The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Solid idea: A micrograph of a new catalyst, made primarily of carbon, nitrogen, and platinum, that is used to convert methane into a liquid fuel (methanol).
Regina Palkovits, Max Planck Institute for Coal Research
An improved catalyst could reduce the cost of making methanol from methane.
A new catalyst for converting methane, the main component of natural gas, into a liquid fuel--methanol--has been developed by researchers in Germany. The catalyst could make direct conversion of methane to methanol cheaper than it is with existing catalysts, but it will likely fall short of a holy grail of hydrocarbon chemistry--a catalyst that allows natural gas to replace petroleum fuels on a large scale.
The new catalyst is based on one of the few catalysts that convert methane directly to methanol, at low temperatures, without producing much carbon dioxide or other unwanted byproducts. That catalyst, developed by Roy Periana, now a professor of chemistry at the Scripps Research Institute, proved too expensive to commercialize.
The new catalyst, described in the early online version of the journal Angewandte Chemie, has "solved one of the main problems with Periana's catalyst," says Ferdi Schüth, director of the Max Planck Institute for Coal Research, who led the work. Because Periana's catalyst is a liquid dissolved in sulfuric acid, it's difficult to recycle, a serious problem because the catalyst requires the expensive metal platinum. The new catalyst is a solid, says Schüth, and so is much easier to recycle because it can be removed from the sulfuric acid simply with filters.
Schüth says the discovery of the solid catalyst was "serendipitous." His colleagues had developed a polymer with a molecular structure that he recognized was similar to Periana's catalyst. He was able to incorporate platinum into that structure and showed that the resulting solid catalyst performed as well as the liquid version.
Methane-based fuels could be significantly cleaner than petroleum ones. What's more, the supply of natural gas is vast, with large supplies now being accessed with new drilling techniques and orders of magnitude more potentially available in the form of methane hydrates at the bottom of the ocean. But because it is a gas, methane is more expensive to transport and less convenient for use in vehicles than liquid fuels, and so far chemical methods of converting it to a liquid have been costly.
While the new catalyst does solve one of the problems with the Periana catalyst, "it is by no means the biggest problem," says Jay Labinger, faculty associate in chemistry at Caltech. Indeed, Periana says that the development of a solid version of his catalyst will not be enough to commercialize it. He is working on new catalysts that use the similar mechanisms but cheaper and more effective materials.
The two key issues are typical problems for experimental catalysts--they don't work fast enough, which increases the size and cost of equipment needed, and they don't produce high enough concentrations of the desired product, making it expensive to separate the product from other chemicals. Labinger estimates that the rates of the new German catalyst need to increase by an order of magnitude, and Periana says the concentrations need to increase three- to fivefold.
Periana suggests, however, that the German catalyst may offer new directions for research, especially if the mechanisms involved in producing the methanol are different from his liquid catalyst. Indeed, Schüth says that one key component of Periana's catalyst, chlorine, isn't necessary with the new form, suggesting it could work by different means. Meanwhile, he's also developing catalysts that use different materials. One is promising, he says, producing methanol at rates two times faster than Periana's liquid catalyst.
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.
TooMany
125 Comments
Methanol versus Solar Fusion
Hydrocarbon fuels are not a long term solution. The sun is there just waiting for some clever engineering to build practical solar-thermal conversion plants. Battery technology is advancing, albeit slowly. Together they are a beautiful solution. Why don't we concentrate some real effort on this?
Reply
erbium
340 Comments
HC are not a long term solution?
I disagree.
Hydrocarbons we dig up from underground certainly are not a long term solution.
However all that sunline and solar thermal needs to be stored somewhere that can hold ALOT of energy in a compact form, be easy transported around the country, and not lose power over time.
Hydrocarbons fit that perfectly:
1) If we use renewable power in combination with chemical capture of carbon (as demonstrated on a discovery show recently) or biological capture (as demonstrated by commercial projects using algae to capture CO2, reported on this website)
2) internal combustion engines have been around along time and are in place. fuels from renewable powered carbon capture can fuel these easily, switching us OFF dug up hydrocarbons painlessly.
3) when produced in forms like relatively pure methanol, hydrocarbons can be fed into fuel cells whose only pollution is CO2 + water, not particulates, not much nitric oxides, and goes back into atmosphere to be recycled back into fuel like the CO2 for plants yearly cycles in and out of atmosphere to the biosphere. Fuel cells, unlike batteries, burn chemicals internally to produce electricity without a combustion step and they are twice as efficient converting fuel to electricity but need a relatively pure fuel like methanol or hydrogen. This step alone, if they can get fuel cell membranes down in cost and lifetimes up, would immediately cut fuel use in half due to double the efficiency, and cars powered by these could supplement the power grid by powering your home or remote cabin at night.
4) liquid hydrocarbons can be transported from sunny areas around the country including the northeast with existing gasoline and natural gas pipelines. The directions and products might change a bit but there are pipelines from the sunny SW to Los Angeles area connected to Texas, which connects to the SE and NW US.
5) batteries at their best store only 1/100th or less the energy density of chemical fuel, and wear out after 500 to 1500 charging cycles. Deep cycle charging use makes them wear out even quicker, which is why hybrid car powerpacks are oversized.
6) would you drive a car that lost a good percent of its miles range in the years as you drove it? internal combustion engines do but you can tune them up or repair valves or engines and they are back pretty close to original specs for a very long time compared to batteries.
Much as I love the idea of getting away from hydrocarbons, when you think about them they make alot more sense than most other forms of energy. And if used as an energy transfer media rather than primary souce such as digging up from underground, they seem to be the logical choice for the future. Vaguely logical movies aside, there were among these reasons GM gave up on its early electric car.
I'd say they have a place around town only but not for mainstream transportation or long distance driving.
Would you want your only car to be one that died after 100 miles and took 8 hours to charge? I'd want to be able to get more range and quicker charge, as I'm sure a million Houstonians would, when fleeing the city for hurricane evacuation.
The battery car emperor has no clothes till they significantly improve energy storage density and reduce cost, improve lifetimes. And we have more reasonable alternatives than shoveling money down this money pit. Going this route means we can painlessly convert one step at a time. Once majority of cars have a fuel cell that takes methanol we could easily also switch to plain hydrogen or gas stations that provide hydrogen on demand fueling your car up with (magnesium or aluminum) + water so your car could create hydrogen on demand as you drive WITHOUT STORING HYDROGEN in gaseous form.
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html
NASA tech brief:
http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/3498
Reply