Nobel Physicist: Society Should Convert To Natural Gas (methanol from CO2 for light surface trans)

[Bill USA]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/22/nobel-physicist-society-should-convert-to-natural-gas/

Of all the energy sources in play, natural gas offers the most immediate promise as a clean, abundant fuel that can meet society’s needs, including the need to mitigate global warming, Nobel prize winning physicist Carlo Rubbia said in Chicago Friday.

Society should pursue two goals, now within reach, to fulfill the promise of natural gas, Rubbia told about 250 people at Northwestern University:

•a technology to burn natural gas without CO2 emissions, and

•a conversion of the transportation sector from gasoline to methanol.

~~
~~

For transportation, he suggests producing methanol liquid by recombining hydrogen with CO2 that has been removed from the atmosphere. Cars burning methanol would still produce CO2 emissions, but as long as the fuel is made with captured CO2 they would not increase existing CO2 levels.

Because methanol can be handled like ethanol or gasoline is now, society could avoid several of the obstacles it would face if it tried to convert transportation to hydrogen, including the need for new storage and transportation infrastructure and the need to switch from internal combustion engines to electricity-producing fuel cells.
(more)

also: Carbon Dioxide Hydrogenation to Methanol at Low Pressure and Temperature http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/32203/files/EPFL_TH1726.pdf

[longship]

1. A reasonable stop gap measure.

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 03:24 PM - Edit history (2)

We will likely always need something like fossil fuels for things like airplanes, mainly because of its high energy content. I don't know if methane is suitable for jet aircraft. At first glance, maybe not, but it is certainly more practical and plausible than solar.

The main focus here is to stop pumping the shit out of the ground. This may do it. You can use solar to hydrolyze water, then make CH4 (methane) from the CO2 in the air, producing oxygen as a byproduct in both steps (using naive chemistry).

I like this idea.

On edit: Like some others here I misread the article due to a mistake in the title. It is not natural gas, methane (CH4), but methyl alcohol methanol (CH4O) that the process makes. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas; methanol isn't even a gas. See my response below. #22.

[Bill USA]

6. also may save ecomomy from oil price/shortage depression and give us a chance to turn GW around.

.. just re surface transportation, if we wait for hybrids and plug-ins to do the job we're 'toast'.



...just a chance. Even with this we need massive, quick investment in wind and solar, and though I'm not religious, I'm willing to pray my ass off!

[hunter]

17. Why do we need airplanes?

[longship]

19. I know, I know.

The other day I stood at the edge of my roof and flapped my arms. I flapped and flapped and flapped. Didn't do much good. I ended up having to use the damned ladder to get down.

However, my postmodernist friends tell me that tying bamboo wings on a bamboo body with string like the John Frum cults do is equivalent to engineering an airliner. We wouldn't need any fossil fuel and the world's economic systems on which our whole civilization is built, wouldn't have to suffer at all. They also inform me that a string and tin cans can replace the Internet. This is really revolutionary thinking. A real revelation!

On second thought, maybe we ought to figure out a way to do more with less by doing it efficiently and put an end to pumping and digging more fossil fuels from Carboniferous strata.

[hunter]

21. I'm serious. Ninety percent of our economy is about rushing to nowhere. Work, work, rush, rush, die.

Woohoo! I have a two week vacation, and plan to spend two days in Venice!

You know what? Venice is just another Disneyland. None of it is real. Many of the inhabitants commute there, put on their costumes, just like Mickey Mouse or Snow White, all to sell stuff.

The secret of a good life is enjoying the ride.

Picture a world with yearly six week vacations and year long sabbaticals every decade or so; a world where you have time to sail to Europe in a luxurious wind powered ship and travel the continent by electrically powered trains, visiting distant friends and family. No deadlines, no worries, miss a train, take the next.

Seriously, who would want to be crammed like a sardine into a can full of stale air to be flung across the ocean at just under the speed of sound to "enjoy" a short vacation with brutal deadlines?

And flying for work is even worse.

No thanks.

Fuck economic productivity. It's killing us and it's killing the natural environment that supports us.

[wtmusic]

26. No, it's sleight of hand.

The energy necessary to crack the methane is unaccounted for, and the First Law of Thermodynamics says it's going to be at least as much as is returned when the methanol is burned.

[longship]

28. "Methanol" not Methane. There is a difference, my friend.

I missed it, too, as methane (CH4) is simpler than methanol (CH4O). These guys want to make methanol (methyl alcohol, not natural gas) from atmospheric CO2 and hydrogen -- undoubtedly from hydrolysis of water which one could do with solar photovoltaic panels anywhere near the ocean. The excess power would be used to convert the hydrogen and atmospheric CO2 into methanol which could then be burned to create energy.

No! It is not a source of energy, but it certainly can be used to store solar or wind energy for when the sun doesn't shine or the winds don't blow. Or, it can be used to power things which have no practical alternatives, for instance, airplanes, ships at sea, etc.

This idea could be very good.

[wtmusic]

33. They're not using hydrolysis to get hydrogen, they're cracking methane

From the article:

"Researchers in Germany have cracked methane by passing it through a superheated graphite tube and by bubbling it through hot liquid metal. The methane degrades into hydrogen gas and solid black carbon.

“This system, if it is possible to make it, would be very successful apparently at reducing CO2 emissions.”

The energy it takes to pull 4 hydrogen atoms away from the central carbon atom in a methane molecule is about 10% less (C-H bond) that's released when, as methanol, those 4 hydrogen atoms snap back to create 2 H20 molecules (hydroxyl bond). Of course they're not going to be separated efficiently using a "superheated graphite tube" and "hot liquid metal", there will be thermal and radiative losses.

Combining CO2 and hydrogen into methanol currently takes either high temperatures, high pressures, or both, and a catalyst. I don't see any possible way this convoluted arrangement will be more energy efficient than Fischer-Tropf syngas, and it sounds like another attempt to keep fossil fuels relevant.

[Politicalboi]

2. Yes cleaner air

But DON'T use the water. We gave them so many chances with oil, and they aren't even REQUIRED to have a good clean up plan if all fails. Solar, wind and Hemp IMO is the better future. I'm so tired of hearing about NG and how wonderful it is. Let's try and use fuels we can actually drink if need be. If there are spills, the only danger is the animals will over eat.

[longship]

22. Well, there's the ocean.

Solar energy hydrolyzes the water.

2H2O->2H2+O2

Then you use another process, like that in this paper to make methanol, releasing a little oxygen in the process.

CO2+2H2->CH4O+O

You can then burn the methanol without any increase in atmospheric carbon because the carbon came from the atmosphere to begin with. It may be a thermodynamic negative, but if one can replace petrol with methanol, it's a win-win for the earth's carbon budget. But note, this presumes that one is not just doing this one thing.

Like Bill Nye, I believe in an all of the above solution. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, carbon capture, etc. And like Nye, I think we can do more with using less. We just have to start doing things smarter, like possibly this idea.

It's high school chemistry people. It's science. And if the process works and if it's efficient enough we may be able to cheaply solve part of the problem of not adding more carbon to the atmosphere.

But, oh no. We can't have that! Let's ground all the airplanes (as one poster here suggests).

[Bill USA]

43. Right. I definitely do presume "that one is NOT just doing this one thing." No one technique

or technology will make a difference on its own. We need aggressive investment in wind and solar. The OP, from my point of view, is directed at the fossil fuel burned in the light vehicle, surface transportation sector.

The article in OP presents an approach to making use of CO2, we will be producing regardless if we do anything or not, to make fuel which can be used to replace a fossil fuel in automobiles and trucks.

But for power for residential and commercial structures we need to push wind and solar power.


but someone in this thread is trying to make this idea into a proposal to rehabilitate coal power. Not so. Coal power is soon going to be beat out by wind on a cost basis and solar is reducing costs rapidly as new efficiencies are achieved (along with newer, more efficient designs for solar collectors are being created).

thanks for you input.

[longship]

44. You are welcome. And thank you, too.

[madokie]

3. I love it

[caraher]

4. What about fugitive emissions in extracting and transporting natural gas?

Rubbia dismisses worries about fracking-related pollution as beside the point. But if you lose a significant percentage of the natural gas to the atmosphere in the process of getting it you're not going to make nearly the impact he hopes, given its potency as a greenhouse gas.

[Bill USA]

8. fortunately we can use deep drilled NG and wind power and solar instead of fracked gas

[Buzz Clik]

12. Tighten regulations. Monitor.

[longship]

45. Article body says methanol, not methane.

Not natural gas, it's methyl alcohol. Post title is apparently inaccurate. Fooled me at first, too.

[caraher]

49. It talks about both

“It seems to me that if you can have natural gas with no CO2 emissions there’s no reason not to use it,” said Rubbia, the director of scientific studies at the Institute for Sustainability Studies in Pottsdam, Germany. “It seems to me that a methane-based society is the best choice you have in the present time.”

Asked about pollution from the hydraulic fracturing of shale, Rubbia said: ”This is a separate problem which of course must be resolved in some way.”

Rubbia named shale gas and methane hydrate—natural gas frozen on the sea floor and elsewhere—as abundant sources of energy that can meet society’s needs soon enough to respond to anthropogenic climate change.

It also does go on to discuss methanol from atmospheric CO2, but it's pretty clear that this scheme involves a heavy reliance on accelerated extraction of methane.

[limpyhobbler]

5. I heard methane was a very powerful greenhouse gas and it's leaking everywhere

Local water is also being contaminated by methane extraction.

It also takes tons of water to extract it.

[Bill USA]

9. see cmt link

[longship]

23. It is methanol, not methane.

I know. I misread it too when I first saw this. Methanol is methyl alcohol.

Methane: CH4
Methanol: CH4O
Ethanol: C2H6O (hic!) oopsie!

[limpyhobbler]

27. oops thanks.

[kristopher]

7. More fossil fuel whitewashing.

We've had decades of this crap and it time to stop discussing it as if it is anything more than a red herring.

[Bill USA]

10. making methane from atmospheric CO2 sounds like a good idea to me. see link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112743568

[kristopher]

11. Then you don't understand the issues involved.

This is a prescription for business as usual. It has no business being advocated for on this forum.

[Nihil]

13. Thank you.

> This is a prescription for business as usual. It has no business being advocated for on this forum.

That saved me having to write exactly the same thing.

[Bill USA]

14. what you are ignoring is the risk of an oil supply disruption & the inevitability of oil price rises

Oil Price rising for forseeable future

Given the rapid growth of China, India and other developing nations the demand for petroleum will only grow (and grow rapidly). This means we can expect oil prices to rise inexorably.

