The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: Idaho_Cowboy on October 18, 2016, 05:08:23 pm
-
Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol
The process is cheap, efficient, and scalable, meaning it could soon be used to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.
By Avery Thompson
Oct 17, 2016
Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journal ChemistrySelect.
The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles....
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/convert-co2-into-ethanol/
Video at link
I guess we will see how this pans out, seems to good to be true.
-
Could be interesting.
-
I'll drink to that. :beer:
-
I guess we will see how this pans out, seems to good to be true.
They're onto us, Clem...
(http://nyx.uky.edu/dips/xt7x696zwx82/data/2008ms016/03/0414/0414.jpg)
-
I guess we will see how this pans out, seems to good to be true.
Here's the paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/slct.201601169/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/slct.201601169/full)
Seems legit -- nano-spike carbon/copper catalyst. Not free, but significantly more efficient.
-
Violates Exclusionary Principle of Governance
The EPG states that anything which is cost effective, affordable, efficient, has few negative elements and many positive ones and doesn't harm anyone or anything, is automatically excluded from consideration by government.
You think that I'm joking, but I'm not.
That is what the AGW fanatics don't get. Since the AGW movement is not and has never been about reducing average climatic temperature (since they know that elevated carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere is an after-effect of warming not the cause) but about using AGW as an EXCUSE for increasing government control and establishing a revenue stream for leftists - the ecoparanoids who run the AGW scam will NEVER permit a solution to the so-called "problem" of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
First and foremost, once the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was reduced and temperatures CONTINUED to rise, the whole scam going back to its genesis in the sick mind of algore, would be revealed.
That would open algore and others to endless lawsuits for fraud, and permanently discredit countless leftist politicians who have built careers pedaling ecoparanoia to their constituents.
Second, the far left would lose a prime political talking point with which to bludgeon their opponents over the head - that conservatives and other non-leftists are "destroying the planet" (i.e., are bad people) so they should not be given political power.
Third, the push to gradually and increasingly usurp power from the private sector and enlarge government power/authority to regulate (control) the population with endless restrictions would be imperiled. As Michael Crichton pointed out in his anti-AGW book State of Fear, the far left and its allies needs the world's population to be in a perpetual state of fear, so that they will readily accept whatever insane, Draconian tyranny Statists impose upon them "for their own good". Without some "crisis" from which to "save" them, the People of the world would soon think that they didn't need bigger and bigger, more and more powerful government to "help" them and would insist on smaller, more efficient, less-corrupt governance.
I predict that if this technology turns out to be the real deal it will be made to disappear and the people who have created it will either be bought off, intimidated or murdered into silence permanently.
Make no mistake, the ecoparanoia movement is HUGE business and power brokers. They will not sit idly by and allow some scientist to ruin everything they have worked for over the decades without a serious fight.
-
I guess we will see how this pans out, seems to good to be true.
Evil stuff CO2, they should get rid of all of it.
-
Evil stuff CO2, they should get rid of all of it.
That and dihydrogen monoxide.
-
Ethanol from CO2. There goes big corn.
-
I guess we will see how this pans out, seems to good to be true.
Just chemistry. But it still takes more energy to produce the ethanol than the ethanol can release in combustion. This could effectively become a battery, but it still has losses.
63% efficiency is not going to make a major impact to fuel supply.
-
Ethanol from CO2. There goes big corn.
Big corn needs to adapt and produce other products, and it can if it chooses.
-
That and dihydrogen monoxide.
Makes me thirsty just thinking about it.
-
Makes me thirsty just thinking about it.
For those is Rio Linda, dihydrogen monoxide is (wait for it) H2O aka "water".
-
Color me skeptically hopeful.
-
Just chemistry. But it still takes more energy to produce the ethanol than the ethanol can release in combustion. This could effectively become a battery, but it still has losses.
63% efficiency is not going to make a major impact to fuel supply.
True enough, but as I understand it, the energy input could come from electricity generated with solar panels, which is a relatively clean input.
