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."
Doesn't make sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Renewable not! (Score:4, Insightful)
The only cycles which potentially work over the long term are: (a) solar; (b) fusion reactors; (c) breeder reactors; (d) thorium fuel cycle reactors. That is probably in decreasing order of length of time we could sustain our civilization off of those sources (your opinions may differ).
The coal power plant output conversion of CO2 to liquid fuels simply shifts the problem from an CO2 source one can easily sequester (coal plant smokestacks) to one which is much less easy to sequester (automobile exhausts). You have a fundamental problem here which is when are we going to incorporate the cost of "full sustainability" into our energy costs? That means any carbon you put into the atmosphere you pay to take back out of the atmosphere. Ideally you do more than that to reduce atomospheric CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels [1], i.e. you are taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than you are putting into it. We are currently very far from being able to do that.
So long as we continue to live off of the reduced carbon sources (stored solar energy harvested by plants hundreds of millions of years ago) and don't fully pay for them we have a real problem.
Robert
1. Or humanity makes a decision to allow the glaciers and icecaps to melt, the sea levels rise a bit, some islands and low lying areas get flooded, weather patterns to change a bit *and* spends the money necessary to mitigate the negative effects of these processes.
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
If it works, it is a clever solution.
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
To some extent, yes. The main problem is that electricity produced needs to be (almost) instantly consumed. Chemical storage of the energy avoids that problem. As such, there are various forms of chemical energy storage, ranging from batteries, through hydrogen, through ammonia to hydrocarbons, all with their own problems and advantages.
With batteries, the main trouble is they store too little and they (comparatively) rapidly break down.
Fuel cells can run on hydrogen or ammonia, with varying success. Hydrogen is a PITA to store, but perhaps ammonia is a simpler compromise.
Or hydrocarbons. Which have the advantage of being easy to store and fairly stable.
The thing about the energy crisis is there is no lack of energy (in fact, global warming is in essense an excess of it, and provides excesses of it in the form of weather). There's just a huge problem of extracting, transporting and, above all, storing that energy so you can use it when and where you need it.
Re:Not carbon neutral (Score:3, Insightful)
More steps, more energy loss (Score:3, Insightful)
In the best case it takes as much energy to break the CO2 bonds as you get from generating the CO2, in reality it will take much more.
Re:Renewable not! (Score:3, Insightful)
If we solve those problems for solar cells, we may be on the path to solving it for carbon sequestration -- but I expect it will be at costs significantly higher than we currently pay for energy from ancient reduced carbon sources. (Carbon sequestration fees are essentially a tax on our semi-sustainable use of ancient solar energy. We *will* eventually use up all of the ancient solar energy resources.)
I don't think we will solve either the inexpensive solar energy or inexpensive carbon sequestration problems without a far amount of bionanotechnology or "hard" nanotechnology (diamondoid and robust molecular manufacturing) being applied and I'd guess we are 10+ years away from the first and 25+ years away from the second.
Robert
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that this kind of secondary use of solar energy is starting to come about is a much more interesting development. Sure, you can generate electricity/heat water/etc from solar, but what else can we do with that energy that is also beneficial? THAT's interesting.
Re:underwhelming (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting? Mods.. please. I really hope the poster was joking.
As if we have a limited supply of solar energy. Yes, we better not do this because we might drain the sun.
The sad thing is that I think there are far too many people on this forum who are completely uninterested in technologies like this. Yeah, sure, we'd love to be able to grab all the energy we need from the sun and we'd love to be able to store during dark periods or transmit it with relatively low loss from lit areas to unlit areas. And it'd be great if we could harvest energy from the winds (hey, I'm a sailboat racer.. I do it all the time) or from the natural water flows.
However, until we can get all of these technologies working, something we may never see in our lifetimes, wouldn't it be nice if we could reduce the amount of pollution we produce and start harvesting at least some amount of energy from the sun? It's basically free energy. Every little thing we can do to use it will greatly improve our ability to continue the lifestyles we enjoy while reducing our environmental footprint.
We've got at least a few generations and probably many more to work this out and come up with creative ways to both meet our demands for energy and reduce our environmental footprint.
Re:underwhelming (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OK, Let's Do the Math (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that even if you did convert all the CO2 from the coal plants... you'd just be burning it again in cars (or something else). The entire process would not be carbon neutral. You're merely reusing the carbon once. In the end, you're releasing the exact same net amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Might as well just use the solar energy to create electricity directly and reduce the amount of coal burned in the first place. That would reduce the net amount of CO2 (from coal plants, anyway)... not just delay its release.
-matthew
Re:Vaporware (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vaporware (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose you neglected to read the whole "solar energy" part of the article? The point of all these things, be they this plan or biofuels, isn't some magic pixie dust source of free energy. It's that the easiest way of getting solar energy into a useful form might be to take a detour through plants or CO or steam or something else.
Fortunately, some people are actually trying to solve these problems rather than bitching on /.
Re:Recycling CO2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Well technically it does, it's just that burning it puts it back into the atmosphere. Anybody who feels strongly enough could bury it instead.
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Get a high mountain
2. Build hydroelectric powerplants
3. Sell electricity
4. Profit
I never realized it was that easy. So now I only need a mountain...
Re:Grampa's biotech solution (Score:3, Insightful)
I am referring to the massive subsidies received by the corn farmers in the USA and the sugar beet farmers in Europe.
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Recycling CO2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'll worried more about the production rate of 2.5 gal of fuel per day from each unit. They better work on scaling it up to be useful.
Re:Doesn't make sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vaporware (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OK, Let's Do the Math (Score:3, Insightful)
And what would the cars be burning otherwise?
Oil is a fossil fuel too, using coal twice saves on burning gasoline once.