It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Sun-powered device converts CO2 into fuel

page: 3
21
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:46 AM
So let me get this straight...

It's essentially a box... you blow carbon dioxide in one end, lay it out in the sun, and fuel comes out of the other end?

Solutions just seem to be popping up everywhere. How are we to continue to believe that human beings are a problem when we're the ones coming up with all the answers? What will happen to the depopulation agenda?

And what will the people who think plant fertilizer (carbon dioxide) is a poison have to say about all their plans of implementing a carbon tax when it's becoming clear that human-produced CO2 is not, has not, and will not ever be a problem?

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 12:09 PM
Great concept, but impractical. There is simply not enough CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to produce methane in large quantities. The chemical equation would be:

(2)H2O + CO2 --> CH4 + (2)O2

That means every mole of methane (about 16 grams) requires a mole of CO2 (about 44 grams). CO2 at present makes up approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere by volume. Since the components of air overall are close in density, we can figure 44 grams/0.0004, or about 110,000 grams of air. That air, in turn, has a density of about 1200 g/m³. So we have 110,000/1200, or about 92 cubic meters of air needed to produce one mole (16 grams) of methane. That's 2264 cubic yards of air, or 61,000 cubic feet. To give an idea of how much air that is, the average home (2000 square feet) contains about 16,000 cubic feet of air. That means we're talking about almost 4 houses full of air in order to get that single mole of methane.

Now, how much energy did we produce? 891 kJ per mole of methane is the combustion heat. That's 0.93 BTUs. A small space heater produces between 20,000 and 50,000 BTUs per hour, so we'd have to produce 21,500 times the above figure, or about 80,000 homes full of air every hour to heat one room.

And they want to use nano-tubes to handle this much air? I can't see how that could be practical with pure CO2, much less used as a scrubber for 'excessive' atmospheric CO2.

One more thing: a few posters have mentioned the air quality in the larger cities while talking about CO2 scrubbing. That smog you're complaining about is not CO2. CO2 is clear.

TheRedneck

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 01:57 PM
I like this invention a lot. It could be helpful for reduction in the dependence on foreign oil. This is where stimulus money should be spent.

It doesn't exactly solve the paranoia over carbon dioxide. Maybe a similar technology could be used just to get the carbon to solid form. This carbon could be stored in the form of improved road and construction materials in the form of carbon fiber. A carbon fiber road has got to be better than he horrible asphalt system we use now (at least where I live). Why not go to carbon fiber cars, to reduce weight and improve mileage. Here is another area for stimulus investment.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by A52FWY]

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Red Shield

Originally posted by Zepherian
The energy situation is entirely a manmade construct, there is no shortage of obtaining energy in a universe which, essentially, is matter made from energy. People need to think about the implications of this. Everything is energy.

If people want an abundance economy, which is technologically possible, then focus on the people who are shelving these inovations, or focus on making them for yourselves.

The more I read about this stuff the more I realise we should not wait for new energy inovations, we will have to build them ourselves, in our garages, from plans probably downloaded off the internet. Only then will these things reach a critical mass where the establishment won't be able to supress them.

This is exactly what I've been telling people. Don't wait for anyone, do it yourselves. Only problem is, where can we find some Real blueprints to build these machines. If you have more knowledge on this subject, please u2u me.

Edit: Why don't a group of us here at ATS get together and build one of these things and get this thing on the road!? We would need small funding of course, but it would benefit the entire world, no more suffering. Free energy. Lovely.

[edit on 21-2-2009 by Red Shield]

No, this is not the way to do it. And if I hypothetically had more knowledge on the subject I would not send it to you in a traceable method. People are getting killed over these technologies, we should all have realised that.

The method is to either publish on the web for everyone to access and try (through a variety of vectors of publishing, like blogs, ebooks, sites, youtubes, email lists, etc) or build for yourself and a few trusted friends and slowly and stealthly disseminate the technology in material form.

Don't trust strangers, but try to reach out to them indirectly. There is a critical mass of awareness of technology that has to be achieved and this has to be done despite the repression of the control establishment, ie, that tiny minority in government and corporations that is aware of this stuff and is trying to shelf it more or less permanently.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:34 PM

Yeah, I wasn't working from a standpoint of "what are the byproducts", I was simply working from the standpoint of what we have in abundance, something cheap to act as the electrolyte.

Seeing as saltwater is an extreme abundance, that's what I was planning on working with. Regardless, the design I was planning I scrapped in the end.
I'm not afraid to admit defeat when I see it, and move onto other projects.

You seem to know a bit about electrolysis of water. I'd be interested to hear anything you might have thought up.

I'm out of ideas as it stands for now. Until I come up with something else, the most I'll be doing with electrolysis is doing it for fun, just to hear the hydrogen "pop" when I light it.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:10 PM
Based upon a dream I had last year, the only way the current gas/energy consumption would be no longer useful is if new technology would make energy/petroleum to expensive to produce.

My Dream within a dream last night

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Red Shield
Edit: Why don't a group of us here at ATS get together and build one of these things and get this thing on the road!? We would need small funding of course, but it would benefit the entire world, no more suffering. Free energy. Lovely.
[edit on 21-2-2009 by Red Shield]

Originally posted by Zepherian
No, this is not the way to do it. And if I hypothetically had more knowledge on the subject I would not send it to you in a traceable method. People are getting killed over these technologies, we should all have realised that.

I think those days are pretty much over. As I keep saying, there's already a significant community of people doing these kinds of projects via www.overunity.com, and other sites. What would be the harm if a team from ATS got in on that bandwagon?

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:33 PM

Carbon fiber is wonderful stuff. It is made by carbonizing polymers which could be made by converting CO2 to monomers and then polymerizing and carbonizing. Then, you'll need a binder for the carbon fiber, another polymer. This is what we call a losing game.
Most people don't realize how much CO2 we are talking about. It dwarfs everything else by orders of magnitude. About 20 years ago, someone came up with the idea of making CO2 into a polymer and using it instead of all the other plastic we make. This is a ridiculous idea for many reasons, but I did a back of the envelope calculation for the politicians, anyway. If we dsplace all other polymers [not likely because of needed properties] and replaced them with CO2 based polymers, we'd only use 0.3% of the CO2.
Then I was asked how we could make the simplest polymer to use it up and make anything out of it or pile it up. The simplest stable polymer one can make with CO2 is a polycarbonate, a condensation polymer with ethylene gycol.
We would need about 1 1/2 times [weight] of ethlyene glycol as the amount of CO2. There is no way this will happen; we just can't produce it. We'd need most of the oil to make ethylene glycol. We would be way ahead of the game not generating the CO2 to begin with.

posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:32 PM

Originally posted by die_another_day
What, are they going to make transfat and splenda at an unprecedented rate?

And no I don't really mean transfat and splenda.

Water is the next oil...

[edit on 2/22/2009 by die_another_day]

This is happening right now.

All new houses in Oz must be fitted with rain water tanks, older houses
are pursuaded to use rain water tanks. The Water supply was flogged off to
Private Enterprise for a quick buck. As people use less and less mains water
the cost of Mains water is going through the roof because less mains water
is being sold. The same also applies for Mains Power and Solar power.
In effect you are using Less and Paying more for it, at the end of the year
you have either paid the same or paid less for your usage. And it only cost
you tens of thousands dollars to install the tanks and panels, and your no
better off. Added to that the solar panels will have to be replaced every
8-10 years, there is no way you can come out ahead.

But wait theres more.....

Solar panels are made of really toxic materials, so at some time in the future
there is going to a mountain of useless solar panels.
The cure is going to be worse than the disease.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 12:26 AM
I was having this discussion, this evening, with a housemate about 'Green'....

Since we live in the USA, my point was...."Well, we can do all we can, but what about the rest of the World? Say, China? (home to about half the World's population, and not likely to cozy up to the Kyoto Accords....)

Yeah, I know, I know....GWB and Company blew it off too!!!

Back to the USA....we do what we can, as likely, does Canada.

Down South....ermmm....Mexico, then Panama....etc, etc, etc....comeon!!!

They're just trying to survive!!!!

Western Europe, OK, on track.....but the countries in Northern Africa?!?

AND, that's just the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE, so far.....

(shout out to Australia, and NZ...love ya!!! You are the best!!!!)

get my drift??????

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:06 AM
There are many different technologies that if we invested time and money into we would have a lifetime of free energy. Free energy is the reason why they havnt allready done this. Makes one wonder!

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:32 AM

Originally posted by theflashor
There are many different technologies that if we invested time and money into we would have a lifetime of free energy. Free energy is the reason why they havnt allready done this. Makes one wonder!

was scuttled faster than.... well pretty fast anyways.
Producing energy, especially the "Green" "Friendly" kind is going to be so expensive
You will a need a second job just to pay for making a cup a coffee.
If they ever get the Head On Collider to work and might lead to Fussion
working we will get the "Green" "Friendly" energy but what's the point
if you can't afford to use it.

All that time and money that is being invested in any future energy is just

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 04:57 AM

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by theflashor
There are many different technologies that if we invested time and money into we would have a lifetime of free energy. Free energy is the reason why they havnt allready done this. Makes one wonder!

You will a need a second job just to pay for making a cup a coffee.
If they ever get the Head On Collider to work and might lead to Fussion
working we will get the "Green" "Friendly" energy but what's the point
if you can't afford to use it.

All that time and money that is being invested in any future energy is just

I dont understand where you are coming from? how do you come to the conclusion that free energy would be to expensive?? lol that dont make sense? if mnf on a big scale the result would be lower costs to produce.

How much money go's into the current setup of the national grid each year?

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 08:22 AM

Originally posted by MajorDisaster

I think those days are pretty much over. As I keep saying, there's already a significant community of people doing these kinds of projects via www.overunity.com, and other sites. What would be the harm if a team from ATS got in on that bandwagon?

The harm would be, if you're wrong and those days are not over, that a group of well motivated individuals with revolutionary energy technologies would be databased and, if the world does fall into an orwelian society, they would be easier to find and encarcerate or eliminate.

I personally think that you could be right, but that regardless, we should be cautious in the implementation of these things. We should spread out the information but protect the individuals as the power structure has shown itself to be elitist, psychopathic and untrustworthy.

So this technology should be spread out, yes, but stealthily, untill we come to a point where it's obvious that people are aware of it, it is readily available and that the powerstructure is powerless to replace it.

Then all we will have to worry about is how to avoid the draconian tax structure they will try to shove down our throats in order to keep us slaves to the system. This is already happening as they are trying to mass manufacture debt through the banking system to unload it on the taxpayer. But this is another thread.

We haven't won yet, winning being to be free.

posted on Feb, 23 2009 @ 05:06 PM

Originally posted by theflashor

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by theflashor
There are many different technologies that if we invested time and money into we would have a lifetime of free energy. Free energy is the reason why they havnt allready done this. Makes one wonder!

You will a need a second job just to pay for making a cup a coffee.
If they ever get the Head On Collider to work and might lead to Fussion
working we will get the "Green" "Friendly" energy but what's the point
if you can't afford to use it.

All that time and money that is being invested in any future energy is just

I dont understand where you are coming from? how do you come to the conclusion that free energy would be to expensive?? lol that dont make sense? if mnf on a big scale the result would be lower costs to produce.

How much money go's into the current setup of the national grid each year?

There is no such thing a "Free" Energy. You can reduce your consumption
by using Solar or Wind. But....the sun don't shine at night and the don't
always blow. Storing Energy is not cheap and has to replaced from time to time.
The Energy you buy will be so expensive. The Energy Companies want
to make a billion bucks a year, and don't care if they power a city or one suburb.
One way or another they are still going to get their 1 Billion Bucks.

If the cost of suppling power was kept the same, they would go broke.
In a way it's like Cigarettes, the Govt doesn't want you to smoke but
they want the Tax Bucks that goes with it. If nobody smoked, the Govt
would have a huge hole in the Budget. Not to mention the companies gone
bust and loss of jobs associated with the manufacture of cancer products.
The same applies for Water, Power, Petrol.

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:01 AM
Fox News just reported that a MA company has formulated a way to do the same thing the OP stated that also uses a bacteria. The company has an agreement with, I think they said, New Mexico and they are designing a way to commercialize this new fuel. Apparently it does work and could revolutionize the fuel industry.

That sounds WONDERFUL, but will Big Oil find a way to stifle the new technology??

top topics

21