Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Community Forums
 General Discussion
 I'm just a iggnerent redneck....
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 2

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  05:08:35  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
And as such, I am hesitant to comment on this.
Solar-powered process could decrease carbon dioxide to pre-industrial levels in 10 years

(PhysOrg.com) -- By using the sun's visible light and heat to power an electrolysis cell that captures and converts carbon dioxide from the air, a new technique could impressively clean the atmosphere and produce fuel feedstock at the same time. The key advantage of the new solar carbon capture process is that it simultaneously uses the solar visible and solar thermal components, whereas the latter is usually regarded as detrimental due to the degradation that heat causes to photovoltaic materials. However, the new method uses the sunís heat to convert more solar energy into carbon than either photovoltaic or solar thermal processes alone.

To my weary and jaundiced eye, this smacks of "something-for-nothing," a state of being, which, as we all know, can only exist in total vacuum.

Is anyone familiar with the science involved here?




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  07:16:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Negative thought of the day: Let's hope that the equipment for this conversion process is not too cheap to manufacture. We wouldn't want to reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 too much.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  07:37:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Hawks

Negative thought of the day: Let's hope that the equipment for this conversion process is not too cheap to manufacture. We wouldn't want to reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 too much.

Eh, what's another Ice Age or two in the grand scheme of the Cosmos?
It might be fun.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Edited by - filthy on 07/26/2010 07:40:12
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  09:19:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well I'll comment.
Oh great! Yet another miracle break through that's going to save the planet, this weeks most recent. What a biased and confusing article about a theory that is most likely to never be implemented. I'm not a chemist but if one uses solar electric power to split water you get Hydrogen & Oxygen, that does nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels because your using water which is carbon neutral in that it does not remove carbon but might reduce new carbon emissions, if the energy used replaces carbon based energy. How does splitting CO2 in the atmosphere produce any kind of fuel? Carbon or Oxygen are not fuels. Very few people want to buy what is needed to produce electricity from the sun so they don't have to get their electricity for fossil fuels which would offset what carbon is added. They refuse in spite that it will pay for itself and return dividends over time. Yes, people right now have the ability to reduce their electric bills and save on their total energy costs but refuse to do so because they don't want the short term pain for a greater long term financial and environmental gains. How short sighted is that. With that said, why would anyone pay to take carbon out of the atmosphere with no energy or financial benefits. I don't see how a theoretical process that uses solar which removes CO2 from the atmosphere is anything of value, other than being further knowledge. Our glorious politicians and fossil energy providers have no interest or desire in reducing the millions of tonnes of carbon annually we add. An amount that increases every day in spite of all the tree huggers yelling, ineffectual hypocrites that we all are. In a way it's very human. Like a priest vowing chastity then go on raping children or greater numbers of fundy xians who ignore Jesus's message and command to love everyone while vehemently hating others like Atheists, gay's and other different theists or claiming to have his blessings and protection while sending their kids off to war. It's pathetic what we do collectively. SS

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  09:26:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I can't speak to the science here, but the Journal Of Physical Chemistry is a legit peer reviewed science publication.

If the paper is accurate, then this is promising.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  10:31:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

I can't speak to the science here, but the Journal Of Physical Chemistry is a legit peer reviewed science publication.

If the paper is accurate, then this is promising.



Promising in what way?

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  11:14:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
sailingsoul:

Carbon and oxygen are not by themselves much of a fuel, but the article did mention that the process used would create CO which could be combined with hydrogen from the same process to create liquid fuels (I would naively have thought that they would have to do this, since swapping CO2 for CO seems like a terrible idea).

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  11:16:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy
Eh, what's another Ice Age or two in the grand scheme of the Cosmos?
It might be fun.

Actually, I didn't even think of that. I was thinking more about the effect on plant life if they haven't got any available CO2 for photosynthesis.

There's a sci-fi movie in here, methinks...

