Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: how can u convert carbon dioxide into a non-green house gas.

  1. #1 how can u convert carbon dioxide into a non-green house gas. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    india
    Posts
    5
    on large scale


    yeah yeah yeah yeah


    I won't die until i find out where i m gonna go after dying..... and I KNOW PHYSICS IS GONNA HELP ME FIND IT OUT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Plant more trees and create more forests.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Basically you have to expend as much energy returning CO2 back to Oxygen and Carbon as you gained when you created the CO2 in the first place, plus whatever losses are caused by the inefficiency of the process. So, basically it's easier just to never burn the oil in the first place, than to undo the process afterward.

    Another possibility I've heard is to capture CO2 in rock formations or other such kinds of things. Basically we could just scrub it out of the atmosphere and store it underground, maybe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: how can u convert carbon dioxide into a non-green house 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by siddhant
    on large scale


    yeah yeah yeah yeah

    It would be cake. You can do it with ARC, and aluminum. That would be pretty cheap.

    Or you can use this method. This is a pretty wild method.






    Whom run Barter town! Ha-ha.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    There's one way but the product will not be a gas. If you take calcium di hydroxide it reacts with the carbon dioxide and creates calciumcarbonate and water according to the reaction formula:
    Co<sub>2</sub>+<Ca(OH)<sub>2</sub> --> CaCo<sub>3</sub> + H<sub>2</sub>0
    With this method you can store the carbon dioxide.
    Alas it requires energy to create the calcium di hydroxide because you have have to burn calciumcarbonate and mix the product of the reaction with water to ge calcium di hydroxide.
    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by thyristor
    Alas it requires energy to create the calcium di hydroxide because you have have to burn calciumcarbonate and mix the product of the reaction with water to ge calcium di hydroxide.
    And where does the CO2 of the initial CaCO3 go to, when you burn it to get Ca(OH)2? As far as I can see, it is simply the inverse reaction of binding CO2 with Ca(OH)2. I guess, you'll get carbonic acid H2CO3 which is easily dissociated into H2O and CO2.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Another possibility I've heard is to capture CO2 in rock formations or other such kinds of things. Basically we could just scrub it out of the atmosphere and store it underground, maybe.
    Scrubbing it out of the atmosphere is certainly possible, but you have to use solvents (typically some kind of amine solution) to absorb the CO2 from the air, and then you have to regenerate the solvent by heating it to release the CO2 as a concentrated stream that can be injected underground or used in some other process.

    The heat for regeneration plus the pumping power to circulate the amine solution of course require energy. It's easy to justify in industrial processes where the gas stream you are treating has a much higher concentration of CO2 than the atmosphere does, but I would expect the energy balance to be far less favorable when trying to treat ambient air with its very low CO2 concentration. There are firms working on it so maybe I'll be proved wrong, and I hope so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by thyristor
    Alas it requires energy to create the calcium di hydroxide because you have have to burn calciumcarbonate and mix the product of the reaction with water to ge calcium di hydroxide.
    And where does the CO2 of the initial CaCO3 go to, when you burn it to get Ca(OH)2? As far as I can see, it is simply the inverse reaction of binding CO2 with Ca(OH)2. I guess, you'll get carbonic acid H2CO3 which is easily dissociated into H2O and CO2.
    That's kind of what I tried to say. There's no use with the process unless you'ne got a lot of calcium and a lot of energy (that doesn't create carbon dioxide) and last a lot of space where you can store the calciumcarbonate.
    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 I think Thyristor is very close to it 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    india
    Posts
    5
    In production of Ca(OH)2 some CO2 is released... but Ca(OH)2 can absorb more CO2 than is released in its production....


    Ca(OH)2 + CO2 ---> CaCO3 + H2O (LIME WATER TURNS MILKY)

    AND THEN... CaCO3 + more CO2 +H2O ---> CaHCO3 + something
    lime water colourless again.. right??????????
    I won't die until i find out where i m gonna go after dying..... and I KNOW PHYSICS IS GONNA HELP ME FIND IT OUT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by thyristor
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by thyristor
    Alas it requires energy to create the calcium di hydroxide because you have have to burn calciumcarbonate and mix the product of the reaction with water to ge calcium di hydroxide.
    And where does the CO2 of the initial CaCO3 go to, when you burn it to get Ca(OH)2? As far as I can see, it is simply the inverse reaction of binding CO2 with Ca(OH)2. I guess, you'll get carbonic acid H2CO3 which is easily dissociated into H2O and CO2.
    That's kind of what I tried to say. There's no use with the process unless you'ne got a lot of calcium and a lot of energy (that doesn't create carbon dioxide) and last a lot of space where you can store the calciumcarbonate.

    In an arc you can knock it out of a gaseous state, right to an activated charcoal. It will get deposited on aluminum. And not bond to the aluminum. It is pretty wild. I do it by accident.

