h a l f b a k e r y"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."
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,
|
|
|
|
[+]... might wanna work on the electrolysis mechanics though. |
|
|
[FT] <link>
[21Q] Would storing the CO_2 as a solid affect the feasibility
of the idea? |
|
|
[21Q] I'm not sure it would even work with *liquid*
CO_2.
Electrolysis of CO_2 requires temperatures above 500
degrees C (apparently: I didn't know any of this 'till today).
Which is why I asked about *storage*
I assumed you were making a triple point point, which I
considered peripheral to the basic idea. I take that to
be:
1) Exploit sunlight to make O_2 from CO_2
2) Exploit shadow to store CO_2 compactly
The CO_2 will have to be warmed and run through a
reactor, certainly; electrolysing it in situ in the storage
tank seems like a non-starter. |
|
|
[Centurian] In my idiolect, this idea is "flawed, but
fundamentally sound." In [21_Quest]'s, probably
something else. Either way, more research would have
improved
it. |
|
|
// Exploit sunlight to make O_2 from CO_2 // |
|
|
This is known as "photosynthesis" in some contexts, although water is also involved. |
|
|
// more research would have improved it. // |
|
|
Although exactly how is not imediately obvious. |
|
|
//water is also involved// Electrolysis unlike photosynthesis
would require no water -- only electrons. Which I assume are
photovoltaic, since the idea requires shade in any case. |
|
|
//exactly how// Well, I agree the idea's no more than slightly
improved by an understanding of sublimation, but don't you
think it would be better if it took account of prior art? |
|
| |