$30.00
$15.00
$5.00
$20.00
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting if it pans out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/co...

Not for any silly global warming nonsense, just because it's hopefully a cheap source of fuel.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walter Kurtz
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
Interesting if it pans out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/co...

Not for any silly global warming nonsense, just because it's hopefully a cheap source of fuel.


Ferret


Man, this is great news! I hope this comes through, so that we can frack until 2099! And, all the climate change fuckers will go away.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Laws
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
designer
"I play to win, as much or more than any egoist who thinks he's going to win by other means. I want to win the match. But I don't give in to tactical reasoning as the only way to win, rather I believe that efficacy is not divorced from beauty."
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't get it. Why would climate change deniers be excited about the prospect of clean carbon capture if it's all just a scam for a one world government invented by the Chinese?

At what point do you admit that it's your distaste for the political solutions to climate change that cause you to deny it's existence?

Instead of acting as a gigantic air brake on human progress why not come up with a political solution that ticks all the libertarian boxes, keeps America at the top of the pile, and still keeps CO2 below 500ppm?

Then you can frack all you like, and ALL U.S. drinking water can be contaminated with dissolved methanol and diesel and not just the Wind River basin in Wyoming.

Hydrocarbon Heaven.
10 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Burlington
Vermont
flag msg tools
In case people missed it, we already had a recent thread about this article: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1656515/co2-ethenol

The ethanol is also not a fuel source but potentially a cheap "battery". The process still needs electricity to work which (is hoped) would come from renewable sources. To make it worthwhile we would still need to figure out a more efficient way of getting the stored energy back from the ethanol other than burning it in an internal combustion engine.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
Interesting if it pans out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/co...

Not for any silly global warming nonsense, just because it's hopefully a cheap source of fuel.


Of course you have to put in more energy than you'd get out from burning the ethanol. What's the analysis of that?

Doesn't make it without interest - you may be able to use this to move the energy in time (storage) or space (fuel for vehicles). But it's not itself a win unless you can, for example, power it with solar energy. Which if it's a biological process perhaps you can. But not at all clear about cheap.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Interesting if it pans out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/co...

Not for any silly global warming nonsense, just because it's hopefully a cheap source of fuel.


Ferret


Man, this is great news! I hope this comes through, so that we can frack until 2099! And, all the climate change fuckers will go away.


Well I do indeed hope we'll be fracking well thru the next century, I hasten to point out that this process does not use fracking....it's apparently reduced from CO2 down to ethanol.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Interesting if it pans out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/co...

Not for any silly global warming nonsense, just because it's hopefully a cheap source of fuel.


Of course you have to put in more energy than you'd get out from burning the ethanol. What's the analysis of that?

Doesn't make it without interest - you may be able to use this to move the energy in time (storage) or space (fuel for vehicles). But it's not itself a win unless you can, for example, power it with solar energy. Which if it's a biological process perhaps you can. But not at all clear about cheap.


There's a more detailed paper linked to the site....I'd suggest starting there for your questions. It's pretty interesting I thought.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chengkai Yang
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1656515/co2-ethenol/page/1

I had hoped this had made more progress, sadly I guess we're just going in circles, given that your also referencing the same article.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
Dearlove wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Interesting if it pans out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/co...

Not for any silly global warming nonsense, just because it's hopefully a cheap source of fuel.


Of course you have to put in more energy than you'd get out from burning the ethanol. What's the analysis of that?

Doesn't make it without interest - you may be able to use this to move the energy in time (storage) or space (fuel for vehicles). But it's not itself a win unless you can, for example, power it with solar energy. Which if it's a biological process perhaps you can. But not at all clear about cheap.


There's a more detailed paper linked to the site....I'd suggest starting there for your questions. It's pretty interesting I thought.


I already read that. It doesn't answer the question where the energy is to come from, without which you have no system, just a possibly useful piece of the problem. If your aim is to reduce carbon, it fails at that unless your grid is mostly or entirely carbon-free (solar, nuclear etc.). If your aim is reducing cost this is far too early to have a clue about that, and it would be surprising if it's cheaper than distributing petrol/gasoline as things stand.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
Dearlove wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Dearlove wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Interesting if it pans out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/co...

Not for any silly global warming nonsense, just because it's hopefully a cheap source of fuel.


Of course you have to put in more energy than you'd get out from burning the ethanol. What's the analysis of that?

Doesn't make it without interest - you may be able to use this to move the energy in time (storage) or space (fuel for vehicles). But it's not itself a win unless you can, for example, power it with solar energy. Which if it's a biological process perhaps you can. But not at all clear about cheap.


There's a more detailed paper linked to the site....I'd suggest starting there for your questions. It's pretty interesting I thought.


I already read that. It doesn't answer the question where the energy is to come from, without which you have no system, just a possibly useful piece of the problem. If your aim is to reduce carbon, it fails at that unless your grid is mostly or entirely carbon-free (solar, nuclear etc.). If your aim is reducing cost this is far too early to have a clue about that, and it would be surprising if it's cheaper than distributing petrol/gasoline as things stand.


Forgive my shitty hard science education, but doesn't the CO2 contain energy in the first place? From a quick google search, ethanol is C2H6O -- so there's a chemical process that uses energy, but it doesn't necessarily use more energy than would be gained by combusting the result in an engine.

