From MIT, a possible solution to allow coal fired power plants to meet the new draconian CO2 emission requirements imposed by the EPA. Hybrid copper-gold nanoparticles convert carbon dioxide to methane CO2=>CH4
May reduce greenhouse gas emissions
![20120410145641-2[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/20120410145641-21.jpg?w=300&resize=300%2C300)
Various researchers around the world have studied copper’s potential as an energy-efficient means of recycling carbon dioxide emissions in powerplants: Instead of being released into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide would be circulated through a copper catalyst and turned into methane — which could then power the rest of the plant. Such a self-energizing system could vastly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired and natural-gas-powered plants.
But copper is temperamental: easily oxidized, as when an old penny turns green. As a result, the metal is unstable, which can significantly slow its reaction with carbon dioxide and produce unwanted byproducts such as carbon monoxide and formic acid.
Now researchers at MIT have come up with a solution that may further reduce the energy needed for copper to convert carbon dioxide, while also making the metal much more stable.
The group has engineered tiny nanoparticles of copper mixed with gold, which is resistant to corrosion and oxidation. The researchers observed that just a touch of gold makes copper much more stable. In experiments, they coated electrodes with the hybrid nanoparticles and found that much less energy was needed for these engineered nanoparticles to react with carbon dioxide, compared to nanoparticles of pure copper.
A paper detailing the results will appear in the journal Chemical Communications; the research was funded by the National Science Foundation. Co-author Kimberly Hamad-Schifferli of MIT says the findings point to a potentially energy-efficient means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from powerplants.
“You normally have to put a lot of energy into converting carbon dioxide into something useful,” says Hamad-Schifferli, an associate professor of mechanical engineering and biological engineering. “We demonstrated hybrid copper-gold nanoparticles are much more stable, and have the potential to lower the energy you need for the reaction.”
Going small
The team chose to engineer particles at the nanoscale in order to “get more bang for their buck,” Hamad-Schifferli says: The smaller the particles, the larger the surface area available for interaction with carbon dioxide molecules. “You could have more sites for the CO2 to come and stick down and get turned into something else,” she says.
Hamad-Schifferli worked with Yang Shao-Horn, the Gail E. Kendall Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at MIT, postdoc Zichuan Xu and Erica Lai ’14. The team settled on gold as a suitable metal to combine with copper mainly because of its known properties. (Researchers have previously combined gold and copper at much larger scales, noting that the combination prevented copper from oxidizing.)
To make the nanoparticles, Hamad-Schifferli and her colleagues mixed salts containing gold into a solution of copper salts. They heated the solution, creating nanoparticles that fused copper with gold. Xu then put the nanoparticles through a series of reactions, turning the solution into a powder that was used to coat a small electrode.
To test the nanoparticles’ reactivity, Xu placed the electrode in a beaker of solution and bubbled carbon dioxide into it. He applied a small voltage to the electrode, and measured the resulting current in the solution. The team reasoned that the resulting current would indicate how efficiently the nanoparticles were reacting with the gas: If CO2 molecules were reacting with sites on the electrode — and then releasing to allow other CO2 molecules to react with the same sites — the current would appear as a certain potential was reached, indicating regular “turnover.” If the molecules monopolized sites on the electrode, the reaction would slow down, delaying the appearance of the current at the same potential.
The team ultimately found that the potential applied to reach a steady current was much smaller for hybrid copper-gold nanoparticles than for pure copper and gold — an indication that the amount of energy required to run the reaction was much lower than that required when using nanoparticles made of pure copper.
Going forward, Hamad-Schifferli says she hopes to look more closely at the structure of the gold-copper nanoparticles to find an optimal configuration for converting carbon dioxide. So far, the team has demonstrated the effectiveness of nanoparticles composed of one-third gold and two-thirds copper, as well as two-thirds gold and one-third copper.
Hamad-Schifferli acknowledges that coating industrial-scale electrodes partly with gold can get expensive. However, she says, the energy savings and the reuse potential for such electrodes may balance the initial costs.
“It’s a tradeoff,” Hamad-Schifferli says. “Gold is obviously more expensive than copper. But if it helps you get a product that’s more attractive like methane instead of carbon dioxide, and at a lower energy consumption, then it may be worth it. If you could reuse it over and over again, and the durability is higher because of the gold, that’s a check in the plus column.”
Written by: Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Doesn’t this sound suspiciously like a perpetual motion machine?
No matter how good your catalyst, if the reaction is CO2 + ? => CH4 +?, and you can then burn the CH4 to give CO2+energy, then you must put more energy into the catalyzed reaction than you get from the subsequent burn. So the whole thing seems pretty pointless.
” Instead of being released into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide would be circulated through a copper catalyst and turned into methane — which could then power the rest of the plant.”
So you convert CO2 to methane (where does the hydrogen come from?), and then burn the methane producing … CO2.
Am I missing something, or does this whole process really accomplish nothing?
It is a rotten solution.
From the EPA:
Brilliant, in order to handle EPA restrictions on CO2 emmisions to save the planet from waming due to the GHG effect, they propose converting CO2 to methane, a gas with a much greater green house effect (about 20 times that of CO2). I have no doubt that the EPA will run with this announcement to show that their standards are forcing innovation to save the planet.
Besides, isn’t methane (CH4) a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2)?
I’m appalled by the lack of understanding of basic physics of whoever wrote this article. The energy obtained by burning fossil fuels (like natural gas, or CH4) cannot be recovered by reducing CO2 back to methane. Why? Because it would require a source of hydrogen and hydrogen can come only from a catalysed partial oxidation of methane or from the electrolysis of water.
