Global Warming Cont...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Not only do we need to stop CO2 emissions, but we will have to find a way to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.

---

And don't forget we also need to save the gnomes, pixie fairies, and unicorns.

This silly thread is starting to take on huge proportions. It is clear that the opposing sides are not gonna convince the other side to change their minds.

Keep in mind, that if the globe is warming, that means that women will be compelled to wear less clothing. This is a good thing :D.

I give up....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090127...20090127132619

I have been fighting so hard to curtail my carbon footprint, and yet, I now see it is hopeless. I will now park my H3 and get out the big Hummer. Might as well enjoy life a little, since nothing I do seems to make a difference :(.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

And don't forget we also need to save the gnomes, pixie fairies, and unicorns.

---

Goes without saying.

Ooooops. Somebody needs to tell the birds about global warming:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/38...PQLanchO7DiUss

Quote:

---

Rarely seen south of northern Ohio, snowy owls have also been reported this year in Kansas and Missouri, according to the eBird.org national bird reporting Web site.

---

Global Warming - what a crock of sh.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

And don't forget we also need to save the gnomes, pixie fairies, and unicorns.

---

http://www.charlesaddams.com/gallery05.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

http://www.charlesaddams.com/gallery05.html

---

funny.......:D

For any chemical engineers out there:

"
None of the proposed technologies or research paths consider CO2 as a useful fuel source capable of lowering the energy requirement of capture. It is well established that CO2 can be converted into carbon monoxide (CO) with a 95% yield by heating at 800oC or through a low-cost catalytic process at 400oC. Several pathways exist for economically converting the CO to useful fuel: 1) A nickel catalyst can be used to convert the CO to methane (CH4) at 200-300oC in normal pressure; 2) A zinc oxide catalyst activated with copper and aluminum oxide can be used for conversion to methanol (CH3OH) between 200-400oC at 200 atm pressure; or 3) CO can be reacted catalytically with water to form hydrogen plus more CO2. Given the nominal waste heat temperature of 200-400oC available at the typical power plant, the conversion of CO2 could be done with no additional energy requirement. The energy produced from the fuel cell using any one of these three fuels could then be used to supply additional electricity to the power plant, thereby creating a near zero-loss power cycle. Refer to Figure 3 for a diagram of the project goal. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

For any chemical engineers out there:

"
None of the proposed technologies or research paths consider CO2 as a useful fuel source capable of lowering the energy requirement of capture. It is well established that CO2 can be converted into carbon monoxide (CO) with a 95% yield by heating at 800oC or through a low-cost catalytic process at 400oC. Several pathways exist for economically converting the CO to useful fuel: 1) A nickel catalyst can be used to convert the CO to methane (CH4) at 200-300oC in normal pressure; 2) A zinc oxide catalyst activated with copper and aluminum oxide can be used for conversion to methanol (CH3OH) between 200-400oC at 200 atm pressure; or 3) CO can be reacted catalytically with water to form hydrogen plus more CO2. Given the nominal waste heat temperature of 200-400oC available at the typical power plant, the conversion of CO2 could be done with no additional energy requirement. The energy produced from the fuel cell using any one of these three fuels could then be used to supply additional electricity to the power plant, thereby creating a near zero-loss power cycle. Refer to Figure 3 for a diagram of the project goal. "

---

Cite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Cite?

---

http://economy.mse.uiuc.edu/CO2.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

http://economy.mse.uiuc.edu/CO2.htm

---

I will look into it, but you realize they are not using a sorbent in this process. They are flowing the waste stream through a selective membrane to separate the CO2 - that creates a large amount of backpressure if done in-line with the boiler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I will look into it, but you realize they are not using a sorbent in this process. They are flowing the waste stream through a selective membrane to separate the CO2 - that creates a large amount of backpressure if done in-line with the boiler.

---

True, but I was more interested in the process of converting CO2 into other chemicals than the nanotube part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

True, but I was more interested in the process of converting CO2 into other chemicals than the nanotube part.

---

Yeah, but I think his proposed process requires the CO2 to still be hot in the exhaust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Yeah, but I think his proposed process requires the CO2 to still be hot in the exhaust.

---

Maybe, but certainly not necessary. The heat from the flue gases can be utilized independently. I say that because his nanotubes are still a work in progress and may never develop into commercial product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Maybe, but certainly not necessary. The heat from the flue gases can be utilized independently. I say that because his nanotubes are still a work in progress and may never develop into commercial product.

---

Of course, you can always flow it through a restrictive heat exchanger to reheat the CO2 after it is separated from the sorbent. :icon_wink: