Remember me
▼ Content

Uses for solid carbon


Uses for solid carbon16-09-2018 04:30
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.
16-09-2018 19:04
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(217)
Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.


Solidified carbon? Do you mean elemental carbon, C? Or perhaps you mean carbon dioxide, CO2 Or maybe calcium carbonate CaCO3 as found in limestone. Some other compound?

When you read or hear in the mass media (or anywhere else) of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning, the compound carbon dioxide is being referred to, not elemental carbon.

Anyway, elemental carbon is a solid at temperatures below 3000 C. Diamonds are a form of elemental carbon. So is graphite. Buckyballs and graphene and carbon fibers too. Charcoal is mostly "amorphous" carbon and has many uses. And of course elemental carbon makes an excellent solid fuel.

Solid carbon dioxide? That is usually called "dry ice." Turns to gas at about minus 75 degrees C (at atmospheric pressure.)

Question: What is your knowledge of chemistry?
Many of the answers to your questions in this and other threads would have been touched on in a high-school chemistry course. Or are easily looked up online.
16-09-2018 19:13
spot
★★★★☆
(1017)
Diamonds are a girls best friend and graphite is good in pencils.

Is that helpful?
16-09-2018 20:01
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1251)
Life. It is all based on the stuff.

The more CO2 there is around the more plants grow.

I cannot see any real bad thing about having more of it in the air.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346

Science & Environment
Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

Edited on 16-09-2018 20:01
16-09-2018 21:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5881)
Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.


It's fuel.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2018 21:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5881)
still learning wrote:
Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.


Solidified carbon? Do you mean elemental carbon, C? Or perhaps you mean carbon dioxide, CO2 Or maybe calcium carbonate CaCO3 as found in limestone. Some other compound?

When you read or hear in the mass media (or anywhere else) of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning, the compound carbon dioxide is being referred to, not elemental carbon.

Anyway, elemental carbon is a solid at temperatures below 3000 C. Diamonds are a form of elemental carbon. So is graphite. Buckyballs and graphene and carbon fibers too. Charcoal is mostly "amorphous" carbon and has many uses. And of course elemental carbon makes an excellent solid fuel.

Solid carbon dioxide? That is usually called "dry ice." Turns to gas at about minus 75 degrees C (at atmospheric pressure.)

Question: What is your knowledge of chemistry?
Many of the answers to your questions in this and other threads would have been touched on in a high-school chemistry course. Or are easily looked up online.


I think he means elemental carbon and that he has no idea of chemistry at all.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-09-2018 21:22
17-09-2018 04:08
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Ok so CO2 is the stuff we are talking about. Why cant we capture the stuff and make diamonds No that wont work the rich people wont like that. From the forum so far I get the feeling most don't oppose the CO2 from Coal power. If so why are we calling for all to be closed. Maybe its just the Muppet Governments like Australia's that has a shock reaction as to how bad it is and we have our heads in the sand.
17-09-2018 04:33
James___
★★★☆☆
(739)
Kirkieb wrote:
Ok so CO2 is the stuff we are talking about. Why cant we capture the stuff and make diamonds No that wont work the rich people wont like that. From the forum so far I get the feeling most don't oppose the CO2 from Coal power. If so why are we calling for all to be closed. Maybe its just the Muppet Governments like Australia's that has a shock reaction as to how bad it is and we have our heads in the sand.



...At the moment there are claims by 2 different companies that they can remove carbon dioxide out of the air for $200 and $600 a metric tonne. In order for it to be commercially feasible the cost needs to be about $100 a metric tonne.
..You might find this an interesting read;
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/14/17445622/direct-air-capture-air-to-fuels-carbon-dioxide-engineering
17-09-2018 06:30
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Thanks James was an interesting read. The more I read the more I think we should be focusing at Geosphere Level. Some of the Air Extraction devices maybe the short term band aid solution but we need a massive global effort and lets face it we cant even agree on politics how will we ever resolve Greenhouse Emissions? Living in Asia I see every day pollution on a scale the west just don't understand. China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and many more are spewing out air pollution you can see visually its that bad.
17-09-2018 06:44
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.


