Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Converting CO2 to Fuel

Interesting research from UC San Diego: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418091932.htm

Exerpt:

"Chemists at the University of California, San Diego have demonstrated the feasibility of exploiting sunlight to transform a greenhouse gas into a useful product.

"Many Earth Week activities will draw attention to the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the resulting impact on global climate. Now Clifford Kubiak, professor of chemistry and biochemistry, and his graduate student Aaron Sathrum have developed a prototype device that can capture energy from the sun, convert it to electrical energy and “split” carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen.

"Because their device is not yet optimized, they still need to input additional energy for the process to work. However, they hope that their results, which they presented at last month’s meeting of the American Chemical Society, will draw attention to the promise of the approach..."

"Chemists...demonstrated the feasibility of exploiting sunlight to transform a greenhouse gas into a useful product."
*_*

I'm not trying to say this isn't a good idea (maybe they should think of the quantum nature of sunlight capture), but...
aren't they kinda trying to improve on nature's already pretty efficient photosynthesis.

and by the way,
...wouldn't increasing the productivity of the earth soak up a lot of CO2. Y'know, like the oceans -phytoplankton, etc., up the food chain. Is it really true that 90% of the large fish are gone from the oceans? Maybe fertilizing the oceans isn't such a crazy idea after all (done very carefully)? [and shading the poles with artificial sunspots?]

Even Al's film showed how the CO2 level falls each year as one hemisphere becomes more productive thru the change of seasons.
Seems as if that would have a much larger effect than cutting a couple of Gigatons C/yr. after 5 or 10 or 20 years. (Not that I'm not saying that is a good goal also.)

~SA

P.S. check out the Daily Show for 4/19. Great parody (squared) of Al's film --involving a religious nut too!!!

We could do all that and more, at great expense, and hope it works.

Or we could just change our behaviour and cut our population.

Guess which direction we will choose.

I agree that population problems have gotten us here; and what I was talking about was changing behavior. As in -stop killing the oceans! What do we expect to eat in the future, with increasing population? We should be saving the oceans (and soaking up gigatons of carbon every week). If managed efficiently, the earth could support that increasing population; but alas....

~SA

No amount of management will allow the planet to support a population of 1,000,000,000,000. So at what arbitrary value between where we are and one trillion will we stop? And why then and not know?

The fact that the planet might be coerced into supporting more of us, most still living in wretched poverty doesn't address two questions.

1. Why?
2. Why not focus efforts on helping those already here?

The questions, I know, are rhetorical in that we are more focused on quantity than quality but this suicidal behaviour must be challenged.

Arbitrary quantity about 10-15 billion.

But as to quality; agreed, the quantity would collapse unless the quality is there to sustain it.
That is why the oceans seemd so important to me. If we're going to "invest" in something to soak up CO2, why not put it where the byproduct would be food. Maybe I'm too optimistic about the oceans ability to soak up CO2, but isn't it orders of magnitude greater than anything we could produce.
It was this thread's "CO2 to Fuel" theme that made me want to talk about CO2 to food also.

~SA

With statements like this, "In order for the phytoplankton to be a long-term sink for carbon, they somehow have to get deposited in the deep ocean, and that doesn't always happen," said Hales. "If the phytoplankton are just eaten at the surface, or don't sink to any great depth then the carbon is eventually released back into the atmosphere,"
I know I'm being overly simplistic, but great potential is there, I think.

I suppose if we run out of space to bury the huge population we could 'fertilize' the oceans with them, and then harvest the phytoplankton for food. Arrrrggh: Soylent Green!

Food for thought, if not a laugh....

~SA

...and if you don't like phytoplankton for food....

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34239

Bernard Stroiazzo-Mougin, president of Biofuel Systems SL (BFS), the Spanish company developing the project, told IPS that "the system will produce massive amounts of biopetroleum from phytoplankton, in a limited space and at a very moderate cost."

For example, he said, "a surface area of 52,000 square kilometres can yield 95 million barrels of biopetroleum per day, in other words an amount equivalent to the entire world production of crude oil at present, and at a considerably lower price."
*_*
So now we're more back on topic (CO2 to fuel).

~SA

Sustainable
Economical
No SO2 emissions
No CO emissions
Lower net CO2 production

...Very interesting.

I'm not trying to say this isn't a good idea (maybe they should think of the quantum nature of sunlight capture), but...
aren't they kinda trying to improve on nature's already pretty efficient photosynthesis.

Pretty efficient photosynthesis? Is every square meter of Earth's surface covered by a photosynthesizing leaf? And what if you want CO as a product? I think figuring out how to use sunlight to convert light into chemical energy is an important area of study.

and by the way,
...wouldn't increasing the productivity of the earth soak up a lot of CO2. Y'know, like the oceans -phytoplankton, etc., up the food chain. Is it really true that 90% of the large fish are gone from the oceans? Maybe fertilizing the oceans isn't such a crazy idea after all (done very carefully)?

