Carbon dioxide captured from air can be directly converted into methanol fuel

January 27, 2016 by Lisa Zyga feature
Using a new catalyst, researchers have demonstrated that up to 79% of the carbon dioxide captured from the air can be converted into methanol. Credit: Gregory Heath, CSIRO

(Phys.org)—For the first time, researchers have demonstrated that CO2 captured from the air can be directly converted into methanol (CH3OH) using a homogeneous catalyst. The benefits are two-fold: The process removes harmful CO2 from the atmosphere, and the methanol can be used as an alternative fuel to gasoline. The work represents an important step that could one day lead to a future "methanol economy," in which fuel and energy storage are primarily based on methanol.

The study was led by G. K. Surya Prakash, a chemistry professor at the University of Southern California, along with the Nobel laureate George A. Olah, a distinguished professor at the University of Southern California. The researchers have published their paper on the CO2-to- conversion process in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

"Direct CO2 capture and conversion to methanol using molecular hydrogen in the same pot was never achieved before. We have now done it!" Prakash told Phys.org.

Over the past several years, chemists have been investigating various ways of recycling CO2 into useful products. For example, treating CO2 with hydrogen gas (H2) can produce methanol, methane (CH4), or formic acid (HCOOH). Among these products, methanol is especially attractive because of its use as an , in fuel cells, and for hydrogen storage.

The chemical industry currently produces more than 70 million tons of methanol annually because the simple compound also serves as a building block for many larger compounds, including two of the most highly produced organic compounds, ethylene and propylene, which are used to make plastics and other products.

A key factor in the CO2-to-methanol conversion process is finding a good homogeneous catalyst, which is essential for speeding up the chemical reactions so that methanol can be produced at a fast rate. The problem is that these reactions require (around 150 °C), and unfortunately the heat often causes the catalysts to decompose.

In the new study, the researchers developed a stable catalyst based on the metal ruthenium that does not decompose at high temperatures. The catalyst's good stability allows it to be reused over and over again for the continuous production of methanol.

"Developing stable homogeneous catalysts for CO2 reduction to methanol was a challenge," Prakash said. "Majority of the catalysts stopped at the stage. Furthermore, we needed a catalyst that could reduce carbamates or alkylammonium bicarbonates directly to methanol. We have achieved both with our catalyst."

With the new catalyst, along with a few additional compounds, the researchers demonstrated that up to 79% of the CO2 captured from the air can be converted into methanol. Initially the methanol is mixed with water, but it can be easily separated out by distillation.

Looking at the work from a broader perspective, the researchers hope that it may one day contribute to a methanol economy. This plan involves developing an "anthropogenic " in which carbon is recycled to supplement the natural carbon cycle. In nature, carbon is continuously being exchanged, recycled, and reused among the atmosphere, oceans, and living organisms, but nature cannot recycle the carbon from fossil fuels as quickly as humans can burn them. Humans could counteract some of the CO2 we release by converting some of the carbon back into an energy source such as methanol.

More information on the anthropogenic carbon cycle can be found in this Perspective piece by Olah, Prakash, and Alain Goeppert.

As a next step, the researchers plan to lower the catalyst operating temperature and improve its efficiency.

"We will continue the studies to develop more robust catalysts that work around 100 to 120 °C," Prakash said. "We would like to perform the chemistry in a preparatively useful way, wherein there are no solvent or reagent losses."

Explore further: Homogeneous catalysis: ruthenium phosphine complex hydrogenates carbon dioxide to make methanol

More information: Jotheeswari Kothandaraman, et al. "Conversion of CO2 from Air into Methanol Using a Polyamine and a Homogeneous Ruthenium Catalyst." Journal of the American Chemical Society. DOI: 10.1021/jacs.5b12354

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Scientific advances can make it easier to recycle plastics

November 17, 2017

Most of the 150 million tons of plastics produced around the world every year end up in landfills, the oceans and elsewhere. Less than 9 percent of plastics are recycled in the United States, rising to about 30 percent in ...

The spliceosome—now available in high definition

November 17, 2017

UCLA researchers have solved the high-resolution structure of a massive cellular machine, the spliceosome, filling the last major gap in our understanding of the RNA splicing process that was previously unclear.

Ionic 'solar cell' could provide on-demand water desalination

November 15, 2017

Modern solar cells, which use energy from light to generate electrons and holes that are then transported out of semiconducting materials and into external circuits for human use, have existed in one form or another for over ...

147 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2016
The only use I can see for this process is creating methanol as a storage medium for "Excess" renewable power. I would venture to guess that the overall conversion efficiency of the power to methanol and back to power cycle would be well under 30%. Batteries still look to be a better option for power storage if the costs can be reduced.
greenonions
5 / 5 (20) Jan 27, 2016
MR166
The only use I can see for this process is creating methanol as a storage medium for "Excess" renewable power.


A serious question for you MR. Here is an article for you.

http://www.essent...nol.html

Look at this quote -
The largest use for methanol is as a feedstock for the plastics industry.
Now look back at your own quote. Do you see the problem? It seems that there are so many - always ready to discourage progress - to disparage innovation. And you guys come on to Physorg - and spam the site. Is it any wonder we are struggling as a species to free ourselves of the ignorance of religion. The dark ages of the inquisition. Would you not be much better off - shutting up - and trying to learn?
MR166
1.5 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2016
Look Onions water to H2 is about 75% efficient. Then you have to convert the H2 into methanol and remove the water from it. It appears that at least 50% of the input power is being wasted by the process. How can wasting 50% of something that is in short supply, IE renewable power, help the CO2 balance? This process as described does little or nothing to limit CO2 levels.
OdinsAcolyte
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2016
Convert it to ethanol and you have a fan!
WernerC
3 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2016
MR166 Now look back at your own quote. Do you see the problem? ... the ignorance of religion. The dark ages of the inquisition. Would you not be much better off - shutting up - and trying to learn?


Do you see YOUR problem? Stop blaming ignorance on religion. Two separate issues.

I know plenty of "scientists" or atheists who are every bit as much of a religious zealot as the wacko's they claim to rail against. BELIEVE AS I DO OR BURN IN HELL!!!

There are more than a few examples of productive Christians who are also Scientists - past and present. There are plenty of examples of Non Religious Scientists pumping out junk science - wasting everyone's time.

The idea that you can't be Religious and Scientific is idiotic at best.
greenonions
5 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2016
MR166
Look Onions water to H2 is about 75% efficient

Look how you change the subject. What I was discussing was this statement
The only use I can see for this process is creating methanol as a storage medium for "Excess" renewable power.
And I quickly demonstrated that this just highlights your inability to be creative. There are other potential uses for this process. You did not mention efficiency in your original statement. You only said
The only use I can see for this process is...
But there are of course other POSSIBLE uses for this process. You just can't see them - because you seem to hate on innovation, and progress. I was asking you to look hard at that reality. Why not shut up and listen - when you are so obviously ignorant?
david_king
2 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2016
So this process simply enables us to continue burning up fossil fuels with all their other inherent risks? Why do we need all this new plastic if we can already recycle the millions of tons of plastic that's currently landing in landfills or swilling around in our oceans. This new research is obviously important and a useful step along the way but we need to start considering the whole systems when we live on a very small and finite planet.
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2016
methanol can be used as an alternative fuel to gasoline

I believe methanol's toxicity would rule that out.
PointyHairedEE
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2016
So, how will that cure mad cow disease?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 27, 2016
Werner - I absolutely stand by my statement
Is it any wonder we are struggling as a species to free ourselves of the ignorance of religion.
Firsty - I don't see science and religion as compatible. Science demands evidence - religion demands faith. Very simple distinction for me - and these two ideas are exclusive. Secondly - I am really tired of living in a world filled with MR166 level ignorance - in which progress is like trying to swim through molasses - because of the persistent need for the ignorant - to disparage innovation. It is very personal for me. An example - I lost a friend to leukemia a few years back - if this development had happened a few years earlier - he may have lived - http://medicalxpr...cks.html So I see the clock ticking on all of us - and I understand that this is very serious - and I don't get the need to constantly try to prove how smart you are (MR116 I mean) by disparaging progress.
humy
2 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2016

I think MR166 is right: Batteries still look to be a better option.
As for using methanol for making plastics: I have a better idea consisting of a combination of:

1, ban all types of plastics that we don't know how to recycle (this may require further research and development into recycling different types of plastic so we are left with an acceptable large range of different types that we can recycle )

2, make sure ALL such recyclable plastic always really IS recycled with no more of it going into landfill.

thus virtually eliminating the need for using much nasty toxic raw material, such as methanol, to make any more plastics.
Benni
3.3 / 5 (21) Jan 27, 2016
Now we need to start worrying about global cooling.
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2016
HOW MUCH? $10,000 a British Thermal Unit?
hrfJC
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2016
MR 166 may well right right re the overall process efficiency of about 30%, factoring in heat energy required for fractional distillation to remove about 50% to get about 95% methanol for fuel use. Even at 100% conversion of CO2, distillation is major energy sink and cost factor, best met by solar or other clean and renewable energy source. A viable option may be co generation of methanol and steam from combustion of plentiful natural gas recycling both CO2 and vented waste heat for heating the catalyst and for distillation.
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 27, 2016
Benni claimed
Now we need to start worrying about global cooling
Why ?
Aren't you aware CO2 levels still rising
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2
whilst this is still operative & also increasing thermal burden
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
which is so far, not refuted for >100yrs, soundly based upon
https://en.wikipe...transfer
Aren't you aware enthalpy increasing whilst insolation reducing
http://www.skepti...1024.jpg

Benni, for someone who claims to have graduated as an Electrical & THEN a Nuclear Engineer you don't show any of the training one would expect from university study and whats more you claim you will never read my links, either to learn or even to refute etc

And as an Engineer Benni, why can't you ask the most straightforward of all Engineering questions re this process:-

"How does the end to end thermodynamic calculation stack up re comparative processes ?"

etc...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (14) Jan 28, 2016
Benni claimed
Now we need to start worrying about global cooling
...

Mike,
He has ski trails ne needs snow on...
wenkl2
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2016
CO2 to methanol? Isn't that called moonshining where carbon compounds (corn, potato, rye, etc). are fermented, cooked and distilled?
Then if you "USE" the methanol for a fuel what do you get as a byproduct? CO2! So how does the energy required for the processes compare to the energy released when the methanol is "used"? Overall it sounds like another government-subsidized program to create jobs (bureaucrats) at taxpayer's expense.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 28, 2016
wenkl2 asks
So how does the energy required for the processes compare to the energy released when the methanol is "used"?
Specifically defray, replace use of fossil fuels (FF) where feasible ie

Case 1 mass of FF as presently consumed
Case 2 convert some CO2 to fuel thus fossil fuel use reduced mass from Case 1 & repeat

wenkl2 wonders
Overall it sounds like another government-subsidized program to create jobs (bureaucrats) at taxpayer's expense
Doubt it, engineering approach is moderate FF infrastructure at many levels

Its is why key Physics understanding is essential for these types of projects for defraying the use of fossil fuel by; solar panels, hydroelectricity, thermo-solar etc which avoids susceptibility to (generally emotive) idle propaganda ie You become immune to politics, religion & facile ego claims, thus you're free to determine for yourself, not be reliant upon those make uneducated hand waving

Greenonions spot on re Mr166, ie feasible !
FainAvis
3 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2016
True that carbon dioxide from burning methanol returns to the atmosphere.
But the important point some of you dullards are missing is that methanol for this cycle did not come out of the ground. It came from the atmosphere. We could close some oil wells and gas wells if this catalyst becomes widely used.
Magnette55
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2016
A.G
methanol can be used as an alternative fuel to gasoline

I believe methanol's toxicity would rule that out.


Spot on Anti - We use methanol for racing and the stuff is nasty. We have to flush the fuel systems out with petrol after a day of racing or it will eat away every seal that it comes into contact with, the fumes are worse to breathe than petrol for your health and, when it catches fire in the case of a fuel leak, the flames are invisible to the naked eye.
There is no way you'd want methanol in vehicles on the public roads!
Going
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2016
It can be used in existing gasoline storage , distribution and engines so its an easy step to take towards a solar economy. Hydrogen requires the whole infrastructure to be modified. Also the energy density in J/kg/M^3 is so much better than hydrogen.
kaiserderden
3 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2016
CO2 is not harmful or a pollutant ... such ignorance being written on a supposed scientific website is disappointing ...
kaiserderden
2.8 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2016
True that carbon dioxide from burning methanol returns to the atmosphere.
But the important point some of you dullards are missing is that methanol for this cycle did not come out of the ground. It came from the atmosphere. We could close some oil wells and gas wells if this catalyst becomes widely used.

you are the only dullard I see ... your religious belief that CO2 is harmful is simply unscientific ignorance ...
Ryan1981
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2016
Interesting development, is there no catalyst that makes ethanol instead? Much more desirable for many reasons :P
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 28, 2016
kaiserderden joining today, claims
CO2 is not harmful or a pollutant
Completely Wrong ! Prove otherwise ?

In many ways, least of which *all* chemicals have toxicity thresholds. Why are you illustrating Ignorance/refusal to check Science before embarrassing yourself on a public forum & hiding behind anonymity ?

Exercise smarts to learn Physics details, then you might become immune to mindless propaganda blurted by crazy loons who have either a political agenda or merely wasting everyone's time to get attention but, fail dismally in basic Science communication.

kaiserderden says
...ignorance being written on a supposed scientific website is disappointing
Your claims are foolish re CO2 & worse, so very Easy to show you are Not genuine !

Gaseous exposure
https://www.kane....in-rooms

Food plants
http://www.abc.ne...2653.htm

Why disn't U check first, yah think ?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 28, 2016
kaiserderden who joined today continues to embarrass itself
you are the only dullard I see ...
Unfortunately you show yourself up so very soon with personal unfounded attacks not congruent with a genuine approach.

kaiserderden claims
..your religious belief that CO2 is harmful is simply unscientific ignorance ...
Prove it ?

Would you want to be in a room with Eg 3% CO2 and expect to be unaffected ?

Why can't you check first instead of lying & wasting everyone's time ?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 28, 2016
@kaiserderden
My secondary area of interest/qualification is Food Science, its been known for ~ two decades that higher CO2 shifts some food plants equilibria (depends on type) to produce:-
1. Less protein more carbs & other effects eg mineral proporations changing
2. More cyanogens, Eg Cassava for humans & Clover for livestock
ie http://blogs.nich...neffect/
& for nonfood plants eg fast timber growth etc
3. Changes to chemical constituent respons to fires re lignin

I live in Australia we have more damaging wild fires, likely reasons;, higher average temperatures, less humidity, stronger lightning incidence, less dense more fire susceptible timber & brush & light combustibles

kaiserderden please find top 3 or at least ONE credible study which proves your facile claim & proves me wrong & make sure its "scientific" as you imply thats important :P.

If I am wrong I apologise, will you likewise to all here for obfuscation ?
Phys1
2 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2016
@mm
If you hang over the text then the "ignore" button shows.
Lets maintain ignore lists.
___
Ignoring: Benni,bschott,gkam,kaiserderden,Shootist,antigoracle,Seeker2,promile,swordsman,viko_mx,DavidW,Gigel,bluehigh,baudrunner
This list is subject to updates.
Benni
3.9 / 5 (18) Jan 28, 2016
Why can't you check first instead of lying & wasting everyone's time ?


Jeepers Muttering Mike, is there anything else in life for you to do other than live on this site almost 24/7?

Every post you put up requires 10-15 minutes of time from the first read of someone's post until you've put up your worthless Commentary. So far on this topic you've put in over an hour of time posting your mutterings. I could easily find you on half a dozen more topics where you have put in just as much time as this one. Adding up the time you spend here during a day could easily amount to 8-10 hours. Are you just too old & cranky to find a job where anybody is willing to put up with you that you need to spend so much time here?

Retirement is a tough life or what?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (18) Jan 28, 2016
Magnette55 who *also* joined today, claims
..We use methanol for racing and the stuff is nasty
As I have but, only when contact with skin or breathed & easy to manage, like any chemical get to know the MSDS & as with petrol variants, take precautions !

Magnette55 says
We have to flush the fuel systems out with petrol after a day of racing or it will eat away every seal
Why *Must* you use the wrong seals then, its basic engineering Eg http://www.methan...pdf.aspx

Magnette55 says
..when it catches fire in the case of a fuel leak, the flames are invisible to the naked eye
Not completely & only if you Fail to add correct chemical, just as die is added to petrol so its distinguishable Eg Purple or Yellow etc

Magnette55 says
..no way you'd want methanol in vehicles on the public roads!
In fill sure, but as low % additive fine Eg biodiesel/petrol
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 28, 2016
Benni who STILL can't answer basic Physics/Science questions claims
Jeepers Muttering Mike, is there anything else in life for you..
Share market closed, this is my lazy time

Why can't you answer my (technical) questions & you *only* bark criticism, how about Science & Physics links, tell us where/when you got your claimed Electrical AND Nuclear engineering uni degrees ?

Benni Fails in lack of comprehension
..you've put up your worthless Commentary
Re-read, see links offered commensurate with Science communication

Benni claims
..you've put in over an hour of time posting..
No, I use helper script ;-)

Benni focuses on me
I could easily find you on half a dozen more topics where you have put in just as much time
Physics Benni, not me !

Benni claims
..you just too old & cranky to find a job where anybody is willing to put up with you that you need to spend so much time here?
Alerts on topics of interest, EE self employed & daytrade shares
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 28, 2016
Phys1 with a fair point observed
@mm
If you hang over the text then the "ignore" button shows.
Lets maintain ignore lists.___
Ignoring: Benni,bschott,gkam,kaiserderden,Shootist,antigoracle,Seeker2,promile,swordsman,viko_mx,DavidW,Gigel,bluehigh,baudrunner
Sure, for normal purpose

~40yrs ago I was fortunate to learn Lisp in great depth at uni from visiting French lecturer, an absolute genius in AI, whilst I was at Western Australian Institute of Technology. I also have adopted a philosophy of undertaking various tasks with a template based on a wide collection of reasons, some commercial

Even if it weren't for that, I'd still challenge idiots here who seem to go to a lot of trouble to prove they're witless & just can't learn & seem more concerned with idle criticism such as Benni who's a pattern confirmed by profiling software I was also lucky to acquire & which I am keen to adapt to provide useful information as a higher end AI filter, as I'm testing :P
Magnette55
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2016
Mr Massen

What does me joining today have to do with anything? I see a subject about a chemical that I've used for years as a fuel and feel it is fine for me to respond. Explain your comment.

With regards to seals..Methanol proof seals are not available for use in the type of engines we use otherwise don't you think we'd be using them? Do you think after 20+ years of racing that, at some point, this might have occurred to us?

The physical precautions we have to take when using a methanol based fuel are far greater than when using petrol which you agree with. The general public may not be so aware.

Cont.....
Benni
3.8 / 5 (16) Jan 28, 2016
It's beginning to appear as if Muttering Mike & the guy who couldn't get beyond 1st semester physics to 2nd semester physics, are now competing with one another for most 24/7 posting time on this site.
Magnette55
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2016
Mr Massen cont......

We have yet to find a chemical dye that doesn't have a detrimental effect on 4000+hp engines and can also pass scrutineering for racing. Again, we'd be using it if it was available. There may be something available for road use so that flames are visible but you're adding another cost to the fuel and also burning methanol in a fire gives off more toxic fumes than petrol/diesel.

You can run a low % of methanol as a mix but it will still have long term detrimental effects on modern injection systems unless the vehicles are designed for it's use and even then the gains would be negligible and not worth the extra expense.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 28, 2016
Magnette55 asked
What does me joining today have to do with anything?
Pattern where people join then *only* add claims, proven false or supporting narrow numbnuts

Magnette55 says
I see a subject about a chemical that I've used for years as a fuel and feel it is fine for me to respond
If that's the truth fine, balance of probabilities offers alternate aspect :/

Magnette55 claims
...Methanol proof seals are not available for use in the type of engines we use otherwise don't you think we'd be using them?
You are kidding or ignorant ? Injectors used methanol tolerant seals since late 1970's !

What's special re your engines precluding oxygenated fuel based seals, piping, pumps ie basic Chem Eng :-)

Magnette55 says
.. at some point, this might have occurred to us?
Hope so, easy to get em

Magnette55 says
.. general public may not be so aware
Hence my note re additives, I also don't favour public but who cares, useful petro-chem feedstock !
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 28, 2016
Magnette55 (M55) misread my post
..chemical dye that doesn't have a detrimental effect on 4000+hp engines and can also pass scrutineering..
Beg Pardon, re-read my post I offered issue re dye for petrol only to illustrate adding a chem for colour is as easy as adding a chem for improving visibility of fuels should they combust.

But, as someone who purports to know methanol you *should* know wide available

In any case what fuel mix U using for modest power, most drag cars I've know start at 6000hp + at least & prefer nitro methane ?

M55
..something available for road use so that flames are visible
You're going off tack, already not in favour for public pls move on

M55
You can run a low % of methanol as a mix but it will still have long term detrimental effects on modern injection...
No, moved on.

M55
.. are designed for it's use and even then the gains
Maybe but, NB I did say low %, tell us your opinion re differential % re your view ?
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (20) Jan 28, 2016
Benni, one of many numbnuts here claims
It's beginning to appear as if Muttering Mike & the guy who couldn't get beyond 1st semester physics to 2nd semester physics
Really prove it ?

For someone who claims to be Electrical Engineer & THEN becomes a Nuclear Engineer as vain "appeal to authority" - you just don't

1 Write like any credible EE
2 Prove your claims
3 Understand basic algebra
4 show key aspect re Einstein's field equations or how to manage Planck re 'c' & wavelength !

Benni claims
..are now competing with one another for most 24/7 posting time on this site
No. You Fail to read my post, testing various approaches re Ai s/w filters :P

btw: In case people guess I'm false/lying (as many sadly do here), I studied @ Western Australian Institute of Technology @ Bentley, Western Australia, now
http://www.curtin.edu.au/
EE 1976-1982 + *many* electives, Ba Sci 2008, Food Science/micro biology post grad 2010
& easy to prove, student # 07602128 call em :P
Benni
3.8 / 5 (16) Jan 28, 2016
Mr Massen

What does me joining today have to do with anything? I see a subject about a chemical that I've used for years as a fuel and feel it is fine for me to respond. Explain your comment.


@Mag: Make use of the Report feature. Occasionally it works in conjunction with the Contact at the bottom of each page, but you need to be explicit about whom you are complaining, it can't be just a generic thing or Phys.Org will simply ignore it......I have successfully used both methods of contact.
greenonions
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2016
hrfjC
A viable option may be co generation of methanol and steam from combustion of plentiful natural gas recycling both CO2 and vented waste heat for heating the catalyst and for distillation.
Sure - and it will be for the engineers to develop these processes (or not) depending on the economics, and engineering etc. The point I was trying to make - and seems you agree - is that there may be multiple paths of research - that could make this a beneficial advance - including simply using the methanol as a feedstock for chemical industry. MR166 blurts this line
The only use I can see for this process is creating methanol as a storage medium
I am just pointing out that this is typical of a pattern of ignorance. Can we just let the engineers keep pushing?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (18) Jan 28, 2016
Benni who can't prove ANY of his claims, says
@Mag: Make use of the Report feature. Occasionally it works in conjunction with the Contact at the bottom of each page, but you need to be explicit about whom you are complaining, it can't be just a generic thing or Phys.Org will simply ignore it
Beg Pardon, why *urge* someone to report a post for merely observing a pattern & challenging mere claim which is easily proven wrong & easily verified by industrial experience, re automotives, chemical engineering etc (sigh, shakes head !)

Benni does urging Magnette55, make *any* sense at all under such circumstances ?

Benni claims
.....I have successfully used both methods of contact
Really - Prove it ?

ie Uou saw a post by someone challenging your claims, either;-

1. Post was deleted
2. Poster contacted to change their approach
3. Other ?

Details ?

Evidence Benni, you at it again *only* barking criticism & especially so as you Fail always to "Prove claims" ?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 28, 2016
greenonions offered & I agree wholeheartedly
Sure - and it will be for the engineers to develop these processes (or not) depending on the economics, and engineering etc. The point I was trying to make - and seems you agree - is that there may be multiple paths of research - that could make this a beneficial advance - including simply using the methanol as a feedstock for chemical industry. MR166 blurts this line
The only use I can see for this process is creating methanol as a storage medium
I am just pointing out that this is typical of a pattern of ignorance. Can we just let the engineers keep pushing?
I see you referred to "engineers" I see this must be trigger for Benni to vote you down a 1 :-(

Goes to show, Benni has serious self-esteem issues, as usual theres nothing in *any* of his posts that's ever proved useful, no physics, no links & even has the immense idiocy to claim he won't read my links - FFS !

@Ryan1981
Methanol -> Ethanol doable :-)
MR166
3 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2016
There is no doubt that the world needs a way to store energy in an EFFICIENT manner! But this process will not reduce CO2 emissions one iota until there is a surplus of renewable energy from both a cost and CO2 standpoint. Renewables sometimes produce more power than the grid can accept but I doubt that this happens often enough and in enough magnitude to justify converting fleets of vehicles to run on methanol created by a process that wastes say 50% of the input energy..
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 28, 2016
MR166 offered
There is no doubt that the world needs a way to store energy in an EFFICIENT manner!
Yes & short to medium term most appropriate answer pretty clear as we already have large & widespread liquid fuel infrastructure geared to petrol/diesel very well accepted globally

MR166 says
But this process will not reduce CO2 emissions one iota until there is a surplus of renewable energy from both a cost and CO2 standpoint
There is no indication such dependency is causal. Since my eldest son graduated in Chem Eng 2013 & has been working on projects in my co, I've been made aware of widespread advances, some reported on phys.org with a few 'private'. Eg solar in many forms re catalysts, nuff said...

MR166 says on renewables
... in enough magnitude to justify converting fleets of vehicles to run on methanol created by a process that wastes say 50% of the input energy
Sure & a supportable position but, bear in mind the energy nature of that 50% ;-)
antigoracle
3.2 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2016
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, blabbers again. Are you really that stupid Mutterin' Mike? You keep reaffirming your incapacity to read, far less comprehend and yet won't heed sound advice to get someone with a brain to assist you. Mutterin' Mike, please have someone with a brain explain to you, what tripe you type, before you hit submit.
Benni
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 28, 2016
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, blabbers again. Are you really that stupid Mutterin' Mike? You keep reaffirming your incapacity to read, far less comprehend and yet won't heed sound advice to get someone with a brain to assist you. Mutterin' Mike, please have someone with a brain explain to you, what tripe you type, before you hit submit.


I think the room he lives in at that retirement enclave is lined in aluminum foil. A cogent thought for him is challenging enough, but boy, when he attempts to put it into words is when that cockney stuff really begins to make his postings indecipherable.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2016
When people who profess to be scientifically literate support a process that is energy negative in comparison to existing technologies I begin to wonder about their beliefs.

