h a l f b a k e r ySugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
How about the electolysis of CO2, but in liquid state.
I dont know if anyone have tried it, but it looks quite simple. Maybe adding some salt (like in water elctrolysis) in liquid CO2, to improve its conductivity, and apply the electric current, and thats about it. I wander if that is possible,
and if it is possible, what would be deposited on a cathode, would it be pure C, or CO maybe, or ....
If it could be pure carbon, deposited on a graphite cathode (for example) , that would be great.
Even if it is monoxide, CO, it would be much easier to separate it from oxygene, and still, it is fuel, it is less dangeruos to manipulate pure CO, than a mixture of CO and O.
[link]
|
| |
What happened to the original CO2 molecule destroyer? |
|
| |
100 atm at room temperature would do it, but how are you going to get it to condense instead of just being vapour ? |
|
| |
Just above this one in the above list. |
|
| |
The list of processes, industries, power plants, technollogies, (mamma huanita!!) that burn fossil fuel is endless, it is horrifying. That is, better not to think about.
When you look at the map of the globe, there is one third of the land that is yellow. If it were green, by some wonder, and that wonder is only water, than we could go for a big sleep.
But this yellow belt is not becomming green, it is spreading the yellowness.
In the same time, the radiation that commes to this yellow belt is about gigapentawatts.
It is very close to the moment that something should be done, really.
We will have to take some very, very clean energy, very expencive solar energy, and remove some CO2. Not atomic energy, no conrolled fussion, no anything, but solar energy. And to pay for it.
And of course, it would be very nice to stop deforestation, make energy efficient whole industry, use clean energy whereever, reduce emmision, ha, ha, or.....we will go to the big sleep forever. |
|
| |
[bigsleep] I agree with you, but until we stop burning coal we're much better off simply doing complete combustion of the tree rather than continuing to mine coal and burying charcoal. This same statement may or may not also apply to hydrocarbon fossil fuels, but that's more complicated. |
|
| |
Of course that same argument also applies to this idea in general. Until we stop burning fossil fuels to generate electricity, there's no reason to use solar energy to break up CO2. It's probably much more efficient to just produce electricity with PV to reduce the amount of fossil fuel we're burning. |
|
| |
[lazarus] I agree about harvesting solar from the yellow areas, but like I said, PV seems like a better option for now. I wonder if a little unnatural shade from PV in desert areas could allow vegetation more opportunuity to get established. |
|
| |
No really, without the ambition to be the savior of
the world, almost everybody is aware of the
problem.
The problem has escalated to the point that even
if we stop everything that we do, the damage has
been done, already.
Ok about the sceptics, but there is simply a
quantity of CO2 that should be be removed,
somehow. It is not my debating opinion or
something, all is ok with PV, and trees, that is all
good, I have several, not only ideas, but works
about, but I was a little chilled, when I read,
some time ago, that it is not enough to reduce
emitting, but if we do not remove some dioxide,
it wont be good, at all... |
|
| |
Electrolysis of CO2.. as baked as Electrolysis itself. But good
call. I was excited too when I first thought of it. |
|
| |