Potential breakthrough in carbon sequestering

[Steve Case]

Yes, we all understand that.

I would hope that reversing combustion takes more energy than it produced is understood.
But it seems like I have to point it out.

Goofs actually understands the energy requirement as well.

Yeah, I expect he does.

The purpose of this is to sequester CO2.

I thought maybe you were interested in the chemical process as it would be applied in the chemical
industry? Other than that, sequestering CO2 is stupid.

Why are you assuming the worse? The process requires energy as well to make hydrogen out of water.

At least there's value in hydrogen, there's isn't any value in burying carbon in a landfill somewhere.

We understand these processes take more energy than they will yield back.

Yes, see above

The interesting thing about this process, is that instead of having to use 600 C and electricity to reduce the atoms, it is done at a far lower temperature. This might make it a viable process to use as storage onto carbon chains or carbon, with excess energy from wind or solar that might otherwise be wasted.

There was value in alchemy too. So you get a point.

Goofs doesn't need to be slammed every time.

Global Warming/Climate Change is mostly politics, (political alchemy) and not bean bag,
and that's what goes on in these discussion boards. So I should cut him some slack because
of what he actually didn't say? OK, it is an interesting process, too bad it wasn't presented
that way.

He actually brought something good to the table this time.

If the topic were introduced as you said:

[A new process] that instead of having to use 600 C and electricity to reduce the atoms ... at a far lower temperature.​

And listed all the useful applications it might be used for in chemical industry I wouldn't blink
and it never would have been posted on these boards. But that's not why it was posted nor what it
was billed as:

New way to turn carbon dioxide into coal...
If humans hope to limit climate change to just 2°C of warming, we’ve got a lot of work to do,
scientists say: reducing emissions, planting trees, and scrubbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
skies with the latest technologies. Now, a new process can convert gaseous CO2—the product of
burning fossil fuels—into solid carbon at room temperature, using only a trickle of electricity.​

Yeah, let's waste the output of our economy to turn CO2 back into coal so we can bury
it in landfills, and were going to do it all with a trickle of electricity? Ha ha ha ha ha!

But back to your point, yes, the catalyst allows the reaction to proceed at a lower
temperature, but it's still going to take gobs of electricity not just a trickle.

 

[longview]

The only value I can see, is if we use the collected carbon to make hydrocarbon liquid fuels.
This process may be more efficient that other processes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The only value I can see, is if we use the collected carbon to make hydrocarbon liquid fuels.
This process may be more efficient that other processes.

If such a process worked, we could actually have clean coal, that burned 100% pollution free. Solid fuel is easier and safer to store than gaseous or liquid fuel.

 

[Threegoofs]

The only value I can see, is if we use the collected carbon to make hydrocarbon liquid fuels.
This process may be more efficient that other processes.

LOL.

Yeah. That’s what we need.


Use energy to make a less efficient form of energy.

It’s for sequestration. Obviously.

 

[longview]

If such a process worked, we could actually have clean coal, that burned 100% pollution free. Solid fuel is easier and safer to store than gaseous or liquid fuel.

True enough, but solid fuel is also more difficult to transport.
Also, I am not sure that simple hydrogen and carbon would combine into a solid state.
(It might, but that is passed my understanding of chemistry.)

 

[Lord of Planar]

True enough, but solid fuel is also more difficult to transport.
Also, I am not sure that simple hydrogen and carbon would combine into a solid state.
(It might, but that is passed my understanding of chemistry.)

I'm not too concerned. The chances of making this efficient enough in the laboratory, then scaling up is pretty small. Keep in mind, it might be possible that we discover higher levels of CO2 start to have effect on life. My biggest concern is the blood levels. We might need to have a way to reduce atmospheric CO2 in the future.

 

[longview]

LOL.

Yeah. That’s what we need.


Use energy to make a less efficient form of energy.

It’s for sequestration. Obviously.

It is exactly what we need! a high density energy storage device,
compatible with existing demands and distribution infrastructures.

 

[longview]

I'm not too concerned. The chances of making this efficient enough in the laboratory, then scaling up is pretty small. Keep in mind, it might be possible that we discover higher levels of CO2 start to have effect on life. My biggest concern is the blood levels. We might need to have a way to reduce atmospheric CO2 in the future.

True enough.
I have always thought that central Antarctica would be a good place to collect CO2 by freezing it out of the air.
There are about 8 months of the year where the max temperature is only about 30 C above where CO2 sublimes at.
and while normally this would collect frozen H2O also, there is very little water vapor in the air.
It might be able to be stored under the ice at pressure.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Making CO2 into fuel[/h][FONT=&quot]From the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MIT-developed method converts carbon dioxide into useful compounds. CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — MIT researchers have developed a new system that could potentially be used for converting power plant emissions of carbon dioxide into useful fuels for cars, trucks, and planes, as well as into chemical feedstocks for a wide variety of…
[/FONT]
November 28, 2017 in Climate News.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Pie in the sky? Researchers say they found a CO2 to Fuel catalyst[/h][FONT=&quot]Researchers find a surprise just beneath the surface in carbon dioxide experiment Caltech, Berkeley Lab teams combines theory, X-ray experiments to explain what’s at work in copper catalyst CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY In a classic tale of science taking twists and turns before coming to a conclusion, two teams of researchers–one a group of theorists…
[/FONT]
June 13, 2017 in Climate News.

 

[Lord of Planar]

True enough.
I have always thought that central Antarctica would be a good place to collect CO2 by freezing it out of the air.
There are about 8 months of the year where the max temperature is only about 30 C above where CO2 sublimes at.
and while normally this would collect frozen H2O also, there is very little water vapor in the air.
It might be able to be stored under the ice at pressure.

There is still more H2O than CO2, and that doesn't really matter. I can see it now. Pure coal factories in Antarctica, and an infrastructure built to transport it.

 

[Deuce]

Your breaking the bonds of CO2 to form Carbon and free Oxygen. That takes energy.
There's no free lunch. Green plants do it with the energy from the sun. Three Goofs
magic catalyst will need a similar energy source to break the Carbon/Oxygen bonds.
It's not going to just fall apart. BS is BS

When CO2 was formed by the oxidation of carbon heat energy was released. That's
what goes on in a coal fired power plant. Reversing the process to yield back the
coal and free oxygen will take that much energy and probably then some - no
process is 100% efficient.

Literally nobody has claimed this is free energy. Every single person in this thread is asking questions about how much energy it takes.

Why are you attacking an argument nobody is making?

 

[Deuce]

From Scientific American:

Why not split harmful carbon dioxide into harmless carbon and oxygen?

Splitting carbon dioxide (CO2) into carbon and oxygen can in fact
be accomplished, but there is a catch: doing so requires energy.
If hydrocarbon fuels, which produce the greenhouse gas in the first
place, supply that energy, thermodynamics tells us that the net
result will be more CO2 than you started with.​

Um yeah we're not suggesting you burn fossil fuels to accomplish this :lamo

 

[Deuce]

I would hope that reversing combustion takes more energy than it produced is understood.
But it seems like I have to point it out.

No, you don't have to point that out. I want to show you something.

It will require a whole lot of energy though,

To which you replied

Converting CO2 to elemental carbon will take energy. Lots of energy.

There's not a single person in this thread who has indicated that they don't understand this requires energy.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And to add, the thread titles has "sequestering" in it.

 

[Steve Case]

Literally nobody has claimed this is free energy. Every single person in this thread is asking questions about how much energy it takes.

Why are you attacking an argument nobody is making?

Because they are talking about making fuel from carbon dioxide.
They are talking about reversing the combustion of coal. Someone
may have come up with a catalyst that allows that to be done at
a lower temperature, but it can't be done with less energy* than
was released when the coal was burned. And it sounds like that's
exactly what they are saying.

* In this case the term used in the original post was a "trickle" of
electricity. And you know what? That's total 100% honest to God
gold plated BS - really it is.

 

[Deuce]

Because they are talking about making fuel from carbon dioxide.
They are talking about reversing the combustion of coal. Someone
may have come up with a catalyst that allows that to be done at
a lower temperature, but it can't be done with less energy* than
was released when the coal was burned. And it sounds like that's
exactly what they are saying.

* In this case the term used in the original post was a "trickle" of
electricity. And you know what? That's total 100% honest to God
gold plated BS - really it is.

It doesn't sound like that's what they're saying unless you're stupid. Are you stupid?

 

[Threegoofs]

It doesn't sound like that's what they're saying unless you're stupid. Are you stupid?

LOL.

Deniers gonna deny.

 

[Steve Case]

It doesn't sound like that's what they're saying unless you're stupid. Are you stupid?

Here's the quote from the link at the original post:

New way to turn carbon dioxide into coal could ‘rewind the emissions clock
...
Now, a new process can convert gaseous CO2—the product of burning fossil
fuels—into solid carbon at room temperature, using only a trickle of electricity.​

What do you think that says?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Here's the quote from the link at the original post:

New way to turn carbon dioxide into coal could ‘rewind the emissions clock
...
Now, a new process can convert gaseous CO2—the product of burning fossil
fuels—into solid carbon at room temperature, using only a trickle of electricity.​

What do you think that says?

It is arbitrary. First you have to define the quantity "trickle," then we need to know how much was converted.

It's so arbitrary, why do you think you have grounds to argue against it?

 

[Steve Case]

This silly topic has made it to WattsUpWithThat

If you follow the link, be sure to read the comments.

 

[Threegoofs]

This silly topic has made it to WattsUpWithThat

If you follow the link, be sure to read the comments.

Why?

I can get enough stupidity right here in this thread.

 

[Jack Hays]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Green heads will explode over new renewable process: CO2 to Coal[/h][FONT=&quot]Move over wind farms. Step aside acres of solar panels. There’s a new renewable energy source coming down the pike, and it has the potential to put the others out of business. And, ironically, it’s the climate alarmists’ biggest demon. It’s carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration, as the process is called, removes CO2 from the atmosphere and…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

 

[Deuce]

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/02/green-heads-will-explode-over-new-renewable-process-co2-to-coal/"]

[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Green heads will explode over new renewable process: CO2 to Coal[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Move over wind farms. Step aside acres of solar panels. There’s a new renewable energy source coming down the pike, and it has the potential to put the others out of business. And, ironically, it’s the climate alarmists’ biggest demon. It’s carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration, as the process is called, removes CO2 from the atmosphere and…[/FONT]
[FONT=inherit][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/02/green-heads-will-explode-over-new-renewable-process-co2-to-coal/"]Continue reading →[/URL][/FONT]
[/FONT]

Can you explain, in your own words, why "green heads will explode" over such a thing?

 

[Jack Hays]

Can you explain, in your own words, why "green heads will explode" over such a thing?

The article speaks for itself.