[HN Gopher] Fuel out of thin air: CO2 capture from air and conve... ___________________________________________________________________ Fuel out of thin air: CO2 capture from air and conversion to methanol (2020) Author : bill38 Score : 67 points Date : 2022-12-10 18:34 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (research.american.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (research.american.edu) | the_third_wave wrote: | Using such a process on plain air is not likely to ever be | economically feasible as air only contains a tiny amount of CO2, | around 400 parts per million. If you want to run such a process | run it on the exhaust stack of a gas-fired power plant since that | contains a good amount of CO2. Of course this only makes sense if | the capture takes less energy than the power plant produces which | can not be the case since it would violate the second law of | thermodynamics [1]. | | [1] https://www.britannica.com/science/second-law-of- | thermodynam... | andrewmutz wrote: | Well the good news is that every year that 400ppm goes up | sbierwagen wrote: | >violate the second law of thermodynamics | | This is directionally correct, in that coal emissions | sequestration is unlikely to be economical, but with two | caveats: | | 1) Most coals are not actually pure carbon, they do contain a | small percentage of hydrogen. If you don't capture the | resulting water vapor+ then that gives you some combustion | energy for free. | | 2) If you had to spend energy to split the carbon off CO2 and | sequester the carbon, then yes, it would be a pointless round | trip. Which is why most "clean coal" schemes just compress the | CO2 and sequester it underground. | | --- | | +: Water vapor is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, but it | varies between 4,000 and 25,000 ppm, so clean coal, which is | intended to be a short term stopgap measure operated only for a | few decades until the global PV solar infrastructure is built | out, shouldn't have time to affect global gas balances. | acidburnNSA wrote: | Quick summary: "Given sources of Carbon and Hydrogen plus massive | energy inputs, you can synthesize hydrocarbons!" | | I feel like the headlines always try to pretend you're getting | energy out of the CO2 rather than putting energy into a | hydrocarbon energy storage chemical. | | Question of course is economics of converting some (hopefully | clean-ish) energy into stored hydrocarbon chemical bond energy | and then combusting it in a vehicle vs. just digging up | hydrocarbons and combusting them. | DennisP wrote: | Well we might want to consider the externalities of "just | digging up hydrocarbons and combusting them." | acidburnNSA wrote: | Of course, and we are. But let's not pretend there is free | fuel floating around in CO2 as part of that consideration. | mlindner wrote: | I think the primary idea is that eventually we'll still need | carbon source inputs for making certain things (fertilizer for | one, most types of rocket fuel for another) and so this is an | alternative to that. If we're not getting hydrocarbons from | fossil fuels, we need to get it from somewhere else for the | petrochemical industry. | | It's also a nice thing to do when the spot price of energy goes | negative or extremely low when there's tons of surplus | renewable energy. | | I also heard one example assuming a future with nuclear fusion | being cheap and you put a nuclear fusion plant at larger | airports to produce jet fuel on-site. | subradios wrote: | I think it's totally plausible actually, there's lots of | stranded renewables and otherwise flared natgas that could be | used for this process | mlindner wrote: | The flared natural gas is happening because it's too | expensive to ship it away versus what it's worth. I'm not | sure what you gain by burning the natural gas into CO2, and | then converting it back into a hydrocarbon again only for it | to again be marooned... | PaulHoule wrote: | Very similar technology is used to turn CH4 to motor fuels | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_to_liquids | | they say | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_GTL | | in Qatar makes about 95 million barrels of liquid a year at | $40 a barrel. | acidburnNSA wrote: | There are places you can get energy from to do this for sure. | But you're still putting energy into an energy conversion, | _not_ getting energy out of CO2. (Unless you 're doing some | kind of late stage stellar nucleosynthesis fusion, which... | you're not) | | The headline should be: "Fuel components from air synthesized | into liquid fuel using energy from some other energy source" | simondotau wrote: | An inefficient process is still infinitely more efficient | than nothing. | | I think there's an opportunity to formalise an excess | energy marketplace, established with an inefficient process | to get the ball rolling. From there, market forces can | dictate winners. | ticviking wrote: | The big thing here is in theory we could put something | like a nuclear plant(which people are afraid of) in a | remote area and produce fuels we are already equipped to | use from that pretty major energy source. | | Combine that with Solar storage and geo-thermal storage | using that and maybe we will continue to have enough | movable energy to have long distance travel that isn't | wind driven. | PaulHoule wrote: | There is even talk of using a nuclear heat source to | drive petrochemical transformations in China as well as | the US | | https://www.osti.gov/biblio/23032635 | Animats wrote: | Yeah, these articles are consistently vague about the energy | inputs and outputs of the process. | | This isn't even a closed cycle. It uses up potassium hydroxide. | | Electrolyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen is more promising, | if you like that sort of thing. Once you have hydrogen, you can | make hydrocarbons, if you want to. That's good to have as a | technology for when we use up all the natural hydrocarbons and | still want to make plastics. As an energy storage system, it | sucks. | bparsons wrote: | There are a million ways to produce smaller amounts of energy | from larger amounts of grid energy. This isn't really useful. | Gibbon1 wrote: | Yeah it's like the old snark about investing. It's being easy | to make a million dollars. Just start with two million dollars. | | The gross thing about this stuff is it's predicated on the | average person not being able to do the engineering and | accounting calculations to realize it's all lies. | 0xf00ff00f wrote: | Does anyone know whatever happened to Prometheus Fuels? | mgiampapa wrote: | Still burning money, but looking for things where green | premiums can be paid like for woke Zero Net Carbon aircraft. | tjkrusinski wrote: | It was anecdotal, but I met someone who worked with folks who | worked there, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors and they don't | really have what they say they have. Unfortunate as it looked | really promising. | AtlasBarfed wrote: | The low temp requirements look promising, but wake me up when the | cost of the system at scale is known. | | Obviously things like long haul aviation need synthfuels, but I | wouldn't hold my breath that this will be the magic bullet for | keeping the ICE relevant in the next century. | rootusrootus wrote: | Given how inefficient ICE is to begin with, I can't imagine | something like this being used for any transportation that can | be easily electrified. This is really for niche cases like air | travel, I assume. | subradios wrote: | ICEs are incredibly efficient. Electricity is only efficient | if you only care about kwh delivered to the car doing to the | wheels. The efficiency of getting kwh from the grid to the | car puts it well worse than most battery setups. | tuatoru wrote: | Methanol is a feedstock for lots of industrial chemicals too. | pfdietz wrote: | Methanol can be turned into gasoline by the ExxonMobil MTG | process. | | https://www.exxonmobilchemical.com/en/catalysts-and- | technolo... | PaulHoule wrote: | This is not really new, lots of people are writing papers on | different paths to this. | | There was a huge interest in synthesizing motor fuels from coal | or natural gas up to 1980, it makes for depressing reading | because the Fischer-Trospch chemistry for building up | hydrocarbons from hydrogen and carbon monoxide has awful | economics. For anything else people would be happy that iron | works as a catalyst but they scoured the rest of the periodic | table looking for something better and didn't find it. You have | to run the reaction at low temperatures otherwise you get | nothing but methane, but under those conditions reactions that | build up and break down hydrocarbons are closely balanced so | you have a huge machine which makes a trickle of fuel so the | capital costs are high. | | Looking at the history you'd think somebody would tell the | airplane engineers that they should just go clean sheet and | figure out how to fuel airplanes with hydrogen or methane but | they are so used to being coddled (like that time the FCC | couldn't make them upgrade their broken altimeters or how they | are just barely starting to remove lead from GA fuel after all | these years) that they are sending chemical engineers on what's | been a lost cause for more than a century. | gumby wrote: | I've seen a bunch of these over the years; still waiting for one | that will get traction. The changing cost of oil (mainly making | externalities fiscally concrete) may change the equation. | | The most interesting I ever ran across was people doing | artificial photosynthesis to produce H2 and combustable oil, e.g. | Nate Lewis' group at Cal Tech. Same problem: contemporary | economics. | | I'm glad people are still working on these problems. | [deleted] | nix23 wrote: | >still waiting for one that will get traction. | | There is one, got traction since millions of years..it's called | trees: | | https://www.britannica.com/science/methanol | | >>wood alcohol, or wood spirit | gumby wrote: | Unfortunately it consumes a tree, which takes a while to | replace. Better to be able to build a facility that can | produce what you need on a continuous basis. | | Interestingly I had to reword my comment (plant->facility and | evergreen-> continuous) to avoid looking like I was trying to | pun. Natural metaphors are a deep part of our thinking about | the world. | pstuart wrote: | Bamboo seems like an intriguing alternative to trees. | greenyoda wrote: | Also, this Wikipedia article specifically discusses the use | of methanol as a fuel: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_fuel | Archelaos wrote: | Or wood gas. At the end of WW2 there were about 500,000 | vehicles with wood gas generators in use in Germany to make | up for the lack of other fuels.