Scientists Would Turn Greenhouse Gas Into Gasoline


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July

My Links
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Watts Up With That?
Internet Haganah
Jihad Watch
Ponder the Maunder
The Dissident Frogman
Barking-Moonbat EWS
Just Barking Mad!
The Malaria Clock
Project Valour-IT
Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...
10 Myths of Islam

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog



Get Firefox!

Tell me when this blog is updated

what is this?


Click to Read


hacker emblem






Scientists Would Turn Greenhouse Gas Into Gasoline
02.24.08 (1:06 pm)   [edit]

If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, churning out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming.

The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr., are proposing a concept, which they have patriotically named Green Freedom, for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline.

The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.

This process could transform carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed cycle — equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed — would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming.

Although they have not yet built a synthetic fuel factory, or even a small prototype, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology.

“Everything in the concept has been built, is operating or has a close cousin that is operating,” Dr. Martin said.

The Los Alamos proposal does not violate any laws of physics, and other scientists, like George A. Olah, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Southern California, and Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, have independently suggested similar ideas. Dr. Martin said he and Dr. Kubic had worked out their concept in more detail than previous proposals.

There is, however, a major caveat that explains why no one has built a carbon-dioxide-to-gasolin e factory: it requires a great deal of energy.

To deal with that problem, the Los Alamos scientists say they have developed a number of innovations, including a new electrochemical process for detaching the carbon dioxide after it has been absorbed into the potassium carbonate solution. The process has been tested in Dr. Kubic’s garage, in a simple apparatus that looks like mutant Tupperware.

Even with those improvements, providing the energy to produce gasoline on a commercial scale — say, 750,000 gallons a day — would require a dedicated power plant, preferably a nuclear one, the scientists say.

According to their analysis, their concept, which would cost about $5 billion to build, could produce gasoline at an operating cost of $1.40 a gallon and would turn economically viable when the price at the pump hits $4.60 a gallon, taking into account construction costs and other expenses in getting the gas to the consumer. With some additional technological advances, the break-even price would drop to $3.40 a gallon, they said.

A nuclear reactor is not required technologically. The same chemical processes could also be powered by solar panels, for instance, but the economics become far less favorable.

NO!!!!

The solutions must require SACRIFICE!

Where is the guilt! where is the loathing of America!

This is unacceptable!

NY Times 

 

 


posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 02.29.08 (11:09 am)

No one said solutions MUST require sacrifice. It we're smart we can make every change needed in ways that ADD to the prosperity of the population and even mega corporations, both old and new, can get rich(er). This sounds like a very cool idea, though since there are many ways to propel cars efficiently, using up finite resources doesn't seem like the BEST idea to me, though it surely has it's place in the scheme of things. Ask yourself this: would they have bothered doing this research if there wasn't a world-wide kick in the butt taking place? It's all just a decision. Remember, the reason gasoline became the fuel of choice to power automobiles was simply that it was abundant and cheap; it wasn't the only choice even a hundred years ago, but at the time, it made sense. That doesn't mean it will always make sense. Only goofballs refuse to see the economic upside of developing new technologies.



posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 03.03.08 (4:03 pm)

Reply to: surrogate

Main Entry:
sar·casm
Pronunciation:
\ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date:
1550

1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm

synonyms: see wit




posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 03.03.08 (4:21 pm)

Reply to: surrogate

Main Entry:
sar·casm
Pronunciation:
\ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date:
1550

1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm

synonyms: see wit




posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 03.03.08 (4:58 pm)

Reply to: thoolou

Wow, thanks for the definition. I NEVER would have understood what SARCASM is without you having pointed it out.

-The problem is, of course, that you weren't being entirely sarcastic. You actually believe that people who think we ought to step up to the plate and tackle this problem (yes, that would be a baseball AND a football reference within the same sentence - something I realize, did intentionally and therefore have no need for you to point out) DO believe that any solutions that would be found to be acceptable to those who give a shit MUST, in fact, cause pain; anguish; ought best be onerous; and most importantly, must restrict freedoms - assuming, of course, that there really IS a problem (something about which you're extremely dubious anyway) and that if there IS a problem, there's NO way we mere humans could have either contributed to it, nor could we possibly be part of the solution.

Do me a favor thoolou; get a friggen clue.




First sentence: Sarcasm.

Final sentence: An admittedly ad hominem attack on someone too smart to think the way he does, but who seemingly intentionally acts like a moron half the time and therefore is wholly deserving of same.

Your Name:


Your Comment:


Locations of visitors to this page





 Use OpenOffice.org

My computer geek score is greater than 100% of all people in the world! How do you compare? Click here to find out!




Get this widget!