CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9567
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:42 am
 


More CO2 means more warmth.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26056
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:44 am
 


Plants - trees specifically as in wood chips - already are used as biofuel, aren't they?

I've heard critique of alternative energy stats that say wood chips are added to the stat. The problem is they put more CO2 back into the environment than coal. Something like that anyway.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26056
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:54 am
 


As Doc says one does hear the word slow when they talk about this CO2 to carbon process and there are always problems with these perpetual motion-y sounding possibilities they come up with.

But there are possibilities:

Quote:
The CO2 slowly converts into solid flakes of carbon, which are naturally detached from the liquid metal surface, allowing the continuous production of carbonaceous solid.

Dr Esrafilzadeh said the carbon produced could also be used as an electrode.

'A side benefit of the process is that the carbon can hold electrical charge, becoming a supercapacitor, so it could potentially be used as a component in future vehicles,' she added.

'The process also produces synthetic fuel as a by-product, which could also have industrial applications.'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... first.html


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14675
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:59 am
 


raydan wrote:
Plants...



Who the hell has millions of years to wait for some begonia to do what we through alchemy can allegedly do in a couple of hours? :wink:


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9567
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 12:27 pm
 


CO2 must be turned into energy in the time it takes me to watch "The real housewives of Orange County"


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 120
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:19 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
Plants - trees specifically as in wood chips - already are used as biofuel, aren't they?

I've heard critique of alternative energy stats that say wood chips are added to the stat. The problem is they put more CO2 back into the environment than coal. Something like that anyway.


Wood is actually environmentally neutral as long as trees are planted to replace those that are used for fuel. Coal only adds CO2 it can't take it out.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26056
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:31 am
 


Douwe wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
Plants - trees specifically as in wood chips - already are used as biofuel, aren't they?

I've heard critique of alternative energy stats that say wood chips are added to the stat. The problem is they put more CO2 back into the environment than coal. Something like that anyway.


Quote:
Wood is actually environmentally neutral as long as trees are planted to replace those that are used for fuel.


It is a carbon sink. That's why tree planting is pushed as part of the solution to anthropogenic CO2. That's before you start talking about wood chips as Bio fuel. I'm not sure how neutral it is after that. Also aren't some trees greater emitters than sinks? Seems to me I heard that somewhere. I'll check tomorrow. Then there's the natural emissions from rot and forest fires.

Quote:
Coal only adds CO2 it can't take it out.



I would assume that if this CO2 to carbon idea they're talking about at the University of Melbourne ever became economically viable they would be harvesting CO2 emissions from human industry. Do you have some reason to believe that's not the case?

I've heard the word "sequestration" used in the articles on the process.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 120
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:54 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:


I would assume that if this CO2 to carbon idea they're talking about at the University of Melbourne ever became economically viable they would be harvesting CO2 emissions from human industry. Do you have some reason to believe that's not the case?

I've heard the word "sequestration" used in the articles on the process.


These is a better solution - don't put CO2 into the air in the first place. It is what green tech is all about.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26056
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:37 am
 


Douwe wrote:
These is a better solution - don't put CO2 into the air in the first place. It is what green tech is all about.


I can't think of a fossil fuel alternative that gets the job done, right now. Or did you mean you'd like to live energy free?

Is there some specific future technology or breakthrough your hopeful for looking into the future or is it more a matter of 'If you finance it, they will come?'

Nuclear or added hydro for these fleets of electric vehicles some think will save the world might help but start talking Nuclear or new damns and deal with the types who don't seem interested in things that work:


Attachments:
cortez-watermelon-green-red-.jpg
cortez-watermelon-green-red-.jpg [ 26.66 KiB | Viewed 187 times ]
Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 120
PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:23 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
Douwe wrote:
These is a better solution - don't put CO2 into the air in the first place. It is what green tech is all about.


I can't think of a fossil fuel alternative that gets the job done, right now. Or did you mean you'd like to live energy free?

Is there some specific future technology or breakthrough your hopeful for looking into the future or is it more a matter of 'If you finance it, they will come?'

Nuclear or added hydro for these fleets of electric vehicles some think will save the world might help but start talking Nuclear or new damns and deal with the types who don't seem interested in things that work:


The tech is already there. Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels and a good deal more flexible. It is a matter of allowing superior tech to take over instead of placing unnecessary impediments in its way, such as telling blatant lies about what green technology actually means.

I note that most people have no problem with LED lighting as it is both cheaper and more efficient. Green tech like that along with better insulated houses and more efficient appliances have already lowered per capital energy consumption in the US abd Canada. All that is needed is to continue in the same direction.

BTW there will be no need for a massive increase in electrical power - that is a bill of goods sold by people like the Koch Brothers and in fact most utility companies are looking forward to selling a little more power. There are even plans to upgrade their grids to higher efficiency levels to meet the need. It is important to understand that electric cars will take over gradually, allowing electricity providers ample time to meet demand. And the demand is not going to be overwhelming. It is estimated that the average electric car will use no more than the energy needed to run the average EV will be about the same as that for a hot water heater.

Here are three links you might want to look at.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/25/el ... ical-grid/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/cana ... -1.3526558

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ectricity-


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Previous  1  2



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.