Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cleaning the atmosphere of CO2 just got possible

why would we need so much formic acid?

Formic acid has major industrial uses, particularly as a cleaning agent, but I think this should be viewed as a start: if we can make a simple hydrocarbon (strictly speaking it's a carboxyl), we're on the way to creating more complex hydrocarbons.

It sounds easier to just grow more trees which could be used as fuel in more than 1 way.

You can put the solar panels and apparatus in areas where trees cannot grow.
 
more on turing CO2 into useful things:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/95/96G16/index.xml?section=featured

"Everyone who electrochemically reduces CO2 today makes compounds with only one carbon," said Bocarsly. "Nobody makes things with carbon-carbon bonds." He paused. "But we can."

"That was a very 'wow' moment," recalled Cole, "because we thought that our process could only make methanol. But now we were finding that we could make a variety of products, and that is what makes this technology commercially interesting." She said Liquid Light scientists can now make more than 20 different products from CO2.

One of the chemicals Liquid Light can make is isopropanol, commonly known as rubbing alcohol and an important industrial chemical. Another is butanol, which could be commercially important as a fuel. Liquid Light's technology offers the potential to make these chemicals at lower cost than today's methods, which involve starting with fossil fuels such as petroleum and natural gas.
 
Surely if you're using the formic acid as a fuel it just ends up back in the atmosphere as CO2? The wiki article says it can be readily decomposed to water and carbon monoxide or hydrogen and carbon dioxide.
 
There's other industrial compounds requiring CO2 as a starting chemical that are cheaper to make, such as cement precursors. This is interesting but a single solar cell doesn't produce enough to make it usable - even a solar farm would be hard-pushed to produce the quantities needed by industrial users. But it's not as crackpot as some ideas I've seen.
 
You can put the solar panels and apparatus in areas where trees cannot grow.
But can the equipment also prevent soil erosion and reduce flooding risk by absorbing lots of water?



She said Liquid Light scientists can now make more than 20 different products from CO2.
Wow. Plants can produce loads more than that.
 
It's not an either/or operation for these panels and trees.

The energy efficiency is good, twice as efficient as photosynthesis they claim. If the numbers work out then imagine replacing the horrifically wasteful bio-ethanol corn growing, harvesting and refining process with panels in the desert. That frees up land which will probably go back to feeding humans, at the least reducing the pressure on converting land to agricultural purposes.
 
It's not an either/or operation for these panels and trees.

The energy efficiency is good, twice as efficient as photosynthesis they claim.
Just plant twice as many trees then. :)

If the numbers work out then imagine replacing the horrifically wasteful bio-ethanol corn growing, harvesting and refining process with panels in the desert.
This process requires water to convert the CO2 into formic acid. Plants don't tend to grow in the dessert due to lack of water. Some one will have to go out daily(?) to clear all the blown sand off the solar panels so the thing keeps working. These are just mechanical replacements for plant and will cost a lot more than plants will.

As you're simply recycling the CO2 in the atmosphere into fuel to be burnt and release CO2 back into the atmosphere you won't be cleaning the atmosphere of anything. :(
 
Some one will have to go out daily(?) to clear all the blown sand off the solar panels so the thing keeps working.
No they don't. They don't for current installations so why would they for new ones?
These are just mechanical replacements for plant and will cost a lot more than plants will.
They will cost more but then again they are industrial devices which plans aren't yet. For all the talk of using Algae to make bioethanol we're still stuck in the dark ages with harvesting and fermenting grain.
As you're simply recycling the CO2 in the atmosphere into fuel to be burnt and release CO2 back into the atmosphere you won't be cleaning the atmosphere of anything.
True but anything that helps cut down on fossil fuels is worth examining. This is a near closed loop process, and potentially gives you a way to store energy over time which is sadly lacking from current renewable energy sources.
 
For all the talk of using Algae to make bioethanol we're still stuck in the dark ages with harvesting and fermenting grain.
Ethanol is toxic. That's why you only get to about 14% with fermentation then the yeast dies. Why not try and get algae or similar to produce veg oil? Less toxic, easier to extract to a useable product and can be cracked in existing refineries to produce biopetrol, biodiesel and other useful products.

and potentially gives you a way to store energy over time which is sadly lacking from current renewable energy sources.
Wood stores quite nicely for use at a later date. I'm accumulating a pile at the moment for use in the woodburner next winter. :)
 
Why not do this and plant twice as many trees?
It would make more sense to capture and convert the CO2 at source where it's concentration is highest and there is normally waste heat as well which could provide the energy for the process rather than sticking these units in the middle of deserts where the CO2 levels will be a lot lower. :)
 
It would make more sense to capture and convert the CO2 at source where it's concentration is highest and there is normally waste heat as well which could provide the energy for the process rather than sticking these units in the middle of deserts where the CO2 levels will be a lot lower. :)

You could say that all that unused sunlight is waste heat...
 
I'm not sure formic acid is much cop as a fuel. But the whole thing is a stepping stone. Some day we'll manage to make more complex chemicals.

We already can, using highly sophisticated devices called 'plants'.

I bet the first cunt who manages to artificially produce cellulose will get a nobel prize; despite the fact that his process uses terawatts of electricity, requires several tonnes of rare-earth metal catalysts and produces dioxins, plutonium and coldplay albums as waste products. Meanwhile the cherry tree in his back garden will get zero recognition for its tireless efforts to do the same thing with nothing but sunlight and water, while producing delicious cherries at the same time.
 
We already can, using highly sophisticated devices called 'plants'.

The first problem is that you cannot grow plants in the desert, which is where the best sunlight is. The second problem is that plants do not produce octane.

This invention is not an end in itself, but the first step on the way to something more useful.
 
It would make more sense to capture and convert the CO2 at source where it's concentration is highest and there is normally waste heat as well which could provide the energy for the process rather than sticking these units in the middle of deserts where the CO2 levels will be a lot lower. :)
If capturing CO2 at source didn't take an obscene amount of energy, we could burn fossils cleanly and there wouldn't be any global warming to worry about. This scheme is a non-starter. As I said up there ^^^ it's the modern equivalent of perpetual motion. IT WILL NOT WORK!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom