In reply to OrionWorks's message of Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:35:49 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>I would assume the O+H2 --> H2O --> O+H2 cycle is considered to be a
>much more popular transport of energy. Obviously there has been a lot
>more research into the latter cycle. Nevertheless, it would be
>interesting t
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:33:03 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
> x*C8H18 + y*O2 --> z*Cw (some kind of graphite?) + q*H2O
>
>Without spending time with redox tables or the equivalent I'm not
>certain but I think the reaction is still energy-positive.
The reaction C8H18
leaking pen wrote:
> Actually, biosphere 2 experiments with raising trees found that in
> higher co2 environments, they would grow quick and tall, not as wide,
> not sequester as much co2, and while they used more co2 in
> respiration, at levels about double our current baseline co2
> percentages
Actually, biosphere 2 experiments with raising trees found that in
higher co2 environments, they would grow quick and tall, not as wide,
not sequester as much co2, and while they used more co2 in
respiration, at levels about double our current baseline co2
percentages, the difference between co2 pr
Jeff Fink wrote:
> We have economical examples of these devices all over the planet. They are
> called trees. They are self replicating, and the higher the concentration
> of CO2 gets the faster they replicate. Well, isn't that cool? A self
> regulating planet wide system is already in place
>From Stephen:
> OrionWorks wrote:
>> Frank's work brings up a wish-list:
>
>> Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in
>> existence that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its
>> individual elements. Release the oxygen back into the
>> atmosphere while simultaneously na
Actually what I said here was (probably) wrong. Sort of like saying you
can't get energy out of sugar in the absence of oxygen -- yeast would
laugh in your face if you claimed such a thing.
If we start with something like gasoline, which is something like C8H18
(pure octane, I know it's not, but
We have economical examples of these devices all over the planet. They are
called trees. They are self replicating, and the higher the concentration
of CO2 gets the faster they replicate. Well, isn't that cool? A self
regulating planet wide system is already in place to deal with the problem.
OrionWorks wrote:
Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence
that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual
elements.
That would take as much energy as you get from burning the coal in
the first place. It would be useless, because if you have that mu
OrionWorks wrote:
> Frank's work brings up a wish-list:
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if there was an economical technology in existence
> that had the ability to separate CO2 back into its individual
> elements. Release the oxygen back into the atmosphere while
> simultaneously nano-manufacturing all
10 matches
Mail list logo