Solidified carbon? Do you mean elemental carbon, C? Or perhaps you mean carbon dioxide, CO2 Or maybe calcium carbonate CaCO3 as found in limestone. Some other compound?

When you read or hear in the mass media (or anywhere else) of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning, the compound carbon dioxide is being referred to, not elemental carbon.

Anyway, elemental carbon is a solid at temperatures below 3000 C. Diamonds are a form of elemental carbon. So is graphite. Buckyballs and graphene and carbon fibers too. Charcoal is mostly "amorphous" carbon and has many uses. And of course elemental carbon makes an excellent solid fuel.

Solid carbon dioxide? That is usually called "dry ice." Turns to gas at about minus 75 degrees C (at atmospheric pressure.)

Question: What is your knowledge of chemistry?
Many of the answers to your questions in this and other threads would have been touched on in a high-school chemistry course. Or are easily looked up online.


I think he means elemental carbon and that he has no idea of chemistry at all.

So asking a question about something that I learnt more than 40 years ago is saying nothing has changed. Hmm beg to differ. Too many Pre-Madonna's in Education claiming to be scholars and wonder why they are disregarded by the populist. To share your knowledge and open a discussion on a subject your claiming hasn't changed only proved your bias in the subject. If your so brilliant why haven't you solved the problem?
Oh maybe because your a protagonist and not a problem solver.
17-09-2018 06:50
Kirkieb
☆☆☆☆☆
(20)
"The basic problem of climate change is that we are removing too much carbon from the geosphere (below ground) and putting it into the active biosphere (above ground), where it serves to raise surface temperatures".
17-09-2018 09:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5881)
Kirkieb wrote:
Ok so CO2 is the stuff we are talking about.
Okay.
Kirkieb wrote:
Why cant we capture the stuff and make diamonds

Diamonds are made from carbon, not carbon dioxide. There is no need to capture CO2.
Kirkieb wrote:
No that wont work the rich people wont like that. From the forum so far I get the feeling most don't oppose the CO2 from Coal power.

Actually, a lot of people fear CO2 just like you do. There really is nothing to fear. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. It is a useful gas, and life on Earth would not be possible without it. Plants are able to use CO2, sunlight, and water to make carbohydrates and sugars; which is food.
Kirkieb wrote:
If so why are we calling for all to be closed.
Marxism is alive and well in the world. Coal represents a successful industry that Marxists want to destroy. It also feeds other successful industries that Marxists want to destroy.
Kirkieb wrote:
Maybe its just the Muppet Governments like Australia's that has a shock reaction as to how bad it is and we have our heads in the sand.

Yeah...I hear ya. Australia's government has been pretty stupid falling for this Marxist eco-crap.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 09:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5881)
James___ wrote:
Kirkieb wrote:
Ok so CO2 is the stuff we are talking about. Why cant we capture the stuff and make diamonds No that wont work the rich people wont like that. From the forum so far I get the feeling most don't oppose the CO2 from Coal power. If so why are we calling for all to be closed. Maybe its just the Muppet Governments like Australia's that has a shock reaction as to how bad it is and we have our heads in the sand.



...At the moment there are claims by 2 different companies that they can remove carbon dioxide out of the air for $200 and $600 a metric tonne. In order for it to be commercially feasible the cost needs to be about $100 a metric tonne.
..You might find this an interesting read;
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/14/17445622/direct-air-capture-air-to-fuels-carbon-dioxide-engineering



There is no need to remove carbon dioxide from coal plants.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 09:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5881)
Kirkieb wrote:
Thanks James was an interesting read. The more I read the more I think we should be focusing at Geosphere Level. Some of the Air Extraction devices maybe the short term band aid solution but we need a massive global effort and lets face it we cant even agree on politics how will we ever resolve Greenhouse Emissions? Living in Asia I see every day pollution on a scale the west just don't understand. China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and many more are spewing out air pollution you can see visually its that bad.