-
True enough, but as I understand it, the energy input could come from electricity generated with solar panels, which is a relatively clean input.
Right. Or, you could use thermocouples on the hot side of a power plant and use the power to make enough hooch for the office Christmas party.
-
Right. Or, you could use thermocouples on the hot side of a power plant and use the power to make enough hooch for the office Christmas party.
:thumbsup:
-
Right. Or, you could use thermocouples on the hot side of a power plant and use the power to make enough hooch for the office Christmas party.
Hey, it's a start! :beer:
-
Why do I only see this turning into another reason for the gov't to impose more crazy environmental regulations forcing us to capture every speck of CO2 we create?
-
Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol
Big deal. I can turn Burger King onion rings into methane in less than an hour.
(http://burgerking.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sites/default/files/Onion_Rings_5.png)
-
I do not think the author understands the word "efficient".
-
Anyone who can turn my car exhaust into whiskey ...
turn air into whiskey?
Ok, I'm good with that, I guess? I don't know?
-
Just chemistry. But it still takes more energy to produce the ethanol than the ethanol can release in combustion. This could effectively become a battery, but it still has losses.
63% efficiency is not going to make a major impact to fuel supply.
Maybe not, but given the right electrode and a battery, though the Coca Cola will be flat, it'll have some kick...
-
Could be interesting.
But sadly, I will predict it has nothing to do with running corn likker through a hillbilly...
-
Just chemistry. But it still takes more energy to produce the ethanol than the ethanol can release in combustion. This could effectively become a battery, but it still has losses.
63% efficiency is not going to make a major impact to fuel supply.
Not even with the feedstock being free?
I'm more interested in it's use in terraforming. Got Venus sitting right over there - same size, same gravity. Perfect, other than it's atmosphere, in other words.
-
For those is Rio Linda, dihydrogen monoxide is (wait for it) H2O aka "water".
Yep.
:silly:
-
True enough, but as I understand it, the energy input could come from electricity generated with solar panels, which is a relatively clean input.
If you depend on only solar energy, that means you will not run on a steady basis, further raising the cost and making it less efficient.
-
Not even with the feedstock being free?
I'm more interested in it's use in terraforming. Got Venus sitting right over there - same size, same gravity. Perfect, other than it's atmosphere, in other words.
You know a way to separate the 0.04% of the C02 in the atmosphere from all the other gases for free? And compress it?
-
You know a way to separate the 0.04% of the C02 in the atmosphere from all the other gases for free? And compress it?
Don't need to. The catalyst grabs it on it's own. No seperation needed.
-
Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol
Big deal. I can turn Burger King onion rings into methane in less than an hour.
(http://www.bigcbbq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/boston-baked-beans.jpg)
I got yer methane right here.
-
Big corn needs to adapt and produce other products, and it can if it chooses.
What other products? Without CO2, no plants will grow. Now we'll kill not only corn, but every other type of plant in the world.
-
What other products? Without CO2, no plants will grow. Now we'll kill not only corn, but every other type of plant in the world.
Other products than ethanol.
-
What other products? Without CO2, no plants will grow. Now we'll kill not only corn, but every other type of plant in the world.
Nobody is talking about removing all of the CO2 from the atmosphere.
-
Nobody is talking about removing all of the CO2 from the atmosphere.
Driftdiver joked about doing it. Someone forgot to turn up the humor detector sensitivity on their "settings".
Actually Driftdiver's joke raises a great point. All of this asinine talk by ecoparanoids of doing insanely reckless things like trying to control the planet's average temperature like a thermostat - whether it is by reducing atmospheric trace gases like CO2 by scrubbing air or putting diapers on cows or plugging volcanos with rubber balls - if such a thing as "climatic temperature control" were even possible (reducing geophysical solar heat retention / average atmospheric temperature) once the dynamic were set in motion, there is no guarantee that the process could be easily reversed and we could just as easily be setting a process into motion that causes an ice age.