"According to the International Monetary Fund, a $10-a-barrel increase in the price of oil reduces U.S. GDP growth by 0.5 percentage points." ( http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/23/what-do-rising-oil-prices-mean-for-u-s-economic-growth/ ).

It's generally accepted that due to rising demand for oil from around the World, the price of oil can be expected to keep rising, quite nicely (if you are betting on oil) for the foreseeable future. This does not bode well for our economy - and for our efforts to invest in and adopt renewable energy technologies - in particular the more expensive alternatives.


Risk of Oil Supply Disruption increasing

I don't know if you have noticed but the situation in the Middle East has become considerably more unpredictable and unstable in the last couple of years. Syria is now involved in a civil war, which many fear will spill over into and involve other Mideast nations. Combining this with Iran's closing in on the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a missile, means instability and unpredictability is the reality for the Middle East for some time to come. All this increases the possibility of an oil supply disruption.

An oil supply disruption of middle East oil could easily send our economy into a steep recession with an increase in the unemployment rate. An oil supply disruption - if it were to happen - given the possible developments in the Mid-East, could last for some years. NOTE also that - we do not even need an actual oil supply disruption to experience a dramatic rise in the price of oil (which would have the same affect on our economy as a real supply disruption). All that is needed is enough of a threat of a disruption in mid-East oil supply to cause speculators to bid up the price of oil - so that it would be the same as if there actually WAS a supply disruption.

Having a recession would not help with regard to the investment needed in Green Technologies - or especially in terms of consumers purchasing the more technically advanced - and more expensive - green technologies in light transportation, for example (i.e. hybrids and especially plug-in hybrids). [font color="red"]In a recession with greater anxiety about job security people are much less likely to spend additional thousands of dollars on the higher tech (and much more expensive) alternatives to conventional ICE automobiles and trucks (well, SUVs) -( i.e. hybrids and plug-in hybrids).[/font]

So, while making methanol from forestry and agricultural waste materials is the best way to go re replacing petroleum as the fuel source for cars and trucks, because of the risk of oil supply disruptions and the inevitability of healthy oil price rises - doing things like making methanol from fossil fuel sources (i.e. natural gas) have a value in that they can enable us to cut our use of petroleum that much faster and reduce the risk presented to our economy of oil price rises and oil supply disruptions.


Scientist in article did not give an unqualified "yes" to fracking

It should be noted that the scientist expressed a qualification re fracked NG:

"Asked about pollution from the hydraulic fracturing of shale, Rubbia said: ”This is a separate problem which of course must be resolved in some way.”

.. in other words he's not giving an unqualified "Yes" to fracking. Personally, I'm not sure fracking is safe, but fortunately making methanol from NG does not mean we MUST use fracking to get the NG. WE have been getting NG from deep drilling for a long time and can continue to get NG without fracking (NG from deep drilling is the preferred approach until - and ONLY until fracking is PROVEN to be safe).


Article discussed a renewable approach to obtain methanol

Note that in the article they discussed a method of producing Methanol from a renewable source (this was included in the OP, apparently you missed it):
(emphases my own... to facilitate the understanding of the reader)

Researchers at Virginia Tech announced recently they produced hydrogen from plant materials without CO2 emissions by using enzymes.

Once hydrogen is separated from methane, Rubbia suggests using hydrogen for power generation, but not directly for transportation.

For transportation, he suggests producing methanol liquid by recombining hydrogen with CO2 that has been removed from the atmosphere. Cars burning methanol would still produce CO2 emissions, but as long as the fuel is made with captured CO2 they would not increase existing CO2 levels.

Because methanol can be handled like ethanol or gasoline is now, society could avoid several of the obstacles it would face if it tried to convert transportation to hydrogen, including the need for new storage and transportation infrastructure and the need to switch from internal combustion engines to electricity-producing fuel cells.

One more consideration - Alberta Tar Sands oil

Now, there is another point to be considered re making methanol from fossil NG. There is enormous pressure being applied in Washington right now to start importing Alberta tar sands oil from Canada. My feeling it would be far better to make methanol from fossil NG than make diesel out of Alberta Tar Sands oil. I think the mining of oil from the Alberta tar sands will be one huge environmental disaster and making methanol as a fuel for light transportation in place of ATS oil is a better alternative. It's doubtful that we can stop the Big Oil lobbying effort for ATS Oil without some other alternative in it's place.



So, in summary:

With regard to the surface transportation contribution to Global Warming - we must get our consumption of gasoline reduced as rapidly as possible. Substituting renewable fuels is the preferred way of doing this but the risk of the rising price of oil and an oil supply disruption demands that we explore additional ways to reduce our consumption of gas/petroleum, including substituting methanol from fossil NG, to produce the most rapid reduction in our consumption of petroleum. This is necessary to protect our economy (and our efforts to expand Green technologies) from oil price rises and supply disruptions.

If we are to have any chance of turning Global Warming around, we have to reduce consumption of gasoline/petroleum by substituting renewable fuels (e.g. methanol from forestry and agricultural waste materials can replace all the gasoline we consume in autombiles link). With regard to the light transportation part of the problem, waiting to get the needed reduction in CO2 emissions by relying solely on Hybrids and Plug-ins will not get us where we need to be. The reductions will be too small too late.

[font size="+1"]You can replace the fuel the cars burn faster than you can replace the cars that burn the fuel.[/font]

Replacing gasoline with methanol from fossil natural gas is only a way of getting our consumption of petroleum down faster in order to protect us from the inexorable rise in the price of oil and oil supply disruptions whose possibilities are becoming ever greater. The impacts on the economy of the rising price of oil and oil supply disruptions would seriously compromise our efforts to expand the adoption of the very desirable but more expensive technologies of hybrids and plug-in hybrids. And to not aggressively pursue use of renewable fuels to replace gasoline and reduce oil consumption and attendant GHG emissions, and expecting hybrids and plug-in hybrids to make a difference (in about 30 to 40 years) will only lead to failure.

[kristopher]

15. That's nuts.

Sure, let's spend scarce resources to set up a new system of burning fossil fuels for a longer time.


That is bound to stop/slow global warming.

Or at least it will make some creeps some money.

Take it somewhere else John.

[Bill USA]

16. your sputtering jibberish and childish nonsense. what are you babbling about?

[font size="3"]You are covering your eyes to make the very real possibility of an oil supply disruption and rising price of petroleum go away "Make it go away!"[/font]



The expected rise in the price of oil is something recognized by everybody. China and India and other developing nations will continue to increase demand rapidly in the future.

..."to set up a new system of burning fossil fuels "

While using natural gas is a fossil fuel - it is used to replace (as methanol) the other fossil fuel, gasoline, which is getting more expensive and the supply of which -- over the next thirty years (time required to make a meaningful dent in gas consumption using only hybrids and plug-in hybrids) -- could experience a disruption (i.e. reduction). The risk factors mentioned above are quite real, a nuclear Iran and a Syrian civil war breaking out and involving other mid-Eastern countries. THis most definitely increases the risk of a supply disruption of oil.

This is necessary to keep protect our economy and also protect our efforts to adopt more expensive technologies like hybrids and plug-ins. THe longer term solution is to make methanol from biomass (forestry and agricultural waste).

The article also discussed renewable routes to a fuel (methanol) which could be used to replace gasoline.

Researchers at Virginia Tech announced recently they produced hydrogen from plant materials without CO2 emissions by using enzymes.

Once hydrogen is separated from methane, Rubbia suggests using hydrogen for power generation, but not directly for transportation.

For transportation, he suggests producing methanol liquid by recombining hydrogen with CO2 that has been removed from the atmosphere. Cars burning methanol would still produce CO2 emissions, but as long as the fuel is made with captured CO2 they would not increase existing CO2 levels.

Because methanol can be handled like ethanol or gasoline is now, society could avoid several of the obstacles it would face if it tried to convert transportation to hydrogen, including the need for new storage and transportation infrastructure and the need to switch from internal combustion engines to electricity-producing fuel cells.

[NickB79]

18. Fear of Peak Oil is soooo the 2005 E/E board

Since then we've moved on here at DU to recognizing climate change as an immediate threat to civilization, not the long-distance one we used to worry about.

[Nihil]

20. These days it's not "fear" but "wishing it would happen soon" ...

... as it looks like the only way to get most people to cut down the rate of burning the damn stuff.

Funny how relative importance cuts in like that ...

[Bill USA]

52. Battle in Syria Pulls Hesbollah Further into Assad's War - NYT

... tell me again how the situation in the middle East isn't getting a lot more unstable, contributing to uncertainty of the supply of imported oil.


.... Again, we don't even have to have an actual disruption in the supply of oil for the prices to go up dramatically. All that is needed is for the risk to reach a level to convince the traders that a disruption is a real possibility - then the speculators will start betting on a disruption and the oil prices will rise ..AS IF THERE ACTAULLY WAS A DISRUPTION OF (I.E INTERRUPTION IN) the oil supply.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/world/middleeast/syria-developments.html?ref=hezbollah


BEIRUT, Lebanon — Fighting raged for the second day on Monday in the strategic Syrian city of Qusayr, as government forces, backed by Shiite fighters from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, unleashed new airstrikes and rebels fought back fiercely in parts of the city, Syrian opposition activists said.

The toll of dead and wounded continued to rise for Hezbollah, which is fighting its biggest battle yet on the side of President Bashar al-Assad. Both sides have depicted the fighting in Qusayr as a turning point in the war that is raising regional tensions as Hezbollah plunges more deeply into the conflict.

(more)

[Bill USA]

42. see - "Syrian rebel leader: U.S. will Act When War Widens" 5/20 USA Today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101664025

"Now there is one country with 23 million people involved," he said. "In time, if the situation continues, there will be five countries and 80 million people involved in this conflict."

~~
~~

The conflict has already destabilized fragile political activities in neighboring Lebanon, and last week 51 people were killed in two car bombs in Turkey that officials blamed on supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

~~
~~

Sunni-Shiite divisions in the region have been exacerbated by the role played by the Shiite-Lebanese group Hezbollah, which experts say is fighting on the side of the Syrian regime in the western part of the country.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two Sunni monarchies, have been instrumental in providing cash and weapons to the mostly Sunni rebel groups fighting the Syrian government. [font size="3"]With Assad backed by Iran and Hezbollah, and rebels by Gulf states, Sabra says he believes a [font size="4"]long[/font], sectarian war involving [font size="4"]all sides [/font] may be imminent. [/font]

.. remember as I said, we don't even have to experience an actual disruption in supply. All we need is for their to be enough of THREAAT to the supply of oil to cause speculators to drive up the price of oil .. as if there really was an actual oil supply disruption! The damage to our economy (and everybody's standard of living) would be exactly the same.