The absurdity of the idea is to suppose that Hydrogen is free and this article gives a very bad name to a otherwise famous institute, the MIT.
It is really shocking ot see how “green thinking” is corrupting science almost everywhere!
They’re going to have trouble patenting this, since last I checked, the USPO still dismisses perpetual motion inventions out of hand.
Ahhh… April is indeed the cruellest month.
TomL, you missed nothing. Carnot long since demonstrated that perpetual motion machines of the first kind do not exist. That is the first law of thermo. But there is actually a small role these could play. They could be used to take electricity from solar gunk and wind farms and convert it into a storable form.
I guess someone in MIT has drank too much. Converting CO2 into methane requires a lot of energy – at least as much as get by burning it. There’s no way around it as long as first law of thermodynamics applies. And even if they decided to turn all CO2 from power plants into methane – what now with it? Burn it back to CO2? Wouldn’t that be stupid now that we invested so much energy into it? Or release it to atmosphere as methane? Wouldn’t that be even worse than releasing CO2? Or perhaps turn it back into coal?
Great! Problem solved – methane is now a non-greenhouse gas. Now what the heck do you do with the methane? Burn it? Release it? What?
I have to assume there’s water invloved in the reaction to get some H’s for the methane.
We are still left with the question though of whether CO2 is actually harmful.
Unless it utilizes a waste energy source in the plant, it doesn’t sound like it sould accomplish anything.
Pretend it is 100% energy efficient in converting CO2 + H20 + electricity into methane. Pretend you then burn the methane at 100% efficiency…. and get back exactly enough energy to produce enough methane to fuel the plant that burns the methane to provide the energy to produce the methane… and so on. It does precisely nothing for your coal plant emissions.
One practical use for it theoretically could be to turn cheap nuclear (or surplus wind) energy into easily stored CNG for transportation or back-up power, but as a way to reduce coal plant emissions it is likely worthless.
WOFTAM.
Copper has so many gainful uses than to contemplate wastefully throwing it on the fire solely for the purpose of helping gullible warming believers sleep at night.
This sort of nonsense if the reason that the greenpr!cks demonstrable stupidity is so irritating, rather than just being plain amusing
Was this supposed to be a Friday Funny?
REPLY: Is it Friday? – A
Was this suposed to be a Friday Funny?
WTF! The propaganda has taken a deep root indeed. Co2 used by plants – very deadly. Greenhouse growers please reduce that 1,000 ppm to a safer 350ppm. Thanks.
Hamad-Schifferli said:
“You normally have to put a lot of energy into converting carbon dioxide into something useful,”
==================================
… the foraminifera in the oceans do it pretty cheaply, converting it to calcium carbonate. Oh, yes, that’s right: they’re solar powered.
Much of the world’s CO2 is locked up in limestone. When there’s no more CO2, I guess the foraminifera will be out of a job …
Those of us who understand the true back grounds behind the CAGW scare know it’s not at all about CO2 reduction.
It’s about centralized control over all our resources, money grabbing, reduction of energy access mobility and population control.
Every “solution” only disturbs their party and will be regarded as most unwelcome.
@Dear Grant
Did you read the whole thing?
Catalysts or enzymes (the biologic pendents of catalysts) do reduce the energy necessary for transformation of a certain molecule into another one. Take Aluminium for example. To melt bauxite you need at least 1200°C. But if you add cryolith the temperatur needed to melt bauxite lowers to about 970°C.
That’s magic – or isn’t it?
No, it isn’t.
The whole life depends on catalysts. We won’t exist, if that magic won’t work.
It is not a “perpetuum mobile”. It is just stuff (copper with gold coat) helping other stuff to get upwards. No, it has nothing to do with energy – but just the way stuff recombines with the little help of a friend 🙂
Please look up catalysts in the encyclopedia of your confidence.
I understand catalysis. To use a mixed metaphor, it lowers the height of the hill between two energy levels.. But the relative energy levels before and after are still the same, and to move from one compound to another which has a higher chemical potential energy, you need to add energy, The second law makes it quite clear that the amount of energy you have to add will be more than you can possibly get by later burning the product.
My reference to perpetual motion was in respect of their ridiculous claim that by afterwards burning the resultant methane they could increase the efficiency of the plant. I thought that was obvious.
It’s an interesting process, completely useless for the stated application.
I bet my 14 year old son could debunk this one without any prompting.
Hey, if getting methane out increases the plant’s efficiency by a couple of percent for a modest capital expenditure, I’m for it.
OK, after a more careful read what I understand it that it’s basically a sealed system. Co2 to methane and so on. Still damned pointless and possibly uneconomical, release the co2 and feed the plants. These kinds of projects just fuel (no pun intended) more and more unnecessary schemes.
I went to the MIT news website and this is an actual article. I thought it was an April 1st article. It still might be. Its dated April 11. This is unimaginable coming from MIT. Rube Goldberg would be laughing. I understand the need for the catalyst but not for scrubing CO2 to convert back to a hydrocarbon. Its a mindless waste of energy
.
JuergenK,
Please look up the difference between kinetics and thermodynamics.
Then write down the possible reactions to make methane from CO2 and calculate the overall thermodynamics (including those needed to make any reducing agents).
Catalysts, no matter how good, can’t drive a reaction “uphill”.
Paulo Zappi says:
April 11, 2012 at 2:21 pm
I’m appalled by the lack of understanding of basic physics of whoever wrote this article….
____________________________
And to think MIT used to be THE best, sigh….
If this is what now comes out of the best and brightest of US Universities we are in serious trouble here folks.