Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Turning CO2 into fuel....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Turning CO2 into fuel....

    Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives.


    Chemical Process Makes Fuel from Carbon Dioxide

    Carbon dioxide is part of nearly everything humans do. It comes out of the tailpipes of our cars, the stacks from most of our power plants and the nostrils on the tail end of every breath we take. From a climate change perspective, of course, all this CO2 is a problem, given the greenhouse property of the gas. A variety of solutions have been proposed, including burying the stuff deep below the earth or sea or switching to fuels that do not lead to its emission, but now a scientist from Italy has offered another possibility: turn it back into fuel.

    Chemist Gabriele Centi of the University of Messina in Italy uses solar energy gathered by a titanium dioxide film to ionize CO2 in its liquid form. Mixing this ionized liquid carbon dioxide with water, chemists can create longer carbon chains, much like photosynthesis in plants. In current tests the process can create some natural gas and methanol, but the number and type of carbon chains cannot be controlled.

    Centi's team decided to try to use carbon dioxide in its natural form: gas. In a device much like a fuel cell, known as a photoelectrocatalytic reactor, the researchers tested several potential catalysts, ranging from copper to carbon nanotubes. In each case, the process turned CO2 into more complex carbon molecules. Most intriguingly, depending on the catalyst involved, the researchers could create hydrocarbons with as many as nine carbon atoms--the kinds of useful fuels produced by industry using the so-called Fischer-Tropsch reaction--and with some control over the amount made. Further, by placing iron molecules within the carbon nanotubes, the process could be made even more efficient, though not as much as using expensive platinum or palladium. "It is a long time to practical applications," Centi says. But he notes it might prove useful on a manned mission to Mars, which cannot easily carry enough fuel for its return, to be able to make it on the Red Planet itself. Centi presented his new gas phase research on September 13 at the American Chemical Society meeting in San Francisco.

    --David Biello
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    Bloody ridiculous!

    If you burn the simplest organic molecule, methane, the reaction is

    CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O + energy

    To do the reverse, with whatever catalyst you like, you need the same amount of energy + some more, as the reaction will never be 100% efficient, even with perfectly stoichiometric proportions. The energy formed by burning the resultant HCs, whatever they may be will ALWAYS be less than the energy required to make the stuff. 2nd law of thermodynamics. So, what's the point?
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

    Comment


    • #3
      maybe this kind 9carbons fuel (I suppose its liquid) is stored more efficiently for later (emergency?) use than simply converting solar energy and storing it in batteries.
      plus, it takes the CO2 out of the atmosphere

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Brian Ellis
        Bloody ridiculous!

        If you burn the simplest organic molecule, methane, the reaction is

        CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O + energy

        To do the reverse, with whatever catalyst you like, you need the same amount of energy + some more, as the reaction will never be 100% efficient, even with perfectly stoichiometric proportions. The energy formed by burning the resultant HCs, whatever they may be will ALWAYS be less than the energy required to make the stuff. 2nd law of thermodynamics. So, what's the point?
        Glass half empty as apposed to Glass half full

        Perhaps it's that most think of Solar as FREE energy, the same way geothermal is used to power the hydrogen processing that is done in Iceland

        Well I at least know my glass is half full (Dear where did you get that cork from?!
        "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind." -- Dr. Seuss

        "Always do good. It will gratify some and astonish the rest." ~Mark Twain

        Comment


        • #5
          Yup, but you know as well as I do that >>90% of electricity worldwide is generated from fossil fuels, so that it will pump much more CO2 into the atmosphere than it will use. Solar, wind, geothermal etc. are niche generators so, if you are going to make fuel this way, not only is the EROEI less than unity, it will not be economic and will increase GHG emissions. Furthermore, if you use fossil carbon dioxide, when burnt it will yield what? Fossil carbon dioxide emissions. As I said, "Bloody ridiculous" - IOW, a lose-lose situation.
          Brian (the devil incarnate)

          Comment


          • #6
            Furthermore, if you use fossil carbon dioxide, when burnt it will yield what? Fossil carbon dioxide emissions.
            Well, recycling the already existing CO2 maybe is not the best possible thing, but it's not that bad either

            Comment


            • #7
              Look, we're WASTING 12+ hours of solar energy a day. If we can use some of that to sop up some of the CO2, why not? Sure, it's less efficient than the original fossil fuel burn, but once the initial build is complete, it's "free"... or as "free" as solar energy.
              The Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!

              I'm the least you could do
              If only life were as easy as you
              I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
              If only life were as easy as you
              I would still get screwed

              Comment


              • #8
                24-hours - cover the arctic in summer with solar panels, and the antarctic during winter. Lay down some massive amounts of power lines and energy crisis solved. Nobel Prize here I come.
                Q9450 + TRUE, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2, GTX 560, ASUS X48, 1TB WD Black, Windows 7 64-bit, LG M2762D-PM 27" + 17" LG 1752TX, Corsair HX620, Antec P182, Logitech G5 (Blue)
                Laptop: MSI Wind - Black

                Comment


                • #9
                  The amount of energy per area is quite negligible in Arctic/Antarctic even in Summer. Also I can just imagine how such large scale operation and burning of production of energy there would inlfuence not only local ecosystems, but also climate...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    K well here's another idea, falling water -> hydro power right? Well, use the collapsing glaciers to spin turbines!
                    Q9450 + TRUE, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2, GTX 560, ASUS X48, 1TB WD Black, Windows 7 64-bit, LG M2762D-PM 27" + 17" LG 1752TX, Corsair HX620, Antec P182, Logitech G5 (Blue)
                    Laptop: MSI Wind - Black

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What about the punguins?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Nowhere
                        What about the punguins?
                        you are referring to small black and white antarctic birds that only speak in puns?
                        Yeah, well I'm gonna build my own lunar space lander! With blackjack aaaaannd Hookers! Actually, forget the space lander, and the blackjack. Ahhhh forget the whole thing!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well all those panels shielding the ice from the sun would help preserve the icecaps from melting.. hmm..

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Isn't the originally posted article just describing a man-made tree?
                            DM says: Crunch with Matrox Users@ClimatePrediction.net

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by GNEP
                              Isn't the originally posted article just describing a man-made tree?
                              Shhh!!! Brian will start calling for chopping down all trees because they're "Bloody ridiculous!"


                              Originally posted by Nowhere
                              What about the punguins?
                              Make the litle buggers work the turbines too! Stupid free eating birds...
                              "For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X