Exactly where does science begin and religion end???
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 28, 2016
Mr166 offers
When people who profess to be scientifically literate support a process that is energy negative in comparison to existing technologies I begin to wonder about their beliefs
Damn good point, so isnt it strange the Benni's of the world who claim to be Electrical/Nuclear Engineers just CANT offer a reply/commentary or even consider raising the key question, as I posited earlier:-
"How does the end to end thermodynamic calculation stack up re comparative processes ?"

Of course MR166, you would know from your very long time here on phys.org with several opportunities for education in basic thermodynamics re AGW that the measurement & assumptions about input energy offering base assessment of "energy negative" issues would be subject to full formal analysis which must include comparative economic factors

MR166 asked excellent question
Exactly where does science begin and religion end?
Good one, hence why Physics education is essential, yah think ?
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2016
MR166
When people who profess to be scientifically literate support a process that is energy negative in comparison to existing technologies I begin to wonder about their beliefs
And when you persistently disparage developments in the science and engineering world - I wonder about your beliefs - and your agenda. This is the perfect example. Here is your negative statement again -
The only use I can see for this process is creating methanol as a storage medium for "Excess" renewable power.
But why can you only see one use for this development? Just look at this site - http://www.methan...ons.aspx How about driving a turbine with the methanol (see last section of web site) - and selling the electricity. How do you know this would not be economically viable? Plus is would remove C02 from the emissions - something scientists tell us would be good.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2016
OK onions, let me break it down for you.
This process is energy negative, in that the product has less energy than what it takes to produce it. So, it would be ignorant to use fossil fuels to drive this process, since it would add more CO2 to the atmosphere than it's removing. It would also be ignorant to use renewable energy, which can be consumed more efficiently elsewhere. Excess renewable energy on the other hand, provided that it cannot be stored more efficiently, could be used to drive this process. Hence the original statement from MR166.
sola_scientia
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 28, 2016
@antigoracle,

That the process is energy negative means what, exactly? You driving your car down the road is a net negative energy process. You riding your bike is the same. You just sitting there reading this message is the same. What now?

I am also unsure what you are talking about re: fossil fuels either. If this reaction is just plain CO2 + heat -> methanol, then why not just hook it up to the waste output of any heat engine? Even the worlds dirtiest coal-fired power generator. If the capital investment is small enough for the expected payout, whatever would the owner of such a thing have to lose?

I'm not even sure what you mean by "efficiently consumed" "renewable energy". Can be specify which forms? Most of them are fickle things, outputs of which are basically random. Consider wind: hooking them directly to something like this would be a vastly better idea than the current nonsense where one burns methane when the wind is not blowing. Ditto for solar...
antigoracle
3 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2016
Check your reaction again. Where is the Hydrogen coming from?
Do a little research on the energy required to capture CO2 from a coal plant.
Which is more efficient? Using electricity to run our homes and industries or to drive this process that results in a significant loss.

Please learn to read and comprehend.
greenonions
5 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2016
Antigoracle
This process is energy negative,
This is your statement - please show us the calculations that informed you that this process is energy negative.

Did you also happen to notice this statement? -
As a next step, the researchers plan to lower the catalyst operating temperature and improve its efficiency.
mreda14
3 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2016
We studied in high school science class that plant leaves use the process of photosynthesis to take the good carbon dioxide and convert it to the oxygen we breathe and the food that we eat. This process of photosynthesis by plant leaves is very sensitive to the amount of acidic gases such as sulphur dioxide.These acidic gases such as sulphur dioxide slow down or even inhibit the process of photo-synthesis.
mreda14
2 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2016
There is no such thing as zero carbon. This is not scientifically correct. Zero carbon means no carbon dioxide in the air. How are we going to get the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat with no carbon dioxide in the air. There are lot of corruption in the research journals.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2016
Antigoracle
This process is energy negative,
This is your statement - please show us the calculations that informed you that this process is energy negative.

Do you expect that the methanol produced would have more energy than what was used to make it?
Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2016
@sola_scientia
Please don't be put off by a resident crank antigoracle, he often goads, makes things up adds random pointed personal attacks - even after being corrected often & in midst of that expects others to do his research for him but, then barks criticism & further personal attack

Just like a dull script with only aim of getting his jollies attacking whilst likely paid by AGW denier lobby to obfuscate any Science/Physics accepting even distant fringe aspects :-(

His behavior evidence found on this thread & so common elsewhere
https://sciencex....e/?v=act

Also has a robotic habit twisting positions raising slanted questions to try & put people into a corner but, gets caught out only superficially reading his own source links when he does bother - which is rare

Where is antigoracle's research, instead of barking complaint at a new member ?

Can antigoracle be quantitative re "..... results in a significant loss" - how significant ?
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast, blabbers. Mutterin' Mike, continues to reaffirm his incapacity to read, far less comprehend and the fact that beyond those 2 links he's a blabbering idiot.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
Antigoracle
Do you expect that the methanol produced would have more energy than what was used to make it?
I asked you to provide support for your assertion. Someone who understands science - would not make assertions - without knowing if they were true or not. It is certainly possible that the methanol produced would have more energy than was used to make it. Oil and methane do - don't they. But even if it takes more energy to produce the methanol, than is contained in the methanol - this does not rule it out as a viable process. We are accomplishing a desirable outcome - namely the removal of C02. But anyway - the storage of hydrogen from solar or wind - is obviously energy negative by your definition - but is being done around the world - http://www.renewa...lem.html So as usual - your argument is stupid - on many levels.
antigoracle
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
It is certainly possible that the methanol produced would have more energy than was used to make it.

If you have ever wondered why I refrain from responding to you, it's because of idiotic comments like the above. In which universe is it possible to generate greater energy out of less? You take stupidity to an art form, so it's impossible to explain the simplest of things to you. My comment was an attempt to explain the very first one by MR166. Now, all I can say to you is find someone with a brain and infinite patience an have them show you the error of your ways.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2016
Anti it is almost impossible to convince a zealot that their beliefs are mathematically unsound. In this case they think that ANY process that removes CO2 from the atmosphere HAS to be a great big plus. They are pretty much convinced that solar and wind are CO2 "Free" energy sources, last forever and as such can be a source of energy for any project regardless of the efficiencies involved. In fact, if Al Gore was to develop a rocket that was powered solely by H2 which was produced from renewable sources and would transport compressed CO2 into space, they would view this as a viable plan.
Benni
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2016
Greeno would consider CO2 removal a plus for his side, this because such a condition would cool the climate & hopefully return the planet to Ice Age conditions. With this scenario, the N. American Plains would be covered in snow & ice rendering the current populations unable to feed themselves.

Interesting what Greeno imagines is the most beneficial environment for the human race, he imagines permanent Ice Age conditions should be the norm with 2/3rds of the planet covered in snow & ice.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2016
Ah, green science at it's best!!!!

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

Extracting H2 from menthol/

And this article converting H2 into methanol.

Hey you guys at the Ministry of Truth get your act together.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2016
It is certainly possible that the methanol produced would have more energy than was used to make it.


If you have ever wondered why I refrain from responding to you, it's because of idiotic comments like the above. In which universe is it possible to generate greater energy out of less?

Sigh.

USABLE.

He meant USABLE energy. You buffoon.

All it took was an epsilon of thought more to make sense of what he said. But being the mentally poorly equipped narcissist you are, you couldn't even make that leap. And yet, you think that you ARE equipped to use those same discount-rate faculties to point something out the climate science community has somehow missed for decades. Because--again--narcissist.

Just shut up, already.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
The Chicken Little idiot parade, who share a lone neuron amongst them, is in full swing. Hey idiot, since all you are capable of is an epsilon of thought, please find someone with a brain to prevent you making a jackass of yourself. He was responding to my question, so don't burn out that lone neuron trying to interpret what I was asking. Because--again--idiot.

Just keep braying, already.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2016
The Chicken Little idiot parade, who share a lone neuron amongst them, is in full swing. Hey idiot, since all you are capable of is an epsilon of thought, please find someone with a brain to prevent you making a jackass of yourself. He was responding to my question, so don't burn out that lone neuron trying to interpret what I was asking. Because--again--idiot.

Just keep braying, already.

You asked,
. In which universe is it possible to generate greater energy out of less?

did you not?

This means you didn't understand that he was talking about usable energy. Otherwise, you would not have asked this question.

Thus, you continue to support my point about being a nacissist incapable of complex thought. Keep up the good work!
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2016
Listen up jackass, try going back to the start of the conversation.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 29, 2016
Thus, you continue to support my point about being a nacissist with poorly equipped reasoning faculties. Keep up the good work!


Hey Furry,

With your "reasoning faculties", how do you feel about the planet's Ice Age CO2 content until 10K years ago when it began to skyrocket to present levels? You prefer Ice Age CO2 content at half what it is presently? Or would you rather go back to IceAge CO2 levels where you imagine it was cozier to snuggle up to ice age mastadons a means of keeping warm?

greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2016
Antigoracle
If you have ever wondered why I refrain from responding to you
And you don't see the total irony of that comment. I guess you need it spelled out. You are responding to me - so your comment is stupid.
rrrander
1 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2016
And how much will room sized catalyst beds ofcruthenium cost?
thefurlong
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2016
Hey Furry,

Blargedy blarg blarg!

I am not going to play this game of contending with assertions of dubious origin. I am sure you saw some kind of graph, suffered a subsequent bout of hypoxia, and then decided on a your current mouth-frothy interpretation of who the f*ck knows.

I am simply going to ask you to direct me to the specific data from which you make these claims, to verify, for myself, whether there is anything to them.

Once you provide this, we can get to to me alternately laughing at you and banging my head on my desk in exasperation. k?

(Well, ok, because I can't resist, I am also going to drop this here, because I know you guys do like your pictures: http://assets.cli...c_c.jpg)
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
Congratulations, the Chicken Little club has found its idiot of the day. You make greenonions look like a genius.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2016
Antigoracle
In which universe is it possible to generate greater energy out of less?

This universe. Take for example an oil refinery. It takes less energy to produce a gallon of gasoline - than the gallon of gasoline contains. I do periodically respond to your idiocy. I usually regret it - just a weakness I have - trying to put my two cents in for reason. You make a perennial target with your stupidity.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
Listen up jackass, try going back to the start of the conversation.

Of course, being a simple-minded narcissist, you infer that I couldn't possibly have done this already. Keep it up!

By the way, just to help a dim bulb out, going back to the start of the conversation does not help.

Also,
This process is energy negative, in that the product has less energy than what it takes to produce it. So, it would be ignorant to use fossil fuels to drive this process, since it would add more CO2 to the atmosphere than it's removing.

makes absolutely no sense. CO2 content is not synonymous with energy content.

Theoretically, you can remove as much CO2 as you want. It's just that some of the CO2 (and energy) would go into waste products (water from the look of it: http://pubs.acs.o...jacsat).
Benni
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2016
Hey Furry,

Blargedy blarg blarg


I am not going to play this game of contending with assertions of dubious origin


Like what? That CO2 levels during the last Ice Age were half what they are now? Look it up, that is if you know how to use a search engine like Google. It isn't hard Furry guy, just delete your foul mouthed language content so you can get beyond the Content Standards.


Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2016
...
This process is energy negative, in that the product has less energy than what it takes to produce it. ...

According to the 2nd law, all processes are energy negative.
I agree however with your post.
___
Presently ignoring:
Benni bschott plasmarevenge cantdrive45 gkam kaiserderden Shootist antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW Gigel bluehigh baudrunner solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco
This list is updated continuously.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
It is certainly possible that the methanol produced would have more energy than was used to make it.


If you have ever wondered why I refrain from responding to you, it's because of idiotic comments like the above. In which universe is it possible to generate greater energy out of less?

Upon reexamination, it shouldn't have even taken an epsilon more of thought.

It doesn't require the entire energy content of an energy resource to make it. All you need is the energy required to corral its constituents, and bring them together.

I can't believe we are even having this conversation. In fact, I am more stupid for engaging you in it.
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2016
I am not going to play this game of contending with assertions of dubious origin


Like what? That CO2 levels during the last Ice Age were half what they are now? Look it up, that is if you know how to use a search engine like Google.

No, that isn't how this works. You make a claim that somebody does not believe. YOU back it up. The burden of proof is on you.

(By the way, like AG, you too, being a simple-minded narcissist, believe that I couldn't possibly have looked this up, already. Of course, I already did, which is why I posted that picture of CO2 levels for the last 100K years. Oops.)

Here it is again:
http://assets.cli..._c_c.jpg
It isn't hard Furry guy, just delete your foul mouthed language content so you can get beyond the Content Standards.

Every post you make is a subversion of content standards.
Benni
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2016
Of course, I already did, which is why I posted that picture of CO2 levels for the last 100K years. Oops.)

Here it is again:
http://assets.cli..._c_c.jpg


Well then, that settles it, this can only mean atmospheric content of CO2 has nothing to do with "warming" or "coolng"...........Right?
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2016
Of course, I already did, which is why I posted that picture of CO2 levels for the last 100K years. Oops.)

Here it is again:
http://assets.cli..._c_c.jpg


Well then, that settles it, this can only mean atmospheric content of CO2 has nothing to do with "warming" or "coolng"...........Right?

No, it means you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. As I said, provide me with data.

Otherwise, all you're doing is making a bare assertion.

Bare assertions are easy to make.

For example, Benni likes to suck on electrical outlets.

See how easy that was?
Benni
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2016
makes absolutely no sense. CO2 content is not synonymous with energy content.

Theoretically, you can remove as much CO2 as you want. It's just that some of the CO2 (and energy) would go into waste products (water from the look of it: http://pubs.acs.o...jacsat).


So what then does atmospheric content of CO2 have to do with "warming" or "cooling"? Any graph any of you AGWs put up apparently shows the stuff all over the place. According to this statement you just made, there is no consistency of CO2 with Ice Ages, Warm Ages, or Hot Ages.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
Antigoracle
In which universe is it possible to generate greater energy out of less?

This universe. Take for example an oil refinery. It takes less energy to produce a gallon of gasoline - than the gallon of gasoline contains. ....blah..blah... stupidity.

Now get someone with a brain to explain the difference between this process and the one described in this article. Hopefully you'll realize why one has been in use for decades and the other will never see the light of day.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2016
Antigoracle
Now get someone with a brain to explain the difference between this process and the one described in this article
Which has nothing to do with you asking a question (stupid one at that) - and me answering your question - and showing how stupid you are. So you look stupid - and respond by changing the subject. And you don't know if this process will ever see the light of day - as you can't see the future any more than any one else can. That is why we have basic research - and sometimes it works out - and other times it don't.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
You are really that stupid. You believe that a refinery is creating gasoline like the process described here is creating methanol.
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
No - I think that fuel can be created - using less energy than is contained in the fuel itself. My example to support this assertion is an oil refinery. This proves my point. You asked a question "In which universe is it possible to generate greater energy out of less?' I answered the question - and supported the answer. You are too stupid to understand that you are wrong. Sorry about that.

All of this is in fact immaterial. Your stupid buddy MR166 said that he/she only saw one possible application for this process. I provided a link - to show that there are many possible applications for this process. Will the process prove to be economically viable? We don't know. Fortunately the world is run by engineers with vision - rather than stupid cowards like you and MR166. Their next step is to try to lower the catalytic operating temp. Will they be successful? We don't know. At least they try - which is of course much more than you and MR do.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2016
So, to you, a refinery creates gasoline, it is not a product of refining oil that contains the gasoline.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2016
So, to you, a refinery creates gasoline, it is not a product of refining oil that contains the gasoline.
Yes - it is a product of refining oil. It takes an input - and creates an output. So does this process. It takes an input (Co2 and H) and creates an output - methanol. And it is possible that this process can create a fuel - with more energy in the fuel - than is used in the creation of that fuel. We don't have the numbers to know that information - and the process is still in the development phase. The next step is to try to reduce the temperature of the catalyst. One wonders how many times you have to be shown that you are wrong - before you understand what has been shown to you - but one should probably not wonder that - as the answer is probably - that you will never understand what has just been demonstrated - just to bloody stupid.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2016
Theoretically, you can remove as much CO2 as you want...


So what then does atmospheric content of CO2 have to do with "warming" or "cooling"?

Why are you quoting that argument above? It has nothing to do with whether CO2 causes global warming.
Any graph any of you AGWs put up apparently shows the stuff all over the place.

1) You have not provided me data (or even a graph I might add) that supports this position, or any past one. You are making a claim, which means you have to support it. Learn how to argue.
2) I have made this point before, though not here. Data and analysis trump graphs EVERY TIME, ESPECIALLY if you are a layman.

What does CO2, "all over the place", even mean?

More importantly, is your claim justified? Maybe it's just all over the place to you because you don't understand what a sigma is. How can I know, when you won't cite your claims?
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
It takes an input (Co2 and H) and creates an output - methanol. And it is possible that this process can create a fuel - with more energy in the fuel - than is used in the creation of that fuel.


But that just isn't the case, because you don't have Hydrogen just freely lying around like you have oil. The process is not comparable to oil refining because you have to MAKE hydrogen for the process, so you end up with a process that is net energy negative, and vastly so. Oil refining is net positive because the crude oil is already there.

Also, about your incessant complaints over people who "hate progress": progress isn't progress if it won't result in any practical improvement. Wasting loads of energy to make methanol in an extremely inefficient way is not a practical improvement.

The practical feasibility of such scheme is dependent on how much of the original energy you get out of it, and by burning the methanol in an engine etc. you lose almost everything anyways
Eikka
not rated yet Jan 30, 2016
The problem with the power-to-liquid schemes is exactly the poor efficiency of it.

If we take a look at a simple power-to-hydrogen-to-power scheme using the best available technology, just about 20% of the original energy comes out. That means - ignoring the cost of the system itself - the cost of the output energy is approximately five times the cost of the input energy.

So if you input, say wind power at 5 cents a kWh, whatever output you take costs 25 cents a kWh, and that's too expensive. Add the other cost, transmission and the infrastructure etc. and you're at well over 30 cents, and that's just not economically sustainable.

When you add an extra step to make methanol out of hydrogen, it's going to cost even more. Gasoline for a modern car engine costs about 35 cents a kWh at $4 per gallon, so nobody's going to buy your methanol because it's more expensive.

Of course you can go crony capitalist and make the government make the people pay you subsidies for it.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
Or you can go socialist and increase the cost of all fuel until your methanol is competitive, which effectively means punishing the poor through a regressive tax system.

Point being that unless your energy storage system is efficient, it's not an improvement to the society; it's not progress. Using it means throwing millions of people under the bus as a sacrifice for making the inefficient system work by force.

I like to think of the problem in terms of "social EROEI", or how much of our overall energy (economic activity = spending energy) we use on producing our primary energy. Currently in the west it's between 5-8% whereas in countries with high levels of renewables etc. it's hovering to 10-12% and that rising fraction is largely due to inefficiency and high cost of the systems which necessitates more economic activity to pay for .

When we hit about 16% it turns into what's called energy poverty, because at that point energy costs so much we become paralyzed.


Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
The social EROEI is directly relatable to living standards. The less energy we need to spend to make energy, the more we have left over to do everything else - like having nice tall skyscrapers and well maintained roads, healthy food, good medical services, welfare for the poor, arts and culture...

16% or approximately 1:5 is the tipping point where the modern western society ceases to function. Infrastructure cannot be maintained, people can no longer afford to drive to work, heat their houses, buy food etc. etc.

32% or 1:2 is the absolute maximum cost of energy tolerable to a technologically advanced efficient society where not a single Joule is wasted.

That is why it is paramount that the solutions we set up to make energy do not carry excessive cost and inefficiency. With efficiency improvements elsewhere, they can cost a little bit more than what we have now, but not dramatically more.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016
The process is not comparable to oil refining because you have to MAKE hydrogen for the process, so you end up with a process that is net energy negative, and vastly so.

This is a non-sequitur. Just because you have to make something, it does not mean that the production process requires more usable energy than the product provides.
Oil refining is net positive because the crude oil is already there.

No, it's because it takes less energy to mine and refine crude oil, than to use it for energy.

Yes, that oil is fairly readily available makes it a good energy source, but it is not the only possible reason why something might be a good energy source. We don't have sulfuric acid freely lying around, as you put it, but that doesn't stop lead-acid batteries from being good energy sources.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
" We don't have sulfuric acid freely lying around, as you put it, but that doesn't stop lead-acid batteries from being good energy sources."

That statement is wrong on so many levels. First of all a battery is not a Source of energy. Secondly, we have millions of tons of sulfur laying around unused from refinery operations. That, O2 and water are converted into sulfuric acid. The reaction gives up heat which is used to produce electricity. The only real energy hog in the process is the creation of O2.

As usual, Eikka is right on the money with his comments.
Benni
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2016
I like to think of the problem in terms of "social EROEI", or how much of our overall energy (economic activity = spending energy) we use on producing our primary energy. Currently in the west it's between 5-8% whereas in countries with high levels of renewables etc. it's hovering to 10-12% and that rising fraction is largely due to inefficiency and high cost of the systems which necessitates more economic activity to pay for .

When we hit about 16% it turns into what's called energy poverty, because at that point energy costs so much we become paralyzed.


Eikka, don't think Furry doesn't already know this, he does and is the reason he's all out for his ludicrous calculations for calculating energy costs. Furry imagines a culture in which PEOPLE make the choices is a perverse system. He doesn't even know that alcohol has only 2/3rds the BTU content of gasoline.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016
Eikka
The process is not comparable to oil refining because you have to MAKE hydrogen for the process
I am simply making a point. Wow - this shit always goes into never never land. The point is that this process is interesting research. Maybe it will pan out as a viable process - and maybe it wont. You don't know unless you try - do you? Removing C02 from the exhaust of coal plants will be a good thing to do. If we can make a usable product in the process - whoopee. Maybe it wont work out. They are still working on the process. Read the bloody article. I was answering stupid head goracles question - about if it is possible to have a process that creates a fuel with more energy in it than it takes to make the fuel. It was a question - and I answered it. No the two process are not identical. We don't have any numbers on this process yet - cuz they are still working on it. Shit is can be hard living in a world of idiots.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
Basically the article's headline indicates it's only purpose which is to give the cult a warm fuzzy feeling. Any serious process would be using recovered concentrated CO2 from fossil fueled industrial processes instead of trying to utilize a trace gas.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2016
Eikka
The social EROEI is directly relatable to living standards.
Sorry - is there somewhere in this article where they are suggesting making this the primary source of energy for our society? (that is rhetorical). If this process can even be energy neutral - and we can remove the C02 from the output of fossil fuel generating plants - then we may have a winner - right? We allow those plants to continue operating - they become carbon neutral - and we buy ourselves some time to develop nukes, or renewables, or a mix, or whatever works. Yes Eikaa - you are against progress. Every time there is an article about some research project - you get out your napkin - and prove why it is stupid. Often your are arguing that things that are actually happening - cannot be happening. You are a so full our your own knowledge - that you don't want to let others explore the world.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016
MR166
Basically the article's headline indicates it's only purpose which is to give the cult a warm fuzzy feeling
You are so ignorant - throwing around your stupid terms - like cult. If science and progress are a cult - I am in.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
Onions I don't have an issue with the process, it might be very useful and a great contribution to chemistry, who knows? I do have a problem with the manner in which it was presented, as a way to remove a trace gas from the atmosphere. That leads me to speculate that the chemists who developed the process do not really believe in it's economic value. What other explanation is there for their allowing the process to be presented to the public in such a trivial manner?
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016
Onions I don't have an issue with the process, it might be very useful and a great contribution to chemistry, who knows?
Then why do you need to say this.
The only use I can see for this process is creating methanol as a storage medium for "Excess" renewable power?
As I was able to clearly show - there are many possible uses for methanol. But you are first out the gate - having to disparage the research - having to give your inflated opinion of why this is not good research. Then you start in with the nonsense about cults, and beliefs, and science as religion. Yes - you and Eikka form a tag team - to disparage science and progress. I am angry about that. People die every day of diseases that we will be able to cure tmrw. They missed the progress by one day. My Dad died of cancer - that would be curable today. All I am asking - is that instead of hating on progress - you shut up - or better - encourage our progress as a species. I really hate your arrogance.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
It takes 1.4 tons of CO2 to produce 1 ton of methanol. Thus, 2800 tons of atmosphere must be moved to produce 1 ton of methanol. That is a lot of air. The size of the catalytic bed would be enormous.
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2016
Basically the article's headline indicates it's only purpose which is to give the cult a warm fuzzy feeling.

I strongly advise ethanol rather than methanol.
Any serious process would be using recovered concentrated CO2 from fossil fueled industrial processes instead of trying to utilize a trace gas.

But if you recover CO2 why do you emit it in the first place?
Unless you store CO2 there is no point in recovering it.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2016
It takes an input (Co2 and H) and creates an output - methanol. And it is possible that this process can create a fuel - with more energy in the fuel - than is used in the creation of that fuel.

LOL. Who woulda thunk that the solution to limitless energy is limitless stupidity. The power of stupidity, it can defy scientific laws.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016
The power of stupidity, it can defy scientific laws.
We agree on something - that is the limitless of your ignorance. You do not understand the an oil refinery - creates a fuel - and uses less energy in the creation of that fuel - than is contained in the fuel. Therefore - you are wrong - and this does not defy the laws of science.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2016
Hey idiot, get someone with a brain and infinite patience to explain to you the difference between creating and extracting.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016
Hey idiot, get someone with a brain and infinite patience to explain to you the difference between creating and extracting.
Really? This process takes 2 source inputs (C02 and H), and runs them over a catalyst - and methanol is the end result. An oil refinery takes inputs (crude oil and other chemicals) - and creates gasoline. Weird how many times I have to keep telling you the same thing. You asked a question
In which universe is it possible to generate greater energy out of less?
and I answered your question. This process is comparable to refining oil - in that it takes an input - changes it - and creates a fuel. The fuel has more energy in it that energy used to create the gasoline. We keep going around and around - sorry you don't understand the point. The methanol MAY have more energy in it than the energy used to create it - that will of course be the goal - they are still working on it aren't they?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2016
Hey stupidhead
in which universe is it possible to generate greater energy out of less?
Well for one, hot fusion.

"The fusion energy gain factor, usually expressed with the symbol Q, is the ratio of fusion power produced in a nuclear fusion reactor to the power required to maintain the plasma in steady state. The condition of Q = 1 is referred to as breakeven."

-The whole point being, to produce more energy than it takes to run the process.

Then there's the match you use to set your house on fire. This is called exothermia. Or also pyromania. Much more energy out than in.

Consider - if it took more energy to gather food than that food could produce, then we'd all be dead.

But your comment is inapplicable because in this case a catalyst is used to convert a useless contaminant into something useful.

Maybe such a catalyst can be found for your postings?

And your buddy magnetite should learn the difference between toxic and caustic.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
Otto you and I both know that your last post was pure nonsense.
greenonions
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016
Otto you and I both know that your last post was pure nonsense.
Translation - I did not understand what you were talking about. Otto actually showed that he understood the point I am making - and far from being nonsense - it was cogent.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
Onions I will run the risk of being as pedantic as you and Otto. You cannot "generate" or produce energy.

"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another."