[font size="3"]or perhaps you prefer to 'see no evil' (or trouble) ??[/font]

[leveymg]

53. The Sunni-Shi'ia regional war may be right around the corner.

Hopefully, we have enough survival sense to resist pressures to plunge even more deeply into the middle of it. Here's an idea: instead of further destroying ourselves in a new MidEast/Persian Gulf War, we instead invest in developing alternative domestic energy sources?

In view of the instability of Persian Gulf oil supplies, it seems a perfectly sensible precaution to build alternatives that cover potential shortfalls relatively cheaply on a short time-frame - alternatives that are also sustainable and reduce carbon emissions. The US already relies on Persian Gulf imports for less than 10% of its domestic crude oil needs. Is it feasible to convert to methanol production by this method in a 3-5 year time-frame to cover a potential 10% loss in oil supply, and what would be the estimated costs? What are the principle technological barriers, and can they be overcome by a Manhattan Project style national effort?

The U.S. currently produces about 40% of the oil that it consumes. Total oil use this year, 18.64 million barrels a day (6,803) million bbl/yr.

Persian Gulf oil accounts for about 25% of US imports in 2012, which in turn accounts for about 10% of the total US usage.


US Imports All Countries (annual, thousands bbl) http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbbl_a.htm

2007........ 2008...... 2009.... 2010...... 2011..... 2012
World
3,661,404 3,580,694 3,289,675 3,362,856 3,261,422 3,107,825
Persian Gulf
771,943 856,329 604,622 618,470 674,706 781,774
OPEC*
1,966,559 1,981,725 1,589,525 1,661,727 1,536,208 1,470,832
Algeria
161,770 114,112 102,559 119,579 64,816 43,891
Angola
181,813 184,460 163,604 139,736 122,210 80,945
Ecuador
72,138 78,234 66,010 76,484 74,230 63,814
Iraq
176,709 229,300 163,916 151,619 167,652 173,317
Kuwait
63,806 75,353 65,673 71,275 69,542 112,172
Libya
30,794 24,791 22,354 15,608 3,328 20,358
Nigeria
395,554 337,359 283,091 358,924 280,079 148,353
Qatar
2,926 1,943
Saudi Arabia
528,189 550,276 357,874 394,967 432,972 496,285
United Arab Emirates
3,239 1,400 14,233 609 2,597
Venezuela
419,180 380,419 347,285 332,926 316,839 331,697
Non OPEC*
1,694,845 1,598,969 1,700,150 1,701,129 1,725,214 1,636,993

[longship]

29. Sorry Kristopher, I read it as methane, too.

Mainly because of the lame thread title "natural gas".

But if you read the article, it's about methanol, not methane. That's methyl alcohol, not natural gas.

This post threw me for a loop, too, and I've been try to correct it since I realized it.

Methanol is an entire different thing than methane. But even if it was methane, creating it from atmospheric CO2 and hydrogen would still be a plus, as opposed to pumping it from the ground with all that entails.

As I wrote above, this would be best done by using solar to hydrolyze sea water, and using the process described in the paper to convert hydrogen and atmospheric CO2 into methanol. That would be easily transportable and could replace fossil fuels in applications where a green grid cannot be used. Airplanes come to mind. Ships at sea (although a small nuke can run a ship for years -- I know you don't like them).

[kristopher]

36. Why are you apologizing to me? The claim under discussion is "CO2 from atmosphere"

The point I've raised has nothing to do with your poor initial reading.

The claim is that CO2 can be pulled from the atmosphere to make a carbon fuel to run vehicles.

"For transportation, he suggests producing methanol liquid by recombining hydrogen with CO2 that has been removed from the atmosphere. Cars burning methanol would still produce CO2 emissions, but as long as the fuel is made with captured CO2 they would not increase existing CO2 levels.

Because methanol can be handled like ethanol or gasoline is now, society could avoid several of the obstacles it would face if it tried to convert transportation to hydrogen, including the need for new storage and transportation infrastructure and the need to switch from internal combustion engines to electricity-producing fuel cells."

It is poppycock for the reasons stated above regarding atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

[longship]

39. Well you have a point there.

But you're not going to have an electric airliner, nor likely a freighter at sea.

At sea, I can see nuclear power, if it can be safe and sustainable. The US Navy certainly has an admirable record with it; the Soviets, less so.

But what about airliners? That's a sticky wicket. It takes a lot of energy to keep a hundred people at 35,000 feet and 550 mph across an ocean or a continent.

Do we reserve petroleum just for this use? Certainly, it has high energy content. But if a substitute could be found and efficiency could be suitably increased, we might get rid of petrol altogether. I can't think of another application off hand that absolutely has to have something like that. Airplanes seem unique in this regard with maybe ships at sea being a second.

Neither seem to be very well adaptable to solar in practice, mainly due to lack of scalability. IMHO.

But I think all land based travel can be electric. It certainly makes the best sense. Railroads can be converted; the rights of way already exist. Autos can follow, but if there is passenger rail, fewer autos will be needed. All this can be started now, AFAIK.

But planes and ships are a different problem altogether.

