Nanocopper CO2 catalyst – a possible solution to EPA's draconian coal power plant killer laws?

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

An electron microscopy image of hybrid gold/copper nanoparticles. Image: Zhichuan Xu
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Copper — the stuff of pennies and tea kettles — is also one of the few metals that can turn carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon fuels with relatively little energy. When fashioned into an electrode and stimulated with voltage, copper acts as a strong catalyst, setting off an electrochemical reaction with carbon dioxide that reduces the greenhouse gas to methane or methanol.

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

161 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tsk Tsk
April 12, 2012 4:18 pm

TomT says:
April 11, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Ok so you can’t get more energy out of system than you put in, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t increase the efficiency. 100% of the energy stored in the coal is not turned in electricity by the power plant, there are losses. I thought the idea of this is capture some of those loses and reuse them, thus making the plant more efficant, not to create more energy than is put in, but rather not lose as much energy as would have been lost otherwise. Why isn’t that possible?
——————————
Because the maximum thermodynamic efficiency of a heat engine is dictated by the temperature of the heat source and the temperature of the cold sink. Given the present limits of materials technology and the practical limits of the reaction temperatures you get about 35% efficiency in a modern coal plant. A combined cycle gas plant can get up to about 50% if you work at it. Of course none of this considers cogeneration where the “waste” heat is actually useful and not simply dumped into a cooler environment. Look up Carnot for a more detailed explanation.

Macbeth
April 12, 2012 5:33 pm

I assume they are following “the letter of the law”; CO2 from coal power plants is banned, the methane burner is not a coal power plant –>win still, a plague on both their houses.

JMW
April 13, 2012 5:18 am

The concensus from thinking people is that this is a nice observation of a useless development.
But it includes several key words to attract funding: Nano technology, catalysts, gold, green.
Nanotechnology is evolving into the new panacea. Catalysts are these magic agents that seemingly allow anything to happen.
But everyone has picked up on the absurdity of the proposal.
CO2 into methane will require energy. All the catalyst does is help make it happen.
But the result is methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas if released but it is also a fuel. SO it will be burned to generate more CO2.
This CO2 to CH4 to CO2 cycle will consume energy and it will have inefficiencies.
No matter how you cut it, you don’t get any useful benefit from this discoverey.
You burn fossil fuels to generate power which is used by people to run their electricaly goods. You get CO2. But to get CO2 into CH4 you need energy, something they seem not to highlight.
That means that some of your energy will go into converting come of the CO2 into CH4. But how much?
There is no way this can prove at all usefull unless we suspedn the laws of physics.
But because of all the buzz words doubtless it will gaina share of Obamas Green handouts.

Mr.E
April 13, 2012 9:53 am

Twice times I read it over already yet and don’t know the meaning even half!

April 13, 2012 1:27 pm

“Am I missing something, or does this whole process really accomplish nothing?”
It moves the CO2 emissions from the coal plant to whomever is burning the methane. The Coal plant won’t be burning it because of the regulations on THEM, but gas-fueled golf carts and whatnot aren’t regulated.

Mr.E
April 13, 2012 2:00 pm

On a serious note, unfortunately if you go to uspto.gov and and do a search for “perpetual motion” you will get a list of 119 patents. If you want a laugh take a look at some of the schemes. I remember one electric vehicle that had a plurality of wheel driven generators extended on arms around the vehicle that were supposed to generate the electricity to propel the vehicle. It had a battery to store the excess energy and a port to to offload excess energy.
I started to do a web search to see what was really happening with nanocopper CO2 catalyst research and so far I have found nothing that sounds like this article. Like others I checked the issue date and it does have two ones in it. Is that a double April Fools?
I keep reading the article hoping to find some semblance of reason but if it’s there I’m missing it. That’s why I spouted my father’s humorous quote in my previous post.

Betsy
April 13, 2012 4:15 pm

This is not needed for solving the nonexistent terrestrial CO2 problem. Human generated CO2 is not a driver of climate change. If the climate is changing, we aren’t doing it, and it’s not clear it’s changing.
It is, however, BRILLIANT science that could prove useful for space travel, or for submarines. Reduce the CO2 from human respiration to methane that can be used later.

Beau
April 14, 2012 9:44 am

It seemed that the whole point is to be able to keep the coal plants running before the EPA turns off most of the electricity in the US.
Hasn’t the global warming hoax already been disproven?
This is political now. Keep the coal burning so we still have power to run our computers.

Beale
April 15, 2012 1:55 pm

This is pointless. If you meet the EPA requirements, it will impose new ones.

April 16, 2012 1:51 am

Nobody should take this seriously as any kind of solution to any problem.
They intend to make a gain for themselves based on
information that they know to be false. This is simply
a Fraud !!! Report these people to the Police and have
them all charged with concocting a fraudulent scheme.

1 5 6 7