Green Freedom turns the air's CO2 into auto-powering fuel
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted February 23rd 2008 9:52AM
posted February 23rd 2008 9:52AM
[Via Inhabitat]
posted February 23rd 2008 9:52AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Hear, hear! (again)
sounds about the same as if they where going to make a car run on tree sap. Trees convert co2 to o2 or something like that im no biochemist. but if the bi product from that is steam why not use it too for heat or to run a turbine to generate the power?
oh good, Lord. So if we extract copious amount of CO2 from the environment, what the hell do you think is going to happen to all the plants???? As basic as it may seem plant take carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight to make sugar and water . . . 6(CO2) (carbon-dioxide) + 6(H20) (water) + energy (sunlight) -> C6H12O6 (sugar) and 6(O2) (oxygen). So if we use CO2 as a fuel, wouldn't we kill off our plants and inevitably our oxygen levels?? What an idiotic concept, imho.
Plus, in the lead picture: http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/02/nuclear.jpg, that steam is coming out the stacks, not CO2 emissions. Stop putting out false information.
@ extraducksauce: That's just stupid. Who is suggesting that ALL of the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere? The problem at the moment is that we are putting much more CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere than the natural rate at which it is absorbed (compounded by the fact that carbon sinks like forests keep on being cut down). So there is a big surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere that won't ever be absorbed unless we reduce the amount of CO2 we put up there to less than the Earth's rate of absorption. That's all pretty elementary, surely?
So there's plenty of CO2 to make use of before there's any risk at all of depleting the ration that plants of all types need.
D'uh...
The arguments against AGW get more and more pathetic all the time. I hope those sceptics who retain some degree of balance are watching things like this.
My concern with this particular scheme is that I can't imagine it will be in any way energy-positive to extract Carbon from the atmosphere and then form it into a fuel. But one positive benefit would be that the amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere would be increased, remedying a problem that scientists are also getting more concerned about.
Those are cooling towers for a nuclear plant all they emit is H2O so that picture doesn't fit. I like mashed potatoes.
ClaMs,
You're absolutely right about the thermodynamics, which I think a lot of people here are unaware of.
That said, I think the goal of the project isn't to produce a fuel with higher energy value than the energy input. It's to produce energy-dense liquid fuels in the most energy-efficient and economical way within some rather strict constraints -- namely sustainability, scalability, carbon neutrality, and economic viability. The current favorite liquid fuel alternative -- biofuels -- have a problem with scalability -- when scaled up to displace the level of current fossil fuel production, the land use becomes environmentally catastrophic (see palm oil in southeast asia) and/or competes too much with food production. Biofuel from algae is scalable, but has significant economic obstacles (huge capital cost) to overcome.
I agree with mrpoo that for ground transport, a more efficient use of the energy inputs for this process would be charging plug-in hybrid vehicles. The technology and economics aren't quite there yet, but we're getting close, and I'm optimistic about its prospects.
But there will be a significant (though decreasing) demand for liquid fuels even after all vehicles on the road are plug-in hybrids; The demand will still be there even after all those plug-in hybrids are replaced by pure EVs. Air and sea transportation are tough to convert to electric. Whether biofuels can scale to meet even those demands is doubtful.
Technically CO2 is poisonous as it competes with O2 to bind with hemoglobin.
It is a function of the partial pressure that makes it non-toxic; i.e. at
[for some reason this keeps getting cut] ...at levels of
[arrgh] >5 - 10% CO2 is toxic
removing CO2 from the air also reverses the greenhouse effect, thus contributing to reducing global warming. i'm all in for this tech if it works.
@ anyone who really thinks that man can truly solve the global warming issue
Our planet and it's life has supposedly survived massive earthquakes (i.e.- our world used to have a pangea continent), nuclear holocaust equivalent meteors, and a global ice age. If you really believe that all it takes is 200 years of industrialization to destroy this planet and its life, you frankly have way too much confidence in the human race. :-)
Not only that, but humanity is the least of this world's problems. Actually, the world is the worst of its own problems. Take for example, Mount St. Helens, WA, 1980. That eruption, according to conservationists, put out more green house gases than all of the last 2,000 years of humanity combined. Then, there's that volcano a couple of weeks ago that threw ash and smoke 6 miles high into the air. You sure that didn't have a massive effect on the world's environment? Man, I'd hate to be living anywhere east of that volcano if it was in the north eastern quadrant of the western hemisphere (aka european union). Greenhouse gas testing would show a significant increase in greenhouse gases, despite efforts to curb it.
Now, don't get me wrong. I believe that we should be good stewards with our planet and make sure to conserve our resources, be responsible with our environment, and find better, less dependant energies with which to live on. However, the reality is that humanity and all of its vices and devices only accounts for .02% of all green house gases produced. We can only do so much. If you really believe the world is going to end, then I suggest you start stocking so you can laugh in my face later when I have no water, because in your scenario of global warming, its unavoidable.
BTW, last I checked, water is the only molecule- that I'm aware of- on earth that expands when it's frozen. Therefore, doesn't that mean that all the ice in the Arctic Circle is displacing more water than the volume of water that is actually frozen? Actual end result of Arctic Circle melting: less water is being displaced, therefore water would actually be drawn away from our shorelines, rather than flooding them (not saying this would be good for our environment, animals, or even humans, just stating that the coastal flooding idea forgot science and physics).
If that wasn't enough, lets not forget that Arbor Day was started back in the 70's tellin us to plant trees to warn our world about an impending ice age should we continue to miss use our resources. The claim was supposedly based on science just like global warming claims to be. Who's to say the environmentalists aren't wrong...again?
Ugh, please don't bring back the "volcano emissions are worst than human emissions thing" argument again. That might be true during early industry but it's not true anymore today.
Check this link from the primary volcano researchers in the US:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! "
And where did you get "However, the reality is that humanity and all of its vices and devices only accounts for .02% of all green house gases produced"
Here's more info from the DOE:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
"Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by about 25 percent since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago"
If human related activities can increase greenhouse gases across the board (Not just CO2, but methane NOx, HFCs, PFCs, etc) by about 25 percent I don't see how it's possible humans account for only 0.02% of green. And as you can see from the graph the Anthropogenic Emissions growth is exponential since industry started, which is quite alarming. So far it is "only" 25% increase in greenhouse gases, but what's to say it won't continue if we don't make changes.
Here's another source from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to show the 25% increase:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Notice all of my sources are from government sources with no green slant (ie I didn't look for sources like the EPA).
Next time you make an argument don't pull numbers out of your ass. I personally don't feel global warming is going to be as dramatic as some make it out to be, but by pulling out stupid arguments you are only making some of us moderate environmentalists look stupid and uninformed.
"BTW, last I checked, water is the only molecule- that I'm aware of- on earth that expands when it's frozen. Therefore, doesn't that mean that all the ice in the Arctic Circle is displacing more water than the volume of water that is actually frozen? Actual end result of Arctic Circle melting: less water is being displaced, therefore water would actually be drawn away from our shorelines, rather than flooding them?"
Ah yes. That reasoning is very good. However, the water level would only LOWER if the ice in the Arctic Circle was COMPLETELY submerged. As it is, the ice that is ABOVE the water level is not displacing water. As a result, the water level WOULD rise if all that ice were to melt.
Look out people, 13 year old computer geek coming through
-Alpha Out
Wow listen to all of the pro oil nazis whine and cry. They act like pretend politicians just to keep their stupid stock high so they can live like Bill Gates or at least have money like him.
Such Losers! Get a life! Either you can accept science and change or die amongst the other dinosaurs that have their head stuck in elephant feces!