Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol

The process is cheap, efficient, and scalable, meaning it could soon be used to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... o-ethanol/

If it also turns Ethanol into Bourbon or Scotch it is a double win!

Cool!

The devil is in the details. You can't cheat thermodynamics. How much energy does it take to create the substrate where the reaction occurs? CO2 to ethanol I'm pretty sure is an energy-consuming process. Basically combustion in reverse.

Pwns wrote:The devil is in the details. You can't cheat thermodynamics. How much energy does it take to create the substrate where the reaction occurs? CO2 to ethanol I'm pretty sure is an energy-consuming process. Basically combustion in reverse.

Like science really matters at this point in the global warming/global cooling conversation.

Pwns wrote:The devil is in the details. You can't cheat thermodynamics. How much energy does it take to create the substrate where the reaction occurs? CO2 to ethanol I'm pretty sure is an energy-consuming process. Basically combustion in reverse.

I'm guessing that "cheap" is the relative term here.

Plus every problem has a solution, if it is a high energy consumption process, then you will need to either find a cheap, or renewable source of that energy, or an outlet for the excess energy from the reaction itself.

If it is viable then maybe we can stop using up as much corn to produce it and that would bring the price down.

But I'm not an expert on this subject, I'm just spitballing here.

Sent using Tapatalk because 89Hen hates this.

SDHornet wrote:

Pwns wrote:The devil is in the details. You can't cheat thermodynamics. How much energy does it take to create the substrate where the reaction occurs? CO2 to ethanol I'm pretty sure is an energy-consuming process. Basically combustion in reverse.

Like science really matters at this point in the global warming/global cooling conversation.

It's Algore!

Gil Dobie wrote:It's Algore!

I know I know, but I wanted the liberal faggots to read the thread too.

So how long before Iowa corn farmers get the Koch Brothers to fund the debunking of this process and how it will actually damage the planet? New ethanol supply is bad for both of them.

93henfan wrote:So how long before Iowa corn farmers get the Koch Brothers to fund the debunking of this process and how it will actually damage the planet? New ethanol supply is bad for both of them.

In general, it's good to be skeptical of any apparent ground-breaking discovery that's going to instantly solve some major energy or medical conundrums.

I say it again: Thermodynamics does not let you get something for nothing. The reason plants need sunlight is because turning CO2 into things like sugar or alcohol takes energy and there's no getting around that. The energy in this process is going to have to come from somewhere, and it's probably expended in creating the substrate that they're using.

At the bare minimum you would need to power it with non-carbon energy for it make any sense, and then there's the question of whether or not you can produce enough that its CO2-abosrbing power is somehow better than all of the enormous photosynthetic biomass that isn't soaking up CO2 nearly fast enough to lower CO2 levels.

It's a cute experiment, but don't get your hopes up.

Pwns wrote:

93henfan wrote:So how long before Iowa corn farmers get the Koch Brothers to fund the debunking of this process and how it will actually damage the planet? New ethanol supply is bad for both of them.

In general, it's good to be skeptical of any apparent ground-breaking discovery that's going to instantly solve some major energy or medical conundrums.

I say it again: Thermodynamics does not let you get something for nothing. The reason plants need sunlight is because turning CO2 into things like sugar or alcohol takes energy and there's no getting around that. The energy in this process is going to have to come from somewhere, and it's probably expended in creating the substrate that they're using.

At the bare minimum you would need to power it with non-carbon energy for it make any sense, and then there's the question of whether or not you can produce enough that its CO2-abosrbing power is somehow better than all of the enormous photosynthetic biomass that isn't soaking up CO2 nearly fast enough to lower CO2 levels.

It's a cute experiment, but don't get your hopes up.

In a word, cold fusion...

Rob Iola wrote: In a word, cold fusion...

93henfan wrote:

Rob Iola wrote: In a word, cold fusion...

I see what you did there!

I'm with Pwns on this...
This would be the biggest "Discovery" since the wheel
And the laws of Thermodynamics are a bitch

Chizzang wrote:I'm with Pwns on this...
This would be the biggest "Discovery" since the wheel
And the laws of Thermodynamics are a bitch

We should leave science to the chicks...they have figured out how to be hot and cold at the same time while emitting strange rays from their eyes.

Cluck U wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I'm with Pwns on this...
This would be the biggest "Discovery" since the wheel
And the laws of Thermodynamics are a bitch

We should leave science to the chicks...they have figured out how to be hot and cold at the same time while emitting strange rays from their eyes.

Unfortunately Cluckers...
I believe your assessment of chicks is about as scientific as this "new" discovery

Pwns wrote:The devil is in the details. You can't cheat thermodynamics. How much energy does it take to create the substrate where the reaction occurs? CO2 to ethanol I'm pretty sure is an energy-consuming process. Basically combustion in reverse.

Didn't read the article yet, but I'm guessing the process of turning CO2 into ethanol likely gives off .....CO2.

ASUG8 wrote:

Pwns wrote:The devil is in the details. You can't cheat thermodynamics. How much energy does it take to create the substrate where the reaction occurs? CO2 to ethanol I'm pretty sure is an energy-consuming process. Basically combustion in reverse.

Didn't read the article yet, but I'm guessing the process of turning CO2 into ethanol likely gives off .....CO2.

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Pwns wrote:The devil is in the details. You can't cheat thermodynamics. How much energy does it take to create the substrate where the reaction occurs? CO2 to ethanol I'm pretty sure is an energy-consuming process. Basically combustion in reverse.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrm-rPSCIBw[/youtube]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/us/tennes ... index.html

Speaking of "suck it Al Gore"...

Tennessee has a new nuclear plant! Backward and racist Tennessee has probably just added more megawatts of carbon-free energy than the whole state of California with years of investment in renewable.

Gore lost me when he was jetting around promoting his book. I'm pretty sure that plane wasn't solar, nuclear, or cold fusion powered.

Pwns wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/us/tennes ... index.html

Speaking of "suck it Al Gore"...

Tennessee has a new nuclear plant! Backward and racist Tennessee has probably just added more megawatts of carbon-free energy than the whole state of California with years of investment in renewable.

I wouldn't build Nuclear plants in California either...
Solar Yes / Wind Yes / Nuclear No

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/us/tennes ... index.html

Speaking of "suck it Al Gore"...

Tennessee has a new nuclear plant! Backward and racist Tennessee has probably just added more megawatts of carbon-free energy than the whole state of California with years of investment in renewable.

I wouldn't build Nuclear plants in California either...
Solar Yes / Wind Yes / Nuclear No

To much population and too many NIMBY's to do either of your first ideas. Even windmills off the coast would offend too many people.

ASUG8 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I wouldn't build Nuclear plants in California either...
Solar Yes / Wind Yes / Nuclear No

To much population and too many NIMBY's to do either of your first ideas. Even windmills off the coast would offend too many people.

Don't know about that...
But I do know there are too many fault lines
California averages 15 to 20 4.5 or greater earth quakes a year



That's too many