(Page 2 of 2)
In the prototype device, sunlight passes through carbon dioxide dissolved in a solution before being absorbed by a semiconductor cathode, which converts photons into electrons. Aided by a catalyst, the electrons react with carbon dioxide to form carbon monoxide at the electrode. At the anode--a catalyst made of platinum--water is converted into oxygen.
To make a fuel, the carbon monoxide can be combined with hydrogen to create syngas in a well-known technology called the Fischer-Tropsch process, which has been widely used to make gasoline from coal. With the new process for creating syngas, however, fossil fuels could be unnecessary.
The system--which Kubiak began developing as a way of manufacturing oxygen for manned missions to Mars, which has a carbon-dioxide-rich atmosphere--is still a work in progress. In the first prototype, only about half of the energy needed for the reactions was supplied by the sun, with the rest coming from outside electricity. That's because the researchers decided to prove the concept using silicon as the semiconductor. They are now working with a gallium-phosphide semiconductor, which has exactly the right electronic properties to drive the necessary reactions using sunlight alone.
At this early stage--Kubiak says that commercial systems could be 10 years away--the efficiency and economics of making fuels this way aren't known. Kubiak says it's likely that for large-scale applications, his group will need to use catalyst-coated nanoparticles to increase surface area, speeding up reactions.
A copper-based catalyst helps turn the gas into antifreeze and household cleaners.
An improved catalyst could help oil refineries get more gasoline out of a barrel of crude petroleum.
Researchers have found a cheap and easy way to store the energy made by solar power.
Also possible with other energy sources?
If I understood this article right gasoline from carbon dioxide can be produced with any energy source, for instance wind energy which has the same “storage problem” as solar energy. I am curious about the feasible efficiency, can it compete with the electric car development since batteries are improving very fast?
http://www.greeninventions.net
Re: Also possible with other energy sources?
As to whether it can compete...given the development of electric/plug-in/hybrids...I'd say yes.
It mentioned plastics could be formed from this process. We still need those. Further, hybrids need a fuel sources. The "Volt" concept car's hydrogen fuel cell isn't perfected yet, so the generator will run off of gas or ethanol.
If this process could be made efficient and cheap, one could hope that the petroleum companies would jump on it and incorporate it.
When you think about it, a concrete manufacturing plant would be able to use this to defray their production costs by taking their power bills down. Any plant that produced CO2 could use it.
Hello,
I think the development of this technology would be limited, as for the fuel-cell, by its need of platinum.
Best regards.
Combining CO2 with H2 to make syngas (and thus methanol), methane or other products is existing technology. Where do you get the CO2? Isolating it out of air is not a serious option.
Storing H2 from solar powered water electrolysis in the form of methanol or indeed gasoline would be best done by combining the hydrogen with biomass (wood, straw, etc)-derived "carbon" (CO, most conveniently)
CO2 is the byproduct of coal fired combustion. It is most easily collected at coal fired power-plants from the stack gases.
The process of >Making Gasoline from Carbon Dioxide< may also be accomplished by a more direct process using a methanol fuel cell technology in reverse.
"Interview of Professor George OLAH (Nobel Prize, 1994)"
http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/methanol_olah-06.htm
"The second approach involves carbon dioxide. We were co-inventors of the direct methanol fuel cell. This fuel cell uses methanol and produces CO2 and water. It occurred to us that maybe you could reverse the process. And, indeed, you can take carbon dioxide and water, and if you have electric power, you can chemically reduce it into methanol."
The methanol can then be reacted as follows:
http://chemelab.ucsd.edu/methanol/memos/final.html
"The MTG process was discovered by accident by researchers at Mobil corporation. They had been trying to use zeolite ZSM-5 to convert methanol into a fuel additive. The process instead produced dimethyl ether, which with increasing space time next produced olefins (alkenes), and finally paraffins (alkanes) and aromatics. This mixture of paraffins and aromatics is commonly known as gasoline."
The power to run the methanol fuel cells would come from any source for direct use, e.g., wind, solar, wave, geo-thermal, nuclear, etc. The benefit of this approach is that the existing infrastructure (gasoline, service stations, refineries (blending centers), auto manufacturing, 100 million cars on the road, etc.) all remain viable and CO2 emissions get cut at least 1/3! In due course, the sustained dependance on foreign oil as feedstock for gasoline can be ended.
But using CO2 from fossil-fuel-fired power plants only delays its addition to the atmosphere, so that process would still add to global warming. Instead we will ultimately have to collect CO2 from the air. This could be done biologically or with artificial photosynthesis, but the area required for collecting sufficient Sunlight may make these methods impractical. A more compact alternative is to mechanically condense CO2 from the air, then dissociate it into CO + O via electrolysis or a reverse fuel cell, and proceed from there. That of course requires a large energy input from carbon-neutral sources (nuclear, etc.). It will soon be illegal to use fossil derived carbon so we need to intensively explore ways to manufacture liquid hydrocarbon vehicle fuels.
