CO2 transformation

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
User avatar
iota
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 269
Registration: 16/08/06, 13:45
Location: Earth

CO2 transformation




by iota » 04/11/06, 17:32

After "sequestering the CO2", transform the CO2:

I wondered if it was possible to separate the C from the O2?
So the carbon goes back to the ground and the O2 in the air ...
0 x
User avatar
nonoLeRobot
Master Kyot'Home
Master Kyot'Home
posts: 790
Registration: 19/01/05, 23:55
Location: Beaune 21 / Paris
x 13




by nonoLeRobot » 04/11/06, 17:46

Yes that's what plants do with the energy of the sun. I do not know if it is possible artificially there must be possible chemical reactions but in any case it consumes more energy (solar or other) that it v / has brought with carbon so let the plants do it.
0 x
User avatar
pollux
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 164
Registration: 07/05/06, 23:08
Location: Paris
x 1




by pollux » 04/11/06, 20:42

it's not wrong, plants do it very well ...
but, and it's just to make my troll (or break co..lles if you want), what is the yield of the plants in term "solar energy / mass of sequestered co2 / year" or rather the ratio "m² of collectors (floor area covered by the tree) / mass of CO2 sequestered / year "?

in this regard, this transformation is nothing more than sequestration ... it's just that instead of sequestering the CO2 in its current form, the plants stabilize it and make its sequestration a little more stable.

the big interesting question is: once we know the sequestering "yield" of photosynthesis for various plants, is it possible to imagine a human technological way of doing the same thing with a better yield? I am thinking in particular of doing it directly at the source, leaving the factory or thermal power station, using the roof of the factory / power station as energy sensors. cleaning the ambient air is very difficult, the CO2 being too diluted.

imagine the benefits, both ecological and financial, of such technology ... a company that would develop a method to "clean" the atmosphere / smoke faster than plants ... that must leave a certain number of bosses dreaming. ..

Of course, it should not be used as a pretext for deforesting and replacing with solar collectors ...

if anyone knows the yield of the plants or a way to determine it (if necessary experimentally, I have the green thumb), and a way of research to do the same thing as plants by human technology (or alien if there 'a) ... well we could start working on it ...

@+
-Pollux
0 x
criticism is necessary, but the invention is vital because in any invention there is a criticism of the convention ...
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 04/11/06, 20:57

Pollux wrote:it's not wrong, plants do it very well ...
but, and it's just to make my troll (or break co..lles if you will), what is the yield of the plants in term "solar energy / mass of sequestered co2 / year" or rather the ratio "m2 of collectors (floor area covered by the tree) / mass of CO2 sequestered / year "? [...]
The most productive plant systems in the world are able to produce 40 at 50 tonnes of MS / ha / year, ie 5 kg at maximum biomass / m2 / year.
By knowing the average rate of C in the biomass (which includes C, H, O, and N mainly) and the energy received at ground level, we can calculate ...

But I think I remember it's not very glorious ...

Otherwise, to return to the original subject, it is not the only C that returns to the Earth: pure carbon is still quite rare in its natural state.
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
User avatar
pollux
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 164
Registration: 07/05/06, 23:08
Location: Paris
x 1




by pollux » 04/11/06, 21:17

Well, a lumberjack intervening on a subject that speaks of a plant ... why am I not surprised?
good, all right, I'm going out.

it would be very interesting to be able to recover the C of pure CO2. it would allow a good combustion and a fairly interesting recycling in coal-fired plants, the coal containing a lot of sulfur and other crap ... we would produce pure C by solar energy by recycling the smoke from the plant and we would use this C during the night when there is no more sun. it would raise the overall performance of these powerhouse salopperies.


-Pollux
0 x
criticism is necessary, but the invention is vital because in any invention there is a criticism of the convention ...
bebeours
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 65
Registration: 08/03/06, 11:10




by bebeours » 05/11/06, 00:41

To recover the CO2 in the air, the CO2 should be sequestered at the exit of a station running on biofuel.
Regarding the solar panel that would do better than plants, I emit a doubt. How much will these panels cost, and plant conbien could replant with this same amount of money. And which plants or solar panels would be the most profitable?
Politicians should tax fossil fuels based on CO in the air and reuse this money in reforestation and de-desertification. It would be very inexpensive when you think of the cost of a tree (1 € episea) for the amount of CO2 absorbed. It would be equivalent to 10 or 15 euro for 150 000 km by car. This money could be spent on the purchase of the car, or the purchase of fuel, or in an annual tax.
With the amount of desert barring each year and the land area to fill, the solution seems simple.
0 x
User avatar
pollux
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 164
Registration: 07/05/06, 23:08
Location: Paris
x 1




by pollux » 05/11/06, 12:27

hi bebours,

which plants or solar panels would be the most profitable?


