Mining the atmosphere ?

[Shannow]

Note, this is not a commentary on greenhouse etc., just some technologies that I found interesting, and with oil prices high could help a little or a lot to set a top end cap on them.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf

The point that I find interesting, and it's repeated elsewhere is that utilising wind power to collect atmospheric CO2 is multiple times more efficient than using the wind power to make electricity...maybe $15/tonne collected.

Quote:
Results of our dimensional analysis suggest that the collection of CO2 directly from air is
feasible. Collecting CO2 from air is far more efficient than collecting wind energy.


Once you've collected it.

http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2009/05/04/breakthrough-co2-to-fuel-technology-featured/

Quote:
Carbon Sciences has devised a way to unravel CO2 using a “biocatalyst that will combine the hydrogen in water with the carbon dioxide, without the usual large expenditure of energy required to break the chemical bond between water’s hydrogen and oxygen.”

The resulting savings provides the most efficient and “direct path” to fuel from CO2. Carbon Sciences estimates that by 2030, using less than half of the CO2 emissions from coal usage alone, it can produce enough fuel to provide 30% of the global liquid fuel demand.


Turn it back into hydrocarbons...

Mine the atmosphere, and have the combustion byproducts of the powerstations delivered free to the fuel from air farms.

 

[eljefino]

This sounds as good as that thermal depolymerization that was supposed to render turkey guts into diesel fuel and natural gas.

 

[Boomer]

Sounds kind of liie the old water gas process where steam was passed over red hot coke (carbon from coal, not white powder from Venezuela) to produce CO + H2 gas. This mixture is quite combustible but care must be taken because of the CO gas present.

 

[ItsuMitsubishi]

Man, we're almost as advanced as vegetation!

 

[JHZR2]

Yep, wind to run reverse water-gas shift to produce CO, use it as the basis for F-T synthesis without the coal...

Need to move a lot of air, but hey, why not?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
On June 8, 2009, the DOE issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement specifically for spurring research and investments in technologies to mitigate CO2 emissions. Pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, this FOA is allocating $100 million for innovative concepts for beneficial use of carbon dioxide, such as CO2 to fuel technologies that are beyond conventional underground carbon sequestration concepts.

http://www.carbonsciences.com/01/view_news.php?id=58

Looks like a really good way to get their hands on a lot of tax payer money to me. If this is really viable, they would be billionaires overnight, and investors would see this.

There should be NO gov. money directed at such scams in the effort pick life's winners and losers.

 

[Shannow]

Take the Govt money off the fossil alternatives too then, and let the chips fall where they fall.

 

[Gary Allan]

Exactly. To NOT subsidize alternative "whatever" gives a future competitive advantage to those foreign interests that do ..or puts us at the mercy of those foreign interests who don't as they gain economic clout that crowds ours.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Exactly. To NOT subsidize alternative "whatever" gives a future competitive advantage to those foreign interests that do ..or puts us at the mercy of those foreign interests who don't as they gain economic clout that crowds ours.


Yeah, the massive subsidies that Europe poured into "alternatives" has worked out beautifully for them...

I take it that you like their results since they were doing exactly as you endorse here?

 

[Tempest]

And as far that company that would be getting those subsidies:
Quote:
Considering the intensive issuing of new shares over the past months, it seems kind of reasonable that Carbon Sciences have spent nearly half of the cash they had on hand at the end of June on promoting their stock.

http://www.hotstocked.com/article/2691/carbon-sciences-inc-otc-cabn-promoters-make.html

Quote:
Seems that as announced38 this Monday, the company's intentions to present market-ready technology next year, like also accomplishing first steps of patent applications were not strong enough to attract investors. These steps are for the company's clean-tech CO2 based Gas to Liquids (GTL) fuel technology for transforming a combination of natural gas and carbon dioxide (CO2) directly into gasoline.

