General Discussion

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)

5. I'm not sure they are claiming to make energy from nothing.

Fri Sep 6, 2013, 12:46 AM

Sep 2013

They are talking about using electrolysis to pull CO2 out of he atmosphere, and that energy presumably would come from non-carbon sources. But they would just turn around and release the CO2 again, so nothing is accomplished.

Wouldn't it make more sense just to use the non-carbon energy directly INSTEAD of carbon fuels in the first place?

If they have a process that can such CO2 out of the atmosphere and break it apart with electrolysis, that could be a good thing -- a good use of extra wind electricity that we don't need on the grid at any moment, for example.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

55 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A CAR that runs on fuel made from CO2 removed from the Atmosphere creating a carbon neutral loop! [View all] FourScore Sep 2013 OP

If it sounds too good to be true, it's probably not true. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #1

It's a matter of storing the hydrogen solarhydrocan Sep 2013 #28

Bullshit! longship Sep 2013 #2

I'm not sure they are claiming to make energy from nothing. BlueStreak Sep 2013 #5

I still say bullshit. longship Sep 2013 #8

They claim they put energy in to H and CO2 and get out burnable hydrocarbons Recursion Sep 2013 #17

2nd law of Thermo says it's not worth it. longship Sep 2013 #39

It's not being touted as perpetual motion or even energy gain. Jim Lane Sep 2013 #43

I understood they would get Hydrogen from the electrolysis, to mix with CO2 they got from air. AnotherDreamWeaver Sep 2013 #12

Well, "remove" for a hot minute until we burn it again Recursion Sep 2013 #23

What if it were not turned into usable fuel? BlueStreak Sep 2013 #37

Solar power isn't directly burnable and we like to burn things Recursion Sep 2013 #20

People need to re-read references on perpetual motion machines whenever an idea like this comes up stevenleser Sep 2013 #9

Indeed, I thought the Eddington quote was all I needed. longship Sep 2013 #11

Not saying this will work, but it wouldn't be a perpetual motion machine-- unless Marr Sep 2013 #13

They aren't talking about net energy but about the form the energy takes Recursion Sep 2013 #18

I'd add, quite a few people doubt one of Maxwell's equations Recursion Sep 2013 #27

But that's physics. This thing is a scam. longship Sep 2013 #38

They aren't claiming over unity energy production whopis01 Sep 2013 #47

Indeed. That's an entirely different matter. longship Sep 2013 #48

Lol - all worth it for the Emily Litella reference. n/t whopis01 Sep 2013 #54

Hear,Hear ... GeorgeGist Sep 2013 #46

But what will the trees eat? nt kelliekat44 Sep 2013 #3

It looks promising sakabatou Sep 2013 #4

Lost me at "magic". MindPilot Sep 2013 #6

Cue the climate doomer skeptics(of mitigation prospects, that is) yelling, "impossible!". AverageJoe90 Sep 2013 #7

No, it cannot work. You cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics. See my comment above. nt stevenleser Sep 2013 #10

And it's not being violated. Energy goes into the system at the beginning Recursion Sep 2013 #25

Yeah, those stupid fucking scientists and their "Laws" of physics! NutmegYankee Sep 2013 #16

You're missing the point Recursion Sep 2013 #19

Unless the laws of enthalpy have changed, that's going to be difficult Recursion Sep 2013 #14

Did you mean entropy? NutmegYankee Sep 2013 #21

No, I meant enthalpy Recursion Sep 2013 #22

I don't disgree it's better, but NutmegYankee Sep 2013 #24

I agree, I just meant there's nothing here that on its face goes against Boltzmann Recursion Sep 2013 #26

Solar power to charge batteries is better. joshcryer Sep 2013 #33

How much electricity it takes bluedeathray Sep 2013 #15

Another potential route away from fossil fuels liberal N proud Sep 2013 #29

More interesting for air transport, I'd say; we had a thread on the company last year muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #30

magic chemistry.....interesting choice of words. ileus Sep 2013 #31

Alchemy is making a comeback? FSogol Sep 2013 #41

interesting but its just electrolysis which requires lots of electricity. DCBob Sep 2013 #32

Just burn hydrogen and you take carbon completely out of the equation. hobbit709 Sep 2013 #34

This sounds a little to inefficient to be in vehicles themselves Thav Sep 2013 #35

Doesn't pass the smell test Botany Sep 2013 #36

I'll park it next to my car that runs on wishful thinking! FSogol Sep 2013 #40

And people say.... CanSocDem Sep 2013 #42

The C=O bond in CO2 is extremely stable and requires substantial energy to break struggle4progress Sep 2013 #44

The technology isn't that far-fetched jmowreader Sep 2013 #45

There would be nothing like the perpetual motion machine to stir one's interests but for one thing. 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #49

Not energy efficient, but has the advantage of working within our current infrastructure. Xithras Sep 2013 #50

As I imagine others on this thread are all over by now, it's a way to synthesize a fuel gristy Sep 2013 #51

It's only a neutral CO2 loop if the electricity used is from renewables NickB79 Sep 2013 #52

If we use solar and wind for the electricity then it may make sense. roamer65 Sep 2013 #53

Ethanol is made from CO2 removed from the atmosphere. gulliver Sep 2013 #55