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.
Comments
- Reply to This »
- Link
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
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-.
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.
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.
according to telescope evangelist John Dobson lecture friday night.
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.
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.
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
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.













