- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Engineering company designed system to convert CO2 into gasoline
Posted on 6/8/18 at 10:58 am to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
Posted on 6/8/18 at 10:58 am to DirtyMikeandtheBoys
quote:
Um trees need CO2 to survive. This seems like a surefire way to kill off all plant life on Earth.
Well, burning that fuel also puts CO2 back into the atmosphere
0
Posted on 6/8/18 at 11:02 am to Scruffy
quote:
Also, are they removing CO2 to create gas that makes CO2?
It feeds itself.
Well if the production of the fuel & the burning of the fuel result in a zero sum of CO2 then it's a good thing.
That being said I'm skeptical this is something that is scalable.
Posted on 6/8/18 at 11:05 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I am curious which thermo laws you think are being broken here?
The one where you think you're going to get more energy per gasoline molecule than was required to create it.
I'd have to brush up but I think this is a second law violation.
This post was edited on 6/8/18 at 11:06 am
Posted on 6/8/18 at 11:09 am to slackster
ETA: Nevermind
This post was edited on 6/8/18 at 11:18 am
Posted on 6/8/18 at 11:12 am to i am dan
Plant operator baws will be fine once they learn to shovel limestone into a vat.
Posted on 6/8/18 at 11:28 am to i am dan
$100 and a ton of CO2 used to create $0.34 of gasoline. Meanwhile, more CO2 was created in the conversion process. Same problem with the production of electric cars.
Nuclear energy is the answer. We just need to figure out the radioactive waste problem. Idk why we don't just send the shite into space, but I'm not in charge of that.
I've worked with a few academics on game-changing "inventions". While they all worked, none of them were feasible either monetarily, or scaled up.
Nuclear energy is the answer. We just need to figure out the radioactive waste problem. Idk why we don't just send the shite into space, but I'm not in charge of that.
I've worked with a few academics on game-changing "inventions". While they all worked, none of them were feasible either monetarily, or scaled up.
Posted on 6/8/18 at 11:32 am to i am dan
quote:
It cleans up the environment, and produces eco-friendly liquid fuel at the same time.
This is great news and all, but any carbon based combustion isn’t truley eco-friendly. Under current engine designs, they still produce PIC, POC, and also contribute to NOx and or SOx formation.
Posted on 6/8/18 at 12:00 pm to Tigris
quote:But are they making fuel at the same time?
This is very different from making cheap gasoline. Coral reefs and plants are currently removing CO2 for free.
Posted on 6/8/18 at 12:04 pm to i am dan
those lib scientists are gonna freeze us all to death!
-poli board
-poli board
Posted on 6/8/18 at 12:17 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I am curious which thermo laws you think are being broken here?
First law - conservation of energy.
When gasoline is burned it reacts to form CO2 plus water vapor; and a great deal of energy is released. In order to reverse this to convert CO2 to gasoline a great deal of energy has to be input. There is simply no way around this. Any process that requires a large energy input is not going to be cheap. And more energy will be required to produce the gasoline than can be recovered from the gasoline. Thermodynamics again.
Posted on 6/8/18 at 12:28 pm to Tigris
quote:
When gasoline is burned it reacts to form CO2 plus water vapor; and a great deal of energy is released. In order to reverse this to convert CO2 to gasoline a great deal of energy has to be input. There is simply no way around this. Any process that requires a large energy input is not going to be cheap. And more energy will be required to produce the gasoline than can be recovered from the gasoline. Thermodynamics again.
Yeah, but refineries like Sasol do this, to some extent, every day.
Posted on 6/8/18 at 2:23 pm to Hammertime
quote:
Nuclear energy is the answer. We just need to figure out the radioactive waste problem. Idk why we don't just send the shite into space, but I'm not in charge of that.
Because even one failure is unacceptable, and no one has developed a zero defect launch system yet. The real answer is fusion, and indications are we're getting pretty close.
Posted on 6/8/18 at 3:04 pm to i am dan
So I could fill the tank by performing a monologue?
Posted on 6/8/18 at 3:05 pm to i am dan
so we're taking the waste of refining and re-refining?
mindblown
mindblown
Posted on 6/8/18 at 3:06 pm to i am dan
What is the waste product from the use of these new fuels?
Posted on 6/8/18 at 3:13 pm to Tigris
quote:
Any process that requires a large energy input is not going to be cheap. And more energy will be required to produce the gasoline than can be recovered from the gasoline. Thermodynamics again.
Yep. It's the same reason hydrogen fuel isn't really feasible for cars. It doesn't take much energy to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water but you don't get much energy either.
The molecular bonds in gasoline release much more energy but they took much more energy to create in the first place.
Posted on 6/8/18 at 3:23 pm to dbeck
I remember the water powered car and how brilliant it was.
It effectively worked off of steam.
All it needed was a fuel source (gasoline or coal) to convert the water to steam, and BAM... energy! The technology was raw. I'm sure nuclear could also be a source if the designer took more time to think about it.
I had to watch 2 commercial breaks to get to this great man-made discovery. Let's just say, I am equally excited right now.
It effectively worked off of steam.
All it needed was a fuel source (gasoline or coal) to convert the water to steam, and BAM... energy! The technology was raw. I'm sure nuclear could also be a source if the designer took more time to think about it.
I had to watch 2 commercial breaks to get to this great man-made discovery. Let's just say, I am equally excited right now.
Posted on 6/8/18 at 3:31 pm to i am dan
quote:
used little more than limestone, hydrogen and air for the process, which can remove one metric ton of CO2 f
Hydrogen is the catch. Where do you get that?
Posted on 6/8/18 at 3:38 pm to AUCE05
quote:
I was reading about this the other day. Assuming the tech is real, it would have so many barriers to the market. People would be killed. The US and Saudi govs would flip their shite. The military industrial complex would go insane. It won't happen.
Not really; the oil will still come out the ground. The cut from crude may not be as valuable now, but the other cuts will still be needed to continue feed the petrochemical industry.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News