SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the new-headware-for-very-small-FSM-followers dept.
A research team from the Georgia Institute of Technology and ExxonMobil has demonstrated a new carbon-based molecular sieve membrane that could dramatically reduce the energy required to separate a class of hydrocarbon molecules known as alkyl aromatics.
The new material is based on polymer hollow fibers treated to retain their structure -- and pore sizes -- as they are converted to carbon through pyrolysis. The carbon membranes are then used in a new "organic solvent reverse osmosis" (OSRO) process in which pressure is applied to effect the separation without requiring a phase change in the chemical mixture.
The hollow carbon fibers, bundled together into modules, can separate molecules whose sizes differ by a fraction of a nanometer while providing processing rates superior to those of existing molecular sieve zeolites. Because it uses a commercial polymer precursor, the researchers believe the new membrane has potential for commercialization and integration into industrial chemical separation processes. The research will be reported in the August 19 issue of the journal Science.
Separation is currently achieved through refining processes such as crystallization and adsorption with distillation, which are energy-intensive. Globally, the amount of energy used in conventional separation processes for alkyl aromatics is equal to that produced by about 20 average-sized power plants.
"We see this as a potentially disruptive technology in the way we separate xylenes and similar organic compounds," said Benjamin McCool, one of the paper's co-authors and an advanced research associate at ExxonMobil Corporate Strategic Research in Annandale, N.J. "If we can make this work on an industrial scale, it could dramatically reduce the energy required by these separation processes."
Fabrication of the new membrane material begins with hollow polymer fibers approximately 200 microns [0.2 mm] in diameter, slightly thicker than the average human hair. The fibers have pore sizes of less than one nanometer, and are treated via cross-linking before they are converted to carbon through a pyrolysis process. The pore sizes of the fibers can be adjusted during the fabrication process.
[...] Though the membrane has demonstrated promising results, it still faces a number of challenges. The membranes will have to be tested with more difficult separations before they can be considered for commercialization and scale-up. Industrial mixtures normally contain multiple different organic compounds, and they may include materials that can foul membrane systems. The researchers will also have to learn to make the material consistently and demonstrate that it can withstand long-term industrial use.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Saturday August 20 2016, @02:51PM
*sigh* it is times like this I think soylent needs a "-1 Ignorant" mod.
No, burning hydrocarbons is not a problem for sustainability, or for the environment. It is just an energy storage medium (one of the best in fact, beats the pants off all current battery tech).
Our problem has been that rather than having a closed cycle, where we just use the energy available within our cycle, we have been extracting from the ground and adding to our carbon cycle. That is the problem, not the fuel itself or how it is being burned.
If we could tomorrow synthesise all the fuel we needed efficiently, from carbon in the air and sunlight, we would stop having issues with CO2 pollution, because it would be a closed cycle. All the CO2 exhausted is just captured again and turned into fuel. No net gain in emissions.
So I applaud the work in the article, as it is a good step towards said sustainable future.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday August 20 2016, @07:02PM
Hydrocarbons beat the pants off battery tech because they are a close system.
Diesel burning vehicles would be much heavier if they had to store their reaction products.
If you really want dense energy storage, nuclear power is where it is at. Chemical reactions are like 4 orders of magnitude weaker. The difference is so stark that it is possible to design nuclear power plants (must use most of the fissile material) that put out less nuclear waste than coal plants. The reason is that by using chemical reactions, the coal plant needs to use much more material: material that contaminated with radioactive compounds.
Of course, nuclear power is unsafe without very heavy shielding. So you are back to batteries or diesel. The good news is that nuclear power may make it economic to close the carbon cycle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @08:21PM
I'd criticize ending your sentence with a preposition--if I could think of a non-clumsy way to phrase that.
...and I disagree completely anyway.
We have 7 decades of high-level nuclear waste from hundreds of nuclear plants and haven't figured out something permanent[1] to do with that.
...plus all the irradiated mechanisms/structures.
There is not a nuke plant yet that has been successfully "decommissioned".
Kicking the can down the road is NOT a solution.
...and when things go pear-shaped, you get Chernobyl, which will need ANOTHER multi-billion dollar sarcophagus as the hurriedly-built one is decaying.
[1] The Frenchies' vitrification thing is the best temporary notion and, again, it's still NOT a long-term solution when you consider the half-life of some of the stuff in "spent" nuke fuel.
...and just walking away from nuclear stuff [wikipedia.org] is NOT any kind of solution for stuff that stays dangerous for eons.
Nuke plants|the Nukes for Peace notion are bad ideas that were oversold to the public to distract from the total devastation of Global Thermonuclear War and the unwinability of nuclear warfare.
...and, as for portable terrestrial nuclear power, the closest that has ever come to existing was mock-ups of Ford's rolling disaster. [google.com]
(Just imagine that being in a crash.)
nuclear power is unsafe without very heavy shielding
Yup. Portable nukes are totally unworkable for numerous reasons.
(The thought that they ever believed a nuke-powered airplane was viable is a real hoot.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Saturday August 20 2016, @10:25PM
Hey, Feynman patented the nuclear airplane. And he's a smart guy. Turned around and sold that patent for a cool dollar.
(Note, he did not pay the patent fees)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 20 2016, @11:16PM
"Wiley" might be a better description in this case.
I've never heard of one of those being built--much less flown.
There are also patents on warp drive. [google.com]
Haven't ever heard of one of those flying either.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @04:13AM
If we could tomorrow synthesise all the fuel we needed efficiently, from carbon in the air and sunlight, we would stop having issues with CO2 pollution, because it would be a closed cycle.
Not really no, because we have already put a shit-ton of carbon into the system. You wold have to remove it and stick it back under the ground or somewhere to stop the runaway temperatures from increasing now.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday August 22 2016, @05:28PM
Same would apply if we switched to all-electric future as well. That is a different problem all together.
Saying that, if they did perfect the ability to produce fuel from carbon and sunlight, then all they would have to do is to take a percentage of the fuel created and lock it up underground again. That would basically start taking carbon out the atmosphere and sequester it.
However I doubt it would ever happen, so at best we can stop adding to what we have already dumped into the air.
As for runaway temperatures, even if that is true (and I can't comment, not having done enough research on it) it doesn't really matter. The climate has been changing since forever, and will continue to do so. The human race will survive, along with other life, and the world will keep turning.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @08:37AM
If the runaway temps are true (and I can't be sure either) then it definitely won't be life as usual. The world will keep on turning sure, but there's nothing to say life has to survive ever increasing temps.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Unixnut on Monday August 29 2016, @07:44PM
That may be so, but I suspect life will adapt, even if we don't. I suspect we will though, our main natural adaptation is intelligence, which allows us to adapt far faster and far more than if we have to rely on the life-death evolutionary cycle.
Life is really damn tough, and will not die easily. It didn't extinguish when the earth was impacted by a meteor and wiped a huge chunk of life off earth. The relatively small chances in climate compared to that should not pose a life-extinguishing event.