Anyone think that this has any possibility of being implemented?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.
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.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/slct.201601169/fullThe 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.
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.
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...
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.
Speaking as someone who works for a chemical engineering company... maybe.
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.
Now that... is a good idea. I knew we weren't payin' you for nothing!
Apparently this is more efficient than trees.
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.
C8H18 + O2 --> H2O + CO2Originally Posted by lombardsoup
Quote:
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.Originally Posted by lombardsoup
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.
The higher the concentration of ethanol in the mix, the higher the water absorption. This moisture usually ends up in the fuel tank.Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn
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.
1) Plants only use a small amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere; the vast majority of oxygen is produced by algaeOriginally Posted by Gunderman456
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.
Correct, my car's exhaust goes into the fuel tank.
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.Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn
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.
Said water absorption is at a higher rate than ethanol free fuel. Several international groups want to not only mandate ethanol use, but raise the ratio to 20%.
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.Originally Posted by Syan48306
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.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't BTU loss in that scenario proportionate to concentration of ethanol?