Uses for solid carbon

Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.

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

Kirkieb wrote:
Looking for ideas on the uses of solidified carbon. Is it only good for land fill?.

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.

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.

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.

Kirkieb wrote:
Ok so CO2 is the stuff we are talking about.

Kirkieb wrote:
Why cant we capture the stuff and make diamonds

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.

Kirkieb wrote:
If so why are we calling for all to be closed.

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

dgarf wrote:For the climate skeptics:
Climate change is very real and caused by increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels.

dgarf wrote: Pre-industrial rev. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm).

dgarf wrote: The current level is about 410ppm.

dgarf wrote: While a miniscule amount compared to the major gases in the atmosphere (N2, O2, H2O), CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the sun in a spectrum that the other gases do not. This increases the solar radiation held onto by the Earth system, thus increasing global mean temperatures.

dgarf wrote: The reason this is a problem is because since humankind invented agriculture (roughly 10,000 yrs ago) the climate system has been extremely stable, allowing us to build civilizations along dependable sources of water in temperate zones with predictable growing periods and yields. As the climate system shifts to a new equilibrium, these dependable systems will be disrupted, which will in turn destabilize civilization, forcing mass migrations caused by local food and water shortages.

dgarf wrote:
Uses for solid carbon:
perhaps the use with the largest potential (in terms of gigaton) is carbon fiber, or alternatively plastic. carbon fiber reinforcing resin or ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene could be used as structural materials for buildings or transport vehicles (cars, trucks, planes). IF you could substitute cement and steel in buildings and transport with carbon-based materials, you could have about 3 Gt/annum of market potential.

For the climate skeptics:
Climate change is very real and caused by increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels. Pre-industrial rev. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). The current level is about 410ppm. While a miniscule amount compared to the major gases in the atmosphere (N2, O2, H2O), CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the sun in a spectrum that the other gases do not. This increases the solar radiation held onto by the Earth system, thus increasing global mean temperatures. The reason this is a problem is because since humankind invented agriculture (roughly 10,000 yrs ago) the climate system has been extremely stable, allowing us to build civilizations along dependable sources of water in temperate zones with predictable growing periods and yields. As the climate system shifts to a new equilibrium, these dependable systems will be disrupted, which will in turn destabilize civilization, forcing mass migrations caused by local food and water shortages.

HarveyH55 wrote:

dgarf wrote:
Uses for solid carbon:
perhaps the use with the largest potential (in terms of gigaton) is carbon fiber, or alternatively plastic. carbon fiber reinforcing resin or ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene could be used as structural materials for buildings or transport vehicles (cars, trucks, planes). IF you could substitute cement and steel in buildings and transport with carbon-based materials, you could have about 3 Gt/annum of market potential.

For the climate skeptics:
Climate change is very real and caused by increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels. Pre-industrial rev. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). The current level is about 410ppm. While a miniscule amount compared to the major gases in the atmosphere (N2, O2, H2O), CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the sun in a spectrum that the other gases do not. This increases the solar radiation held onto by the Earth system, thus increasing global mean temperatures. The reason this is a problem is because since humankind invented agriculture (roughly 10,000 yrs ago) the climate system has been extremely stable, allowing us to build civilizations along dependable sources of water in temperate zones with predictable growing periods and yields. As the climate system shifts to a new equilibrium, these dependable systems will be disrupted, which will in turn destabilize civilization, forcing mass migrations caused by local food and water shortages.

How do we know the pre-industrial temperature and CO2 measurements? Neither were being monitored on a global scale at the time. Thermometers with the precision to measure temperature to a usable level, for the 1 degree Celsius per century estimate rise, weren't available for a couple hundred years later. CO2 was monitored until 1958, hardly on a global scale, on the side of an active volcano to boot, Mauna Loa. Basically, global warming was declared, before measurements and data to support it even existed, everything is based on proxies, analogs, and computer simulations. It's science fiction, and a video game.

Uses for carbon... How about a live solution? All life on this planet is based on carbon molecules. That carbon comes exclusively from CO2. Nothing digests or metabolizes solid carbon. Plants are the only living thing that pulls CO2 from the atmosphere, everything else gets carbon from the plants, one way or another. Look up CO2 augmentation for greenhouses, to see the real life effect of CO2 on plant growth and development. No need to take my word for it, a common practice for decades. Your 410 ppm is about 20% of the ideal CO2 level. Oddly enough, adding 1000 ppm to a greenhouse, doesn't raise the temperature either, no cooling required...

dgarf wrote:Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental you could teach them in a high school chemistry class.

dgarf wrote:I'm not going to debate this.

dgarf wrote:We know CO2 levels before humans were measuring them in real time because we can look at air bubbles trapped in really old ice cores from Antartica.

dgarf wrote:This takes us back around 800,000 years.

dgarf wrote:For more recent records, we can just look at tree ring data from around the world, which is directly tied to yearly CO2 and temperature levels.

dgarf wrote:Its astound that you could doubt the science of climate change while debating about it on an internet forum.

dgarf wrote: The technology, and science underpinning the technology, of your computer, the internet, etc. is far more advanced than anything you need to measure or predict climate change.

dgarf wrote:But look, I hope all you skeptics are right. I hope there is nothing to worry about, and all these people including myself are completely wrong.

dgarf wrote:, and anyone born in the 21st century will have to face unprecedented natural and civil unrest.

dgarf wrote:
Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental you could teach them in a high school chemistry class.

tmiddles wrote:

dgarf wrote:
Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental you could teach them in a high school chemistry class.

