Comments on: Nanotube Technology Transforms CO2 Into Fuel

By: Paul K, UK

Paul K, UK — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:42:57 +0000

100’s of Millions of years to present, CO2 has been recycled by the Planet.

70m years ago, the Atmosphere was 15c higher, where did the carbon dioxide go, into the earth.

Naturally coming back out through Volcanoes, in a Cycle.

All we are doing is messing with the long term plan of the planet, we have lived here as a decimal point, when looking at the whole cycle.

Good Idea, the main thing is to look at all technology.

Tesla got it right last century, do you know all he did, I don’t think so, people have been lied to for years.

By: tim

tim — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:26:27 +0000

Dont hold your breathe for this miracle, you realize that methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2? thats why the whole cow farting thing is kind of a big deal. turning CO2 into methane is worsening the problem, then burning it makes CO2. so cycle through if you want, but I’ll keep exhaling just add to the less potent greenhouse gas fill the atmosphere

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:15:37 +0000

It sounds like a great technology if it does not require a lot of additional energy such as electricity coming from a fossil fuel power plant. With regards to the Methane, you would be able to burn it and recover the heat which in the long run would minimize the CO2 because you are not burning additional fossil fuels.

Very interesting concept and hopefully the efficiency makes it feasible.

And a comment to the ones that want to get rid of all of the CO2 in the plant, if we didn’t have greenhouse gases it would be so cold that we could not live here, the problem is that we are putting an excess of CO2.

By: Robert Michael Foster, MA

Robert Michael Foster, MA — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:59:52 +0000

Is this a clean coal breakthrough, a better way than sequestering CO2? Sequestering CO2 could turn the underground water acid and eat away the limestone.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:43:25 +0000

The flue gas from coal fired power stations and many other CO2 producing facilities contain many chemicals other than CO2. Will the catalyst reaction cause the separation of other chemicals compounds other than CO2? Will it work in the environment when the flue gas composition is not pure and fluctuating? The last thing you want is to create a hazardous solid waste in the catalyst that is difficult (and expensive) to dispose of.

Another possible application of this technology is in Ventilated Air Methane (VAM) – converting CO2 in ventilated air from coal mines into useful methane. But the technology would need to be able to pick up CO2 at the concentration of less than 1%. If so, the market in VAM would be tremendous (think China, India, US coal industry).

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 00:37:30 +0000

This is great technology. I wonder whether the commercial use can be for home use? If every household is installed with one of this device, we probably will create a “rain forest” effect in all the major cities in the world!

By: Rob

Rob — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 08:44:56 +0000

This sounds good, but we still don’t solve the problem of getting rid of C02 all together. We’re still producing millions of tonnes a day. This process just temporarily removes all the C02 and puts it back later. What about all the energy required to create the chemicals and materials needed for the reaction? But I suppose the benefit is that we’re are becoming self sustainable and utilizing the resources we have access to, which is important in this environment. This process would only work if we completely stopped producing C02 as we would be able to produce energy without effecting the amount of C02 in the environment.

By: Give Me Convenience

Give Me Convenience — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:27:30 +0000

Apart from the gee-whiz aspect of reporting on this, did anyone at your humble little publication discuss the practical nature of such an idea? This idea does nothing to reduce CO2 concentrations whatsoever. Think about it for a minute, even if chemical conversions are 100% (see the second law of thermodynamics) CO2 is regenerated on a 1:1 basis. Then too the point raised in an earlier comment about CH4 being many times more of a GHG than CO2. The fundamental research being done will help use less methane from mined sources, if it can be commercialized.

By: OonAir

OonAir — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:33:49 +0000

This article fails to mention that methane like CO2 is also a greenhouse gas and its use is contributing to global warming. In fact, 1 molecule of methane causes 21 times more warming than 1 molecule of CO2. Nonetheless, to solve the energy/global warming crisis we are going to need to use a number of methods, so the more options the better.

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:50:30 +0000

I think there is a little more to it than presto. Is there 100% conversion? If not is the methane produced enough to make up for the added inefficiencies due to back pressure on the exhaust stacks and the increased fuel requirements to gather the produced methane?

Interesting concept though.

By: Allison

Allison — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:58:57 +0000

This sounds like a good alternative. However, there are a few of questions I would have as to the value of this newly discovered method. What is the cost per gallon ratio estimated to be between the current cost of propane to the new methane technology? Second, would it give you the same power capacity per gallon? Conversion is waste is a great thing. However, is it economical feasible to consider for replacment of current market fuel sources?

By: MingMing Du

MingMing Du — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:20:29 +0000

Long way to go… the idea to commercialize it will kill such research.

By: Cindy McLain

Cindy McLain — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:19:41 +0000

What happened to the idea of Fuel cell as an alternative? It will take about 10 to 15 yrs to develop it… but like everything else takes time… we need to use all the possible ways to deduce our dependence on oil.

By: Michael Smith

Michael Smith — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:18:59 +0000

You can’t keep this tech to yourself and reap the rewards… this is a human endeavor for our kids’ generation so it technically should be government funded, but ultimately free to the people who ask for it! And if you do ask for this tech to be implemented in your local area/home then its a good start, but I have a sneaking suspicion that these pages are to corporatize this amazing new tech and patent it so that anyone smart enough to build it – but not rich enough to buy it – will be taken to court for infringements!

By: Caroline Victor

Caroline Victor — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:17:09 +0000

We are responsible for all this and the tech must be safe. Using the excesses may set a see saw effect somewhere else. Less of everything would be a good start!

By: Will Colwell

Will Colwell — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:16:41 +0000

COOL. Nanotechnology is only beginning. Bring on the breakthroughs.

By: Daisy Langenegger

Daisy Langenegger — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:16:18 +0000

Wow clean air = energy!

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:47:58 +0000

Let me see if i get this. So theoretically, could we sequester all CO2 in the atmosphere, create methane, burn it and then recapture the released CO2 and so on?

By: Tintifax

Tintifax — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:27:44 +0000

There is more than burning methane. One of the most important thing about all this peak oil discussion is not that we run out of fuel. There will be enough possibilities to compensate. But all petrochemical and pharmaceutical production processes based on fossile oil can not be adapted that fast. If we really find a way to produce methane as described above, it would be a great benefit.

By: Eben

Eben — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:27:14 +0000

Awesome.

This will at least prevent more CO2 formation since all the CO2 in the atmosphere will be returned to CO2 after methane is burned to create energy. Amazing idea for utilizing energy from the sun and using something that is in abundance.