SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the now-if-they-could-just-convert-it-to-ethanol dept.
Tandem catalytic system efficiently converts carbon dioxide to methanol:
Converting carbon dioxide to methanol, a potentially renewable alternative fuel, offers an opportunity to simultaneously form an alternative fuel and cut down on carbon dioxide emissions.
Inspired by naturally occurring processes, a team of Boston College chemists used a multi-catalyst system to convert carbon dioxide to methanol at the lowest temperatures reported with high activity and selectivity, the researchers reported in a recent online edition of the journal Chem.
The team's discovery was made possible by installing multiple catalysts in a single system constructed within a sponge-like porous crystalline material known as a metal-organic framework, said Boston College Associate Professors of Chemistry Jeffery Byers and Frank Tsung, lead authors of the report.
Held in place by the sponge, the separate catalysts work in harmony. Without isolation of the catalytically active species in this way, the reaction did not proceed and no product was obtained, they reported.
The team drew its inspiration from the biological machinery in cells, which use multicomponent chemical reactions with great efficiency, Tsung said.
[...] In addition to achieving site isolation by encapsulating the catalysts, which led to catalyst activity and recyclability, the team discovered an autocatalytic feature of the catalyst that enabled the reaction to be run without the need for large amounts of additives. Most previous reports for similar reactions use large amounts of additives, but the team's approach avoids this necessity and it is the first to use carbon dioxide in an energy-related reaction, Tsung said.
The team plans to do further research into the modularity of both the encapsulation method and the metal-organic frameworks to gain a deeper understanding of the multicomponent system and optimize it further, as well as access new, unexplored reactivity through the formation of new host-guest constructs, Tsung said.
Journal Reference:
Thomas M. Rayder, Enric H. Adillon, Jeffery A. Byers, Chia-Kuang Tsung. A Bioinspired Multicomponent Catalytic System for Converting Carbon Dioxide into Methanol Autocatalytically [$].
Chem May 05, 2020. DOI:10.1016/j.chempr.2020.04.008
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday July 27 2020, @09:34PM (13 children)
Convert it to ethanol and you've just solved the global warming crisis in one fell swoop. Drunken rednecks might be a problem but hey! They don't threaten the planet.
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @09:50PM
No, methanol works equally well for drunken rednecks. The moonshine has already thinned the hurd enough so that those who couldn't hold their liquor with a little methanol died off long ago.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @09:51PM (3 children)
Drunken rednecks don't threaten the planet - I do.
Me and my burritos, together, we's gonna FUNK YOU UP.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @09:59PM
Fuck the millenials.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday July 27 2020, @10:56PM (1 child)
You're supposed to make methanol, not methane.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @11:13PM
We splitting hairs here?
We's gonna funk you up.
And fuck the millenials.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @10:05PM (5 children)
"redneck"
Racist. It's amazing how brazen racists like you have become.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @12:10AM (2 children)
Poor victim!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @12:34AM (1 child)
"Redneck" is a lifestyle choice, so it's nothing like race or sexual orientation. Perfectly OK to hold Republicans personally responsible for heinous lifestyle choices! Like Roger Stone, "Lock him up!"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday July 28 2020, @03:20PM
So, what you're saying is being poor and/or uneducated is a lifestyle choice. Very big
otedof you.Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by petecox on Tuesday July 28 2020, @12:36AM (1 child)
Hi from the skin cancer capital of the world, Australia.
Wear a hat and apply sunblock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @01:55PM
Drink until drunk. Vomit.
Australian full grown adults (let's say age 50+) are some of the nastiest people you'll ever meet.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday July 28 2020, @12:44AM (1 child)
Waste of energy, the ethanol catabolism [wikipedia.org] has CO2 and water at the end.
I say make it in durable plastics and sequester that carbon in landfills, it will be mined by the next species that reaches intelligence and civilization (large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @01:57PM
Maybe a liquid form of plastic. We could create large reservoirs of it and pump it into the ground and under the oceans.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 27 2020, @09:43PM (3 children)
And according to all the experts here at Soylent methanol is totally fine to drink. How dare that nanny state FDA say otherwise!
So, bottoms up...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @10:59PM
Exactly! Who needs kidneys or eyesight anyway. Or life. They're all overrated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @12:00AM (1 child)
Well, according to the president of the U.S., bleach and other disinfectants are totally fine to drink. And all of his supporters think he is the "Expert."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @06:34AM
You know, I bet even if you watched that speech, frothing and spitting at the screen as you were you wouldn't have heard what he actually said. Get someone to transcribe if for you, and then read it as if it came from a normal person instead of Hitler.
TDS is real and you have it. Trump saying "don't wear masks" was the quickest way to get the irrational half of the population to wear them,
(Score: 4, Insightful) by nostyle on Monday July 27 2020, @11:09PM (10 children)
It would have been nice if the energy efficiency (ergo cost) of the process had been mentioned. There are lots of ways of cracking CO2 into other stuff if you throw enough energy into the systems - the critical question is how much it costs you.
I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest that the cost of this is _way_ higher than pumping hydrocarbons from the ground.
Now if you had lots of excess energy laying about from solar, wind or nuclear power generation, this could very well be a means of producing carbon-neutral fuel. Wish we knew the price though.
disclaimer: I am not a Chemical Engineer, but my dad was one (PhD).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 27 2020, @11:39PM (9 children)
if it can work at exhaust stream temperatures or fraction thereof, then there is your energy source.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday July 28 2020, @12:58AM (8 children)
There is certainly some chemothermodynanic 'splainin to do here.
