|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » burn methane but dont make CO2
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Parallax |
 Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Having lots of methane to burn for energy, the problem is how to burn
it without making CO2. That is, can we combine its H4 with O2 to make
2(H2O) leaving just C. I suggest some sort of reactor in which CH4 is
dissassociated via electron beam or maybe microwave without Oxygen
present. The resulting plasma is rapidly spinning so that the parts
at the periphery get enriched in heavier C while the center is
enriched in H2. The H2 is drawn off to react with O to make water and
energy. The hot C plasma is drawn off and allowed to condense on
surfaces. The resulting C deposition may even have some industrial
uses as such processes are used to make hard diamond like carbon (DLC)
layers for wear. I suspect that most of the C would be buried
somewhere. The electron beam or microwave is powered by the energy
produced by the combination of H2 and O. Efficiency, unknown.
However, newer electron beam devices are fairly efficient |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Parallax" <dbohara@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:792abaf9.0312180731.76ffcd52@posting.google.com...
Quote: Having lots of methane to burn for energy, the problem is how to burn
it without making CO2. That is, can we combine its H4 with O2 to make
2(H2O) leaving just C. I suggest some sort of reactor in which CH4 is
dissassociated via electron beam or maybe microwave without Oxygen
present. The resulting plasma is rapidly spinning so that the parts
at the periphery get enriched in heavier C while the center is
enriched in H2. The H2 is drawn off to react with O to make water and
energy. The hot C plasma is drawn off and allowed to condense on
surfaces. The resulting C deposition may even have some industrial
uses as such processes are used to make hard diamond like carbon (DLC)
layers for wear. I suspect that most of the C would be buried
somewhere. The electron beam or microwave is powered by the energy
produced by the combination of H2 and O. Efficiency, unknown.
However, newer electron beam devices are fairly efficient
It can be done. But it can't be done without using more energy than you get
from the reaction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Parallax |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message news:<97vEb.17313$8Y4.393898@read2.cgocable.net>...
Quote: "Parallax" <dbohara@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:792abaf9.0312180731.76ffcd52@posting.google.com...
Having lots of methane to burn for energy, the problem is how to burn
it without making CO2. That is, can we combine its H4 with O2 to make
2(H2O) leaving just C. I suggest some sort of reactor in which CH4 is
dissassociated via electron beam or maybe microwave without Oxygen
present. The resulting plasma is rapidly spinning so that the parts
at the periphery get enriched in heavier C while the center is
enriched in H2. The H2 is drawn off to react with O to make water and
energy. The hot C plasma is drawn off and allowed to condense on
surfaces. The resulting C deposition may even have some industrial
uses as such processes are used to make hard diamond like carbon (DLC)
layers for wear. I suspect that most of the C would be buried
somewhere. The electron beam or microwave is powered by the energy
produced by the combination of H2 and O. Efficiency, unknown.
However, newer electron beam devices are fairly efficient
It can be done. But it can't be done without using more energy than you get
from the reaction.
You of course have data to support this?
As I see it, the energy balance is like this.
Energy input is sufficient to dissassociate the CH4 into C and 2H2.
The energy output is the energy that comes from combining the 2H2 with
2O. If the dissassociation energy of CH4 is greater than that
obtained from combining the H2 with O (plus that obtained from
combining the C with O2), then methane would never burn. Not having my
CRC handbook here, I do not know the values of these processes. If
there is excess energy, it is the energy output. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| BretCahill |
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Believe me, every refinery in the world has
worked on THAT problem.
But as long as we're wishing, why not a
process that converts hydrocarbons to H2
and carbon nanotubes?
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: "Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:<97vEb.17313$8Y4.393898@read2.cgocable.net>...
It can be done. But it can't be done without using more energy than you
get
from the reaction.
"Parallax" <dbohara@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:792abaf9.0312190822.44285301@posting.google.com...
Quote: You of course have data to support this?
Yup. Don't you?
Check out any introductory texts on Oil Refinery chemistry. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
