[HN Gopher] Researchers successfully convert methane gas into li... ___________________________________________________________________ Researchers successfully convert methane gas into liquid methanol Author : geox Score : 39 points Date : 2022-10-01 14:41 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (scitechdaily.com) (TXT) w3m dump (scitechdaily.com) | TSiege wrote: | This is just greenwashing so long as the source of Methane is | from fossil fuels. This article is doing a lot of work to cover | up this fact. The article says, "Despite the fact that natural | gas is a fossil fuel, its conversion into methanol produces less | carbon dioxide (CO2) than other liquid fuels in the same | category." Before we get into "other liquid fuels", if it comes | from the ground it's dirty. We have to be 100% clean energy if we | want a habitable planet. | | Secondly it goes on to say "methane collection from the | atmosphere is critical for mitigating the negative consequences | of climate change since the gas has 25 times the potential to | contribute to global warming as CO2." This is a bullshit | suggestion with atmospheric methane levels still measuring in the | parts per billion range. | | Just disingenuous and uncritical reporting all around | blueflow wrote: | How is this better, climate wise, than burning the methane | directly? Methanol still has the same amount of carbon in it. | anonporridge wrote: | It's not, if you assume the methane is burned completely. But | it's being discovered that simply flaring methane isn't as | efficient as previously thought, | https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/oil-industry-flaring... | | So, unless you're running the methane through a generator that | burns it much more efficiently, like bitcoin miners are doing, | we'd be better off bottling it up as methanol where it can be | burned efficiently elsewhere. | | The bigger impact is that it potentially creates a profit | incentive to capture waste methane, so it's less likely that | producers will cut corners and just let it vent. Why vent money | into the atmosphere? | | The open question is whether conversion to methanol and | transportation will be cheap enough to actually generate a | profit. If not, then it will be better off just getting burned | on site. | blueflow wrote: | > we'd be better off bottling it up as methanol where it can | be burned efficiently elsewhere. | | Liquid gas is compressed methane, and some industries and | cars already run by burning it. So the infrastructure already | exists. | anonporridge wrote: | You mean liquefied natural gas? Yeah, that's doable, but as | Europe is finding out right now, it's very expensive. You | have to keep the liquefied gas sufficiently chilled all | through transport. You wouldn't have to do that with | methanol. | blueflow wrote: | I mean liquefied methane, which does not need to have | fossil sources. It is also generated by biomass | facilities who operate on farm waste. | | > You have to keep the liquefied gas sufficiently chilled | all through transport | | No, just compressed. Same as with hydrogen. | scythe wrote: | The vapor pressure of methane is about 6.25 MPa. For | comparison a bike tire has about 0.4 MPa, a car tire | closer to 0.2-0.25. So you need a pretty damn good | compressor and pressure vessel / pipeline, versus a | simple tank for methanol. Also worth noting that the | methanol can later be easily converted to dimethyl ether | and used as a clean _er_ -burning diesel fuel (vapor | pressure ~0.5 MPa), where it may be possible to convert | existing engines: | | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2021.6 | 633... | MayeulC wrote: | I haven't read TFA yet (edit: as I thought, it's very | light in details), but I know it's a hassle to spring up | gas distribution logistics where it's only a secondary | product (oil wells). The question is: is this new method | simple enough to put in practice at production sites? | barbazoo wrote: | The methane won't spend all that time in the atmosphere acting | as a GHG much more potent than CO2. | | > Furthermore, methane collection from the atmosphere is | critical for mitigating the negative consequences of climate | change since the gas has 25 times the potential to contribute | to global warming as CO2, for example. | blueflow wrote: | > In the study, the scientists used pure methane, but in the | future, they will extract the gas from renewables such as | biomass. | | No extra capture. | [deleted] | dimitar wrote: | Unfortunately, this might as well mean more natural gas | extraction and the availability of a cheap fossil fuel. This is | why we also need carbon taxes; technology developments can impact | the fight against climate change in unpredictable ways. | anonporridge wrote: | This may make it easier to bottle up and sell the methane gas as | fuel so it can be burned efficiently elsewhere, since | transporting gas from remote locations is very hard and | expensive, either in pipelines or chilled and liquefied. Still | ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere, but that's drastically better | than methane, which eventually reacts into CO2 anyway after | decades of 10-80x warming. | | This is especially true at the many sites that produce very | small, but collectively significant, amounts of methane, | specifically landfills (check Vespene Energy, a startup in | California targeting this problem [0]). | | So, this is potentially a fantastic development because it could | create a profit incentive to completely capture waste methane | rather than at best flaring it (which has been found to only be | about 91% efficient in practice [1]) or at worst simply venting | it. Right now, the only incentive to even flare methane is | general goodwill or fear of the stick of regulation. A carrot to | generate money along with the stick of fines would be a much more | powerful force to actually reduce the impact, especially in most | of the non western world that don't have a very strong stick. | | [0] - https://twitter.com/Digital_Ore | | [1] - https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/oil-industry- | flaring... | sfink wrote: | I wonder how efficient the conversion in the article would be, | after being adapted to real world "dirty" methane instead of | pure. | anonporridge wrote: | That is something I mentioned in another comment below. | | It's still an open question whether conversion to methanol, | transportation, and sale will be cheap enough to actually | generate a profit. It the real world, it might simply cost | too much or be too dirty of a conversion that the numbers | don't add up. | | In this case, then we will still be better off just burning | it efficiently on site. | im3w1l wrote: | How much sense would it make to do solar -> hydrogen -> methane | -> methanol? | coderenegade wrote: | I don't think you need to go through methane to get from | hydrogen to methanol, you just synthesize methanol directly | once you have the hydrogen. In fact, most methanol is made by | splitting hydrogen from natural gas first. | | This is more useful for producing methanol from biogas (i.e. | waste facilities), since the gas is produced by bacteria as | part of the natural decay process. It's an alternative to | producing methane catalytically from hydrogen. | Puradolia wrote: | There's no reason to do that. You do not want to create more | methane, and the possibility of even a trickling of it getting | into the atmosphere. This methane to methanol is purely to get | rid of the methane we produce, and hopefully the methane stored | in the atmosphere. We've got plenty of hydrogen, it's one of | the most common elements (iirc) in the known universe, but to | convert some into methane? Hydrogen is clean, and then make it | toxic methane? It's much better to just use the hydrogen as | fuel. I remember seeing an article one time about a method to | convert hydrogen into fuel, and so it's much better to do it | that way. Though how costly or doable on a mass scale either | conversion is, we don't know yet. | TimJRobinson wrote: | This would be an alternative source of methane rather than | getting more from the ground. If we could recycle the carbon | in the atmosphere + hydrogen from water we could use this | wherever methane is used currently without needing to make | new vehicles / aircraft etc that run on hydrogen. | | This is a good article about it: | https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going- | to-... | labster wrote: | Methane is not toxic, in fact it's frustratingly inert. | Leading to long atmospheric residence time in decades. Unless | you meant to type toxic methanol, which is true, but it's not | that toxic. Just don't drink the wood alcohol, okay? | | I think the plan is to produce methane from hydrogen on Mars | for the return trip on Starship. Kind of a niche case, | though. | aaron695 wrote: ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-03 23:00 UTC)