Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Re: Carbon Sequestration question

Expand Messages
  • murdoch
    PS: Regarding your discussion of chemistries that involve Calcium in the link you referenced, the cement or concrete about which I read, some time ago, which
    Message 1 of 12 , Jan 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      PS:

      Regarding your discussion of chemistries that involve Calcium in the
      link you referenced, the cement or concrete about which I read, some
      time ago, which might help with Carbon Sequestration, moreso than
      present chemistries, involved some use of calcium, I think, different
      from the present?



      >> >I agree, and as I mention in several postings at
      >>
      >>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/
      >>
      >> I wasn't able to recognize your posts at first glance, but will look.
      >
      >Sorry, I was forgetting I signed myself there as
      >"Burn boron in pure O2 for car power".
      >
      >
      >--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
      >http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html :
      >Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes
    • murdoch
      PS: Regarding your discussion of chemistries that involve Calcium in the link you referenced, the cement or concrete about which I read, some time ago, which
      Message 2 of 12 , Jan 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        PS:

        Regarding your discussion of chemistries that involve Calcium in the
        link you referenced, the cement or concrete about which I read, some
        time ago, which might help with Carbon Sequestration, moreso than
        present chemistries, involved some use of calcium, I think, different
        from the present?



        >> >I agree, and as I mention in several postings at
        >>
        >>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/
        >>
        >> I wasn't able to recognize your posts at first glance, but will look.
        >
        >Sorry, I was forgetting I signed myself there as
        >"Burn boron in pure O2 for car power".
        >
        >
        >--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
        >http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html :
        >Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes
      • kelburn_k
        This is an interesting topic. There are many ways we could concievably remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A hydrogen proponent named Roy McAlister
        Message 3 of 12 , Jan 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          This is an interesting topic. There are many ways we could
          concievably remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A hydrogen
          proponent named Roy McAlister who has been coverting ICEs to H2 to for
          30+ years has some great ideas. He suggests that we take the carbon
          out of fossil fuels before they are even burned, use the hydrogen for
          energy and the carbon for carbon-fiber products. McAlister thinks
          that we could build homes, cars, whatever from carbon fiber. I don't
          see any reason why this wouldn't work.

          However that wouldn't do anything for the carbon-dioxide that's
          already in the atmosphere. For that we could use the process that
          John brought forth, while using the carbon for fiber products. Or
          perhaps the most obvious one PLANT SOME MORE FREAKIN TREES :). Hemp
          is also one plant that grows very quickly and has many industrial uses
          including using the oil as fuel (which is only a good sequestration
          scheme if we remove the carbon from the fuel before use). At any rate
          just dumping what we don't want somewhere doesn't solve anything and
          it is exactly that mentality that got us into the present situation.

          However that assumes that CO2 is really a problem. At this forum
          http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread221608/pg1
          they list a bunch of links with info stating that global warming is
          from solar activity. This info comes from such sources as MIT, Nasa's
          JPL, Nature.com, Harvard, and others. Please visit this link before
          you assume it's BS because it's on abovetopsecret.

          I don't claim to know anymore truth than anyone else, I just like to
          investigate issues from every angle and view every bleeding edge.

          Thanks,
          Kel


          --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Hodges"
          <jbhodges@...> wrote:
          >
          > Reading some article from EVWorld, in the comments by readers, I read
          > somebody making the argument that instead of making coal-burning
          > ecologically OK by pumping the CO2 into old oilfields or (bizarre
          > thought) the deep sea where (supposedly) it would remain liquid and
          > stable on the bottom, a better way would be to extract the pure
          > carbon from the CO2 and bury it on land. He described a chemical
          > process, using magnesium in intermediate steps, that could strip the
          > O2 out of the CO2, so you could put coal and air in one end and get
          > H2, O2, and C out the other, recycling the Mg. He did say you would
          > have to put in energy along the way, ideally from solar.
          >
          > Do we have any chemists here who could comment on this idea? Would
          > this process give you a net energy gain? Would it be practical, given
          > that coal is not pure hydrocarbon, but also contains assorted heavy
          > metals that would also react in the mix? This is not the FutureGen
          > process, which has CO2 gas as one output.
          >
          > I have read that "coke" is the coal equivalent of charcoal, i.e. by
          > cooking coal without air in a vented container you can drive off
          > impurities and leave essentially pure carbon. Is that right? Could we
          > burn the gases given off and bury the coke, leaving us with a net
          > energy profit?
          >
          > I have been leery of "carbon sequestration" schemes, feeling that (1)
          > they are not likely to be actually done (2) wherever the CO2 is
          > sequestered had better be secure. I'd hate to have all that CO2 come
          > up from the deep sea in one burp. I'd feel a lot better about burying
          > pure carbon, if there were some practical way to extract just the H2
          > from coal.
          > --
          > ----------------------------------
          > John B. Hodges, jbhodges@ @...
          > Enjoy Fantasy. Believe It Not.
          >
        • murdoch
          ... Hi: I agree that it s an interesting topic. I would like to keep it somewhat close to future fuels and vehicles. I do think that many of us (myself
          Message 4 of 12 , Jan 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 18:16:02 -0000, you wrote:

