Posted on 06/08/2018 1:22:58 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
But, you see, there will be “renewable” subsidies and tax credits so it will fit right into current DOE plans.
According to the paper, the new machine may be able to do so at a reduced price: $94 to $232 per ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Previous attempts to accomplish this priced the feat at around $600 per ton.
Nowhere is the $$ value of the synthetic fuel ingredient is...:^)
An energy balance equation would be interesting.
Wonder if they’re thinking to corner the market and then sell it back to us as we begin to suffocate.
“scientists at the Canadian company Carbon Engineering explained their CO2 extraction plans. The machine works by sucking air into cooling towers, the. Once inside the towers, the CO2 comes into contact with a liquid that captures the gas. Once captured, the CO2 would then be used as the main material for a synthetic liquid fuel.”.........”It is currently possible to extract CO2 from the air, but the process is expensive. According to the paper, the new machine may be able to do so at a reduced price: $94 to $232 per ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Previous attempts to accomplish this priced the feat at around $600 per ton.”
1. So a a private company, like Elon Musk’s, will seek to “mine” the public treasuries for subsidies for it’s for-profit company, using the phony “green” - actually political nature of it’s business as the wedge.
2. Could the company be profitable without politically inspired subsidies? It depends on data not available. That data is not in the cost per ton of extracted CO2, but how many units of synthetic fuel can be produced from a ton of extracted CO2, at what cost per unit and fetching what price.
Of course Marxists/Progressives won’t care about those financial questions. Just ike Ethanol they will merely legislate (mandate) that the new company’s sythetic fuel must be bought by liquid/gaseous fuel distributors, makers of liquid/gaseous fuel powered engines incorporate technology to use the fuel, and retail fuel sales to include it, with mandated quotas for its end use - regardless of costs.
I think you are both wrong and that you haven’t bothered to read the thread.
Photosynthesis affordably converts carbon dioxide into wood, which has been proven to work as a fuel just fine for thousands of years.
You checkmated yourself, so I can’t claim any credit there.
Picturing them following around cattle and demonrats, hahahahaha!
Funny but Getty Images not allowed on FR.
Why, you may ask? A FR poster by the name of “Registered” posted a montage of John Kerry and Jane Fonda together at an anti-Vietnam rally, together with a fake news article. The fall-out included a demand from Getty that FR not use Getty images in FR forums. The history of all this can be found at this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1875960/posts
An easier “fix” if something must be subsidized, is to plant trees and turn deserts into forests. Initially they will need water above local needs, but as they use water, retain water and add water to the water table, the water table itself will eventually percolate water in new places and increase the sources of water collected for precipitation. The whole climate will get “greener” without drastically increasing temps above habitable human norms.
The energy of the future. Always 5 to 10 years around the corner
Not to mention the CO2 produced by the fuel needed to power the Hoover. Not to mention the inefficiencies of using one power source to generate the power.
In other words, stop F*ng with nature before you really f* things up.
This can be done but it requires energy (fuel) to do it, and the laws of thermodynamics say it will take more energy than the resulting fuel will yield.
I was thinking the same thing. Suck the CO2 out and watch the crops fail, trees die and people go hungry. No sweat, they are also perfecting the new, improved Soylent Green to replace other foods.
To paraphrase Nanzi Pelozi - “You have to invest in the company before they can tell you how the process works.”
I’m going to invest heavily, because it can’t possibly lose money.
The technology is as big a fraud as the problem it pretends to solve.
But, with all of the public and private money being thrown at it, there’s no way to lose in the short term.
Here’s the way this process works:
CO2 Extraction from Air:
Air + MWh Energy + $Billions from suckers -> CO2 + Air
Hydrogen Production via Electrolysis:
2 H2O + MWh Energy + $Billions from suckers -> 2 H2 + O2
Methane from CO2 and Hydrogen:
CO2 + 4 H2 + MBtu Energy + $Billions from suckers -> CH4 + 2 H2O
Steam Methane Reforming:
CH4 + H2O + MBtu Energy + $Billions from suckers -> CO + 3 H2
Fischer-Tropsch Gas-to-Liquids:
(2n + 1) H2 + n CO + MBtu Energy + $Billions from suckers -> CnH(2n+2) + n H2O
Suckers include taxpayers, investors, and customers if this process were ever commercialized (it won’t).
Every step requires energy and billions of dollars from suckers. The laws of thermodynamics are such that it is impossible that energy inputs would be less than or equal to the energy contained in the product fuel. Absolutely impossible. The absurdity of the process is such that energy inputs would be several times the energy contained in product fuel. The energy balance is so bad that it makes corn ethanol look good as an alternative fuel.
It is not CO2 extraction, if they get the government involved, it is CO2 extortion.
Proposal = Pure, Unadulterated Bullshit. My suggestion is to allow them to Suck on CO, Carbon Monoxide.
That, ignored then: Those “Scientists” should be shot on sight.
We would be more successful if we capped all volcanoes and prevented the spewing of lava along with toxic ash.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.