>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
