From the University of Illinois – Ionic liquid catalyst helps turn emissions into fuel
University of Illinois chemical and biological engineering professor Paul Kenis and his research group joined forces with researchers at Dioxide Materials, a startup company, to produce a catalyst that improves artificial photosynthesis. The company, in the university Research Park, was founded by retired chemical engineering professor Richard Masel. The team reported their results in the journal Science.
Artificial photosynthesis is the process of converting carbon dioxide gas into useful carbon-based chemicals, most notably fuel or other compounds usually derived from petroleum, as an alternative to extracting them from biomass.
In plants, photosynthesis uses solar energy to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and water to sugars and other hydrocarbons. Biofuels are refined from sugars extracted from crops such as corn. However, in artificial photosynthesis, an electrochemical cell uses energy from a solar collector or a wind turbine to convert CO2 to simple carbon fuels such as formic acid or methanol, which are further refined to make ethanol and other fuels.
“The key advantage is that there is no competition with the food supply,” said Masel, a co-principal investigator of the paper and CEO of Dioxide Materials, “and it is a lot cheaper to transmit electricity than it is to ship biomass to a refinery.”
However, one big hurdle has kept artificial photosynthesis from vaulting into the mainstream: The first step to making fuel, turning carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide, is too energy intensive. It requires so much electricity to drive this first reaction that more energy is used to produce the fuel than can be stored in the fuel.
The Illinois group used a novel approach involving an ionic liquid to catalyze the reaction, greatly reducing the energy required to drive the process. The ionic liquids stabilize the intermediates in the reaction so that less electricity is needed to complete the conversion.
The researchers used an electrochemical cell as a flow reactor, separating the gaseous CO2 input and oxygen output from the liquid electrolyte catalyst with gas-diffusion electrodes. The cell design allowed the researchers to fine-tune the composition of the electrolyte stream to improve reaction kinetics, including adding ionic liquids as a co-catalyst.
“It lowers the overpotential for CO2 reduction tremendously,” said Kenis, who is also a professor of mechanical science and engineering and affiliated with the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology. “Therefore, a much lower potential has to be applied. Applying a much lower potential corresponds to consuming less energy to drive the process.”
Next, the researchers hope to tackle the problem of throughput. To make their technology useful for commercial applications, they need to speed up the reaction and maximize conversion.
“More work is needed, but this research brings us a significant step closer to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels while simultaneously reducing CO2 emissions that are linked to unwanted climate change,” Kenis said.
Graduate students Brian Rosen, Michael Thorson, Wei Zhu and Devin Whipple and postdoctoral researcher Amin Salehi-Khojin were co-authors of the paper. The U.S. Department of Energy supported this work.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pat Frank says:
October 7, 2011 at 7:24 pm
“The only way to make the CO2 to CO process economically viable is if the electrolysis efficiency is greater than 100%, to pay for the upstream costs. ”
No. Here in Europe we have trading platforms for electricity, spot markets, the biggest one being the EEX. The spot market prize for electricity fluctuates with the interplay of supply and demand. Even if you had only thermal base load plants and no intermittent power sources like wind and solar, the varying demand would lead to daily fluctuations of the prize at the exchange. So it will always, even under total absense of newfangled green power sources like wind and solar, make ECONOMIC sense to run some peaker plants that you run only to exploit the high prizes during peak demand, or alternatively, store energy from a cheap thermal baseload plant and use the storage during peak times.
Pumped hydr storage with a round-trip efficiency of max. 85% has ALWAYS been economically viable this way, long before any green movement.
Falstaff says:
October 7, 2011 at 1:51 pm
“especially corn, but natural existing photosynthesis tops out on the order of 1% conversion, while photovoltaic monocrystalline Si is now at 20%; concentrated solar may allow that to climb much higher. ”
You are right in that Si PV is more efficient than photosynthesis, but concentrated solar is not the way to increase that – it only concentrates more light on one cell, but the percentage of the light energy converted does not increase.
What you can do is use multi-junction PV cells; in the lab they achieve up to 40% ATM, beating the theoretical 33% limit of a single-junction cell. But they are, for the moment, too expensive to make it worthwhile.
The endothermic effects of such high efficiency conversions will be interesting to watch; the converted energy can’t contribute to local heat.
Easier ti convert biowaste into methane to fuel generators to produce electricity which is being done now on many farms in the UK with the CO2 produced fed to the crops via the greenhouse atmosphere. Crops also grow bigger and faster.
They speak of “unwanted” climate warming while we are in a glacial period. The earth is too cold, not too warm, and has too little atmospheric CO2, not too much.
We need removal of CO2 from the air like we need a hole in the head.
The world will beat a path to the door of the man who invents a perpetual motion mouse trap.
===============
Aside from the angry rantings of Robert M., it seems my question about the lower limit of CO2 in the atmosphere has raised some interesting and intelligent discussion…which of course was my whole point.
I would however seriously question the complete fairness of the moderation on this site, for Robert M. choose to call me an “inconceivably stupid jerk”, and the mods let it pass, yet I am 100% sure that if I had used the same language toward one of the anointed ones here like Willis or Lord Monckton, it would have been snipped and I would have been put in “time out” …again.
In reply to R. Gates October 8, 2011 at 6:23 am:
I believe this is the first time I agree with you. Anthony should have snipped the personal insult.
As far as your original question, CO2 levels clearly need to be above the limit that would shut down photosynthesis, and that would be an absolute minimum. The ideal level would be higher, probably much higher than even current levels.
I just happened across this site, and had already read about the research. The comments here are fascinating. I can only imagine similar declarations from like-minded nattering nabobs of negativity if they had read 50 years ago that the computing power of an entire room of processors would one day rest in my hands, inside the tablet device on which I type this while sitting on the John taking a crap.
Stretch ledford says:
October 8, 2011 at 7:56 am
“I can only imagine similar declarations from like-minded nattering nabobs of negativity if they had read 50 years ago that the computing power of an entire room of processors would one day rest in my hands, inside the tablet device on which I type this while sitting on the John taking a crap.”
Moore’s Law does not apply to the energy business.
Stretch Ledford: The comments here are fascinating.
Which ones? For, against, undecided on fuel from CO2? For, against, undecided on Andrea Rossi’s device?
Some of us actually read the prognostications 50 years ago, and no one at the time foresaw the incredible growth in computing power; lots of people forecast an enormous energy industry from harvesting solar power, and it’s only lately started happening, and requires tax subsidies almost everywhere. Which great development from 50 years ago that was your favorite did not happen?
Come, come, fellow, be specific. Which comments here did you find interesting, and how, and why?
DirkH: concentrated solar is not the way to increase that – it only concentrates more light on one cell, but the percentage of the light energy converted does not increase.
The latest PV Cells that can be used in concentrated solar PV arrays are about 40% efficient. The most efficient fully tested panel is 32%: http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Everphoton_HCPV_Module_Efficiency_Reaches_Record_High_999.html
One of your heroes already discussed this while he was talking to another one of your heroes …
I believe that even Hansen realizes that there is trouble at low CO2 values (unfortunately he things the same of higher values). I believe that in the above quote, Hansen was preemptively trying to clamp-down the knee-jerk tendency from his leftist allies like McKibben to ‘race-to-the-bottom’ for lower and lower CO2 levels once they get started. We have seen this type of thing elsewhere, for example with States and their DUI/DWI laws, starting at one blood alcohol value as ‘impaired’ and continuing to lower it over time. There are no real bounds to human stupidity. Given enough time, we will explore every rabbit hole and try out every idiotic idea that someone comes up with (witness AGW alarmism).
Like several commenters hinted above, we need a new organization called 1000.org to counter this madness.
If this works it will produce portable, storable power that is also rather safe. If it converts air to liquid fuel it would be a big advantage over converting food to liquid fuel. It is no surprise the end result is like an inefficient solar panel, but how else can you put the stored energy of solar panels on trans-oceanic flights to Aruba or Copenhagen for GHG planning sessions?
