Slashdot Mirror


New Sunlight Reactor Produces Fuel

eldavojohn writes "A new reactor developed by CalTech shows promise for producing renewable fuel from sunlight. The reactor hinges on a metal oxide named Ceria that has very interesting properties at very high temperatures. It exhales oxygen at very high temperatures and inhales oxygen at very low temperatures. From the article, 'Specifically, the inhaled oxygen is stripped off of carbon dioxide (CO2) and/or water (H2O) gas molecules that are pumped into the reactor, producing carbon monoxide (CO) and/or hydrogen gas (H2). H2 can be used to fuel hydrogen fuel cells; CO, combined with H2, can be used to create synthetic gas, or "syngas," which is the precursor to liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Adding other catalysts to the gas mixture, meanwhile, produces methane. And once the ceria is oxygenated to full capacity, it can be heated back up again, and the cycle can begin anew.' The only other piece of the puzzle is a large sunlight concentrator to raise the temperature to the necessary 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The team is working on modifying and refining the reactor to require a lower temperature to achieve the two-step thermochemical cycle. Another issue is the heat loss which the team claims could be reduced to improve efficiency to 15% or higher. Since CO2 is an input, the possibility exists for coal and power plants to collect CO2 emissions to be used in this process which would effectively allow us to "use the carbon twice." Another idea listed is that a "zero CO2 emissions" is developed along these lines: 'H2O and CO2 would be converted to methane, would fuel electricity-producing power plants that generate more CO2 and H2O, to keep the process going.' The team's work was published last month in Science."

18 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Equal parts excitement and antipathy by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another idea listed is that a "zero CO2 emissions" is developed along these lines: 'H2O and CO2 would be converted to methane, would fuel electricity-producing power plants that generate more CO2 and H2O, to keep the process going.'

    So basically, it would be a solar-powered station that could run around the clock using methane as a storage medium. I know that for as awesome as this sounds, it is equally unlikely to ever come to fruition to the extent that it is explained here.

    1. Re:Equal parts excitement and antipathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      gasp, or wait until they build better reactors, or gasp, wait until they scale to MW size reactors, or gasp, use it in places where turbines make no sense, or gasp, use it in addition to turbines.

      oh my god, he's being asphyxiated from the device's CO2 emissions! someone help!

  2. Loads of Potential by Philomage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary covers a lot of it, but this is pretty fascinating (if it reaches production): something that can be added to the exhaust of a fossil fuel power generation station that reduces the carbon footprint and provides fuel to use in either that or other processes in addition to supplying oxygen for other processes. All it really takes is concentrated sunlight for an energy source.

    I'd be interested to see in a few years what other uses are figured out for it.

    We live in interesting times...

    1. Re:Loads of Potential by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 5, Informative

      And that's what's probably the better long-term goal here: Convert atmospheric CO2 into some gasoline-like fuel, and use that as fuel in more mobile or space-constrained applications, where it generates CO2. You are back to a closed loop again, and humanity can be sustainable on our current resources. (With the external energy input of the Sun.)

      Of course, you'd be limited by the amount of energy you can harvest from sunlight, but that's really a problem no matter what you do, in the longer term...

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
  3. Headline! by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 4, Funny

    World Energy Problems Solved!
    4th Time This Month

  4. Re:CalTech? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative
    Not exactly. From TFA... The prototype reactor was designed and tested at CalTech, using electrical furnaces to generate the required 3,000 degrees. They then went to Switzerland to use the Paul Scherrer Institute's High-Flux Solar Simulator - "capable of delivering the heat of 1,500 suns" - to test with a solar heat source.

    So it was *mostly* CalTech guys, using Swiss equipment for testing and further development.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  5. Alternate idea by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've discovered a system that allows sunlight, groundwater, airborne CO2, and a few other elements to be converted into substances which can easily be used for heating fuel, building materials, and even in some cases food. It's really amazing, and costs relatively little to set up and even less to maintain. It's also aesthetically pleasing, so you get very little complaint from the NIMBY crowd. In fact, this system is so simple that you'll often find it in the front and back yards of ordinary single-family homes, apartment buildings, and office complexes.

    Not that this idea isn't potentially nifty, of course.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. How expensive is this thing Cerium? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That strange and exotic metal Cerium, is it at least cheaper than gold? How rare is this? Admittedly it sucks to have our oil stuck under their sand, but trading it for our Cerium stuck in their jungle is not a better solution either.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:How expensive is this thing Cerium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to http://www.chemicool.com/elements/cerium.html

      Cost, pure: $162 per 100g
      Cost, bulk: $1.20 per 100g
      Source: Cerium is the most abundant of the lanthanides. It is not found free in nature but is found in a number of minerals, mainly allanite, bastnasite and monazite. Commercially, cerium is prepared by electrolysis of the chloride or by reduction of the fused fluoride with calcium.

      The increased cost of the pure element Ce comes from refining it via electrolysis from it's naturally occuring state in various rare minerals. The article does not seem to mention the energy costs of refining the Cerium. So, although with this element, no electrolysis is needed to separate C from O2, electolysis is needed to obtain the element itself. Nothing is free (except Linux maybe).

    2. Re:How expensive is this thing Cerium? by vlm · · Score: 4, Informative

      That strange and exotic metal Cerium, is it at least cheaper than gold? How rare is this? Admittedly it sucks to have our oil stuck under their sand, but trading it for our Cerium stuck in their jungle is not a better solution either.

      It's strange and exotic, at say, McDonalds or Pick n Save food store. On the other hand, Home Depot probably sells cans of it and its widely industrially available in bulk and used for all kinds of things.

      Its extremely cheap compared to gold. Heck its pretty cheap compared to nickel, tin, and only about twice as costly as copper. Its about ten time as expensive as bulk raw aluminum per pound.

      Its a relatively common semi-industrial metal used in all manner of catalysts and especially grinding processes. Cerium Oxide grinding paste sells for about $10 per pound. You can pay more retail in small cans if you'd like, or perhaps you could contract down to 50 cents per ounce if you bought a unit-train of railroad cars worth of it.

      Ask your local (working, not retail) jeweler, whom probably has some quart cans of different size grits for polishing stuff.

      Unlike the polishing / grinding industry, the catalyst industry would probably recycle heavily. So I'm thinking it would remain relatively cheap even if usage increased.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:How expensive is this thing Cerium? by I8TheWorm · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerium
      http://www.radiochemistry.org/periodictable/elements/58.html

      India, Brazil, USA, Sweden.

      It's the most abundant of rare earth metals, and is low to moderate toxicity.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
  7. Re:Simply Amazing ~ Free Energy by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why haven't we thought of taking advantage of this abundant, renewable and FREE resource before????

    I believe we've been thinking of it for decades ... but, apparently, it's hard to actually do on a large scale and affordably. At least, that's kinda the impression I've gotten over the years.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  8. Old News by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Informative
  9. Re:Why bother? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    You would think with someone who can manage to type out the chemical chain you would know the sun doesn't shine at night. SO you need to STORE the energy.

    But no, you go on poo-pooing the idea without bothering to think in any logical or rational manner. We certainly don't have enough people like that already~

    Have you considered working for Glen Beck?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. Patent trick by Iffie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is old stuf, but the metals originally proposed are not rare and the patent has expired. I did a piece about it here.. http://www.greencheck.nl/index.php?/archives/279-De-Rare-Earth-Mythe.html It shows the patents and the reactions proposed. Supressed technology is reintroduced as an invention. Cerium spiked up 600 perscent last august..

  11. Re:Re-re-re-repost! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 5, Funny

    This reactor produces one of the most important components of a Hydrogen Bomb, and thus should be banned! And everybody knows that reactors are evil, and will cause the China Syndrome (whatever that is), which will kill us all. Reactors are well known to explode in a nuclear conflagration, as well as poisoning everyone within a 1000 mile radius before they do!

    Of course environmentalists are going to hate this.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  12. A more immediate likely problem by VernonNemitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While a "hydrogen economy" in whatever broad implementation is a fine idea in theory, there is one extremely important detail that must be done very carefully right from the start. The leakage of hydrogen gas must be kept to an absolute minimum. Why? Simple! Just multiple any X amount of leakage you choose, per person, by a couple billion users in a scaled-up hydrogen economy. Now factor in the simple fact that all leaked hydrogen will naturally rise through the atmosphere to the ozone layer, and that ozone is naturally "hypergolic" with hydrogen --the two chemicals instantly react. If you thought the effect of chlorocarbons was bad for the ozone layer, well, "you ain't seen nothin' yet", as the saying goes, if a large hydrogen economy doesn't do everything it can to keep hydrogen gas leakage to an absolute minimum.

    1. Re:A more immediate likely problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Comparing hydrogen to CFCs is a bit of a stretch. First CFCs were used as a propellant that was INTENDED to be released in the atmosphere.

      Second the reaction of hydrogen with ozone results in water - one H2 molecule will affect 2 O3 molecules H2 + O3 = H2O + O2.

      The chemistry of CFCs is much more detrmimental, in that each Cl ion will affect thousands of O3 molecules as it converts into ClO which then reacts with another ozone molecule resulting in O2 and Cl. This frees up the Chlorine ion to continue the cycle until it eventually falls out the ozone layer or reacts with some of the other elements to form a more stable molecule.