[kristopher]

40. I agree about the heavy equipment sector.

But since the sector isn't that large it is neither urgent nor difficult to find alternative fuels. Biofuels and hydrogen are certainly the front-runners now, but research is continuing while we work on the other areas like the electric, heating, industrial and personal transportation sectors - we have effective technologies for those applications on hand.

[longship]

41. Yup. There's a lot we could do now.

And maybe air and sea traffic can remain petrol fueled. Nuclear works well for the US Navy, but I don't know if I want that dragon loosed on the merchant marine. I think the rest can be green (PV, wind, tidal, geothermic, or anything but petroleum).

I do not have high hopes for hydrogen. It's just too damned difficult to store and transport. It leaks through everything that holds it -- the damn atoms are too fucking small and it's highly reactive with fucking everything (valence=1). Hydrogen alone may have to have cryonic storage. (I have worked with liquid helium. It's a bitch.) Even then, storage density is low compared to other fuels. It may be better to combine it into other molecules and make a fuel which has ease of transport and storage which brings us right back to this proposal. Methanol is easy to both store and transport. Consider that view.

You are well informed on these things. But my focus is mostly on the physics. Admittedly I don't often see the forest through the trees. But there are still trees in the forest so I think such views are important. So I undoubtedly may take a somewhat reductionist viewpoint. Forgive me for that.



As always.

[Bill USA]

47. in speaking of concentration of CO2, you have continued to leave something out which is an essential

[font size="3"] consideration.

In the real world, we are not talking about a static situation. If we were, just considering 'concentration' of CO2 in the ambient gas would suffice. But we are NOT talking about a static situation. Therefor, you must consider the rate of flow of the gas supplying the CO2. (in the case of the water intermediary, also the rate of uptake of CO2 into the water and the saturation point needs to be considered. .. But who's being realistic here, certainly not you!

You obviously are not burdened by knowledge in this matter. LOL)

and regarding the available sources of CO2 in the world's atmosphere...

.... well, let me see, are there localities or locations where CO2 can be obtained in higher concentrations, and with higher rates of flow?

- and in high (enough) rates of flow (something not here discussed so far .. but which is an essential factor to consider IN A NON STATIC ENVIRONMENT) - in a real world analysis. Just talking about the concentration of CO2 in an ambient gas is meaningless without also knowing the rate of flow of that gas. That is, their will be a rate of flow of the CO2 - so it's not a static situation where just concentration will suffice in any estimates of rates of production. (sorry to bring such real world considerations into these [font size="4"]expert[/font] and very speculative conjectures being indulged in here.) The lack of this essential factor is an indicator of the quality of the 'contra' analysis provided in this thread.


Let's see, where should we go to find CO2?:
[div class="excerpt" style="width:auto;float:left;"] Here??
[div class="excerpt" style="width:auto;float:left;"] ..... or HERE??
.........
















Apparently, others think making methanol (and other chemicals) from CO2 is feasible. Note in my post :
( Startup born in Princeton lab turns carbon dioxide into fuels (e.g. methanol) )

... that a venture capitalist thinks someone's idea for converting CO2 to methanol has promise and that the Princeton Chemist's research has received funding from the Air Force and the Dept of Energy. Maybe you should help the poor guys out (at AF & DoE)they must be very confused

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112743568

Taking the idea into industry

One person who read that paper was Kyle Teamey, an entrepreneur who was representing a venture capital firm that wanted to invest in clean-energy technologies. He was attracted to the idea that waste CO2 could be put to use as a starting material for making fuels and industrial chemicals that could be sold at a profit.

"Everyone had been talking about burying CO2 underground," said Teamey. "Why not instead turn carbon dioxide into something valuable?"

After months of talks with Bocarsly and Cole as well as other advisers, Teamey and Cole co-founded Liquid Light. The company licensed the technology from the University. Teamey serves as company president, while Cole and her team of chemists tackle the practical issue of how to scale up a laboratory invention to an industrial scale. Bocarsly serves as chair of the company's scientific advisory board.

The research has received funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFSOR), the National Science Foundation and the
Department of Energy (DOE). The collaboration between Liquid Light and the University was supported by the DOE Small Business Innovation Research program and the AFOSR Small Business Technology Transfer program.

.. and here: Arlington researchers explore more efficient carbon dioxide to Methanol http://www.democraticunderground.com/112743577

Researchers from The University of Texas at Arlington are pioneering a new method for using carbon dioxide, or CO2, to make liquid methanol fuel by using copper oxide nanowires and sunlight.

~~
~~

“As long as we are using fossil fuels, we’ll have the question of what to do with the carbon dioxide,” said Rajeshwar, a distinguished professor of chemistry and biochemistry and co-founder of the Center for Renewable Energy, Science & Technology, CREST, at UT Arlington. “An attractive option would be to convert greenhouse gases to liquid fuel. That’s the value-added option.”
(more)

[kristopher]

48. I see you're still starting Happy Hour at 3 PM.

I've already addressed every 'point' you think you are making.

We're done.

[Bill USA]

50. no you haven't and bullshitting won't help. OF course with a link could prove me wrong! NO WORRIES!

Then you can email the Air Force and dept of Energy people to explain why they are all confused as hell.

[Bill USA]

51. Oh yes, you can also explain to Andrew Bocarsly (cmt #47) PHD Chemistry, why he is confused and how

...you will help him understand why he's got it all wrong.

