The challenge of converting Co2 into fuel i on the cusp of being solved; http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/09/feature-there-s-too-much-carbon-dioxide-air-why-not-turn-it-back-fuel?utm_campaign=email-news-latest
Iceland is using its thermal energy to convert atmospheric CO2 back into usable liquid fuel.
This would seem to represent a major opportunity for Australia - the technique of using solar power to convert Co2 has the potential of doing two things: make us a net exporter of "solargas" as well becoming energy self sufficient.
For that to happen we would need the government to put substantial funds into the research needed to create a commercially viable solar fuel plant

"For that to happen we would need the government to put substantial funds into the research needed to create a commercially viable solar fuel plant."

No we wouldn't. All the global warming hysterics will be glad to fund it with their own money. Think what a blessed relief it would be to them. Worth it at ten times the price.

If they refuse to pay, they should be forced to pay by the State. This is after all, perfectly okay according to them.

If it's commercially viable, there is no reason why the costs should be imposed on the public, and the profits go to the owners.

And if it's not commercially viable, then there's no reason why government should fund it, because it means it's loss-making, and therefore less efficient, not more.

You and everyone who agree with you should fund it, Baygon. That'd be good, wouldn't it?

Dear Baygon,

Thanks for this discussion.

It's an interesting concept.
However from the little I've read it seems
that scientifically we're still at the early
stages - and we have a very long way to go.
Also like any new technology - currently it
would be very expensive with very few being
able to afford to invest in the process.
Still, that should not mean that inaction is
the answer. Sooner or later we on this planet
will have to look at new energy sources because
inevitably our current ones will run out.

It would be great to hear from some scientifically
minded posters on this topic. My knowledge is
limited to reading articles in Scientific American.

If it is viable the oil companies will be all over it to maintain their business of supplying transport fuel.

My guess is it is proposed as a replacement for all the global warming research dollars the universities & other gravy train riders can see drying up, as natural cooling becomes dominant.

Most of them are running very scared as they can see the whole process collapsing & quickly.

Blow your own money uselessly, Baygon. Even "sceptical" non-hysterical scientists agree that too much carbon dioxide COULD have a SLIGHT affect on climate, but one so small as to be negligible. Climate change is naturally occurring via many more natural events than a tad more CO2 in the atmosphere. The list is a long one and, sadly for the God impersonators looking for wealth and acclaim, crackpot ideas like this will not make a jot of
of difference to what nature decides to do. There has been too much public money purloined from the public purse for climate nutters to try stupid experiments already. Particularly as these pirates cannot explain the obvious fact that climate change has flatlined for 15 years.

BAYGON,

Firstly, why the misspelling of CO2?

Secondly, it's good to know Iceland is progressing with this.

Thirdly, while government investment in developing this technology would be welcome, commercially it's risky as we'd be competing against others with a headstart! Government funding is far more effective in the earlier stages and when there's not so much competition.

Fourthly, there are other things the government can do. Ensuring solar power gets cheap finance could be much more effective for encouraging fuel synthesis in Australia than doing the R&D here.