4 ms·

It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Ultimately it does turn into enthalpy. Process takes place at 21 bar and 300-500C. I do

by R0b0t1 4y ago

It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Ultimately it does turn into enthalpy. Process takes place at 21 bar and 300-500C. I do not see this being efficient unless powered by nukes. This is fine though, and more accessible than the gasoline production methods that use similar high pressure high temperature reactors.

earthscienceman 4y ago
It is the most precise measurement of the energy input required chemically. It says nothing of the efficiency of the process. The energy required to get to 21 bar and 300-500C and maintain it while that energy input is being provided for that specific chemical reaction. I'll reiterate, I have no issue that it's inefficient, that's to be expected. It's not hard at all to give a net energy input for the entire process. In fact that would be the easiest part of the paper. If you're giving your research to your press office to make a statement about "climate protection" I damn well expect that number to be provided. Powered by nuclear as you propose is wonderful, btw. I personally would take nuclear waste over atmospheric CO2 every day of the week.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Let's make a giant offshore nuclear-powered CO2->petrol production facility and become techno oil barons. Maybe bond villains too. You have to do something with the money, right? I want to see this movie.
jabl 4y ago
> It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Er, no. Just no. eV is just a unit, that doesn't make it more or less precise. eV had its origins in early accelerator physics work where it was a convenient unit to use, and it's use spread from there to other subfields of physics, including ones where the connection to the original processes measured in the early accelerator work is tenuous at best.
- R0b0t1 4y ago
  You're right. Precision really isn't the right word. I meant something more like most useful. In the field that produced this paper, eV is going to be the most convenient way to specify it, because it relates to the movement of electrons and not just e.g. exploratory particle physics.
ncmncm 4y ago
"Unless powered by nukes" means "not". Power from nukes is the most expensive source. But surplus solar is by far the cheapest. It does not seem like operating this process intermittently, i.e. only when power is cheapest, would be impractical. If the equipment was very expensive, it would need to be operated at near 100% to earn back its cost. But molybdenum disulfide is not expensive. Usually it is only when you need gold or platinum catalysts that capital cost dominates.

by R0b0t1 4y ago

earthscienceman 4y ago

It is the most precise measurement of the energy input required chemically. It says nothing of the efficiency of the process. The energy required to get to 21 bar and 300-500C and maintain it while that energy input is being provided for that specific chemical reaction. I'll reiterate, I have no issue that it's inefficient, that's to be expected. It's not hard at all to give a net energy input for the entire process. In fact that would be the easiest part of the paper. If you're giving your research to your press office to make a statement about "climate protection" I damn well expect that number to be provided. Powered by nuclear as you propose is wonderful, btw. I personally would take nuclear waste over atmospheric CO2 every day of the week.

jjoonathan 4y ago
Let's make a giant offshore nuclear-powered CO2->petrol production facility and become techno oil barons. Maybe bond villains too. You have to do something with the money, right? I want to see this movie.

jabl 4y ago

> It's measured in eV as it's the most precise* measurement you can make. Er, no. Just no. eV is just a unit, that doesn't make it more or less precise. eV had its origins in early accelerator physics work where it was a convenient unit to use, and it's use spread from there to other subfields of physics, including ones where the connection to the original processes measured in the early accelerator work is tenuous at best.

R0b0t1 4y ago
You're right. Precision really isn't the right word. I meant something more like most useful. In the field that produced this paper, eV is going to be the most convenient way to specify it, because it relates to the movement of electrons and not just e.g. exploratory particle physics.

ncmncm 4y ago

"Unless powered by nukes" means "not". Power from nukes is the most expensive source. But surplus solar is by far the cheapest. It does not seem like operating this process intermittently, i.e. only when power is cheapest, would be impractical. If the equipment was very expensive, it would need to be operated at near 100% to earn back its cost. But molybdenum disulfide is not expensive. Usually it is only when you need gold or platinum catalysts that capital cost dominates.