Jones Beene
Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:56:05 -0700
Among the most brain-dead of all the environmental proposals being floated around to combat greenhouse gases, is the kind of "carbon sequestration" where CO2 is pumped into the earth... this is beyond silly for so many reasons... But here is an interesting development: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080424103217.htm ... which is a highly energy-efficient method of converting carbon dioxide (CO2) into marketable chemical compounds- such as cyclic carbonates. The technique relies upon the use of a catalyst to force a chemical reaction between CO2 and an epoxide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoxide Epoxides are cheap, but not that cheap. However, this kind of process could be a method which is an actual money-maker for the grid plant, and not an added cost to the consumer. Furhtermore, coal itself is much cheaper than epoxides, even after the recent run-up in price, and if the power-plant is burning coal anyway, then the prospect of removing some of most of the CO2 with *more coal* is intriguing.... ...it sounds crazy at first; since more coal could be required for removing CO2 than what is burned, until you think about the possible advantages. Many plastics, those high tonnage varieties currently being made from petroleum, are costly, about 15 times more costly per pound than is coal - and could possibly be made from CO2+coal at a huge profit to the power plant- which would be a win-win situation... since it would reduce the demand for petroleum and reduce the emissions of CO2 at the same time. I wonder if organic chemists, those who are not on the payroll of the PetroMafia, are already looking seriously at this possibility, especially for the ether-based polymers, or those from polyethylene glycol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_glycol It is so obvious (as a concept) that it must be already R&D in progress, or already proved not to be feasible, even with the advanced catalysts. Jones