Again, I'm chemically ignorant af, so please correct my misunderstanding.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
HarlemMimeSchool wrote:
I don't get it. Why would climate change deniers be excited about the prospect of clean carbon capture if it's all just a scam for a one world government invented by the Chinese?

At what point do you admit that it's your distaste for the political solutions to climate change that cause you to deny it's existence?

Instead of acting as a gigantic air brake on human progress why not come up with a political solution that ticks all the libertarian boxes, keeps America at the top of the pile, and still keeps CO2 below 500ppm?

Then you can frack all you like, and ALL U.S. drinking water can be contaminated with dissolved methanol and diesel and not just the Wind River basin in Wyoming.

Hydrocarbon Heaven.


I think it's dissonance, but I'm not sure.

That is, I think a lot of people stumble on this step -- "ACC is occurring, but I care more about the economic conditions of current people and my own comfort than I do about hypothetical future people on a hypothetical future planet." (I agree w/ that, but it's a rare position, and it probably isn't all that tenable anyway.)

Once there isn't an incentive of economic and physical comfort to avoid evidence of climate change you'll see a lot less resistance to the idea. (And more oil protectionism, but, so it goes.)

Unless we #DrainTheSwap.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Kearns
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Silence is golden.
badge
Your sea is so great and my boat is so small.
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Dearlove wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Dearlove wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Interesting if it pans out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/co...

Not for any silly global warming nonsense, just because it's hopefully a cheap source of fuel.


Of course you have to put in more energy than you'd get out from burning the ethanol. What's the analysis of that?

Doesn't make it without interest - you may be able to use this to move the energy in time (storage) or space (fuel for vehicles). But it's not itself a win unless you can, for example, power it with solar energy. Which if it's a biological process perhaps you can. But not at all clear about cheap.


There's a more detailed paper linked to the site....I'd suggest starting there for your questions. It's pretty interesting I thought.


I already read that. It doesn't answer the question where the energy is to come from, without which you have no system, just a possibly useful piece of the problem. If your aim is to reduce carbon, it fails at that unless your grid is mostly or entirely carbon-free (solar, nuclear etc.). If your aim is reducing cost this is far too early to have a clue about that, and it would be surprising if it's cheaper than distributing petrol/gasoline as things stand.


Forgive my shitty hard science education, but doesn't the CO2 contain energy in the first place? From a quick google search, ethanol is C2H6O -- so there's a chemical process that uses energy, but it doesn't necessarily use more energy than would be gained by combusting the result in an engine.

Again, I'm chemically ignorant af, so please correct my misunderstanding.


CO2 is the most oxidized form of carbon. It doesn't have electrons (energy) to give, so can't be used as an energy source.

Note, a quick crib for whether something has energy (electrons to give) is by seeing if it has hydrogen H (as hydrogen is just a proton that goes with the electron).

It requires quite a bit of energy to cram (totally legit chemistry term) all those hydrogens onto CO2 to make ethanol.

EDIT: one more thing it will always take more energy to go from CO2 to ethanol than the energy you would get from burning ethanol to CO2 cause thermodynamics sucks like that.
2 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Forgive my shitty hard science education, but doesn't the CO2 contain energy in the first place? From a quick google search, ethanol is C2H6O -- so there's a chemical process that uses energy, but it doesn't necessarily use more energy than would be gained by combusting the result in an engine.

Again, I'm chemically ignorant af, so please correct my misunderstanding.


C02 is at a lower energy state than ethanol, so it requires energy to convert C02 to ethanol -- which energy is partially recovered when ethanol is burned (with one of the combustion products being C02).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 8 27 Feb - 1 Mar 2015 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk Essex Games 27 Jul '15
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Dearlove wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Dearlove wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
Interesting if it pans out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a23417/co...

Not for any silly global warming nonsense, just because it's hopefully a cheap source of fuel.


Of course you have to put in more energy than you'd get out from burning the ethanol. What's the analysis of that?

Doesn't make it without interest - you may be able to use this to move the energy in time (storage) or space (fuel for vehicles). But it's not itself a win unless you can, for example, power it with solar energy. Which if it's a biological process perhaps you can. But not at all clear about cheap.


There's a more detailed paper linked to the site....I'd suggest starting there for your questions. It's pretty interesting I thought.


I already read that. It doesn't answer the question where the energy is to come from, without which you have no system, just a possibly useful piece of the problem. If your aim is to reduce carbon, it fails at that unless your grid is mostly or entirely carbon-free (solar, nuclear etc.). If your aim is reducing cost this is far too early to have a clue about that, and it would be surprising if it's cheaper than distributing petrol/gasoline as things stand.


Forgive my shitty hard science education, but doesn't the CO2 contain energy in the first place? From a quick google search, ethanol is C2H6O -- so there's a chemical process that uses energy, but it doesn't necessarily use more energy than would be gained by combusting the result in an engine.

Again, I'm chemically ignorant af, so please correct my misunderstanding.


There's a law of conservation of energy. So if, for example, you convert carbon dioxide and water into something useful, like ethanol or petrol or whatever, then burn it then that must require the same amount of energy put into the first step as comes out of the second. But putting energy in isn't 100% efficient (second law of thermodynamics) you waste some of it as heat. (You also waste it when you do the burning, but that's a separate issue.) That makes things worse. But even if you could manage 100% efficiency, you've not won anything in energy terms by creating the fuel. (You might win in convenience. Or on carbon emissions if your energy in doesn't add carbon.)

There is no such thing as a free lunch. But more importantly, you have to consider the whole system.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.