Another Way to Reduce Carbon Dioxide...

[jimmydasaint]

I don't know how solutions to reduce carbon dioxide are applicable to real life solutions. However, I have just read another potential solution (below) which, to my eyes, seems to be a bit difficult to take out of the laboratory to a large scale. I would also like others, more expert than my self, to please post possible solutions and appropriate references. It may then be possible to suggest three possible real-life solutions by the end.

 

Scientists in Singapore say they have found a way to turn planet-warming carbon dioxide into clean-burning methanol using a process that uses less energy than previous attempts.

 

The scientists at the state-backed Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology said on Thursday they used non-toxic organocatalysts to make ethanol, a biofuel that is also used as an industrial feedstock.

 

In a statement, the institute said the team, led by Yugen Zhang, used N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs), an organocatalyst in the chemical reaction with carbon dioxide.

 

NHCs are stable and the reaction between NHCs and carbon dioxide can take place under mild conditions in dry air, the statement said, adding only a small amount of the catalyst was needed.

 

The process also used hydrosilane, a combination of silica and hydrogen.

 

"Hydrosilane provides hydrogen, which bonds with carbon dioxide in a reduction reaction. This carbon dioxide reduction is efficiently catalyzed by NHCs even at room temperature," Zhang said in the statement.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090416/twl-environment-us-carbon-singapore-1202b49.html

[CaptainPanic]

Although this is interesting, reducing carbon dioxide is not the problem here...

 

We should just stop emitting it. Preventing combustion (and subsequent emission) will always be more efficient than converting CO2 back into the fuel.

 

Therefore, carbon dioxide reduction should come from clean sustainable fuels, which happens to be exactly what the world is aiming for: wind power, solar cells, (non-food) biomass and waste utilization.

 

Only when the conversion of CO2 to methanol (or ethanol?) is solar powered (not electrolysis, but really like photosynthesis) and significantly more efficient than other processes to make a fuel, then I can see some merit.

[jimmydasaint]

Captain, I can still see it as a problem because India, and more importantly China, seem to be unwilling to reduce carbon emissions until they raise their standards of living - and rightly so. We in the West have taken advantage of economic growth for so long that we cannot tell other countries what to do. Thanks for the answer, it takes me off the zero mark for posts.

[CaptainPanic]

I agree that we must reduce CO2 emissions, and that the more developed world has more responsibility than the developing world.

 

My point however is that even in the best schemes, while converting 1 mol of CO2 into methanol or some other fuel, you will create >1 mol of CO2...

At this moment, we do not have an excess of sustainable energy (wind/solar)... so even if you use wind power to convert CO2 into methanol, then you will have to create extra electricity using conventional fuels... and then still you create more CO2 than when you would not convert CO2 into fuel at all...

 

The technology is interesting, but it will not prevent any CO2 emissions.

[Mokele]

But turning CO2 into fuel won't substantially change the concentration in the air, since it'll immediately get burned off again when the fuel is used.

[SH3RL0CK]

But turning CO2 into fuel won't substantially change the concentration in the air, since it'll immediately get burned off again when the fuel is used.

 

Except the CO2 originates (and returns) to the air as opposed to being dug up from the earth and added to the air. As you say, it won't reduce the concentration in the air. But it won't add to it either.

 

Its certainly not a silver bullet, but it might be useful as part of an overall systemic approach.

[CaptainPanic]

Except the CO2 originates (and returns) to the air as opposed to being dug up from the earth and added to the air. As you say, it won't reduce the concentration in the air. But it won't add to it either.

 

Its certainly not a silver bullet, but it might be useful as part of an overall systemic approach.

 

It will add to the concentration in the air, simply because no process is 100% efficient.

 

Only if you can absorb the CO2 from the air through a sustainable process which does not require any energy which would otherwise be used elsewhere is this desirable.

 

To my knowledge, the only sustainable process to absorb CO2 is photosynthesis. Only if a process is similar to photosynthesis (and runs on sunlight, without first making electricity) is this sustainable.

[SH3RL0CK]

It will add to the concentration in the air, simply because no process is 100% efficient.

