by KaiserJeep » Wed 19 Oct 2016, 14:31:11
There is a conceptual problem here. The ethanol thus created is NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY. At best, this is a means of storing some of the energy created from off-peak burning of FF's (which is where the concentrated carbon dioxide comes from) for use in peak energy demand periods.
You see, to extract carbon dioxide already dispersed into the atmosphere, where it is present in low concentrations well under 1% (i.e. 400 ppm), requires enormous energy expenditures. So this technique, even if 100% successful and twice as efficient as the most optimistic estimate in the above article, is NOT a means of sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide. Furthermore, if you burn the ethanol as fuel, the vehicle is in motion and dispersing the carbon dioxide and water vapor (even more potent of a GHG than carbon dioxide) throughout the atmosphere.
Net/Net this is a zero sum game. But a possible partial replacement for oil-sourced vehicle fuels, and a possible alternative to Lithium Ion or Lithium Polymer or other exotic battery technologies in stationary energy storage, where one theoretically could recapture the carbon dioxide from burning the ethanol.
Worth further research, to see if the laboratory results scale up to power plant size. Having coal power plants produce vehicle fuel as a by-product has a certain elegance to the very concept.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001
Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.
Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0