It a particluar chemical reaction, methane is produced by oxidizing elements with CO2; so, it takes one Co2 molecule to produce a methane molecule, and when methane is burned, it produces one molecule of CO2. No change in CO2 levels, or water (which is also required). Methane is a perfectly renewable resource.

The chemical reaction has nothing to do with the fact that more methane and co2 will be released into the atmosphere.

Yes it does? If one carbon molecule is oxidized to create methane gas, and that gas is combusted, then only one carbon molecule comes out. The CO2 and CH4 levels in the enviroment stay the same. Now, the most suprising thing that you may ever find out, is that when CH4 is created, it releases energy, as well as when it's combusted. It's a strange property of methane.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 17 2009, 4:01 am by A_of-s_t.

You contribute to global warming by taking a molecule of CO2 from somewhere other than the atmosphere (not bad), and then combust the produced methane, which releases the CO2 molecule into the atmosphere (bad). If that didn't make any sense, you're taking methane from someplace other than the atmosphere and in the end releasing it into the atmosphere. The two CO2 molecules don't neccessarily cancel each other out.

Where do you suppose the methane will come from? Some could be obtained by using organic material but most comes from natural gas fields, underground. Which is why the chemical reaction, even though it is very clean is irrelevant because more methane/CO2 will be released into the atmosphere.

The CO2 molecule is taken from the enviroment -- its how organisms create sugar. The basic sugar is then oxidized into methane. You contribute nothing more than what was in the enviroment. I think you fail to understand what is actually taking place. AND the fact that any methane produced wouldn't just be released into the atmosphere.

As I said, organisms get their CO2 from the enviroment, thus, it is coming from the atmosphere.

...That has nothing to do with my reasoning, nor is it actually relevant to discredit my arguement. If my experiment works, then there would be no need for these other forms of gathering methane.

How the experiment works (I can't say everything because me and my group want to patent the idea):
An organism produces a simple sugar naturally, releasing a small amount of energy in the process (very small, as in, you produce more energy typing). The simple sugar can then be reduced with a very reactive chemical (Mg) and H2 replaces the Oxygen molecule:

2H2S + O2 -> 2S + 2H20; G = -100 kcal
2H2S + CO2 -> 2S + 2H20 + CH20 ::We even get more water!
CH20 + H2 + Fe -> CH4 + FeO ::Note that FeO is NOT rust. Fe3O4 is rust.

But then arises the question, why use three types of gases to create one? CH2O can be used to get energy, but its combustion creates CO. Hydrogen takes energy to get by itself. We are hoping that the reaction will occur with pure water, rather than having it split apart into H2 and O2.

The environment and the atmosphere are not the same thing. The atmosphere is only a part of the environment as a whole. You have to consider the carbon budget, which is the balance of the carbon exchange between the different carbon reservoirs (biosphere, pedosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, and atmosphere). Yes, the CO2 in reservoirs other than the atmosphere may have come from the atmosphere at some point, but because they are not in the atmosphere, they are not contributing to global warming. We don't get the CO2 to make methane from the atmosphere, so by using it in cars, we would be withdrawling CO2 from reservoirs other than the atmosphere, and banking it all in the atmosphere.

The CO2 in the different reservoirs could have all come from the atmosphere, but the issue is, it's getting put back faster than it can be taken out. Burning methane in vehicles would be a prime example of this type of excessive exchange.

Tell me where trees get their CO2 and how photosynthesis reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and you will realize that I am correct.

I think TriggR and AofST are on different pages.

From my understanding so far...
TriggR: CO2 from inside of Earth; process into methane; use methan; CO2 into atmosphere of Earth. internalX -> processX -> useX -> externalX
AofST: CO2 from atmosphere of Earth; process into methane; use methane; CO2 into atmosphere of Earth. externalX -> pr'X -> us'X -> extern'X

From what I've read here, it seems like this methane usage on AofST's part is a preferable source for an alternative fuel. Still, there should be things that are taken into consideration such as how much energy will be needed for the process of itself - Never mind, he says it's very little. But it would be a good idea to run some tests first anyway. It would be costy for another CFC disaster to occur. And even still CFCs are being used... But that's a different topic.

Before posting about this things, a full and detailed understanding of the Kreb's and Calvin cycles, and possibly other biological pathways should be employed.

http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl

Enjoy.

[quote=name:New-.Hydrolisk]I think TriggR and AofST are on different pages.

From my understanding so far...
TriggR: CO2 from inside of Earth; process into methane; use methan; CO2 into atmosphere of Earth. internalX -> processX -> useX -> externalX
AofST: CO2 from atmosphere of Earth; process into methane; use methane; CO2 into atmosphere of Earth. externalX -> pr'X -> us'X -> extern'X

We're on different pages because AofST's process dosen't exist. In a perfect world, we'd take CO2 from the atmosphere and put it right back, however, we don't get our CO2 directly from the atmosphere.

And it doesn't exist because? This is an arguement, you need to provide proof. I've provided proof showing why it will work, and you just say, "It doesn't exist." Brilliant job refuting me...

Prove your method doesn't exist? It's common sense. How would we go about taking CO2 directly out of the atmosphere? Point a vacuum cleaner at the sky and filter it out of the air? Run around with butterfly nets and try to catch the CO2 molecules? In any case, it's your method, you can prove it exists. How do you suggest we take the CO2 directly from the atmosphere, because unless I'm missing something, it's a ridiculous concept.

I'll go ahead and tell you the main ways CO2 is obtained anyways.
1. Byproduct of amonia and hydrogen plants
2. Combustion of fossil fuels
3. Fermentation of alcohols
4. Byproduct of manufacture of lime
5. Byproduct of manufacture of sodium phospate
6. Directly from natural CO2 springs

Please note that none of those sources are the atmosphere. It is either manufactured, or taken from other other spheres of the Earth system other than the atmosphere (where it's not cotributing to global warming). If we were able to take CO2 directly out of the atmosphere, like you seem to think we do, global warming wouldn't even be a problem. By all means, feel free to explain how we would go about doing this, and how it would be less expesive/provide a greater net yeild than the current methods.