[1] But under today's | conditions, this possibility does not seem to make economic | sense. | | [1] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas | 0xf00ff00f wrote: | I like this one: https://www.aircompany.com/products/air-vodka/ | bryanlarsen wrote: | Terraform industries used to claim that their natural gas would | be cheaper than local natural gas in 2027. They now say that | the IRA has moved that timeline up to 2024. | | https://terraformindustries.com/ | selimthegrim wrote: | Lewis retired last month I believe. | narrator wrote: | The problem is energy conversion efficiency. Sure you can make | synthetic jet fuel from solar panels, water and CO2 but the | efficiency is miserable[1]. It's something like 4% efficient | and the metal catalysts sometimes aren't cheap. I guess it's | important to start somewhere and work on efficiency | improvements until it makes economic sense. | | [1]https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00286-0 | SamBam wrote: | As solar becomes cheaper and cheaper, low efficiencies may | still be worth it. We're never going to power a 747 on solar, | but if the energy in the fuel comes from the sun, even if 90% | of that is "wasted," it's still greener. | mschuster91 wrote: | Doing the process with standard technology will always be a | PITA, partially because catalytic agents tend to not just be | expensive but primarily sourced from questionable or enemy | nations. | | I think the eventual answer will be in genetically engineered | microbes or plants, if only because it is easier to scale up | vats with microbes and nature already has figured out | synthesis paths for ages. | eganist wrote: | > When air was bubbled through potassium hydroxide dissolved in | ethylene glycol and the CO2-loaded solution subsequently | hydrogenated in the presence of H2 and a metal catalyst, complete | conversion to methanol was observed at 140 degC. | | Am I missing something? Isn't the need for hydrogen gas here a | constraint? | | It's either gonna be refined (steam reforming) or split from | water. | retrac wrote: | The point is that methanol is a liquid which you can pour into | a tank like regular gasoline and will run with many existing | engine designs. It is also useful for a variety of industrial | purposes. Similarly, methane can be piped in existing natural | gas infrastructure and burned in existing boilers. Hydrogen, by | comparison, is hard to store, harder to work with, and lower | density. | | There is no readily available carbon-neutral substitute for | aviation fuel, gasoline, artificial fertilizers, or even | natural gas. Synthesis from carbon-neutral power would provide | it. Germany liquefied coal into methane and methanol at an | industrial scale during WW II due to lack of oil imports. This | is the same idea, just switching the heat and CO2 and H2 to a | different source besides coal. | | It's also possible to synthesize ammonia (fundamental to | synthetic fertilizers and all kinds of chemistry) from H2 + N2 | + C02 + heat in the presence of a catalyst. | pfdietz wrote: | Why is hydrogen itself, turned into ammonia, not a substitute | for use of fossil fuels to make artificial fertilizers. Sure, | urea contains carbon, but there are plenty of N fertilizers | other than urea. | kyleyeats wrote: | Ethanol is a carbon-neutral substitute for gasoline, no? | coderenegade wrote: | It can be, but methanol is produced catalytically, unlike | ethanol, which is made via fermentation and competes with | crops for arable land. You can make ethanol catalytically | as well, but afaik it typically involves making methanol | first. Methanol has slightly less energy density, but it | has the advantage of burning cleaner than any other fuel | (no carbon-carbon bonds, so no soot), and it's easier to | crack using waste heat, which is a pathway to more | efficient engines (you can boost the LHV of the fuel by | around 20% this way). | fooker wrote: | Ethanol can be potentially carbon neutral, given a ton of | terms and preconditions. | tuatoru wrote: | H2 is necessary, yes. It can be provided by electrolysis of | water, air captured if necessary. | eganist wrote: | Yeah that feels like it defeats the point. Not that I know | the math, but it feels like there's a potential for it to be | a net contributor