Theory goes that CO2 up temp up right?

What about if CO2 doesn't go up? Could/would the temp go up? Have you EVER heard that discussed? Don't you think it would be important to parse out CO2's impact form other factors?

The data you're referencing I think is reflected below right?:


And now here:


I would argue that U.S. temperature readings are more accurate than global temp readings because it was more actively recorded since 1880 than other locations. Let's assume that the temp readings are accurate enough to be of some use.

The US had very warm weather in the 1930s and you can see the evidence here from the EPA:


But as the CO2 history shows CO2 levels didn't really increase up to 1930. They did increase after that but temperatures fell. In fact in the 1970s there were articles written about a coming ice age.

So being critical of an exclusive focus on CO2 is useful because we need to have perspective on what's really going on IF that's within our ability.

I hope you'll at least agree it's not a simple cause/effect story in the data that is presented. A high school class would be pretty confused hearing the theory and then looking at these charts (which are Nasa, EPA, standard data thrown around).

ellisael wrote:
I found it so very interesting that its called dry ice and as a child and student of chemistry- i loved reading up about it.

still learning wrote:

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.

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

still learning wrote:
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.

still learning wrote:
Carbon dioxide could be absorbed and the stuff pumped underground. The process has been demonstrated. It isn't cheap though.

still learning wrote:
Would add significantly to the cost of electricity if implemented. No regulations require it, so no implementation.

still learning wrote:
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.

dgarf wrote:
Uses for solid carbon:
perhaps the use with the largest potential (in terms of gigaton) is carbon fiber, or alternatively plastic. carbon fiber reinforcing resin or ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene could be used as structural materials for buildings or transport vehicles (cars, trucks, planes). IF you could substitute cement and steel in buildings and transport with carbon-based materials, you could have about 3 Gt/annum of market potential.

dgarf wrote:
For the climate skeptics:
Climate change is very real and caused by increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to burning of fossil fuels.

dgarf wrote:
Pre-industrial rev. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were roughly 280 parts per million (ppm). The current level is about 410ppm.

dgarf wrote:
While a miniscule amount compared to the major gases in the atmosphere (N2, O2, H2O), CO2 absorbs infrared radiation from the sun in a spectrum that the other gases do not.

dgarf wrote:
This increases the solar radiation held onto by the Earth system, thus increasing global mean temperatures.

dgarf wrote:
The reason this is a problem

dgarf wrote:
is because since humankind invented agriculture (roughly 10,000 yrs ago) the climate system

dgarf wrote:
has been extremely stable,

dgarf wrote:
allowing us to build civilizations along dependable sources of water in temperate zones with predictable growing periods and yields.

dgarf wrote:
As the climate system

dgarf wrote:
shifts to a new equilibrium,

dgarf wrote:
these dependable systems will be disrupted,

dgarf wrote:
which will in turn destabilize civilization,

dgarf wrote:
forcing mass migrations caused by local food and water shortages.

dgarf wrote:
Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental

dgarf wrote:
you could teach them in a high school chemistry class.

dgarf wrote:
I'm not going to debate this.

dgarf wrote:
We know CO2 levels before humans were measuring them in real time because we can look at air bubbles trapped in really old ice cores from Antartica.

dgarf wrote:
This takes us back around 800,000 years.

dgarf wrote:
For more recent records, we can just look at tree ring data from around the world, which is directly tied to yearly CO2 and temperature levels.

dgarf wrote:
Its astound that you could doubt the science of climate change

dgarf wrote:
while debating about it on an internet forum.

dgarf wrote:
The technology, and science underpinning the technology, of your computer, the internet, etc. is far more advanced than anything you need to measure or predict climate change.

dgarf wrote:
But look, I hope all you skeptics are right. I hope there is nothing to worry about, and all these people including myself are completely wrong.

dgarf wrote:
But I am nearly certain you are not wrong, and anyone born in the 21st century will have to face unprecedented natural and civil unrest.

tmiddles wrote:

dgarf wrote:
Look, the chemistry and physics behind climate change are so fundamental you could teach them in a high school chemistry class.

Theory goes that CO2 up temp up right?

What about if CO2 doesn't go up? Could/would the temp go up? Have you EVER heard that discussed? Don't you think it would be important to parse out CO2's impact form other factors?

tmiddles wrote:
The data you're referencing I think is reflected below right?:

tmiddles wrote:
And now here:

tmiddles wrote:
I would argue that U.S. temperature readings are more accurate than global temp readings because it was more actively recorded since 1880 than other locations. Let's assume that the temp readings are accurate enough to be of some use.

tmiddles wrote:
The US had very warm weather in the 1930s and you can see the evidence here from the EPA:

tmiddles wrote:
But as the CO2 history shows CO2 levels didn't really increase up to 1930. They did increase after that but temperatures fell. In fact in the 1970s there were articles written about a coming ice age.

tmiddles wrote:
So being critical of an exclusive focus on CO2 is useful because we need to have perspective on what's really going on IF that's within our ability.

I hope you'll at least agree it's not a simple cause/effect story in the data that is presented. A high school class would be pretty confused hearing the theory and then looking at these charts (which are Nasa, EPA, standard data thrown around).