Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Wind Energy Expert
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

2H20 + CO2 -> CH4 + 2O2

But we need to remember this is a cyclic conversion because as you burn CH4 you also us O2.

CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O

Anyway my chemistry may be wrong, please correct me. But if we are to fully understand what is going on we need to think of it in these terms.

2H20 + CO2 -> CH4 + 2O2

But we need to remember this is a cyclic conversion because as you burn CH4 you also us O2.

CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O

Anyway my chemistry may be wrong, please correct me. But if we are to fully understand what is going on we need to think of it in these terms.

why are you not answering the ‘hydrogen source’ question

Vishva

why are you not answering the ‘hydrogen source’ question

Vishva

Back to the drawing board.

Back to the drawing board.

Small point: If the microbes got carbon by the decomposition of organic material, that would still be considered carbon neutral. The regular decomposition of the same organic material would also lead to the carbon moved to the atmosphere in the form of C02! Therefore it is equivalent to taking it out of the air. (Well mostly, there are discussions of this aswell but would be too much of a digression.) Only carbon added to the carbon-cycle would constitute a real emission, which in general means drilling it out of the ground.

Small point: If the microbes got carbon by the decomposition of organic material, that would still be considered carbon neutral. The regular decomposition of the same organic material would also lead to the carbon moved to the atmosphere in the form of C02! Therefore it is equivalent to taking it out of the air. (Well mostly, there are discussions of this aswell but would be too much of a digression.) Only carbon added to the carbon-cycle would constitute a real emission, which in general means drilling it out of the ground.

From what I have gleaned, you aren’t the first person to ask about the carbon source– so thanks for bringing it up to allow for the short explanation.

Regarding the greenhouse gas emission concern: you bring up a good point here. You’re right that if the carbon is coming from CO2 already in the atmosphere, that then burning the methane shouldn’t actually add any CO2 to the atmosphere than what was already there.

Of course, the carbon could also come from organic material, or non-atmospheric carbon, from other environmental sources, which the methanogens also utilize naturally. In that case, it could potentially be turned into unwelcome extra atmospheric CO2 when the methane is burned. I think this is a controllable or minor concern though, so I think your point is still probably justified here: Greenhouse gas emissions are not a big concern.

Of course, that just makes this discovery all the more intriguing!

In asking the question about greenhouse gas emissions while writing the article, I was thinking in terms of comparison just regarding the electrical output directly from wind and solar power– which if used immediately obviously doesn’t require any conversion into methane at all, and thus doesn’t need to involve any carbon. As you point out, though: the process can still be carbon neutral even after the electricity is transformed into methane, assuming that the microbes are being fed atmospheric CO2 exclusively.

Good point!

From what I have gleaned, you aren’t the first person to ask about the carbon source– so thanks for bringing it up to allow for the short explanation.

Regarding the greenhouse gas emission concern: you bring up a good point here. You’re right that if the carbon is coming from CO2 already in the atmosphere, that then burning the methane shouldn’t actually add any CO2 to the atmosphere than what was already there.

Of course, the carbon could also come from organic material, or non-atmospheric carbon, from other environmental sources, which the methanogens also utilize naturally. In that case, it could potentially be turned into unwelcome extra atmospheric CO2 when the methane is burned. I think this is a controllable or minor concern though, so I think your point is still probably justified here: Greenhouse gas emissions are not a big concern.

Of course, that just makes this discovery all the more intriguing!

In asking the question about greenhouse gas emissions while writing the article, I was thinking in terms of comparison just regarding the electrical output directly from wind and solar power– which if used immediately obviously doesn’t require any conversion into methane at all, and thus doesn’t need to involve any carbon. As you point out, though: the process can still be carbon neutral even after the electricity is transformed into methane, assuming that the microbes are being fed atmospheric CO2 exclusively.

Good point!