How do you propose increasing the productivity of the earth? Do you really feel that what the oceans need is a good shot of fertilizer? Do you think we're NOT loading the oceans with nutrients, as we speak? Assuming that you agree we ARE loading the oceans with nutrients at this very moment, how come we have a problem with the availability of large fish?

Hey; and thanks for not blasting me on the "shading the poles" comment. I know much less about that one than I do about the oceans aspect.

In general I think we overfertilize the coastal areas (and maybe shipping lanes) and overharvest the food chain (defertilizing the open ocean?); both of which disrupt and lower the productivity overall. Oh yea, and then there are the toxins and oil that we add along with all our "nutrients." I don't think any of this helps productivity (except for random instances).

Whales used to eat a million tons a day of CO2 (in plankton). Now it is more like a thousand tons/day because there are so few whales. I think that'd be true across the board.

I've been thinking about this for months and am still learning about the overall picture of climate influences. Overall I wonder if the increase in CO2 over the "industrial era" might be more tied to our depletion of the productivity of the oceans. The assumption being that healthy oceans would have been able to soak up the increasing CO2.

Or restating it: Wouldn't our 7GT CO2 be negligible if the oceans were cycling Tera Tons of Carbon every year. I don't now what the oceans are capable of, but oceans hold more than 10-100 times as much carbon as the atmosphere.

I guess I also feel that if the oceans aren't made into better carbon sinks, cutting down on our output of carbon by even 50% won't make much diffenece. Isn't the decrease in pH of the oceans an indication that they won't be absorbing much more CO2?

Every thing I read about fertilizing the oceans ends with a paragraph saying that we can't recommend this because it'd probably have worse unintended consequences; but how is that any different from what we've been doing all along to the lands, rivers, lakes, and oceans?

Am I all wet here?
~SA

Thanks for the thoughtful response, snowbird.
~SA

Am I all wet here?

Short answer: somewhat damp.

In general I think we overfertilize the coastal areas (and maybe shipping lanes) and overharvest the food chain (defertilizing the open ocean?); both of which disrupt and lower the productivity overall.

That would make sense if the open oceans were ever fertile and bursting with life. They were not. The dearth of life over most of the abyssal plains was not caused by our fishing practices.

Whales used to eat a million tons a day of CO2 (in plankton). Now it is more like a thousand tons/day because there are so few whales. I think that'd be true across the board.

This is an interesting thought. You seem to be equating whales to trees as carbon sequestration sinks. Do whales keep growing throughout their lifetimes, continually adding carbon? What is the fate of the carbon in krill, now that fewer whales are available? Is it added to the biomass of other predators, or does it just rot and return to the atmosphere? I don't know the answers to these questions, myself.

I've been thinking about this for months and am still learning about the overall picture of climate influences. Overall I wonder if the increase in CO2 over the "industrial era" might be more tied to our depletion of the productivity of the oceans. The assumption being that healthy oceans would have been able to soak up the increasing CO2.

I don't know how the oceans fit into the the global carbon balance relative to other parts of the carbon cycle. Investigating the dynamics of the various carbon pools is pretty hot research in a number of the earth sciences right now. I can't say you're wrong.

The oceans may hold more carbon, but how dynamic is that pool? What is the capacity of the ocean for holding carbon, and how is that capacity influenced?

I guess I also feel that if the oceans aren't made into better carbon sinks, cutting down on our output of carbon by even 50% won't make much diffenece. Isn't the decrease in pH of the oceans an indication that they won't be absorbing much more CO2?

Ah, feelings. Without better knowledge of the global carbon balance, that's all the two of us can express on this topic. If the oceans are reaching their capacity for absorbing carbon, why wouldn't reduction in carbon emissions make a difference?

Dissolving CO2 in water certainly lowers its pH. Is that the reason the pH of the oceans are changing, and does it mean the limit of carbon absorption is at hand? I have no idea. I'm a dirt scientist.

Every thing I read about fertilizing the oceans ends with a paragraph saying that we can't recommend this because it'd probably have worse unintended consequences; but how is that any different from what we've been doing all along to the lands, rivers, lakes, and oceans?

I agree with what you've read. The difference between intentionally changing the chemistry of the oceans and accidentally changing it due to ignorance and short sightedness is moral, IMO. History is replete with disasterous consequences stemming from our intentional manipulation of natural systems. To do so on such a large scale is betting the lives of millions (or more) people, and populations of other creatures on a hypothesis.

Gotta go make dinner, but thanks so much.
Here's a quick response.