"But using CO2 from fossil-fuel-fired power plants only delays its addition to the atmosphere, so that process would still add to global warming. Instead we will ultimately have to collect CO2 from the air."
>>>>>>>>Right on both counts!
A: Reducing CO2 from power plants delays the inevitable >>if, and only if<< we burn the products we create without further measures.
1. Scaled up considerably, we can eventually recycle the carbon: I.e., use the methanol for electric power plants. (I.e., methanol becomes a portable, and sellable, energy storage medium for solar/wave/wind collection systems).
2. We can choose to use the methanol carbon products to make plastics, etc. Chosen wisely, we can make bio-degradeable plastics for construction, etc. This lessens the use of foreign oil and sequesters the carbon.
B: Collecting CO2 from the air, via the time honored air liquification process, will provide a source of CO2 raw material. This might also use solar/wave/wind as a power source. This becomes viable when local sources of powerplant CO2 become uneconomical to exploit.
Both of these solutions are feasable, but the problem is getting such a program to be economically viable from an investor point of view. At first, the best invsetment is to support the coal/oil companies (mostly they are the same), and the infrastructure industries (like car companies and fuel distributors) while pulling down the CO2 emissions. Re-using CO2 as a raw material in large scale production (10 - 15 years) will allow us to then realize that the extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere is a means to generate saleable energy/plastic products to less advanced (politically/economically) countries. In the end, the problem may become "not enough CO2".
Richard, you say:
"But using CO2 from fossil-fuel-fired power plants only delays its addition to the atmosphere, so that process would still add to global warming."
Whether this is so or not depends on whether there is a negative impact on the harvest and combustion of new quanta of existing fossil hydrocarbons.
Clearly, if this process were economically and energetically feasible, but simply added to cheap hydrocarbon inventories, it might simply lead to more profligate hydrocarbon combustion -- with no net gain in GHG-emission reduction. (There might still be some other benefits of course) The same objection could be made of course to biofuel use.
This however, seems unlikely, especially if some form of lifecycle-based carbon trading or emissions taxes regime came in. I suspect that there are better uses for solar and other low footprint energy sources than this process, and that old-fashioned photosythesis using algae are going to have rather larger pay offs.
You also claim in passing that nuclear energy is "carbon neutral". This simply isn't so. At the moment, enormous amounts of fossil energy (mostly diesel fuel) are used extracting uranium oxide, dealing with the overburden and pumping water for filtration. Then there's the energy associated with plant construction and the pouring of all that concrete. And of course, nuclear plants and the transport of nuclear materials require massive security all of which requires considerable fossil energy. And as uranium oxide concentrations fall, EROEI will only decline and CO2 footprints rise.
I'm not aware of any energy production technology that is absolutely carbon-neutral. Some of course are far lower than others in lifecycle terms. In terms of nuclear, use of Thorium as the fertile material would be far lower than what is done now, because there's a lot more Thorium about, and the resultant material isn't as hazardous.
But really, for low carbon footprint technologies that can be used ubiquitously, it's hard to beat biomass (especially from waste sources) and wind/wave/tidal.
Fran
Using CO to make gasoline or other hydrocarbons like methanol requires hydrogen, which is energy-expensive to obtain. One way to get the energy to separate the hydrogen from H2O is to use a high temperature gas reactor, such as a pebble bed reactor, which can attain temperatures of 850-950 C, using a sulfur-iodine or high temperature electrolysis technology. Plese look at pebblebedreactor.blogspot.com.
I have an idea the would be a great way to convert Carbon Dioxid (CO2) gases into usable fuels. First the CO2 gases from a regular automible is bubled (mixed with) through heavy Salt Water so that a mist of CO2+H2O is created. Then the mixed water and CO2 is the run accrost an ecectro magnet core made of a piece of soft steal wraped with electro magnet copper wire. As the gases CO2 Water mist passes paralel (they must be going in the same direction as the electromagnet in order to be affected) to the electro magnet, electrons from the electro magnet are added when the CO2=H2O mist pases as the electrons in the fule are alined with each other and the Electrons of the magnetic field, therein producing a plazma (electoron combined fuel)of hydgren-Oxeygen mixed CO2 burnable fuel. If the raactor core is further heated then the electron coleshion is further enhanced as the electron activity is then increased to produce and a better burnable fuel. The process is simple since the Automiblie has an abundance of CO and CO2 and there is pleanty of Salt Water. Any amount of this burnable fuel could then be added to the automobile to enhance the fule economy and elliminate all smoge, as then all the extra CO and CO2 Carbons would then be utalized therin increacing (doubleing) the car's milage? Well Hope this idea works, and of course if it does, don't forget to sent the royalty checks!? Thanks JW
Guest (architectrb)
Re: Why not store electricity by compressing air?
because the energy density is too low.
