Scientists turn carbon dioxide into gasoline

[madoka]

This is just amazing. It's like I just learned they could turn my poop into Big Macs.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/07/car...vard-find-way-to-convert-co2-to-gasoline.html

A team of scientists claims to have discovered a cheaper way to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turn it into gasoline or other fuels, which could arm humanity with a new tool in the fight against climate change.

Published in the scientific journal Joule on Thursday, the research demonstrates a new technique that pulls carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and converts it into liquid gasoline, diesel or jet fuel.

Canadian clean energy company Carbon Engineering, in partnership with researchers from Harvard, used little more than limestone, hydrogen and air for the process, which can remove one metric ton of CO2 for as little as $94, the scientists say. It cleans up the environment, and produces eco-friendly liquid fuel at the same time.

"Until now, research suggested it would cost $600 per ton to remove CO2 from the atmosphere using DAC technology, making it too expensive to be a feasible solution to removing legacy carbon at scale," David Keith, Harvard Professor and founder of Carbon Energy said in a statement. "We now have the data and engineering to prove that DAC can achieve costs below $100 per ton."

 

[Ken g6]

Some rough math to turn that into American units:

A "metric ton" is also known as a megagram, or Mg.
Wikipedia says the density of gasoline is standardized at 0.755 kg/L.
That means there are about 350 gallons of gasoline per Mg gasoline.
Molecular weight depends almost entirely on protons and neutrons. Oxygens have 8 protons and about 8 neutrons; carbons have about 6 of each.
1Mg CO2 ~= 12/(16+16+12) Mg gasoline ~= .27 Mg gasoline. (Ignoring hydrogen - this math is very rough.)
So we get 95 gallons of gasoline per Mg CO2.
95 gallons at ~$95 is about a dollar per gallon. :awe:

Edit: I just read the article. It says nothing about costs to convert the captured CO2 to gasoline.

 

[brianmanahan]

So we get 95 gallons of gasoline per Mg CO2.
95 gallons at ~$95 is about a dollar per gallon. :awe:

hey, that's what dmcowen predicted gas prices would rise to this summer!

 

[PowerEngineer]

The idea of using photosynthesis to convert CO2 into fuel has been around for a while. Hopefully someone can advance the technology enough to make it cost effective.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/synthetic-photosynthesis-makes-natural-gas/

 

[ondma]

Some rough math to turn that into American units:

A "metric ton" is also known as a megagram, or Mg.
Wikipedia says the density of gasoline is standardized at 0.755 kg/L.
That means there are about 350 gallons of gasoline per Mg gasoline.
Molecular weight depends almost entirely on protons and neutrons. Oxygens have 8 protons and about 8 neutrons; carbons have about 6 of each.
1Mg CO2 ~= 12/(16+16+12) Mg gasoline ~= .27 Mg gasoline. (Ignoring hydrogen - this math is very rough.)
So we get 95 gallons of gasoline per Mg CO2.
95 gallons at ~$95 is about a dollar per gallon. :awe:

Edit: I just read the article. It says nothing about costs to convert the captured CO2 to gasoline.

yea, that is the question. how much time, energy, and cost does it require to convert the CO2 into gasoline.

 

[zinfamous]

Crabby Granddad joke: "That's great! Just round up all the politicians in one room and collect all that hot air so that I can drive my Ford down to the DQ!"

 

[DietDrThunder]

How about instead we use 1870's low tech wood gasifiers for internal combustion engines. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/01/wood-gas-cars.html

 

[madoka]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41...=social&utm_campaign=naturenews&sf191287565=1

Carbon Engineering’s design blows air through towers that contain a solution of potassium hydroxide, which reacts with CO2 to form potassium carbonate. The result, after further processing, is a calcium carbonate pellet that can be heated to release the CO2. That CO2 could then be pressurized, put into a pipeline and disposed of underground, but the company is planning instead to use the gas to make synthetic, low-carbon fuels. Keith says that the company can produce these at a cost of about $1 per litre. When Carbon Engineering configured the air-capture plant for this purpose, they were able to bring costs down to as low as $94 per tonne of CO2.

 

[Kaido]

 

[tynopik]

it would be interesting to compare the economics of using solar to create fuel and distribute it to cars vs using solar to charge batteries in cars

 

[Ken g6]

it would be interesting to compare the economics of using solar to create fuel and distribute it to cars vs using solar to charge batteries in cars

I've done that. The energy efficiency to produce liquid fuel is at best ~40%. The energy efficiency of batteries is over 80%.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

These articles are always stupid - because if they can effectively do it at a reasonable price... why the fuck isn't it done yet? That's because it's a load of shit and can't be done efficiently.

 

[Darwin333]

These articles are always stupid - because if they can effectively do it at a reasonable price... why the fuck isn't it done yet? That's because it's a load of shit and can't be done efficiently.

Because the process was just released in a scientific journal and before now wasn't known?

 

[Kaido]

These articles are always stupid - because if they can effectively do it at a reasonable price... why isn't it done yet?

There are also competing interests that prevent breakthrough technologies from coming out. Why did we wait until the late 2000's for electric cars to become mainstream? Big Oil & Detroit. Electric cars been around since the 1800's, so the technology is literally over 100 years old:

https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car

Over the next few years, electric vehicles from different automakers began popping up across the U.S. New York City even had a fleet of more than 60 electric taxis. By 1900, electric cars were at their heyday, accounting for around a third of all vehicles on the road. During the next 10 years, they continued to show strong sales.

The industry didn't really want Tesla to succeed, but they've come out & had such a strong presence that they're now forced to respond with their own hybrids & EV's.

That applies to a lot of other areas too, although sometimes for different reasons. Like, why haven't we solved California's water problem? They sell water generators (basically, outdoor humidifiers with heavy-duty water filtration systems), but in this case, the enemy is cost, as they run about $8,000 each. Affordable if you're buying a new home & work it into the mortgage as a large appliance as part of the house, but pretty steep otherwise.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

It wasn't just the Detroit three keeping electrics from reaching marketplace, but the majority of solar PV patents were held in the hands of the big petro companies as well. We you hold the cards of both sides of the competition someone should force a revised sherman act on them.

 

[ondma]

The problem with EVs is the limited range and recharging time. No way I would pay 20 or 30k, or even more for a Tesla, and be limited to a 2 or 3 hundred mile range.

 

[Ventanni]

The problem with EVs is the limited range and recharging time. No way I would pay 20 or 30k, or even more for a Tesla, and be limited to a 2 or 3 hundred mile range.

You may not, but others will. For the vast majority of Americans, an EV with 200-300 mile range is sufficient for 99.9% of their needs, save the long trips. Which, how often are people really taking long trips? American vehicle purchasing decisions are often made with the context of what they might do rather than what they actually do on a consistent basis. For instance, people new Tahoe's because they might tow a heavy trailer once and a while in addition to carting the family around. And I'm not knocking those that do on a consistent basis, but for many Americans, their vehicles are overkill for their needs.

Tesla knows that their vehicles meet the needs of the vast majority of Americans, and their business model is based on creating epicenters within the market. Approximately 3% of the market will always try and buy new things no matter how crappy it is. Those 3% make the first purchase, then tell their friends, and their friends make their purchase, and then they tell their friends. You get the idea. And over time, you have an epicenter that reaches beyond that first 30% of the market. They did this with their cars, and now they're doing it for their solar. It's really quite smart.

 

[William Gaatjes]

They should put more effort to turn the fermentation of manure into methane.
There should also be more research in how to scrub plain air to capture the carbon dioxide.

If you add monosaccharides like glucose and fructose to manure, the bacteria in the manure go wild and produce higher amounts of methane.
Capture that methane and process it to make gasoline.
This process is also known by many alternative fuel companies.

Use another process very known (Plants do it) to turn carbon dioxide to create monosaccharides and we have a closed cycle system that removes carbon dioxide from the air and the methane from agriculture. Global climate issue solved.

This is pretty common. Those people that have a tendency to fart like crazy when consuming large amounts of sugar or hfcs products, know what i mean....

 

[sdifox]

The problem with EVs is the limited range and recharging time. No way I would pay 20 or 30k, or even more for a Tesla, and be limited to a 2 or 3 hundred mile range.

Ideal second car.