My thought is that a bonding agent could be produced that would absorb the carbon monoxide and convert it into a flammable liquid. The liquid could then be deposited into the gas tank.of the car
2006-07-01 16:26:14 · 4 answers · asked by JOHN M 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Chemistry
It is converted into a useful product.
Perhaps you've heard of the The Fischer-Tropsch process. It is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which carbon monoxide and hydrogen are converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various forms.
Dr. George Olah (a Nobel Laureate chemist) has proposed the use of methanol which can be produced from carbon monoxide as the best alternative solution to replace petroleum. Existing petroleum refineries can easily be converted to make most of the hydrocarbon products we presently make from oil to be made from methanol. Dr. Olah's ideas are probably more realistic methods of replacing our current dependence on petroleum than either hydrogen or ethanol. Both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide can be converted to liquid fuels and feedstock for chemical refineries that make plastics and other types of oil and gas products.
Here is Dr. Olah's book:
http://www.wiley-vch.de/publish/en/journalists/news/6030/?sID=
2006-07-01 19:03:22 · answer #1 · answered by carbonates 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Carbon monoxide can be and is in fact a useful product. It is used as a raw material in the manufacture of polycarbonate. CO is reacted with chlorine gas to make phosgene which is one of the building blocks for polycarbonate plastic.
Carbon monoxide is also known as coal gas. It is produced by the incomplete combustion of coal or carbon, and is used like natural gas in your home. It just doesn't have the energy content as methane gas.
2006-07-01 18:20:27 · answer #2 · answered by richard Alvarado 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How would you control how much was bonded? I mean, it really helps plants grow you know. I think it is a great thought but if something's trash is something else's treasure, I think it is good enough as designed. Now, if it was destroying the planet, let's find something else to do with it/
2006-07-01 16:31:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you are suggesting to reverse the effects of burning.
doing this would necessarily require at least as much energy as burning the resulting fuel would produce, and probably more.
Not to mention that this is pretty complex reaction, and is best left to plants who operate on free solar energy.
2006-07-01 16:30:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