Turning CO2 into Fuel via Sunlight

This is a breakthrough, just as is the fairly recent breakthrough of methane storage by a special MOF known as HKUST-1. They have figured out how to arrive at the DOE's specified energy density for storage of gas that can enable competition between gasoline, diesel, and natural gas.

I suspect the natural gas has to be very low in concatenated carbon, and have better than 99% methane, or it might have issues with storage temperature. It is suspected that making a more traditional tank shape for the stored methane (at a similar size to a gasoline tank) will be possible (instead of 250 bar gas cylinders).

Isn't it kind of hard to make the copper oxide nano-whiskers then coat with a single atom think layer of tin?

"Isn't it kind of hard to make the copper oxide nano-whiskers, then coat with a single atom thin layer of tin?"

Initially of course, but then you just need to build a mechanical system to replicate the process...also very difficult, but then it gets easier....hopefully

tiny little tweezers? LOL

Is that it? Really?

It does look like copper oxide alright.

You never click on the picture....

..."Copper Oxide (CuO) Nanoparticles, nanodots or Nanopowder are white spherical high surface area metal particles. Nanoscale Copper Oxide Particles are typically 1-30 nanometers (nm) with specific surface area (SSA) in the 100-200 m 2 /g range. Nano Copper Oxide Particles are also available in passivated and in Ultra high purity and high purity and carbon coated and dispersed forms. They are also available as a nanofluid through the AE Nanofluid production group. Nanofluids are generally defined as suspended nanoparticles in solution either using surfactant or surface charge technology. Nanofluid dispersion and coating selection technical guidance is also available. Other nanostructures include nanorods, nanowhiskers, nanohorns, nanopyramids and other nanocomposites. Surface functionalized nanoparticles allow for the particles to be preferentially adsorbed at the surface interface using chemically bound polymers."...

Jus sayin' you can order nanowhiskers off the internet....

At what cost???

I guess it depends on your specifications....

http://www.nanoamor.com/elements__oxides__carbides___nitrides_nanoparticles?st-t=adwords&gclid=Cj0KCQiA38jRBRCQARIsACEqIeuk0QRO225yzBGh1KQc8JGZcgjhhdWeUxO-wawHLp2W5IW4ubOl484aAj9GEALw_wcB

Sources many...

We can reinvent the tree after we chop them all down...

Quote: "But it could one day lead to methods for making essentially unlimited amounts of liquid fuels from sunlight, water, and CO2, the chief culprit in global warming."

Where would we get the CO2 from if we get rid of fossil fuels?

How do you know that CO2 is the chief culprit of Global Warming? Perhaps from the IPCC, form Al Gore the Politician and from the leftist media? There are thousands or real Scientist who say otherwise. In fact over 31,000 independent Scientist have signed a statement objecting to the notion that CO2 is causing global warming. BTW, there is no Global Warming over the last 18 years. NASA, NOAA, Michael Mann etc. are falsifying temperature data seen by M.Mann's hockey stick theory which is total fraud. I for one do not trust and do not believe a thing NASA publishes regarding Climate Science.

It is all a political agenda to kill the Western Economies and therewith societies by taking away the only energy source we have which are the fossil fuels. Heck, you can't even make steel without fossil fuels. Electrification is a pipe dream that actually causes more environmental pollution by poisonous metals. CO2 is beneficial, it is increasing global 'greening' by vegetation and tree growth and provides higher food crop yield and does absolutely nothing that may be considered harmful.

Please educate yourself and question the present leftist agenda including Agenda 21.

You may search for Christopher Monckton, Roy Spenser, John Coleman, Dr. Don Easterbrook and look at these links:

Prof. Lindzen MIT, retired,

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?2v=SXxHfb66ZgM 32 Nobel Laureate in Physics, from Norway,

www.heartland.org

www.climatechangereconsidered.org

www.co2science.org

www.sepp.org

If we run out of CO2 from exhaust stacks, we could always get CO2 from igloos.

Have you never seen the footage where Eskimo maidens get together to do a lot of heavy breathing in that ritual.

This has been another spoof from our Fakey-Quakey News Department at toldya.com

Like this?

What you say requires a great deal of faith that the people denying climate change are not lying to you. You don't trust Al Gore and others. Perhaps you don't know that he was actually a climate scientist before he was a politician. I find it far more likely that the fossil fuel industry is lying than NASA is lying. Scientists have a great deal to lose by lying in papers which can destroy their reputation, far more than Exxon has to lose by suppressing their in-house global warming scientists, who were the first to establish the effect of CO2.

Going with solar and wind is not the financial disaster that some people are claiming. By now, solar panels are so cheap that most people will save money from it. Going solar will create more jobs than it creates, and there are already twice as many jobs in solar alone than in the production of electricity by fossil fuels, according to Forbes.

You say:

"In fact over 31,000 independent Scientist have signed a statement objecting to the notion that CO2 is causing global warming."

1. Not signatures from independent scientists, signatures from people who have earned a BS or higher in a random scientific field. Very few, if any, of whom actually may know anything about climate. Only 39 actually claimed to have degrees in climate science, which does not actually mean they are up to date on the current state of the science.

