|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 02/07/2013 : 23:34:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
So why are you bothering to turn it into fuel if there is no intention to burn it? CO2 scrubbing/storage is far simpler than re-fuel-o-fying. My point being, if we have so much renewable that we can waste it on this, we won't need the "stored for emergencies" synthofuel.
|
Probably true, the only answer I can give is that in a crisis fossil fuels are far more practical. |
 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2013 : 09:49:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
What I should have been more explicit in communicating is that I'm indifferent. |
Indifference and 250+ words worth of character attacks aren't really compatible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2013 : 04:21:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
What I should have been more explicit in communicating is that I'm indifferent. |
Indifference and 250+ words worth of character attacks aren't really compatible.
|
Can we please start a new thread for this side issue and not have it side track this tread, if further comments are needed? |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2013 : 16:59:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Can we please start a new thread for this side issue and not have it side track this tread, if further comments are needed? |
Sure. Sorry. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2013 : 18:05:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
Wha wha what?
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/
So use energy from somewhere to take carbon dioxide out of the oceans to make fuel to burn to make carbon dioxide that will go to the atmosphere and return to the oceans? But it doesn't appear to to do even that. Looks like pseudoscience techno-babble to lure investors. |
John Morgan's point is that electrically-powered large trucks and airplanes are impractical, to say the least. And so is large-scale air scrubbing of CO2. So suck CO2 out of the oceans (where it's much more concentrated) as was demonstrated by the Navy, and create synthetic fuel from it with net zero emissions. Still more expensive than fossil fuel, but fossil fuels offer 100% emissions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2013 : 20:21:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Can we please start a new thread for this side issue and not have it side track this tread, if further comments are needed? |
Sure. Sorry.
|
Shit! Putting it that way I'm sorry for asking and thank you sir. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 00:00:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Shit! Putting it that way I'm sorry for asking... |
Nonono. The Watson argument was out-of-line in this thread, and I'm sorry for having contributed to the hijack. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 00:07:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Ultimately it would be more simple to just use the nuclear energy. |
As soon as we can power 18-wheelers and Dreamliners with nukes, you'll be correct.| Now if someone had an idea to remove CO2 from seawater and use nuclear energy to turn it into solid carbon or a hydrocarbon, as a purely environmental endeavour. I would be in favour of that. But it would be an expensive project and would never turn a profit. |
In the linked article, the author estimates (using Navy figures) that it'd cost a trillion dollars over 100 years to use sea-water reclamation of CO2 to bring levels back down to 300 ppm from 350. Since a trillion bucks is what we've spent in Iraq already, he suggests it must be a matter of priorities that we're not using this system to sequester carbon already. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 01:28:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky
Wha wha what?
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/
So use energy from somewhere to take carbon dioxide out of the oceans to make fuel to burn to make carbon dioxide that will go to the atmosphere and return to the oceans? But it doesn't appear to to do even that. Looks like pseudoscience techno-babble to lure investors. |
John Morgan's point is that electrically-powered large trucks and airplanes are impractical, to say the least. |
That is one of the problems with electrical vehicles. Currently, only Tesla has a range that makes it even remotely interesting for the average consumer (not taking purchase price into account). Thanks to liquid fuel being such a good energy carrier, I don't see a future without it. I would absolutely consider owning a Tesla if my garage had an electrical outlet.
CO2 seems to get solved in sea-water fairly easily, which means that reducing concentration in the sea will have a fairly direct effect on atmospheric CO2-levels. And we don't have to re-use all that carbon we extract either. Instead of pumping CO2 into the ground, we could dump ethanol. Since it's a larger molecule, it will not diffuse as easily though the rock and leak out again.
And so is large-scale air scrubbing of CO2. So suck CO2 out of the oceans (where it's much more concentrated) as was demonstrated by the Navy, and create synthetic fuel from it with net zero emissions. Still more expensive than fossil fuel, but fossil fuels offer 100% emissions.
|
The article mentions prices in the range of $1.5-$2.0 US. That's what we pay at the tap for the E85 blend in Sweden right now. And that's 10% cheaper than unleaded 95 octane price, after specific energy content has been accounted for.
This could actually get economically viable. And considering how much money USA is spending on illegal wars in the Middle-East.
The ridiculousness of suggesting to have a nuclear power plant dedicated to suck CO2 out of seawater has nothing to do with it being impractical, or economically foolish. It's ridiculous because of political reasons.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 01:29:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Can we please start a new thread for this side issue and not have it side track this tread, if further comments are needed?
|
Yeah. Sorry.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 02:58:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Ultimately it would be more simple to just use the nuclear energy. |
As soon as we can power 18-wheelers and Dreamliners with nukes, you'll be correct.
|
That might make the dreamliners safer... But I was talking about energy production in general. If nuclear power can replace some fossil fuel power plants, we can lower emissions while still having more available oil to use in vehicles.
| Originally posted by Dave W.In the linked article, the author estimates (using Navy figures) that it'd cost a trillion dollars over 100 years to use sea-water reclamation of CO2 to bring levels back down to 300 ppm from 350. Since a trillion bucks is what we've spent in Iraq already, he suggests it must be a matter of priorities that we're not using this system to sequester carbon already. |
But as we (big papa smurf and I) were talking about that is not the plan anyway, they are trying to create fuel to then go on and burn. If a project that creates fuel at a cost (resulting in lower net-emissions but not negative) cannot get off the ground, then one which is designed purely to scrub CO2 definitely wont. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 02/10/2013 03:02:32 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 05:44:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The article mentions prices in the range of $1.5-$2.0 US. |
I got the impression that those were Australian dollars. From the article:But if we don’t insist on running these processes on an expensive ocean-going platform, the cost drops to $0.79 per litre for synfuel... That'd be 0.81 USD per litre, or 3.07 USD per gallon, while the IATA says that jet fuel (the fuel in question) was running at 3.15 USD/gallon at the end of last month.| The ridiculousness of suggesting to have a nuclear power plant dedicated to suck CO2 out of seawater has nothing to do with it being impractical, or economically foolish. It's ridiculous because of political reasons. |
The SGU Podcast references this Globe and Mail article which is based on this press release from a company called Carbon Sciences, Inc., which claimed to have a technology which could convert the CO2 in coal-fired power plant flue emissions directly to gasoline. Four months later, the company filed a patent on a system to convert CO2 plus methane into gasoline, and it looks like they haven't issued another press release on CO2-alone-to-gasoline since then, so that may indeed have been "pseudoscience techno-babble to lure investors."
Everyone on the SGU podcast missed the fact that liquid fuels are going to be required for the foreseeable future, so finding a zero-emission method of synthesizing them is important even if it requires a large net energy loss. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 05:53:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
If a project that creates fuel at a cost (resulting in lower net-emissions but not negative) cannot get off the ground... |
The feasibility studies referenced by the article were both published just last year, so it's a little premature to suggest that commercialization of the technologies "cannot get off the ground." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 12:45:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
]The SGU Podcast references this Globe and Mail article which is based on this press release from a company called Carbon Sciences, Inc., which claimed to have a technology which could convert the CO2 in coal-fired power plant flue emissions directly to gasoline. |
Capturing CO2 directly from the chimney of a coal-burning plant would eliminate the energy needed to extract the CO2 from the sea-water (with all the problems such a system have, what with the need to scrub the extractor and such). However...
| Four months later, the company filed a patent on a system to convert CO2 plus methane into gasoline, and it looks like they haven't issued another press release on CO2-alone-to-gasoline since then, so that may indeed have been "pseudoscience techno-babble to lure investors." |
Even if you re-use the CO2 from a coal-burning plant, and use methane (which globally, is still primarily a fossil natural gas) to synthesise a liquid fuel, the carbon is still immediately derived from a fossil source: From a climatological (as well as ecological) viewpoint it's fucking stupid.
Why burn coal when you can get electricity and heat from a nuclear plant in the first place? If you need liquid fuel for cars, there are certainly better ways to get it.
| Everyone on the SGU podcast missed the fact that liquid fuels are going to be required for the foreseeable future, so finding a zero-emission method of synthesizing them is important even if it requires a large net energy loss. |
I agree with you hole-heartedly.
Several cities in Sweden has local transit busses running on methane. The idea was to produce methane locally from waste in bio-gas plants. But until recently, even those busses have been running on a predominately fossil methane mix. The problem is methane is a pretty nasty green-house gas, some 25-100 times as bad a CO2. Leakage can happen anywhere, and if no where else, go out unburned when you start a cold engine.
Also, the bio-gas you get from the fermentation process needs to be scrubbed and purified before you can use it in a gas-converted engine. Using methane from a bio-gas plant and CO2 to produce ethanol does not require an energy expensive process to purify it, the purification comes with the process.
Ethanol is easy to handle and works well with existing infrastructure. No need to install 220+ bar (3200 PSI) pressure tanks to keep the methane liquefied.
The process tested by the navy didn't even involve methane, but produced hydrocarbon from seawater CO2 and hydrogen from electrolysis of seawater. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2013 : 15:16:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Capturing CO2 directly from the chimney of a coal-burning plant would eliminate the energy needed to extract the CO2 from the sea-water (with all the problems such a system have, what with the need to scrub the extractor and such). |
Well, no, it's not pure CO2 coming up the flue. It'd be easier to get CO2 from within a smoke stack than from regular air, but is it easier than getting it from seawater? The article in the OP cites figures for air and seawater extraction as being $600 and $37 per tonne, respectively. They don't discuss extraction from power plant emissions.However...
| Four months later, the company filed a patent on a system to convert CO2 plus methane into gasoline, and it looks like they haven't issued another press release on CO2-alone-to-gasoline since then, so that may indeed have been "pseudoscience techno-babble to lure investors." |
Even if you re-use the CO2 from a coal-burning plant, and use methane (which globally, is still primarily a fossil natural gas) to synthesise a liquid fuel, the carbon is still immediately derived from a fossil source: From a climatological (as well as ecological) viewpoint it's fucking stupid. |
I don't think that's Carbon Sciences primary concern. Oil companies already refactor natural gas into fuels. The U.S. has huge supplies of natural gas compared to our own use and exports, so refactoring it into fuel means that less foreign crude oil needs to be imported and refined. Bigger profits for the oil companies, and less dependence on OPEC.
I didn't read enough of their press releases or website to figure out if Carbon Sciences wants to compete with the big oil companies, or to offer them more efficient technologies for what they already do.| Why burn coal when you can get electricity and heat from a nuclear plant in the first place? If you need liquid fuel for cars, there are certainly better ways to get it. |
The coal-fired power plants here in the U.S. (and China) aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Coal is too abundant, the plants too cheap, and nukes (here in the U.S.) face tons of political and regulatory opposition. I'm sure Carbon Sciences was intent on adding their process to existing power plants, not building new ones just to make fuel from the exhaust.
As such, the process would take some carbon out of the atmosphere (compared to not using their process on the same functioning power plants), and so they'd probably insist that it's "green." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Zero emission synfuel from seawater
