21–30 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thermodynamics is about energy not CO2, you can design negative CO2 devices and we even have proof in nature of that since that's what trees are doing.
There are several conceptual issues here, but one of them is that trees require energy from sunlight to turn CO2 into other things.
No, enough with this nonsense. Capturing, liquefying and transforming CO2 into fuel requires energy - due to thermodynamic limits, much more energy than what the fuel can give back. You then take that fuel, and... burn it into 25% efficient engines that spew the very same CO2 back into the air, along with some new carcinogenic fumes and acid-rain inducing nitrogen oxides? No, just no, full stop. They way forward is e…
Thermodynamics is about energy not CO2, you can design negative CO2 devices and we even have proof in nature of that since that's what trees are doing.
The actual title is "UC reactor makes Martian fuel" and the subtitle is "A gas station on Mars? Engineers envision the possibilities." But the submission title is "UC reactor converts carbon dioxide to fuel to address climate change"? While it does talk about applications with respect to carbon capture, if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? > “In the future we’ll deve…
> if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? The process would still be great news if true, as it could be a carbon-neutral source of hydrocarbon fuel for applications that are hard to electrify, like aviation.
The article claims they are already converting CO2 to fuel on the ISS. This process has been TESTED but we aren't using it right now. Article claims: > Known as the “Sabatier reaction” from the late French chemist Paul Sabatier, it’s a process the International Space Station uses to scrub the carbon dioxide from air the astronauts breathe and generate rocket fuel to keep the station in high orbit. Reality: We just sh…
Zeolite is a mineral, you get a bunch of small pellets of it in a bed, and run air over it while cooling it. The CO2 (and H2O) stick to it while everything else goes over it. Once you're at capacity you vent it to space and heat it, the CO2 (and H2O) leave the bed (into space) and recharge it for the next cycle. Repeat forever.
The consumables here are the small amount of gasses sent overboard, and energy, nothing else.
(And you use multiple of these beds because capturing CO2 is exothermic, and venting CO2 is endothermic, so you want to run a heat exchanger between the two beds in opposite cycles to minimize energy usage)
No, enough with this nonsense. Capturing, liquefying and transforming CO2 into fuel requires energy - due to thermodynamic limits, much more energy than what the fuel can give back. You then take that fuel, and... burn it into 25% efficient engines that spew the very same CO2 back into the air, along with some new carcinogenic fumes and acid-rain inducing nitrogen oxides? No, just no, full stop. They way forward is e…
I know it is a long shot: it is not yet competitive, there are still very few electrolyzers but some part of the world such as Europe seems pretty committed to try to make it work.
No, enough with this nonsense. Capturing, liquefying and transforming CO2 into fuel requires energy - due to thermodynamic limits, much more energy than what the fuel can give back. You then take that fuel, and... burn it into 25% efficient engines that spew the very same CO2 back into the air, along with some new carcinogenic fumes and acid-rain inducing nitrogen oxides? No, just no, full stop. They way forward is e…
This is about space exploration. Literally it is about how to make fuel on Mars so that we can make the round trip without having to deliver fuel so we can make it back.
And, sorry, but there is no way with current technology to launch significant payloads into space using electric.
No, enough with this nonsense. Capturing, liquefying and transforming CO2 into fuel requires energy - due to thermodynamic limits, much more energy than what the fuel can give back. You then take that fuel, and... burn it into 25% efficient engines that spew the very same CO2 back into the air, along with some new carcinogenic fumes and acid-rain inducing nitrogen oxides? No, just no, full stop. They way forward is e…
No, enough with this nonsense. Capturing, liquefying and transforming CO2 into fuel requires energy - due to thermodynamic limits, much more energy than what the fuel can give back. You then take that fuel, and... burn it into 25% efficient engines that spew the very same CO2 back into the air, along with some new carcinogenic fumes and acid-rain inducing nitrogen oxides? No, just no, full stop. They way forward is e…
No, enough with this nonsense. Capturing, liquefying and transforming CO2 into fuel requires energy - due to thermodynamic limits, much more energy than what the fuel can give back. You then take that fuel, and... burn it into 25% efficient engines that spew the very same CO2 back into the air, along with some new carcinogenic fumes and acid-rain inducing nitrogen oxides? No, just no, full stop. They way forward is e…
Thermodynamics is about energy not CO2, you can design negative CO2 devices and we even have proof in nature of that since that's what trees are doing.
The actual title is "UC reactor makes Martian fuel" and the subtitle is "A gas station on Mars? Engineers envision the possibilities." But the submission title is "UC reactor converts carbon dioxide to fuel to address climate change"? While it does talk about applications with respect to carbon capture, if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? > “In the future we’ll deve…
Since the climate change mention has turned out to be baity in its own right, I took that bit out above.