Arlington researchers explore more efficient carbon dioxide to Methanol

[Bill USA]

http://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2013/02/carbondioxide-methanol.php

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.


Illustration of copper oxide nanorods.
A schematic illustration of the two-step synthesis of CuO-Cu2O hybrid nanorod arrays.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The process is safer, simpler and less expensive than previous methods to convert the greenhouse gas associated with climate change to a useful product, said Krishnan Rajeshwar, interim associate vice president for research at UT Arlington and one of the authors of a paper recently published in the journal Chemical Communications. Researchers began by coating the walls of copper oxide, CuO, nanorods with crystallites made from another form of copper oxide, Cu2O. In the lab, they submerged those rods in a water-based solution rich in CO2. Irradiating the combination with simulated sunlight created a photoelectrochemical reduction of the CO2 and that produced methanol.

In contrast, current methods require the use of a co-catalyst and must be conducted at high operating pressures and temperatures. Many also use toxic elements, such as cadmium, or rare elements, such as tellurium, Rajeshwar said.

“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]

1. This is greenwashing the use of fossil fuels.

And it pisses me off to see it posted here as if it were a meaningful part of solving the climate crisis.

[Bill USA]

2. Natnl Academy of Sciences: to cut U.S. gasoline use in half by 2030 no one technology will do it.

.. taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and making a fuel out of it sounds like a good idea to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112740715

Electric vehicles: The NAS report estimates that electric vehicles (they're talking PHEVs here, not conventional hybrids) will catch on relatively slowly in the next few decades, even if battery costs drop by a factor of 5, because “limited range and long recharge time are likely to limit the use of all-electric vehicles mainly to local driving.” What’s more, it will be hard to meet long-term emissions goals through plug-in vehicles alone so long as the electric grid is still powered by fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

3. You are still greenwashing the use of fossil fuels.

Please take it elsewhere.

[Iterate]

4. Iterate's Academy of Sciences: to cut U.S. gasoline use in half by June 2013, drive half the miles.

Equally scientific, but not published or peer-reviewed.

[Bill USA]

5. You really should try reading these posts - you just might learn something

the article mentioned and excerpted in the OP is not about "fossil fuels"

to repeat a quote shown in OP:

[font size=+1"] "The process is safer, simpler and less expensive than previous methods to convert the greenhouse gas associated with climate change to a useful product"[/font]


... you see, they are talking about taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and turning it into a fuel. This then , is not a fossil fuel.

read Wikipedia for a basic understanding of the term "fossil fuel":

"Fossil fuels are fuels formed by natural processes such as anaerobic decomposition of buried dead organisms."

[kristopher]

6. You can't remove CO2 out of the air economically

Concentrated CO2 is a commodity. The process will piggyback on waste streams from fossil fuels, they will not spend the additional money to build a system for concentrating what is going out the flue of a coal plant.
This enhances the economics of the fossil fuel plant and delays the time they shut down.
Since the process will use only a fraction of the CO2 emitted, it will cost more CO2 emissions by prolonging the life of the plant than it saves in fuel manufactured.

Give this idea up John.

[Bill USA]

7. power plants and industrial processes will be generating waste CO2 whether this is done or not. OR

we could stop the CO2 from going into the atmosphere and convert it into useful chemicals including methanol fuel.

or not... and just let the CO2 go into the atmosphere. How long do you think it will take to replace all coal with wind power and solar?

[kristopher]

8. You can't remove CO2 out of the air economically

Concentrated CO2 is a commodity. The process will piggyback on waste streams from fossil fuels, they will not spend the additional money to build a system for concentrating what is going out the flue of a coal plant.
This enhances the economics of the fossil fuel plant and delays the time they shut down.
Since the process will use only a fraction of the CO2 emitted, it will cost more CO2 emissions by prolonging the life of the plant than it saves in fuel manufactured.

However long it takes will be made longer by your proposals.

[Bill USA]

9. Speaking in absolutes, are we?? One could say since electric cars can't survive without tax credits

.... today, then they NEVER will. And one might say it's never going to be worth it to spend the money on them because they will never be profitable (i.e. practical). But of course, progress is possible.

Say, if it's not economical to remove CO2 from the air, how is it this process "enhances the economics of the fossil fuel plant and delays the time they shut down."???? ... ah, the beauty of Bullshit is you can shape it into anything sort of argument you want. LOL.



PROJECT PARENTHOOD

Speaking in Absolutes and Demands

http://www.projectconnections.com/articles/082907-glory.html

When my daughters were young, they spoke in absolutes. They would make comments like, "You are always golfing." "You never let us stay up late." "Everybody's mad at me." "Nobody cares what I think." This type of emotionally laden language is understandable in small children because their sense of time and breadth of perspective are limited.

as the author notes, speaking in absolutes is nothing out of the ordinary in a child.

But one who thinks this way runs the risk of not maturing into an adult and of walling himself off from reality. Things do not stay the same forever (in fact it's pretty hard for things to stay the same.. in the real world). Effort does lead to progress. Progress is possible. IT's really not healthy to live in a world of absolutes.


[font size="3"] Hey, why don't you explain to Krishnan Rajeshwar, interim associate vice president for research at UT Arlington, distinguished professor of chemistry and biochemistry and co-founder of the Center for Renewable Energy, Science & Technology, CREST, at UT Arlington and one of the authors of the paper recently published in the journal Chemical Communications how he's wasting his time on this.

Would love to hear what he has to say in response..LOL[/font]