The CABN stock promotion accomplished what the above press release was not able to do.

http://www.hotstocked.com/article/2247/carbon-sciences-inc-otc-cabn-stock-enters-the.html

Investors risking their own money don't seem to want anything to do with this. Of course, the government is more than happy to risk other people's money.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Exactly. To NOT subsidize alternative "whatever" gives a future competitive advantage to those foreign interests that do ..or puts us at the mercy of those foreign interests who don't as they gain economic clout that crowds ours.


Yeah, the massive subsidies that Europe poured into "alternatives" has worked out beautifully for them...

I take it that you like their results since they were doing exactly as you endorse here?


I take it that the folly of being caught flatfooted in a nation that couldn't produce enough resources without WAR to feed themselves in energy appeals to you.

Imagine Tempest, a nation where only the very rich and the military would have resources

That would be wonderful

 

[Geonerd]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


Carbon Sciences has devised a way to unravel CO2 using a “biocatalyst that will combine the hydrogen in water with the carbon dioxide, without the usual large expenditure of energy required to break the chemical bond between water’s hydrogen and oxygen.”


I'm gonna call bull on this.
Splitting the C and Os apart requires a LOT of energy, energy that has to come from somewhere. This 'biocatalyst' is either [censored], or a reactive chemical that will be depleted as it is used (not a true catalyst), or the system requires the additional input of substantial amounts of energy of some sort, or they have miraculously made the physics discovery of the century

, repealing all of Thermodynamics in one shot! Nobel Gold awaits!

 

[Torino]

Originally Posted By: ItsuMitsubishi
Man, we're almost as advanced as vegetation!
Yes, absolutely amazing. John--Las Vegas

 

[Shannow]

And through years of selective breeding (inbreeding ???)

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/entertainment&id=7677501

 

[Quest]

Originally Posted By: Geonerd
Originally Posted By: Shannow


Carbon Sciences has devised a way to unravel CO2 using a “biocatalyst that will combine the hydrogen in water with the carbon dioxide, without the usual large expenditure of energy required to break the chemical bond between water’s hydrogen and oxygen.”


I'm gonna call bull on this.
Splitting the C and Os apart requires a LOT of energy, energy that has to come from somewhere. This 'biocatalyst' is either [censored], or a reactive chemical that will be depleted as it is used (not a true catalyst), or the system requires the additional input of substantial amounts of energy of some sort, or they have miraculously made the physics discovery of the century

, repealing all of Thermodynamics in one shot! Nobel Gold awaits!


I'm with Geonerd on this one.

Q.

 

[Shannow]

I've got a reasonably decent understanding of chemistry and reaction energies, exothermic, and endothermic reactions, and how catalysts change outcomes.

I don't understand how they can do CO2 to petrol, but aren't calling bull on it until I know what it is they are doing.

Wouldn't put a cent on it ATM 'though.

 

[Quest]

@Shannow,

While my take is that if it can (a big "if") via inorganic catalytic means (in a controlled environment), without violating the laws of thermaldynamics,etc. then yes, that is sound.

However, if we are to venture into the realms of using biochemistry (some bacteria to break down COs and process them into petrolium like products (hydrocarbon based) then IMHO no for the time being. My reasoning has me on the corner of understanding where a lot of variables at play here and there may be challenges in keeping these variables well under control in order to provide consistent results.

Bottomline: this "carbonscience" field or better yet: web sites to promote these so-called carbonscience lack credibility and proper scientific discipline to back things up. Even though there may be bacteria out there that can do the job right now, it's just like penicillin when first discovered: too little, too difficult to mass-produce, etc.

Bottomline: I don't trust 80% of the information on the internet these days, esp. those that whipped up to drive penny stocks up (for a quick dump), or fly-by-nite postings to gather money with no proper facts or scientific means of backing.

My 2c's worth.

Q.

just like those "brown gas" thingy and or HHO or perpetual motion machine, I'm not interested/amused by these false promotion that not only has no proper scientific backings or in violation of fundamental laws of Physics (such as laws of Thermaldynamics, etc.)