Thus the statement that you cannot generate energy is correct and Otto's statement is nonsense.

MR166
not rated yet Jan 30, 2016
Thus we return to the original article where the researchers are trying to take one form of energy , they really did not specify what type, and convert it into another, hopefully of higher value. This energy storage medium is called methanol. Since this conversion is so inefficient, at this point in time I know of no source of energy that is so abundant and inexpensive that the process will be adapted for widespread use. Could that change in the future, I certainly hope so. Until we have this excess CO2 free energy the process will have the effect of liberating more CO2 than it absorbs because it will use CO2 free energy that would otherwise be available for other uses.
MR166
not rated yet Jan 30, 2016
Lastly, trying to utilize trace atmospheric CO2 instead of using flue gasses makes this process even less likely to be efficient enough to help the CO2 balance of the earth.
Bongstar420
not rated yet Jan 30, 2016
Run LFTR's.

They have lots of "waste" heat to do cool stuff with
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2016
Eikka claims
..you don't have Hydrogen just freely lying around like you have oil
Wrong, many industrial process

Eg 1 Refineries flare H2 waste therefore sensible to explore process per article as good fit !
https://www.googl...AO7DgZ94

Eg 2 Another as waste H2 !
http://www.fuelce...hydrogen

Eg 3 Here for making graphite battery electrodes too (I have lottsa shares :-)
http://www.hazerg...hnology/

Tech development, enjoy
https://www.youtu...Uoj6p9QA

Benni barks
what then does atmospheric content of CO2 have to do with "warming"..
Benni should have learned in Electrical Engineering (EE) ie. Radiative transfer

Again Proof Benni Lies re his EE !
MR166
not rated yet Jan 30, 2016
Mike your first link showed natural gas being flared from oil wells. It is being burnt off because there is no available local market for it due to lack of pipelines or the high cost shipping in the form of LNG. Thus any H2 to methanol conversion plants would have to be located near the producing wells. Most of these wells do not create enough gas in their lifetimes to warrant that type of investment. In some cases this gas is pumped back into the well to keep wellhead pressures up and to comply with local flaring regulations.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2016
MR166 claimed
Mike your first link showed natural gas being flared from oil wells
Not quite, please *learn* about problematic issue oil refinery managers encounter re stack operations.

Despite benefit of sophisticated control systems they cannot perfectly predict HC feedstock quality consumed by their reformers/crackers !

Its easier to shift their equilibria slightly in favor of H2 instead of flaring off any valuable natural gas, obviously as it has higher energy/economic value ie H2 wasted very often !

I was involved in critical analysis of the Hydrogen Bus trial in Perth long ago, speak to the admins of BP Kwinana refinery, call em !

MR166 illustrates failures of local management
It is being burnt off because there is no available local market for it due to lack of pipelines or the high cost shipping in the form of LNG
Ugh,, this 'might' be case in disparate bad or old sites which are slow to respond re storage, speak to local industry groups please
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
"Ugh,, this 'might' be case in disparate bad or old sites which are slow to respond re storage, speak to local industry groups please"

Yea Mike someone in the middle of the jungle in Laos if flaring gas due to poor planning!
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016
There is only one way to halt the increase of atmospheric CO2: limit the production of fossil fuels. Then economy will do the rest. Simple but not easy.
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2016
MR166 adds
Yea Mike someone in the middle of the jungle in Laos if flaring gas due to poor planning
Yeah sad isnt it as the major oil producers are in some 3rd world countries and take the lowest dumbest approach for that level of local education, bad infrastructure, not educating locals only to pillage & rape resources etc

Think where we would be MR166, if the major oil producers took more care re CO2 emissions, exercised intellect re business development & applied less shallow costing methods to make use of natural gas by turn-key drop in reformers to produce plastics to aid the country's economic growth, do yah think they care ?

Contacted the local oil refinery industry groups to either confirm or refute my offering ?

How about ringing BP in Kwinana, Western Australia - largest producer of H2 for the fuel cell bus trial - they were rubbing their hands together when they didnt have to flare off H2, can you now appreciate article ?

Whats smarter MR166 ?
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2016
Mike I agree that if a refinery is flaring a burnable gas converting it into something useful is a fantastic idea. I just can't imagine that the quantities involved are all that great. If they had a significant amount of this waste gas they surely would figure out something profitable to do with it. Even if they just burnt it in a gas turbine and produced electricity they would do so.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2016
MR166
Onions I will run the risk of being as pedantic
Pedantry is obviously an art for you - I take things more seriously. Yes I know the laws of thermodynamics - and that is not relevant to what we are discussing. As Otto points out - a nuclear power plant has a positive EROI - and that is the relevant topic. A definition for your
is the ratio of energy returned from an energy-gathering activity compared to the energy invested in that process.
This is quite clearly what I have been talking about all along. No one is suggesting that the process being discussed in today's article - creates energy out of nothing - the point is that it is possible that the energy harvested from the system - may be more than the energy used to drive the system.
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2016
MR166
I just can't imagine that the quantities involved are all that great.
Maybe you could learn to use google - then you would not have to rely on your clearly deficient imagination.
http://www.nature...-1.19141
http://thinkprogr...-dakota/
http://www.climat...ir-17212
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2016
There is only one way to halt the increase of atmospheric CO2: limit the production of fossil fuels. Then economy will do the rest. Simple but not easy.

It's unsurprising how the Chicken Little moron so ignorantly tries to separate their idiot self out of equation. What's the economy, if not YOUR consumption of goods and services. So, want to halt the increase of CO2, then limit or end YOUR consumption of fossil fuels. But then, it's simpler to rant.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2016
Here for making graphite battery electrodes too (I have lottsa shares :-)

Well, those you stole from would be "happy" to know their money is "well" invested.
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2016
MR166
I just can't imagine that the quantities involved are all that great
Thanks greenonions for links, yes MR166 should have checked first, ugh !

MR166 could also reflect on bad habit
If they had a significant amount of this waste gas they surely would figure out something profitable..
No pressing need & "Significant" is comparative term in conjunction re "net present cost" of that utilisation at___that___time

Bean counters put high $ value on comparative risk vs low $ value of energy produced mindless applying to defray feedstocks & lazily point; Not a GHG issue because the water precipitates fast.

MR166 asked
... produced electricity they would do so
See above sentence & bear in mind change means shift from traditional expectation of rate of high ROI

I brought this issue up after I returned from Sabah, I developed an adaptive alternator controller
http://iinet.net....us/Power

Even @ >150% profit thought too low :-(

Different today :-)
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2016
antigoracle proving he is an utter low life & should be banned claimed
Well, those you stole from would be "happy" to know their money is "well" invested
antigoracle bringing up Uncle Ira's digging for dirt from via google on a car-forum where I sold >600 products successfully over several years

Unfortunately his outburst & incompetence by Uncle Ira to tell between prejudicial claim & Evidence makes them both look soundly stupid, driven only by ugly prejudice, not only failing to check but driving a knife in ie Ugly !

I fell ill in deep depression for ~18 mnths upon death of my mother from Alzheimers, product theft & loss of our family home before I could repatriate $ from o/seas. During that time a few angry teens couldnt contact me & claimed I stole but, *all* were offered public refunds as I recovered, Uncle Ira lied, wouldn't check with the forum admins ie Ugly !

& few criminals tried it on expecting refunds & antigoracle knew this ages ago ie Ugly !
MR166
not rated yet Jan 31, 2016
Onions I said that I doubt that REFINERIES wasted that much burnable gas. Oil fields are another matter. Stranded natural natural gas is a real problem with no easy solution. Without pipelines there is no easy way to transport the gas. Unless a field has enough gas to support building one it has to be flared or re-injected. Also, look how much luck they had building the Keystone Pipeline. Why would any company waste all that money on a project that will never happen due to political pressure. There are some, I am not one of them, that claim that the new US oil production is part of the reason for $30 oil. The economic benefits of these fields is undeniable despite the wasted gas.

Since this gas cannot easily be brought to market or to a plant capable of turning it into methanol it cannot be classified as a source of the H2 needed for this process. Mikes refinery gas could be used for this purpose and could be considered in energy conversion calculations.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2016
cannot generate or produce energy
You use 2 terms which you havent defined in the context of this discussion. Lets revisit ag's statement
This process is energy negative, in that the product has less energy than what it takes to produce it
Ag didn't define the scope of his 'process'. When he sets his house on fire he takes advantage of the large potential energy created when the wood was grown. The process of torching it is a subset of the process of growing the wood and assembling it into easily combustible form. The subset is energy positive.

Ag then says that more CO2 would be released than consumed but its not clear that this would happen. He would have to define the scope of a process wherein it would.

In hot fusion, potential energy is transformed into usable form. The subset is energy positive, just like with the power plant onions mentioned. As there are finite amounts of H2 and deuterium, hot fusion is ultimately energy neutral.

But who cares?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2016
Consider the heat death of the universe. It will still contain all the energy it does now but none of it will be in usable form. This is the only scope which can be considered energy neutral.

In this context, any process you wish to name could turn out to be either negative or positive. As onions says, you've got to investigate it to find out which.

