Re: [Vo]: Better way to sequester CO2- re branson
Thanks robin Your correct. Good black coal can be 80% carbon 20% hydrogen. In clean burning coal the CO2 reaction is a big part of the energy but if CO2 is chilled and sequested you loose most of that energy and all that counts is the energy output of the hydrogen. That's why the coal industry baulks at clean coal; its a large energy loss. If you make Carbon fiber from gases the bonds must be broken and reformed; another use [loss] of energy. If those bonds in coal are transformed with minimal net energy flow then the final result: carbon fiber +hydrogen + some hydrocarbons would be of an equal energetic value to the energy of clean coal with the CO2 sequested in the ground and the product value would far exceed the commodity price of the raw coal. A lot of work needs to be done and I'm hoping for a Steorn powered car first. At that point the coal market crashes, the energetics of carbon fiber changes and the huge feed stock of free carbon [all that unwanted coal] is up for grabs. ;-) Note some coals are so poor most of the energy is wasted drying the stuff. Its much worse for the dirty stuff the Chinese mine much of the carbon leaves the smokestacks unburnt ash and soot. Published energy values are often post drying. Aussy coal, being the best coal, :-P does not need drying. Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:56:42 +1100: Hi, [snip] Most of the energy in coal is in the hydrogen bonds not the carbon to carbon bonds. [snip] There is very little hydrogen in coal (much more in oil), so I think you need to prove this point Wesley. Furthermore, even in oil, more energy is derived from the formation of CO2 than from the formation of water. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: Better way to sequester CO2- re branson
In reply to Wesley Bruce's message of Sun, 18 Feb 2007 22:56:42 +1100: Hi, [snip] >Most of the energy in coal is in the hydrogen bonds not the >carbon to carbon bonds. [snip] There is very little hydrogen in coal (much more in oil), so I think you need to prove this point Wesley. Furthermore, even in oil, more energy is derived from the formation of CO2 than from the formation of water. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation, Cooperation (communism) provides the means.
[Vo]: Better way to sequester CO2- re branson
I'm looking at a better way to win the Branson-Gore prize and make a
profit into the bargain. If it works we'll be richer than both.
Turn the coal and lots of alga into *carbon fibre*: billions of tons of
it. The process should be profitable if we can crack the chemistry.
1. _Anaerobic coking_ strips the coal and or bulk fertilized alga or
Sargasso weed into near pure carbon and a mix of methane and H2.
2. Burn the H2 to provide power.
3. React the methane with catalysts to make ethylene and plastics.
Mainly bonding agents.
4. Process the coke into carbon fibre. That’s the bit that should be
tricky.
5. Bond the fibre into structural systems with the plastics.
6. Sequester the carbon* in plain sight* as roads, bridges, cars and
buildings.
If we can turn coal onto a material feed stock while liberating its
hydrogen to be used as a fuel we end the arguments and get rich at the
same time. If carbon composites were made as cheap as glass or concrete
it would sell for much more than coal. These materials are the key to
faster lighter cars and cheap air and space travel. We could make
bridges with amazing spans and building that look feather light. The
coal industry would survive and get richer. And the CO2 question would
be moot.
I'm looking for contacts with the necessary qualifications and skills to
have a look at this option. I also need someone with access to coal, a
lab and funding. I'm also emailing politicians and coal industry people.
The whole greenhouse debate here in Australia is about Coal. Our prime
minister Mr Howard has been blunt and honest. He does not want to kill
off Australia coal industry with Kyoto, carbon taxes or Green
socialistic economic suicide. {my words not his}. Several whole regions
in Australia and the nations balance of payments are dependant on Coal.
Thousands of jobs and 18 towns would go if we killed the industry.
Remember when Maggie Thatcher did that in Britton there was war in the
streets and people died. More governments have fallen to coal miners
riots and rebellions than to oil related political action.
Extracting the carbon as a building material seems obvious to me. The
key is to separate the carbon from the hydrogen before combusting the
either. Most of the energy in coal is in the hydrogen bonds not the
carbon to carbon bonds.
Several of the plastics steps are exothermal and can be used to generate
heat and if your creative electricity.
