The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The end of Co2?

The end of Co2?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
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
Posted by BAYGON, Saturday, 12 September 2015 2:38:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"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?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 13 September 2015 9:26:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 13 September 2015 12:58:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 13 September 2015 2:26:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 13 September 2015 5:15:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 14 September 2015 2:37:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Solargas would be a useful supplement to other carbon dioxide reduction measures, but is not a solution to greenhouse gas emissions on its own. The process of converting solar energy to synthetic fuel is inefficient. It is much simpler and cheaper to replace stationary fossil fuel use, particularly burning coal for generating electricity, with renewable energy, than fuel for transport.

Also with transport, there are easier measures than synthetic fuel, such as more efficient fuel use and use of electric power. As an example, building an inland freight corridor from Melbourne to Brisbane would reduce emissions. Trains are much more efficient than trucks, even when both are using diesel engines. Similarly, more use of public passenger transport (preferably electric powered, but gas is okay), reduces emissions from cars.
Posted by tomw, Monday, 14 September 2015 9:38:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@tomw
You are right I should have highlighted that the proposed technology is designed to be used in situations where there are no ready made alternatives - in particular in aviation. The only alternative there is not to fly at all.
Posted by BAYGON, Monday, 14 September 2015 11:13:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BAYGON, rail is an alternative to aviation in some cases. In July I flew into Guangzhou (China) and took the express electric train to Hong Kong. Unfortunately visas and the crowded Guangzhou metro make this less than ideal: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2015/07/hong-hong-to-guangzhou-by-train.html
Posted by tomw, Monday, 14 September 2015 3:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If globally we invested more in rail especially the superfast rail version then aviation would be reduced to long haul flights. There is no reason why we should continue to build our domestic transport around aviation - it has killed small towns, demanded more expensive roads for the B doubles and made us dependent on fossil fuels.
All that said I still see a role for solargas - if for no other reason that it removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Posted by BAYGON, Monday, 14 September 2015 3:31:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And here I was thinking K Rudd was the only person I knew stupid enough to think you could build a railway from Oz to China.

Fast trains are a total stupidity when they have to service small widely distributed populations. To build a fast rail system from Townsville to Perth would cost more that the entire aviation industry has cost since the war, & would lose a fortune, just as existing rail does.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 14 September 2015 6:20:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, we can't build a railway from Oz to China, but China has already has a high speed network which Australians could use for part of their international trips. The idea would be to fly into southern China and then take the train for several thousand kilometers. As an example, landing in Guangzhou and taking the train to Beijing cuts 1,365 km (15%) off the flight.

As you say, fast trains are not viable for sparsely populated areas, like much of Australia. But Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne is one of the busiest air routes in the world and a reasonable case for high speed rail. Even Canberra-Sydney may be viable, when the political costs of building a second Sydney airport are taken into account.
Posted by tomw, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 12:32:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes on the face of it rail seems to be pointless in Australia but that is largely because we forget the reason for introducing a national railway network in the first place - it was primarily designed to move freight with a passenger service as an unintended by product.
The commercial benefits of rail are the following:
- assist in decentralising by creating a national network of communities that make their living from rail (much as happened in NSW and Victoria in the 19th century)
-rural hubs would act as distribution points for freight - meaning that we would be taking the heavy long haul lorries of the road and reduce our reliance on road transport.
-It is more efficient to move people from urban centre to urban centre as can be achieved with rail.
-Electrified high speed rail can be serviced using a mix of solar, wind and back-up battery power resulting the decentralisation of electricity.

As a nation we need to be far more imaginative and aim for self sufficiency wherever we can. If we rely on importing fuel and technology we will will basically lose control of shaping our own destiny.
Posted by BAYGON, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 1:13:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rail freight will only work properly if we can get control of the unions. Demarcation disputes & rip off systems often make rail unviable.

During one of the droughts a local brought a couple of train loads of hay into Howard from Mundubbera. A dozen or more railcars were parked in the goods area, & locals backed their trucks up to the car doors, & unloaded direct to the trucks. It was easy & simple.

After the second train the unions got on the case. They demanded a shunting engine & crew to move the cars, & union labour to unload them. This would have doubled the cost per bale, so he went back to B double loads.

A mate set up an oil transhipment system to get the stuff from farm to Sydney docks. He leased a silo, & used axial flow fans to suck the stuff from farm trucks & blow it into the silo, then from silo to rail car. Again into the second season, the rail union demanded a crew of 4 rail workers be employed full time for a couple of days work a week for 5 months.

The oilseed went back to road transport. It is this sort of stupidity than makes much possible rail transport not viable. It will never come back if unions don't wise up & help make it competitive.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 6:05:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Struth, Hasbeen, you seem to be stuck in the 1980s!

The days when Australian railways were controlled by unions are long gone. The main thing needed to get the cost down now is to get a large enough loading gauge for double stacked stacked containers in the eastern states.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 15 September 2015 7:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The air hostess union may ban it, but Green passengers could get ticket specials if they pedal foot pumps. These direct plane exhaust gas to the underseat pipes for gold catalyst electrical refining, powered from wing solar panels. Fuel recycles, reducing weight drag and curing obesity. ( 5 minute coffee break every hour to London).
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 18 September 2015 12:10:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicknamenick, you may think you're funny, but you're nothing other than tiresome.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 18 September 2015 4:53:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
no no the topic is electrical recycling of carbon.
Please get back on track.
Posted by nicknamenick, Friday, 18 September 2015 5:04:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An inner city greenie bit of tripe Aidan.

I guess you don't realise that farm produce does not grow in containers, double deck or single.

The main thing that accelerated the use & acceptance of containers was it eliminated most wharf labour from shipping, thus saving a fortune.

It was still necessary to sit on the unions to get any sense into our ports.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 18 September 2015 8:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy