Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Edim

(312 posts)

4. In case you're not joking,

Reply to jmowreader (Original post)

Mon Dec 7, 2015, 05:07 PM

Dec 2015

It wouldn't reduce any CO2, because burning CO results in CO2 again. Furthermore, you need energy to reduce CO2 to CO. Also, you wouldn't need a catalyzer - just incomplete combustion. It would be senseless.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Could on-vehicle CO2 catalysis cut down on global warming? [View all] jmowreader Dec 2015 OP

Because of thermodynamics. jeff47 Dec 2015 #1

So exhaust heat wouldn't be enough to activate a catalyst? jmowreader Dec 2015 #2

Catalysts aren't things that get "activated". jeff47 Dec 2015 #5

I'm not thinking about cutting fuel consumption here jmowreader Dec 2015 #7

If you aren't cutting fuel consumption, you're producing more CO2. jeff47 Dec 2015 #10

I apparently am missing the point. lumberjack_jeff Dec 2015 #3

Of course it does jmowreader Dec 2015 #9

*slow blink* n/t lumberjack_jeff Dec 2015 #11

In case you're not joking, Edim Dec 2015 #4

I'd be rather concerned abot CO leaks into the vehicle KamaAina Dec 2015 #6

I thought about that...putting the reactor in the engine compartment would help jmowreader Dec 2015 #8

Perpetual Motion? One_Life_To_Give Dec 2015 #12