Being
Earth Week and
all, it's not too surprising to hear of San Diegans stretching their mental might and figuring out an effective way to convert carbon dioxide to fuel, but according to the University of California, San Diego, that's precisely what they've done. Clifford Kubiak and Aaron Sathrum have reportedly developed a prototype device "that can capture energy from the sun, convert it to electrical energy, and split carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen." Interestingly, this concept produces more than just an
alternate source of fuel, as CO2 splitting also creates a "useful industrial chemical" in CO, and furthermore, helps reduce a greenhouse gas. Currently, they are building the device using a gallium-phosphide semiconductor, and while the existing rendition still requires "additional energy" outside of sheer
sunlight for the process to work, they're hoping that the American Chemical Society will warm up to the idea and give 'em a helping hand.
[Via
Physorg, thanks Richard N.]
posted April 19th 2007 10:30PM
This is a terrible idea! Monoxide is just two atoms away from becoming dihydrogen monoxide, one of the most dangerous industrial pollutants. I hope they develop some reasonable containment protocols should anything in the atmosphere start reacting with the monoxide output on this.
More about DHMO at http://www.dhmo.org/
Yeah, I've heard about dihydrogen monoxide... its a polar solvent thats capable of dissolving polar molecules and then to the sea. Runoff of dihydrogen monoxide occurs every year, and there is no sign of it stopping.
To those who probably didn't realize, Di hydrogen monoxide is water... ( 2 Hydrogen atoms , one oxygen) H2O. Good joke cromas and viper5dn
Isnt carbon monoxyde already a poison? My high school chemistry teacher used to call it the silent killer....
I was just saying the other day that there's not enough carbon monoxide around.
who said carbon monoxide was any safer?
There´s a project similar to this one in Alicante, Spain where they have developed a technique that involves algae and monocelular bacteria. The byproduct of the reaction that they developed is petroleum. I saw it on the news maybe two days ago.
I hope you guys get in contact with Engadget Spain for more details.
It's not safer, but you can use the CO to make certain things or for fuel (maybe even to fuel the CO2 remover). Read the article before you comment. Please.
Hmm... This seems like a horrible idea. You're creating a toxic byproduct that has the ability to bind to your heme group in both hemoglobin and myoglobin ~250x better than oxygen. So not only are you wasting the solar-derived electrical energy on an inefficient process, you're also creating a highly toxic compound that, in high enough exposure, will certainly impair your breathing or kill you. Hmm...
I'll stick with REGULAR friendly solar, thank you.
P.S. Water (H2O) actually is a worse greenhouse gas than is CO2. I'm not so worried about CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels... it's the water that worries me. CO2 can be fixed in the carbon cycle... water just stays in the atmosphere unless it encounters conditions that allow it to produce rain (more each year in some areas) and devastating storms in some regions and drought in others...
san diegans
san diegites
san diagons
anchorman is one of the funniest movies ever...
Is that dihydrogen oxide joke still funny?
Yes, it's still funny because people still fall for it. Take around a petition to ban its use that explains its dangers (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html) and you'll be able to get all the signatures you want from the abundance of people with more "green" than sense.
This is interesting chemistry, but I think it might mislead some people into thinking that fully oxidized (and relatively inert) substances like water and CO2 are "sources" of fuel, which they certainly are not. Seriously, people still ask me why "they" can't build a water-fueled car :(
Proud to be UCSD
Class of '04
Maybe its a California thing? The Los Angeles Fire Department did an expose on this very subject earlier this month!
CO can and does burn... it was a major component of "wet gas" that ran London's street lights a couple hundred years ago. It's not really efficient, but it *is* fuel.
That said, having a device that can fill a room with carbon monoxide if you do something as silly as leave it in the sun seems hazardous. Maybe these should be limited to large plants and industrial use?
First off, you all are way behind on this info. This data was presented at the ACS meeting about a month ago.
Secondly, Cliff Kubiak is a brilliant guy and this is enormously important. CO is an industrial feedstock for the production of methanol, a potential fuel source for fuel cells. So reduction of CO2 to CO is really all that you need to sequester CO2.
Lastly, all you people calling water a global warming pollutant are idiots. Yes, water traps heat, and its concentration in the atmosphere is going to increase with temperatures increasing. But more importantly, the increase in water in the atmosphere is a result of climate change not a cause. You can't force more water vapor into the atmosphere unless the temperature increases. You take CO2 out of the atmosphere and the water comes with it.
America's Finest City. San Diego FTW !!