• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fuel from CO2?

Mach said:
Apparently they used copper as a catalyst and it worked.
Then they use pure copper and it didn't, they were stumped. Looking into it they found Oxygen impurities in the Cu were the key. Then they used QE to help determine the ideal configuration of Oxygen and Copper, and are working on perfecting that (based on a quick skim)

I like to see experiments becoming more and more digital, it really may start to boom at some point:



One day down the line, medicine will be there, and then it's on!
Click to expand...

I just wonder where the energy is coming from. All chemical energy comes from or is consumed by the creation and breaking of the bonds between atoms. With hydrocarbons, the bonds release energy when they are broken and consume it when they are created (generally speaking). In order for there to be energy to be released by the breaking of the chemical bonds, there had to have been energy used to create the bonds in the first place. Think of this like a battery. In order for you to get energy out of it, you first have to put energy into it. Yes catalysts can trigger reactions that create bonds, but at some point there is a demand for the energy needed to create the bonds. There are chemical compounds that work differently, but hydrocarbons are pretty straightforward in this. Plants use solar energy to create these bonds, so what's the source of energy being put to use to create the bonds needed for hydrocarbons in this process?
 
faithful_servant said:
All that would mean is that you'd have a solar cell with a lot of built in inefficiencies. Every chemical transaction looses some energy and the more transactions you have, the more energy you lose. If you want to utilize solar power, then do it directly, not by running it through a set of chemical transactions.
Click to expand...

The advantage of fuel conversion is the energy density. Solar power is great, but the required surface area makes it impractical for use in many tasks. Solar powered aircraft, for example, have to be too large and too light to be of much use in transportation. Cars and trucks run into the same problem, you can technically make a solar-powered car but it doesn't go very fast or haul a family of four.

So, you can use the "free" energy from solar panels to power production of hydrocarbon fuels. If atmospheric CO2 is the source of the carbon, and presumably water is the source of your hydrogen, you end up with a carbon-neutral energy source. Less efficient than just pulling more oil out of the ground? Sure. But doing that has other problems associated with it.
 
Deuce said:
The advantage of fuel conversion is the energy density. Solar power is great, but the required surface area makes it impractical for use in many tasks. Solar powered aircraft, for example, have to be too large and too light to be of much use in transportation. Cars and trucks run into the same problem, you can technically make a solar-powered car but it doesn't go very fast or haul a family of four.

So, you can use the "free" energy from solar panels to power production of hydrocarbon fuels. If atmospheric CO2 is the source of the carbon, and presumably water is the source of your hydrogen, you end up with a carbon-neutral energy source. Less efficient than just pulling more oil out of the ground? Sure. But doing that has other problems associated with it.
Click to expand...

So we take an inefficient source of energy, run it through an chemical process that has loss with every exchange and get out of it something that we have in abundance already??
 
faithful_servant said:
So we take an inefficient source of energy, run it through an chemical process that has loss with every exchange and get out of it something that we have in abundance already??
Click to expand...

Obviously the researchers have a more optimistic outlook.
 
faithful_servant said:
..or they're hoping for a big fat grant from someone who know less about chemistry than I do.
Click to expand...

These don't seem like "grant chasers."

The scientists are part of the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis (JCAP), a DOE Energy Innovation Hub, whose goal is to convert CO2 into high-value chemical products like liquid fuels. JCAP is led by Caltech in partnership with Berkeley Lab, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), and UC campuses at San Diego and Irvine.
“One of our tasks is to determine the exact sequence of steps for breaking apart water and CO2 into atoms and piecing them back together to form ethanol and oxygen,” says William Goddard (PhD ’65), the Charles and Mary Ferkel Professor of Chemistry, Materials Science, and Applied Physics, who led the Caltech team. “With these new studies, we have better ideas about how to do that.”
​
 
faithful_servant said:
So we take an inefficient source of energy, run it through an chemical process that has loss with every exchange and get out of it something that we have in abundance already??
Click to expand...
It helps to think of hydrocarbon storage as a special type of battery, that already has lots of demand,
and a large distribution network.
The energy is energy that would be lost to heat if not stored, and could potentially damage the power grid.
Think about a person with enough solar panels to run their air conditioner.
During spring and fall, they still get plenty of sunlight, but do not need their AC,
and their neighbors are all using minimal power also.
rather than going to waste, all the surplus could be stored as liquid fuels.
 
faithful_servant said:
So we take an inefficient source of energy, run it through an chemical process that has loss with every exchange and get out of it something that we have in abundance already??
Click to expand...

Yes, hydrocarbon fuels without the side effects of digging the stuff out of the ground and burning it.

And, essentially infinite quantities of it.
 
faithful_servant said:
All that would mean is that you'd have a solar cell with a lot of built in inefficiencies. Every chemical transaction looses some energy and the more transactions you have, the more energy you lose. If you want to utilize solar power, then do it directly, not by running it through a set of chemical transactions.
Click to expand...

That is quite true. The advantage would be in the possibility of storage other than in batteries.
 
the_recruit said:
This isn't what you think. "Converting" CO2 into fuel like ethanol requires at least as much energy as can ever be extracted by burning the fuel.
Click to expand...

