This technology would pull CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into fuel:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch...dy/562289/
And would, theoretically, be carbon-neutral.
My question is, and someone here probably can answer, can this same process create useful non-burning products (graphite, plastics etc.) and thereby reduce carbon pollution?
(06-07-2018 08:28 PM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]This technology would pull CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into fuel:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch...dy/562289/
And would, theoretically, be carbon-neutral.
My question is, and someone here probably can answer, can this same process create useful non-burning products (graphite, plastics etc.) and thereby reduce carbon pollution?
You can typically use the hydrocarbons in petroleum products as feedstock for plastics and many polymers.
Graphite is pure carbon is sheet form, so yes as feedstock for this.
You cant use the same process to make them directly. But you simply use the results of the process as the feedstock to make what you are calling out in a normal fasion.
(06-08-2018 08:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2018 08:28 PM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]This technology would pull CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into fuel:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch...dy/562289/
And would, theoretically, be carbon-neutral.
My question is, and someone here probably can answer, can this same process create useful non-burning products (graphite, plastics etc.) and thereby reduce carbon pollution?
You can typically use the hydrocarbons in petroleum products as feedstock for plastics and many polymers.
Graphite is pure carbon is sheet form, so yes as feedstock for this.
You cant use the same process to make them directly. But you simply use the results of the process as the feedstock to make what you are calling out in a normal fasion.
Thanks, that's what I suspected.
So we're presented with a technology that could, in addition to climate effects:
a. break the political power of the loathsome Saudis (and take energy off the table as a geopolitical leverage point in general).
b. give every Third World backwater the energy resources to modernize, reduce poverty etc.
c. reduce worldwide consumer dependence on the oil market, while bankrupting speculators.
d. and all that with little change to existing infrastructure.
So, where is the cloud to this silver lining?
I had read a similar article. The people behind it talked about locating plants near solar/wind generation so the process can cut back on it's own production of CO2 but seems to me it would be more logical to start out finding old paper plants that can be converted at lower cost than other facilities or compared to the cost of building from scratch.
I'm left wondering also if it would make more sense to try to locate near places where a lot of CO2 is emitted and would have a higher concentration in the air reducing the amount of air fans have to pull in to extract a ton of CO2.
Also reminded of a conversation with the head of the mining division of the Arkansas Dept of Environmental Quality about a plant that was getting some press for extracting fuel from lignite or as he called it, flammable dirt. He said it works great if you can buy a billion plant for $50 million. The particular plant getting press had gone bankrupt and the people getting all the press for the successful and profitable project had bought the plant for a nickel on the dollar out of bankruptcy court.
Suspect similar may be true here. The cost of the technology early on is going to be an issue even with this representing a huge reduction in the cost of the process.
(06-08-2018 09:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]The cost of the technology early on is going to be an issue even with this representing a huge reduction in the cost of the process.
I'd think you'll have a lot of governments of energy-vulnerable states - EU, Japan, India - very willing to subsidize, which might offset that difficulty.
(06-08-2018 09:46 AM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2018 08:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2018 08:28 PM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]This technology would pull CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into fuel:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arch...dy/562289/
And would, theoretically, be carbon-neutral.
My question is, and someone here probably can answer, can this same process create useful non-burning products (graphite, plastics etc.) and thereby reduce carbon pollution?
You can typically use the hydrocarbons in petroleum products as feedstock for plastics and many polymers.
Graphite is pure carbon is sheet form, so yes as feedstock for this.
You cant use the same process to make them directly. But you simply use the results of the process as the feedstock to make what you are calling out in a normal fasion.
Thanks, that's what I suspected.
So we're presented with a technology that could, in addition to climate effects:
a. break the political power of the loathsome Saudis (and take energy off the table as a geopolitical leverage point in general).
b. give every Third World backwater the energy resources to modernize, reduce poverty etc.
c. reduce worldwide consumer dependence on the oil market, while bankrupting speculators.
d. and all that with little change to existing infrastructure.
So, where is the cloud to this silver lining?
The problem with this is the energy-balance equations. It takes a fkload of energy to build really short chain hydrocarbons from free CO2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
You cant blow off the energy balance and thermodynamics to do this. And, there is no way that the written on technology can 'go around' or 'reduce' those molecular and atomic based facts of science. This is just basic chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics at play and you cannot rewrite those things at that level.
Takes vastly more energy to produce longer chain hydrocarbons.
The only way to do either pragmatically is to provide this in direct combination with a metric crapton of 'free energy' (solar/wind/geo/hydro).
But when you do that, you need to make up the metric crapton of free energy taken out of the power grid/whatnot with other sources. Which typically means extracting energy by means of.....
burning fossil fuels.
This is also why production level corn ethanol as practiced in the US is stupid as rocks as well. Takes 1.4 BTUs of energy to make 1 BTU of ethanol.
I knew someone from Rice could explain it.
So such an operation would need not only the extraction plant but a big-ass solar farm next door (since burning gasoline to make gasoline makes little sense, unless it somehow involves the state with the first presidential primary contest), which is going to make it a tough equation to beat fossil fuels on price for the near future.
(06-08-2018 10:12 AM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-08-2018 09:55 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]The cost of the technology early on is going to be an issue even with this representing a huge reduction in the cost of the process.
I'd think you'll have a lot of governments of energy-vulnerable states - EU, Japan, India - very willing to subsidize, which might offset that difficulty.
China probably has the perfect mix. High demand for energy vs controlled supply, high resource economy and significant pollution issues.
Finland is/was giving surplus wind generation to Germany at night because their wind capacity exceeds demand.
Making carbon slurry at night might be a viable project for them.
Far West Texas as well. Wind farms out the kazoo there.
So many and so much power generated that the price of electricity goes negative during off peak hours.
For big wind farm glut areas -- it could be a perfect match, tbh.
You've got an enormous biomass of photosynthetic life from plants to phytoplankton and some bacteria that can't pull CO2 from the atmosphere fast enough. This will be like trying to stop a hurricane with a fan.
And honestly, I'm glad that geoengineering most likely won't work, because the Law of Unintended Consequences tends to take over when you try to perturb a really complex system (climate) you don't understand.