Thread: Reducing greenhouse gasses with clean energy.

Clean energy sources like solar and wind can be used to reduce greenhouse gasses. In the process we can create fuel and not waste the energy. The focus is to reduce water and carbon dioxide gas in the air. I think that water can be seperated into hydrogen and oxygen gasses using electricity. I think that we can then combine the hydrogen gas from that process with the carbon dioxide gas to form methane gas using pressure. The methane fuel can then be oxidized with the oxygen gas from the water to run an electricity generator to power things. We then just have to keep the carbon dioxide and water product from getting back into the open air again so we can recycle it. This allows us the power things in our society while we reduce greenhouse gasses and control our planets temperature and weather. Thank you all and I hope you can all do something with this!

How do you get the water out of the air to be electrolysed in the first place?
Also, you must add the energy to split the h20, so aren't you just recycling the c02?
If we could just store c02 like that, we'd be doing it with everything?

You'd have a net energy of 0 after producing the methane... actually it might be less than 0 I can't be bothered working it out :P ^_^.

Originally Posted by Samuel P

How do you get the water out of the air to be electrolysed in the first place?
Also, you must add the energy to split the h20, so aren't you just recycling the c02?
If we could just store c02 like that, we'd be doing it with everything?

You'd have a net energy of 0 after producing the methane... actually it might be less than 0 I can't be bothered working it out :P ^_^.

To get the water out of the air you just have to collect it after it has condensed. You could probably just pump it out of the ocean and basically have what we added by using hydrocarbons as fuel.

You are basically turning our greenhouse gasses, water and carbon dioxide, into methane fuel. If anthing you are expending energy to create it but you are still able to use the energy to do other things.

Everything is being removed and kept out of the open air to improve temperature and weather. That is the whole point. You are not gaining energy by doing this just making clean fuel while cleaning the air.

The energy that you use to pump the water out of the sea (which doesn't make sense, because that's not taking it out of the atmosphere, it'd increase the rate at which it evaporates if anything if it was done on a large scale), would not be regained in the burning of the methane.

And how would you condense it out of the atmosphere? Because that would sort the problem out if you could do that, you can't exactly erect a giant mirror into the sky, it'd have to be like the size of mount Everest :P.

I don't think there is any way to reliably convert 100% of the water and CO2 into methane - a wide range of molecules will be made in any process aimed at making methane.

A much more viable option is using renewable sources to electrolise water into oxygen and hydrogen, and use the hydrogen to power fuel cells. Not only is there a 100% yield of hydrogen/oxygen; hydrogen fuel cells are also much more efficient than LPG-powered internal combustion engines, and carbon dioxide is cut out completely.

Originally Posted by Samuel P

The energy that you use to pump the water out of the sea (which doesn't make sense, because that's not taking it out of the atmosphere, it'd increase the rate at which it evaporates if anything if it was done on a large scale), would not be regained in the burning of the methane.

And how would you condense it out of the atmosphere? Because that would sort the problem out if you could do that, you can't exactly erect a giant mirror into the sky, it'd have to be like the size of mount Everest :P.

My thinking concerning pumping the water from the sea was that the water released into the air from the burning of fossil fuels ends up in the sea but then it wouldent be a problem as a greenhouse gas. As far as getting that air water to condense and fall as rain or snow I guess a space mirror would be the only thing. The mirrior could reduce the solar energy heating and lighting the planet by blocking it and reflecting it backwards. I have no idea what the size of the mirror would be. Certainly smaller than our moon! Sounds expensive in energy and dollars but priceless in time for us left on the planet.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

I don't think there is any way to reliably convert 100% of the water and CO2 into methane - a wide range of molecules will be made in any process aimed at making methane.

A much more viable option is using renewable sources to electrolise water into oxygen and hydrogen, and use the hydrogen to power fuel cells. Not only is there a 100% yield of hydrogen/oxygen; hydrogen fuel cells are also much more efficient than LPG-powered internal combustion engines, and carbon dioxide is cut out completely.

I was just hoping to build a more energetic fuel by combining the hydrogen with carbon dioxide to form something like methane. That also keeps your carbon dioxide from just sitting around in tanks and puts it to good use.

As already pointed out, combining water and CO2 to make methane is not easy or efficient and will not solve any problems. Removing water from the atmosphere won't help either. The relative humidity seems to remain constant, meaning that any water removed by precipitation or by mechanical means is soon replaced by additional evaporation from the seas.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

As already pointed out, combining water and CO2 to make methane is not easy or efficient and will not solve any problems. Removing water from the atmosphere won't help either. The relative humidity seems to remain constant, meaning that any water removed by precipitation or by mechanical means is soon replaced by additional evaporation from the seas.

Of course, now that I think about it, it seems very logical.

i don't know why people insist on developing all these "renewable" energy sources. The best way to product energy, in my opinion, is been nuclear fusion.

Originally Posted by Gregchf

i don't know why people insist on developing all these "renewable" energy sources. The best way to product energy, in my opinion, is been nuclear fusion.

When it becomes viable, fusion will indeed become widely used, I should think, despite the radioactive waste it produces. Untill that time, however, fossil fuels are running out, whereas renewable energy is practically infinite.

I think your confusing fusion and fission. Fusion does not produce radioactive waste. Fission is already viable and does produce wast!!

Actually, fusion releases neutrons which are absorbed by materials encasing the reactor, making a number of radioisotopes. The product of the fusion itself is not radioactive, no.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

I don't think there is any way to reliably convert 100% of the water and CO2 into methane - a wide range of molecules will be made in any process aimed at making methane.

A much more viable option is using renewable sources to electrolise water into oxygen and hydrogen, and use the hydrogen to power fuel cells. Not only is there a 100% yield of hydrogen/oxygen; hydrogen fuel cells are also much more efficient than LPG-powered internal combustion engines, and carbon dioxide is cut out completely.

I like the idea of direct methane fuel cells. They don't have the same storage problems as hydrogen fuel cells, and make a great deal of energy for relatively little CO2 out. No reduction of water required either.

Well said ! My great teacher has teach about this, There are lots more amazing thins which science has created...


[ spam link removed ]

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect . However, water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. So why spend millions trying to reduce the 0.001% humans may actually be responsible for?

Also for carbon dioxide, which contributes about 3.6% of the total greenhouse effect.
96.8% of the total CO2 (ie 3.5% of the 3.6%) is of natural origin, yet people are blithely talking aboit spending billions trying to hammer down that 0.1% of CO2 that isn't "natural".

Personally, I would hope the planetary ecosystem isn't on that much of a knife edge otherwise somebody will start taxing respiration soon.

Originally Posted by JGK

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect . However, water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. So why spend millions trying to reduce the 0.001% humans may actually be responsible for?

Also for carbon dioxide, which contributes about 3.6% of the total greenhouse effect.
96.8% of the total CO2 (ie 3.5% of the 3.6%) is of natural origin, yet people are blithely talking aboit spending billions trying to hammer down that 0.1% of CO2 that isn't "natural".

Personally, I would hope the planetary ecosystem isn't on that much of a knife edge otherwise somebody will start taxing respiration soon.

This is an oversimplification.

Things that influence the temperature of our atmosphere are split into forcing agents and feedback agents. Forcing agents can be seen as the primary causal reasons why our atmosphere is warmer than the base black body temperatures would be and, all things being equal, are the ones that would need to change for anything to happen. The two biggest forcing agents are the sun and CO2, followed by methane etc. Water as a feedback agent cannot drive climate change on its own, since something has to create the initial warming for more water to enter the atmosphere and trap more heat in the first place. This is where CO2 content is so important. That 3.6% greenhouse effect is that caused by CO2 only, which does not include that caused by the changes in feedback agents, like water.

Basically, if you want to talk about the total effect CO2 has on climate, you have to include all its secondary effects as well. The CO2 content has not been at the levels it is now for at least 15 million years. This is despite rises and falls in other forcing agents like solar activity. The major cause of this is anthropogenic CO2, which I think you'll find forms a very large proportion of the increase from "normal" levels to current CO2 levels. So, a 36% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from 1832 is most definitely significant.