Gotta be pumping in energy somewhere, as methane readily burns to form CO2. So far, thermodynamics hasn't been providing any free lunches.
Entropy is a bitch. You can't get ahead. You can't even break even. But maybe, just maybe, someone will find out how to coax free lunches from mother nature. I suppose should that ever happen, on that day, we become gods. In full control of our destiny.
Don't quit your day job.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NateMich on Tuesday July 28 2020, @01:16AM (7 children)
If you can create methanol from CO2 and then use the methanol in a fuel cell, wouldn't you have a carbon-neutral power fuel cell?
Well, unless if requires a bunch more CO2 than is converted.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday July 28 2020, @02:04AM (6 children)
I get the idea this process needs 2H2 (hydrogen) as a reactant with CO2 to form CH3OH + H2O.
Now, the energy required to produce the hydrogen is probably greater than the amount of energy recovered by burning the methanol.
This looks like a way to make methanol, given water, CO2, and electricity. As a bonus, you also get oxygen.
Getting the electricity from solar panels?
OK. Yet another way to mimic a corn crop and a still.
Cutting the good stuff out of the loop.
Who knows? Maybe economies of scale will kick in and this thing may actually fly.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday July 28 2020, @03:14AM (5 children)
Yes, the thermodynamics will always fuck you.
On the long run, this may turned into being:
1. a way to scrub the CO2 faster (or more surface-efficient; or both) than using photosynthesis (a theoretical max solar energy efficiency of 11%, can get as low as 2%). Of course one will need a non-CO2 energy to feed in the process get to this goal
2. a denser renewable energy storage to use instead of batteries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday July 28 2020, @12:01PM (4 children)
I like #2.
Conventional batteries store the electrical energy as chemical bonds on the plate electrodes.
Now, this process places that energy, still stored as chemical bonds, but now pipe able, storable in vessels, and used/made needed /available.
This will be interesting to see how this plays out.
.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Tuesday July 28 2020, @03:24PM (3 children)
Hydrocarbon fuels were only ever a form of energy storage, not an energy source themselves. It is however, the densest form of energy storage we have (that is safe to use/transport by the layman).
The only reason most people consider them an energy source is because we just dig it up and use it. However that energy was stored from before, and most of it came from the sun in some form.
If we could find an efficient way of converting spare power + carbon to liquid fuel (especially something like Butanol, which can be used in cars without modification), we could in an instant transition the entire transport system to a "closed carbon" cycle, and thereby solve the main environmental issue of the day, extra CO2 being pumped out, while also not requiring to scrap and rebuild a whole new infrastructure to support alternative systems.
It would be a game changer in many ways, especially geopolitically. Imagine if countries did not need a steady supply of liquid fuel, but could create their own using electricity + carbon. It could break dependence on "oil producing" nations, it could also reduce conflict as it would not be seen as a "strategic asset" that must be controlled/owned in order to be independent.
It would be a very interesting development if it can be done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @10:20PM (2 children)
The thing is you can't ever get out more energy than you put in. So if you want to convert CO2 into Methanol and release the energy by converting it back to CO2 you need to put in at least the amount of energy that you expect to get back out (and, realistically, due to thermodynamic inefficiencies, more).
So you need better environmentally friendly energy sources. If you want to use, for instance, solar energy in the form of solar panels you need to make sure that the solar panels can extract/'generate' the necessary energy that you plan to use. If you don't have that there is no way you're going to ever be able to get out more energy than you put in.
Catalysts don't change this. Catalysts only reduce the activation energy of a reaction. While this can reduce the necessary energy to get the reaction going and they can help speed up the reaction they don't change the equilibrium and they don't change the fact that if you are going from a lower energy molecule to a higher energy molecule you need to input the necessary energy (the difference in energy plus any inefficiencies) to get from one molecule to the other. Lowering the activation energy can still lower the required input energy to some extent but it can only do so by so much. I may try to elaborate on this more later.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @10:29PM (1 child)
Imagine you are at the bottom of a hill. That is the lowest energy level. Now you want to go up the hill. The top is 700 feet high but then once you go to the top you go down another 200 feet to reach another lower resting energy position. So you need to input the energy required to go up 700 feet before you can finally reach the 500 foot resting place. What a catalyst can do is it can reduce the additional 200 feet to, say, 100 feet. A better catalyst might be able to reduce it to 50 feet. This helps but no matter how efficient the catalyst is you can never reduce the required input energy below 500 feet in order to get to that second resting location. In order to get 500 feet of energy back you must put in 500 feet of energy in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29 2020, @10:47PM
(and technically, when you go up 700 feet and go down 200 feet to reach your second resting position without the catalyst you might get some of that energy back on the way down but there could be inefficiencies here that the catalyst could help remove).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28 2020, @02:25PM
Having read the summary and then the linked article, two things jumped out at me as missing.
And that temp is? If 300C (just pulling that number out of the air) is the lowest temperature they achieved, this needs a lot more work to become viable.
Next, there is a diagram of the process in the linked article. The two inputs to the process are CO2 and H2. Yes, H2 is an input. Then, you get Methanol out the other end after an undisclosed amount of work an energy. H2 is not free, and it's not clear if the output methanol is of bigger value than the input H2.