OK, here we go folks!

This is the first, official site to start logging your ideas for THE GREAT

CO₂ HACK

Yes, we’re all going to Hell in a hand-basket, with a large part of the population still claiming that nothing untoward is happening. And, since this is mankind’s first attempt at suicide, we may not get it right. I’m betting we will though. Well maybe the Earth would be better off without us, but there sure are a lot of other critters out there that deserve to go on doing what they do without pulling down the curtain on everyone else.

With that in mind.

I’d like to see someone crack CO₂ on a huge,

MASSIVE

GLOBAL

scale.

Oxygen is pretty cool stuff and get this –

I want the carbon.

What for?

Silly question but I’ll give you a serious answer.

For the Space Elevator, natch.

No, I’m not changing the subject. A Space Elevator would need Carbon. Billions and billions of tons of Carbon Nanotubes. And guess what? We’re going to be generating billions and billions of tons of 100% pure Carbon just waiting to be bred into nanotubes.

What’s not to love?

Not being any kind of Bright, I enlisted a 13 year-old friend to do the math for me. This is the five-minute rough-cut of energies and it’s now up to crowd-sourcing to come up with the rest.

===Han's Changes===
Bond energies in kJ/mol:
C=O 805
O=O 498
to convert 1mol CO2 into 1mol C(g) and 1mol O2, I need to break 2 C=O and create 1 O=O
so that's 498 - 2*805 = -1112 kJ/mol

now i want this in kWh/kg:
1mol of CO2 is .044kg
so 1kg CO2 is 22.27 mol
1112kJ/mol * 22.27mol/kg=24,764kJ/kg
according to google, conv that to kWh yeilds just 6.87888889kWh/kg CO2

at 8cents a kwh, thats 55cents a kilogram

===Ed's Changes===
Bond energies in kJ/mol:
C=O 805
O=O 498
to convert 1mol CO2 into 1mol C(g) and 1mol O2, 
I need to break 2 C=O and create 1 O=O
so that's 498 - 2*805 = -1112 kJ/mol

now i want this in kWh/kg:
1mol of CO2 is 

c is .012 kg/mol, and o is .016

.016+.016+.012 is wat,

.03+.014, right?
with adds to .044kg/mol CO2 

now 1/.044=22.27

which means there are 22.27 mol co2 in a kilogram of co2

it takes 1112 kJ to conv a mol of co2 into o2 and carbon vapr,

 wich would condense into, under the right conditions, into nanotubes
1112kJ/mol times 22.27 mol/kg co2 is...
 

we gotta use 24,764kJ to conv the carbon

now lemme see wat that is in kWh (means more to u)

hmmm

10:49 PM Han: tellya wat

  c is .012 kg/mol, and o is .016

10:50 PM .016+.016+.012 is wat,

  .03+.014, right?

  with adds to .044kg/mol CO2

 me: bueno

10:51 PM Han: now 1/.044=22.27

10:52 PM which means there are 22.27 mol co2 in a kilogram of co2

10:53 PM but wat does it mean

  it means...hm

10:54 PM thats it. i calced that it takes 1112 kJ to conv a mol of co2 into o2 and carbon vapr,

 me: carbon vapor?

 Han: wich would condense into, under the right conditions, into nanotubes

10:55 PM me: I figured on just selling the carbon to the c-tube people and let them deal with "conditions"

10:56 PM Han: now 1112kJ/mol times 22.27 mol/kg co2 is...

  lol the co2 vapor would automatically condense into graphite anyway

  though we could sell the ultrapure grafite too

  lol

  anyway...

10:57 PM we gotta use 24,764kJ to conv the carbon

  now lemme see wat that is in kWh (means more to u)

10:58 PM me: OK at $.06 kwh, how much is that?

10:59 PM Han: 6.87889 kWh

  then multiplied by, wat, .06?

 me: da

 Han: hm

11:00 PM $.04per kg of CO2

  sounds lucrative

  until u consider the megatons of co2 supposedly polluting the planet this minute

 me: something desperately wrong here

 Han: lol thats wat i think too

 me: this is way, way too cheap

11:01 PM Han: 6cents a kilowathour doesnt sound righ

  lemme record this in the notebook, maybe i'll find some errors that way

11:02 PM me: my bill 313Kwh = $2412

11:03 PM 24.12

  hope

 Han: thats 8cents

 me: $.11430 Kwh

11:04 PM Han: becomes 55cents a kg

 me: I'm sure it's cheaper to pump it underground then

11:05 PM but i wonder what pure C is going for?

 Han: cmon we wont get pure c unless we get pure co2

11:06 PM and how on earth we gona get pure co2

  ?

 me: well they seem to have something in mind if they're going to be pumping it underground

11:07 PM Han: might possible be cheaper

 me: I'll start looking into what they've got planned that way

 Han: its not actly gonna be possible to just dot eh calcs like the way i did

  theres lots more to it

 me: I wonder if we should be patenting this scheme?

 Han: just theoretically, the min energy is that

  llol

  doubt were the first

11:08 PM me: Yes, I realize there would be LOTS of energy overhead but still ...

11:09 PM Han: thats half a dollar a kilogram

  i bet theres somewhat more than a kilogram of surplus co2

11:10 PM maybe even megaton range

 me: ?? whatch mean surplus?

 Han: dude i got chinese hw

 me: right

  bye

 Han: mebe surplus aint right word

  bye

Right. Back to you People.

Needless to say, I don’t know WTF he’s talking about, but something along these lines is possible. Especially now that a couple of Bright Persons, seem to have done something similar (to me, at least.)
 

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/reverse-fuel-ce.html
 

So there it is folks! All that’s needed now is:

One or Several Bright Persons

A  Wiki

A Webmaster

Oh yeah - MONEY!!

The Google and X-Prize people are running around coughing up $10,000,000 at a time for their gigs, but WE can offer way more than that. How about if everyone that wants one of these gizmos to fight Global Warming kicks in a buck? Don't ya think that there are more than 10 million people that care about the climate? Just think; if we could come up with a smallish box thingy with solar cells on the top, just working it's little butt off. Now think billions of them.  While you're at it, imagine really, really BIG ones too. Does that put a smile on your face?

So get crackin', damn it!

Of course, we'll hope that the basics will be kept open source, but the individual boxes (a Naming Contest! Auction the naming rights!) could be sponsored by Corporations looking for Green brownie points (does that phrase make sense?).

credits to Ying Han Wei for his math 

Here's a MUCH more understandable video of the Bright Persons at MIT

http://chemicalexplorers.blip.tv/#1150780

thanks to Stephen Lyons for the linky