[font size="+1"]Andrew Bocarsly is the Princeton University Chemistry professor who invented the process I referred to in comment #47. He has a PhD in chemistry, has published published over 175 papers in peer reviewed journals and co-authored six patents, - but I'm sure you'll be able to show him how to better understand the chemistry of the process he invented even though he has spent thousands of hours of thought and lab time to come up with it. [/font]

here is Andrew Bocarsly's info, you should be able to find his email so you can explain how he's wasting his time and how his idea has no chance of being practical.

Oh, you might want to email: [font color="blue"] "Kyle Teamey, an entrepreneur who was representing a venture capital firm that wanted to invest in clean-energy technologies" and invested capital to form Liquid Light with Bocarsly and Cole.[/font]

... and [font color="blue"] "the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFSOR), the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy (DOE)"[/font]

.. from whom Bocarsly received funding for his research. They must have thought there was something to what he was proposing.



http://abbgroup.mycpanel.princeton.edu/about_andy

[fomt size="3"]Andrew Bocarsly received his Bachelor of Science degree jointly in chemistry and physics from UCLA in 1976, and his Ph.D. in chemistry from M.I.T. in 1980. He has been a member of the Princeton University, Chemistry Department faculty for thirty years. Professor Bocarsly has published over 175 papers in peer reviewed journals and co-authored six patents.[/fomt] Research in his laboratory is focused on the materials chemistry associated with elevated temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells, including composite membranes for elevated temperature cells and electrocatalysts for direct alcohol fuel cells; visible light photoelectrochemistry for the conversion of carbon dioxide to alcohols; cyanogel sol-gel processing routes to refractory materials, metal alloys and nanostructures; and molecule-based multielectron photoinduced charge transfer processes.

Professor Bocarsly serves as a consultant and contractor to various fuel cell and alternate energy companies. He is a founder and President of the Science Advisory Board for Liquid Light Inc., a company formed to commercialize the formation of organic commodity chemicals from carbon dioxide using alternate energy sources. Professor Bocarsly has received an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, the Sigma Xi (Princeton Section) Science Educator Award, the American Chemical Society-Exxon Solid State Chemistry award, and serves as the electrochemistry editor for Methods in Materials Research. Presently, he is serving as a volume editor for Structure and Bonding in the area of fuel cells and batteries.


http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/95/96G16/index.xml?section=featured

One person who read that paper was Kyle Teamey, an entrepreneur who was representing a venture capital firm that wanted to invest in clean-energy technologies. He was attracted to the idea that waste CO2 could be put to use as a starting material for making fuels and industrial chemicals that could be sold at a profit.

"Everyone had been talking about burying CO2 underground," said Teamey. "Why not instead turn carbon dioxide into something valuable?"

After months of talks with Bocarsly and Cole as well as other advisers, Teamey and Cole co-founded Liquid Light. The company licensed the technology from the University. Teamey serves as company president, while Cole and her team of chemists tackle the practical issue of how to scale up a laboratory invention to an industrial scale. Bocarsly serves as chair of the company's scientific advisory board.

The research has received funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFSOR), the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy (DOE). The collaboration between Liquid Light and the University was supported by the DOE Small Business Innovation Research program and the AFOSR Small Business Technology Transfer program.
(more)

[longship]

24. Not methane, methanol = methyl alcohol. nt

[wtmusic]

25. And the energy required to crack the methane comes from....?

http://www.prlog.org/10306202-how-to-build-zero-point-energy-generator.html

[longship]

30. It's not fucking methane, it's methyl alcohol!!!

The thread title is wrong!!!

If you read the article notice that it explicitly says methanol (=methyl alcohol).

And even if it were methane, there would be no fracking involved since it would use atmospheric CO2 to get the carbon. Then, no matter whether you were making methane or methanol, all you need is hydrogen.

Methane: CH4
Methanol: CH4O

See! Only one atom of oxygen difference. No fucking fracking needed, either way. The CO2 is in the atmosphere; we can get hydrogen from sea water via hydrolysis, which we can get via solar energy. That's what one would call green energy.

It's science, my friend. Get it, now?

I hope so.

[NickB79]

31. So, to recap:

We use electricity from solar energy to extract and concentrate CO2, since atmospheric CO2 is too dilute for industrial-level use at 400ppm.

We THEN use MORE electricity from solar energy to hydrolyze sea water.

Finally, we THEN use even MORE electricity from solar energy to combine the CO2 and hydrogen to create methanol.

OR.......

We could use that electricity to directly power battery-driven electric vehicles instead, in a much more efficient process that won't lose most of the energy derived from solar power to generate methanol.

I know, crazy, right?

[wtmusic]

34. +1

[longship]

35. Not crazy unless you can run a wire to an airliner.

Or to a transoceanic ship (no, not a passenger liner unless you want to ground all the airplanes). Or course, you can run a large ship with nuclear power for years. The navy's been doing it for decades. But I know that's not the best solution.

It's not likely that you're going to run airliners or ships via solar. Well, we could use sailing ships, but that might not sell anytime soon. But airplanes need high energy to stay in the air and not crash.

I will leave it to you to extend this idea to other energy uses which may not immediately adapt themselves to pure, green solar grid application.

Yes, there's this one dude flying across the continent on a solar airplane. Can anybody credibly claim that this will scale to an airliner? Dip into a physics book and work it out. Oopsie! Not gonna make it, is it. Sure is cool for one guy though.

