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.

phlogiston says:
October 8, 2011 at 8:43 pm
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
That is an interesting graph. From an eyeball analysis it shows that CO2 sensitivity is likely lower that 1.5C per doubling, Looking at the graph there are a series of points in the 3000-7000 range that all appear to line up around the 0.5 – 1 C range.
It would be interesting to see this graph with a “best fit” curve, to see what paleo observations say is the CO2 sensitivity.
The money quote:
“More work is needed…”
Dirk, the point is that using a solar driven process to make carbon fuels out of CO2 will always be a net energy loss. Spot prices for electricity don’t matter in this equation.
Gosh, reminds me of the electricity-out-of-air powerplant in the famous novel Atlas Shrugged, which has solid ideas for human life but the powerplant is fictional. Though technology advances – every day I use the portable communicator from Star Trek, a cellular telephone, flip-open version even.
If, repeat if, such a thing were possible it would facilitate fuel being produced where the energy is. The combination of a buried mini nuclear powerplant that some are proposing with higher CO2 than in the countryside would produce fuel right in your neighbourhood.
Yeah, well, I am fantasizing on the achievability of several elements of that. 🙂
As for someone’s comment on letting plants to do the conversion then harvesting them, the concern is competition with food needs. Using non-edible plants that grow on scruff land is the holy grail of plants-to-fuel researchers, but I have not heard of any that work well. Personally I was tempted to research dandelions as they seem to grow everywhere, but since IIRC you can eat dandelion greens I dropped that idea.
Then there are the plant to oil converters called animals – fatten them pigs up folks. (Well, the oil tends to gel at normal temperatures – in refined form it is called “lard”?)
Keith, poor country kid, Silly on Sunday….