Slashdot Mirror
CO2 To Ethanol In One Step With Cheap Catalyst (sciencedaily.com)
Reader networkBoy writes: Boffins at ORNL (Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory) have discovered a simple and cheap catalyst that can take CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) dissolved in solution with water and at room temperature convert it to ethanol with 60%+ yields. They envision it as a way to store surplus power from green energy plants and then burning it to fill in lulls in supply.From the report:The team used a catalyst made of carbon, copper and nitrogen and applied voltage to trigger a complicated chemical reaction that essentially reverses the combustion process. With the help of the nanotechnology-based catalyst which contains multiple reaction sites, the solution of carbon dioxide dissolved in water turned into ethanol with a yield of 63 percent. Typically, this type of electrochemical reaction results in a mix of several different products in small amounts. "We're taking carbon dioxide, a waste product of combustion, and we're pushing that combustion reaction backwards with very high selectivity to a useful fuel," Rondinone said. "Ethanol was a surprise -- it's extremely difficult to go straight from carbon dioxide to ethanol with a single catalyst."
Instant Vodka Just Add ELECTRICITY!
When will we see this in the Northeast for use in building heating systems? It's nearly perpetual motion, with working fluids that aren't harmful.
What is the cost in the catalyst materials? And its efficiency?
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
I think I'm about to become better friends with my Soda Stream.
Am I reading Dr. Seuss?
By law, boffintry can only be granted to citizens of the UK.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Perhaps they can carbonate the ethanol, resulting in a strong yet refreshing cocktail.
Less green house gases and more drinking in one go. Who knew. Battling climate change has never been more fun.
Can this make Coke turn into rum and Coke?
Jesus was a time traveler from Oak Ridge.
So what happens to the other 37 procent? If you keep adding CO2 to the water, re-saturating it, doesn't the reaction just keep going?
to store extra electricity huh. Like from unpredictable wind and solar farms? Storing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel plants? Seems like a big penalty (both efficiency and the cost of the farm) just to smooth out the farms.
Or it could be used to absorb a higher base load production from nuclear. Oh. Eh. Nevermind. Nobody seems to want nuclear powered carbon reduction. Sole purpose of renewable seems to be to replace nuclear.
Because my computer got better and you are a Luddite.
I see potential in this CO2 to ethanol invention.
Here's a link to the actual paper.
(Since the editors won't do it.)
The catalyst looks pretty good. I'd be interested to see how long it lasts - some catalysts become poisoned by impurities in the source gasses, and lose effectiveness over time.
The paper mentions copper oxide forming on the copper nanoparticles due to transport in the air to the test equipment. That probably means that the catalyst might lose effectiveness due to dissolved oxygen in the water.
Any actual chemists care to comment?
I'm doing my part!
Would you like to know more?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So what happens to the other 37 procent? If you keep adding CO2 to the water, re-saturating it, doesn't the reaction just keep going?
That's faradic efficiency. The remaining 37% go to heat, and perhaps other by-products.
The paper points out that CO, H2, and CH4 are made at various other voltages, maybe some of the remaining 37% is in useful by-products.
(I've only skimmed the paper - need more time to read and digest.)
https://science.slashdot.org/s... Sounds like Slashdot is telling us Venus' is the future of energy.
How much energy is consumed in the process? Is this just mix two chemicals and stir or do you have to add power to make the process work? My concern is that this is another thing like corn ethanol, the production of which consumes as much or more energy than in produces with a net result of a negative benefit. It says "consume extra electricity when available" which is a rather screwy way of saying produce more power than is actually needed and then turn it into ethanol. This sounds like a movie I've already seen once before...
Just how do they account for the endothermic energy balance? The catalyst will be below freezing quickly unless you have some way to provide a lot of additional heat.
For this reaction, you need BOTH CO2 (from burning fossil fuels) AND "free energy" (noon solar on cloudless days).
The otherwise wasted energy from the unreliable renewable sources is used to convert CO2 into fuel.
>green energy Bullshit detected >nanotechnology-based catalyst Even more bullshit
The price of a catalyst is irrelevant since catalysts by definition remain unchanged by the chemical reaction. The price of the electricity to convert the CO2 into ethanol, however... Catalysts do not violate the laws of thermodynamics. If you do the math you'll find that the energy you put it will be significantly greater than what you'd get from burning all that ethanol back into CO2.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Yes, but: is the entire process carbon-neutral, or preferably, carbon negative? If it's carbon-positive then it's a worthless science trick.
Hey folks, I'm looking for a simplified, explain-it-like-I'm-five version of this. You make this cheap catalytic sheet, expose it to CO2, give it a x watts of electricity, and it produces x*.63 watts of ethanol? Is that right? Does the CO2 have to be concentrated like from a power plant or vehicle exhaust or is atmospheric CO2 enough?
Boffins is a derogatory term used by people that make their failing in understanding science and math a virtue.
pretty dang difficult to capture CO2 only and then highly compress it so you can dissolve it in H2O and run this process.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Anyone else bet this will be last time we hear about the technology? How soon can we expect the Cargill family to mysteriously make this technology go away? In a few months, the scientists involved will be buying big homes and nice cars after their early retirement.
They should fund a startup ("carbonol.io") and Kickstarter a giant oceangoing ethanol mining drone, then lobby world governments to prevent further carbon emission cuts so as to protect their business model.
These... these scimentizzes have krunk their own droolaid. Iz a CATALISH! Jush put that shizzle in my gazztank... I like the boss knockin' rythym m'whip getsess on the fleaway. C'mere, silly plant. I wants ya fur your car-bone see-quest-rashun habits. [Hic!]
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
When I looked up "ethanol fuel cell" it seems Nissan is working on those. So now I have this vision of rural people with lots of solar, an ethanol reformer and a Nissan.
Better hurry and get all those carbon and environmental taxes put in place before technology like this makes them obsolete.. else your redistributionist plans to subsidize third world countries with first world tax dollars and efforts to control energy distribution, doling it out to those politically favored will fail miserably.
Please use American terminology. "Boffin" is not a valid American word.
With Mars having a 96% Co2 atmosphere, it seems like this technology would be a dream come true for the first human explorers to Mars.
Elon Musk said that the first visitors would have to build a propellant plant and it would take many months to make their own fuel for the return journey. I wonder how significantly this technology and the abundance of Martian CO2 would speed that up?
Can I get carbon-copper nano spikes on ebay? Since this isn't distillation, I'm sure the Feds won't mind me making gallons of the stuff.
So when I start accepting tax dollars to sequester CO2 in rickhouses, in special charred oak barrels, I should be good, right?
Once the barrels fill up and after a few years when more space is needed, I think I have a way to sequester the ethanol in people. I'm going to save the world!
thinking a pre-Mars shot fuel maker for the red planet, plenty of C02, just need an alcohol based rocket for return lift....
I'd mod you troll.
How's that foot tasting?
Said to fill my tank with a Big Gulp and add pills
> I think from a basic sci perspective it is pretty cool example of how "nano" can actually be more then just a buzz word
It's also a good example of how the term "nanotechnology" is abused. The term was coined to refer to nanoscale machinery that makes things molecule by molecule--not simple materials with nanoscale features or designer chemistry.
There's nothing wrong with the prefix "nano" when used to describe the size (any more than "micro") but not everything nano is nanotechnology!
... is the BATF defecating bricks.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The secret appears to be to start with carbonated water, which must have been hard to come by 2000+ years ago. Maybe that was the real magic.
I like my Scotch neat....
The other product of the reaction is oxygen. You can't get energy out of ethanol without "burning" it, which would require an oxidizer (probably oxygen), however, you could make ethanol, discard it, and the people could breathe the oxygen generated.
If it's a pretty efficient process, the oxygen might be the "killer app" for Mars purposes, not the ethanol.
--PM
Similar to using over production of solar to pump water to a higher elevation and then release it through a turbine to generate electricity at night. Obviously this requires there to be more wind and solar plants in use. But it is an interesting idea.
So the goal here is to take a low carbon footprint technology and turn it into a high one by burning ethanol at least part of the time. That doesn't sound like an amazing plan to me.
Live in a State that mandates a silly low alcohol content for your beer? Drop in the catalyst, hook it to a battery and voila! Problem solved.
So combine this with the easier part (combustion) for an at least semi-closed system?
This is a nice shortcut on the path to synthesis of glucose. A lot of agricultural can be ended going forward. https://slashdot.org/journal/2...
As a way to make ethanol it sounds very interesting. Lot's of places with too much CO2/power and not enough Rum (nuclear submarines, power plants, Mars). As a way to increase "efficiency" in the power grid not so much.
You shouldn't get strung out over grammer(sic) and spelling mistakes. English is not always the first language of the posters here.
True - and ESL writers/speakers often (usually?) use better English than native writers/speakers...
Certainly sounds cheap and easy to ramp into commercial production!
*GASP* We can't do this! How will Soros, DiCaprio, Gore, and the rest of the Davos elites control the world with tech like this available?!?
The most green thang to do with the ethanol is diluted it to 50% with pure water and bottle it. Eco-vodka! Store the excess in oak barrel for eco-whiskey.
"Awesome solution everyone has overlooked. Just requires another form of energy to make it happen."
Energy isn't free. If people could all just wake up and get on the same scientific fact page for a while, and rest.... then proceed to try and find alternatives. Every damn thing that has been come up with requires another form of energy to either manufacture the parts for, or to make IT happen. No, the sun isn't free. You have to use energy and resources to make panels to harness it. it's an offset, not a solution. Aside from that, each as a side effect - solar: releases heat at night. Wind: slows down wind / offsets traversal. Each can lead to global warming and/or global change as people define it. I see a sort of self-defeating goal here but I'm just a stupid idiot and everyone else is completely a genius. What the hell? Why do I even bother to post these things? i guess I'm hoping to half-wake ONE person's mind. Back to the Matrix, I guess.
I'm astonished that the discussion has gone on so long without the original paper in Wiley's "Chemistry Select being linked to. Even more astonishing (or depressing, if you like to think of Slashdotters averaging one or two more braincells than the average) is that no-one has commented on the fact that the paper is available without having to go through Wiley's paywall.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"