China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan all use inefficient methods of burning coal, producing a lot of soot. Yes, soot in the air is bad. It's also a waste of good fuel.

We don't need to 'solve' greenhouse emissions. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' in the first place. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 09:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5881)
Kirkieb wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
still learning wrote:
Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.


Solidified carbon? Do you mean elemental carbon, C? Or perhaps you mean carbon dioxide, CO2 Or maybe calcium carbonate CaCO3 as found in limestone. Some other compound?

When you read or hear in the mass media (or anywhere else) of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning, the compound carbon dioxide is being referred to, not elemental carbon.

Anyway, elemental carbon is a solid at temperatures below 3000 C. Diamonds are a form of elemental carbon. So is graphite. Buckyballs and graphene and carbon fibers too. Charcoal is mostly "amorphous" carbon and has many uses. And of course elemental carbon makes an excellent solid fuel.

Solid carbon dioxide? That is usually called "dry ice." Turns to gas at about minus 75 degrees C (at atmospheric pressure.)

Question: What is your knowledge of chemistry?
Many of the answers to your questions in this and other threads would have been touched on in a high-school chemistry course. Or are easily looked up online.


I think he means elemental carbon and that he has no idea of chemistry at all.

So asking a question about something that I learnt more than 40 years ago is saying nothing has changed. Hmm beg to differ. Too many Pre-Madonna's in Education claiming to be scholars and wonder why they are disregarded by the populist. To share your knowledge and open a discussion on a subject your claiming hasn't changed only proved your bias in the subject. If your so brilliant why haven't you solved the problem?
Oh maybe because your a protagonist and not a problem solver.


I do not own any coal plants. I have no jurisdiction in places like China. What do you expect me to solve?


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 09:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5881)
Kirkieb wrote:
"The basic problem of climate change is that we are removing too much carbon from the geosphere (below ground) and putting it into the active biosphere (above ground), where it serves to raise surface temperatures".


There is no such thing as 'climate change' either. There is no such thing as a global climate, for there is no such thing as a global weather.

Burning coal does not raise surface temperatures. Surface temperatures have only one major factor: the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
17-09-2018 21:33
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(217)
Kirkieb wrote:

.....So asking a question about something that I learnt more than 40 years ago is saying nothing has changed. Hmm beg to differ. Too many Pre-Madonna's in Education claiming to be scholars and wonder why they are disregarded by the populist. To share your knowledge and open a discussion on a subject your claiming hasn't changed only proved your bias in the subject. If your so brilliant why haven't you solved the problem?
Oh maybe because your a protagonist and not a problem solver.



This thread and others are a good example of why I think that the media and politicians and activists (of any persuasion) using phrases like "carbon emissions" or "carbon pollution" when referring to carbon dioxide are doing a disservice.

Not everybody remembers stuff they might have learned about forty years ago, can't be expected to.

If one asks about removing carbon from the exhaust stream from an electric powerplant are they referring to the soot (mostly solid carbon) or carbon dioxide or something else? Soot is filtered out of modern powerplants (they have something called a "baghouse"). Air quality regulations require it in most of the US. Has not always been the case though.

Carbon dioxide could be absorbed and the stuff pumped underground. The process has been demonstrated. It isn't cheap though. Would add significantly to the cost of electricity if implemented. No regulations require it, so no implementation.

Regarding "saying nothing has changed," the basic understanding of combustion has not changed since about the year 1800. Oxygen had been discovered and had been found to a necessary part of combustion, it had been found that the total of mass of the combustion products a fuel like coal is more than the mass of the fuel itself. The phlogistion theory of combustion was discarded. Lots of details have been added since then, but the basics remain.

"If your so brilliant why haven't you solved the problem?" I don't have an answer for that.




Join the debate Uses for solid carbon:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Canada carbon tax125-10-2018 19:26
Carbon Absorbtion617-09-2018 18:54
Filtration of Carbon317-09-2018 09:11
Poseidon Foundation - offeset carbon footprints emissions using blockchain001-08-2018 18:54
Beer rationed as UK's food-grade carbon dioxide runs low2102-07-2018 20:31
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact