Science wins again - Turning CO2 into Ethanol...

[marty998]

I love stories like this. In the absence of an environment section on the forum I'll leave it here.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-21/energy-scientists-accidentally-turn-carbon-dioxide-into-ethanol/7954546

A team of scientists has turned a waste product — carbon dioxide — into a fuel — ethanol — in a relatively simple process. And it happened almost by accident.

The US Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists were running a solution of carbon dioxide dissolved in water over a charged surface in the hopes of describing a reaction when they made their serendipitous discovery.

Monash University energy conversion expert Shannon Bonke, who was not involved in the research, said there were several exciting elements to the US study.

First, the end result of ethanol — a relatively complex molecule, with two carbon atoms, and a ready-to-use fuel — is considered to be difficult to achieve.

"Carbon dioxide has one carbon in it but ethanol has two carbons, so we're sort of assembling the Lego blocks to get to the carbon molecules," Mr Bonke said.

Second, the US team used low-cost copper, nitrogen and carbon, rather than the precious metals, such as platinum, that are usually necessary for these kinds of reactions.

Finally, Mr Bonke said a pure fuel made in a lab was cleaner in many ways than fossil fuels.

The technique's reliance on low-cost materials and an ability to operate at room temperature in water leads the US researchers to believe the approach could be scaled up for industrial applications.

I think it's brilliant. Good on them. Proves that there is value in spending money on science and research.

[alsoknownasDean]

That's pretty awesome if it can be scaled up for mass production. Especially if it can be set up in remote areas so that they don't have to transport as much oil-based fuels.

I wonder if 65% efficiency is commercially worthwhile?

[KCM5]

That's pretty awesome if it can be scaled up for mass production. Especially if it can be set up in remote areas so that they don't have to transport as much oil-based fuels.

I wonder if 65% efficiency is commercially worthwhile?

I imagine it could be. We're starting to regulate greenhouse gasses from existing power plants (pending resolution in the courts), so depending how this is classified with the EPA (I have no idea) it could be considered a control.

[Jack]

I saw this a few days ago on Slashdot. It sounds cool, but I have no idea what the "65% efficiency" part means (65% efficiency of what?). What I want to know is, would this process, powered by solar photovoltaic panels, be more or less efficient (in terms of land area and dollars required per unit of ethanol produced) than growing, harvesting and distilling sugar cane?

[hoping2retire35]

Don't tell the ATF.

Looks like I will have to revise the plans for my still...

[Metric Mouse]

Don't tell the ATF.

Looks like I will have to revise the plans for my still...

Hahaha. Headline should read: Scientists accidentally produce liquor in lab...

But seriously: Also interested in how the efficiency works when scaled up - could this be commercially viable?  Breakthroughs like this, the research into the Allam cycle etc. really give me hope for the future. This is the stuff leaders of the U.S. should be talking about - Let's worry about landing people on Mars some other time.

[BudgetSlasher]

There is one catch (in addition to the 63 percent efficiency) the catalyst is electrified; this means that for the reaction to work electricity must be put in and only 63 percent of that is converted to EtOH (at least as I understand it).

So, for every 100 units of energy put in you get 63 units of energy in EtOH and 37 units are lost. If that energy comes from non-renewable sources this is a net loss of energy (unless as a energy storage for excess or carbon sequestration). And that is before you consider losses due to combustion inefficiency when the EtOH is burnt again.

All that being said, it is scientifically interesting and possibly a good step forward. If combined with renewable (like solar or wind) it could store energy for the down periods.

[Metric Mouse]

There is one catch (in addition to the 63 percent efficiency) the catalyst is electrified; this means that for the reaction to work electricity must be put in and only 63 percent of that is converted to EtOH (at least as I understand it).

So, for every 100 units of energy put in you get 63 units of energy in EtOH and 37 units are lost. If that energy comes from non-renewable sources this is a net loss of energy (unless as a energy storage for excess or carbon sequestration). And that is before you consider losses due to combustion inefficiency when the EtOH is burnt again.

All that being said, it is scientifically interesting and possibly a good step forward. If combined with renewable (like solar or wind) it could store energy for the down periods.

Not sure, but I took the '63% efficency' to mean that for every 100 units of CO2, 63 units of Ethanol were produced - the rest being byproducts. This would be workable, as compared to a reaction where 10% of the result was usable, and the other 90% had to be stripped out and disposed of.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

[BudgetSlasher]

There is one catch (in addition to the 63 percent efficiency) the catalyst is electrified; this means that for the reaction to work electricity must be put in and only 63 percent of that is converted to EtOH (at least as I understand it).

So, for every 100 units of energy put in you get 63 units of energy in EtOH and 37 units are lost. If that energy comes from non-renewable sources this is a net loss of energy (unless as a energy storage for excess or carbon sequestration). And that is before you consider losses due to combustion inefficiency when the EtOH is burnt again.

All that being said, it is scientifically interesting and possibly a good step forward. If combined with renewable (like solar or wind) it could store energy for the down periods.

Not sure, but I took the '63% efficency' to mean that for every 100 units of CO2, 63 units of Ethanol were produced - the rest being byproducts. This would be workable, as compared to a reaction where 10% of the result was usable, and the other 90% had to be stripped out and disposed of.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

I'm adding in some discussion we had at work the other day, but even assuming that for every unit of energy that was put into the solution (which is impossible, at least some will be lost to heat or unwanted byproducts) this is still at best a storage device (which will be as clean or as dirty as its energy source). And even assuming that 100% of the energy input to drive the reaction uphill is stored as chemical potential energy.

If you take EIA data for 2014, the most recent available, (http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html) and look at the most efficient (natural gas combined cycle) 7,658 BTU are needed to generate 1 kwh, which is equal to 3,412 btu. This is roughly 45 percent efficient.

So, unless you are saving waste energy during low demand (when production may be wasted by idling facilities) for peak demand time or storing renewables for when the wind is not blowing / sun is not shining, I fail to see how this is a viable energy source.

On the other hand, if you are looking a liquor, once you factor in the fertilizer (artificially fixed nitrogen), fuel for tractors (to harvest the grains), fuel for tractor trailers (to transport the grains), energy to heat the grains (for sugar extraction), and CO2 from yeast (to create EtOH) one might have a lower energy/emission way to create vodka.

[Metric Mouse]

...On the other hand, if you are looking a liquor, once you factor in the fertilizer (artificially fixed nitrogen), fuel for tractors (to harvest the grains), fuel for tractor trailers (to transport the grains), energy to heat the grains (for sugar extraction), and CO2 from yeast (to create EtOH) one might have a lower energy/emission way to create vodka.

I hadn't been looking at ways of making my drinking habit more 'green'; but perhaps there is an answer to a question I never asked! :D

[Telecaster]

Not sure, but I took the '63% efficency' to mean that for every 100 units of CO2, 63 units of Ethanol were produced - the rest being byproducts. This would be workable, as compared to a reaction where 10% of the result was usable, and the other 90% had to be stripped out and disposed of.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

I'm certain you are correct. 

The sciencey aspect is kinda neat, but I don't really see the application.   You are making ethanol which is nice, but that's easy to make.  And you are using carbon dioxide as a feedstock, but that's also ultimately the feedstock for conventional ethanol too.  If you use the ethanol for fuel, then you are just releasing the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. 

[alsoknownasDean]

Yes but then the production of ethanol isn't using foodstuffs like corn or sugar cane as inputs.

I wonder if it could work with seawater?

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk