Thread: Australian, and overseas scientists, convert CO2 back to coal, in a World first

...it's also the Australian tall poppy syndrome, whereby anyone with a good new idea gets closed out by the majority who feel threatened.

Anyone with a view on the world that differs to the supposed 'norm' is not valued in this country.

We live in a super conservative can't do country.

While it may have applications, elementary chemistry tells us that the endothermic process of breaking the carbon - oxygen bond to convert the carbon dioxide to carbon (not really coal) will take at least as much energy as was released by the exothermic reaction of making the bond by burning coal. This means that, assuming best practice power generation from burning the coal at 40% efficiency, to convert the carbon dioxide back to carbon will require 2.5 times the electricity that burning the coal produced. Assuming this new process is 100% efficient; which it won't be! Nothing ever is, in practice.

So I'm not sure what you would use it for.

I rest my case

Am I correct in assuming you think I am negative for simply pointing out that the law of conservation of energy applies? (I realise this is Australia, where according to a former PM the law of the land beats the laws of mathematics, or, in this case, physics)

Originally Posted by Blknight.aus

because it doesnt have to be mecury. Caesium, rubidium, francium and gallium (although I Only knew caesium and gallium off the top of my head) are also on the list. Plus any alloys of those AND you can technically include any substrated mixture. Hell it could be chucks of DPF matrix finely ground and blended into francium and still count as a liquid metal catylist.

It's estimated there are only a few grams of Francium in the earth's crust so I'd be ruling out that possibility.

Can geoengineering slow climate change, or will it be used as an excuse not to cut emissions? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

All about, Carbon Suckers, Sky Shades, Sand Dumps, and Clean Coal,

Originally Posted by JDNSW

While it may have applications, elementary chemistry tells us that the endothermic process of breaking the carbon - oxygen bond to convert the carbon dioxide to carbon (not really coal) will take at least as much energy as was released by the exothermic reaction of making the bond by burning coal. This means that, assuming best practice power generation from burning the coal at 40% efficiency, to convert the carbon dioxide back to carbon will require 2.5 times the electricity that burning the coal produced. Assuming this new process is 100% efficient; which it won't be! Nothing ever is, in practice.

So I'm not sure what you would use it for.

What if all the power required to do this was sourced from solar or wind generation?

Originally Posted by trout1105

What if all the power required to do this was sourced from solar or wind generation?

Ask the pm
the wind wont blow and the sun wont shine
cheers
blaze