• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Happy Renting

Um.... I can see a problem with this

Recommended Posts

image.thumb.png.006e42084c7eb91165f1205ace339ac1.png

From the So-Called BBC website.

They don't actually claim there is no energy input (and implicitly heat output) to this cycle, but any unenlightened observer might imagine scientists are going to build an environmental perpetual motion machine.

Replace the 'Fuel synthesis' factory with a forest and it might work, but fat chance of finding enough land. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Happy Renting said:

image.thumb.png.006e42084c7eb91165f1205ace339ac1.png

From the So-Called BBC website.

They don't actually claim there is no energy input (and implicitly heat output) to this cycle, but any unenlightened observer might imagine scientists are going to build an environmental perpetual motion machine.

Replace the 'Fuel synthesis' factory with a forest and it might work, but fat chance of finding enough land. 

 

It doesn't need to be zero emission, just lower than burning virgin fossil fuel for transport.

Having said that, ultimately it's probably not going to be a solution. Many of these schemes are predicated on some kind of free renewable electricity. CO2 is so thermodynamically stable that all you can do is shuffle it around. Actually capturing it AND using it AND reducing emissions is pretty much impossible.

Edited by Roger_Mellie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it just a possible use for excess renewable energy on sunny windy days? Better than switching off windfarms, which does happen. I heard about Audi doing this years back, it's taken a while to come to (slight) fruition.

There isn't much possibility of electrifying mass air travel anytime soon, so making the fuel this way with "free" excess renewable energy could be a positive step. But cars? What's the point? - electrics are going to take off soon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the So-Called BBC is now an advertising agency for speculative tech companies reliant on generous donors.

Quote (not BBC), Based on the data obtained from the pilot plant, David Keith and Carbon Engineering published a manuscript on June 7, 2018 that presents a simulation suggesting that CO2 can be captured from the atmosphere at a cost of 94 to 233 USD per ton, "depending on financial assumptions, energy costs, and the specific choice of inputs and outputs."

The pilot plant (my numbers) has to process @300ppm removal something like 7740 tons of air to produce 1 ton of fuel.

That's 6 million cubic meters of air that has to be forced through some sort of membrane.

965011470_Screenshot-2019-5-10CarbonEngineeringCO2captureandthesynthesisofcleantransportationfuels.jpg.9c79ea0101e87107fcfdf3ff56ee5fed.jpg

This has scientific scam written all over it.

https://carbonengineering.com/

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

This is the modern equivalent of the Gold from Seawater and Radium scams promoted by Sir William Ramsay FRS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

So the So-Called BBC is now an advertising agency for speculative tech companies reliant on generous donors.

Quote (not BBC), Based on the data obtained from the pilot plant, David Keith and Carbon Engineering published a manuscript on June 7, 2018 that presents a simulation suggesting that CO2 can be captured from the atmosphere at a cost of 94 to 233 USD per ton, "depending on financial assumptions, energy costs, and the specific choice of inputs and outputs."

The pilot plant (my numbers) has to process @300ppm removal something like 7740 tons of air to produce 1 ton of fuel.

That's 6 million cubic meters of air that has to be forced through some sort of membrane.

965011470_Screenshot-2019-5-10CarbonEngineeringCO2captureandthesynthesisofcleantransportationfuels.jpg.9c79ea0101e87107fcfdf3ff56ee5fed.jpg

This has scientific scam written all over it.

https://carbonengineering.com/

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

This is the modern equivalent of the Gold from Seawater and Radium scams promoted by Sir William Ramsay FRS.

It's not a scam, but it is very speculative and you need a whole raft of technologies to line up in order to make it viable. Which they currently don't. 

So you've got a choice:

1. Keep it funded and give it a chance, with a high possibility of failure for the overall concept, but with a high-ish probability that some indirect benefits can be taken from the development of ancillary technologies e.g. high efficiency CO2 capture

2. Pull the plug and guarantee failure

Edited by Roger_Mellie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Roger_Mellie said:

It's not a scam, but it is very speculative and you need a whole raft of technologies to line up in order to make it viable. Which they currently don't. 

