Slashdot Mirror
CO2 To Fuel, Closing the "Carbon Loop"
leprasmurf writes "Inhabitat has posted an article detailing a recent announcement of a process to turn CO2 into fuel. The process, which used to be considered too energy inefficient, uses a multi-step, low pressure, and low temperature biocatalyst to break the CO2 into 'basic hydrocarbon building blocks.'"
Photosynthesis?
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
There has to be some energy input if they're going to be breaking up CO2 and turning it into oxygen and hydrocarbons. There also has to be some source of hydrogen.
If they were able to get cheap hydrogen and electricity without using even more fossil fuels, we probably wouldn't need this process in the first place.
Can we please have a new Crackpot (or maybe Quackpot, or Snakepot, shit, I dunno) section on slashdot, specifically for these half-baked bullshit stories? Would make a nice replacement for Idle, methinks.
I mean, unless this was just meant to remind us of high school science & biology. Heck, that'd also make a nice Idle section substitute.
Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
> There is, of course, mention of "investment opportunities".
Yup, these investor scams show up like clockwork on slashdot these days. One week it is a solar energy scheme that doesn't pass the smell test, some weeks it gets all the way to perpetual motion scams making the front page but lately there does seem to be a need for a green angle being pitched to make slash.
This one is almost certainly a scam. No mention of an energy source is the giveaway. You can't use a catalyst to add energy to a reaction even if you toss the bio- prefix into the ad copy. The diagram on the page does at least have something that looks like tanks but you aren't likely to collect enough solar energy to offset much of a power plant that way. Just feed the CO2 to real biology,,,, like plants, alage, etc. if you want to convert sunlight + CO2 into complex hydrocarbons.
Democrat delenda est
In the process called burning, hydrocarbons combine with oxygen and release energy.
To reverse the process (which is what they're saying) you have to put an equal amount of energy back in ... if it's 100% efficient, which it won't be.
The only way to get a net gain is to add some free energy from somewhere. The only plausible source is sunlight, but there's no mention of that on their web site.
Fact is, there's no science at all on their web site, just plenty of links for "investors", "investor FAQs", NASDAQ stock quotes, etc.
For credibility they have a link to a Popular Mechanics article but it's for a completely different C02 treatment process.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4274541.html
No sig today...
I know an even better one. Plant a willow tree. Wait three years, chop it down. Then keep chopping it down every two years.
Question #1 for any vendor of rainbow-harvesting energy technologies is: "So, your office / lab / factory is powered using the results of your own process, is it?"
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The process, which used to be considered too energy inefficient, uses a multi-step, low pressure, and low temperature biocatalyst to break the CO2 into 'basic hydrocarbon building blocks.
Yeah. I got those processes, too. They're called photosynthesis followed by another called fermentation and then (an optional) one called distillation. It turns out tasty by-products, too.
That is all.
[ ] It requires immediate cooperation from the entire world all at once.
[ ] People will cheat.
[ ] It requires the population to act contrary to self-interest.
It fails to account for:
[ ] Extensive existing infrastructure.
[ ] Problems storing power.
[ ] Inefficient power transport systems.
[ ] Variable weather.
[ ] Rich and powerful industries and lobby groups who stand to lose money.
[ ] Politicians who know nothing about science.
In summary:
[ ] Nice try, but it won't actually work.
[ ] You're a scammer trying to blind investers with psuedoscience.
[ ] You're completely nuts.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
I don't think molten salt would be a terribly safe motor vehicle fuel.
1. It would actually work.
2. It is "Nucular." And therefore the NIMBY crowd will kill it with fire.
This is probably just a tree farm.
S
I'm sure the wright brothers were telling people they were going to fly, before they ever flew.
>>2. It is "Nucular." And therefore the NIMBY crowd will kill it with fire.
The sad thing is that these people, by killing nuclear power, have released countless amounts of radioactive pollution into the atmosphere, because coal plants actually emit radiation, but nuclear plants don't.
Sigh.