hit tracker
Physical Sciences Earth Sciences Biology Front Page Medicine Neurosciences Culture

User login

Columnists

Banner

Turning carbon dioxide into fuel - using solar power

Energy



Turning a greenhouse gas into a clean energy fuel is the Holy Grail of energy research. UC San Diego chemists have a prototype they think is an important milestone.

Their device captures energy from the sun, converts it to electrical energy and "splits" carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen.

Obviously carbon monoxide in and of itself is not great either but millions of pounds of it are used each year to manufacture chemicals including detergents and plastics. It can also be converted into liquid fuel.

"The technology to convert carbon monoxide into liquid fuel has been around a long time," said Kubiak. "It was invented in Germany in the 1920s. The U.S. was very interested in the technology during the 1970s energy crisis, but when the energy crisis ended people lost interest. Now things have come full circle because rising fuel prices make it economically competitive to convert CO into fuel."

The device designed by Kubiak and Sathrum to split carbon dioxide utilizes a semiconductor and two thin layers of catalysts. It splits carbon dioxide to generate carbon monoxide and oxygen in a three-step process. The first step is the capture of solar energy photons by the semiconductor. The second step is the conversion of optical energy into electrical energy by the semiconductor. The third step is the deployment of electrical energy to the catalysts. The catalysts convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide on one side of the device and to oxygen on the other side.

Because electrons are passed around in these reactions, a special type of catalyst that can convert electrical energy to chemical energy is required Researchers in Kubiak's laboratory have created a large molecule with three nickel atoms at its heart that has proven to be an effective catalyst for this process.

Choosing the right semiconductor is also critical to making carbon dioxide splitting practical say the researchers. Semiconductors have bands of energy to which electrons are confined. Sunlight causes the electrons to leap from one band to the next creating an electrical energy potential The energy difference between the bands—the band gap—determines how much solar energy will be absorbed and how much electrical energy is generated.

Kubiak and Sathrum initially used a silicon semiconductor to test the merits of their device because silicon is well-studied. However, silicon absorbs in the infrared range and the researchers say it is "too wimpy" to supply enough energy. The conversion of sunlight by silicon supplied about half of the energy needed to split carbon dioxide, and the reaction worked if the researchers supplied the other half of the energy needed.

They are now building the device using a gallium-phosphide semiconductor. It has twice the band gap of silicon and absorbs more energetic visible light. Therefore, they predict that it will absorb the optimal amount of energy from the sun to drive the catalytic splitting of carbon dioxide.

"This project brings together many scientific puzzle pieces," said Sathrum. "Quite a bit of work has been done on each piece, but it takes more science to mesh them all together. Bringing all the pieces together is the part of the problem we are focused on."

Source: University of California - San Diego.

Technorati Tags:

Hmm that's interesting but

Hmm that's interesting but what is the by product of using the CO as a fuel? If the net carbon emisions are the same as just releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere in the first place then this idea is a complete waste of time.

In liquid fuel it's burnt so

In liquid fuel it's burnt so it's not a 1:1 ratio. If you don't burn CO completely global warming is the least of your problems. :-)

No, it's not a waste, it's

No, it's not a waste, it's Martha Stewart-ism. :-)

If the solar conversion is efficient enough -- i.e., doesn't cost too much energy or money to build and run -- then it's reusing CO2.

If all else is equal, then you get a 2 for 1 deal. Imagine turning all the pollutants from a coal plant into a fuel efficiently, and then reusing it. So, then, you are actually putting out 1/2 the CO2, if you simply vent it the second time. Ergo, it's really CO2 recycling. Of course, there are a bunch of "if's" in this hypothetical scenario.

This is essentially artificial photosynthesis. I believe plants and other organisms, will always do it better -- well, at least for the foreseeable future.

The upside to this is that you should theoretically have a low maintenance system, if there are no chemicals or moving parts (other than fans and the like).

On the other hand, more promising research comes from the new algae to biofuel techniques:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0111/p01s03-sten.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12834398/
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19225725.600

This study says increasing

This study says increasing biofuels would increase mortality from air pollution.

So it may help with the global warming issue but it would be a negative impact on air quality, hospital visits, etc.

