Ongoing important Science news thread

[troutman]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...-into-ethanol/

Scientists in Oak Ridge Tenn figured out how to turn CO2 into Ethanol fairly reliably.

That's what I'm talking about! Science!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Guess I'll rain.

Keep in mind that this process requires the input of energy, the article even says so.

There is certainly potential here, as if the only energy input can be electricity, then it could be a useful tool to convert wind/solar/hydro into a more useful transportation fuel.

But to be clear, this isn't a magic bullet that lets you turn CO2 into fuel with no cost.

[Fuzz]

It also mentions using nano technology to build the catalyst. Which always leads to the question, is it scalable? Is it cheap? Is the catalyst rendered "dirty" quickly? Can it be cleaned, or does it need to be re-manufactured? Lots of stuff is done in the lab that never goes anywhere becuase it isn't cost-effective.

Vancouver enough for you?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It also mentions using nano technology to build the catalyst. Which always leads to the question, is it scalable? Is it cheap? Is the catalyst rendered "dirty" quickly? Can it be cleaned, or does it need to be re-manufactured? Lots of stuff is done in the lab that never goes anywhere becuase it isn't cost-effective.

Yeah, with the track record of scientific breakthroughs for batteries (and other energy storage), carbon nanotubes and graphene I'll believe they're important once they start building billion dollar factories for them.

[photon]

Yeah those were mostly my questions (and how efficient is it). I tried reading the original paper but I can't brain very well today.

[polak]

Subheader:

The process is cheap, efficient, and scalable, meaning it could soon be used to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by polak

So who is going to come rain on this parade?

My guess is Peter12?

Ethanol is good.. but i you drink it all it reconverts back to carbon dioxide in your body and is exhaled.

This process also requires a lot of energy.. so unless your energy is coming from clean sources it is not that great.

Good promise though.

EDIT: covered above

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...-into-ethanol/

Scientists in Oak Ridge Tenn figured out how to turn CO2 into Ethanol fairly reliably.

Whoa, imagine down the road what this technology could become. Could we harvest enough CO2 from the atmosphere to run an ethanol engine in a car as it drives?

Completely reverse the effects of the gasoline engine? Pretty crazy.

[photon]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

Could we harvest enough CO2 from the atmosphere to run an ethanol engine in a car as it drives?

Unfortunately no, as BBS mentioned to harvest CO2 in a car you'd need a source of electricity to do it, so you'd need a battery, which would all be horribly inefficient. Better to just use the battery directly.

Either the ethanol is a method of energy storage and transfer (i.e. a nuclear plant generates electricity, which is used to draw the CO2 and create ethanol which can then be used to power cars and stuff), or a method of sequestering CO2 permanently (same as above, except put the ethanol into the earth never to be seen again).

[polak]

Yeah wouldn't burning the Ethanol for energy just release the CO2 all over again?

Storage and creating a balance of Ethanol stored and CO2 in the atmosphere could help the global warming side of things, no?

[photon]

Burning the ethanol would release the CO2 again yes, but the idea there is it would be close to carbon neutral. Whatever CO2 you pull out of the atmosphere gets put back, but in the interim millions of cars got to where they wanted to go, or your house got heated, or whatever.

Pulling the CO2 out and putting it away forever would help the global warming side of things yes if done on a large enough scale.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

Unfortunately no, as BBS mentioned to harvest CO2 in a car you'd need a source of electricity to do it, so you'd need a battery, which would all be horribly inefficient. Better to just use the battery directly.

Either the ethanol is a method of energy storage and transfer (i.e. a nuclear plant generates electricity, which is used to draw the CO2 and create ethanol which can then be used to power cars and stuff), or a method of sequestering CO2 permanently (same as above, except put the ethanol into the earth never to be seen again).

Hrmm, right. Duh. Well, maybe solar will someday be able to do it. In 100 years who knows.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

Pulling the CO2 out and putting it away forever would help the global warming side of things yes if done on a large enough scale.

Thats what that algae did how ever long ago... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/h...w/50845958.cms 20,00 years ago.

[Fuzz]

This would only work for a utility scale "battery". People don't realize just how low of concentrations CO2 are in the atmosphere. There just isn't enough to pull out and capture without moving huge amounts of atmospheric air past the collector.

For this to work it would need a concentrated CO2 source, like, err, a coal plant...uh...ok so I'm sure a natural gas plant would provide enough. You would use green energy when it is plentiful(solar, daytime) to charge your ethanol "battery" and burn that at night when you have no green energy. Actually, thinking about it, you could possibly capture the emissions from burning the ethanol to re-use. So you might just need a large CO2 feedstock to get it going, or ethanol to start with. And probably lots to top up with, as I'm sure there would be a net CO2 loss.

Combing a natural gas plant, solar, wind and this tech you could probably make a a pretty decent self contained system. If it actually works, that is.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Combing a natural gas plant, solar, wind and this tech you could probably make a a pretty decent self contained system. If it actually works, that is.

I don't think I need to tell you that this is all the same energy source....

[troutman]

No, the Universe is not expanding at an accelerated rate, say physicists
This could change everything.


http://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-u...say-physicists

"We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae - over 10 times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based - and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call '3 sigma'," reports lead researcher, Subir Sarkar, from the University of Oxford.

"This is far short of the '5 sigma' standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance."

Instead of finding evidence to support the accelerated expansion of the Universe, Sarkar and his team say it looks like the Universe is expanding at a constant rate. If that's truly the case, it means we don't need dark energy to explain it.

[troutman]

Discovery of Peculiar Periodic Spectral Modulations in a Small Fraction of Solar-type Stars

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...ce.cld.iop.org

A Fourier transform analysis of 2.5 million spectra in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey was carried out to detect periodic spectral modulations. Signals having the same period were found in only 234 stars overwhelmingly in the F2 to K1 spectral range. The signals cannot be caused by instrumental or data analysis effects because they are present in only a very small fraction of stars within a narrow spectral range and because signal-to-noise ratio considerations predict that the signal should mostly be detected in the brightest objects, while this is not the case. We consider several possibilities, such as rotational transitions in molecules, rapid pulsations, Fourier transform of spectral lines, and signals generated by extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). They cannot be generated by molecules or rapid pulsations. It is highly unlikely that they come from the Fourier transform of spectral lines because too many strong lines located at nearly periodic frequencies are needed. Finally, we consider the possibility, predicted in a previous published paper, that the signals are caused by light pulses generated by ETI to makes us aware of their existence. We find that the detected signals have exactly the shape of an ETI signal predicted in the previous publication and are therefore in agreement with this hypothesis. The fact that they are only found in a very small fraction of stars within a narrow spectral range centered near the spectral type of the Sun is also in agreement with the ETI hypothesis. However, at this stage, this hypothesis needs to be confirmed with further work. Although unlikely, there is also a possibility that the signals are due to highly peculiar chemical compositions in a small fraction of galactic halo stars.

https://seti.berkeley.edu/bl_sdss_seti_2016.pdf


The one in 10,000 objects with unusual spectra seen by Borra and Trottier are certainly worthy of additionalstudy. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is too early to unequivocally attributethese purported signals to the activities of extraterrestrial civilizations.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

No, the Universe is not expanding at an accelerated rate, say physicists
This could change everything.


http://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-u...say-physicists

"We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae - over 10 times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based - and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call '3 sigma'," reports lead researcher, Subir Sarkar, from the University of Oxford.

"This is far short of the '5 sigma' standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance."

Instead of finding evidence to support the accelerated expansion of the Universe, Sarkar and his team say it looks like the Universe is expanding at a constant rate. If that's truly the case, it means we don't need dark energy to explain it.

Remember my End of Science rant?

[The Fonz]

No

[photon]

There's more than just the accelerating expansion of the universe that dark energy helps account for. Or alternately, there's more lines of evidence for dark energy than just Type 1a supernovae. It is an interesting paper, but I'm not qualified to judge if their assumptions are correct. It also doesn't rule out accelerating expansion, it just puts no-acceleration in the range of possibility.

Should generate some discussion among cosmologists.