Comments on: New Discovery Could Mean Making Fuel From CO2 In The Atmosphere

By: ihatemakingnewuserids

ihatemakingnewuserids — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 14:41:00 +0000

Sure thing!

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:00:00 +0000

ah, found it. thanks.

By: ihatemakingnewuserids

ihatemakingnewuserids — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:10:00 +0000

Nope, it’s still there in the article.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:04:00 +0000

not seeing this mistake anywhere. perhaps already corrected?

By: Rhodomel Meads

Rhodomel Meads — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:19:00 +0000

“They have developed a means in which to transform the carbon dioxide saturating our atmosphere…”

FYI: the saturation point of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is several orders of magnitude than what it is today!!!!!!!!

By: Scott Cooney

Scott Cooney — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:20:00 +0000

Even if it’s temporary, it’s still a win versus our old model of extracting nonrenewables from the earth’s crust for the same purposes. But…it’s GMO, and therefore scary. What security measures do they have in place?

By: anderlan

anderlan — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:37:00 +0000

Yeah, but, entropy. Oxygen has more kick because it has more kick.
I can see problems if someone makes a superalgae that tolerates saltwater and gets loose in the ocean and somehow happens to thrive, without being eaten, and a lot of other things. I mean, we have to be mindful.
But I have a really, really hard time seeing how we can have an impact heavier than the fossil burning impact we are presently litterally putting all of our efforts into.
You’ll have to explain it better than “eats CO2″ to worry me in the least. At least to worry me about any impact that even approaches the current hellacious trap we are setting for ourselves.

By: Thomas Cheney

Thomas Cheney — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:36:00 +0000

Air capture could provide a CO2 source.

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 20:03:00 +0000

There are several such promising lab-scale initiatives, but none of them have made it yet into industrial-scale production. British startup Novachem folded. It’s far too early to treat the problem as solved.

By: S.Nkm

S.Nkm — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:38:00 +0000

Hence part of the explanation of why deforestation is a bad thing.

By: Guy Dauncey

Guy Dauncey — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:46:00 +0000

Forgive me a playful moment… I can see a new Hollywood disaster movie in the making. A company finds a way to make the new GM organism that eats CO2 really cheaply, and sells it globally, enabling governments to slow their CO2 emissions.

But then the organism mutates, and starts eating far more CO2 than has been foreseen. It develops a crust, where it sequestrates the CO2, which falls to the Earth when the organism dies, creating permanent carbon sequestration. Is the world saved from climate change?

Yes! But no! The organism breeds exponentially, since it has no known ecological predator, and the CO2 level in the atmosphere starts falling, until Earth is no longer shielded from the utter cold of space. Life sputters out, as the last CO2 organisms evolve to suck up the last of the CO2, and then die out. RIP.

By: arne-nl

arne-nl — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:02:00 +0000

You can srrike cement making off that list: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-solar-thermal-cement-carbon-dioxide.html

By: Ajedi32

Ajedi32 — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:54:00 +0000

Uh, isn’t that what plants do anyway? Make fuel from CO2?

By: Ross

Ross — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:41:00 +0000

How much more efficient than photosynthesis?

By: Average Joe Bodybuilder

Average Joe Bodybuilder — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:57:00 +0000

This is what is totally wrong with the system. Man has REFUSED to harness what is natural. On the other hand, man has INSISTED that the unnatural way is the best way. I mean just see what happened after the US / Israel governments made the 911 false flag attack! As a result of blaming it on some cave men, they destroyed 2 countries and destroyed generations through DU… Now if men could say, “we will use less and take ONLY what is necessary” then perhaps things could be much much better. http://averagejoebodybuilder.com

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:38:00 +0000

You are wrong to dismiss this, and by implication other approaches to CO2 recycling. There is a set of uses for hydrocarbon fuels that are very difficult technologically to replace with renewable primary energy, which generally goes through electricity generation. Aviation, shipping, steel- and cement-making, and petrochemicals come to mind. So we badly need synthetic hydrocarbons, even in the long run of the carbon-neutral or negative-carbon future.

By: ihatemakingnewuserids

ihatemakingnewuserids — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:00:00 +0000

it’s -> its

By: Dave2020

Dave2020 — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:21:00 +0000

And, alternatively:-

“The AFS system uses renewable energy to capture carbon dioxide and water from CO2 point sources, though we have also proved our ability to take CO2 from air. We electrolyse the water to make hydrogen and react the carbon dioxide and hydrogen together to make liquid hydrocarbon fuels.”

http://www.airfuelsynthesis.com/technology.html

“The team at Air Fuel Synthesis believe there is a strong case, based on energy security and ambitious carbon reduction targets, to develop a drop in, near carbon neutral, aviation fuel using low carbon electricity, hydrogen, and atmospheric carbon dioxide.”