Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Turning Carbon Dioxide into Fuel

Researchers are harnessing solar energy to convert carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide, which can be used to make fuels.

By Duncan Graham-Rowe

Monday, December 17, 2007

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Could concentrated solar energy be used to reverse combustion and convert carbon dioxide back into gasoline? That's what scientists at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, NM, aim to find out by building a novel reactor that can chemically "reenergize" carbon dioxide.

Sun power: Putting the finishing touches on a giant solar collector, which researchers at Sandia National Laboratories will use to power a novel reactor capable of producing carbon monoxide from carbon dioxide. The carbon monoxide can then be used in the manufacture liquid fuels.
Credit: Randy Montoya

The device uses a two-stage thermochemical reaction to break down carbon dioxide to produce carbon monoxide, says Nathan Siegel, a senior member of technical staffat Sandia's Solar Technologies Department and one of the researchers developing the technology. "Carbon dioxide is a combustion product, so what we're doing is reversing combustion," he says. The carbon monoxide can then readily be employed to produce a range of different fuels, including hydrogen, methanol, and gasoline, using conventional technologies.

Within the Sandia reactor, invented by Sandia researcher Rich Diver, is a ring of a cobalt-ferrite ceramic material, which is essentially made up of iron oxide and cobalt. A parabolic solar concentrator directs sunlight onto the ceramic material, heating it to around 1,500 °C and causing it to give up oxygen.

As the ring continually rotates, the reduced material passes into a second, separate chamber containing carbon dioxide. Having given up its oxygen, the ceramic reacts with the carbon dioxide, stealing oxygen atoms off it. The result is the production of carbon monoxide. The process is continuous, so that the oxidized ceramic once again passes back into the solar chamber where it is again reduced. "It will work with either carbon dioxide to make carbon monoxide or with water to make hydrogen," says Siegel.

At least that's the theory. The Sandia group has carried out proof of principle demonstrations of various stages of the device but has yet to show that they all work together. The team is building a prototype that will be ready for testing by late spring. "It's 95 percent built," says Siegel.

The cobalt-ferrite ceramic was originally developed in Japan and is easy to produce. To maximize its effect, the material is constructed into a matrix of crisscrossing one-millimeter-diameter rods. This has the effect of producing a high surface area with which to react with the carbon dioxide.

By next June, the researchers expect to have the reactor's performance mapped out, and if it does as well as they expect, a practical version could be available within five years.

"At the moment, we are looking at getting carbon dioxide from industrial sources," says Siegel. The real potential, however, is to capture carbon-dioxide emissions and reuse them as fuel. "We're also looking at ways to pull carbon dioxide out of the air," he says. This would allow the reactor to be mounted anywhere, sucking up the atmospheric greenhouse gas and turning it into fuel. However, Siegel stresses, this is at a much earlier stage of development.

Story continues below


Despite the huge potential, there is currently very little research into finding ways to harness solar energy to produce carbon monoxide from carbon dioxide, says Siegel. But such technology deals with two problems directly: putting carbon dioxide to good use, and finding a way to make the best of the sporadic nature of solar energy. "It offers a way to store this solar energy and use it when you want it," he says.

It's excellent work and, in principle, scientifically quite possible, says Christian Sattler, of the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics at the German Aerospace Center, in Cologne. "The question is, at what efficiency?" he says. "How much energy does it take to carry out this reduction? It may be more efficient to use the solar energy for direct power production."

Comments

  • Global cooling next? oh my god!
    So who will be first with dire warnings of global cooling caused by excessive carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere to make fuel?

    Its a satirical comment but based on the fact too few look upon Co2 as a valuable resource and basic feed stock for a number of products.

    It will be a cold day some were when the average industrialist looks at a coal fired power station chimney and says to himself, hold on a moment thats money we are dumping up that thing;-)
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Viv
    12/17/2007
    Posts:18
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Global cooling next? oh my god!
      Speaking strictly from an energetic perspective, CO2 is pretty far down the list of potential fuels. It's just got little internal energy, relative to other related species, such as CO.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ChuckInReno
      12/17/2007
      Posts:19
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Global cooling next? oh my god!
        They are using CO2 to make CO in this process.  This allows for the storage of solar energy for longer term usage.

        What would be even better would be to convert solar direct into electricity at the facility and use the indirect transfer heat to feed this process as well.  

        Wouldn't the net efficiency be greater than 15% then?
        Rate this comment: 12345

        jaggspb
        12/21/2007
        Posts:9
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
    • Re: Global cooling next? oh my god!
      I seriously doubt we're going to have global cooling from too little carbon dioxide.  We have enough coal in the ground alone to provide two hundred years of energy...and two hundred years of carbon dioxide "resources." 
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Hardheadjarh...
      12/18/2007
      Posts:16
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • CO2 into Plastic
    Remember we had the recent article about turning Carbon Dioxide into Plastics :

    http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/19697/

    I thought either the fuel or biodegradable packaging options (or possibility of
    non-biodegradable for long-term storage benefits) had a lot to offer.
    I want to know what happens to these ideas next?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    amgillard
    12/17/2007
    Posts:10
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • co2 sources
    Clean Co2 emitted from ethanol plants, along with the waste heat from the plant might be a good place to install these devices.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jvmoye
    12/17/2007
    Posts:7
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • WOW!
    Simply amazing! Like it said, this solves the problem. But before we brand it the "silver bullet" how much CO2 will this actually take out?

    I'm having fantasies, but if we went near carbon neutral with everything we could use as much fossil fuel as we like! (until it runs out)

    Wishful thinking perhaps?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mabduhu
    12/17/2007
    Posts:9
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • fuel from CO2
    How possibly ironic that by the time this technology reaches maturity, all sources of C02 will be owned by people who have been going about busily buying up all the carbon credits they can get their hands on.  We'll just end up trading an oil cartel for a C02 cartel.  I recall hearing that our esteemed, Nobel Prize winning ex-vice president is in that business already?  Does anyone know if that is true?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mmarriam
    12/17/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
  • Dejavu......
    Why is this article being repeated ? Get some new stories in TR .
    Rate this comment: 12345

    DJTal
    01/11/2008
    Posts:145
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Efficiency?
    It is good to pursue all reasonable avenues toward reducing atmospheric CO2, but I wonder if this method, which uses solar energy to convert CO2 back into a useful fuel (CO), will ever be as efficient as using solar energy to produce heat and electricity directly, thereby reducing demand for fossil fuels and thus reducing CO2 emissions. Both are just ways methods of converting solar energy into other forms of energy.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    karlchwe
    02/04/2008
    Posts:1
  • some people are missing the point
    This is not a way to make fossil fuels carbon-neutral, nor can it lead to a shortage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It takes carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere (or would soon be), and converts it into a fuel. When that fuel is burned, the carbon dioxide will go back to the atmosphere in equal measure.

    If this is used with carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, the best it will do is allow that carbon to be used twice (once in the first combustion, again in the synthetic fuel), boosting the amount of energy produced per unit of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere (but not eliminating those emissions entirely!).

    The best-case scenario would be for this to provide a substitute for fossil fuels. In this case, carbon dioxide would be extracted from the atmosphere and converted into methane, methanol, gasoline, etc. Then, when that fuel is burned, the carbon dioxide would be re-released to the atmosphere (no net decrease, but no increase in concentration either). This process may be less efficient than direct production of steam and electricity from solar energy, but has the advantage of producing a fuel that can be stored for darker times, or used for long-distance transport. Hydrogen is the only other option people have found for doing that.

    Once we get to a completely carbon-neutral society (!), an even better scenario would be to use this process to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, create synthetic fossil fuels, and put them back underground, reducing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. That way we could avoid some of the delayed warming that our emissions have otherwise committed us to already. (A person can dream...)
    Rate this comment: 12345

    superposed
    02/07/2008
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: some people are missing the point
      you are absolutely right. this is a carbon neutral technology. it will only create a minor rarification based on the volume of fuels that have been created and are currently being stored. so the volumes of all storage containers on earth (not counting putting it back where we got the oil/coal from) is the max reduction in CO2 volumes that you would see. what would end up happening is that they would reduce by a certain amount and then hold steady due to the carbon neutral nature.


      the main benefit to this is that it fits in with our current economy/infrastructure and that it can, given the right circumstances, grant individual nations energy freedom since it would be using a particle that is in essence evenly distributed over the earth's surface. in reality it isn't, but the fluctuations would be subtle enough that you wouldn't see anyone going to war over how much CO2 there is in the air over the land.


      also, to the person who suggested global cooling might happen... that would be a welcomed change... we know how to warm our planet up ;-)
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Adalast
      10/18/2009
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      5/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.