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.

 

Bye Bye Co2 and global warming

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
From Lemons to Lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor


Transmission electron microscopy image of carbon nitride created by the reaction of carbon dioxide and Li3N.




(Phys.org) -- A materials scientist at Michigan Technological University has discovered a chemical reaction that not only eats up the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, it also creates something useful. And, by the way, it releases energy.

Making carbon-based products from CO2 is nothing new, but carbon dioxide molecules are so stable that those reactions usually take up a lot of energy. If that energy were to come from fossil fuels, over time the chemical reactions would ultimately result in more carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere—defeating the purpose of a process that could otherwise help mitigate climate change.

Professor Yun Hang Hu’s research team developed a heat-releasing reaction between carbon dioxide and Li3N that forms two chemicals: amorphous carbon nitride (C3N4), a semiconductor; and lithium cyanamide (Li2CN2), a precursor to fertilizers.

“The reaction converts CO2 to a solid material,” said Hu. “That would be good even if it weren’t useful, but it is.”

And how much energy does it release? Plenty. Hu’s team added carbon dioxide to less than a gram of Li3N at 330 degrees Celsius, and the surrounding temperature jumped almost immediately to about 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,832 degrees Fahrenheit, about the temperature of lava exiting a volcano.

Hu’s work is funded by the National Science Foundation and detailed in the article “Fast and Exothermic Reaction of CO2 and Li3N into C–N-Containing Solid Materials,” authored by Hu and graduate student Yan Huo and published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry.


So a solid material byproduct, less energy needed to produce the reacting agent than is given out by the reaction and early stage fertilizer also produced. Problem solved, job done. An end to the global warming nonsense and taxation, we hope.

This is the best solution we have on hand at the moment seemingly, can it now be commercialised and industrialised??!!??


edit on 21-5-2012 by spacedonk because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   


less energy needed to produce the reacting agent than is given out by the reaction


If that is correct, then isn't that "Over Unity" ?

S&F btw.


edit on 21-5-2012 by ken10 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedonk
 


F&S for the OP, Great find! Let's just hope that something like this really works because, the way things are going, it doesn't look like we'll be reducing our planetary carbon output any time soon. Technologies like this one could well be, at the very least, a huge part of the answer to our greenhouse dilemma.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


No, not overunity because the CO2 provides the rest of the energy. That energy in the CO2 remains from the previous larger energy used at the point of its production i.e. when coal burns or gas is burnt. The good thing about this reaction is that previously to convert the CO2 into anything useful has required more energy input than was released meaning it was uneconomical. this makes it financially viable for commercialisation as you put 1 shekel of energy in to get 2 shekels out which is profit



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 



I agree, I guess you have seen the story about the bacteria found in S America (I think it was there) that eats/consumes plastic. Thats two stories in under 12 months that potentially solve two of the biggest pollution issues in the world.


EDIT TA: FUNGUS not bacteria, story here: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 21-5-2012 by spacedonk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Wow! This is huge and could be what America needs right now...

American coal power industry + Combined cycle power operation from CO2 reactions + Reduced carbon output + Valuable export byproducts + Creation of green jobs all over the country = Win for America + Stiff middle finger to inport oil + and a way to be free from nuclear power!



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
They wont go with that. If its a "stiff middle finger to oil imports", then they have no further reason to continue any of their wars in the middle east. But we know this wont stop those. Halliburton is making to much of a killing



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
This is totally awesome. The only problem I see though, is that lithium is a rare earth metal. There probably wouldn't be enough available to sequester a meaningful amount of CO2 (as far as mitigating global warming) using this reaction.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I assume his research lists it, but where does the oxygen go from the CO2? It didn't give us everything that's produced by the reaction. The equation, in that form, doesn't include oxygen at all and even if it's added on as another product, the equation doesn't balance.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Nevermind, found it. The other product from the double reaction is Lithium Oxide (used in batteries) so that's the power produced they are speaking of I guess that raised the temperature so much



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedonk
url=http://phys.org/news/2012-05-lemons- can it now be commercialised and industrialised??!!??


No. The energy companies and the companies selling carbon credits will not allow it.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   
This is a truly amazing discovery. I like that it also produces energy which gives us the opportunity for cogeneration on site at wafer fabs which use metric butt loads of power anyway. This sounds like a no lose situation so hopefully they follow it up.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedonk
 


how is lithium nitride made? hopefully it works out but its sounding almost like free energy..

perhaps im misunderstanding something.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by spacedonk
 


how is lithium nitride made? hopefully it works out but its sounding almost like free energy..

perhaps im misunderstanding something.


There's the rub! Lithium reacts with nitrogen at room temperature but is then higly flammable and explosive, especially in water. It requires special handling and shouldn't be available to the general public, so it would have to be a very controlled environment with proper proceedures followed.
It's a very higly reactive material and can even explode if concentrated in "damp air" due to the water vapor content.
It's very much possible to use it as described, but special precautions would have to be taken and it's very important that no contamination with outside air or water is made.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Don't know the extent of your involvement with chemistry, but this may help if you have the basic high school foundation:
www.patentgenius.com...



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


im confused by the total energy, (not good at chemistry btw)

turning CO2 to a solid will require energy, making Li3N will require energy. heating the Li3N to 300degrees will require energy.

combine them all will give about 1000degrees.

so is it still a positive energy output or negative?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


im confused by the total energy, (not good at chemistry btw)

turning CO2 to a solid will require energy, making Li3N will require energy. heating the Li3N to 300degrees will require energy.

combine them all will give about 1000degrees.

so is it still a positive energy output or negative?


When you take all the processes together with all the energy required to make each substance used, the net is zero, but at the same time, since it helps use the CO2 instead of allowing it to just dissapate into the atmosphere, it's an overall positive and useful to us.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


interesting. thank you. hopefully it all works out than



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Darn you, Purple! You made me commit attempted chemistry!
First you show a flaw in a process this world needs (a real why-didn't-I-see-that forehead slapper too) then you say, "No, wait, I see it."

Well I didn't! You, sir, are guilty of nerd sniping!

Ok, you did say the result (the third, unmentioned compound) was lithium oxide. What I came up with was O4Li2N6.

Clearly, I'm not a chemist. But that stuff is 0.5 nitrogen. Is that what lithium oxide is? Does the nitrogen separate? Why would the authors not mention this? AAUGH!

Hook me up, man. I need some clarifiation, whatever ya got!
edit on 5/23/2012 by Vitruvius because: gimme,gimme



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvius
Darn you, Purple! You made me commit attempted chemistry!
First you show a flaw in a process this world needs then you say, "No, I see it."

Well I didn't! You, sir, are guilty of nerd sniping!

Ok, you did say the result was lithium oxide. What I came up with was O4Li2N6.

Clearly, I'm not a chemist. But that stuff is 0.5 nitrogen. Is that what lithium oxide is? Does the nitrogen separate? Why would the authors not mention this? AAUGH!

Hook me up, man. I need some clarifiation, whatever ya got!


sorry dewd!!
I did a search for the guy listed in the OP and found another story about it and read it there. Don't remember the link, but you can find it pretty quick that way. The OP was just a story about it, you have to find the original work to see the other stuff going on.
If you don't find it, let me know and I'll try to hunt it down again.
..... really really yucky equation to try to balance though!!!! And it would have to be extremely reactive and couldn't be done without shields and vents and ....well, lots of protection!



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join