I guess this is old news but it's new to me. Just heard about it on NPR this morning. I'm not sure the technology will become cost effective anytime soon but if it does it seems like a good idea to recycle carbon we already used once. The article gets it wrong though because it's not carbon free gas, it is carbon, recycled carbon. IMAGINE DRIVING UP to your local gas station and being able to choose between regular, premium, or carbon-free gasoline. Carbon Engineering, a Canadian company, is already making a liquid fuel by sucking carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere and combining it with hydrogen from water. This is an engineering breakthrough on two fronts: A potentially cost-effective way to take CO2 out of the atmosphere to fight climate change and a potentially cost-competitive way to make gasoline, diesel, or jet fuel that doesn’t add any additional CO2 to the atmosphere." https://news.nationalgeographic.com...g-liquid-fuel-carbon-capture-neutral-science/
Interesting that there is crickets on this thread. Do AGW proponents in here think this is a good idea or a bad idea? Sounds good to me if it's economically feasible
Good question. If they produce far more energy than they consume producing it I would think it would be a good trade.
Seems like the true believers in here are befuddled by this thread and it's subject matter. Are they for this technology or against it? Just can't make up their minds I guess. On the one hand it doesn't add new carbon to the atmosphere but on the other hand it's still carbon damnit. What to do what to do.
Want to suck carbon out of the atmosphere cheaply? Plant a ****ing tree! One fifth of global warming is caused by deforestation
I'll agree on that but this technology is not about removing carbon from the atmosphere. It's about recycling carbon already there instead of adding new carbon from fossil fuels. Could you get behind that technology or not? If not why not?
I am 99 percent certain that this is the same technology that I wrote about in this discussion: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-this-the-answer-to-atmospheric-carbon.543753/ Is recycling carbon out of the atmosphere the answer? * Yes 2 vote(s) 66.7% No.... only a carbon tax will do! 0 vote(s) 0.0% No 1 vote(s) 33.3% I am not sure.... but I think I may watch that video again?! 0 vote(s) 0.0% Change Your Vote https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2123268237703397 If I remember correctly this video had about seven million views on the day that I began this thread. Now there are nineteen million views. Personally I think that this technology is AWESOME and I am sure glad that the video is getting so many hits in a matter of weeks.
Unfortunately electrolysis is very high energy input. There has been some work with catalyst systems that can link CO2 into carbon chains at very low energy inputs. The problem is the oxygen in the CO2. Instead of plain hydrocarbon chains forming, the products are alcohols which have high affinity for water and associated corrosion issues. But certainly, linking carbons by reforming carbon-carbon bonds at low energy inputs would be the way to go. It's what plants do with photosynthesis and is ultimately the way our planet converts energy from the sun into the fuel that living systems utilize
It's very interesting the people like you and @perdidochas have a history of denying our production of CO2 has anything to do with global warming, yet you think this idea has value and would be good for the planet. Hmmmmm.
This is in essence recycling C02 which would be an efficient way of getting all the energy we can out of every gallon of oil drilled if it can be done in a cost effective fashion and that's why I'm for it. A byproduct would be reusing already existing C02 into the atmosphere instead of adding more which should make the cult happy but they don't seem to know what to think about it until someone tells them what to think so until then, crickets,
So what kind of electric car/hybrid do you drive? That said, if they can make gasoline out of the Carbon in the air as cheap as fossil fuel gasoline, why wouldn't we want it? It's irrelevant if AGW has anything to do with it. I have nothing against solar or wind either, provided that they are cheaper than the current methods. I'm all for saving money. About the only energy I'm against is tidal, and that's because it ruins the bays it's in. Denying AGW doesn't mean I'm against conservation of energy. It's not like I'm "rolling coal" when I drive down the road in a souped up pickup truck.
50 years from now leftists will be screaming about the coming "ice age" and demanding we burn down all the forests.
Yes, it's technically feasible, but I'm not sure how efficient it is to be trying to convert carbon dioxide into liquid hydrocarbons. You're basically making hydrogen and then converting that hydrogen into conventional fuel. Every time you convert one form of energy into another there's a substantial loss in overall energy efficiency. It might just make more sense to utilize that hydrogen directly, to power fuel cells.
If you attached the hydrogen to another atom it may be easier to store. And possibly used in internal combustion engines.
Joseph, non-cultists understand reality, which is that there's no free lunch energy-wise. The energy to make that "carbon-free fuel" has to come from somewhere else, which now means burning fossil fuel to make fossil fuel. In terms of CO2 emissions, the process is a net bad thing, given the inefficiencies of the process. Currently, there is one sensible usage for this process, that being on Navy aircraft carriers. Those have nuclear reactors that produce "excess" electricity. That excess could be used to create jet fuel for the aircraft. It's not a cheap process, as uranium costs money too, but it would be helpful from a military readiness standpoint, being the carrier wouldn't have to rely on fleet oilers to resupply jet fuel. In a future when most of the grid is renewable-powered and there's lots of extra electricity, this process could make sense. It doesn't make sense now.