Machine Converts CO2 into Gasoline, Diesel, and Jet Fuel
November 23, 2009 by Lisa Zyga
Sandia researcher Rich Diver assembles a prototype device intended to chemically reenergize carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide, which ultimately could become the building block to synthesize a liquid combustible fuel. Photo by Randy Montoya.
(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories have built a machine that uses the sun's energy to convert carbon dioxide waste from power plants into transportation fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The system could provide an alternative to carbon sequestration; instead of permanently storing CO2 underground, the CO2 could be recycled and put to use.
A prototype of the machine, which was invented by Sandia researcher Rich Diver, was tested recently for the first time.
Called the Counter-Rotating-Ring Receiver Reactor Recuperator (CR5), the cylindrical machine consists of two chambers on the sides and 14 rotating rings in the center. The outer edges of the rings are made of iron oxide. When the scientists heat the inside of one chamber to 1,500C with a solar concentrator, the iron oxide undergoes a thermo-chemical reaction where it gives up oxygen molecules. As the rings rotate (at one revolution per minute), the hot side approaches the opposite chamber and begins to cool down. When carbon dioxide is pumped into this chamber, the iron oxide retrieves oxygen molecules from the carbon dioxide, transforming it into carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide could then serve as a building block to create a liquid combustible fuel.
Diver originally designed the machine to generate hydrogen without using electrolysis. By substituting water for the carbon dioxide in the second chamber, the researchers can make the machine produce hydrogen. Also, by mixing the resulting hydrogen with carbon monoxide, they can produce syngas.
It will probably take 15-20 years before the technology is ready for the market, with the biggest challenge being to increase the system's efficiency. The researchers' goal is to achieve an efficiency of a few percent, which is about twice as efficient as photosynthesis' real-world efficiency of 1%. One way to increase efficiency is to develop new ceramic composites that release oxygen molecules at lower temperatures.
"Ultimately, we believe we have to get in the range of 10% sunlight-to-fuels, and we're a long way from doing that," said James Miller, a chemical engineer with Sandia's advanced materials laboratory.
via: Technology Review
© 2009 PhysOrg.com
3 hours ago
I may be wrong here, but I think LariAnn's point was that by that time, we are either going to have renewables to the point where they are 100% economically viable and supplanting fossils and/or the myth that we need to do anything about CO2 will be fully and forever debunked and no one will want their technology, both very very likely, IMO.
One way or another, everything will have changed by then. They needed to have started this 15 years ago if they wanted to have a market.
I am sure that is what they would be saying 15 to 20 years from now if we don't explore it now... I say we keep working in every promising area. That way, if the oil gets too expensive or scarce or otherwise unpalatable, we will have a good fallback option.
Remember that a lot of energy is released when fuels are converted to (mostly) CO2 and water. . When you turn the CO2 back into fuels you need to put all that energy back in order to reform those bonds.
It's much more economical to directly use that energy in some form instead of creating CO2 (at a loss) and then burning that (at a loss again because of the Carnot limit).
And after all that, this process may not scale and may not be commercially viable, even if it does. I've seen hundreds of research breakthroughs over the decades that proved to be unworkable outside the lab.
No, we can't, with current battery tech. But with even todays battery tech has shown that model planes can be flown with LiIon batteries, so if battery tech get's better, it's more feasible to fly by electric power.
I dont think you understand how a jet engine works. Electricity cant replace the combustible, its the energy from the burn that actually propels the jet. A car or propeller plane uses the burn to fire pistons to crank a shaft...etc, which electricity can replace as the energy source.
Maybe we should pump it underground to utilize the pressure and power of geothermal energy for CO2 reformation?
That right there is rational thinking. We should explore all options, regardless of their present day utility. Who knows what we may learn along the way!
www.SWAPSOL.com
Here's the idea. Grow Grass...cut and then burn the grass for power in power plants. Resulting CO2 release is utilized by new batches of grass to grow. New grass gets burned in power plant...and resulting CO2 release is utilized by yet another new batch of growing grass.
Carbon neutral...don't steal CO2 from the plants with this CR5 device!!!!
This process could be much more environmentaly friendly and effective. Altough I doubt it will get efficient enough to completely replace fossil fuels.
Your comparison is funny. Instead of "stealing" CO2 from plants, you are suggesting to "massacre them and then burn their dead bodies"! Kinda selfish and anit-green! :D
I think someone already mentioned one use: jet fuel (although I can't really think of anything else). Jet fuel is not something that can be replaced by 'green' energy sources since you need the explosive/combustible aspect of fuel in order to get those speeds.
Coal is the most polluting power generating resources. As of 2006, 41% of world electricity generation came from coal. To replace all of this coal, we'd only need to add 3-6% more new crop land. That amount is most likely available.
Grow grass...emit the same amount of CO2 as coal, but new grass absorbs the release of CO2 by the burning. Carbon neutral. Fuel can also be extracted from grass through other process in the near future. It's a renewable, carbon neutral alternative to coal. You can also extract oil from the grass, which is expensive now, but won't be in the near future.
Please supply the reference for the grass as fuel numbers. I am an agricultural consultant and would like to see those papers.
Could these fast growing grasses be grown in the temperate regions where most of the coal fired plants exist or are these tropical grasses? How about storage during the winter when electricity demand increases?