Headstand for Carbon Dioxide

Oh good lord . Why don't they teach practicality and real-world theory in Universities. At least backyard free energy tinkerers have an excuse in their lack of technical understanding.

Look at the big picture people. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul (ie- how much CO2 do you think is generated actually making the solar panels compared to how much is going to ever be able to be converted). As for production of carbon monoxide as a potential energy source? Well this is baffling. Perhaps we should all put collectors on our car exhaust. It makes more sense (hey, we could get a refund when we refill or gas tank at the service station and pass over our container of CO2).

<sigh>

Here's an interesting paper by the folks at Tesla Motors. It talks about "Well to Wheel" efficiency of various fuels and transports.

http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/twentyfirstcenturycar.pdf

Hi vermin,

An interesting link on the calculation of overall efficiency of a range of vehicles. I must admit that I am a bit of a fan of the Tesla roadster and would love to have one parked in the driveway but the price tag is a bit out of my reach at the moment.

However, I am not 100% sure of the figures they have used, especially when they speak of the well to wheel efficiency of the Tesla roadster. They are using a generating efficiency of around 60% when natural gas is used and while this is possible it is not the norm. Most of the worlds electricity is generated by burning coal and the average efficiency is around 30% or half what they used in their calculations. The other point is coal is a hell of a lot dirtier and produces considerably more C0₂, and sulphur compounds than natural gas.

Rather than just looking at the efficiency on an energy basis I think a more important comparison is the amount of pollution created both from and energy and per distance traveled point of view.

I can't confirm this but from what I have seen elsewhere when you look at it from a pollution point of view the best fuel is Compressed or Liquid Natural Gas CNG/LNG. However, I cant confirm this but if I get time over the next couple of days I will see what I can find and read the Tesla document in detail to see if I can come up with some figures.

Yes, considering Tesla is ramping up for the market, I wondered myself just how unbiased this paper really was.

Well the paper was written by Tesla motors. They are hardly going to be less than glowing (angelic even) when putting forward specific facts that make their product look good. Marketing is funny that way.

Masu,

Re sulphur from coal fired power stations, there are now very low emissions from CFPS because of the scrubbers that have been mandatory for the last 20 years (ish). As the stations are pretty much steady state "engines" (any transients are planned and relatively slow), it is possible to design SOx scrubbers that are very efficient.

Also, the combusion regime can been tuned to minimise CO, HC, PM and NOx, so CFPS are remarkably clean these days. Sames goes for gas turbines.

The table towards the end of the Tesla document does give a comparison in terms of km/MJ, which I think is the most useful comparison unit. I haven't checked through all their assumptions and calcs, so I can't confirm that I believe their numbers totally. It would be good to see life cycle pollutant figures too though.

Yes, but with George W. Bush's "Blue Sky" act, more sulphur-bearing coal will be allowed to be burned (sans scrubbers) than ever before. You've got to admit, the man's got one hell of a lot of gall!!!

I used to think politicians with brains (of their own) would make too much trouble. Live and learn.

RichH

I agree. What a waste of time and energy.

Great ......now they are replacing a gas that is necessary for life (CO₂) With a gas that will suffocate you by attaching itself to your blood so that oxygen cannot get to your cells (CO)

http://www.carbonmonoxidekills.com/

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/carbon_monoxide_poisoning/article_em.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning

etc.etc.etc

Look to it from a different side: there are quite some processes that generate CO₂. (all fermentation processes have this by product)

This means that there is quite some CO₂ available from the shelve.

Some processes need CO, this technique couples the two.

Quite more intelligent than burying the stuff and believing that the problem is solved.

How would it affect the carbon load if everyone stopped farting? JUST SAY NO!!! Or at least make everyone recycle. We could get the French to judge the bouquet.

I would run for president and make a stop of all fermentation processes one of my bullet points.

No wine or beer anymore.

When attacking global warming we must keep in mind that we have to maintain basic live quality or the masses will never accept it.

You'd get lynched!!!

That is what I try to explain.

And why green parties luckily never make it. They are not realistic.

Just like the old communism: the basic idea is OK: Power to the working class.

But then they forgot one little point. The working class is not capable for being in power. So the result is a system that somewhere forgot where they were aiming for. Resulting is even less life quality for everyone.

I love the reply...

How are they actually reducing the CO2 to CO? If they are not using carbon as the reductant, then this may actually be a pretty good idea. Just think about it: CO2 is a natural byproduct of the burning of most fuels. Reducing the CO2 exhaust back to CO so that it can be burnt as fuel again will result in a zero carbon emission level since the CO2 produced is converted back into fuel, rather than being released into the atmosphere and having new fossil fuel extracted and burnt, which will increase carbon emission.

And I can finally go back to sticking a hose up my tail pipe in a closed garage, and not have to listen to CO₂ no CO, CO₂ No CO...........

