Fracking in Sheffield?

[fill]

I find it incredulous that you claim you have those qualifications then use the alleged possession of them to justify not understanding that carbon can be burned in oxygen.

 

It would have to be a very efficient and ecconomical process to be worth doing for sure.

 

However if I knew how ...don't you think I'd be an extremely wealthy man by now

[Annie Bynnol]

 

SO in theory it is possible to burn carbon dioxide and more easily so if we first split the carbon and oxygen atoms from the co2 molocule.

 

If you meant to say:

 

So in theory it is possible to burn carbon dioxide if we first split the carbon and oxygen atoms from each other in the carbon dioxide molecule.

 

Then you would be correct.

What you have not said is how you split the carbon and oxygen apart and where you get the energy to do it from.

[truman]

I find it incredulous that you claim you have those qualifications then use the alleged possession of them to justify not understanding that carbon can be burned in oxygen.

 

You said

 

"SO in theory it is possible to burn carbon dioxide "

 

Which isn't true..

[Halibut]

For fill's benefit this article from Scientific American explains why you can't simply 'burn' carbon dioxide - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-carbon-dioxide/

[fill]

For fill's benefit this article from Scientific American explains why you can't simply 'burn' carbon dioxide - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-carbon-dioxide/

 

i did not read your article as you have clearly misunderstood my intention.

for the benefit of the hard of understanding i will restate it

 

i sought only to enquire as to why it appears that no research has been done into the viablity of splitting CO2 molocules and then utilising the components in some way to produce energy.

 

by viable i do not mean the profit, or rather the gain, has to be necessarily financial. Ridding the earth of some CO2 might just curb some of the whingeing ....and that would certainly for me at least go a long way towards justifying some of these joke 'green' related taxes.

[ads36]

i sought only to enquire as to why it appears that no research has been done into the viablity of splitting CO2 molocules and then utilising the components in some way to produce energy.

 

the chemistry is well understood, plenty of research has been done.

 

splitting CO2 requires energy, you'll never get more energy out than you put in. even if you ignore the tricky process if isolatiing the CO2 in the first place.

 

this really isn't some limitless source of energy that the deep-state want to keep secret.

 

and it wouldn't rid the world of CO2, the end result of the energy releasing phase would be ... CO2.

 

your best bet? biomass. burn plants/wood. that's basically what you're talking about.

Edited September 4, 2018 by ads36

[cgksheff]

i did not read your article as you have clearly misunderstood my intention.

for the benefit of the hard of understanding i will restate it

 

i sought only to enquire as to why it appears that no research has been done into the viablity of splitting CO2 molocules and then utilising the components in some way to produce energy.

 

by viable i do not mean the profit, or rather the gain, has to be necessarily financial. Ridding the earth of some CO2 might just curb some of the whingeing ....and that would certainly for me at least go a long way towards justifying some of these joke 'green' related taxes.

 

This is worth a read:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/sep/14/entrepreneurs-turn-carbon-dioxide-into-fuels-artificial-photosynthesis

[fill]

This is worth a read:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/sep/14/entrepreneurs-turn-carbon-dioxide-into-fuels-artificial-photosynthesis

 

remiss of me to not be aware of this but ought to considered good news or at least a step in the right direction.

 

don't forget that the cost in this case is the cost of growing tomatoes and the cost of ridding the world of some CO2

 

the tomatoes we can put a value on ...

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2018 at 12:00 ----------

 

the chemistry is well understood, plenty of research has been done.

 

splitting CO2 requires energy, you'll never get more energy out than you put in. even if you ignore the tricky process if isolatiing the CO2 in the first place.

 

this really isn't some limitless source of energy that the deep-state want to keep secret.

 

and it wouldn't rid the world of CO2, the end result of the energy releasing phase would be ... CO2.

 

your best bet? biomass. burn plants/wood. that's basically what you're talking about.

 

only because an efficient system of achieving this has not been developed YET.

 

solar panels one constructed, placed and commissioned creating the electricity to separate the carbon and oxygen in a similar way to that in which water molucules are seperated might be a way forward ...

 

i admit i do not know the carbon footprint of setting this up but i believe unlike wind farming the set up footprint is quite small and the runnind footprint is minute in comparison.

 

dont lose sight of the focus. .... bear in mind the overall aim is not to produce carbon and oxygen efficiently but to reduce the amount of CO2 which is what we are supposedly trying to do.

[Annie Bynnol]

remiss of me to not be aware of this but ought to considered good news or at least a step in the right direction.

 

don't forget that the cost in this case is the cost of growing tomatoes and the cost of ridding the world of some CO2

 

the tomatoes we can put a value on ...

 

---------- Post added 05-09-2018 at 12:00 ----------

 

 

only because an efficient system of achieving this has not been developed YET.

 

solar panels one constructed, placed and commissioned creating the electricity to separate the carbon and oxygen in a similar way to that in which water molucules are seperated might be a way forward ...

 

i admit i do not know the carbon footprint of setting this up but i believe unlike wind farming the set up footprint is quite small and the runnind footprint is minute in comparison.

 

dont lose sight of the focus. .... bear in mind the overall aim is not to produce carbon and oxygen efficiently but to reduce the amount of CO2 which is what we are supposedly trying to do.

.

 

The chemistry of water is very different to that of carbon dioxide. Ions of hydrogen and oxygen in liquid water are already "split" and can be separated into gases with a relatively small charge of electricity.

This just does not happen with carbon dioxide, so a totally different method would be needed.

Searching for carbon 'capture methods' will give a whole host of innovative and controversial- all of which tread on one environmentalist or another.

My favourites include:

1-Removing all the peat off the Pennines and burning it in the last coalfired power stations until it has gone- reduced long term methane production

2-Chop all the mature rainforest trees and convert into simple furniture. Re-growth absorbs far more carbon dioxide. Carbon stored in furniture.

3-Eat all highland herbivores, cows, sheep, deer etc. Promote tree growth and therefore carbon capture.

3-

[DerbyTup]

i did not read your article as you have clearly misunderstood my intention.

for the benefit of the hard of understanding i will restate it

 

i sought only to enquire as to why it appears that no research has been done into the viablity of splitting CO2 molocules and then utilising the components in some way to produce energy.

 

by viable i do not mean the profit, or rather the gain, has to be necessarily financial. Ridding the earth of some CO2 might just curb some of the whingeing ....and that would certainly for me at least go a long way towards justifying some of these joke 'green' related taxes.

 

Ha! I just followed this little argument between the two of you, from the point that you were inferring that the other guy was a bit thick. Then he comes back with evidence that he knows what he's talking about and provides proof, and now you refuse to look at the evidence and instead start to back track on what you meant.

 

He's made you look a fool.

 

Hopefully that will teach you to not go on the attack with people in future but to understand their point of view better first?