The perfect energy storage compound in nature?

[P-hack]

if the source of the co2 is fossil fuel, then we can entertain calling it pollution.

[user removed]

I want a "tank" full of electric eels!

regards
Mech

[NeilBlanchard]

If the carbon dioxide comes from plants, which pulled it out of the air as they grew, then it won't change the long term balance - and so it is not a pollutant. But if carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuels, which otherwise would have remained buried underground - then it is a pollutant.

[P-hack]

plus the use of fossil fuels in production, which makes all us mouth breathers polluters.

[user removed]

Plant more stuff that uses photosynethsis, suck that carbon out of the atmosphere.
The we can have a carbon shortage.

Separate the methane out of the atmosphere, let the termites make us fuel and deliver it for free.

regards
Mech

[RedDevil]

Think of it - we now produce sugar to make ethanol to burn it in ICE engined cars... What a waste!

Combined with the possibility to convert woodlike plants for glucose production - possibly turning the chaff of food crops into a primary resource - like I described in the polarizing ethanol thread - glucose is the way to go.
Maybe there's no need to polarize after all

[Astro]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If the carbon dioxide comes from plants, which pulled it out of the air as they grew, then it won't change the long term balance - and so it is not a pollutant. But if carbon dioxide comes from fossil fuels, which otherwise would have remained buried underground - then it is a pollutant.

Yes, looking at the long term cycle the total CO2 levels should even out.
But it does seem a shame when the plants went to all the effort of removing the CO2 from the air (both fossil and sustainably derived) that we would then throw it back into the atmosphere.

"Move over forests, we need room for our sugar crops"
"But we just squeezed over for your food crops!"
"Yeah, that was yesterday, today we need sugar and lots of it, so move over or move out"
"You will miss us when we are gone."
"Nah, we will just drive somewhere nicer in our sugarmobiles"

[RedDevil]

The carbon needs to go full circle. If we have to store it, that would be to compensate for burning fossil fuel, not biofuel.
It is a matter of efficiency too; this technology promises to be much more efficient than turning glucose into ethanol to burn it in an ICE. So we'd need less glucose for the same power.
We may not need the edible part of food crops for glucose fuel production, as I pointed out earlier.

At some point in time there will be no more abundance of fossil fuel. Something needs to change or at that time we will not be able to drive anywhere.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by Astro

Umm... I don't think it could be called pollution free if one of its main by products is CO2.

Or did i miss something?

If the maltodextrin is biologically derived, it's closed loop, assuming there's no emissions from the agriculture.

0.8mW/cm^2 seems pretty low. How much surface area can be packed into a reasonable tank volume for a car?

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

I want a "tank" full of electric eels!

regards
Mech

Methane power! I want a car that runs on chicken s**t!

Don't scoff - it actually was done during the gas shortages of the 1970's. It may not be politically correct these days, but it would save the world from the pollution of unused farts. (Pardon me while nature calls... I wish I could can my flatulence... and be careful, don't strike any matches nearby!)