Posted on 02/23/2008 11:46:16 PM PST by neverdem
If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, churning out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming.
The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr., are proposing a concept, which they have patriotically named Green Freedom, for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline.
The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.
This process could transform carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed cycle — equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed — would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming.
Although they have not yet built a synthetic fuel factory, or even a small prototype, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology.
“Everything in the concept has been built, is operating or has a close cousin that is operating,” Dr. Martin said.
The Los Alamos proposal does not violate...
--snip--
Gasoline, it turns out, is an almost ideal fuel (except that it produces 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon). It is easily transported, and it generates more energy per volume than most alternatives. If it can be made out of carbon dioxide in the air, the Los Alamos concept may mean there is little reason to switch, after all. The concept can also be adapted for jet fuel; for jetliners, neither hydrogen nor batteries seem plausible alternatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Green Freedom pdf link
Hydrocarbons for the 21st Century - The Work of the Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute
OMG! Take all the carbon dioxide out of the air and we’ll FREEZE to death! Global Cooling!!!!
I can imagine that this idea would work so well that someday there will be the fear that too much CO2 is being scrubbed out of the atmosphere and causing vegetation to die. The greenies always have to have something to complain about.
I think they need to get the “science” of CO2 as a global warming driver before they worry their pointed little heads as to what to do with it.
Actually, nature already does this. Free of charge. Where do you think the carbon in the oil came from?
NO NO NO NO
The solutions must require SACRIFICE!
Where is the guilt! where is the loathing of America!
This is unacceptable!
Dang I wish I was a scientist
I could make millions off this sh!t
Where can I buy like a zillion tons of K2CO3 ???? And get rich
Turns out I’m right
And no chemicals need to be involved.....it’s membranes baby.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/technologies/03dec_membranes.html
Everybody EXHALE!!! Ah 1 ah 2. Gotta be a catch to this.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Which, if I remember my chemistry correctly, produces water vapor and carbon dioxide, the first and third strongest greenhouse gases.
BECAUSE, 5 years from now it will be the scientific consensus that crabon dioxide NEVER, EVER, EVER contributed to global warming.
This will upset many factions:
Those that need the Global Warming Religion and those that need the US to rely upon an ever increasing dependence of Foreign oil.
How can you produce 19.4 pounds of anything from something that weighs about 6 pounds a gallon? What am I not understanding? Adding oxygen triples its weight?
or we can develop interplanetary mining/drilling infrastructure, and start drilling on other planets for oil.... then in a few years, they’ll be talking instead of reducing dependence on foreign oil, reducing our dependence on alien oil....
Yes, approximately. Carbon (atomic weight of 12) bonds with two atoms of oxygen (atomic weight of 16) to form a CO2 molecule with a combined atomic weight of 44.
How are we going to pull off that when we can’t even drill off our own shores or on our own land. You would think that would be the first place we would go.
We exhale CO2, what if you got bad breath, hung over?
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
You need a nuclear power plant to supply the energy for this proposal. Next suggestion please.
These guys work for Los Alamos. IOW they are Federal gubbermint scientists who sure seem to be floating an absurd scheme to get grant money & funding for this nonsense. The Congress critter/lawyer/hacks who might approve and fund this idiocy could care less about sound science. Lawyers are pretty much actors and fantasists who mostly hate a rational approach, a sound engineering approach to a problem.
The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.
This will require enormous amounts of energy (that you will get from Lord knows where) to pull off and turn CO2 into gasoline LOLOLOLOL! There seems to be no free lunch here.
You could scale up this idea to super colossal dimensions and I doubt it would make a measurable dent in atmospheric CO2 levels. But the lawyer/hacks who run DC will think it can...... Like I said, they hate science because it blows (demolishes) their fantasies and global warming agendas
Correct sir! Or a whole new slew of coal (LOL!) burning plants. Please see my post #23
Imagine that. Don't they teach the carbon cycle in schools anymore?
The simple solutions too a non problem escapes them for reason.......profit.
Actually, this would drive them nutso. The whole idea behind AGW is to shut down fossil fuel use and take control of the world economy, not to abate CO2. Any technology that threatens to turn CO2 into synthetic fossil fuel . . . well, I can hear heads exploding now.
thanks nd.
Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel
New Scientist | July 31, 2002 | Eugenie Samuel
Posted on 08/02/2002 10:43:06 AM EDT by Paradox
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/726555/posts
Sandia’s synthetic fuel recipe: Mix CO2 , water; heat with sun
(Greenhouse gas fuel of the future?)
