Comments on: A Breakthrough Technology to Transform CO2 into Fuel

By: benzineprijzen

benzineprijzen — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:50:43 +0000

Good and relevant post. I’ve been searching on this. Looking forward to your next post in this blog.

By: Markus

Markus — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:12:50 +0000

The problem here is not so much that there is a huge energy penalty perse. The problem is Carbon Science is a scam!

They have no such technology and if you review their financial sheets you will see that the spend more on marketing promotions to pump their stock than they do on research. This is not a real company, its a scam.

Has ONE journalist seen them produced gasoline from CO2, I am will to bet my first born the answer is NO!

By: David in Davis

David in Davis — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:03:24 +0000

If you liked the cold fusion scam of the ’80s you should love this. I agree with EasyE. Conventional power plants produce energy by burning (oxidizing)the carbon in coal/oil/natural gas. Hydrocarbons plus oxygen from the air yields co2, water vapor, and energy. These guys are saying they can reverse this equation without inputting the equalivalent amount of energy, i.e., a free lunch. Don’t bet on it!

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:59:31 +0000

Of course it takes a lot of energy to breakdown the CO2, but that process is the heart of Carbon Sciences patent. They never said that they would use zero energy to complete the unique conversion process. Carbon Sciences are perfecting the method that will be used to convert CO2 at a much reduced cost.

If you look at history, people thought many inovations were snake oil before they were perfected.

By: Chris Skinner

Chris Skinner — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:01:30 +0000

I would like to make a reply to Easy E and this person’s comment that it sounds like snake oil.With the closed-minded arrogance,second-rate mediocrity and assumptions of this extremely conservative American society these days,we will never solve anything.What happened to the Yankee Ingenuity America used to be famous for? Naysayers,naysayers,naysayers.So what if you have to consume one ton of coal to produce 1/2 ton of liquid hydrocarbons? Fuels like gasoline and diesel have more practical commercial value than the coal it was origially made from.That’s because it’s easier to run the existing transportation sector than trying to build a coal-powered car that runs directly on powdered coal.It’s easier to gas-up by inserting a gas spigot into a fuel tank than to use a shovel to shovel coal into the tinderbox of a steam-powered car.So what if you have to put some energy into it? It has never stopped Nazi Germany or South Africa before.If it needs external energy input,a nuclear reactor could supply the additional process energy to run the whole thing.

By: First Time in the USA, A Quiet Rooftop SWIFT Wind Turbine For Homes & Businesses : Green Building Elements

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:02:37 +0000

[...] Cascade Engineering has just launched its SWIFT Wind Turbine in the United States and Canada. Quieter than a whisper, SWIFT provides businesses and homeowners in windy environments an effective solution to lower energy bills and reduce carbon emissions. [...]

By: Easy E

Easy E — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:43:49 +0000

CO2 is a stable molecule. You cannot produce a hydrocarbon fuel from CO2 without an input of energy. Where is this energy coming from? Are you going to burn 1 ton of coal at an electric to produce 1/2 ton of useable fuel? This proposal reeks of snake oil.

By: A Breakthrough Technology to Transform CO2 into Fuel | Reenita's Wisdom

A Breakthrough Technology to Transform CO2 into Fuel | Reenita's Wisdom — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:16:07 +0000

[...] read more | digg story ARTICLEURL [...]