Carbon Capture and Utilization.

Interesting Site about the CCU techniques and possibilities We Should Make Widely available.

www.google.com...
&
phys.org...
&
www.tudelft.nl...
&
www.tudelft.nl...

Trying to gather A wide Range of discussions regarding the possibilities.

(Quick Thought)
I wonder what UFO metals would produce

a reply to: TexasTim

You can look at the XPrize thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But judging by the response politics is what people are into these days. Which is a shame because funding was cut on monitoring the levels. Talk about sticking your head in the sand!

My favorites are:

1 - carbon nanotubes from CO2. It does not take much energy and you can use them in almost everything.
2 - Reduce CO2 to CO. Carbon monoxide will react with lots of different chemicals. It is a good first step in fuel production.
3 - Concrete. The stuff is everywhere and a precursor from CO2 just makes sense.

I tend to “go there” and think atmospheric CO2 will be used in turbines prior to other uses. Search “supercritical CO2 turbine”.

Glad someone else thinks it time to do something!’

a reply to: TexasTim

Carbon capture is called photosynthesis.

Screw off with your dreams of engineering something better out of taxpayers money, than Mother Nature has going....

You r stupid to think you can do that.

a reply to: TexasTim

See?? Some dumb political stance. And a personal attack on a question!



No, plants and trees can’t grow fast enough (add in algae if want too), to offset atmosphere CO2 generation. It will take active removal of CO2.

But hey, dumb Obama leftist liberal who is preaching W’s global warming anti-agenda.

Have you been banned yet??

"The cheapest carbon nanotubes on the market cost around $100-200 per kilogram," Douglas said. "Our research advance demonstrates a pathway to synthesize carbon nanotubes better in quality than these materials with lower cost and using carbon dioxide captured from the air."

But making small nanotubes is no small task. The research team showed that a process called Ostwald ripening -- where the nanoparticles that grow the carbon nanotubes change in size to larger diameters -- is a key contender against producing the infinitely more useful size. The team showed they could partially overcome this by tuning electrochemical parameters to minimize these pesky large nanoparticles.

This core technology led Pint and Douglas to co-found SkyNano LLC, a company focused on building upon the science of this process to scale up and commercialize products from these materials.

sciencedaily.com - Cheap, small carbon nanotubes.

These have a method to both suck CO2 from the air, clean and concentrate it down, then using an electrical chemical process, create single walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) at lower than current manufacturing costs and at a higher quality. They stich the carbon link together so they know what the links look like. And instead doing something like burning a gas in air, they are taking CO2 from the atmosphere.

It is called, "upcycling", where a waste product is taken, manipulated, then turned into a useful, sellable, product. High quality SWCNTs have significant number of uses.

This could change the world.

I thought the food that is grown to feed us uses CO2 ? and since CO2 parts per million has gone up, so has food production, so I conclude that more CO2 means more food for us, is that right, or are the news feeds directly into my inbox are all wrong ?

a reply to: pikestaff


There is a natural CO2 cycle where plants convert CO2 to O2 and grow on the carbon making bark, roots, veggies, and fruit. That is the natural carbon cycle. Then, when it all dies, it compacted down to coal and over hundreds (1,000s ???) of years and into oil. What happens when you dig out all that coal and burn all that fuel, all over they globe faster than you can "eat it up" with vegetation and plants? The level in the atmosphere rises. They say 2.4 million pounds are released per second, all day, everyday.

Since the industrial revolution began all that has built up. We need all manners of CO2 removal: active human removal, natural plant uptake, and production reduction.

The real question is how to do it cheaply. Then what do you with it when you captured it? Which is what OP was asking. My favorite idea is to upcycle (molecularly clean CO2 to carbon but in a new useful form, CNTs and O2) the pollutant to other useful stuff. CO2 is real stable molecule. A plant devotes its whole life breaking it down via photosynthesis (ah, the ATP cycle!). We can pull out tons of the stuff and still have tons to go.

PS - They do spray it on crops to increase yields!

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

There is a natural CO2 cycle where plants convert CO2 to O2 and grow on the carbon making bark, roots, veggies, and fruit. That is the natural carbon cycle. Then, when it all dies, it compacted down to coal and over hundreds (1,000s ???) of years and into oil.

Your understanding of the carbon cycle is completely wrong. Pay no attention to this poster members, they don't have a clue.

originally posted by: NorthernLites
a reply to: TexasTim

Carbon capture is called photosynthesis.

Screw off with your dreams of engineering something better out of taxpayers money, than Mother Nature has going....

You r stupid to think you can do that.

What kind of absurd reasoning is this? Humans discover more efficient processes for things occurring in nature all the time. Do you trust your human body's natural disease purging efforts or do you go to a doctor when you get sick?

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

From what I understand coal will never form naturally again. Coal comes from energy that was stored in giant plants that lived hundreds of millions of years ago in swamp forests, even before the dinosaurs! Back then there was an enzyme or bacteria that made it so coal could form instead of composting and returning the co2 to the atmosphere. That element no longer exists and we no longer have huge forests that will compact under land to form that environment again. Oil, on the other hand, may still form if it isn't pushed under tectonic plates in the millions of years it needs to form.