Science things

[YJ02]

I dunno if I would want Pandora's box Yong

because of the "classic" pandora implications or because we would then know everything and then life could get boring?

 

[Gatefan1976]

because of the "classic" pandora implications or because we would then know everything and then life could get boring?

In a Classical sense dude.

 

[Bluce Ree]

A small part of ONE of his theories is allegedly proved. Not Special Relativity. Even so, there are other possible explanations of what was observed.

Look! You don't know, ok? 'Cuz if you did know then I'd say you do know but all I know is that you don't know! You know?
--- merged: Apr 26, 2013 at 7:28 AM ---

I dunno if I would want Pandora's box Yong

We already know what's in there. Doctor Who.

 

[Gatefan1976]

We already know what's in there. Doctor Who.

Pity Matt Smith did not stay in there..........

 

[Backstep]

Pity Matt Smith did not stay in there..........

Be happy the pond was drained.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Be happy the pond was drained.

One good pissing match and that won't last either Backstep

 

[heisenberg]

Joule Extends Solar CO2-Conversion Platform to Produce Renewable Gasoline and Jet Fuel

Enables industrial CO2 emitters to profit from applying waste streams for lucrative fuel markets
Advanced Biofuels Leadership Conference – Washington DC – April 15, 2013 – Joule today announced another industry first in renewable fuel production: the direct conversion of waste CO2 into the essential components of gasoline and jet fuel. The breakthrough gives Joule the opportunity to expand its Sunflow™product line and help address global demand for true hydrocarbon fuel replacements. In addition, the process uses waste CO2 as a feedstock, allowing industrial emitters to produce valuable fuels rather than discard emissions or employ costly measures for capture and sequestration

http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/...tform-produce-renewable-gasoline-and-jet-fuel

I have been keeping an eye on this because most of the world's economy is dependent on oil and I think we may finally have an alternative to drilling for fossil fuel.

 

[YJ02]

Joule Extends Solar CO2-Conversion Platform to Produce Renewable Gasoline and Jet Fuel



http://www.jouleunlimited.com/news/...tform-produce-renewable-gasoline-and-jet-fuel

I have been keeping an eye on this because most of the world's economy is dependent on oil and I think we may finally have an alternative to drilling for fossil fuel.

Just a question, where will the CO2 emissions come from if not from the burning of fossil fuels?

will fossil fuels have to be burned-even if no longer desired-just to "fuel" this process?

just asking--not arguing

and I saw this article-thought it interesting from my pedestrian view (it is from livescience.com--distro'd through yahoo):

http://news.yahoo.com/speed-light-may-not-constant-phycisists-133539398.html

 

[Bluce Ree]

Just a question, where will the CO2 emissions come from if not from the burning of fossil fuels?

will fossil fuels have to be burned-even if no longer desired-just to "fuel" this process?

Burning fuel gives off CO (carbon monoxide), not CO2.

There are natural sources of CO2. For instance, vegetation gives off C02 at night. Living organisms also give off CO2.

 

[Jim of WVa]

Burning fuel gives off CO (carbon monoxide), not CO2.

Wrong! Burning carbon containing fuel yields CO2, if there is enough available oxygen, such as in a coal fired power plant.

 

[Overmind One]

Burning fuel gives off CO (carbon monoxide), not CO2.

There are natural sources of CO2. For instance, vegetation gives off C02 at night. Living organisms also give off CO2.

Some fossil fuels, yes. But not all of them. Fractioned off petroleum products such as gasoline and kerosene will give off CO. But burning coal, wood, peat, or even a forest fire will produce far more C02 than CO.

Wrong! Burning carbon containing fuel yields CO2, if there is enough available oxygen, such as in a coal fired power plant.

Quite true. But manmade global warming is a fraud. Technologies being developed to reduce C02 emissions is foolish and expensive. Plants thrive off of CO2.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Wrong! Burning carbon containing fuel yields CO2, if there is enough available oxygen, such as in a coal fired power plant.

Some fossil fuels, yes. But not all of them. Fractioned off petroleum products such as gasoline and kerosene will give off CO. But burning coal, wood, peat, or even a forest fire will produce far more C02 than CO.

Yeah, I should have been clearer. I wasn't thinking of coal when I wrote "fuel" and didn't even consider wood or peat when I posted that.

 

[YJ02]

Some fossil fuels, yes. But not all of them. Fractioned off petroleum products such as gasoline and kerosene will give off CO. But burning coal, wood, peat, or even a forest fire will produce far more C02 than CO.



Quite true. But manmade global warming is a fraud. Technologies being developed to reduce C02 emissions is foolish and expensive. Plants thrive off of CO2.

ok, but my question is still there--won't this new procedure still require the production of c02? yes, i know it exists in nature-but man made amounts are probably in greater quantities and far easier to capture.

it reminds me a bit of that old commercial (the process of doing something good to continue (our) bad habits):

 

[shavedape]

These CO2 discussions are full of hot air...

 

[YJ02]

Listened to this in the car last week,thought it interesting (Saul Perlmutter:

http://sciencefriday.com/playlist/#play/segment/9108

 

[Overmind One]

ok, but my question is still there--won't this new procedure still require the production of c02? yes, i know it exists in nature-but man made amounts are probably in greater quantities and far easier to capture.

it reminds me a bit of that old commercial (the process of doing something good to continue (our) bad habits):

CO2 is metabolized by plants and some blue-green algae. The notion that manmade CO2 will somehow cause a greenhouse effect is ridiculous from any angle. We just are not all that significant a source. If CO2 levels rise, then plant growth increases. Global warming as a result of anything manmade is a fraud.

 

[shavedape]

CO2 is metabolized by plants and some blue-green algae. The notion that manmade CO2 will somehow cause a greenhouse effect is ridiculous from any angle. We just are not all that significant a source. If CO2 levels rise, then plant growth increases. Global warming as a result of anything manmade is a fraud.

The notion that extreme weather is caused by man is ridiculous. We've always had hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, drought, etc. This has occurred throughout the history of the planet; long before we got here that's for sure. Drives me nuts that some tactless politicians try to use this lie to further their agenda (which usually involves taxing us more and more and more).

Yes, there is real pollution, but that should not be confused with demagogic nonsense that politicians spew.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Question.
Could the weather conditions we are experiencing be more due to:http://www.physics.org/facts/frog-magnetic-field.asp
than anything else?
I realise it is not supposed to happen for some time, but could this be a contributing factor?

 

[YJ02]

CO2 is metabolized by plants and some blue-green algae. The notion that manmade CO2 will somehow cause a greenhouse effect is ridiculous from any angle. We just are not all that significant a source. If CO2 levels rise, then plant growth increases. Global warming as a result of anything manmade is a fraud.

Wrong angle dude..I am not talking about global warming/climate change.just simply asking a question on where and how the ppl behind this scheme to make gasoline from co2 emit's are planning to get the amounts needed?

Surely the process will require vast amounts (will one get less gas from the process then the co2 put in?)?

And,so, wouldn't making co2 deliberately for the process be far more efficient then relying on natural sources?

 

[Overmind One]

Wrong angle dude..I am not talking about global warming/climate change.just simply asking a question on where and how the ppl behind this scheme to make gasoline from co2 emit's are planning to get the amounts needed?

Surely the process will require vast amounts (will one get less gas from the process then the co2 put in?)?

And,so, wouldn't making co2 deliberately for the process be far more efficient then relying on natural sources?

Ah, ok. You can make it using the emissions...from coal fired plants.

References:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00625-generating-gasoline-from-co2-emissions

A more scientific one:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/en...uccessfully-generate-gasoline-out-of-thin-air

Thing is, the process which makes CO2 (combined with hydrogen and oxygen) into methanol and then gasoline would require more energy to produce than it generates in the resultant fuel. I see it as a pitch to bring coal back into favor as a fuel.