|
Monday, December 17, 2007 Turning Carbon Dioxide into FuelResearchers are harnessing solar energy to convert carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide, which can be used to make fuels. By Duncan Graham-Rowe
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. 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. 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." |
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
Cheap Ethanol from Tires and Trash
01/14/2008
Comments
Viv on 12/17/2007 at 5:38 AM
8
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;-)
ChuckInReno on 12/17/2007 at 7:56 PM
10
jaggspb on 12/21/2007 at 9:03 AM
9
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?
Hardheadjarhead on 12/18/2007 at 8:40 AM
15
amgillard on 12/17/2007 at 7:16 AM
6
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?
jvmoye on 12/17/2007 at 7:19 AM
6
mabduhu on 12/17/2007 at 3:29 PM
7
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?
mmarriam on 12/17/2007 at 5:57 PM
1
DJTal on 01/11/2008 at 3:42 AM
109
karlchwe on 02/04/2008 at 1:22 PM
1
superposed on 02/07/2008 at 12:13 PM
1
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...)