So you've got a choice:

1. Keep it funded and give it a chance, with a high possibility of failure for the overall concept, but with a high-ish probability that some indirect benefits can be taken from the development of ancillary technologies e.g. high efficiency CO2 capture

2. Pull the plug and guarantee failure

Actually there is another option:

3. Invest the money in development of other technologies that are less risky and/or offer more environmental benefit.

-----

I don't like things like the CO2 -> fuel thing -- it'll be dreadfully inefficient and it essentially serves a need called 'we'd like to carry on just as we are, but we don't like feeling guilty'.  Most of our environmental impact will be reduced by scaling back our consumption a bit (a lot), not dream of ways that'll allow business as usual -- it's not as if we've had thousands of years of our current consumption habits.

The other thing is to reduce our dependency on countries that have poor behaviours.  Eg, that the UK was exporting rubbish to countries with very poor environmental standards was a travesty -- all those local government officials that allowed this to happen (while pretending to their electorate that they were being great) should be paraded through the town centre as the charlatans that they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Or plan b and that’s ship every fucker in shit hole country’s over here and plant trees where they are from or pay them not to cut trees down either way it’s not going to end well disclaimer I am

pissed no orangutans were injured thinking this up nor do I imply Africans breed like rats ps I know they ain’t from Africa so add elephants and them big tall things with bendy necks to we must save at all costs list even if we ain’t killing them list

Edited by stokiescum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

The pilot plant (my numbers) has to process @300ppm removal something like 7740 tons of air to produce 1 ton of fuel.

That's 6 million cubic meters of air that has to be forced through some sort of membrane.

So all the air in a 181 metre sided cube? Doesn't sound so unreasonable.

If (and it's a big if) they can make this more efficient than using Hydrogen as a store of energy then it doesn't sound to me like a bad way of using all the spare power we'll have once we've built a quarter of a million wind turbines round our coastline :) . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dgul said:

Actually there is another option:

3. Invest the money in development of other technologies that are less risky and/or offer more environmental benefit.

-----

I don't like things like the CO2 -> fuel thing -- it'll be dreadfully inefficient and it essentially serves a need called 'we'd like to carry on just as we are, but we don't like feeling guilty'.  Most of our environmental impact will be reduced by scaling back our consumption a bit (a lot), not dream of ways that'll allow business as usual -- it's not as if we've had thousands of years of our current consumption habits.

The other thing is to reduce our dependency on countries that have poor behaviours.  Eg, that the UK was exporting rubbish to countries with very poor environmental standards was a travesty -- all those local government officials that allowed this to happen (while pretending to their electorate that they were being great) should be paraded through the town centre as the charlatans that they are.

The trouble with option 3 is that if we knew what they were then we'd all be gazillionaires.

There's a lot of investment in a hugely broad range of technologies that could generally be called 'sustainable' and that approach the issue from various perspectives.

If this project was the only one we could afford to invest in, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rave said:

So all the air in a 181 metre sided cube? Doesn't sound so unreasonable.

If (and it's a big if) they can make this more efficient than using Hydrogen as a store of energy then it doesn't sound to me like a bad way of using all the spare power we'll have once we've built a quarter of a million wind turbines round our coastline :) . 

Imagine though...

What if as part of this someone ends up developing an amazing CO2 capture/concentration technology, or a next gen RWGS catalyst? Both of those technologies would have much further reaching application than 'air to fuel' which, to be honest, does sound like a sack of shit. But that doesn't mean the project is entirely without merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Isn't it just a possible use for excess renewable energy on sunny windy days? Better than switching off windfarms, which does happen. I heard about Audi doing this years back, it's taken a while to come to (slight) fruition.

There isn't much possibility of electrifying mass air travel anytime soon, so making the fuel this way with "free" excess renewable energy could be a positive step. But cars? What's the point? - electrics are going to take off soon.

 

I think synthetic hydrocarbon LPG made from sequestrated CO2 could be a better solution for many vehicles than electricity (particularly aircraft) BUT my issue with the illustration is primarily that it fails to show that energy would be required to turn CO2 back into fuel. In particular, more energy than was generated by burning the hydrocarbon fuel in the first place, as the process will be far from 100% efficient. 

Half of the airheads in the new age environmental lobby are probably too thick to understand this. the So-Called BBC certainly fails to make the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rave said:

So all the air in a 181 metre sided cube? Doesn't sound so unreasonable.

If (and it's a big if) they can make this more efficient than using Hydrogen as a store of energy then it doesn't sound to me like a bad way of using all the spare power we'll have once we've built a quarter of a million wind turbines round our coastline :) . 

