In sci.physics.relativity, Jimmy

wrote
on Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
:
How difficult is it to split CO2 into C and O ?

Bond enthalpies are available all over the Web.

Most likely you want diatomic oxygen and carbon in the
form of graphite.

The C=O bond has -1076.5 kJ/mol; the O=O bond -498.36 kJ/mol.
(The negative value indicates that forming the bond
liberates energy. Unfortunately, the values are approximate.)
The C-C bond is -607 kJ/mol.

This means that one needs (1076.5*2-498.36-607) kJ/mol O2
= 1047.64 kJ/mol O2 as an absolute minimum amount of
energy; in technical chemical terms this reaction
is endothermic.

In practice I surmise the energy needed is considerably more,
since thermodynamics is most likely involved. Best I can do
there is note that a leaf appears to be a miniature Carnot
engine, and therefore one has to consider hot and cold sides.
A delta of 10 degrees Celsius in 300K would yield an efficiency
of 3.3% -- which is apparently roughly corroborated by biodiesel
yield studies.

This energy, of course, has to come from somewhere. For the
leaf, a combination of sunlight and water transpiration will
do.


If there were an effective way of splitting this molocule then we
would be able to make Carbon into a solid (or Diamonds...heheh) and
Oxygen to breathe.

There are a number of methods; I'd have to look. Synthetic
diamonds are manufactured in bulk already.


OR

maybe we could store it in tanks, adjust the concentration, and use it
as fertalizer in the rain forests, or maybe even on the Corn that
everybody seems to be starving for.

Fertilizer is not carbon, but ammonium nitrate; two extra
ingredients are needed. Hydrogen does not appear in nature
so will have to be extracted from water; gaseous nitrogen is
not easy to work with and can lead to some dangerous chemicals
like cyanide (H-CtripleN), nitric acid (HNO3), and of course
ammonia (NH3). More sophisticated chemistry can lead to
explosives such as trinitrotoluene and nitroglycerin; fortunately,
I don't think you'll need benzene or glycerol as an intermediary
here.


Many things have carbon in them. Perhaps we can fuel that industry (so
to speak). Instead of minning coal, we could retrain those people into
jobs where the "Coal" is manufactored from carbon and waste (similar
to the manufactoring of wood pellets for stoves). No more digging, and
if a cycle were created then there would be no more or no less carbon
being produced by Coal burning than is currently present in the
atmosphere. Of course, implementaion would no doubt be costly and not
many companies are going to be willing to shell out the extra cash. My
point is that by just capturing and burying CO2, were not getting rid
of it, We are just setting the stage for it to be someone elses
problem. We need a way to recycle it into something usefull.

I'll admit CO2 sequestration doesn't make a whole lot of
sense to me either. One possibility: build massively
large ponding areas, which can grow lots of algae (the
ocean seems to be slowly converting itself into salty
seltzer water anyway, unfortunately). Unfortunately,
the stink would be horrendous.

(Someone is constructing hardware that can take algae, tilt it
vertically, feed it sunlight, and generate oil. O2 is a byproduct,
presumably. If conditions are sufficiently controlled the stink
might not be a problem -- presumably it's dead algae that fouls
the air during blooms.)


Unrelated: There seems to be a formula for energy production. Energy
Output is directly proportional to the risk involed. (More risk, more
energy) Observe:

Fusion Power "The stuff that powers stars" (Scale of destruction if
gone critical, I honestly do not know), I think China was the closest
in creating a viable Fusion plant.

Nuclear Power: (Meltdown. Depending on size, atmospheric
contamination, unihabitable zones miles across lasting for decades,
Depending on location, massive loss, or damage to life and local
ecosystems)

Hydrogen: Extemly volitile, a cell could cause a decent size
explosion, however, it would be contained to the community that housed
the cell.

Fossile Fuels: (all of em) If one of these explodes, the damages are
mostly confined to the local community (not incuding economic damages
or the losses expected due to mining)

Hydroelectric: If a dam goes, everything downstream is at risk, but
everyone else would be safe

Solar: If a solar cell breaks, i suppose it could be repaired or re-
manufactored, if a battery explodes, it would be pretty confined
without nearly as much damage as the alternatives. However, energy
output is low and at the mercy of the weather. (unless in orbit, then
you need a way to get the energy to earth.)

Microwaves. Better hope the antenna's aimed correctly. ;-)


Wind: If someone is standing under a windmill when it breaks, well
that could be dangerous I guess. Maintainence would be the greater
cost with this method I suppose. Has the same disadvantages as solar.

There's also some risk to birds.


Weather happens everywhere, but certain types of weather targets some
areas more often than others. A study of the weather patterns for the
last 100 years could point to the areas whe

a.) the wind is strongests and most consistant (and accessable, it
would be very difficult, for example, to put windmills on the tops of
all the mountains)

More likely mountain passes, and many of the good ones are already
sprouting fan forests.


b.) the sun is the strongest with the least clouds (Dessert areas of
the US, the African Sahara) Unless in orbit, then, just keep the
planet out of the way

Reconciling that requirement with beaming to a fixed point
(which would require a geosynchronous orbit -- a very
hot commodity for communications reasons) might yield
some issues. The good news: the geosyncronous orbit is
tilted much like Earth is, and cessation of power would
only occur once a day anyway.


The problem is that it will call for global co-operation. For example,
Africa decides that they are not going to share there solar energy.
What then? Not to mention, you cant make bombs out of it, so the
military wont be interested until all the petro is GONE.

Welp, those are my thoughts anyway, any other ideas?

Well, you missed geothermal, tidal, and wave energy, though
I don't think those will be major contributors anyway.


Star


--
#191,
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **