You're totally spot on here, Cathal. Cookbooks for peanuts. Cookbooks for carbon.
-- More uses of carbon dioxide would change the game. Right now it's treated as a nearly worthless burden ($40/ton) that civilization has to bury underground or turn away from. The IPCC modeled a tax of up to $27,000 per ton of carbon dioxide by 2100 though!
Our team wanted to explore high-value uses of carbon. We set out to make a diamond using atmospheric carbon dioxide. Turns out that's really hard. So we made a decorative planter out of air instead: http://airminers.org
Tito
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 11:59:32 PM UTC-7, Cathal Garvey wrote:
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 11:59:32 PM UTC-7, Cathal Garvey wrote:
Thinking-emoji-face.. When the USDA wanted to make peanuts a thing, they created cookbooks of things you could do with peanuts. It worked.
We have some industrial processes already that use supercritical CO2. Perhaps if we devised more uses, especially ones that would be awesome but are uneconomical because of the cost of CO2, we could help create demand for high-volume CO2?
No uses that do not involve full recovery/recycling of CO2, please..
One obvious sink for the CO2 is, of course, greenhouses. CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas after all :)On 3 October 2018 00:01:06 GMT+01:00, Tito <titoja...@gmail.com> wrote:Agreed, Patrik, burying fossil fuels sounds like a plan, I know a place right down the street that sells liquid fuel!And yes, smokestack is way more energetically efficient than sucking it straight from the air, carbon dioxide at industrial smokestack "can be as much as 10−25 volume percent or more of the flue gas". The main limitation seems to be that the uses of concentrated carbon dioxide are limited.Tito
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 10:39:38 PM UTC-7, Patrik D'haeseleer wrote:The biggest problem with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is that the efficiencies go down dramatically the more diluted the carbon is. So capturing CO2 at a smokestack is way more efficient than sucking it straight from the air.By extrapolation, by far the most efficient form of carbon capture and sequestration would be to capture the carbon in its purest form. That is, take coal and other fossil fuels, and bury them underground!Patrik
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/054c68a8-f9b4-4a4e-b12b-6568c280e0e7%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
0 comments:
Post a Comment