 

Only if you can absorb the CO2 from the air through a sustainable process which does not require any energy which would otherwise be used elsewhere is this desirable.

 

To my knowledge, the only sustainable process to absorb CO2 is photosynthesis. Only if a process is similar to photosynthesis (and runs on sunlight, without first making electricity) is this sustainable.

 

You assume the energy used to do this comes from other carbon sources, in which case you are correct. IF the energy comes from other sources (wind, solar, etc.) and is used, perhaps to generate liquid fuels, then it does not add to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

[CaptainPanic]

You assume the energy used to do this comes from other carbon sources, in which case you are correct. IF the energy comes from other sources (wind, solar, etc.) and is used, perhaps to generate liquid fuels, then it does not add to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

That is true... but since those sustainable sources (wind/solar) generate electricity, we should use the electricity. If we use it to generate fuels from CO2, then the electricity must still be made, which will then be done using fossil fuels.

 

The situation right now is such that wind and solar replace fossil fuels for electricity generation. Using wind and solar for some other purpose (such as a fuel from CO2) will mean that more electricity is made using fossil fuels...

 

Therefore, regardless of the source of energy for fuels from CO2, it will never be sustainable until we generate so much sustainable electricity that we have an excess.

[SH3RL0CK]

We should use the electricity generated by wind/solar/etc before using this process, I agree. However there are applications (automobiles, lawnmowers) where liquid fuels are required because of the high energy density liquid fuels require. I don't beleive batteries will ever be sufficient to totally eliminate the need for liquid fuels for all applications.

[CaptainPanic]

We should use the electricity generated by wind/solar/etc before using this process, I agree. However there are applications (automobiles, lawnmowers) where liquid fuels are required because of the high energy density liquid fuels require. I don't beleive batteries will ever be sufficient to totally eliminate the need for liquid fuels for all applications.

Yep, so, we need some other process to make liquid fuels, while we're working to expand our sustainable electricity generation.

 

Converting electricity into a liquid fuel means you lose some energy (because no process is 100% efficient).

And in addition, you'll have to convert some additional fossil fuels into electrivity (again not 100% efficient).

 

So, you'd convert electricity into a fuel, and a fuel into electricity... and you lose twice.

[SH3RL0CK]

Yep, so, we need some other process to make liquid fuels, while we're working to expand our sustainable electricity generation.

 

Converting electricity into a liquid fuel means you lose some energy (because no process is 100% efficient).

And in addition, you'll have to convert some additional fossil fuels into electrivity (again not 100% efficient).

 

So, you'd convert electricity into a fuel, and a fuel into electricity... and you lose twice.

 

The loss is only realized if the costs of the wasted electricity exceeds the costs for the other fuel source. While this process is inefficient, it might still be cheaper than other means if the cost of electricity is sufficiently low.

 

However, I agree there are probably better ways to get liquid fuel. I, for one, am very optimistic regarding the future of biofuels.

[CaptainPanic]

The loss is only realized if the costs of the wasted electricity exceeds the costs for the other fuel source. While this process is inefficient, it might still be cheaper than other means if the cost of electricity is sufficiently low.

 

However, I agree there are probably better ways to get liquid fuel. I, for one, am very optimistic regarding the future of biofuels.

 

I was talking about energetic efficiency.

 

When money gets involved, I'm not sure anymore. When money gets involved, anything might be true.

[cameron marical]

Would massive {to a degree} satelites that collect as much solar energy as possible while radioing it back to earth be a good idea?

 

I know that the radio would have to be in a laser-like form, would that be possible using something like a reflector cavity?

[jimmydasaint]

Cameron, thank you for the answer. It is good to have a free imagination - sometimes the best ideas come from the most lateral of ideas. I am also thinking of carbon dioxide being pumped deep underground into underground aquifers. I think it is called sequestration, and it seems to be a simple and reasonably efficient solution.

 

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=79496888400

 

Keep on coming up with ideas man.

[jimmydasaint]

I think this technology 'mops up' carbon dioxide from the power station then releases the gas from the amines and the liquefied CO2 is transported to the North Sea to be disposed of/buried. Still seems a bit costly in terms of energy.

 

Link to video below:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8074177.stm

 

Comments appreciated.

[CaptainPanic]

I think this technology 'mops up' carbon dioxide from the power station then releases the gas from the amines and the liquefied CO2 is transported to the North Sea to be disposed of/buried. Still seems a bit costly in terms of energy.

 

Link to video below:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8074177.stm

 

Comments appreciated.

 

That's carbon-storage, not carbon-reduction. (They don't react carbondioxide to a fuel, they just simply put all CO2 in an empty gas field, where it will stay... for as long as the gas field is stable).

Per kg of CO2, this is much less costly than reacting. But obviously, this also doesn't solve anything.

While other sustainable technologies really solve a problem (energy independence and global warming), this carbon storage is used only to prevent greenhouse gas emissions.

[Fuzzwood]

Lets all stop breathing instead. Carbon dioxide is NOT an issue, considering what nature itself releases each day.

 

Furthermore, water vapour, as in clouds, is a greenhouse gas which is eight times as potent as carbon dioxide. Tell the oceans to stop vapourizing, would you kindly?

[Mokele]

Thank you for that astonishingly uninformed and useless opinion. Go actually read something, and maybe you'll have something to contribute.

[iNow]

Lets all stop breathing instead. Carbon dioxide is NOT an issue, considering what nature itself releases each day.

Umm, no. It's about balance and concentrations... and basic chemistry/physics (in sum, the CO₂ molecule reflects IR radiation back toward the surface, preventing much of it from escaping the atmosphere).

 

Yes, we exhale CO₂ everyday, that's not the point. When we exhale, it's balanced by other mechanisms... this equilibrium/homeostasis has had millenia to form... and our exhalations are taken up by trees and plants, for example.

 

Now, we're cutting down those trees in massive quantities, and also expelling CO₂ into the atmosphere by the cubic ton. This CO₂ was previously buried deep beneath the surface and not interacting with the atmosphere. Now, we humans are digging it up... digging up something which has been buried for millions of years... and burning it. That adds energy to the system, and that energy WILL and DOES have an impact.

 

Either way, the only response to your point is that it's not even wrong.

 

 

Furthermore, water vapour, as in clouds, is a greenhouse gas which is eight times as potent as carbon dioxide. Tell the oceans to stop vapourizing, would you kindly?

If you're going to make claims about climate, I suggest you study it further prior to doing so again.

 

First, you are correct that water vapor has more of an impact than CO₂ when taken relative to ppm. However, water vapor is a feedback, NOT a forcing. If you don't know what that means, look it up. It's important.

 

Further, water vapor only remains in the atmosphere for about 2 weeks or less. Then, this interesting phenomenon which we all refer to as "rain" happens, and it's no longer in the atmosphere having the impact. CO₂ on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years, constantly adding to the CO₂ which came before it, making the impact of newly added CO₂ geometrically greater.

 

So, if you have questions, ask them. People here will help you to find the accurate answers. However, if you have claims to make, I seriously suggest you make sure they are correct before making them, and ensure that you understand the system about which you are making those claims.

 

Have questions about what I have stated above? Ask. Your point was wrong on several fronts, and I want to be sure that you understand why so that you won't make the same mistakes again.

[CaptainPanic]

Lets all stop breathing instead. Carbon dioxide is NOT an issue, considering what nature itself releases each day.

 

Furthermore, water vapour, as in clouds, is a greenhouse gas which is eight times as potent as carbon dioxide. Tell the oceans to stop vapourizing, would you kindly?

 

Indeed... you said it. Kill all human and animal life. That's going to solve the problem for sure.

 

You probably noticed that scientists have absolutely no sense of humor, and we don't appreciate total nonsense in a serious thread.

 

Back on topic:

Anyway, I already posted before that this thread is, AFIAK, closed. Reduce carbon dioxide: leave it to the plants. Read my posts above to see why.

If someone is going to put energy into CO2 reduction, then that someone will produce more CO2 than that is being removed (regardless of the type of energy being used: sustainable or not, wind or nuclear - all irrelevant).