Since the moderating mechanisms of physical geographical systems are inconceivably complex (which is why AGW "models" never accurately predict results) endeavoring to significantly reduce planetary CO2 could be tantamount to attempting to commit plantary suicide.
It's long past time the ecoparanoids were relegated to their rightful place in society - in the same rubber rooms as all other dangerous lunatics who are detached from reality and who want to take over the world.
-
Don't need to. The catalyst grabs it on it's own. No seperation needed.
False. The write up clearly states they start with "CO2-saturated aqueous solutions", not free air.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/slct.201601169/full
-
False. The write up clearly states they start with "CO2-saturated aqueous solutions", not free air.
So you start with a good source of CO2....
"Woooah, duuude! That coal-fired power plant looks like a big hookah!"
-
So you start with a good source of CO2....
"Woooah, duuude! That coal-fired power plant looks like a big hookah!"
A coal fired power plant is not putting out pure CO2. Separation is required, taking energy and cost. Not free as the previous poster suggested.
-
A coal fired power plant is not putting out pure CO2. Separation is required, taking energy and cost. Not free as the previous poster suggested.
Hell, back in 1979-80, Texas Utilities was looking at putting a CO2 separator on the two bigger units at the Morgan Creek plant (gas fired) where I was working. We were going to sell the CO2 to the oil companies for Tertiary oil recovery efforts in the Permian Basin. We got as far as preliminary construction design when a big deep gas strike in the upper panhandle happened and this gas had a high percentage of CO2 in it that was easier to deal with than furnace stack gasses. If I remember right, the separator process for the 500 MW unit was going to take around 3-4 MW to separate the CO2 out from the rest of the gasses.
-
Hell, back in 1979-80, Texas Utilities was looking at putting a CO2 separator on the two bigger units at the Morgan Creek plant (gas fired) where I was working. We were going to sell the CO2 to the oil companies for Tertiary oil recovery efforts in the Permian Basin. We got as far as preliminary construction design when a big deep gas strike in the upper panhandle happened and this gas had a high percentage of CO2 in it that was easier to deal with than furnace stack gasses. If I remember right, the separator process for the 500 MW unit was going to take around 3-4 MW to separate the CO2 out from the rest of the gasses.
Yes it is an effective CO2 source. It just is not a free CO2 source, or even an economically competitive source, as the post I responded to was discussing.
I notice you said they work looking at doing this. I believe they never did due to cost. There are cleaner and less costly sources such as: The natural CO2 deposits at McElmo Dome (CO), Bravo Dome (NM), and Sheep Mountain Dome (CO) are estimated to hold upwards of 20 Tcf of recoverable CO2. CO2 emissions, from gas processing plants and hydrogen plants in the region (estimated at 384 MMcf/d), could provide additional high concentration (relatively low cost) CO2.
More info available:
BASIN ORIENTED STRATEGIES FOR CO2 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY:
EAST & CENTRAL TEXAS
http://www.adv-res.com/pdf/Basin%20Oriented%20Strategies%20-%20East%20&%20Central%20Texas.pdf
Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2 EOR):
Factors Involved in Adding Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) to Enhanced Oil Recovery
http://neori.org/Melzer_CO2EOR_CCUS_Feb2012.pdf
Permian Basin CO2 EOR Volumes Sold
Approximately 90% of the CO2 supplies have been provided by the “big four” suppliers: KinderMorgan, ExxonMobil, Oxy, and SandRidge. In recent years, Hess and Trinity CO2 have joined the list with the latter emerging as a “proxy” supplier by way of aggregating some supplies from small interest owners in McElmo Dome and a small natural gas plant recovery plant, La Veta, near the Sheep Mountain source field in south central Colorado.