[Bill USA]

46. It helps if you actually read the article referred to in OP which mentions getting H from NG ....

......

Researchers in Germany have cracked methane by passing it through a superheated graphite tube and by bubbling it through hot liquid metal. The methane degrades into hydrogen gas and solid black carbon.

“This system, if it is possible to make it, would be very successful apparently at reducing CO2 emissions.”

The German system uses about the same amount of energy as the conventional method of converting methane to hydrogen, but the conventional method emits large amounts of CO2. About 5 percent of global emissions derive from hydrogen emissions.

Researchers at Virginia Tech announced recently they produced hydrogen from plant materials without CO2 emissions by using enzymes.

Once hydrogen is separated from methane, Rubbia suggests using hydrogen for power generation, but not directly for transportation.

[font size="3"]...and re: "concentrate CO2" ...please let's not be simple (minded, that is) .....

.... well, let me see, are there localities or locations where CO2 can be obtained in higher concentrations?

- and in high (enough) rates of flow (something not here discussed so far .. but which is an essential factor to consider IN A NON STATIC ENVIRONMENT) - in a real world analysis. Just talking about the concentration of CO2 in an ambient gas is meaningless without also knowing the rate of flow of that gas. That is, their will be a rate of flow of the CO2 - so it's not a static situation where just concentration will suffice in any estimates of rates of production. (sorry to bring such real world considerations into these [font size="4"]expert[/font] and very speculative conjectures being indulged in here.) The lack of this essential factor is an indicator of the quality of the 'contra' analysis provided in this thread.


Let's see, where should we go to find CO2?:
[div class="excerpt" style="width:auto;float:left;"] Here??
[div class="excerpt" style="width:auto;float:left;"] ..... or HERE??   
.........
















Apparently, others think making methanol (and other chemicals) from CO2 is feasible. Note in my post :
( Startup born in Princeton lab turns carbon dioxide into fuels (e.g. methanol) )

... that a venture capitalist thinks someone's idea for converting CO2 to methanol has promise and that the Princeton Chemists research has received funding from the Air Force and the Dept of Energy. Maybe you should help the poor guys out (at AF & DoE)they must be very confused

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112743568

Taking the idea into industry

One person who read that paper was Kyle Teamey, an entrepreneur who was representing a venture capital firm that wanted to invest in clean-energy technologies. He was attracted to the idea that waste CO2 could be put to use as a starting material for making fuels and industrial chemicals that could be sold at a profit.

"Everyone had been talking about burying CO2 underground," said Teamey. "Why not instead turn carbon dioxide into something valuable?"

After months of talks with Bocarsly and Cole as well as other advisers, Teamey and Cole co-founded Liquid Light. The company licensed the technology from the University. Teamey serves as company president, while Cole and her team of chemists tackle the practical issue of how to scale up a laboratory invention to an industrial scale. Bocarsly serves as chair of the company's scientific advisory board.

The research has received funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFSOR), the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy (DOE). The collaboration between Liquid Light and the University was supported by the DOE Small Business Innovation Research program and the AFOSR Small Business Technology Transfer program.

.. and here: Arlington researchers explore more efficient carbon dioxide to Methanol http://www.democraticunderground.com/112743577

Researchers from The University of Texas at Arlington are pioneering a new method for using carbon dioxide, or CO2, to make liquid methanol fuel by using copper oxide nanowires and sunlight.

~~
~~

“As long as we are using fossil fuels, we’ll have the question of what to do with the carbon dioxide,” said Rajeshwar, a distinguished professor of chemistry and biochemistry and co-founder of the Center for Renewable Energy, Science & Technology, CREST, at UT Arlington. “An attractive option would be to convert greenhouse gases to liquid fuel. That’s the value-added option.”
(more)

... re PHEVs, note that the National Academy of Sciences looked at the problem of reducing our fossil fuel use and concluded no one technology (including PHEVs) will be able to do it alone. http://www.democraticunderground.com/112740715

[NickB79]

32. The entire article assumes we'll transition to hydrogen instead of EV in the future

Which is clearly NOT going to happen, no matter how much the few remaining fuel cell proponents want.

That ship has sailed; the future is in EV technology. And in an EV-based future, the ability to keep using our current liquid-fuel distribution system has much less value.

[longship]

37. No more airliners then?

How are you going to fly a hundred people across the continent without burning some kind of fuel, whether it's petroleum based, or made from atmospheric CO2 with hydrogen, or just hydrogen assuming we find out an efficient way to store the shit.

Unfortunately, burning hydrogen doesn't have the same energy as burning petroleum stuff. So you need more of the stuff to get the same energy. What do you do about that?

These problems are always more complex than a naive view would indicate. This paper shows a way to possibly stop pumping oil out of the ground.

Given that we will always likely need some sort of portable fuel, methanol is pretty damned good. So is methane. That is if we don't have to pump them out of the ground. If we use carbon from the atmosphere instead of that which was sequestered during the Carboniferous era some 300 million years ago, that's a win-win.

Why can't people understand this simple fact?

[kristopher]

38. Why are you ignoring the FACT that the energy cost of CO2 concentration is prohibitive?

You misread the OP somehow and you seem to think that has a bearing on the discussion at hand when it doesn't.

The claims made about what they "might" do are bullpuckey. It isn't that it can't be done, it is that there is no logical reason to do it. These aren't new technologies, we've had a good handle on the basic idea for more than half a century.