    On a damp day, if the carbon that is deposited gets too warm it ignites.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Another possibility I've heard is to capture CO2 in rock formations or other such kinds of things. Basically we could just scrub it out of the atmosphere and store it underground, maybe.
    Scrubbing it out of the atmosphere is certainly possible, but you have to use solvents (typically some kind of amine solution) to absorb the CO2 from the air, and then you have to regenerate the solvent by heating it to release the CO2 as a concentrated stream that can be injected underground or used in some other process.

    The heat for regeneration plus the pumping power to circulate the amine solution of course require energy. It's easy to justify in industrial processes where the gas stream you are treating has a much higher concentration of CO2 than the atmosphere does, but I would expect the energy balance to be far less favorable when trying to treat ambient air with its very low CO2 concentration. There are firms working on it so maybe I'll be proved wrong, and I hope so.
    in space craft I believe they use certain filters that can filter the CO2 out into space and leave the rest of the air inside, now i dont know exaclty how they work, but they should make it easier to filter CO2 out of normal air.

    still I would say; plant more trees and burn less.
    “The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without the cat.” - Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    plant more trees and burn less.
    Yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    I like the trees and plants idea the best...

    That and stop burning fossil fuels so that the ocean can catch up on filtering out CO2 until all the damage caused by the last 300 yrs use of fossil fuels like coal and petroleum can be reversed.

    Much cheaper and easier to implement in my opinion than some sort of artificial filtering system and solvents, the solvents would probably cause even more problems!

    As for filtering CO2 from current factories, methods like this are already done in most places that are already developed to help reduce CO2 emissions. The biggest offenders are third-world countries where industry is still behind on environmentally sound practices, like China.
    "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." - Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree organic god's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    567
    i wonder if you could use a grignard reagent for this.

    CO2 + a grignard reagent =====> carboxylic acid salt.

    then maybe use this carboxylic acid for something environmentally friendly or something =S.

    any ideas?
    everything is mathematical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Psamathos
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Another possibility I've heard is to capture CO2 in rock formations or other such kinds of things. Basically we could just scrub it out of the atmosphere and store it underground, maybe.
    Scrubbing it out of the atmosphere is certainly possible, but you have to use solvents (typically some kind of amine solution) to absorb the CO2 from the air, and then you have to regenerate the solvent by heating it to release the CO2 as a concentrated stream that can be injected underground or used in some other process.

    The heat for regeneration plus the pumping power to circulate the amine solution of course require energy. It's easy to justify in industrial processes where the gas stream you are treating has a much higher concentration of CO2 than the atmosphere does, but I would expect the energy balance to be far less favorable when trying to treat ambient air with its very low CO2 concentration. There are firms working on it so maybe I'll be proved wrong, and I hope so.
    in space craft I believe they use certain filters that can filter the CO2 out into space and leave the rest of the air inside, now i dont know exaclty how they work, but they should make it easier to filter CO2 out of normal air.

    still I would say; plant more trees and burn less.
    Sodium hydroxide I believe is the chemical that will absorb carbon dioxide. Pure sodium hydroxide is NaO usually though we find it in a hydrated form or at least contaminated with water in a hydrated form of NaOH

    Big business chemical houses can turn anything into anything, and supply power to the community doing it, if they want, or if it was socially acceptable to do so. We have no limitations except law makers.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    46
    um i just passed 8th grade by the way.yeah thx but we were talking about photosynthesis and how plants breath the CO2 and basicly breath out oxygen som wouldnt u just create some kind of artificial photosynthesis.but on a realy large scale?????.wold that be practical or even possible.
    In life it is not the destination that matters,but the journey there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Sodium hydroxide I believe is the chemical that will absorb carbon dioxide.
    Yes, sodium hydroxide can be used, but its cradle to grave costs are higher than amines. Here's a Q&A from a firm that's developing the technology (Global Research Technologies, LLC):

    Q: What sorbent is used to capture the CO2 from ambient air in the air- capture collector?
    A: GRT used sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in its very early work on CO2 air-capture. Currently a different sorbent which is proprietary in nature is used. This new sorbent represents a major step forward in air-capture as it greatly reduces the energy consumed in the process and avoids the toxicity issues associated with sodium hydroxide (lye).
    I'm assuming the proprietary sorbent is some kind of amine, but that's just a guess.

    Pure sodium hydroxide is NaO
    NaO is not sodium hydroxide, it is not even sodium oxide, which is Na2O. I don't think there is a stable compound with the formula NaO.

    Big business chemical houses can turn anything into anything, and supply power to the community doing it, if they want, or if it was socially acceptable to do so. We have no limitations except law makers.
    This is nonsense. Of course we have limitations. One rather important one is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is immeasurably more powerful than law makers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I don't think there is a stable compound with the formula NaO.
    Don't think so either. The valence of the of the involved compounds (as I remember it): Na<sup>+</sup>, O<sup>-2</sup>, OH<sup>-</sup>, so a Na and O combination would leave an ion NaO<sup>-</sup> AFAIK.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by maddog67
    um i just passed 8th grade by the way.yeah thx but we were talking about photosynthesis and how plants breath the CO2 and basicly breath out oxygen som wouldnt u just create some kind of artificial photosynthesis.but on a realy large scale?????.wold that be practical or even possible.
    For the first it's not so easy to do that and on the other hand it requires the same amount of energy as you can get from burning it. This enrgy needs to be taken somewhere from and all known plants cause pollution, in the end often as carbondioxide. Of course you have the wind plants, hydro plants and nuclear reactors but they require energy to be built and besides the nuclear plants generate slag products that need to be taken care of, hydro plants damages the environment and wind plants can not be put everywhere.
    It's not that easy, unfortunately
    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Sodium hydroxide I believe is the chemical that will absorb carbon dioxide.
    Yes, sodium hydroxide can be used, but its cradle to grave costs are higher than amines. Here's a Q&A from a firm that's developing the technology (Global Research Technologies, LLC):