EE Times | January 7, 2008 | R. Colin Johnson
Posted on 01/08/2008 5:18:32 AM EST by CutePuppy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950134/posts
Sunshine to Petrol Project Seeks Fuel from Thin Air
Renewable Energy Access | 1/10/2007
Posted on 01/10/2008 9:49:24 AM EST by Uncledave
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951397/posts
and this will be the last we ever hear about it...
Gasoline can be made from coal, garbage, slaughter house wastes, sewage and other sources of hydrocarbons. If we invested the money we are wasting on the great corn ethanol boondoggle into making gasoline from these other sources we wouldn't have an energy problem.
“Gasoline, it turns out, is an almost ideal fuel (except that it produces 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon). It is easily transported, and it generates more energy per volume than most alternatives. If it can be made out of carbon dioxide in the air, the Los Alamos concept may mean there is little reason to switch, after all. The concept can also be adapted for jet fuel; for jetliners, neither hydrogen nor batteries seem plausible alternatives.”
The Green Nazis will be training Green Suicide terrorists to suicide bomb the labs doing this. Then they will suicide bomb any large scale refinerie doing this. They can’t allow this to happen.
"The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel"
They are creating a global CO2 treadmill........
.........They will invest a lot of money and do a lot of work to go nowhere. You need to use power and emit CO2 to run the process at less than perfect efficiency. You can never get ahead using carbon based fuel................ We are better off pumping and mining fuel out of the ground until it dries up.
With this process, the only way off the treadmill would be nuclear power, or solar - wind - hydro.
This is about as stupid as trying to make coal out of CO2 so we can burn it again.
> Although they have not yet built a synthetic fuel factory, or even a small prototype, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology.
Total crapola. I’ve worked on lots of projects where some fool had a model that worked on paper. Going from a theory on paper to a working prototype can sometimes be problematic, if not impossible.
I’ll wait until the actually prove feasibility, cost effectiveness and have actually built something before I invest in this wild goose chase.
What does a gallon of gas weight ?
” 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon...”
That's the stated intention... not to add new carbon sources but to 're-use' existing atmospheric carbon.
If this technology would scale down, I could see putting up a wind mill or solar field just to make highly expensive gasoline for the Green Weenies who believe this global warming bull crap Just think --- they could zero or even go negative on their carbon footprint. Maybe sell at $20/gal --- Could be a damn nice money maker.
These guys suggest nucler only because it is far less expensive per energy unit basis than wind or solar but when it comes to the Green mafia, costs should make no damn difference. Remember, it's for the children. ;~))
What does a gallon of gas weight ?
” 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon...”
A good science and math question for “Are you smarter than a fifth grader?”
Published in the NY slime, of course.
So what happens when someone new comes along and discovers that Greenhouse Gas is actually a GOOD thing?
Sounds like wishful “reverse alchemistry” to me. What you say is correct, IF the process described actually ever works... remember the buzz over nuclear fusion a few years ago!!! (it was another fart in a whirlwind!)
Octane is C8H18 combusted with 12.5 02 -——> 8CO2 + 9H20 now u need to use molarity to find out how much C02 is produced when you burn one gallon of Octane for that you need density so convert gallons to liters and then you need the density of octane in grams per liter at STP. Once you have density you can get grams, once you have grams you can use stoichiometric ratios of C to O in combustion to find mols of C02 produced by combustion of 1 liter then multipy that number by 3.78 to get mols per gallon. Once you have mols CO2 per gallon use the molecular weight of CO2 and multiply by the mols produced which gives you mass of CO2 in grams. Divide by 1000 grams to get kilograms and then convert to pounds…. Or u could just trust that one gallon of octane combusted with 12.5 times as many O2 molecules will give you 19 lbs of CO2.
A few years ago there was a Popular Science article on 6 possible ways to reduce atmpspheric CO2. One was to fertilize the ocean so that the photoplankton absorbed more of it. Pretty good idea. Another was to have drive-in movie screen-sized panels of Mg or K membranes-compounds sticking up in the wind to combine with the CO2. Problem there was you’d need an area the size of arizona as panel area.
My thought : put the panels on a circular(vertical axis)windmill configuration, the outside hinge concept. It’s an olde idea, exhibited at the NY state fair in 1911. It looks like a squirrel cage fan on radial arms. Thus the panels actively sweeep thru larger volumes and it’s a windmill as well. Thus the wind itself powers the removal of CO2. Still you’d need harvesters to routinely replace the membranes when they get full.
These guys need to buy a lot of life insurance, if they can. By the way what does a barrel of potassium carbonate cost? Hmmm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.