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Chippewa
SFN Regular

USA
1496 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  11:44:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Chippewa's Homepage Send Chippewa a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I suggest throw out everything they say, except: "using the sun's visible light and heat to" [produce] "power".

That's already being done of course but we can continue to improve on it. Solar cells to create electricity and the other solar technology; rows of mirrors to focus heat to make steam, to create electricity.

Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.

"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.)
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  12:45:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by sailingsoul

Originally posted by Dude

I can't speak to the science here, but the Journal Of Physical Chemistry is a legit peer reviewed science publication.

If the paper is accurate, then this is promising.



Promising in what way?


If they have a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 being a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, it would seem that a way to extract large quantities from the air (and turning it into usable fuel) is a desirable goal. If their process does what they claim then it could be a viable way to reverse our CO2 problem.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  13:55:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
sailingsoul.....

How does splitting CO2 in the atmosphere produce any kind of fuel? Carbon or Oxygen are not fuels
SS, I am no more a chemist than you, but I did take a few chemistry courses back in antedeluvian times and if molecular behavior is still today what it was in those days, carbon + oxygen is definitely a fuel. Elemental (= pure) carbon has two known crystalline states: graphite and diamond. Only graphite is thermodynamically stable at atmospheric pressure.

That graphite burns (vigorously) will be apparent from recalling the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, in which the graphite moderator of the pile was set afire by the fuel meltdown. Graphite dust is dangerously explosive. Diamonds burn with intensity.

Unfortunately, carbon combustion releases CO2; and so the process is self-defeating if the sequestered carbon is used as a fuel. However the allotropes of pure carbon have many other uses. See graphene, diamagnetism, and synthetic diamond for a few exotic examples. Carbon forms more compounds than any other element, with almost ten million pure organic compounds described to date, which in turn are a tiny fraction of such compounds that are theoretically possible under standard conditions.

With the ever-increasing deforestration of the planet, recapture of oxygen sounds like a pretty good idea too!


Note to Moderators:
I have tried every extended character set I can find, including UTF-8 UNICODE both Decimal code and HTML, and nothing seems to work for subscript 2. Ampersand#8322 and ampersand#X2082 work beautifully in Preview, but fail when they go to post in your Schnitzel software. Also tried ampersandsub2; with no luck. The ampersand does not want to go through to post.

Any suggestions?



Edited by - bngbuck on 07/28/2010 08:38:35
Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  15:02:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
OK bngbuck, carbon is a fuel, I'll take your word for it. My point is that only if the carbon is "store" (wherever and whatever that means)there is no reduction of atmospheric levels that I can see. As stated in the article besides storing, they offer "the production of carbon monoxide could later be used to synthesize jet, kerosene, and diesel fuels, with the help of hydrogen generated by STEP water splitting." , whether the carbon is directly burned or used to make other fuels , that returns it back to the atmosphere. The burning of any fuel releases carbon into the air. How is there a reduction without storing it? Maybe I'm wrong.


Remember, the extra carbon in the air is from burning fossil fuel and it was already "stored" underground as oil or coal. Instead of using solar energy to make electricity and use it directly, they suggest after we use oil and coal for electricity, use this solar thermal/electric process to remove the carbon released by the fossil fuel. I suggest this is an inefficient use of solar energy and provides zero CO2 reduction when the carbon is used to make fuel (any kind) and not stored. Since when is it a good idea not to use clean energy (solar) but use dirty fossil fuel then use solar to clean it up? Seems crazy to me. SS

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13463 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  15:53:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

Note to Moderators:
I have tried every extended character set I can find, including UTF-8 UNICODE both Decimal code and HTML, and nothing seems to work for subscript 2. Ampersand#8322 and ampersand#X2082 work beautifully in Preview, but fail when they go to post in your Schnitzel software. Also tried ampersandsub2; with no luck. The ampersand does not want to go through to post.

Any suggestions?



We are aware of the problem.

Try this:

http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13286#181865

Or, email a copy of it to me and I will see if I can edit your post with the additional text.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 07/26/2010 :  16:37:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by sailingsoul
My point is that only if the carbon is "store" (wherever and whatever that means)there is no reduction of atmospheric levels that I can see.


Not all of the carbon is/can be made into fuel. Only the portion of it that was turned into CO. The rest of it will be turned into, presumably, something that is very rich in carbon (and poor in O and H). This would have to be stored somewhere.

I would have thought that this process will only be used on an industrial scale, since producing kerosene at home might entail some problems.

Whether or not all this can be economically viable remains to be seen.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  11:40:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
sailingsoul.....

My point is that only if the carbon is "store" (wherever and whatever that means)there is no reduction of atmospheric levels that I can see. As stated in the article besides storing, they offer "the production of carbon monoxide could later be used to synthesize jet, kerosene, and diesel fuels, with the help of hydrogen generated by STEP water splitting." , whether the carbon is directly burned or used to make other fuels , that returns it back to the atmosphere. The burning of any fuel releases carbon into the air. How is there a reduction without storing it? Maybe I'm wrong.
Well, it's not that you're wrong, I just don't think you have read the piece with the same understanding that I did.

I understood that the STEP process would remove large quantities of carbon dioxide, a gas, from the atmosphere and convert it into its separate molecular components, the elements carbon and oxygen.

Carbon is a solid element, graphite being the purest form of it in it's natural state. This carbon could be stored in warehouses, or caves, or open fields for that matter. Without rapid oxidation (burning) it would not return any carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The oxygen released by the STEP process would presumably be released back into the atmosphere which would be a good thing up to a point, that point being where the CO2/O balance in the atmosphere necessary for both plant and animal respiration became unbalanced. The process would need to be stopped at that point.

The presence of additional tons of solid carbon on the ground of the planet would not create any hazard that I can think of. Although it is flammable, it takes intense heat to initiate the oxidation (combustion) process. However the removal of tons of carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere would destroy the so-called "greenhouse effect" and effectively solve the "global warming" cause - excessive concentration of carbon dioxide gas in the upper atmosphere.

If too much oxygen was being eventually released into the atmosphere, the surplus could be compressed (liquified) and stored without harm to the ecology.
Remember, the extra carbon in the air is from burning fossil fuel and it was already "stored" underground as oil or coal.
Remember it is the excess carbon dioxide gas in the air that is causing the global warming problem, not carbon in its solid, elemental form. Returning the carbon from the atmospheric CO2 to "storage" in or on the ground is a by-product of the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere by the STEP process.

As to the "efficiency" of power production, I don't know. This is a very complex problem and your question cannot be answered easily. However, there is little doubt that removing large quantities of CO2 from the present atmosphere would be a very good thing and some method of keeping it in proper balance after that removal for proper plant/animal respiration would be an even better thing.

The production of carbon monoxide to be combined with hydrogen to form syngas and then burned is much more problematical because of the byproduct of more CO2 from that combustion. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere, converting it to CO and oxygen, and then burning the CO to release more CO2 back into the atmosphere does appear to be a particularly idiotic Keystone Kops routine. But perhaps I missed one of the grander overtures of this ambitious enterprise.

Edited by - bngbuck on 07/28/2010 08:44:21
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26009 Posts

Posted - 07/27/2010 :  15:01:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck

Note to Moderators:
I have tried every extended character set I can find, including UTF-8 UNICODE both Decimal code and HTML, and nothing seems to work for subscript 2. Ampersand#8322 and ampersand#X2082 work beautifully in Preview, but fail when they go to post in your Schnitzel software. Also tried ampersandsub2; with no luck. The ampersand does not want to go through to post.

Any suggestions?
None of the &#digits; codes work here.

Instead, write CO[sub]2[/sub]: CO2.

And [sup] and [/sup] do superscripting: E=mc2.

Edited to add that "&sub2;" doesn't appear to be a standard HTML character entity, but ² is: E=mc².

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 2 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.23 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000