All it would take to make this a money making enterprise is for governments to mandate use of this fuel as a requirement for landing at international airports. They’ve done crazier things.
Septic Matthew says:
October 8, 2011 at 9:08 am
“The latest PV Cells that can be used in concentrated solar PV arrays are about 40% efficient. The most efficient fully tested panel is 32%: ”
Then this must be multijunction cells. “Expected future efficiencies of multijunction photovoltaic cell are nearly 50%”
http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Everphoton_HCPV_Module_Efficiency_Reaches_Record_High_999.html
– ok; so they use a very expensive multijunction cell for their concentrated solar. It’s not the concentrator that makes the high efficiency; but they need the concentrator to make the best use of the very expensive cell.
Sorry; the 50% quote comes from here; copy&paste error…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_photovoltaics
“Expected future efficiencies of multijunction photovoltaic cell are nearly 50%.”
DirkH,
The point was and is that efficiencies much higher than natural photosynthesis are achievable.
This quote of yours was false as written: concentrated solar is not the way to increase that – it only concentrates more light on one cell, but the percentage of the light energy converted does not increase.
“concentrated solar” includes both concentration and higher efficiency PV cells. Your correction makes that clear.
I have been surprised at the reaction to my post at 11.47am October 7th. Heaven forfend, some even seem to think me a warmist! They dissected my words remarkably, missing the point completely. My purpose in suggesting that the bright sparks of WUWT should demonstrate (I meant to the outside world) the truth about CO2 was simply to go on the attack against the warmists because by waiting, as one person suggested, until they prove that CO2 is the culprit, we are letting them win by default, as it all just drags on year after year with the result that they can say “CO2 emissions are linked to climate change” with impunity: and hence there is no progress. I want to see them at least put on the defensive, but preferably forced to admit they have no answer to our case against them.
Septic Matthew says:
October 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm
“DirkH,
The point was and is that efficiencies much higher than natural photosynthesis are achievable.”
No doubt about that. If you followed my comments, I have repeatedly made clear that I’m not against solar or taxpayer funded solar research but against the widescale deployment of technology that needs to be subsidized. As long as people pay for their solar installations themselves because it makes sense to them – for instance in a remote area where there’s no grid or an instable one – more power to them (literally).
“This quote of yours was false as written: concentrated solar is not the way to increase that – it only concentrates more light on one cell, but the percentage of the light energy converted does not increase. “concentrated solar” includes both concentration and higher efficiency PV cells. Your correction makes that clear.”
Yes, you’re right. I didn’t know that multijunction cells are already used outside the labs. I’ve learned something new, thanks for that.
From DirkH October 7, 2011 at 11:58 pm
http://www.uni-solar.com/uni-solar-difference/technology/
Uni-Solar (United Solar Ovonic, division of Energy Conversion Devices), has been profitably making their amorphous silicon triple-junction cells for a while now. They make the flexible “rolled” panels, peel-and-stick, unroll onto a suitable surface (metal roof preferred), and a few similar products, all durable and cost-efficient.
Note in their 2010 Technology Roadmap (pdf), they only claim 8.2% conversion efficiency vs 9-22% for the competition (pg 8), yet greater energy yield as they produce in lower light conditions than others, even on cloudy days. The Roadmap has goals of 10% for 2011, 12% for 2012, with the “shoot for the moon” goal of eventually 20%.
Seems pathetic compared to the efficiencies you mention, but I trust Uni-Solar to provide closer to real-world numbers than otherwise, partly due to their having an output warranty, no lower than 80% of new after 25 years. Who else puts their money on the line like that?
I note in Septic Matthew’s 9:08 am comment the link to a just-tested 32% efficient concentrated solar panel, with another mention of a 40% efficient “in the lab” PV cell. I haven’t heard addressed the problem with concentrated solar of cells deteriorating significantly faster than in non-concentrated use. Someone let me know when the makers can warranty 80% output after 25 years. At that link it specifically mentions cell replacement as part of the maintenance of that concentrated solar panel. Also, last I heard, due to the reflectors involved, concentrated needs being aimed at the sun and won’t work on cloudy days with diffuse sunlight.