That is just collecting the CO2. Then you have to turn it into fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Happy Renting said:

I think synthetic hydrocarbon LPG made from sequestrated CO2 could be a better solution for many vehicles than electricity (particularly aircraft) BUT my issue with the illustration is primarily that it fails to show that energy would be required to turn CO2 back into fuel. In particular, more energy than was generated by burning the hydrocarbon fuel in the first place, as the process will be far from 100% efficient. 

Half of the airheads in the new age environmental lobby are probably too thick to understand this. the So-Called BBC certainly fails to make the point.

But the point is that by using renewable electricity to power it then you don't add any new CO2 to the system, you just shuffle around what is already there. You can then use the liquid fuel to power things where liquid fuel has to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how will any of this save wildlife we are under a two pronged attack go green ie wind etc stop plastic and stop species being wiped out these things will converge trust me and it won’t be pretty or am I to pissed to make sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roger_Mellie said:

But the point is that by using renewable electricity to power it then you don't add any new CO2 to the system, you just shuffle around what is already there. You can then use the liquid fuel to power things where liquid fuel has to be used.

Forget the whole innefficient system, and just use the renewable energy directly isntead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Happy Renting said:

Forget the whole innefficient system, and just use the renewable energy directly isntead.

The constant daming of the rivers in Africa  will cause wars and chaos down stream

within my lifetime has the populations increase and demand for electricity increases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that CO2 I smell....methane or fucking bullshit? *Sniff* *Sniff*

How come billions of people breathing and farting is CO2 neutral but everything else they do is EVIL! :PissedOff:

Quote

In one day, the average person breathes out around 500 litres of the greenhouse gas CO2 – which amounts to around 1kg in mass. This doesn’t sound much until you take into account the fact that the world’s population is around 6.8 billion, collectively breathing out around 2500 million tonnes of the stuff each year – which is around 7 per cent of the annual CO2 tonnage churned out by the burning of fossil fuel around the world.

So, on the face of it, we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2. In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.

It's not like, if they weren't all breathing and farting then this Pre-CO2 gas called "OXYGEN" wouldn't help in the war against the post-oxygen gas called CO2.

Of course not! Eating the CO2-absorbing plants is beneficial and logically CO2 neutral! You stupid fucking ignoramuses! 

That's right isn't it? :Jumping:

Here :- Some wank BBC science SJW shyte masquerading as an independent news source.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Happy Renting said:

image.thumb.png.006e42084c7eb91165f1205ace339ac1.png

From the So-Called BBC website.

They don't actually claim there is no energy input (and implicitly heat output) to this cycle, but any unenlightened observer might imagine scientists are going to build an environmental perpetual motion machine.

Replace the 'Fuel synthesis' factory with a forest and it might work, but fat chance of finding enough land. 

 

OMG!

Quote

Does this require some complicated chemistry?
Absolutely.

Carbon Engineering's barn-sized installation has a large fan in the middle of the roof which draws in air from the atmosphere.

It then comes into contact with a hydroxide-based chemical solution. Certain hydroxides react with carbon dioxide, reversibly binding to the CO2 molecule. When the CO2 in the air reacts with the liquid, it forms a carbonate mixture. That is then treated with a slurry of calcium hydroxide to change it into solid form; the slurry helps form tiny pellets of calcium carbonate.

The chalky calcium carbonate pellets are then treated at a high temperature of about 900C, with the pellets decomposing into a CO2 stream and calcium oxide.

That stream of pure CO2 is cleaned up to remove water impurities.

"The key to this process is about concentrating the CO2," said Carbon Engineering's Dr Jenny McCahill.

"We can then put it underground as in sequestration, or we can combine it with hydrogen to form hydrocarbons or methanol. There's a number of things you can do."

Can you really make a liquid fuel from CO2?
Yes. It's complicated but it can be done.

The captured CO2 is mixed with hydrogen that's made from water and green electricity. It's then passed over a catalyst at 900C to form carbon monoxide. Adding in more hydrogen to the carbon monoxide turns it into what's called synthesis gas.

All done under a giant teepee to make it look like hippy shit 'n' green magic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, XswampyX said:

OMG!

All done under a giant teepee to make it look like hippy shit 'n' green magic.

 

Far, far from it.

Chemistry is not magic. Well, I guess it could be depending on your expertise and POV, but really there's nothing magic about the technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roger_Mellie said:

Far, far from it.

Chemistry is not magic. Well, I guess it could be depending on your expertise and POV, but really there's nothing magic about the technology.

Well quite, adding CO2 to clean hydrogen to produce a dirty fuel and then burning it doesn't seem that green to me. It must be magic. o.O

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.