The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Split from: Why not break down excess carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen?  (Read 3652 times)

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
The energy is the issue.

Oxidizing hydrocarbons is used to produce energy (which is why we use coal and natural gas, and gasoline, and etc).  It would take energy to reverse the process.

There have been proposals to essentially just burn the hydrogen, and leave a type of concentrated carbon/coke.  But, that would would essentially only utilize about half of the energy from the fuel.  It still might be worth considering.  The carbon could then be easily buried with the intention of keeping it away from biological organisms that might break it down and eventually create CO2.

Plants, of course, do just what you're proposing.  Using photosynthesis, they use solar energy to produce hydrocarbons from the carbon dioxide (and other nutrients).  The "and other nutrients" could potentially be a problem in the future.  If we utilize fossil fuels, then we overwhelm the natural ability to absorb CO2 by putting long sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. 

Biofuels are a cycle, of burning the biofuels, then having plants reabsorb the CO2, to be burnt again.  Unfortunately there is concern whether we truly have the capacity to grow all the biofuels we require as well as growing all the food we require.  There is also the concern about the environmental impact of fertilizers that are used to grow food and biofuels.

The USA is predicting a corn shortage this summer, and there are questions about reducing the corn derived alcohol that is being diverted into fuel.

A gradual reduction in global population would reduce the food/fuel pressure.

Yes and no. A catalyst as you know, is not really consumed necessarily, oxygen is a catalyst, and platinum is a catalyst. Platinum can act as a catalyst and affect change on many hundreds of thousands of tons of material, and still look darn good. In many cases they use platinum's ability not to corrode away, and the very high temperature it can create just above its surface, to effect change on chemicals. Here is an example of incandescent carbon being used as a catalyst.



Check out this second page on the top it explains what they do with the Co2.





A line from a movie comes to mind "Who runs barter town"?

                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick
« Last Edit: 17/08/2012 00:45:33 by William McCormick »


 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Yes and no. A catalyst as you know, is not really consumed necessarily, oxygen is a catalyst, and platinum is a catalyst.

In the case of petroleum fuels, oxygen is used as an oxidizer (appropriately named).  It is not a catalyst, and it IS consumed.

Thus, hydrocarbons are oxidized to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O).

Some gasifiers are run in oxygen-free environments.
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Yes and no. A catalyst as you know, is not really consumed necessarily, oxygen is a catalyst, and platinum is a catalyst.

In the case of petroleum fuels, oxygen is used as an oxidizer (appropriately named).  It is not a catalyst, and it IS consumed.

Thus, hydrocarbons are oxidized to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O).

Some gasifiers are run in oxygen-free environments.

They run the CO2 back through the coals and get Co. You can in an ARC also knock out the carbon, from Co2. Sodium hydroxide removes carbon dioxide from air naturally.
Remember this is an old book probably well over sixty years old. At least it shows what you can do with substances. I would suspect they have gotten even better at it.





The oxygen is not consumed it is merely bonding and letting go of the carbon, as they state. So it is a catalyst.

Oxidation is just a complex word, it no longer means oxidizing of a compound with oxygen, it could mean any compound that causes similar effects.
 




                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Yes and no. A catalyst as you know, is not really consumed necessarily, oxygen is a catalyst, and platinum is a catalyst.

In the case of petroleum fuels, oxygen is used as an oxidizer (appropriately named).  It is not a catalyst, and it IS consumed.

Thus, hydrocarbons are oxidized to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O).

Some gasifiers are run in oxygen-free environments.

It is a play on words, you usually cannot have a catalytic reaction without oxygen, or some other substance that acts like oxygen, a substance that you want to let go of yet another substance. Or bond to another substance, or become another substance. Through the impossibility of fusion in a 10,000 to 35,000 degree ARC (I just modified this post to add, that was a joke about the 10,000 degree to 35,000 degree ARC not being able to create fusion).

The incandescent carbon, is being called the catalyst in that book, and it is the hot substance that causes reactions to take place. But the oxygen is also the catalyst that both bonds to and then lets go of the Co. That is why they refer to oxygen as a catalyst.


                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick
« Last Edit: 17/08/2012 03:42:57 by William McCormick »
 

Offline William McCormick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
Yes and no. A catalyst as you know, is not really consumed necessarily, oxygen is a catalyst, and platinum is a catalyst.

In the case of petroleum fuels, oxygen is used as an oxidizer (appropriately named).  It is not a catalyst, and it IS consumed.

Thus, hydrocarbons are oxidized to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O).

Some gasifiers are run in oxygen-free environments.

Ammonia at one time was not given a chemical formula, while almost every other chemical had one. And rightly so because ammonia was for my lifetime in my area Nitrogen dioxide , No2.

Consider the process that makes ammonia, you have nitrogen and hydrogen at about 4,500 psi, you subject it to a 932 degree Fahrenheit cherry red catalyst. At the surface of the catalyst, you are going to get pressures, condensation, expansion and heat, that are beyond measure. The space between the atoms of hydrogen that make up all things gets large and loose. A hydrogen hops on board a nitrogen and you get oxygen, this happens twice and they combine with another nitrogen. Giving you ammonia. 

If ammonia were NH3 it would not react with propane yet it does. Men have been seriously hurt, by these accidents. You could safely add ammonia to a propane tank, if its formula was NH3, but I would not do it, and I love explosives.

I think if ammonia was NH3 they would crack it from nitrogen for the hydrogen. If there is even such a bond as hydrogen and nitrogen. I was taught no such bond existed.
The process that used to be used to make ammonia in Africa was the Haber-Bosch process. They injected into the synthesizer 3 parts H2 to one part N2, I would suspect that you are going to make some water, here or there. Because it does not come out pure.

Hydrogen when heated in an ARC cannot even stay with itself, and releases wild amounts of heat as the Siamese bond between the two hydrogen atoms, is broken in the ARC. That process used to be used for welding in the forties. And is used today to slice through stainless steel many inches thick like a hot knife through butter, in a plasma cutter, in very small amounts.

Consider that the processes that make and break Co2 to Co in the presence of steam also create ammonia as a by-product. Ammonia must be a tough nut to crack with just heat.

Here is something not related but might give you an idea of what can be done with carbon and hydrogen. Look at the the method of manufacture, method C





                      Sincerely,

                            William McCormick

 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
mod note

William - Oxygen is consumed in the normal burning of hydrocarbons.  Clifford has correctly explained this a few times.  I am gonna have to ask you to stop propounding your own personal concepts of chemistry in the main forums. This discussion is now in New Theories. 
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
I will mention that Sodium Hydroxide, or Potassium Hydroxide behaves somewhat different than elemental O2 Oxygen.

An excess of Sodium Methoxide, or other ionized alcohols is required for the transesterification process of biodiesel.

The role of Sodium Hydroxide would be to create Sodium Methoxide, so in that sense, it is actually consumed, although it does more or less come out as a waste product (that is difficult to recover).  But, some biodiesel producers have chosen to use sodium methoxide without the lye to actually decrease the amount of water contamination that goes into their reactions, and thus increase their yield.

NaOH + CH3OH ===> CH3O-Na + H2O, where the water (H2O) is undesired, and can cause problems in the later transesterification reaction.

If waste oil is being used for producing biodiesel, additional base is used to neutralize free fatty acids.

Anyway, as  imatfaal mentioned, this is quite removed from the problem of hydrocarbons being burnt in the atmosphere producing water + carbon dioxide, with the carbon dioxide then going on to cause a greenhouse effect.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length