4 ms·

Forget the coal, make methanol from water and co2.

civilian 11y ago
What ars is saying that he wants to take the complex and partially-saturated hydrocarbons in coal and turn them into a hydrogen-satured hydrocarbon. (Most coal has a lot of double-bonds and loops within the carbon, in addition to a hydroxyl groups.) Since energy is released every time you break a bond, you'll have more bonds to break in the end product, but with the same amount of carbon, so you're keeping emissions constant while adding energy. Regardless, it would be interesting to start with CO2 rather than coal. But can it be sucked up from the atmosphere efficiently and in mass quantities?
- radicalbyte 11y ago
  Well, trees have been doing it for a long time. Where do you think the carbon in the trees comes from? :)
  - baddox 11y ago
    Trees do lots of cool things that we don't know how to do. That's true of biological life in general. Heck, the lightest insulation for outdoor clothing is still feathers.
    - murbard2 11y ago
      Aerogel is lighter than feathers and more insulating. There was a kickstarter this year for a jacket using aerogel as an insulator. http://www.orosapparel.com/pages/technology http://www.orosapparel.com/pages/technology
      - baddox 11y ago
        True. It's pretty exciting tech, although apparently it's not very comfortable or easy to work into clothing and gear. It seems pretty promising for very extreme conditions though, like climbing Everest.
  - civilian 11y ago
    Yeah, trees are annoyingly good at absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. They have the benefits: 1. CO2 dissolves into their fluids 2. The CO2 is almost immediately next to the places that is going to use it 3. Since the Calvin Cycle is distributed, they don't have to collect and concentrate the CO2 4. A lot of surface area on the cellular level to absorb CO2. I'm reading http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/prospects-for-direct-air-capture-of-carbon-dioxide/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/prospects-for-dire... and it's unfortunate that "Each machine would require roughly 1.1 megajoule of electricity for pumping and compressing per kilogram of CO2 captured."
  - ars 11y ago
    Trees have the advantage of lots and lots of them. But each individual one is not very efficient. Making a power plant as large as a small forest is just unrealistic, and would not come close to being powerful enough. That's why I suggested carbon from coal instead of CO2 - it's just not practical to get it from air. All we really have to do is reduce CO2 emissions, it's not necessary to eliminate them.
ars 11y ago
> from water and co2. It's not easy to get co2 in bulk, and methanol has no advantages over methane (for this process). You need the exact same amount of carbon.

What ars is saying that he wants to take the complex and partially-saturated hydrocarbons in coal and turn them into a hydrogen-satured hydrocarbon. (Most coal has a lot of double-bonds and loops within the carbon, in addition to a hydroxyl groups.) Since energy is released every time you break a bond, you'll have more bonds to break in the end product, but with the same amount of carbon, so you're keeping emissions constant while adding energy. Regardless, it would be interesting to start with CO2 rather than coal. But can it be sucked up from the atmosphere efficiently and in mass quantities?

radicalbyte 11y ago
Well, trees have been doing it for a long time. Where do you think the carbon in the trees comes from? :)
- baddox 11y ago
  Trees do lots of cool things that we don't know how to do. That's true of biological life in general. Heck, the lightest insulation for outdoor clothing is still feathers.
  - murbard2 11y ago
    Aerogel is lighter than feathers and more insulating. There was a kickstarter this year for a jacket using aerogel as an insulator. http://www.orosapparel.com/pages/technology http://www.orosapparel.com/pages/technology
    - baddox 11y ago
      True. It's pretty exciting tech, although apparently it's not very comfortable or easy to work into clothing and gear. It seems pretty promising for very extreme conditions though, like climbing Everest.
- civilian 11y ago
  Yeah, trees are annoyingly good at absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. They have the benefits: 1. CO2 dissolves into their fluids 2. The CO2 is almost immediately next to the places that is going to use it 3. Since the Calvin Cycle is distributed, they don't have to collect and concentrate the CO2 4. A lot of surface area on the cellular level to absorb CO2. I'm reading http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/prospects-for-direct-air-capture-of-carbon-dioxide/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/prospects-for-dire... and it's unfortunate that "Each machine would require roughly 1.1 megajoule of electricity for pumping and compressing per kilogram of CO2 captured."
- ars 11y ago
  Trees have the advantage of lots and lots of them. But each individual one is not very efficient. Making a power plant as large as a small forest is just unrealistic, and would not come close to being powerful enough. That's why I suggested carbon from coal instead of CO2 - it's just not practical to get it from air. All we really have to do is reduce CO2 emissions, it's not necessary to eliminate them.

ars 11y ago

> from water and co2. It's not easy to get co2 in bulk, and methanol has no advantages over methane (for this process). You need the exact same amount of carbon.