Sure, energy has to be added. That's a no-brainer. The catalyst assists in the energy creating the desired change. It doesn't give free energy.


catalyst:

1
: a substance that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate or under different conditions (as at a lower temperature) than otherwise possible
​
 
RAMOSS said:
It's not 'pie in the sky', nor is it 'free'.. what they figured out is how to synthesis fuel using catalyst , co2, water, and electricity. The electricity has to come from SOMEPLACE... and right now, a lot of electricity is not 'green'. It's interesting, but I suspect that green electric production. , and new battery storage for cars are a much more likely scenario in the long run. Some of the graphene battery ultracapacitors are showing more promise than that.
Click to expand...

Making hydrocarbons from CO2 I think is the best modern solution we have. It can be done on near the sites of excess hydro-power, solar power, wind power, etc. It can then be stored indefinitely and used on demand.
 
faithful_servant said:
So we take an inefficient source of energy, run it through an chemical process that has loss with every exchange and get out of it something that we have in abundance already??
Click to expand...

They are acceptable loses, assuming they make it work.
 
Harshaw said:
I don't make that assumption, no.
Click to expand...
There is a good lecture on power to liquid from the guys who started all this (Fraunhofer Institute)
Hannover Messe, seems to have annual gathering of such technology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ytslUSxYSA
I am not sure if it is this years or last years talk, then mentioned that it helps the
efficiency to be near a large CO2 producer.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Making hydrocarbons from CO2 I think is the best modern solution we have. It can be done on near the sites of excess hydro-power, solar power, wind power, etc. It can then be stored indefinitely and used on demand.
Click to expand...

Yes.. it could.. and the infrastructure is there. However, it might not be the cleanest or most economical solution in the long run. I will be open to any possibilities that can be done economically enough to be cost effective.
 
I would not be surprised, If Exxon or Shell already had worked out a good process,
know the point of economic viability, and are simply waiting for oil to price itself out of the market.
If one looks at the companies holding the most patents, there are a lot of oil companies on that list.
http://www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2016_Top-300-Patent-Owners.pdf
While we in the US will not like to hear it, the likely price of gasoline will be about $3.50 per gallon
about the time all of this would become viable, but that would be because oil would be up over $90 a barrel again.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Sure, energy has to be added. That's a no-brainer. The catalyst assists in the energy creating the desired change. It doesn't give free energy.


catalyst:

1
: a substance that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate or under different conditions (as at a lower temperature) than otherwise possible
​
Click to expand...

Yes, but even in a catalytic reaction, the energy has to come from somewhere.
 
faithful_servant said:
With the disadvantage of a system that is predicated on inefficient processes for moving/storing energy.
Click to expand...
So far groups have said they have the process up to 70% efficient, (Audi/Sunfire),
It should be noted that Audi bought an old refinery when they started working on this idea.
We have not heard from Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ect, I.E. the people who hire most of the PhD petrochemical engineers.
 
faithful_servant said:
I just wonder where the energy is coming from.
Click to expand...
We provide it, like everything else. Ideally in a green energy cycle that needs backup power (nighttime, no wind time etc), you store energy. Storing it as a fuel like ethanol may be a good stepping stone considering ethanol is in our energy infrastructure already, and C02 is produced by burning it.

This is basically fundamental research in materials engineering for specific chemical properties in converting pollutants from fuel burning, back into fuel. But it's basically good research into how we can create useful materials to perform chemically/physically in ways we desire/predict. It's another tool in our toolbelt of engineering. With enough such tools, we jump entire "ages" in technological development. It's always a long play, but for those born at any given time, it's pretty nice to have modern (everything).

It is not intended to be a commercially viable end result, it's fundamental research that is credible enough and relevant enough to make it worthwhile to pursue and fund, etc.
What's interesting about it:
1. goes from C02 straight to a usable fuel, ethanol (in water I think for the hydrogen), with fairly good efficiency for a quick attempt
2. the way they engineer the catalyst and simulated it to get the desired results

It basically adds to the knowledge and trail blazing of what seems to be a somewhat "recyclable" energy process. Using C02 to ethanol, which burned creates C02 which can be turned again into ethanol...
Ethanol is good for today, ideally we'd prefer maybe methane? In any case, that's my take.

To make something commercially viable takes decades, likely a decade or more just to identify a good candidate (this is not directly a good candidate), and then 20-40 years to develop it. Sucks for us, but cool for our kids and the future of humanity.
 
faithful_servant said:
With the disadvantage of a system that is predicated on inefficient processes for moving/storing energy.
Click to expand...

All of our processes for moving/storing energy are inefficient. This one wouldn't have to be the most efficient method to end up being the most useful: electricity storage runs into severe problems with energy density, which end up reducing end-result efficiency. (the electric car has to drag the weight of its batteries around) Gasoline has a hundred times the energy per kilogram of lithium-ion batteries.

I figure it all boils down to how rapidly battery technology can improve. If someone closes that energy density gap from 1:100 to, say, 1:10 while not increasing the costs compared to lithium-ion, well, that's a trillion dollar invention and you wont be seeing gasoline-powered passenger cars anymore. But that's a pretty big leap in battery technology.

Functionally replacing gasoline really has to come from either battery technology revolution, or finding a relatively efficient method to produce the gasoline from atmospheric CO2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom