Printable View
Let's stay focus on global warming. Sure there is going to be a cost to capturing and converting co2 into useful chemicals, but it is going to be less than capturing co2 via amines and then injecting it deep underground. Even Billpup would agree with me on that one.
dawg80, that is not true.:rolleyes4:Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Nice CV. http://economy.mse.uiuc.edu/Quote:
Originally Posted by arkansasbob
Professor Economy received his BS from Wayne State University and PhD from the University of Maryland. From 1960-75, he was manager of materials science and chemistry and of the Research Branch in the Research and Development Division of the Carborundum Co. During this period, he was responsible for the development of a number of advanced polymers and ceramics, eight of which are commercially available today. From 1975-89, he was manager of the Polymer Science and Technology Department in the Research Division of IBM, where his group achieved worldwide prominence both scientifically and technologically. Since 1981 this group transferred, on average, two new materials per year to the operating divisions. In 1989, he joined UIUC as Professor and Head of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering.
Fiber Society's Founder's Award (2005)
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2003)
Fellow, PMSE (2001)
Paul J. Flory Polymer Research Prize (2001)
etc.
Not really for the thermodynamic claim he is making. Has he even taken undergraduate thermodynamics?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Maybe you should send him an email? I phoned Fred Singer once and asked him about the reliability of the ice cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I have had multiple discussions with Dr. Economy at various polymer science conferences. He is a good researcher in the field of polymer science, and I have no doubt that he or others will be able to design a highly selective CO2 membrane. But Economy is NOT an expert in large scale thermodynamic cycles, and his team has NOT perfected a technique on CO2 conversion.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
What you are pulling here is a student's proposed research project. I'd be willing to bet that in 5-10 years, the research on CO2 conversion will be RIGHT where it is today. The research group will demonstrate that they can get increased selectivity, strength, lifetime, etc., out of the MEMBRANE, but will leave the CO2 conversion aspect as "future work" -- something to leave out there so they can continue to get funding for their project...
These guys do NOT know what they are talking about on this issue.
I agree that it will take energy to transform co2 into other chemicals. But you agree it can be done, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
of course it can be done! i don't think anyone is disputing that. the question is, "is it worth it?" and the answer is, "no."Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Some reactions with co2 are actually highly favorable. Getting CO2 to react is not really the problem. Getting it to react into something cheaper to handle is. Getting CO2 to efficiently convert into a fuel source is a highly unfavored reaction, and I highly doubt that it can be done with a catalyst that does not need to be replenished. Do you have any idea what the energy/emission requirements are to produce high quality heavy metal catalysts?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Plant life seem pretty good at converting CO2 into usable material, but I would be interested in knowing how efficient that process is... If one could perfect a solar cell that could "generate" a ton of energy (convert solar energy with more than 30% recovery), one might be able to use that energy to convert CO2. Then again -- one would probably "see more impact" (assuming there is human production/atmospheric CO2 link) by competing against coal as an energy source to reduce emissions.
Oh, so you and algore won't be commanding that volcano to stop?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
What in the world for? It's not contributing to global warming.:icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I'm just curious, can anyone point to a credible article that discusses why the fact that other planets in our solar system (such as Mars) have been experiencing a warming trend that tracks along with that we have noticed on earth? I'm particularly interested in how those who still insist on a human cause for global warming account for it.
Maybe you should point to the article that claims that Mars is getting warmer.
Who do you think I am, Tyler? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Just google it and you get tons of hits. There is no debate as to WHETHER Mars is getting warmer. The debate is about what it means. One side says that it is proof that whatever effect CO2 has on earth's temperature pales in comparison to what the sun's cycles do. I'm trying to find out what the other side says. The main argument I've seen in the articles I've scanned is that they are saying it is a "coincidence." That is a convenient but decidedly unscientific way to account for data that do not fit your theory.
Here is a link that I like. Unfortunately, there are no ads for colonic cleaners.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
My opinion is that it is too early to know what it means.