From skepticalscience.com:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-basic.htm

According to the Petition Project “qualifications” page, “Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.” The fields that are considered “appropriate” by the OISM are as follows:

• Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment fields: atmospheric science, climatology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, earth science, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, geoscience, hydrology, environmental engineering, environmental science, forestry, oceanography
• Computers and Math: computer science, mathematics, statistics
• Physics and Aerospace: physics, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering
• Chemistry: chemistry, chemical engineering
• Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: biochemistry, biophysics, biology, ecology, entomology, zoology, animal science, agricultural science, agricultural engineering, plant science, food science
• Medicine: medical science, medicine
• General Engineering and General Science: engineering, electrical engineering, metallurgy, general science

2. Let's assume that the signatories did not lie about their credentials. The number actually canvassed is unknown. So what we have is 31,000 signatures of people claiming to have expertise in science out of some number X of people who were actually contacted, where X can be anywhere from 31,000 to many millions.

What percentage of the scientifically educated people who were contacted actually signed the petition?

"Going with solar and wind is not the financial disaster that some people are claiming."

Solar panel array in Europe right now and just when you need electricity the most:

How long do you think the snow will coat the panels? Longer than snow coats the roads and highways? It seems to me there is a lot of incentive for people to go out and clean both roads and solar farms.

And what is wind power doing during storms? I would bet that wind is an order of magnitude higher during a storm.

So do you have any actual data or facts to show that energy is lower just when you need it the most, or is this picture the equivalent to carrying a snowball into Congress to prove that global warming is a myth?

"How long do you think the snow will coat the panels?"

I'm not the weather man.

"And what is wind power doing during storms? I would bet that wind is an order of magnitude higher during a storm."

What storms? Why mention storms? In my 7 decades on this planet, my experience snow normally falls on very still days & nights. Typically you wake up in the morning to an eerie silence, look at the window to find inches of snow. When it partially melts, then refreezes, it's a devil to remove.

"So do you have any actual data or facts to show that energy is lower just when you need it the most, or is this picture the equivalent to carrying a snowball into Congress to prove that global warming is a myth?"

Whaaaat? When the photovoltaic panels are covered in snow, you think they maintain their output as normal? Do you have any actual data or facts to support that?

You are clutching at straws.

Thanks. I think I'll let your answers speak for themselves.

Perfect!

priceless. They should be getting their lump of coal about now.

I just checked what I thought was a fact. I thought I had read somewhere that Al Gore got a degree in climatology, and he did not. Maybe it was somebody else, but apparently the closest Al Gore came to that was taking an undergrad class in climatology.

My apologies.

Here is one possibility for this process. Take the CO2 emitted by a power plant, feed it through a solar farm that converts it into CO, and then burn it in the same power plant instead of, or in addition to, the fossil fuel feedstocks. Any amount that replaces natural gas is a net gain. And perhaps this is a good alternative for batteries for storing solar power for nighttime use. All you need is a way to save CO.

As a concept it could be a way to have a hybrid power plant with both the cheapness of solar power and the convenience of natural gas, kind of like a pluggable hybrid. You can always revert to using the natural gas when there is not enough CO available.

Personally, I would far prefer they find a way to make turn the CO into methane or methanol for storage, because the consequences of a CO leak could be enormous.

Clean coal is just a hoax, the perpetrators of that hoax would like us to believe that there is perpetual motion and the laws of thermodynamics can be suspended by voting them into office.

It makes no sense to inefficiently burn a ton of fossil fuel, collect the waste gases (allowing the majority of the waste in the form of heat to warm the air or water) in plant mater or some other catalytic means utilizing sunlight (again inefficiently) and try to extract a burnable fuel. A solar cell or wind mill are much more effective and easier to maintain.

The problem of global warming is being addressed by the many engineers and scientists who are advancing us into a new electric age. Does anybody seriously think that steam locomotives will return and diesel trucks are not going to be replaced with electric? Internal combustion engines with their 20% efficiencies, and even fossil fuel power plants days are numbered. Electric motors and actuators are taking over transport, manufacturing (replacing hydraulics and other inefficient systems) and many other fields.

A smart grid, long distance high voltage DC transmission, massive energy storage both mechanical and chemical, are happening. Seven Billion people on the planet can't all wake up in the morning and start their giant gas powered SUV's and not make the atmosphere unbreathable eventually, and destroy what's left of the natural world along the way. We live on a very small ball of dirt, and can only survive on the thin film of water and gas that has migrated to the surface.

Floram's post is in the wrong forum. We believe what we see and not vice versa. But it's too easy to dismiss it as politicrap. There are 40? million Americans who will agree with him. They are not stupid nor crazy, but afraid of the impartial and science-based criteria which we use to make decisions. It's no accident that the Trump administration just said that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) couldn't use the phrase "science-based" in their budget requests!

What's driving their fears is that science takes away the security of believing the impossible, believing IN things, and we do need some of that to defend against reality and thus keep us functional and sane.

As for CO2, whether it is or isn't responsible for some global warming is only part of the issue. What's important is what if anything can we do about it?

"... They are not stupid nor crazy, but afraid of the impartial and science-based criteria which we use to make decisions..."

.

I wish we used impartial and science based criteria to make decisions. I'm also not certain that someone afraid of using impartial and science based criteria isn't necessarily either somewhat stupid, crazy, or a combination thereof.

Thanks Griffith.

At first I was tempted to reply to post 12 by Canary. But then it is like talking to the wall. I am sure he has not read or looked at any of my links. I expected participants of this forum to be at least somewhat above average in technical understanding and be critical and judge issues for themselves.

I sure looks that I am in the wrong forum.

Saying that Al Gore was a scientist says it all. He may have attended some scientific lectures which does not make him a scientist. He is primarily a politician and also a business man. Not me, but others have suggested that Al Gore may explain it this way: 'I am usually telling the truth, but when I lie about the climate I get paid paid millions of dollars.'

As to Canary (getting a good answer) in debunking the 31,000+ scientifically trained people of which more than 9000 have a PHD, by belittling them, one can ask how many of the so-called Climate Scientists are there who make up the 97% and what qualification do they have? As far as I know the 97 % is out of about 70 or so IPCC 'scientists' who are paid to say so. Why is there no equivalent list of alarmist scientist with listings of their credentials? What is the real number of these 'scientists' not the percentage number. If you talk about a percentage you must also give the 100% value to be of any use. But that is not being done.

You see, climate science is not an isolated field but requires knowledge in many other fields to fully comprehend it. There is no such thing as a pure and only climate scientist. There is an old saying: One who only knows chemistry does not know it either. Analog: (just for this audience) One who only knows climate science does not understand climate science at all.

Why is it 'settled' ? Why is no discussion allowed?

Today PragerU issued a comment of a student where Dennis lectured not at his U. Here is that link:

https://lightningboltonline.com/2017/12/13/the-irony-of-the-electric-car/?inf_contact_key=4d587d38b5b667f39712edb9ee83e9824618e1502c0c56bfcedcf5b9465e7c52

The real issue is not who is right on climate, it is rather the leftist agenda that wants to bring societies down. No middle class. Only rich and poor. The fight for a world government is ongoing for ever, it seems. Senior Bush talked about it. 'New World Order.' One must read the aim of Agenda 21. No private property. No landownership. No family life, kids are being brought up by the state. The world population has to be reduced to half or 10%. There are only a 1% or so rich and 99% are the workers who have no rights whatsoever, no cars, no movement possible, the masses are put up in small apartments in only ~2% of the land area. No visiting the countryside to protect the environment, and the list goes one. The state will decide what people do, not themselves. Pople will be treated like chickens in chicken farms today. So the 1% rich can enjoy nature. This is the real issue here. Obama did a good job in that direction. Thanks goodness the wind has changed. But it needs a lot more undoing.

BTW, citing Trumps wording recommendations is not a restriction but advise to have a better change of getting funding. It is not as it is made out to be by the left and here.

Agenda 21: Watch key words: 'Sustainable development'. A joke, craziness? it sure looks that way, but it is not. It is being implemented right now. "Sustainable Development" sounds good but it is a step towards a society far beyond communism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLxIbvAHXOY

I urge you all to look at that and looks at it twice. Not for me to be right, for all of us not to suffer the consequences. The future of our children is at stake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN4ip9t7JvU 23 min The most important video,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esJY2SK_4tE 14 min UN’s diabolical plan for the world explained,

Some videos start further in, move the timer to zero to see it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYWMXEbpjxY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAKS-SwA-mY

Thank heavens someone else understands what's going on in our world. I know CR4 is meant to be non-political but it affects everything in our lives from now on. I don't have the time to go into all the details, but suggest you acquaint yourselves with the following:

1) 'UN Plan for 2030.'

https://www.naturalnews.com/051058_2030_Agenda_United_Nations_global_enslavement.html

2) Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan for enforced racial interbreeding. See Nicolas Sarkozy (prior French President) advising miscegenation and that it would be state sanctioned if they didn't. (on YouTube)

3) Look up all those who have received the annual Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize.

4) The Bilderberg Group and who have attended their secret meetings over the years. Fortunately journalist are quite capable of spotting the protagonists, even if they are excluded from the meetings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

5) The Barcelona Declaration - unlimited access to Europe by N. Africans & Middle East.

https://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/the-barcelona-declaration-euro-mediterranean-eus-dirty-secret/

6) New World Order - One World Government - see George Bush Snr. on YouTube.

Also stated by David Rockefeller.

7) "Common Purpose" - training courses (under the guise of a 'charity' but paid for by the government, using taxpayers money) for people to become the 'leaders of the future.' Indoctrination of PC, multi-racial society, pro-EU, desperately fighting Brexit ..... Their graduates have infested all institutions in the UK - police, BBC, media, clergy, judiciary, universities, schoolteachers, industry & more.

https://www.cpexposed.com/

Sorry so disjointed - late at night for me. You just have to join up the dots to see what's happening. Have fun.

P.S. Glad I won't live to see it.