Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:51 pm    Post subject: and now for something completely different... Reply with quote

CO2 turned into fuel? Anyone heard of this before??

-Mac

Additional link... Green Freedom
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's awesome. Wouldn't it ironic if the green movement in the future advocated huge SUVs which would consume larger amounts of CO2 :)
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only thing that makes me go "hmmmm" is that "waste stream" which they mention...

-Mac
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it's using non hazardous material, the waste stream could not be that bad. Look around at any coal burning facility now and see their "waste stream" from toxic materials. This is good news.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm curious to see some numbers, such as the energy that must be put in to make it a fuel and use it vs the energy that you get out of using it as a fuel.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bleatmop wrote:
I'm curious to see some numbers, such as the energy that must be put in to make it a fuel and use it vs the energy that you get out of using it as a fuel.

There doesn't seem to be much detail on any of the websites. I'm guessing they're concerned about protecting their process. Let's hope it moves forward...

-Mac
palomino_pony





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 539
Reputation: 93.9Reputation: 93.9
votes: 3
Location: Lower Mainland, BC

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brought to you by the same lab responsible for the Manhattan Project.

I'll take a wait and see aproach on this. It sounds promising.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The skeptic in me is thinking "cold fusion".
gc





Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1698
Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4Reputation: 48.4
votes: 16
Location: A Monochromatic World

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carbon dioxide is a very stable molecule, so I can't imagine converting it into something even more stable to gain energy from it.
Likely what this means is that you have to put energy into the carbon dioxide (in this case it appears to be electrical energy) in order to get energy out. The net result would be using more energy than you get out of it. Otherwise, it would be like trying to build a perpetual motion machine...
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gc wrote:
Carbon dioxide is a very stable molecule, so I can't imagine converting it into something even more stable to gain energy from it.
Likely what this means is that you have to put energy into the carbon dioxide (in this case it appears to be electrical energy) in order to get energy out. The net result would be using more energy than you get out of it. Otherwise, it would be like trying to build a perpetual motion machine...


That's kinda the line that I am thinking, but I'm willing to take a wait and see attitude. Who knows, maybe they figured out a way to get more energy out than they put in. I'm doubting it though.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


and now for something completely different...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB