Pages

Jump to bottom

7 comments

1 Achilles Tang  Fri, Jun 8, 2012 4:02:17pm

It may be a practical method for creating a fuel, but it does nothing to reduce CO2 as suggested since the carbon is again released, as CO2, once burned in an engine and furthermore since methane is 10 time or more as efficient as a greenhouse gas than CO2, the inevitable release of some unused methane will be much worse than a fraction of that amount of CO2.

2 Bob Levin  Sat, Jun 9, 2012 5:49:45pm

re: #1 Achilles Tang

You probably need to read the entire article. I'm not able to comment on the chemistry.

However, I can comment on the history--which is that of finding a practical use for the stuff that you don't want. For instance, as England moved from trees to coal, since they were running out of trees, the byproduct of coal furnaces was coal tar. Mucky, awful stuff.

Now, Google the uses of coal tar to try to get a sense of its history. It started the chemical dye industry, has medicinal uses, was a crucial ingredient in the formation of waterproof material (the Macintosh, for instance), and so much more.

In other words, the overall concept is to find some use for greenhouse gasses. This would turn the issue into one of chemistry and engineering rather than an issue of politics. If you can do this, you can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

3 Achilles Tang  Sat, Jun 9, 2012 6:34:10pm

re: #2 Bob Levin

I think you did not read my comment. I did read the article.

I am not commenting on the chemistry either, just on the simple fact that it is about using CO2 (largely present from combustion) and converting it to another combustible product by the input of solar energy.

That can help reduce oil dependence, but it does not reduce free CO2, since that comes right back once the synthetic fuel is burned, and we are producing methane which is far worse than CO2, if it escapes as some will, so the net result is actually worse as far as greenhouse gases go.

Don't get me wrong, the net overall benefit in reduced oil/coal consumption may be a plus, but this is no greenhouse gas reducer. Nothing is being made to disappear.

4 Bob Levin  Sat, Jun 9, 2012 7:50:33pm

I wasn't clear from the beginning on why I thought this [is the best step in the right direction] to reduce greenhouse gasses. As a general strategy, find a use for them. Others will also be doing research on reducing or eliminating their production, but I believe the solution for trash and pollution is to ultimately find a use for the stuff.

Coastlines of some of the world's great cities are built upon trash.

Besides, every time a law or regulation is enacted, the problem is thrown back into the laps of the engineers and scientists anyway.

5 CarolJ  Sun, Jun 10, 2012 4:30:20am

A process like this could be a middle step. Yes, it's methane as a byproduct, but we could then use the methane as well. And if we could use this as a fuel, then all of the drilling and mining for coal and gas goes away, lessening even more greenhouse gas pollution. In any event, this looks like a way that each nation could produce it's own fuel from the air, meaning that we could let the coastlines of the world heal from the ravages of underwater oil drilling, and let Nigeria heal from the oil spills on its soil.

6 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Jun 10, 2012 2:13:06pm

re: #5 CarolJ

A process like this could be a middle step. Yes, it's methane as a byproduct, but we could then use the methane as well. And if we could use this as a fuel, then all of the drilling and mining for coal and gas goes away, lessening even more greenhouse gas pollution. In any event, this looks like a way that each nation could produce it's own fuel from the air, meaning that we could let the coastlines of the world heal from the ravages of underwater oil drilling, and let Nigeria heal from the oil spills on its soil.

Well said. Both Achilles and Bob have the right of it in light of your comment.

The bottom line is that we need to stop CO2 and methane emission as much and as fast as possible. As a middle step this is viable. As a long term strategy it is not.

7 hellosnackbar  Mon, Jun 11, 2012 2:03:15am

There's a similar process to produce water gas (H2+ CO) by passing steam through high temperature coke.
Splitting CO2 into CO + O2 and H2O into hydrogen and oxygen using solar
energy is a sensible way of energy storage.
It would be interesting to know the costs and efficiency thereof?


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 88 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 258 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1