that's the question I'm asking myself, we know that the plants have a poor yield, are not able to deal directly with factory fumes, and that the process takes time.
knowing that thermal panels (the cost and impact of which are not as high as that of photovoltaics) have a very good efficiency, and that it is possible to recover part of the heat from the fumes (heat which can be concentrated thanks to a heat pump or a "vortex tube" if high temperature is needed), it could be that this is very efficae if there is a process of transformation / separation of C02 having a good yield ...

moreover, the plants likely to grow in desert climate have a slow growth, thus a low yield, and if there is a desert, it is good that the conditions of shoot are not formidable. to de-desertify, the easiest way is still to educate local people to use solar ovens and to banish goats for less devastating animals ... and most importantly, stop warming the planet!
it makes more sense to replant the rapidly growing Amazonian forest. that can be effective.
forest replanting involves the use of the biomass created after the growth, to avoid methanization and the rejection of all this mass of organic carbon at the end of the life of the replanted plants ... and what would be the econological cost (i) really like this neologism ... thank you for inventing it Christophe) of the "replanting-cutting-transport-transformation" operation?

in addition,

(1 € episea) for the amount of CO2 absorbed. It would be equivalent to 10 or 15 euro for 150 000 km by car


it would take 50 years to use this (these) spruce ... or 100 years. and 150.000 km in 50 years, it seems to me very little ...

on the other hand, I totally agree with you for taxes. but there is already a lot of it on oil. what are these taxes for? Would it not be possible for the state, without increasing the so-called taxes, to use a fixed percentage (at least 30%) to reforest or invest in research to combat the greenhouse effect? Of course, it would imply to reduce the share of these taxes in the budget of the state as much. it's unlikely to be a day : Cry:

to return to the subject, sequestration of CO2 is currently considered without transformation and geological storage, with all the risks of leakage and acidification of the subsoil that this implies. I do not like it at all, that's why I'm in favor of a way to convert the CO2 before storing it, or better, to reuse the carbon product, even if it involves a cost and a heavy infrastructure. it will be necessary one day that the men take their responsibilities and accept the truth: to repair or limit their bullshit at a cost and it is not negotiable.
our way of life generates too much CO2 so that the nature is in charge of it, it is necessary to pass to active methods to remedy our pollution. and this goes as much through savings as through the active purification of fumes.


-Pollux
0 x
criticism is necessary, but the invention is vital because in any invention there is a criticism of the convention ...
Rulian
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 686
Registration: 02/02/04, 19:46
Location: Caen




by Rulian » 05/11/06, 15:25

The idea of ​​using solar power to break up CO2 molecules as they exit combustion is fun, but completely unnecessary (assuming it is achievable). Indeed, the energy released by the combustion of a carbonaceous body (wood, coal, petroleum ...) comes from the fact that the energy state of CO2 is lower than the C atom and the O2 molecule taken separately. During combustion, we make C + O2 ==> CO2, the energy state goes down and the "excess" energy is the heat that we recover (exothermic ...).

So if you want to rebrise the molecule of CO2 to isolate the carbon in solid form, it will be necessary to go back the energy state by bringing at least as much energy as that recovered thanks to the combustion of your fuel (the carbon body of departure). So knowing that yields can only be 100%, it will take more solar energy (as you suggest) to break the CO2 than you get at burning fuel. It's like wasting time and energy ... pissing on a violin. So as much as using this solar energy directly to replace purely the original fuel.

What do people say?
0 x
User avatar
zac
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 1446
Registration: 06/05/05, 20:31
Location: piton st leu
x 2




by zac » 05/11/06, 15:57

Rulian wrote:What do people say?


You're from the countryside, you've kept your feet on the ground !!!!!
it's funny it's always the townspeople who find crazy solutions : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:
@+
0 x
Said the zebra, freeman (endangered breed)
This is not because I am con I try not to do smart things.
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 05/11/06, 16:48

Rulian wrote:[...] During the combustion, one makes C + O2 ==> CO2, the energy state goes down and the energy "in excess" is the heat which one recovers (exothermic…).
It seems to me that the recovered energy also comes for many broken CH links, right?
Well, obviously in the case of coal, this is not the case because there are only CC links ...

Rulian wrote:So if you want to rebrise the molecule of CO2 to isolate the carbon in solid form, it will be necessary to go back the energy state by bringing at least as much energy as that recovered thanks to the combustion of your fuel (the carbon body of departure). So knowing that yields can only be 100%, it will take more solar energy (as you suggest) to break the CO2 than you get at burning fuel. It's like wasting time and energy ... pissing on a violin. So as much as using this solar energy directly to replace purely the original fuel.

What do people say?
Because of the reservation I make above, I do not agree. Separating C from O does not necessarily mean reforming complex carbon compounds ...
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 163 guests