    Q: What sorbent is used to capture the CO2 from ambient air in the air- capture collector?
    A: GRT used sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in its very early work on CO2 air-capture. Currently a different sorbent which is proprietary in nature is used. This new sorbent represents a major step forward in air-capture as it greatly reduces the energy consumed in the process and avoids the toxicity issues associated with sodium hydroxide (lye).
    I'm assuming the proprietary sorbent is some kind of amine, but that's just a guess.

    Pure sodium hydroxide is NaO
    NaO is not sodium hydroxide, it is not even sodium oxide, which is Na2O. I don't think there is a stable compound with the formula NaO.

    Big business chemical houses can turn anything into anything, and supply power to the community doing it, if they want, or if it was socially acceptable to do so. We have no limitations except law makers.
    This is nonsense. Of course we have limitations. One rather important one is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is immeasurably more powerful than law makers.
    Hydroxide originally meant one oxygen. However in almost any compound there is water is present, you will find the hydrogen bonds with the oxygen. So it is assumed there is the very dangerous OH bond present.

    Sodium hydroxide commercial grade is listed as Na2O very recently in chemical books. When mixed with water or hydrated and called sodium hydrate lye, its formula is stated as NaOH. It is mostly used as NaOH, and called Sodium hydroxide, slangily.

    I suspect highly that the formula is NaO, because I find it hard to believe that sodium has more love for itself in a Siamese bond then for oxygen.

    When oxygen bonds with sodium metal, it turns purple. It is no longer pure sodium metal, and therefore cannot be Na2O in my opinion.

    I believe that sodium hydroxide has many more oxygen atoms then it is stated currently. One reason is that it can steal the oxygen from hydrogen, in the H2O bond, and create sodium hydroxide. With massive amounts of hydrogen gas released. To release that much hydrogen, and only form a small amount of sodium hydroxide seems odd to me.




    One other thing to keep in mind is sodium hydroxides ability to burn grease away, in hot tanks. A small amount of sodium hydroxide is capable of chemically destroying a massive amount of grease.
    Could the water be supplying oxygen as well, to low temperature burn the grease. I would say yes. And I could even see the grease, stealing the oxygen from the newly formed sodium hydroxide again. In a vicious cycle.

    I just don't see Na2O as being a white powdery substance. Just like aluminum at the surface is not Al2O

    Thermodynamics was created by the law makers and is just as silly and unneeded. A dependent people are an obedient people.

    The number of accidents associated with a chemical that was number seven in manufacture volume in the U.S. in 1979, is staggering. Everything from exploding cesspools and toilet water hitting the ceiling in bathrooms. To aluminum railings treated with it exploding and disappearing.

    I believe they call it Na2O because it can still act like sodium. Even with that much oxygen attached. I can be wrong. However this is what I believe.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Thermodynamics was created by the law makers and is just as silly and unneeded.
    You've given me an idea! I'm thinking of starting a petition to get the Constitution amended.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting the direction in which heat shall flow." Then we could have all the free energy we want. Will you sign?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Thermodynamics was created by the law makers and is just as silly and unneeded.
    You've given me an idea! I'm thinking of starting a petition to get the Constitution amended.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting the direction in which heat shall flow." Then we could have all the free energy we want. Will you sign?
    These are the words that were in a Declaration created by George Washington and his men for twenty two days and nights straight. It was referred to as the original Declaration of Independence.

    They took these words from the very laws England claimed were so important. Laws that had to stand, even when it seemed they were acting against God.

    So when George Washington took these words from the very laws they felt oppressed by and claimed them to be American Colonists rights, under English law.
    England declared that the document was a Declaration of Independence. Because although they had used these words, they were meant to suppress and oppress American colonists. Not give them equal rights and Individual Spiritual Freedom, in reality.



    You have the right to Individual Spiritual Freedom.
    You have the right to Assemble and gather to form a more perfect Union.
    You have the right to bear arms.
    You have the right to no taxation without representation.
    You have the right to a Jury by your own peers.
    You have the right to protect your fortune.
    You have the right to practice the religion of your choice under God


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Thermodynamics was created by the law makers and is just as silly and unneeded.
    You've given me an idea! I'm thinking of starting a petition to get the Constitution amended.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting the direction in which heat shall flow." Then we could have all the free energy we want. Will you sign?
    If only thermodynamics defined which way heat was flowing. It does not.

    And it does not even correctly define the source of the emission.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •