Overclock.net banner

[PM] Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol

6K views 103 replies 34 participants last post by  vb10 
#1 ·
Quote:
Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journal ChemistrySelect.

The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles.
Anyone think that this has any possibility of being implemented?

Source
 
#4 ·
THere is also the thing, how much energy is needed to do the conversion.
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just a nickname View Post

There's not enough detail from the article to draw any conclusion; i.e. what's the conversion rate?
If you watch the video, you'll see that they say it's a 60% to 70% efficiency. It takes power to create ethanol, so you get like 65% of that power back in the form of ethanol. It's really just changing energy from electrical energy to chemical potential energy in the form of ethanol. An ethanol battery of sorts. It still can't compete with batteries that are 90%+ efficient but it's a good start.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
The overpotential (which might be lowered with the proper electrolyte, and by separating the hydrogen production to another catalyst) probably precludes economic viability for this catalyst, but the high selectivity for a 12-electron reaction suggests that nanostructured surfaces with multiple reactive sites in close proximity can yield novel reaction mechanisms.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/slct.201601169/full

If anyone wants to wade through the paper, have at it
tongue.gif
. It's not viable as-is, but it opens an interesting new direction that could eventually yield a method that would work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ku4eto View Post

THere is also the thing, how much energy is needed to do the conversion.
It sounds like they are thinking of using it to store energy from excess production. So if you had say, a huge solar setup, you would bleed the extra energy during the day and make ethanol or whatever, then use that at night when the solar goes out.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by ku4eto View Post

THere is also the thing, how much energy is needed to do the conversion.
That, and they are using nanotechnology to create the right environment. Sounds like scaling this up to anything meaningful will be challenging to say the least...

Another promising "breakthrough" though, it is still exciting
tongue.gif
 
#9 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faster_is_better View Post

That, and they are using nanotechnology to create the right environment. Sounds like scaling this up to anything meaningful will be challenging to say the least...

Another promising "breakthrough" though, it is still exciting
tongue.gif
If the tech were decent and efficient, but needed lab-like conditions, it wouldn't be too bad. So long as we work on better and better carbon capture tech, we can still make a very meaningful difference in CO2 levels.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by wisdom.courage.power View Post

Anyone think that this has any possibility of being implemented?
Speaking as someone who works for a chemical engineering company... maybe.

It really depends on how easy and cost effective it is to scale the process up. Chemists determine how to make a few test tubes of something, chemical engineers determine how to make a few tankers full of it.

If it can be scaled up, and there are no stringent requirements on the CO2 source (like no sulphur oxides or NOx contaminants) then sure. Converting 'free'* feedstock into a saleable product? I imagine a power generation companies will jump at the chance.

* Excess power generation can be considered as "free". For example spinning reserve on the grid means that a power plant is paid to run at house load (enough to run the systems), ready to step up output to meet spikes in demand. Bumping the power up a little more, and generating ethanol from the released CO2, would mean that you could essentially get paid twice.
 
#12 ·
Problem: ethanol, when combusted as fuel, releases CO2 as well as water. Then again there's nothing stopping that from being turned into more ethanol ad infinitum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GingerJohn View Post

If it can be scaled up, and there are no stringent requirements on the CO2 source (like no sulphur oxides or NOx contaminants) then sure. Converting 'free'* feedstock into a saleable product? I imagine a power generation companies will jump at the chance.
Even if it did need to be relatively pure CO2, there's no reason that the gases couldn't be trapped and mechanically separated. They all have slightly different densities after all.

Though if I'm interpreting the article correctly, the idea is similar to platinum catalysts in a car's catalytic convertor, a surface acting as a reaction site. It might be possible that only the ethanol synthesis occurs there, but there might also be other reactions. The next logical step would be to replicate emissions from actual power plants and see if it's feasible or if it produces some nasty byproducts.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

What if we use Solar and Wind energy to power it?
biggrin.gif
Now that... is a good idea. I knew we weren't payin' you for nothing!
thumb.gif
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

Problem: ethanol, when combusted as fuel, releases CO2 as well as water.
This is true; its especially problematic for small engines. With water absorbing into the fuel, there is the chance that rust will form on the interior of the engine. The particles that get into the gas from rust flakes will clog up the fuel filter sooner or later. It is possible that these flakes will also cause damage to the pistons, rings, seals, and any number of other components of the engine.

That's without getting into any phase separation happening inside of the fuel tank itself. Often times, the gas/ethanol mixes available at the pump do not have the necessary treatment applied to prevent this, meaning the car owner has to do it himself.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

Problem: ethanol, when combusted as fuel, releases CO2 as well as water.
This is true; its especially problematic for small engines. With water absorbing into the fuel, there is the chance that rust will form on the interior of the engine. The particles that get into the gas from rust flakes will clog up the fuel filter sooner or later. It is possible that these flakes will also cause damage to the pistons, rings, seals, and any number of other components of the engine.