The breakdown of this supply by CO2 source is shown in Figure 5.3.2 and Table 5.3.2. As shown, the vast majority of these supplies (1.15Bcfd or 33 MMcmd) come from McElmo Dome. Oxy’s Bravo Dome (combined in Figure 5.3.2 with Hess’ West Bravo Dome) is next and the remaining four make up the difference in roughly equal volumes.
(https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publications/19001/advanced/fig-017.jpg)
Current Permian Basin EOR Projects and CO2 Supply
https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/bridging-commercial-gap-carbon-capture-and-storage/53-current-permian-basin-eor
-
Driftdiver joked about doing it. Someone forgot to turn up the humor detector sensitivity on their "settings".
Actually Driftdiver's joke raises a great point. All of this asinine talk by ecoparanoids of doing insanely reckless things like trying to control the planet's average temperature like a thermostat - whether it is by reducing atmospheric trace gases like CO2 by scrubbing air or putting diapers on cows or plugging volcanos with rubber balls - if such a thing as "climatic temperature control" were even possible (reducing geophysical solar heat retention / average atmospheric temperature) once the dynamic were set in motion, there is no guarantee that the process could be easily reversed and we could just as easily be setting a process into motion that causes an ice age.
Since the moderating mechanisms of physical geographical systems are inconceivably complex (which is why AGW "models" never accurately predict results) endeavoring to significantly reduce planetary CO2 could be tantamount to attempting to commit plantary suicide.
It's long past time the ecoparanoids were relegated to their rightful place in society - in the same rubber rooms as all other dangerous lunatics who are detached from reality and who want to take over the world.
No need for gratuitous insults. If I make a mistake I'm generally amenable to having that pointed out. I'm not a Trumpist after all.
-
No need for gratuitous insults. If I make a mistake I'm generally amenable to having that pointed out. I'm not a Trumpist after all.
O.K. now you need to turn DOWN the sensitivity setting so you may respond to mild chiding by way of joking with the good natured tone in which it was intended.
Denigrating people who support Trump endlessly by way of cheap shots and shallow, snide pejorative sniping diminishes you, sieur. If you don't want to vote for him, then don't vote for him. But for all of my flaws, imagined or real, at least I do not sit on my hands in a desperately important election and call it "heroism" as some "anti-Trumpsters" commonly do.
People who take that position are largely equivalent in my own mind to people who habitually offer lots of advice, lots of criticism and no help.
-
O.K. now you need to turn DOWN the sensitivity setting so you may respond to mild chiding by way of joking with the good natured tone in which it was intended.
Denigrating people who support Trump endlessly by way of cheap shots and shallow, snide pejorative sniping diminishes you, sieur. If you don't want to vote for him, then don't vote for him. But for all of my flaws, imagined or real, at least I do not sit on my hands in a desperately important election and call it "heroism" as some "anti-Trumpsters" commonly do.
People who take that position are largely equivalent in my own mind to people who habitually offer lots of advice, lots of criticism and no help.
Touchy touchy. Need a safe space?
-
Touchy touchy. Need a safe space?
All due respect (and that is great) I am not the one who keeps posting complaints about the manner in which others joke around in their own posts (you have done that twice on this thread). BTW a substantive response instead of a flippant, defensive one dodging the central points would be nice.
-
All due respect (and that is great) I am not the one who keeps posting complaints about the manner in which others joke around in their own posts (you have done that twice on this thread). BTW a substantive response instead of a flippant, defensive one dodging the central points would be nice.
**nononono*
-
A coal fired power plant is not putting out pure CO2. Separation is required, taking energy and cost. Not free as the previous poster suggested.
Actually, I can think of two sources...One, a deep formation in the Basin here, which produced so much CO2 with the natural gas that it would have cost more to strip the CO2 out than the gas was worth, and coal gassification, which produces significant amounts of CO2, so much it was sent north to Canada from the synfuels plant for tertiary recovery injection
http://www.dakotagas.com/Products/pipeline_liquefied_gases/carbon-dioxide/ (http://www.dakotagas.com/Products/pipeline_liquefied_gases/carbon-dioxide/)