A (virtually) zero-maintenance proven product, backed with a 25 year performance warranty, vs a theoretically 3-4 times more productive system (need to see the actual yields) needing solar tracking and a maintenance budget, when they finally hit the market at who-knows-what price. If I was buying then, especially if no subsidies involved, I know which one I’d pick.
It’s clear that many people, especially journalists, don’t understand the principle of conservation of energy.
If you’re going to be making a fuel that releases chemical energy, that energy has first to be stored in that fuel. Using a diffuse source of energy such a solar, to make a fuel that’s required to have high-intensity, requires a very large area of energy collection.
Replace the PV (or solar-thermal) with nuclear, especially a molten-salt type reactor, and making fuels from CO2 makes sense as one is stepping down the energy ladder instead of trying to climb it.
Tom_R says:
October 8, 2011 at 7:03 am
In reply to R. Gates October 8, 2011 at 6:23 am:
As far as your original question, CO2 levels clearly need to be above the limit that would shut down photosynthesis, and that would be an absolute minimum. The ideal level would be higher, probably much higher than even current levels.
A good indication of the “safe” range of atmospheric CO2 levels, at least over the Phanerozoic, is given by this link, courtesy of Bill illis. It is quite a wide range:
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png
Looking at this would you feel that we are near the top or the bottom end of the safe range?
Answer: the bottom end.
I have a feeling nature has already invented this wheel. But there does seem to be a need for Geodesic Domes over all metro areas with glass coated, on the inside, with bacteria of a transparent nature, that does the job already. Hummmmmmm…. I wonder….
From a purely statistical perspective, based on the time frames when homo sapiens have emerged from their predecessors and the food grains which feed us also emerged, (i.e. over the past 800,000 years) it would seem that around 300 ppm is a nice area, conducive to both civilization and the animals and plants that support it. Some might want to look into the distant past for the optimum CO2 level, when the earth was covered with more steamy jungles (and human ancestors where more akin to tree shrews), and yes, perhaps some species flourished under these conditions, but it remains doubtful whether human civilization and the food grains that support it would flourish in steamy jungles and CO2 in the range of 600-1000 ppm or higher.
Falstaff says:
October 7, 2011 at 5:34 pm
The point seems to be to discover the most efficient way to make syn fuel.
Start with low cost natural gas CH4, instead of CO2.
There are two reactions that happen when you burn fuel:
C + 2O => CO2 + energy
2H + O => H2O + energy
The process can be reversed in this fashion
CO2 + energy => C + 2O
H2O + energy => 2H + O
The problem is finding the energy to reverse the process. Plants currently do it, using energy from sunlight, at extremely low cost to the taxpayers. However, there are plans to change this. REDD hopes to take control over large sections of the earths plants, and thus charge taxpayers for reversing the process via carbon trading.
By placing a price on reversing the process, which plants currently provide for free, it then becomes possible to sell this currently free service back to the world. In effect, the production of oxygen by plants becomes a commodity that people will have to pay for.
“R. Gates says:
October 9, 2011 at 12:53 pm
From a purely statistical perspective, based on the time frames when homo sapiens have emerged from their predecessors and the food grains which feed us also emerged, (i.e. over the past 800,000 years) it would seem that around 300 ppm is a nice area.”
Agriculture is at best 10 thousand years old based on the fossil evidence. The introduction of agriculture FOLLOWED a period of rapidly increasing CO2 levels globally. This is strong evidence that increasing CO2 levels caused made agriculture possible, by making it easier to grow plants.
We are currently feeding more people than at any time in the past 800,000 years. CO2 levels have never been higher. This increase in the global food supply is highly correlated to the increase in global CO2 levels. There is a much better correlation between food supply and CO2 that there is between temperature and CO2.
Thus, it could well be that increased CO2 levels are what are feeding the people of the earth. As required by science, there is a causative mechanism to explain this. We know that CO2 helps plants grow. We know that people rely on plants from food. This is all strong evidence that lowering CO2 would require a reducing in the earth’s population (or a technological breakthrough that breaks the connection between CO2 and food).