of carbon emissions by encouraging more | steam reforming of cng (and thus more cng pumping) or through | power consumed to split water--power which invariably will | come from dirty sources until we've done a better job moving | away from dirty power. | | I'd be curious to see someone graph out where this | transitions from being carbon positive to being carbon | negative (or vice versa) | bryanlarsen wrote: | Here's a scale model of a methane production plant | | https://twitter.com/TerraformIndies/status/1591255472572895 | 2... | | If you burn gas to create gas, you end up with less gas | than you started with. It'd be cheaper to burn dollar | bills. It only works when the input energy is cheaper than | the output energy. Right now solar and wind are the only | energy sources cheaper than fossil energy. | PaulHoule wrote: | No, e-Fuels like this are a way to make fuel from carbon | free sources and that means splitting water to make | hydrogen and sucking CO2 out of the air. | | The navy is interested in making e-fuels from electricity | on nuclear aircraft carriers since a gallon of jet fuel | delivered to an aircraft carrier costs a lot more than a | gallon of jet fuel delivered to a civilian airport and the | aircraft carrier has to slow down a lot so a tanker it | refuels from can catch up with it. | DennisP wrote: | The point is not to get free energy. The point is to turn | energy into hydrocarbon fuels that can be used without net | carbon emissions, especially for vehicles that aren't easy | to electrify. | SoftTalker wrote: | Yes, this sort of thing is best thought of as a different | sort of battery. You put energy in, and later get energy | out. It's not a fuel. | | If you could do it with solar power, it's sort of like | free energy but no more than charging batteries from | solar is. There are still infrastructure costs at | minimum. | jalk wrote: | Potentially also as way of storing excess wind/solar | generated energy | pfdietz wrote: | A problem with ideas like these is that they have to be cheaper | than burning fossil fuels and then capturing and sequestering CO2 | to compensate. Both schemes capture CO2, so that part of the cost | cancels out. Sequestering CO2 once you have it shouldn't be very | expensive, especially if it can be used to stimulate more | petroleum production. | | If you're going to capture CO2 from the atmosphere it may be very | favorable to do it at high latitude, where air is colder. I | wonder if this could be sold to Russia as a way for them to make | money in a post-fossil fuel world. | | https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(22)01836-3 | bryanlarsen wrote: | Capturing the CO2 is the most expensive part of the process. | | Pumping fossil fuels out of the ground and then capturing and | storing the resulting carbon is likely going to be more | expensive then capturing carbon, synthesizing the fuel and | burning the synthetic fuel. But in both scenarios capturing the | carbon is the dominating cost so they're always going to be | roughly comparable. | joe_the_user wrote: | Who says the fossil fuel carbon will be captured? It's | certainly not now and who says carbon capture is ever going | to be enforced? | | The only hope I have is that solar energy becomes so cheap | that it can be profitably used to produce synfuel and so | drive petroleum from the market. Actual regulation would be | better but that seems as far as ever. | Animats wrote: | Brought to you by the Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute. | Mission statement: | | _" The final solution to the hydrocarbon shortage will come only | when mankind can produce unlimited cheap energy as with the | promise of safer atomic energy and other alternate sources. With | abundant cheap energy, hydrogen can be produced from sea water | and then combined with carbon dioxide to produce hydrocarbons. In | the meantime, however, it is essential that solutions be found | that are feasible within the framework of our existing | technological base. The Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute is | at the forefront of this effort."_ | yathern wrote: | Note: This is from 2020 | rqtwteye wrote: | With enough energy input you can do a lot of interesting things. | Question is where you get the energy from. | [deleted] | mentos wrote: | From a very high level I wonder if we could use nuclear power to | drive a CO2 capture mechanism to 'make up' for all the time spent | burning fossil fuels instead of nuclear? | bparsons wrote: | This would be a good investment once the grid is over 100% | renewable. Until then, just use the renewable power for | consumption. | epistasis wrote: | There are many many many startups focused on this. If we engage | in the amount of carbon capture that is predicted to be | necessary in the second half of the century, we will be moving | the same order of mass of air-extracted carbon to its fins | resting place each year that we are currently moving for | fueling. So a massive massive economy is expected to be built | around this. | | Nuclear power is unlikely to make financial sense as a source | of electricity for this process. Many of the early pioneers | were big supporters of nuclear for it last decade, but solar | photovoltaic has made nuclear obsolete in comparison. I think | the name of that startup was Carbon Engineering, bawd out of | Canada... the founder was completely shocked at the advancement | in solar, and at the time (a few years ago) thought that, by | 2030, it would be possible to make liquid hydrocarbon fuels out | of air+solar for roughly the same cost or lower as fossil | fuels. | coredog64 wrote: | Originally, these types of systems relied not only on the | electricity but also some of the heat output of the nuclear | plant. If you're having to do both with solar, then the | efficiency is that much lower. | | With that said, according to the abstract, this | implementation doesn't require excessive heat energy so you | could probably get away with solar thermal for that bit. | dotnet00 wrote: | If we were willing to significantly overbuild nuclear power | production capability yes, but from what I understand with | current carbon capture efficiency it's more effective to have | that nuclear power directly offset current energy consumption | instead. | themoonisachees wrote: | From a logical standpoint carbon capture is a scam [0]. The | argument is "if you don't have spare energy, why are you | spending it on carbon capture? And if you have spare energy | (you don't), why not spend the money you usee to build the | over capacity to bring clean energy somewhere else?" | | That is all assuming your entire power grid is 100% clean (it | isn't) because otherwise you fall in case 0 where you spend | energy that could be spent on offsetting non-clean energy | usage. | | [0] https://youtu.be/nJslrTT-Yhc | bsdetector wrote: | This videos shows the perverse mindset of climate activists | that you "have to change your lifestyle" and personally | suffer to solve the problem. It's a common refrain and | erroneous, but here particularly so as _only_ carbon | capture, mechanical or natural, can fully solve the problem | -- that is, there 's already too much greenhouse effect and | even an extreme agrarian lifestyle won't solve the problem. | | Climate change is a problem nobody can personally solve and | I think this personal suffering makes them feel like | they're doing something. | kbenson wrote: | It depends on the speed of capture. If you can capture | faster than conversion reduces, and there are time | constraints that mean reducing carbon now is better than | later, then it can make sense. | | It's the same as whether you should reduce expenses or | increase income. Both yield a net increase, but there are | variables than can make one better than the other in the | short term. Whichever yields the most benefit for the | effort is probably the best one, or if one has a time | constraints and the other doesn't, that might be the best | one to focus on. | dotnet00 wrote: | I wouldn't go as far as to argue that it's a scam, I do | think it's a complex issue which might require rethinking | the way we geographically distribute infrastructure. | | Carbon capture from the atmosphere is certainly extremely | inefficient and not too practical (yet, at least), but | carbon capture straight from large emitters like at | factories should be much more efficient as it isn't having | to go through as much air. | | Combined with the difficulty of transporting electricity in | many circumstances, carbon capture solutions which involve | cleaning up the output from factories using something like | an on-site small-modular reactor are probably a lot more | practical. While of course the SMR would be better spent | replacing a fossil fuel plant in the immediate term, in the | longer term the output from the factory would also need to | be cleaned up anyway. | | So given enough serious interest in building SMRs/getting | rid of fossil fuels, the temporary cost of allocating an | SMR to carbon capture at a factory would be small compared | to allocating it to replacing a fossil fuel plant (since | another would be built soon enough to replace the latter). | fooker wrote: | The counterpoint is that energy can be difficult to | transport, but the atmosphere dissipates carbon for free. | So it might sense to do this where you produce energy, to | use up extra energy which could be otherwise wasted. | SamBam wrote: | Except that energy production is local, while carbon | capture is global. | | If you power a carbon capture device in Greenland using | geothermal, you can probably get a lot more energy than you | can reasonably give you the grid. In that case, using the | rest for carbon capture makes sense. | | Further, carbon capture is going to need to be part of our | future mix, as we'll never be able to be 100% green in the | reasonable future. It's good to spend a tiny percentage of | our resources now improving the technology. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-10 23:00 UTC)