Recycling of synthetic fuel CO2?

[chatelot16]

oops I wanted to correct an error and I did worse ...

the gas with the water is to make work a gasogene only with the steam thus without nitrogen of the air:! as the reaction is endothermic it can only work intermittently: before the gasogen is too cold it is made to walk in the air for the temperature to rise: it is only poor gas, when it is hot put it back in the water ...

gas to water is

H2O + C = CO + H2

the gasifier can also work at CO2

CO2 + C = 2CO

but it is still necessary to carbon for energy: the CO2 is not the source of energy, it is rather the source of oxygen: it is carbon pure solid + burned carbon = carbon half burned gaseous

[Did67]

I agree with you, gas to the water, Fisher-Tropsh ... It is known and old as the German industry craburant synthesis (Hitler, it seems to me) ...

So with external energy, nothing to complain about.

C and H are energy "carriers". Oxidized, they are discharged batteries. Reduced (in the form of C - CO to a lesser extent and of H² or in the form of HCH chains = hydrocrabures or organic molecules), they are fully charged ... We can "burn" (oxidize) C, 'H², hydrocarbons of sorganic molecules ... Brutally (fire) or "softly" (what our cells do; Krebs cycle). From a chemical and energetic point of view, it's kif-kif ...

So how with two discharged batteries (CO² and H²O) have in fact one charged with a mysterious "bio-catalyser" (supposed not to bring energy)?

I recall that at the start "they" claim to make a hydrocarbon chain from CO² and H²O with "bio-catalysts" and without mentioning energy input ... I remain skeptical!

[Christophe]

Fischer Tropsh is chemistry at "high" T °: https://www.econologie.com/fischer-trops ... -3756.html

It was a little before the Nazis:

The invention of the Fischer Tropsch process dates from 1925 and is attributed to two German researchers, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, working for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (Germany).

But it is they who developed it well (after the war, abandoned but resumed a little in South Africa):

At the beginning of 1944, the Reich produced some 124 000 barrels / day of fuels from coal, which accounted for more than 90% of its aviation fuel requirements and more than 50% of the country's total fuel requirement.

Yes the question of "primary energy" is fundamental in this process.

But let's not mix everything ... we talk about BIOLOGICAL reactions and not CHEMICAL reactions. Because BIOLOGY is often better than CHEMISTRY ...

Besides, we can say that BIOLOGY is "excellent chemistry" or "on" chemistry. It is the chemistry of life ... which has "self" adapted and self optimized for several billion years to obtain the best returns ...

So I think there is really an avenue to be explored in "CO2 bioconversion" but it remains to be seen where the guys are really at because, as said above, in principle we all also run on solar hydrogen ...

There are probably GMOs or nanotechnology in the air ...

[Did67]

But let's not mix everything ... we talk about BIOLOGICAL reactions and not CHEMICAL reactions. Because BIOLOGY is often better than CHEMISTRY ...

Besides, we can say that BIOLOGY is "excellent chemistry" or "on" chemistry. It is the chemistry of life ... which has "self" adapted and self optimized for several billion years to obtain the best returns ...

...

Agree on the "marvelous" of biochemistry ... Agree on the yield, the capacity for cold reactions, the regulation, etc ...

However, living beings do not create energy either, they only transform it. And if it manufactures organic molecules with CO², it is because plants are able to "capture" light and transfer this energy to suitable molecules (ATP) ...

So even if it is a copy of something wonderfully natural, it will not be without outside energy (at best: the sun).

Always in my opinion.

[elephant]

Did 67 said:

So even if it is a copy of something wonderfully natural, it will not be without outside energy (at best: the sun).

Of course, but it's a solution ...

that said, I still wonder how we "harvest" the C02?

[Christophe]

Nevertheless, living beings do not create energy, they only transform it.

Yes .... but some living beings do it better than others and who knows, nature reserves can be surprises going against the established scientific thought of the moment ...

About this someone would have an idea of ​​the energy or rather the computing power needed to create a consciousness in a brain (human or not)?

Because I have the impression that the brain is much more efficient than a current computer chip

See also the (controversial) subject of Kervran's work: https://www.econologie.com/forums/kervran-et ... t4728.html

[chatelot16]

there is one who has succeeded in measuring the weight of the soul by weighing patients before and after death ... of course I quote this ironicly

the energy consumed by the human brain, even if it is difficult to measure, is quite important, and not negligible compared to what the muscle consumes

my way of seeing it, if not measuring it: in apnea the maximum time depends mainly on the time it takes to consume oxygen that one has in the blood (consuming oxygen means consuming its biological fuel to make energy): it is therefore necessary to reduce as much as possible all muscular activity, to be in hot water so as not to consume energy to heat up and also to think of nothing: an intellectual effort reduces my time to apnea as clearly as a physical effort

another interressant comparison between the brain and the computer: amount of memory: an ordinary modern hard drive 160Go consumes less energy than a human brain: in addition it consumes nothing stopped: while a brain completely arrested is definitely dead

I will not be able to put in my brain everything that is in my hard disk: but it is not the proof that the hard disk is superior: I am also incapable of putting in the hard disk what it in my brain

the great superiority of the living brain is to be built on its own and to repair itself: no machine does it

[chatelot16]

About this someone would have an idea of ​​the energy or rather the computing power needed to create a consciousness in a brain (human or not)? :)

this question is even more complicated, what is consciousness? a dog or a cat has a conscience? his brain is much smaller than our

I consider a cat as conscious

and the mouse, even smaller than the cat is she conscious?
for the cat the mouse is a food without consciousness

as for man it is convenient to consider all animals as without consciousness

there is even some century, that the woman had no soul for certain religion ...

[Christophe]

2 news 10 years later:

https://www.econologie.com/catalyseur-n ... 2-ethanol/

[izentrop]

The study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0451-x

This technology is far from being unique or new, the principle of "power to fuel", therefore the fact of using CO2 with green hydrogen to create water and renewable energy is a widely applied concept. and the technology presented here is just one example.There are now many early stage commercialization projects that produce captured CO2-based fuels from the most complicated industries to decarbonize / de-fossilize:
https://www.jupiter1000.eu/
https://www.norsk-e-fuel.com/en/
https://www.engie.com/en/port-antwerp-biomethanol