Scientists Recycle CO2 with Sunlight to Make Fuel 289
An anonymous reader brings us this article from Wired about a new method to produce fuel with the help of concentrated sunlight and carbon dioxide. The process "reverses" combustion, breaking down the CO2 into carbon monoxide, which is then used as a building block for hydrocarbons. Quoting:
"The Sandia team envisions a day when CR5s are installed in large numbers at coal-fired power plants. Each of them could reclaim 45 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air daily and produce enough carbon monoxide to make 2.5 gallons of fuel. Coupling the CR5 with CO2 reclamation and sequestration technology, which several scientists already are pursuing, could make liquid hydrocarbons a renewable fuel."
More Technical Info (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Grampa's biotech solution (Score:3, Informative)
Re:underwhelming (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:2, Informative)
Of course it will be impossible to get enough energy to do that from solar energy. Oh well!
Not carbon neutral (Score:4, Informative)
In the middle of the process there's a small C02 -> CO ->CO2 stage.
Probably better to use all those mirrors to heat some water and drive a turbine.
Re:underwhelming (Score:3, Informative)
"CR5s are installed in large numbers at coal-fired power plants. Each of them could reclaim 45 pounds of carbon dioxide from the air daily and produce enough carbon monoxide to make 2.5 gallons of fuel"
Each of the CR5s produce 2.5 gallons... large numbers of CR5 means 2.5 x "large number" per plant per day.
A New Kind of Cracker (Score:4, Informative)
Now I'd release the oxygen since atomic oxygen is the most corrosive element on the table, recover the graphite and sell it off.'
This would give the high polluting coke refineries something to grieve about since this would put a ding in their profits.
Re:underwhelming (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What could possibly go wrong... (Score:4, Informative)
BTW, chemical plants have a lot more nasty compounds than CO.
Summary a bit too rosy ... (Score:4, Informative)
They're leaving the production of actual liquid fuel to other people
Urban myth (Score:5, Informative)
Claim: NASA spent millions of dollars developing an "astronaut pen" which would work in outer space while the Soviets solved the same problem by simply using pencils.
Status: False.
Short term, long term, one size doesn't fit all (Score:3, Informative)
At the long term, they hope to develop the technology further so it can extract the CO2 needed directly from the atmosphere, and then it will be a renewable if successful.
A problem with the energy and climate discussion is the idea that we should have one solution to all our needs. Short of a dramatic breakthrough in fusion, I don't see that happen.
We are going to see an increase in renewable energy. Different kinds in different places, there are good reasons why "wind" is more relevant than "solar" in my country (Denmark), and why "water" is dominating in Sweden. Fission to ought get a renaissance. Use of fossil sources should decrease. if nothing else then for economic and geopolitical reasons. Biofuel will hopefully not be significant, until we get global population growth under control. There is a huge potential in efficiency, just proper isolation would make US consumption much closer to other industrialized countries.
And we are going to have to adapt to a changing climate, that is a given.
Re:Summary a bit too rosy ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More Technical Info (Score:2, Informative)
See:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html [energy.gov]