http://www.twilightearth.com/2009/04/scientists-us-can-save-465-billion-in-energy-bills-and-radically-cut-co2-emissions-by-2050/
Scientists, policy analysts, economists just spend their time coming out with pie-in the sky "reports" policy papers, bill proposals etc- Outlining the amazing potential the government has- and could theoretically do if only the government could have $500 billion more in revenue.
I'm not anti-science at all, and if people want to study the climate- knock yourselves out. But now, these scientists have become utopian science fiction writers.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
I heard on (iirc) the infowarrior yesteday that some South Pacific rim based firm has found a way to create fuel out of CO2.
I can guarantee that such a technology will never see the light of day. Someone should Google for that. It's a big deal if it is true.
sure. i heard what, 8 months ago, about this 'huge' breakthrough with fuel cells discovered at MIT. it was all over the science blogs. Haven't heard anything since of course
Anywhere you read that claims to create fuel out of CO2 needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It's a similar misunderstood concept about Hydrogen energy. Both CO2 or H2 are not energy sources. H2 is an energy medium of exchange and CO2 is a product of spent hydrocarbon fuel. CO2 can also be used to create an energy medium of exchange.
From a chemical standpoint, molecules contain internal energy in their bonds that hold them together. The higher the internal energy level of the molecule means the greater energy release if the molecules break down and become something else. The molecules in hydrocarbon fuel (molecules containing hydrogen, or H, and Carbon, or C) have a fair amount of energy in the bonds that hold them together. If you can break the molecule and then add an oxidizer (Oxygen) to sweep in and cause the molecule to form new/different bonds (with the oxygen instead of with itself) then the bonds of the new molecules will have lower internal energy. Thus the bonds in the newly formed molecules are more stable. If you heat up the hydrocarbon fuel's molecule (say add a spark or compress fuel + oxygen in an engine) then this is enough to get the hydrocarbon molecule to momentarily break apart. Once the HC molecule breaks then the oxygen molecules can sweep in and form bonds with the Hydrogen and the Carbon parts to produce a new molecules. The new molecules are CO2 Carbon dioxide and H2O Water. These new molecules don't have high energy bonds like the previous hydrocarbon fuel molecule. Because the bonds in these new molecules have low internal energy, the difference in energy (internal energy before and internal energy after) is released as heat. This is heat of combustion that gets released.
Carbon dioxide molecules have low internal bond energy levels. It can't be reused as fuel. It is the byproduct of spent fuel. If you add energy back into CO2 and turn it into something else then that something-else can be burnt again to be converted back to CO2.
Hydrogen H2 does not exist in nature in sufficient form to be used as fuel. In most cases it has already reacted and the H2 molecule is already broken up and bonded with Oxygen, to make water H2O or other similar lower energy molecules. To have enough H2 to be useful as a fuel you need to make a bunch of it. You need to use electrolysis, a process which consumes energy, or some other means like chemically making it from an existing fuel like natural gas (CH4). The same amount of energy consumed (or converted from other fuel) by the procedure is the same amount of energy that will be stored in the bonds of the newly formed H2. Actually, it's less considering the process is not 100% efficient. So, to create H2 you can make it from other existing energy sources. If you got solar power or wind power you can use that energy source to create H2. But it's only a process of converting the energy into the formation of H2, which stores that energy consumed in the conversion process. Once H2 is created then you can burn it to release the internal bond energy as heat or chemically in a fuel cell, that energy consumed during the H2 formation process.
There was an interesting book I read a few years ago, called "The Methanol Economy". Wikipedia Methanol Economy where they discuss taking CO2 out of smoke stacks and using it as an energy medium of exchange. Using an energy source like solar or nuclear you can put energy back into the CO2 molecules and add Hydrogen to it to make Methanol (CH3OH). Methanol is a liquid fuel (race cars use it) that you can put in your tank and burn. It can replace gasoline as a liquid fuel. The problem is that you still need energy to create the methanol from CO2 molecules. Right now in the world we're not facing an oil or gasoline shortage problem. We're facing an energy shortage problem. We need nuclear, solar, wind, etc.. all to energyze our ever growing population. As for CO2 or hydrogen or any other scheme, all this is only a way to transport around the existing energy. They're means of distributing the energy. They're not sources of energy.