Carbon Dioxide From the Air Converted Into Methanol (gizmag.com)

Zothecula writes: The danger posed by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide has seen many schemes proposed to remove a proportion it from the air. Rather than simply capture this greenhouse gas and bury it in the ground, though, many experiments have managed to transform CO2 into useful things like carbon nanofibers or even fuels, such as diesel. Unfortunately, the over-arching problem with many of these conversions is the particularly high operating temperatures that require counterproductive amounts of energy to produce relatively low yields of fuel. Now researchers at the University of Southern California (USC) claim to have devised a way to take CO2 directly from the air and convert it into methanol using much lower temperatures and in a correspondingly simpler way.

Comments

Energy in?

[Mr D from 63]

I see no mention of the energy put into the process vs the methanol output. Unless they are close, this would make no sense.

Re:Energy in?

[blue9steel]

Even if it wasn't net positive a low enough ratio might make it worth it to just pull the carbon out of the air and store the methanol in tanks. This might be a good use for surplus power at renewable generating sites, they could actually be carbon negative.

Re:Energy in?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing is that power plants like nuclear are extremely inflexible. Basically they have to keep producing energy no matter what. This means that sometimes energy costs become negative. The producers of electricity from nuclear will actually pay you to use their power.

The next thing you need to know is that renewable, whilst mostly very flexible, has a relatively high capital, but very low marginal cost. This means that if there is a time when energy prices are low (e.g. due to nuclear power plants having to run during a low usage period) the renewable sources will be willing to sell you energy for almost any positive price.

This means that there is quite a bit of time when energy loss really doesn't matter nearly as much as you think. If you can just store some of the energy and use it at a later peak usage time, when it's many times more valuable, then you can make a profit even with huge energy losses.

Methane would be better than methanol. If you can produce methane you can power highly flexible gas power plants. Stiill, methanol is definitely better than nothing.

Re:Energy in?

[currently_awake]

Using energy from windmills to power the process in a remote location (arctic etc) is cheaper than flying in gas. Using energy from the nuclear reactor of an aircraft carrier to produce jet fuel while at sea would save a lot of money/risk on transporting fuel. Using this tech to make fuel at a military base in a dangerous place (Afghanistan etc) would reduce the need for supply convoys, and save lives.

Taking CO2 from the atmosphere??

[NotInHere]

What about not putting it there in the first place? It takes far more energy to extract the CO2 from the atmosphere than to build an energy chain that doesn't burn fossil sources. And if you really are keen on removing CO2, then just stop deforestation in south america.

Re:Let's see if I've got this right...

[bobbied]

1: Install intake funnels over party caucuses, presidential debates etc etc. 2: Intake hot air > lower temperature > less global warming 3: Intake CO2 > methanol > less fossil fuel burning 4: PROFIT!

Just take their campaign cash from them, it will be easier, more efficient and might actually help the political process....

CO2 to ETHANOL, not Methanol!

[Irate Engineer]

If some one could invent a cocktail machine, powered by wind and solar, that could take in atmospheric CO2 and spit out a daiquiri (no, wait, a Hurricane), how long would it take to get everyone behind the solution to global warming?

Do I have to come up with all the great ideas around here? Come on, let's get some people on this, stat!

that would be nice, but weather systems are big

[raymorris]

First I want to be clear - wind is a great supplemental power source in some areas. Having said that ...

> they are spread around national grids so the wind is always blowing on some somewhere.

It would be nice if any of those three things were true. In fact, weather systems are generally larger than most countries. Here's the current weather map for a very large country, the United States:
http://sirocco.accuweather.com...

You'll notice there's very little weather in the US today. Next week, a storm system may cover most of the population of the US.

Regarding "national electric grid" - you may recall a few years ago a blackout left the northeast without power for several days, while the nine other power regional grids including had plenty of power. The California grid had a chronic power shortage for decades, while the neighboring grid for Texas was fine. There are 10 regional power grids in the US. There's no such thing as "the national grid", and can't without save a complete redesign of the technology and replacing billions in infrastructure.

Lastly, wind farms are NOT spread evenly around the country. They are located in specific areas where it makes sense to have them. You need steady, predictable wind (the cube power law means high winds destroy them), near population centers, but with cheap real estate. The last two requirements are of course contradictory, so a limited number of locations fit all of the criteria.

In those places where it DOES make sense, wind power allows producers to reduce fuel usage on the natural gas generators whenever the wind happens to be right, and that's a good thing.

Re:here's an idea: grow FOOD

[Chas]

That's just it though. Everyone wants a solution "RIGHT NAO!!!!"

Instead of planting more trees than we remove (as a species) and increasing our long-term carbon sink

As for growing crops, while yes, it does bind SOME carbon, the short growth span of modern plants actually limits the amount of actual carbon that's sequestered in the process.

But no, we continue to clear-cut areas, and then pave/build them over.