Despite what ag claims, the product of any process cannot be assumed to be CO2.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2016
@ Mike-Skippy. How you are Cher? Still grumpy and shrill I see. I am fine and dandy like usual, thanks for asking.

bringing up Uncle Ira's digging for dirt from via google on a car-forum
Skippy, you still blame me for what the Google-Skippy say about you? I already apologized for that being all the Google-Skippy showed me. Maybe you should tell the Google-Skippy about the being liable for defaming your good name. That made the big impression in the emails to the physorg front office, everybody likes those.

incompetence by Uncle Ira to tell between prejudicial claim
Google-Skippy did not tell me about any of the good stuffs you are known for the world over. Skippy you are as dumb as a cypress stump. And the mental conditions are not making that any better, eh?

Uncle Ira lied, wouldn't check with the forum admins
I hear about your emails everyday, so you are the liar.

Ugly
Why you don't just call me a poopy-head too?
greenonions
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2016
MR166
Onions I said that I doubt that REFINERIES wasted that much burnable gas.
Yep - you did that - I flubbed up on that one.
EnricM
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2016
Yes, yes, very useful.. but what about converting the CO2 directly into Ethanol? A way more useful product! We could then produce booze directly from the air!
Just imagine the applications! Self-refilling flasks that we could take to concerts and avoid paying the price of drinks inside. This would surely be awarded with the Nobel Prize for Everything, most useful invention ever!
EnsignFlandry
not rated yet Feb 01, 2016
It takes 1.4 tons of CO2 to produce 1 ton of methanol. Thus, 2800 tons of atmosphere must be moved to produce 1 ton of methanol. That is a lot of air. The size of the catalytic bed would be enormous.


Its worse than that. Burning the methanol will liberate carbon dioxide.
Benni
3.6 / 5 (14) Feb 01, 2016
There is only one way to halt the increase of atmospheric CO2: limit the production of fossil fuels. Then economy will do the rest. Simple but not easy.

Words of wisdom from Stumpy.......welcome back from your ban. Does axemaster know?
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2016
"Words of wisdom from Stumpy.......welcome back from your ban"

Oh yea, I got banned for life, I think, from physicsforums.com for questioning the moderation protocols of one of there moderators. Stumpy is lucky that Physics.org is a little more reasonable.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2016
Uncle Ira Only confirming stalking & inappropriate behaviour
Skippy, you still blame me for what the Google-Skippy say..
google is a search robot, you motivated to copy *only* to dig for dirt proves your ugly dark side & getting worse :-(

Uncle Ira claims
I already apologized for that being all the Google-Skippy showed me
Where is this apology, prove it please ?

Uncle Ira says
.. Google-Skippy about the being liable for defaming your good name
No, why mindlessly copy a bad link & why can't you tell claim vs evidence ?

Uncle Ira claims
. impression in the emails to the physorg front office..
Prove it ?

Uncle Ira claims
Skippy you are as dumb as a cypress..
Prove it ?

What is smart as a copycat, not knowing difference between claim versus Evidence ?

Uncle Ira claims
.. mental conditions are not making that any better
Prove it ?

Uncle Ira *only* continues ugly claims, why is he even more ugly ?

&

What's a "Skippy" are you ill ?
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2016
"Words of wisdom from Stumpy.......welcome back from your ban"

Oh yea, I got banned for life, I think, from physicsforums.com for questioning the moderation protocols of one of there moderators. Stumpy is lucky that Physics.org is a little more reasonable.

Don't listen to Benni. I was not banned and I am not stumpy.
The Benni principle is that he is always wrong.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2016
Uncle Ira only with claims he has never supported
I hear about your emails everyday, so you are the liar
Are you on something or drunk - prove it ?

Uncle Ira displays more immaturity
Why you don't just call me a poopy-head too?
Smarter to address those who make idle mindless unsupportable claims, ugh !

So far, from someone who only used to offer occasional obtuse humor you've gone down a path of showing an ugly dumb side to your character

Reason you say for stalking & making things up & not just me but others is "gravitas", ugh !

Why in hell would an intelligent rational person on a Science reporting site be concerned with the nebulous issue of appearance AND go to trouble tell us "gravitas" as you put it is so very important to you, who has the mental condition - stalker or defendant ?

Mindlessly pasting a link to show us you stalk & dig for dirt is ill

Where is your *claimed* apology & why do you continue making more ugly claims ?

Physics please !
Benni
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 01, 2016
Don't listen to Benni. I (Stumpy) was not banned and I am not stumpy.
The Benni principle is that he is always wrong.


Admitting it......
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2016
@ Mike-Skippy. How you are Cher? Never mind it was the rhetoric thing, I can see you are not much better. Are you always so grumpy and angry and shrill? Or just on the physorg? Anyhoo, I am good as usual, can't complain, thanks for asking.

As for all your "prove it"'s up there. Hooyeei, that was a bunch so to keep things orderly I just give the one "proof" for all of them. You just did "prove it" for all of them.

Guess what I been working on? Yeah, a computer like you that you feed all the foolishment on the physorg into and see what comes out. I am thinking mine is working better than yours so far. When I plug in all your foolishment it spit out in no time,,,

Borderline Personality Disorder.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Histrionic Personality Disorder.
Passive-Aggressive Disorder

Then he ask me if all that foolishment I put in was from just one person. I said it was and the computer he told me: "That is one sick Skippy you got there".
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2016
Reason you say for stalking & making things up & not just me but others is "gravitas"
You got a big problem with reading Cher. It was not MY gravitas that attracted my attention. It is YOUR thinking that you had the gravitas by talking at the room and condescending and insulting and generally talking down to peoples that got my attentions. You come here to play the wise sagacious professorial type with grand gravitas.You FAIL.

Why in hell would an intelligent rational person on a Science reporting site be concerned with the nebulous issue of appearance AND go to trouble tell us "gravitas" as you put it is so very important to you
I just told you.Your trying to play the gravitas is not important to me. But is seems to consume you and that can't be healthy.

Where is your *claimed* apology & why do you continue making more ugly claims?

I said I was sorry Google-Skippy only showed me the bad stuffs and did not have the wonderful stuffs.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 02, 2016
Don't listen to Benni. I (Stumpy) was not banned and I am not stumpy.
The Benni principle is that he is always wrong.


Admitting it......

Your quote of me is a fraud.
It is time that physorg bans you and your sockpuppet army from this blog.
You are a nasty psycho, Benni.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2016
Wow, this place is vicious.

As to MR166 and antigoracle's standpoint, yes, it may only make sense to use this with excess renewable energy. However, I thought the main problem with renewables was that they are intermittent and are not generated at the same time as consumption. That is, they inherently produce a lot of excess energy. Here, problem solved.

Okay, storing the excess energy in batteries may be marginally more efficient, so maybe that problem was already solved, in theory. But batteries are heavy, so they aren't as efficient as liquid fuels for transportation purposes. And batteries that are big enough for grid storage are expensive, toxic/dangerous, or they don't last many cycles.

Solving real-world problems means looking up from the equations. You just denigrate and reject the whole idea rather than building different (and very real) use cases.

Do I even have to say anything to that guy who's rejecting anthropogenic climate change and ocean acidification?
Benni
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2016
Don't listen to Benni. I (Stumpy) was not banned and I am not stumpy.
The Benni principle is that he is always wrong.


Admitting it......


Your quote of me is a fraud.
It is time that physorg bans you and your sockpuppet army from this blog.
You are a nasty psycho, Benni.


Hey there Stumpy/Phys 1,

No different than when axemaster's sockpuppet vote brigade got Docile banned, all of his Commentary never once contained the quantity of filth that pours from your mouth from just one of your postings. Well anyway, he's back just like you are, and we'll just keep clicking the Report on you & sending email messages via the Contact link at the bottom of the page.

MR166
1 / 5 (1) Feb 04, 2016
"And batteries that are big enough for grid storage are expensive, toxic/dangerous, or they don't last many cycles."

Dnatwork that is exactly the crux of the discussion. What is the best way to turn intermittent renewable power into grid worthy reliable power while reducing , if that really matters, CO2 emissions? Most of the solutions offered increase costs to an economy to killing levels or make unwarranted assumptions as to the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
I will be the first one to admit that fossil fuels have a terminal life span. But, that being said, I think that renewables should gradually dominate the energy spectrum as fossil fuels become less economically viable.
This transition will be hastened by energy storage since 24/7 power is a prerequisite of a functioning society.

Mike_Massen
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 04, 2016
Hope is of interest as it is a practical implementation, there is some reference to Redflow which is involved with Zinc/Bromide & many other technologies I am interested in a wide framework of potential distributors. Redflow is on Australian stock exchange :-)
http://www.asx.co...do#!/rfx
Recent price rise since ABC catalyst article here, lucky for some ;-)
http://www.abc.ne...8364.htm
suffice to say I have a small shareholding waiting for financials to be settled as I feel a capital raising is on the cards to expand production & cheaper than coal

Notice some UK links don't work from outside British Isles, so those interested please check the video/mp4 on catalyst link & if you are restricted, let me know, I will upload to one of my ftp sites, np :-)

Also in respect of Hazer, where I also have shares, this completes great transition from gas to useful graphite & H2 :-)
http://www.asx.co...do#!/hzr

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.