You can find a lot of articles here on biofuels, both pro- and con-.

The CO is likely converted

The CO is likely converted into a hydrocarbon fuel source such as methane or longer carbon chains as in gasoline. The premise of this conversion is not at all a waste of time considering that it would create a cyclic system that would use current CO2 levels in the atmosphere to generate fuels and avoid the futher release of CO2 from fossil fuels that are not already in the atmosphere. Basically its like recycling the CO2 over and over without increasing the levels that are in the atmosphere because what you release in combustion of the new fuels is what you've taken out and no more. This coupled with the probability that we would cut down or even eliminate using fossil fuels along with the natural conversion of CO2 into organic matter by plants would lead to a decrease in atmospheric CO2 over time.

We need some alternative

We need some alternative fuel cars! There is a country in south America who does NOT use gas! Why are we soo behind in this technological aspect. The government and major automobiles need to step up more!

I think alternative energy

I think alternative energy cars are a great idea - I just don't think taxpayers should subsidize them.

other ideas

other ideas

now i'm no scientist, but and idea came to me and i wasn't sure, so i looked for it on google, but had no luck.

It was creating something using a catalyst, and when carbon dioxide (CO2) is passed through it, it traps or reacts with the catalyst (possibly benzene) and the remaining substance is oxygen, however i wasn't sure if this could be possible, or what metal/non-metal should be used to allow it to only trap or react withe the carbon, and not the oxyen, because if the catalyst does, (CO) carbon monoxide is likely to be produced.

If you cand tell me about any faults or improvements to my idea, please could you - its for my yr 11 oral presentation, so any comments would be great, thank you.

You mean something that

You mean something that takes CO2 in and outputs O2, like a plant?

Seriously, we're working so hard on this problem, and all we really need to do is plant lots of trees and use the wood they produce. The main downside is that it takes lots of land to get a decent rate of carbon reduction, but that's exactly how nature removed the carbon (and trapped in the earth where it eventually became oil/coal/natural gas) in the first place.

I wish it was as easy as

I wish it was as easy as planting more trees but the rate at which we are consuming energy whether it be from oil, natural gas or coal we are easily out pacing natures CO2 to O2 turnover rate and this will not be countered by planting more forests (although it would be good as well) but rather we need to find alternative fuels or recycle the CO2 that we have already produced.

And I can't see how it would

And I can't see how it would produce methane like oil does
according to telescope evangelist John Dobson lecture friday night.

Once the CO2 becomes CO it

Once the CO2 becomes CO it just heeds to be reduced (have more hydrogen added) in order to become either methanol CH3OH or methane CH4, there are many reagents that can accomplish this as well as catalyst, I'm not sure who may have made the statement that it cannot be done but they likely have not done their homework and are making false claims without scientific knowledge to back them up, reduction reactions are quite common and well known they can be found in any first year organic chemistry text book.

Methane has 20X the warming

Methane has 20X the warming effect of CO2. How is that an improvement?

Why don't you folks just get accounts? All of these anonymous messages make it hard to know who is talking.

Methane may have more of a

Methane may have more of a warming effect however the idea of releasing it into the atmosphere as CH4 would be pointless because that would be the compound's state before combustion meaning once the produced methane is burned to generate electricity or run a vehicle it is then transformed via oxidation (combustion) into water and CO2, which CO2 is once again the beginning of the cycle.

Honestly there are many ways

Honestly there are many ways to produce clean burning fuels (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal) and other ways of producing gas such as methane from landfills or even cow manure but these ideas have been around for a long time and the main reason why they have never been taken seriously is because the oil industry lobbies against the use of alternative fuels so they wont lose their cash cow, some oil is even drilled from publicly owned lands and we still end up paying over 3 bucks a gallon, we wont see a change until Washington is forced to listen to the people and not the influence of the oil industry that takes them on vacations and donates to their campaigns. There is even a concrete skyscraper in Spain that uses mirrors to direct the sunlight that hits the building to stored water in its center for heating and steam generation that then runs a turbine that powers the entire city in which it is located, we have many skyscrapers in America but we don't have one for this more respectable purpose.

Yup.. the CO2 problem looks

Yup.. the CO2 problem looks like it's almost solved!

Here's another application of the CO+H synthesis: 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/pecad2/highlights/2005/01/btl0104/syntheticdiesel.htm 

The production process for BTL starts with grinding and drying of biomass which is then formed into pellets.  Feedstock biomass that may be used in this process include wood, straw, corn, garbage, and sewage-sludge.  The biomass-pellets are diverted into a gas (smouldering gas) and solid fraction (charcoal) in a low temperature gasification process and transformed into a synthetic gas in a second step.  After purification the gas is liquefied in a so called “Fischer–Tropsch” reaction, in which carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H) react and form carbo-hydrogen chains.

What's the net energy cost

What's the net energy cost of doing that? I recognize that if the CO2 issue is as critical as we are told today there's more than net energy to think about but it has to be a factor. Even assuming some efficiency gains in the future, is there anything on the horizon makes this a net energy gain?

I wouldn't ever expect a net

I wouldn't ever expect a net energy gain ... however, as a net-reduction system, using solar PV, waste heat (using ThermalPhotoVoltaics) or other co-generation technologies, the balance of actual CO2 could be kept way down, closest to neutral as feasible by cracking the CO2. Whether it be more effective and less costly than CO2 sequestration is is another matter, the idea could be implemented in various ways - all that is needed is energy to crack the CO2 into CO & O2.

The question is what kind of extra catalytic compounds would be needed, their expense, reuse and/or toxicity (disposal costs). The net energy budget could be kept down using the old WWII tech for certain.

Whether this particular chain of techniques might be the most feasible or cost-effective might be beside the point, it demonstrates that if we had to start sequestering CO2 coming out of large industrial sources tomorrow, there are inexpensive, tried and tested technologies that are well in the public domain that anyone can implement. 

net gain or even cost

net gain or even cost efficiency isn't really the point at the moment

nothing we are doing is really cost efficient in the begginning as oil gas and food cost sky rocket from research into alternative fuels continues

so taking co2 and making co and possibly methane may be as expensive as Gas but also take the research cost out of the equasion and also leave a future for more cost effective clean fuels to be created

the cost of reducing co2 emissions may be a factor but will never equal to the value of life that will be lost if not implemented

If cost efficiency had not

If cost efficiency had not been a factor 'at the moment' we would still be using whale oil, or alcohol. The fact is, any time things like this have been mandated rather than adapted because they were effective, they have flopped.

Environmentalists and Al Gore insisted ethanol was the proper solution to oil for almost 20 years and then it was mandated, subsidized ... and it's still a flop, but now a really expensive one.

We won't run out of oil in my lifetime but as the population grows it will become expensive enough that one of these other cost curves crosses it and then we will see change. That does not mean throwing money at one that might not naturally evolve, like we have done with ethanol, is fiscally or scientificially prudent, since that focus would delay other, more worthy projects.

Historically, resource

Historically, resource availability in the world (whale oil) or the cost subsidies in the USA (energy) has been the dominant drivers. Let's go back a little to the beginning, the car. Ford envisioned the use of ethanol in his cars. Rockefeller et al thought otherwise, hence the petroleum industry. Subsidies have made a future possible not only in that area but also in nuclear energy, etc. (You have mentioned the ethanol subsidies.)

What makes sense is to produce ethanol out of applicable garbage/trash/waste resources instead of letting them produce methane in ever-growing landfills. Savings are more than garbage maintenance but also in water, land, etc. This strategy creates good jobs as well.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
BoldItalicLinkQuote
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <sub> <sup><iframe><img><object><embed>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
More information about formatting options Captcha Image: you will need to recognize the text in it.
Please type in the letters/numbers that are shown in the image above.

Category Feeds

Books By Writers Here

Internships

We do offer unpaid internships in programming and science journalism to college students or recent graduates seeking to build up their portfolios.

Development interns will need to be proficient in PHP and CSS and provide samples of work done in a multi-user environment platform and sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Science journalists will need to provide samples from a university newspaper or professional publication and list which semester they want to work.

Please use the contact info available in the footer of the page.