Graphene from CO2

Any energy audit needs to take into account the energy needed to make elemental magnesium from its input compounds as a starting point. Don't get carried away; the Laws of Thermodynamics always win.

It may not be a good way to remove Carbon Dioxide, but it may be a good way to produce graphene.

http://www.niu.edu/hosmane/docs/JMaterChem2011.pdf

That might be the only useful thing for this process because Magnesium oxide is naturally occuring while the Magnesium has to be made from the oxide.

So turning Magnesium into its oxide again would be a dumb idea unless you have some other gains from it.

It would be the ONLY useful thing. You would recover some heat energy from the reaction. The thing I'm concerned about is how the "graphene" would be "separated" from the reaction mixture. Maybe some perspective is in order:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25442-make-graphene-in-your-kitchen-with-soap-and-a-blender.html#.U9CoZdh0zAc

I would reject this patent as a financially nonviable process. However, with the current state of state-sanctioned handouts because-it-sounds-scientific-and-green-and-cool-to-people-who-don't-know-any-better, it will probably get the OK.

<Fuming> Grrrrr

Well after all its only a patent. If it is not viable then we know that whoever paid for it put his money in the wrong bank!

No.

The process is patented, not the individual pieces of equipment, at least not here.

The question becomes, will the addition of a new, improved part of the process equipment be considered sufficient for granting an improvement patent?

Then, all bets are off and the process can be moved forward.

I haven't done any research on this, or even pored over the patent. Chemically, it sounds plausible, but the real questions are:

1. What are the reaction product concentrations in relation to the reactants (amid a myriad of by-products)?

2. How will you separate the reaction products?

It's easy to make a process diagram; it's something else to make it a financially viable process.

I agree with you Mikerho, but since when do Government Grant funded projects that sound 'Green', that combine CO2 coal plant stack emissions that combust with Magnesium in CO2 laden seawater have to be "Financially Plausible"?

I bet someone could get funding for this...I think it would be a futile waste of resources but I also think if a grant writer could present this the right way they would be the next Solendra, or whatever their name was...

Sorry, I meant to quote "Financially Viable". And although my last post was sarcastic, I do agree with you Mikerho. But, let's continue think about new things.

Not a problem! If you see my reply to IdeaSmith, I was being sarcastic too.

I was thinking about the whole Solyndra ripoff as well.

:-)

(my emoticons aren't working for some reason).

Well, this is what happens when a mechanical engineer posits a question in a Chemical Forum.

In at least one embodiment of magnesium production, silicon is first made by reacting Silicon dioxide with coke heated by large carbon electrodes. The reaction by-product is very large amounts of carbon dioxide. Silicon will react with Magnesium oxide (and very high heat). Magnesium vapor is pulled off and condensed back to the metal. I do believe this to be the process utilized in China for a long time now.

Others in the USA, Magnesium is a co-product with chlorine production (or vice versa) through electrolysis of the molten salt, with additives being present to lower the melt temperature.

The method to produce graphene is useful in and of itself, with no need to consider it as a carbon dioxide capture, but this does come at the expenditure of magnesium stocks. Are you sure that this is the only route to roduce graphene? Have you tried a reaction with molten aluminum and carbon dioxide? Do not try at home.