First, the leak hazard with CO is worse than HCN (Hydrogen Cyanide) Neither has an odor, neither is cleared by your body, they can both accumulate over a period of weeks to fatal quantities. Two thirds of the energy of carbon is the first C=O bond. The second bond, 2 CO + O₂→2 CO_2, has less than 1/2 of the energy potential of the first bond. You need to produce three times as much CO₂ to get the same energy production. Sounds very green to me. Especially around the gills

RichH

Think again:

CO₂ + C -> 2CO

then

2CO + O₂ -> 2CO₂

So where's the carbon saving in that?

Yhere would be a value to the recycling of existing carbon already in the atmosphere as opposed to releasing previously fossilized carbon. The problem would be the basically low energy content and high hazard level of the CO. I haven't checked, but my memory tells me around 8,000 BTU/lb CO as opposed to 16,000 to 25,000 BTU/lb for fossil fuels. Incidentally, I think that H₂ is about the same as CO per pound, but volumetrically it is much lower per gallon or cubic foot.

I'm sure someone will check those numbers.

RichH

I thought fossil fuel (e.g. gasoline) was like 250,000 BTU/lb?

Anyway, some of my friends were talking about a device that someone has come up with that acts as a huge carbon scrubber. You put these near power plants and they suck the excess carbon out of the air. Any truth, or just another red herring?

Is it called a "tree"?

Hey, that's my joke.

But as it is used for a good reason, no problem.

It would (wood) be nice if it was. No, this is some sort of Godless industrial device that probably creates more carbon than it cleans. The friends were all excited, but I have yet to hear anything else.

Keep us informed vermin I'm sure they will be a few on here who'll comment!

You might call it a simple idea but it is used.

Not with tree's but with tomato plants: natural gas driven engines make electricity which is sold to the grid, heat which is used to heat up the greenhouse and CO₂ + H₂O that is injected in the greenhouse.

Tomatos love the heat,the CO₂ and the moist air.

They are that lucky that they grow faster.

Why are they lucky that they grow faster?!

I have a friend whose father works at a very high efficiency water treatment plant. This plant is so nasty you can drink their output with absolute safety. However, there are only two things that make it through the plant intact: condoms and "living" tomato seeds. Those little bastards (and I'm talking about the tomato seeds) are the toughest things on Earth!!!.

I assume that it is done for this effect.

Environment is not the sleepless night problem for real farmers.

Wha? Who? Hey? I don't understand the statement.

All I wanted to imply was tomatoes are the last things we have to worry about. After WW III it's cockroaches, Keith Richards, and tomatos... And vermin, of course. I mean after all, who are the cockroaches and Keith going to buy their tomatoes from? Hmmm?

The Keith Richards problem will solve itself. The tree was just not high enough.

The main idea behind growing tomatios in a rich CO₂ environment is that they grow faster, so the production cycle is getting shorter. The positive effect on the amount of CO2 produced per KWh is nicely take along (togheter with the EU money)

Yeah, but Gwen, you can only eat so much spaghetti sauce!!!

Vermin, Don't you need to sleep?

The world of food production is overloaded with assymetric production: the more tomatoes, the cheaper they become. Their taste is not that important any more.

I sleep when my chin hits the Penguin, uuuuh keyboard.

But tomatoes can't supply us with everything we need, which leaves us in the predicament of pumping steam down old oil wells to scavenge the last petrochemicals to synthesize vitamin B and rough forms of protein. Using a very expensive process, I might add.

But the same idea might work in other agricultural regions too: oil producing seeds may grow faster and be bigger when grown in CO₂ rich atmosphere. The nutritional value does not need to be that high.

The high water vapor content in the air is also beneficial: Algeria is a big natural gas producer, but everything gets exported. If they would do the same a part of their desert may be used as agricultural zone: plenty of sun, water for the plants and a fast growing culture.

I got it: the pengiun hurts the eyes of the Americans. I wil look for a teletubby or so.

They have farms in Israel where they grow nothing be algae in the hot, hot sun. The product? Beta carotene. Good for you, and a very expensive colorant in margarine.

However, each bio-zone has it's limits. We were evolved to eat a rather diverse menu, not found in desert hydroponics.

"The main idea behind growing tomatios in a rich CO₂ environment is that they grow faster, so the production cycle is getting shorter."

That may be, however, what you end up with is a beautiful, plump, firm, rich red coloured tomato that has about as much flavor and nutritional value as a packet of dehydrated water that is way past its use by date!

Here you reach the sore point: the flavor and nutritional benefits come from the total amount of solar irradiation: in a greenhouse it is alway's less as the grow time reduces and the light is filtered.

One of the reasons that top chefs have their own garden in the backyard: they grow the varieties they want at the speed that nature supplies. Just like the pigs froma farmer. The pigs they eat are not in the stable with the rest. No, those pigs can walk in the yard and eat decent food.

But when the alternative is Soilent Green, who cares what it tastes like as long as it keeps you alive.