20T02:55:05ZengIOP PublishingECS Advances2754-27342025-01-014303100210.1149/2754-2734/adf56aComparative Analysis of Amine, Lime, and Molten Carbonate Electrolytic CO2 Carbon CaptureKyle Hofstetter0Gad Licht1Stuart Licht2https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8273-2875Carbon Corp, Calgary, Alberta T2A 6K8, CanadaC2CNT LLC, Venice, Florida 34275, United States of AmericaCarbon Corp, Calgary, Alberta T2A 6K8, Canada; C2CNT LLC, Venice, Florida 34275, United States of America; Dept. of Chemistry, George Washington University , Washington DC 20052, United States of AmericaConventional industrial decarbonization uses energy-intensive CO _2 concentration methods such as lime or amine methods. In contrast, the electrochemical C2CNT (CO _2 to Carbon Nanomaterial Technology) directly converts CO _2 into graphene nanocarbon materials (e.g., carbon nanotubes) using molten carbonate electrolytes. This process selectively dissolves CO _2 , integrating carbon capture, concentration, and conversion in one step, while amine and lime methods require additional separate technologies for sequestration or conversion. C2CNT offers a more efficient, scalable alternative for decarbonization and carbon utilization.https://doi.org/10.1149/2754-2734/adf56acarbon capturecalcium carbon captureamine carbon capturemolten carbonate carbon captureclimate changeglobal warming
spellingShingle Kyle Hofstetter
Gad Licht
Stuart Licht
Comparative Analysis of Amine, Lime, and Molten Carbonate Electrolytic CO2 Carbon Capture
ECS Advances
carbon capture
calcium carbon capture
amine carbon capture
molten carbonate carbon capture
climate change
global warming
title Comparative Analysis of Amine, Lime, and Molten Carbonate Electrolytic CO2 Carbon Capture
title_full Comparative Analysis of Amine, Lime, and Molten Carbonate Electrolytic CO2 Carbon Capture
title_fullStr Comparative Analysis of Amine, Lime, and Molten Carbonate Electrolytic CO2 Carbon Capture
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Analysis of Amine, Lime, and Molten Carbonate Electrolytic CO2 Carbon Capture
title_short Comparative Analysis of Amine, Lime, and Molten Carbonate Electrolytic CO2 Carbon Capture
title_sort comparative analysis of amine lime and molten carbonate electrolytic co2 carbon capture
topic carbon capture
calcium carbon capture
amine carbon capture
molten carbonate carbon capture
climate change
global warming
url https://doi.org/10.1149/2754-2734/adf56a
work_keys_str_mv AT kylehofstetter comparativeanalysisofaminelimeandmoltencarbonateelectrolyticco2carboncapture
AT gadlicht comparativeanalysisofaminelimeandmoltencarbonateelectrolyticco2carboncapture
AT stuartlicht comparativeanalysisofaminelimeandmoltencarbonateelectrolyticco2carboncapture