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
It's interesting as materials science research, but there's no way this will be an economically viable source of liquid fuels. This process is based on a rather expensive semiconductor technology, which I'm sure is less efficient from a solar energy standpoint than current state of the art PV technology (probably uses limited freq range of sunlight). In addition then you have to have a source of H2, which we already know is expensive and an inefficient use of energy. So we end up with... the world's most expensive petrol.
Better to use the solar to generate electricity either through PV or concentrating solar thermal, and if you want new nuclear in the mix just use it for electricity rather than H2 production.
Re: Interesting science... but
quoting from the article: "At the anode--a catalyst made of platinum--water is converted into oxygen."
Water cannot be converted to oxygen without also making hydrogen. That's where the hydrogen comes from, if the article is correct.
A much better idea than this..
..duh
Trees, grass, algae. All use sunlight to convert CO2 to carbon compounds, mainly sugar. Plant them, forget them. I can't believe anyone would seriously invest time and energy in a technological solution when the solution exists already. Imagine, no mining to get silicon ores, no refineries producing heavy metal residues, not energy consumed to transport and manufacture the solar cells.
This is just a stupid stupid stupid idea..
Re: A much better idea than this..
you're talking about biofuel (e.g. biodiesel). that has it's place, but the advantage of creating gasoline instead is that it can work with the cars still on the road.
biofuel is probably the better idea in the long run, but IMO bio-gasoline is an excellent way to transition the current system to that system.
Re: A much better idea than this..
>>your talking about biofuel
in part yes, but my main point is if you want to suck CO2 ot of the atmosphere, the "technology" exists, is so simple a 5 year old can do it (eg plant a tree) and the only environmental impact is positive. All you get with this lame solar cel idea is precursors which require even more energy to convert to gas, since CO is still a few energy leaps away from CH4 eg you still have to add energy to break the C-O bond and get CH4 or other alkane fuels from CO. Any energy that the subsequent fuel has, has got to be put into it first and where is that going to come from?
Bioproduced sugars and cellulose can be fermented by organisms to give ethanol. The only energy that needs to be added is distillation, and even that can be sucked from the ambient environment ( read solar again! ) by lowering the pressure in the distillation vessel. Ethanol can be a raw material for a huge number of fuels and materials. Other possible raw materials are the oils and waxes produced by many organisms. These products are what produced petroleum in the first place. At the end of the day wood, coal, petroleum, solar, hydro are just stored solar energy.
Solar cells are probably the worst possible method of using the energy of the sun.
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
Re: A much better idea than this..
Concentrating solar should certainly have it's place, especially here in the Southwest US. Solar water heaters as well. Both of these are proven technology that compare very well with other sources of energy when one considers the external costs.
Re: A much better idea than this..
The best bio fuel in my mind is bio deisel (Vegetable/seed based oils) which requires very little processing from the raw material. The standard deisel engine can use it. All trucks and heavy machiner already are deisel so there is a good starting point. The life of a vehicle is only 10 years so that is a resonable rate for the conversion of all vehicles to be deisels. Lets start now. Its a no brainer.
Re: A much better idea than this..
When you talk about biofuel I see your big cars 4 wheel drive etc. high consomateurs of fuels --and on the other side the vast aral surfaces necessary to run them , no thank you - hunger in the world is preeminent problem . The second generation of biofuels made by wood and all kinds off biomasse seems to be much more interessant.
Well Said, Time Traveler!! Increasing, not destroying, greenspace, coupled with conservation, are the bigest part of the answer.
Beyond that, all Alt-Energy except for nuclear is solar based, whether wind, biomass, photovoltaic etc. So the real question is WHAT GIVES US THE BEST BANG PER ACRE???
In the mean time, what remediation can be used ECONOMICALLY for any given polution or greenhouse source?
Every little bit helps.
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
In the end it's all nuclear... either fission or fusion.
Re: A much better idea than this..
Plants alone will not be enough. Since man has first started the industrial revolution more CO2 has been made than consumed by plants. Considering this is since the rain forests and plants on the earth were at their greatest numbers plants don't have a chance now.
1. energy conversion expense ... ridiculous
2. components ... expensive
3. solar on its own provides all the answers!
Mining carbon dioxide from the air.
Well, we now can mine carbon dioxide from the air:
http://www.livescience.com/technology/070501_carbon_capture.html
Sounds like an ALMOST zero sum game. We could essentially make gasoline at a nuke power plant.
Re: Mining carbon dioxide from the air.
Don't say nuclear. Nuclear leaves a huge mess that must be taken care of almost forever. Spent nuclear has a half-life of over 300k years.
Since IGCC power plants use coal or another fuel to produce CO and hydrogen in the gasifier process to power the plant and produce CO2 as a result of combustion, why can't the waste CO2 be broken down into the CO the plant uses in the first place and used as the feedstock in a closed loop? You would lose one of the power cycles when the fuel is gasified, but you would use the waste as fuel in the second power block. The CO feedstock from the waste CO2 would be clean and wouldn't require pollution clean up. Solar could be an ancillary part of the IGCC plant feeding both electricity into the grid and CO into the plant.
When photons are converted into electrons do they not convert the H+ ions of the water molecules to hydrogen.I can assume that the CO2 undergoes reduction with Hydrogen to form carbon monoxide.
From the article I conclude that electrons react with platinum catalyst at the anode to form oxygen molecules and at the other electrode carbondioxide reacts with electron to get reduced to carbon monoxide.Can the reaction process be explained in detail,since I am unable to comprehend the process.
Can they directly remove the CO from emissions?
Catalytic converters were added to gas engines to convert CO to CO2. This was done to remove smog (carbon monoxide). If this had not been done North America would be covered in 500' of smog by now. If there was a way to directly remove the CO from emissions this would save a lot of energy required for the conversion from CO2 back to CO.
I thought plants could absorb CO2....
Plants are already very efficient at using sunlight to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into complex molecules . Human technology is never going to be able do a better job of this than plants or be able to cover as wider area of the earth's surface....GET REAL....we need to do everything we can to encourage plant growth and increase biomass prodution . Would you rather see a forest of trees or a forest of solar panels ? .... discuss.
Re: I thought plants could absorb CO2....
agreed, but with many civilizations rapily expanding we're pushing plant growth back and to any other readers-lets not forget that engergy is never wasted-only converted...friction-heat...remember using electrlosis is a form of potential enery - eletricity is used to split H2 and O, bonding H2 and O = heat (using vague descriptions).
Hi, ATTENTION ANGEL INVESTORS
I am a Chemical Specialist with Dupont, I have devised a way to use the CO2 we create as a waste product from our combustion processes and regular (household water) H20 to produce the compound CH4 which can be used to fuel cars plus free o2 (Ozone) which has a value in an of itself can be sold for market prices. If we can get a Cogen Unit built that can be powered by the Syngas (CH4) to trasfer the heat energy into electricity I am certain we can produce the CH4 at extremely low cost in comparison to current oil cracking prices. The CO2 would be free or we could even charge to dispose of it as a hazardous waste much like spent sulfuric acid is done now in the H2so4 business, the product is simply recycled. Additionally water is very minimal cost. The only expense is the manufacturing of the CH4 and we will use the manufactured CH4 to do that. I estimate you will loose about 3/4 of the CH4 you manufacturer in the process by powering the cogen (electrical generator) unit. So we will be left with 1/4 of our feed stock as pure profit. Sounds good to me, so I just need investors to get this off the ground perhaps the government will lend a hand. I can help with the development and running of the unit since I have many many years of process experience and safety.
Thanks, 225-673-6975 jeffmsimoneaux@yahoo.com
Jeffrey Simoneaux
In fact,
If you want to talk about a propetual motion machine (a machine that can continue to produce motion forever) the closest we can come now theoritcally is to figure a way to absorb the CO2 gases and Hydrogen that sorrounds us abundantly in our own atmosphere, this could be used to fuel cars, planes, boats, space craft if we could find a way to harness these gases and produce fuel all in one process.. The engine would be sucking in the fuel stock at a slightly greater rate than it would be using it up and pure ozone would be released to our atmosphere how special would that be?? Maybe 100 years from now one of you will get that design together for me I would like my grandkids to see it???? how bout it?? Any takers? Jeff
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
zippo
24 Comments
This needs the immediate attention of governments everywhere.
*sputter*-*chokes an last gulp of Fanta*
Cool... gasoline sans petroleum or coal. Here that whistling noise? It's the sound of plummeting gas prices. :-)
I think I remember seeing this guy in a PBS doc too. It had something to do with manned Mars missions like the article mentions.
Reply
deejay
23 Comments
Re: This needs the immediate attention of governments everywhere.
Agree, govts need to pay immediate attention.... but I wdn't bet on the 'whistling' noise just yet, since in one very powerful, very gas-hungry country, the oil industry seems to rule policy-making of this sort!
But if it comes thru, I'll raise a toast to you, Zippo!
Reply
zippo
24 Comments
Re: This needs the immediate attention of governments everywhere.
'Aye! And a hearty one to you as well!
Reply