Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Solar+CO2+H20=petrol

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

  • Solar+CO2+H20=petrol

    Sandia Labs is at it again....

    Link....

    Recycling carbon dioxide into petrol

    A new reactor could make chemically recycling carbon dioxide back into petrol a worthwhile endeavour, US scientists say.

    Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, are to test a prototype device this spring, which will use concentrated solar energy to drive chemical reactions that split carbon dioxide molecules to get carbon monoxide. The same system was originally designed to split water to form hydrogen; and these two products can then be combined to synthesise liquid hydrocarbon fuels - such as methanol or petrol.

    Splitting the stable carbon dioxide molecule is so tough that many researchers think the most economic course of action is simply to bury the greenhouse gas underground. And solar plants usually generate electricity, rather than split CO2.

    But the Sandia team led by Jim Miller, Nathan Siegel and Richard Diver, who work on the 'Sunshine to Petrol' (S2P) project, think their device's chemical reactions are efficient enough to make it a worthwhile way of producing liquid fuels from CO2 . Ellen Stechel, manager of Sandia's fuel and energy transitions department, explained to Chemistry World that the ultimate aim is to have a series of solar-powered reactors, each collecting around 22kg of carbon dioxide and 18kg of water daily, and churning out some 2.5 gallons of petrol, based on target conversion efficiencies. 'Liquid fuels can be stored in trucks or piped using existing infrastructure,' Stechel pointed out.

    Lord of the rings?

    A complete demonstration system is three to five years away, said Stechel, and to prove its commercial value will take much longer. But one key sticking point - CO2 splitting - is what the S2P researchers hope to crack.

    The Sandia reactor consists of rotating rings, made of a cobalt-doped ferrite (Fe3O4) ceramic. Concentrated sunlight is directed onto a ring, heating it up to around 1500°C and driving off oxygen gas. The reduced material (FeO) rotates into a second chamber containing carbon dioxide, from which it takes back oxygen at a lower temperature, leaving carbon monoxide behind. It then cycles back into the sunlight again, so that the CO2 splitting should be a continuous process.

    This simple chemical cycle also splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. But it is only plausible on a larger scale because of an engineering trick which conserves the heat entering the system. The reactor holds a series of stacked rings rotating in opposite directions; so that a heated ring moving out of the sun will heat up cooler rings about to face the sun. This arrangement limits the total energy input required.

    So far, Stechel said, the researchers have shown this works for a batch process, but need to speed up their reactions to allow the more efficient series of continuous cycles. The final system, christened the Counter Rotating Ring Receiver Reactor Recuperator (CR5), should be about four times larger than the beer-keg sized prototype.

    The Sandia team reckon their system is one of the most promising approaches to splitting CO2 for fuel. They have a few competitors, such as the company Los Alamos Renewable Energy (LARE), who claim to use solar power to directly split CO2 at very high temperatures; chemists who are taking catalytic approaches to split CO2 with hydrogen; or the alternative of electrolytic splitting. But if splitting CO2 is worthwhile at all, 'it's hard to imagine anything that will show better thermodynamics or kinetics,' said Stechel.
    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
    If they can pull off a co2 - fuel closed cycle we wil be set

    Comment


    • #3
      One mustn't forget the laws of thermodynamics, which state that the free lunch does not exist. 1 l of petrol, when burnt, gives off 35 million joules of energy, give or take a few cm, plus about 3 kg of CO2 and a kg or two of water. If you take an equal amount of CO2 and water and recombine it back into petrol, you theoretically have to add the 35 MJ back again, assuming a perfect stoichiometric reaction. But that is theory; in practice, you will need lots more a) because stoichiometry is never achieved and b) energy is required to heat the apparatus (the rings, as described), as well as the reagents and will be lost as radiation. Then considerable energy is required to manufacture the ferrite ceramics which will never be totally reconstituted and will need probably frequent replacement. As a guess, I think it would probably take several hundred MJ of solar energy, possibly even thousands. to make 1 litre of petrol, assuming the technique can be scaled up successfully.

      Would it not be easier to use the solar energy directly in a more efficient process? Of course, this ignores the sequestration value. It would certainly be more efficient to produce the same amount of energy from fissile material, which does not require sequestration.
      Brian (the devil incarnate)

      Comment


      • #4
        While it will no doubt require more energy, it seems like an interesting thought (esp. since the energy would come from the sun.

        Problem for cars remains the storage of energy: ideally one would want some way to store a lot of energy, while still allowing for it to be quickly refilled. Batteries are still a long way from optimal and contain many toxines...
        A fuel cycle (be it hydrogen or with this new technique: petrol) seems more practical to me...


        Jörg
        pixar
        Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

        Comment


        • #5
          Unless EEStor pans out. In that case electrical energy storage goes through a revolution that literally changes everything.
          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

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
            Unless EEStor pans out. In that case electrical energy storage goes through a revolution that literally changes everything.
            EEStor will be fine for providing short-term surges as a back up for rechargeable cells, such as Li-ion, but the charge is electronic, not ionic. The discharge is therefore a decaying exponential curve. Large scale electric storage still requires CO2 emissions in most countries of the world (including the USA) tu pump up water, ions or electrons. What we need is more renewables and more fission.
            Brian (the devil incarnate)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Brian Ellis View Post
              What we need is more renewables and more fission.
              And better ways of storing energy, and efficient methods for transferring large amounts of stored energy from one device to another.


              Jörg
              pixar
              Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die tomorrow. (James Dean)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Brian Ellis View Post
                EEStor will be fine for providing short-term surges as a back up for rechargeable cells, such as Li-ion, but the charge is electronic, not ionic. The discharge is therefore a decaying exponential curve. Large scale electric storage still requires CO2 emissions in most countries of the world (including the USA) tu pump up water, ions or electrons. What we need is more renewables and more fission.
                You misunderstand how their ESU's (electrical storage units) are supposed to work; if they work as expected they would perform more like a battery than a capacitor and could be used as primary storage devices for cars, trucks, solar and wind power etc. and as buffering units for power plants etc.
                Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 6 August 2008, 02:17.
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sorry, I misunderstand not at all. An exponential discharge curve is less-than-ideal for the purposes as you describe unless it is backed up by a more-or-less constant-voltage source. Elementary electronics.
                  Brian (the devil incarnate)

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X