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.
All the thermodynamics arguments aside…let’s put on our political thinking caps here. The EPA passed a rule that limits how much CO2 per megawatt hour a plant could emit, not CH4 in order to pay back powerful political backers in the natural gas industry (I shouldn’t mention Warren Buffett by name) . So if I can convert enough CO2 to CH4 to put my CO2 level under the rule, I can keep my plant running. I don’t even care at that point if it makes sense (which it doesn’t), I am working to rule. This useless application of this technology might actually make someone a good deal of money. Of course it is a little like putting a smog pump on a 1970s internal combustion engine to make the tail pipe numbers “look good”. It is all about making the number in the regulation to get the regulators off your back.
Copper is also one of the few metals that can turn carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon fuels with relatively little energy.
As many have noted, something is very wrong or there is much information missing. The reaction for the complete combustion of methane is CH4 + 2O2 –> CO2 + 2H2O + heat. This heat can be expressed in different ways, and it terms of MJ/kg, it turns out to be 55.5 MJ/kg of methane. To drive this reaction in the reverse direction, one would still have to put in at least 55.5 MJ to get a kg of methane. What would be the point of that? Now copper and gold may well reduce the activation energy necessary to achieve this result, but in the end, you have to put in at least as much energy to get the fuel as you can get out of it later.
“You normally have to put a lot of energy into converting carbon dioxide into something useful,” says Hamad-Schifferli
But there does not seem to be a shortage of fuel. And if the object is to get rid of CO2, sunlight and plants are good at it.
” And if the object is to get rid of CO2, sunlight and plants are good at it.”
Good point — you have to wonder if it would be as effective and cheaper to bubble the exhaust through a shallow lagoon packed with aquatic plants and some cleaner fish.
max says:
April 11, 2012 at 2:20 pm
methane, a gas with a much greater green house effect (about 20 times that of CO2)
So let me try to quantify things. Over the last 15 years, the CO2 concentration went up about 25 ppm while CH4 went up about 0.05 ppm. So the CO2 increased by 500 times the amount of CH4. But since the CH4 has a potency that is 20 times stronger than CO2, its overall affect is about 4% as much as CO2. According to RSS, the last 15 years and 5 months give a negative slope. The net effect of the added CO2 over the last 15 years is therefore 0. And since the effect of the added CH4 is 4% of 0, it also gives 0.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.83/normalise
Rob Crawford says:
April 11, 2012 at 3:41 pm
“Problem is, X-Y == 0.”
Doesn’t have to be. It just has to be below the EPA limit.
I thought gold was on the way out, and had no use in a modern, technological, democratic world. Execpt for things like the global financial crisis, excessive government debt, love, industrial applications…..
If you add the fact that the CO2 from a plant is quite diluted with nitrogen, water, and some other trace gases it might be hard to get high enough efficiency to make this process viable.
Reminds me of that wind-driven craft in Barbarella which was pushed along by a fan held on the back of the craft.
Mind you, I bet there will be some fantastic government grants that they can claim! Probably worth more than the energy they would have been producing, anyway, so it’s probably a sure-fire winner!
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.”
——————————-
I’m not buying that it’s an MIT press screw up. Seems like Kimberley is drinking the Kool-Aid herself. As so many others have pointed out the most efficient way to achieve these CO2 “savings” would be to simply burn less coal to begin with. The only two applications I can see for this would be to utilize CO2 feedstock along with a nearby nuke plant to manufacture methane for transportation fuel or as a precursor to more complex hydrocarbons, or as possibly a more efficient means of turning the Martian atmosphere into something useful like methane and O2. In the case of the former I wonder how this would compare to converting the coal directly into methane. It just seems stupid to convert it into low-energy CO2 first and then start adding energy back…
Another MIT “double win” I guess.
Does the EPA just care about CO2? Is it all right if methane or mercury (from broken light bulbs) is released into the air instead?
Copper certainly isn’t cheap either – there are copper thieves being reported all over the place now. So they want to take 2 precious metals, both quite expensive, in order to mitigate something for which there’s currently no solid scientific evidence of harm. Sure, makes loads of sense. /sarc
In Post Normal Science you are allowed to ignore the laws of thermodynamics if society deems it is for the common good.
Hamad-Schifferl lost me at “You normally have to put a lot of energy into converting carbon dioxide into something useful”. She obviously forgot about photosynthesis, where green plants convert CO2 into something very useful using free solar energy. At no cost to man. So the whole research is a waste of money – just scientists defrauding the taxpayers in the name of CAGW.
Jay Davis
Rob Crawford says:
April 11, 2012 at 4:02 pm
” And if the object is to get rid of CO2, sunlight and plants are good at it.”
Good point — you have to wonder if it would be as effective and cheaper to bubble the exhaust through a shallow lagoon packed with aquatic plants and some cleaner fish.
___________________________________
I was thinking greenhouses with hydroponics but essentially the same thought except mine would turn the CO2 into edible hydrocarbons which can then be sold.
OMG. What a sh1tty bunkum. Of course, it “can turn carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon fuels with relatively little energy”. But that relatively little is still several times more, than the coal fired plant could possibly provide. And what’s the point of a power plant that needs more input power than its output?
Oh, I see. One just pours any amount of taxpayer’s money into such a scam and even if it is doomed to failure from the beginning, some can still grab nice profits.
Oh, come on! Can’t a guy believe in miracles? I mean, if this were real, don’t you think that the EPA would still let our power plants keep making power?
Oh… nevermind… I forgot the POTUS promise to “shut down coal”.
And what about the CO2 created in mining, shipping and super-processing all that copper?
It occurs to me that a really rich anti-Green activist could do a vast amount of good for the country by the following tactic: Pay the (mostly coal-powered) utility that supplies electricity to the Washington area to shut down for a year. Cover the lost profits and so on. Agree to start up when the EPA stands down on all CO2 regulations, and promise to shut down again if EPA shows the slightest sign of returning to evil.
Grant Shirreffs @ur momisugly April 11, 2012 at 2:16 pm beat me to it:
Doesn’t this sound suspiciously like a perpetual motion machine?
It may be possible for this idea to work. If the catalyst lowers the reaction conditions to near ambient conditions, then perhaps the waste heat from the turbines could be used to power the reaction. Assuming the conversion is done in an aqueous environment, there will be O2 released which can be used to improve the thermodynamics of the combustion process, which will likely need to be carried out using pure O2 since N2 in the waste gas stream would get in the way of the reaction step (similar to a plant that sequesters the CO2, which has terrible economics). The CH4 can be burned for fuel, reducing the specific energy requirements of the plant. Total CO2 emissions remain the same, but power generation per unit of fuel consumed increases, thus perhaps meeting the EPA efficiency requirement.
Would this be economical? Probably not. The capital cost would be enormous. An integrated coal gasification combined cycle plant using O2 would be needed as a starting point, which I don’t think would every work economically. Not mentioned is the issue of oxides of sulfur, which would tend to blind the catalyst. Also not mentioned is how much current is needed. If the electrical current is used to supply the H2 by electrolysis or if a heat source other than waste heat is needed to drive the reaction, game over. And the price of natural gas is at a multi year low. Looks like an exercise in futility.
Why not just cut to the chase? Take 1/4 of the CO₂ emissions, convert straight back to carbon, process into small nuggets, “sequester” in a shallow pit relatively nearby. Job done, EPA happy, go away you pathetic Green-plated tyrants.
Then five years and two property swaps by shell companies later, start burning this high-quality coal you found in a relatively-nearby privately-owned mine, takes practically nothing to obtain and make ready for use except for loading it from a shallow pit into the trucks going to the power plant…
Trees do this already. Also trees do not require the consumption of fossil fuels to power the reaction to produce less fossil fuels.
I like science but there is no eureka here for the green zombies.
Re Dr Burns says:
April 11, 2012 at 3:39 pm
The coal-to-gas process was one of several developed. For example, see “Fischer-Tropsch Fuels from Coal, Natural Gas, and Biomass: Background and Policy” at
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/19952.pdf
This congressional report includes analysis of capturing the F-T CO2 for sequestration, but there is no reason why the CO2 couldn’t be piped to greenhouses or bubbled into ponds in order to toe some regulatory line. At least F-T and variants are proven technologies.
“Is it all right if methane or mercury (from broken light bulbs) is released into the air instead?”
Yes.
Providing optimum conditions for green plants to grow quickly including adaquet H2O, irrigation, enriched soil, WARM temperatures results in the use of atmospheric CO2 at minimum cost to produce the essential Oxygen we breathe and which fuels combustion plus carbohydrates which are the essential food we eat and products we use such as timber. EPA and scientists should be working on biology, agriculture and water conservation rather than expensive useless rubbish!
kindasorta off-topic, but I need to get it down before I foget it again. Is the guy with the eyebrows still around? What does the UMW think about all this?