Is it plausible to create oil from the CO2 in our atmosphere?

Question

jim_m seems to think so. He suggests creating huge amounts of oil, thus taking copious amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. He goes on to suggest we pump this oil back into the ground.

I will reserve my thoughts about this.

Answer 1

you can make fuel from it using methane and co2 to make methomal. it can replace gas in most engines.

Answer 2

sure sounds like a good idea!

https://secure.defenders.org/site/Advoca...

Answer 3

It is possible to take CO2 emitted from power plants and industries bubble into vats that grow algae.  The algae will capture the CO2 and convert it into organic material via photosynthesis, and this can be converted to fuel.

Answer 4

Not economically.  In theory, you could plant huge amounts of a rapidly growing plant.  These would fix the CO2 in biomass.  The biomass could then be converted to hydrocarbon fuels using 60 year old technology.  But, the cost would be very high.

Answer 5

Anything is possible if you smoke some weed!

Answer 6

Yes, but it is too expensive now...

Answer 7

No. "Oil" is a blanket term for long-chain complexes of hydrogen , carbon and other elements. CO2 contains only two of these elements. While it is possible to synthesize many of the more complex sub-components, it is not possible to make some of these without the use of chemical mediators (other chemicals) in lieu of existing crude oil.

Also, no way is even a portion of this affordable. You gotta pay people to make the stuff, build the cracking units (heat and pressure make up a large portion of the physical manipulation of crude to separate out components of useful finished products), and power the unit itself. Economies of scale is also an issue.

Answer 8

Ms K is correct as far as creating Biomass using CO2, but the Idea of making oil and pumping it back under ground is a new one to me, Do you have any links on this?

I would never rule anything out completely only because I have never heard of it before, but if the scope is to reduce CO2 level by locking it up in Biomass such as oil or better wood.

The best solution is planting and cutting followed by replanting of fast growing vegetable matter. and continually repeating the process over many years if not hundreds and thousands.

This could then be converted into materials or stored so the it can not degrade  back to CO2.



Building libraries for books would be a good help!

This may sound like strange logic when people talk so much about saving the rainforest to save the world, but biodegradable plant matter also releases CO2.

By collecting this plant matter and processing it so the the carbon in it is not release to form more CO2 we will be able to control the increase at least a little.

Remember that 1 carbon atom uses 2 oxygen atoms to form CO2, therefore the more carbon locked up in biomass the more free oxygen there is.

Buy books and save the world.

ADDED a good crop for this would be hemp which is a fast growing annual, and can be planted in a thin strata of top soil.

Due to the spread and tangled formation of roots this is also ideal for recovery of eroded top soil which within a few years would allow for the planting of other crops and then forest.

EDIT

Hemp is a very durable fibre and will out last cotton, so the results are again positive if our scope is to lock up carbon.

Edit

At the time of Harry A. Anslinger's reforms the Hemp industry were making headway with new methods of processing, returning to natural fibres where possible will also reduce of dependence on plastic, a hemp sack will last you a life times worth of plastic bags!

ADDED for my friend below The ' Nondescript humanoid carbon-based life form'

carboniferous period!!!!!

(all that black stuff came from somewhere!)

Please MR TC other-science as you're the one with all the answers, why don't you just tell us where all the nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium  that was needed to grow all that lot has gone?

Ok I'll grant there may have been a small leakage of hydrogen and other light gases (those with an atomic weight of less than 10) from the atmosphere in  the 300 millions of years, but we must also remember that we have also been receiving little top ups from time to time in the form of rocks falling from the sky!

So the problem is just a logistical one, Don't you think?

FTWR

MORE INFO added just to show that we have solutions if we wish to invest in them.

NewScientist 21 Jan 2006

EVERY HOME SHOULD HAVE ONE

A revolution in small-scale roof-top generators could turn the electricity industry on its head and soon even outstrip that of the world’s nuclear power industry. The attraction of these personal microgenerators is that they are very suited to renewable sources - in the form of wind turbines, photovoltaic panels or water wheels - helping to slash carbon emissions while taking the strain off overloaded distribution grids. FEATURE Pages 36-39

ADDED in responce to the statement that a lot of those nutrients are in the deep ocean.

With the implementation of desalination plants which are used to separate fresh water from salt water (which contain salts)  A large amount can be recovered from the sea.

It is worth checking out the new technology in  this area.

The energy required to run these plants will come from renewables as mentioned above.

This will kill two birds with one stone as Fresh water will be a very valuable commodity in the coming years.

The cost is only a little question here once the initial investment as been made!

this is obviously a long term project to face a long term problem!

My suggestion is not to recreate the carboniferous period, just a greener world.

As to the there is no such thing as a free lunch, energy-wise.

This seems strange as all life that has ever existed has needed energy to do so!

Cash was a much latter invention.

Give nature a hand and she will treat you well.

Further I will respond to the question of there not being enough arable land on the planet to make a dent in atmospheric CO2 this way.

By saying "doing nothing will achieve nothing, so it is always better to do something."

I hope that I haven't been to irrational in my explanation.

Answer 9

Whenever you hear ideas like this, ask yourself:  "hmmmm, where is all the nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium the plants will also need going to come from?"  Now pat yourself on the back for asking a great question.  Answer it and you are well on the way to understanding why this is a dumb idea.

Edit:

Dear whatever-the-h**l-your-nym-is-that-used-...

A lot of those nutrients are in the deep ocean.  Consider those inaccessible unless you have some radical new physics that will minimize the energy costs associated with pumping all that water onto land, then evaporating it to leave the dissolved solids, and then separating the nutrients you want from all the salt.  The ones that aren't in the ocean are not a renewable resource.  They're mined, like coal, and have a finite supply, and take a lot of energy to extract and distribute.  

There is no such thing as a free lunch, energy-wise.  Turning CO2 into oil using plants uses nearly as much energy as it produces, maybe more if you consider the energy cost of turning biomass into oil.  Plus there isn't enough arable land on the planet to make a dent in atmospheric CO2 this way.  

What this method provides is a "feel-good" way for people in developed countries to continue to mine the nonrenewable resources of the planet without cutting back on consumption.  They are willing to substitute depletion of hydrocarbon resources for depletion of fertilizer resources, but it is resource depletion just the same (and it isn't clear that there is any benefit in terms of energy).  If that makes you feel better about yourself I say go for it, but the more rational among us recognize it for what it is.  

I realize you don't want to hear ugly facts, but physics doesn't care about what you think should happen.  The equations are cold and hard and the girl gets shoved out of the airlock.  

Have a nice day.

Answer 10

What - snake oil?

Answer 11

The only reason biomass has not been used to make all the oil human activity requires is that oil has been cheap and abundant in the past. In fact oil can be made from biomass for a lower cost than the price of pumped from the ground right now. And more oil can be made from biomass than humans will be able to use without poluting the world if good engineering is applied to the problem. Reading the posting on this question it is clear good engineering is unknown to most people. This is beacuse good engineering has never been used and this is another result of historical cheap oil. Now just about everyone believes oil is bad and unnatural but its not so. Oil is nature's solar energy storage system and this system should be developed  by enviromentalists.