That's without getting into any phase separation happening inside of the fuel tank itself. Often times, the gas/ethanol mixes available at the pump do not have the necessary treatment applied to prevent this, meaning the car owner has to do it himself.
C8H18 + O2 --> H2O + CO2

It's the same products that form when octane combusts, meaning the exact same problems are present. Given that rusting doesn't appear to be an issue with the alkanes used in gasoline... I think my point speaks for itself: it isn't, provided the ethanol used isn't in solution with water.
 
#18 ·
How many times do I have to hear that scientists are turning CO2 into --- (insert of your choice). We don't need the stinking scientists turning the CO2 into something else because, don't you know, CO2 levels are bad.

Please, we already have the plants feeding on it and turning it into Oxygen to sustain life and that is good enough for me, otherwise there won't be enough CO2 to go around. Greedy scientists.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

This is true; its especially problematic for small engines. With water absorbing into the fuel, there is the chance that rust will form on the interior of the engine. The particles that get into the gas from rust flakes will clog up the fuel filter sooner or later. It is possible that these flakes will also cause damage to the pistons, rings, seals, and any number of other components of the engine.

That's without getting into any phase separation happening inside of the fuel tank itself. Often times, the gas/ethanol mixes available at the pump do not have the necessary treatment applied to prevent this, meaning the car owner has to do it himself.
...water is a byproduct of the combustion of any hydrocarbon.

Yes, that includes petrol, diesel, fuel-oil and any other petroderivate.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

C8H18 + O2 --> H2O + CO2

It's the same products that form when octane combusts, meaning the exact same problems are present. Given that rusting doesn't appear to be an issue with the alkanes used in gasoline... I think my point speaks for itself: it isn't, provided the ethanol used isn't in solution with water.
The higher the concentration of ethanol in the mix, the higher the water absorption. This moisture usually ends up in the fuel tank.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunderman456 View Post

How many times do I have to hear that scientists are turning CO2 into

(insert of your choice). We don't need the stinking scientists turning the CO2 into something else because don't you know CO2 levels are bad.

Please, we already have the plants feeding on it and turning it into Oxygen to sustain life and that is good enough for me, otherwise there won't be enough CO2 to go around. Greedy scientists.
1) Plants only use a small amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere; the vast majority of oxygen is produced by algae

2) Turning a waste product back into fuel for a (fairly) small energy cost is objectively good

3) CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been in recent history, and more importantly have changed far faster than over any ice age

There's a 30% surplus of the stuff compared to about 100 years ago. Plenty to go around.
thumb.gif


Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

The higher the concentration of ethanol in the mix, the higher the water absorption. This moisture usually ends up in the fuel tank.
Correct, my car's exhaust goes into the fuel tank.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

1) Plants only use a small amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere; the vast majority of oxygen is produced by algae

2) Turning a waste product back into fuel for a (fairly) small energy cost is objectively good

3) CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been in recent history, and more importantly have changed far faster than over any ice age

There's a 30% surplus of the stuff compared to about 100 years ago. Plenty to go around.
thumb.gif
Agreed the oceans provide more of the oxygen, I've been hearing scientists wanting to turn CO2 to something useful for a along time, nothing ever happens, and I don't believe corporate media and gov/corporate funded stooges.
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by assaulth3ro911 View Post

Now that... is a good idea. I knew we weren't payin' you for nothing!
thumb.gif
no its not, you could've just directly stored the collected solar and wind energy into batteries you know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syan48306 View Post

If you watch the video, you'll see that they say it's a 60% to 70% efficiency. It takes power to create ethanol, so you get like 65% of that power back in the form of ethanol. It's really just changing energy from electrical energy to chemical potential energy in the form of ethanol. An ethanol battery of sorts. It still can't compete with batteries that are 90%+ efficient but it's a good start.
in practice its much worse than that, the most efficient gas combustion engine isn't even 50% efficient, meaning you're only getting ~30% of the power back.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic1337 View Post

no its not, you could've just directly stored the collected solar and wind energy into batteries you know?
in practice its much worse than that, the most efficient gas combustion engine isn't even 50% efficient, meaning you're only getting ~30% of the power back.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't BTU loss in that scenario proportionate to concentration of ethanol?
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't BTU loss in that scenario proportionate to concentration of ethanol?
for a mixed fuel yes, but not for pure ethanol fuel.
also its not directly related to engine fuel efficiency.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top