[Vo]:Sequestering CO2
Frank's work brings up a wish-list: Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon nonotubes. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2
OrionWorks wrote: Frank's work brings up a wish-list: Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon nonotubes. But ... the problem is the energy balance. You got a lot of energy out when you let those O atoms glue themselves to the C -- in fact, getting that energy fix is probably why you did it. Now, to get them unstuck again, you're going to have to put just as much energy back in. Kind of defeats the purpose, I would think. On the other hand, it could be useful if you're imagining using the C+O2 -- CO2 -- C+O2 cycle as a convenient way of transporting energy from point A to point B, or converting the energy from one form to another. But then again that sort of puts you back where we started, which is looking for some other source of energy. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2
OrionWorks wrote: Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual elements. That would take as much energy as you get from burning the coal in the first place. It would be useless, because if you have that much energy from some other source, why burn coal? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2
We have economical examples of these devices all over the planet. They are called trees. They are self replicating, and the higher the concentration of CO2 gets the faster they replicate. Well, isn't that cool? A self regulating planet wide system is already in place to deal with the problem. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:09 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2 Frank's work brings up a wish-list: Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon nonotubes. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2
Actually what I said here was (probably) wrong. Sort of like saying you can't get energy out of sugar in the absence of oxygen -- yeast would laugh in your face if you claimed such a thing. If we start with something like gasoline, which is something like C8H18 (pure octane, I know it's not, but close enough), then the actual combustion reaction is something like this: 2*C8H18 + 25*O2 -- 16*CO2 + 18*H2O with who-knows-what intermediaries and such. Be that as it may, the point is the oxidation of the H's releases energy, all by itself (though I dare say the lion's share comes from oxidizing the carbon). So, in principle, it should be possible to start with gasoline, burn a little bit and use the energy for something you want to do, then burn a lot more and use the energy from the second burn to split the CO2 from both burns. Overall the reaction would look like: x*C8H18 + y*O2 -- z*Cw (some kind of graphite?) + q*H2O Without spending time with redox tables or the equivalent I'm not certain but I think the reaction is still energy-positive. In fact, if I don't miss my guess something close to this is done in charcoal production, where a large amount of wood is stacked up in such a way that it has rotten ventilation in the middle, and the pile is burned, very slowly. Certainly a lot of the heat driving the reaction comes from burning the well-ventilated wood on the outside of the pile but I'm not sure that does more than get the reaction started; once the stuff in the middle starts to go it's most likely self sustaining. Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: OrionWorks wrote: Frank's work brings up a wish-list: Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon nonotubes. But ... the problem is the energy balance. You got a lot of energy out when you let those O atoms glue themselves to the C -- in fact, getting that energy fix is probably why you did it. Now, to get them unstuck again, you're going to have to put just as much energy back in. Kind of defeats the purpose, I would think. On the other hand, it could be useful if you're imagining using the C+O2 -- CO2 -- C+O2 cycle as a convenient way of transporting energy from point A to point B, or converting the energy from one form to another. But then again that sort of puts you back where we started, which is looking for some other source of energy. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2
From Stephen: OrionWorks wrote: Frank's work brings up a wish-list: Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon nonotubes. But ... the problem is the energy balance. Agreed. What I did not make clear in my pie-in-the-sky speculation was the additional premise that energy would no longer be an expensive issue. I was thinking in terms of a futuristic sceneario when hopefully abundant energy would be available allowing us to indulge all sorts of activities that under present circumstances would be considered impractical, if not a little absurd. You got a lot of energy out when you let those O atoms glue themselves to the C -- in fact, getting that energy fix is probably why you did it. Now, to get them unstuck again, you're going to have to put just as much energy back in. Kind of defeats the purpose, I would think. On the other hand, it could be useful if you're imagining using the C+O2 -- CO2 -- C+O2 cycle as a convenient way of transporting energy from point A to point B, or converting the energy from one form to another. But then again that sort of puts you back where we started, which is looking for some other source of energy. I would assume the O+H2 -- H2O -- O+H2 cycle is considered to be a much more popular transport of energy. Obviously there has been a lot more research into the latter cycle. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to discover if an equivalent (as well as an economical) transport is possible through the C+O2 -- CO2 -- C+O2 cycle. I wouldn't know. I should try contacting Vincent Dinglelint. But alas, his current whereabouts are unknown. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2
Jeff Fink wrote: We have economical examples of these devices all over the planet. They are called trees. They are self replicating, and the higher the concentration of CO2 gets the faster they replicate. Well, isn't that cool? A self regulating planet wide system is already in place to deal with the problem. Yes indeed, you've put your finger on a major piece of the problem: We have -- no, I mean we **HAD** -- all these wonderful forests, which could be part of the solution -- and we've cut down about half of them now, turning them into part of the problem. And we're working hard to cut down the other half just as quickly as we can get in there with enough chainsaws to do the work. Wiki saith: Global deforestation sharply accelerated around 1852.[75][76] It has been estimated that about half of the earth's mature tropical forests — between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the planet[77] — have now been cleared.[78][79] Some scientists have predicted that unless significant measures (such as seeking out and protecting old growth forests that haven't been disturbed)[77] are taken on a worldwide basis, by 2030 there will only be ten percent remaining,[75][78] with another ten percent in a degraded condition.[75] 80 percent will have been lost... Main article (which is quite long, above snippet is just a tiny piece): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation The point is that this supposed carbon sink (global woodland) is actually being driven hard in the other direction, as a result of which it's a net carbon source. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:09 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2 Frank's work brings up a wish-list: Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon nonotubes. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2
Actually, biosphere 2 experiments with raising trees found that in higher co2 environments, they would grow quick and tall, not as wide, not sequester as much co2, and while they used more co2 in respiration, at levels about double our current baseline co2 percentages, the difference between co2 produced and consumed by trees neared 0. Again, SCIENCE! Alex On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Jeff Fink rev...@ptd.net wrote: We have economical examples of these devices all over the planet. They are called trees. They are self replicating, and the higher the concentration of CO2 gets the faster they replicate. Well, isn't that cool? A self regulating planet wide system is already in place to deal with the problem. Jeff -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:09 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2 Frank's work brings up a wish-list: Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while simultaneously nano-manufacturing all sorts of interesting carbon nonotubes. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:33:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] x*C8H18 + y*O2 -- z*Cw (some kind of graphite?) + q*H2O Without spending time with redox tables or the equivalent I'm not certain but I think the reaction is still energy-positive. The reaction C8H18 + 4.5O2 - C8 + 9H20 yields a net energy of 1967.734 kJ/mol. Of course if you do it this way, you miss out on the energy from the formation of CO2 which would have yielded an extra 3148.08 kJ/mol. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Sequestering CO2
In reply to OrionWorks's message of Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:35:49 -0500: Hi, [snip] I would assume the O+H2 -- H2O -- O+H2 cycle is considered to be a much more popular transport of energy. Obviously there has been a lot more research into the latter cycle. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to discover if an equivalent (as well as an economical) transport is possible through the C+O2 -- CO2 -- C+O2 cycle. [snip] A Grignard reagent can be used to reduce/bind CO2 into an organic molecule which can then serve as the source compound for other C based fuels, likely after further reduction (see e.g. http://www.chem.ucalgary.ca/courses/351/Carey5th/Ch19/ch19-2-1.html), however energy input is required to rejuvenate the reagent. Nevertheless, this might enable a carbon based cycle if adequate energy from other sources were available. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