>Marks my response to your great, muchly appreciated, thoughtful comments.
I won't do that again, but for one time i figured it's okay.>

In general I think we overfertilize the coastal areas (and maybe shipping lanes) and overharvest the food chain (defertilizing the open ocean?); both of which disrupt and lower the productivity overall.

That would make sense if the open oceans were ever fertile and bursting with life. They were not. The dearth of life over most of the abyssal plains was not caused by our fishing practices.

>I am aware of the diversity of ocean environs. The open oceans are kinda like deserts (some are quite productive) with lots of migration across, between oases (oasises?) -reststops.
And yes, I'm just barely learning of the details (checking records of overall productivity historically).>


Whales used to eat a million tons a day of CO2 (in plankton). Now it is more like a thousand tons/day because there are so few whales. I think that'd be true across the board.

This is an interesting thought. You seem to be equating whales to trees as carbon sequestration sinks. Do whales keep growing throughout their lifetimes, continually adding carbon? What is the fate of the carbon in krill, now that fewer whales are available? Is it added to the biomass of other predators, or does it just rot and return to the atmosphere? I don't know the answers to these questions, myself.


>Again, just learning about this stuff. For instance, there are two carbon cycles in the oceans. Stuff that is constantly cycled (returned to atmosphere) and stuff that falls to the bottom. -Sorry, rough interpretation. More later.>

I've been thinking about this for months and am still learning about the overall picture of climate influences. Overall I wonder if the increase in CO2 over the "industrial era" might be more tied to our depletion of the productivity of the oceans. The assumption being that healthy oceans would have been able to soak up the increasing CO2.

I don't know how the oceans fit into the the global carbon balance relative to other parts of the carbon cycle. Investigating the dynamics of the various carbon pools is pretty hot research in a number of the earth sciences right now. I can't say you're wrong.

The oceans may hold more carbon, but how dynamic is that pool? What is the capacity of the ocean for holding carbon, and how is that capacity influenced?

>Yes, all very good questions....>

I guess I also feel that if the oceans aren't made into better carbon sinks, cutting down on our output of carbon by even 50% won't make much diffenece. Isn't the decrease in pH of the oceans an indication that they won't be absorbing much more CO2?

Ah, feelings. Without better knowledge of the global carbon balance, that's all the two of us can express on this topic. If the oceans are reaching their capacity for absorbing carbon, why wouldn't reduction in carbon emissions make a difference?

Dissolving CO2 in water certainly lowers its pH. Is that the reason the pH of the oceans are changing, and does it mean the limit of carbon absorption is at hand? I have no idea. I'm a dirt scientist.

>My thought was that if the oceans are no longer soaking up CO2, that our glass jar with a sponge for a lid, which we call Earth, just got a lot less permeable (the spongy lid, i mean) to CO2.
My idea is that up to now the oceans were soaking up huge amounts of CO2 (and releasing slightly larger amounts -leading to observed increases in co2).
If that sponge is “drying out,” then our additions of CO2 to the glass jar become much more significant. If that is true, then our reductions in rate of increase would do little. It would require actual reductions in CO2 levels to affect a decrease in overall levels. (sorry, tautological)
What I mean is we'd have to have a net sequestration of CO2 to affect atmospheric levels.
Now I know what I've just said is hyperbole; an extreme swing of the equilibrium.
But if that is a good assesment of a large part of the mechanism for climate change, then any shift toward that end of the equilibrium should be addressed.>

Every thing I read about fertilizing the oceans ends with a paragraph saying that we can't recommend this because it'd probably have worse unintended consequences; but how is that any different from what we've been doing all along to the lands, rivers, lakes, and oceans?

I agree with what you've read. The difference between intentionally changing the chemistry of the oceans and accidentally changing it due to ignorance and short sightedness is moral, IMO. History is replete with disasterous consequences stemming from our intentional manipulation of natural systems. To do so on such a large scale is betting the lives of millions (or more) people, and populations of other creatures on a hypothesis.

>...and that's the second level....

“A whole second level of discussion would involve reasonably deciding what, if anything, we can realistically do that would actually make a difference.” -from snowbird's link

Thank you so much again, soilguy
More later, this is just a quick response....

~~SAM

Sorry, that last post looked pretty cluttered. Quoted above is the main answer only.

ANYway, I did run across this statement in an earth sciences textbook.

"The larger and more familiar marine plants (such as seaweed) and animals (such as fish, sharks, and whales) play a relatively small role in oceanic photosynthesis and consumption."

Hmmm....doesn't sound supportive of my ideas.

But wait! Do they mean 'consumption' of plankton?

More research, more thinking...
More Later,
~SA

p.s. Feel free to ask something about this, or speculate....
~S