It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Scientists accidentaly solve CO2 problem. Suppression if information forthcoming

page: 1
27
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have developed an electrochemical process that uses tiny spikes of carbon and copper to turn carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into ethanol.

Will we ever see this rolled out on a global scale? Or will we tie it up in red tape and tax it to the point where it just cannot happen?


Ethanol for all




posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan

I won't be using ethanol in anything with a small engine



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AshFan
Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have developed an electrochemical process that uses tiny spikes of carbon and copper to turn carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into ethanol.

Will we ever see this rolled out on a global scale? Or will we tie it up in red tape and tax it to the point where it just cannot happen?


Ethanol for all


To bad that process can't be done directly on the atmosphere. That would be even more helpful. As it stands, this is still a neat development.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

Here is a pilot plant to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere that is up and running in Canada.

MIT Technology Review, Oct. 2014 - Can Sucking CO2 Out of the Atmosphere Really Work?

Also see the update in MIT Technology Review, vol. 119, No. 4, p. 116, Demo, "Sucking Air" (July/August 2016).

It can be done. Add on the OP and pump out O2 and ethanol while scrubbing CO2.

S+F




edit on 18-10-2016 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: clarity



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Greggers

Here is a pilot plant to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere that is up and running in Canada.

MIT Technology Review, Oct. 2014 - Can Sucking CO2 Out of the Atmosphere Really Work?

Also see the update in MIT Technology Review, voll 119, No. 4, p. 116, Demo, "Sucking Air" (July/August 2016).

It can be done. Add on the OP and pump out O2 and ethanol.

S+F





Excellent. Thanks for the link.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

It could work (having two threads). One about saving the Fragile Earth and the other about Science and Technology.

Happens to me on some of my threads too.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

It could work (having two threads). One about saving the Fragile Earth and the other about Science and Technology.

Happens to me on some of my threads too.




Sounds fine to me!



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: AshFan
Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have developed an electrochemical process that uses tiny spikes of carbon and copper to turn carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into ethanol.

Will we ever see this rolled out on a global scale? Or will we tie it up in red tape and tax it to the point where it just cannot happen?


Ethanol for all


They would need to reappraise the current market price of ethanol, it's more expensive overall than heating oil and produces only half the energy, and arguably not safe for homes.
If they think it will be safe as a generator for electricity, that's fine, but surely that will take some time in further research.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   
We will see the UN decree that CO2 is now an "endangered gas" and anyone cuaght using this process will be fined billions of dallrs.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
So.. if we burn ethnol it produces alot of co2. . We then convert that back to ethnol again and repeat the process..
So.in theory we could have our powerstations running on zero emmisions.. but the million dollar question, is the process of.converting the co2 cost effective..



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I only have the printed version (the online version gives you 5 or 6 free views a month before you have to pay). So here is a share!


A pilot plant started up last fall at Squamish, British Columbia, is testing a backup plan: sucking carbon dioxide directly out of the air.
...
The Squamish plant can capture one ton of carbon dioxide a day.

From source quoted above: MIT Technology Review article, "Sucking Air"

And that is just the pilot plant! The guy re-purposed a bunch of equipment from other industries (i.e., off the shelf) and built the demo plant. It reacts CO2 "with an alkaline solution... to enrich potassium carbonate" (same source). There is processing on the resulting enriched potassium carbonate eventually releasing clean CO2 and calcium oxide. The calcium oxide can be reused in the last step.

In the on-line link he surmises that if it becomes economical people will create more and bigger plants. Looks like making ethanol from free air will make these plants feasible!



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan

I wonder what they'll do with all that excess ALCOHOL this thing produces...

Oh happy days...



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   

With the help of the nanotechnology-based catalyst wich contains multiple reaction sites, the solution of carbon dioxide dissolved in water turned into ethanol with a yield of 63 percent.

We’re talking carbon dioxide, a waste product of combustion, and we’re pushing that combustion reaction backwards with very high selectivity to a useful fuel”

Oak Ridge National Laboratory article from OP. (The article has some block on it so you can't copy and paste. So a quick check of my typing skills will have to suffice! All typos are my own)

They were looking at doing the first step in their process they were researching and found out that nanomaterial was doing the entire process! That is pretty cool.

Besides burning it or drinking it, what else can you do with ethanol like deckdel is asking? I think Listerine was originally a degreaser before the current use.

from a free glass of diluted ethanol because 126 proof is beyond my stamina!

[ETA: The catalyst is made of using N-doped graphene and copper nanoparticles]
edit on 18-10-2016 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: is there nothing graphene cant do?



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AshFan

To answer the last question, no, the announcement, from a DOE agency no less, means that idea is now "out there" *waves hands* Any country with sufficient enough technology can reproduce the same results (hint, hint, ahem, China) and start scrubbing their own air instead of waiting for Team America to save the mother luvin' day!

The idea of "carbon tax" has to be laughed at now! The same people pushing out carbon dioxide and paying that tax will now turn around and start hoarding it (the, "its mine" mentality). The new industry is going to be "up cycling" where what was considered a "waste product" is instead used to create another useful product. I saw one the other day where waste water from beer was going to be used to create ??? (sorry, it was something to do with organic batteries I think. It took me four days to remember the term "up cycle". Stupid werk is dumbing me down!).

I think other countries, especially the smaller European countries, will do the opposite and mandate that manufacturers up cycle their waste products as much as possible.


edit on 18-10-2016 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: grammar nazi



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
It's not so much that you just put in CO2 and out pops ethanol, though.

You also have to pump in electricity. The electrical energy is what's "unburning" the CO2. So you are storing electrical energy in the form of ethanol, using CO2 as a base material.

The article's also either misleadingly written or wrong, depending on how you read it. They didn't convert 63% of the CO2 to ethanol, which is how it reads to me.

The conversion was 63% efficient, in terms of energy input to ethanol fuel value out. That's a big difference. 63% is a pretty good efficiency. Better than using the electricity to make hydrogen. So, if the thing works in practice (nano materials doing real world catalysis generally look good in the lab and bad in the field) you could store energy that's episodic like wind or solar as ethanol, and buffer your off times that way, with "only" 38% loss.



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Make and drink Vodka and save the planet while doing so.

Sounds awesome



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshFan
Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have developed an electrochemical process that uses tiny spikes of carbon and copper to turn carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into ethanol.

Will we ever see this rolled out on a global scale? Or will we tie it up in red tape and tax it to the point where it just cannot happen?


Ethanol for all


The tech is already sold to the Russians by the Clinton's...company name is Joule Unlimited....they have been doing this and are way ahead of anyone else....partly owned by RUSNANO.

Here is a link to my thread on the company and its history with Russia...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 10/19/16 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: AshFan

You can't solve CO2 problem with science, everyone knows only taxation and fees can fix it.


edit on 551031America/ChicagoWed, 19 Oct 2016 07:55:52 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I think I misread it too then. Not very clear and more kind of 'press release' style. Which is actually how it seems to work now a days: a big announcement is written up by the PR department about the science department; that is then picked up by 'science' sites with little to no changes or commentary (EurekaAlert for example, seen it on Phys.org as well as ScienceDaily from time to time). Shame that science cannot just release its own announcements.

It actually works pretty well when the science department assists in writing the release. Like my thread over here where the MIT news department used actual data from the physics department to write a release so that those with some technical background will appreciate and understand the news.

"63% efficiency" from what typical percent? *face palm* (my bad on not picking that up!) See, that is what I mean by technical data. It reads like "100 times more pressure than your tire" huh? Just tell me the PSI and I will get it better.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2 >>

log in

join