            >This is an interesting topic. There are many ways we could
            >concievably remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A hydrogen
            >proponent named Roy McAlister who has been coverting ICEs to H2 to for
            >30+ years has some great ideas. He suggests that we take the carbon
            >out of fossil fuels before they are even burned, use the hydrogen for
            >energy and the carbon for carbon-fiber products. McAlister thinks
            >that we could build homes, cars, whatever from carbon fiber. I don't
            >see any reason why this wouldn't work.
            >
            >However that wouldn't do anything for the carbon-dioxide that's
            >already in the atmosphere. For that we could use the process that
            >John brought forth, while using the carbon for fiber products. Or
            >perhaps the most obvious one PLANT SOME MORE FREAKIN TREES :). Hemp
            >is also one plant that grows very quickly and has many industrial uses
            >including using the oil as fuel (which is only a good sequestration
            >scheme if we remove the carbon from the fuel before use). At any rate
            >just dumping what we don't want somewhere doesn't solve anything and
            >it is exactly that mentality that got us into the present situation.

            Hi:

            I agree that it's an interesting topic. I would like to keep it
            somewhat close to future fuels and vehicles. I do think that many of
            us (myself certainly included) are inspired to follow future
            transportation systems, fuels and vehicles in part because we are
            concerned about global warming, so I don't think it's fully possible
            to avoid some of this.

            As a result of your post, I am going to try to follow up and keep an
            eye on the process of making Carbon fiber. I did have a conversation
            with an executive at a Carbon Fiber Manufacturer last year and I asked
            about their costs, both as to oil feedstock and energy. I think they
            were vulnerable to oil prices going up, but mroe vulnerable to natural
            gas because they used that for energy input in the process of making
            carbon fiber.


            >However that assumes that CO2 is really a problem. At this forum

            [...]

            There are many forums where you can debate until your heart is content
            as to whether or not global warming is caused by Anthropogenic CO2
            accumulation and the like. This forum is not going to become one of
            them.

            For purposes of relating the conversation to future fuels and
            vehicles, and to motives for some of us in following such, some of us
            may assume that Global Warming has anthropogenic causes. Some may
            assume otherwise, but express interesting in future fuels and vehicles
            discussion for other reasons.

            Whether or not assumptions of Anthrogenic Global warming are correct
            is not up for debate. I or others might simply briefly state our
            non-relevant views (I am 100% on-board in viewing Global Warming as a
            major global environmental problem (possibly an understatement) and as
            being caused largely by anthropogenic CO2 emissions), but this
            statement is rare and I am not offering to debate or discuss it or
            play host to debate of the matter.

            I'm not sure exactly why I'm so touchy about this. There's a good (in
            my view) activist Pat Neuman who was very gung-ho to discuss global
            warming anywhere and everywhere, and I think a year or two ago he was
            not too pleased with my trying to prevent this forum from straying,
            but it was not a reflection of my views on global warming..... just my
            views on trying to provide a place for somewhat focused discussion.

            Constructively, if some have forums where they would like to debate
            matters further, they could perhaps provide links to those forums
            (keep it rare that this is done, please). I do this, for example,
            when I wish to refer folks to a conversation that seems interesting
            but more on the politics of energy side of things.
          • kelburn_k
            Hey Murdoch and others, sorry for the last post. I really wasn t trying to push any buttons. Anyways here s a fun electric car video on google:
            Message 5 of 12 , Jan 5, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Hey Murdoch and others, sorry for the last post. I really wasn't
              trying to push any buttons. Anyways here's a fun electric car video
              on google:

              http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6096705838721792187&q=electric+car

              oh and white zombie for those that haven't seen it
              http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4395675507458420041&q=electric+car

              Have a good 2007,
              Kel

              > Hi:
              >
              > I agree that it's an interesting topic. I would like to keep it
              > somewhat close to future fuels and vehicles. I do think that many of
              > us (myself certainly included) are inspired to follow future
              > transportation systems, fuels and vehicles in part because we are
              > concerned about global warming, so I don't think it's fully possible
              > to avoid some of this.
              >
              > As a result of your post, I am going to try to follow up and keep an
              > eye on the process of making Carbon fiber. I did have a conversation
              > with an executive at a Carbon Fiber Manufacturer last year and I asked
              > about their costs, both as to oil feedstock and energy. I think they
              > were vulnerable to oil prices going up, but mroe vulnerable to natural
              > gas because they used that for energy input in the process of making
              > carbon fiber.
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.