north Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 is there not a chemical that can neutralize CO2 ? surely there must be Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedin the future we are planing to put CO2 under ground , what of a rupture ? is the CO2 so tightly bonded that photosynthesis is the only way to break this bonding ? what of electrolsis ? I don't get what the ultimate problem is ? is it money ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hermanntrude Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 what do you mean neutralise? Usually that's used to mean "bring the concentration of hydronium ions to approximately 1 x 10^-7 Mol/L, but i suspect that's not what you mean. And if there WAS a magic chemical which made carbon dioxide magically stop being carbon dioxide it'd magically destroy the atmosphere, killing us all by first killing all the plants. Chemistry is a science, not a magic wand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted April 27, 2009 Author Share Posted April 27, 2009 what do you mean neutralise? Usually that's used to mean "bring the concentration of hydronium ions to approximately 1 x 10^-7 Mol/L, but i suspect that's not what you mean. And if there WAS a magic chemical which made carbon dioxide magically stop being carbon dioxide it'd magically destroy the atmosphere, killing us all by first killing all the plants. Chemistry is a science, not a magic wand. so what makes CO2 so tough to solve ? how would you approach the problem chemically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hermanntrude Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Stop using fossil fuels, plant more vegetation, stop deforestation and include scrubbers on all industries which release large quantities of CO2 have you got, oh, about $16,000,000,000,000 to help my idea turn into reality? no, well there's a bloody surprise. This problem isn't going away not because someone hasn't yet thought to wave a chemical at the CO2, but because it's financially more rewarding for the very powerful to destroy the planet than the protect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Some useful reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage As I understand it these are considered tough problems not so much chemically but because of the scale needed to actually address the issue of global warming (i.e. cost). (Edit: Pardon me, I cross-posted with hermanntrude. Didn't mean to interrupt.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted April 27, 2009 Author Share Posted April 27, 2009 Stop using fossil fuels, plant more vegetation, stop deforestation and include scrubbers on all industries which release large quantities of CO2 have you got, oh, about $16,000,000,000,000 to help my idea turn into reality? no, well there's a bloody surprise. This problem isn't going away not because someone hasn't yet thought to wave a chemical at the CO2, but because it's financially more rewarding for the very powerful to destroy the planet than the protect it. just curious what is your idea ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UC Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Stop using fossil fuels, plant more vegetation, stop deforestation and include scrubbers on all industries which release large quantities of CO2 have you got, oh, about $16,000,000,000,000 to help my idea turn into reality? no, well there's a bloody surprise. This problem isn't going away not because someone hasn't yet thought to wave a chemical at the CO2, but because it's financially more rewarding for the very powerful to destroy the planet than the protect it. And I don't think you even can wave a chemical at it. if something can bind CO2 through simple reaction, it's usually made by kicking CO2 out of the compound (CaO by roasting CaCO3, for example) or has a hazardous and more dangerous sideproduct that needs to go somewhere. (electrolysis of NaCl in a cell with a diaphragm to make NaOH, for example yields chlorine gas side product.) And if we try to use petroleum to make any of the energy needed for those processes, we fall even further behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted April 27, 2009 Author Share Posted April 27, 2009 And I don't think you even can wave a chemical at it. if something can bind CO2 through simple reaction, it's usually made by kicking CO2 out of the compound (CaO by roasting CaCO3, for example) or has a hazardous and more dangerous sideproduct that needs to go somewhere. (electrolysis of NaCl in a cell with a diaphragm to make NaOH, for example yields chlorine gas side product.) And if we try to use petroleum to make any of the energy needed for those processes, we fall even further behind. could you not though use elecrolysis to seperate C from O2 ? just asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theophrastus Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Because CO2 is nonpolar, and electolysis only works in the case of ions and polar substances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 just curious what is your idea ? Re-read the first sentence of the text you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theophrastus Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Well, CO2 on its own, isn't acidic, and thus can not neutralized. End of story, goodbye, the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted April 27, 2009 Author Share Posted April 27, 2009 Re-read the first sentence of the text you quoted. I know I just thought that hermanntrude had something else in mind , besides the first sentence , in post #4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UC Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 Well, CO2 on its own, isn't acidic, and thus can not neutralized. End of story, goodbye, the end. No, but it's the acid anhydride of a weak acid. Points for picking at poor language choice, but it's not what was meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hermanntrude Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 just curious what is your idea ? I don't have one, because i'm not naive enough to think that some magic chemical or machine is just going to solve everything if i simply ask a bunch of amateur (mostly) scientists on an internet forum. If anyone HAD a good idea, it'd be under development. Currently the best idea seems to be a global change of behaviour, which is starting to look like herding 6,000,000,000 cats, each of which is on speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I'd have to check the deffinitions but I think that under the Lux Flood calssification CO2 is an acid. I doubt anyone cares. The problem isn't CO2. Give me enough cheap energy and I'm sure I can dream up some trick for converting it back to C and O2. The problem is energy. Incidentally I also think that while the rich and powerfull certainly gain from the oil/ coal business, it's fair to say that they had roughly 6 billion people helping them make CO2 (obviously some people help more than others.) Unless you walk to and from work, only eat vegetables you grow at home etc, don't say that CO2 is someone else's fault. The problem certainly isn't going to be solved by blaming "other people". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
north Posted April 29, 2009 Author Share Posted April 29, 2009 so basicly CO2 stumps us , as far as being able to break it down other than photosynthesis interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 so basicly CO2 stumps us , as far as being able to break it down other than photosynthesis interesting No, read again. We know precisely ways to do what you ask, but the resources involved make it impractical. The argument is one of scale, not of possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theophrastus Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 In regards to reversing the chemical burning of fuels, releasing CO2, instead converting it back to carbon and hydrogen, its just not a very efficient process. If the initial reaction produces heat, then you know that the opposite reaction, shall require heat. (Generally speaking) However, there are new developments in storing carbon. Here's a rather interesting video from Nottingham U's youtube channel: http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ACyK_7yGXY&feature=channel_page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Here's a rather interesting video from Nottingham U's youtube channel: http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ACyK_7yGXY&feature=channel_page Your link was broken. Here's what I presume that you intended: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theophrastus Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Ah, yes. Sorry for the technical problems. And thanks for including the proper link iNow; I believe a thank you is in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now