Process to convert CO2 to fuel

the_5th_ape · #1 by **the_5th_ape** » Oct 19, 2016 1:42 pm

In a new twist to waste-to-fuel technology, scientists at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have developed an electrochemical process that uses tiny spikes of carbon and copper to turn carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into ethanol. Their finding, which involves nanofabrication and catalysis science, was serendipitous.

“We discovered somewhat by accident that this material worked,” said ORNL’s Adam Rondinone, lead author of the team’s study published in ChemistrySelect. “We were trying to study the first step of a proposed reaction when we realized that the catalyst was doing the entire reaction on its own.”

https://www.ornl.gov/news/nano-spike-ca ... ly-ethanol

ScholasticSpastic · #2 by **ScholasticSpastic** » Oct 19, 2016 1:54 pm

I've been a critical fuck lately. So despite the fact that I'm confident you don't need my validation, you're going to get some, anyway. Good article! Good post!

Alan B · #3 by **Alan B** » Oct 19, 2016 2:02 pm

Bloody Hell! 63% yield!

That's 50% more than a good whisky. :drunk:

Collect all the CO2 from a car exhaust, put it through one of these catalysts, use the heat from the exhaust to distil the ethanol, feed it back into the fuel tank... :shifty:

aban57 · #4 by **aban57** » Oct 19, 2016 3:06 pm

Read that this afternoon, very promising. What I don't understand is the concept that "we hit the highest levels of atmospheric CO2 in 4 million years, and it’s now permanent, meaning we’ll never be able to drop to 'safe' levels again." which I read here.

mrjonno · #5 by **mrjonno** » Oct 19, 2016 3:13 pm

Don't trees do a good job of converting CO2 into stored energy into a form generally known as trees?

ScholasticSpastic · #6 by **ScholasticSpastic** » Oct 19, 2016 3:14 pm

aban57 wrote:What I don't understand is the concept that "we hit the highest levels of atmospheric CO2 in 4 million years, and it’s now permanent, meaning we’ll never be able to drop to 'safe' levels again." which I read here.

I think they're using the term permanent from a humans-as-relatively-ephemeral-beings perspective rather than as a term meaning it cannot be reversed. Within my lifetime, and my son's lifetime, and whatever children he may or may not sire's lifetime(s), the CO2 in the atmosphere is, for all intents and purposes, permanent. But it's somewhere between Roman Ruins permanent and never live it down permanent, and nowhere near geological strata permanent.

newolder · #7 by **newolder** » Oct 19, 2016 3:19 pm

mrjonno wrote:Don't trees do a good job of converting CO2 into stored energy into a form generally known as trees?

Yes. Plant 'efficiency' is lower than solar panels but solar panels don't reproduce...

ScholasticSpastic · #8 by **ScholasticSpastic** » Oct 19, 2016 3:22 pm

newolder wrote:
mrjonno wrote:Don't trees do a good job of converting CO2 into stored energy into a form generally known as trees?

Yes. Plant 'efficiency' is lower than solar panels but solar panels don't reproduce...

The big problem with trees is that we tend to want to use tree-growing space for growing people and people food, so trees will only be a viable long-term carbon sink if we stop encroaching on their habitats. Otherwise, the tree situation will continue to show up on the bad side of the carbon ledger.

felltoearth · #9 by **felltoearth** » Oct 20, 2016 11:44 am

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
newolder wrote:
mrjonno wrote:Don't trees do a good job of converting CO2 into stored energy into a form generally known as trees?

Yes. Plant 'efficiency' is lower than solar panels but solar panels don't reproduce...

The big problem with trees is that we tend to want to use tree-growing space for growing people and people food, so trees will only be a viable long-term carbon sink if we stop encroaching on their habitats. Otherwise, the tree situation will continue to show up on the bad side of the carbon ledger.

Not to mention that the process for clearing the land involves burning said trees. Decades of CO2 sequestering released in a moment.

tolman · **#10** by **tolman** » Oct 20, 2016 12:11 pm

It's certainly an interesting process, assuming these or future catalysts would be durable in an industrial process.

Being able to store excess electricity with reasonable efficiency would be great, especially if progress with ethanol-based fuel cells meant conversion back to electricity was cheap and efficient, either for grid-based power-re-generation or transport uses.

mcgruff · **#11** by **mcgruff** » Oct 20, 2016 5:00 pm

aban57 wrote:What I don't understand is the concept that "we hit the highest levels of atmospheric CO2 in 4 million years, and it’s now permanent, meaning we’ll never be able to drop to 'safe' levels again." which I read here.

It's definitely not permanent. CO2 gets scrubbed out of the atmosphere by natural processes and when our emissions drop to near-zero the atmospheric concentration will start to fall. Huge amounts of CO2 are dissolved in the ocean and this acts as a buffer to the atmospheric CO2. It will probably take over 100,000 years for the atmospheric concentration to return to "normal" (ie the level it would be without anthropogenic influences). The graph of CO2 v time has a sharp rise and a long tail though. Towards the end of the curve we're pretty close to normal levels even though the anthropogenic CO2 pulse hasn't been completely eliminated.

mcgruff · **#12** by **mcgruff** » Oct 20, 2016 5:02 pm

newolder wrote:Yes. Plant 'efficiency' is lower than solar panels but solar panels don't reproduce...

...yet.

newolder · **#13** by **newolder** » Oct 20, 2016 5:11 pm

mcgruff wrote:
newolder wrote:Yes. Plant 'efficiency' is lower than solar panels but solar panels don't reproduce...

...yet.

Yes, when perovskite (or other converter) becomes available as ink for 3-D printers, the energy from previous panels can be used to print more. Any idea on the time-scale for such likelihood? :dunno:

Sill, the petrol-head community will need something other than the electric to keep their vintage vehicles working... :popcorn:

Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Re: Process to convert CO2 to fuel

Who is online