Making ethanol without the need to waste food crops

From Stanford University

Stanford scientists discover a novel way to make ethanol without corn or other plants

Stanford University scientists have found a new, highly efficient way to produce liquid ethanol from carbon monoxide gas. This promising discovery could provide an eco-friendly alternative to conventional ethanol production from corn and other crops, say the scientists. Their results are published in the April 9 advanced online edition of the journal Nature.

“We have discovered the first metal catalyst that can produce appreciable amounts of ethanol from carbon monoxide at room temperature and pressure – a notoriously difficult electrochemical reaction,” said Matthew Kanan, an assistant professor of chemistry at Stanford and coauthor of the Nature study.

 

Most ethanol today is produced at high-temperature fermentation facilities that chemically convert corn, sugarcane and other plants into liquid fuel. But growing crops for biofuel requires thousands of acres of land and vast quantities of fertilizer and water. In some parts of the United States, it takes more than 800 gallons of water to grow a bushel of corn, which, in turn, yields about 3 gallons of ethanol.

The new technique developed by Kanan and Stanford graduate student Christina Li requires no fermentation and, if scaled up, could help address many of the land- and water-use issues surrounding ethanol production today. “Our study demonstrates the feasibility of making ethanol by electrocatalysis,” Kanan said. “But we have a lot more work to do to make a device that is practical.”

Novel electrodes

Two years ago, Kanan and Li created a novel electrode made of a material they called oxide-derived copper. They used the term “oxide-derived” because the metallic electrode was produced from copper oxide.

“Conventional copper electrodes consist of individual nanoparticles that just sit on top of each other,” Kanan said. “Oxide-derived copper, on the other hand, is made of copper nanocrystals that are all linked together in a continuous network with well-defined grain boundaries. The process of transforming copper oxide into metallic copper creates the network of nanocrystals.”

For the Nature study, Kanan and Li built an electrochemical cell – a device consisting of two electrodes placed in water saturated with carbon monoxide gas. When a voltage is applied across the electrodes of a conventional cell, a current flows and water is converted to oxygen gas at one electrode (the anode) and hydrogen gas at the other electrode (the cathode). The challenge was to find a cathode that would reduce carbon monoxide to ethanol instead of reducing water to hydrogen.

“Most materials are incapable of reducing carbon monoxide and exclusively react with water,” Kanan said. “Copper is the only exception, but conventional copper is very inefficient.”

In the Nature experiment, Kanan and Li used a cathode made of oxide-derived copper. When a small voltage was applied, the results were dramatic.

“The oxide-derived copper produced ethanol and acetate with 57 percent faradaic efficiency,” Kanan said. “That means 57 percent of the electric current went into producing these two compounds from carbon monoxide. We’re excited because this represents a more than 10-fold increase in efficiency over conventional copper catalysts. Our models suggest that the nanocrystalline network in the oxide-derived copper was critical for achieving these results.”

Carbon neutral

The Stanford team has begun looking for ways to create other fuels and improve the overall efficiency of the process. “In this experiment, ethanol was the major product,” Kanan said. “Propanol would actually be a higher energy-density fuel than ethanol, but right now there is no efficient way to produce it.”

In the experiment, Kanan and Li found that a slightly altered oxide-derived copper catalyst produced propanol with 10 percent efficiency. The team is working to improve the yield for propanol by further tuning the catalyst’s structure.

Ultimately, Kanan would like to see a scaled-up version of the catalytic cell powered by electricity from the sun, wind or other renewable resource.

For the process to be carbon neutral, scientists will have to find a new way to make carbon monoxide from renewable energy instead of fossil fuel, the primary source today. Kanan envisions taking carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere to produce carbon monoxide, which, in turn, would be fed to a copper catalyst to make liquid fuel. The CO2 that is released into the atmosphere during fuel combustion would be re-used to make more carbon monoxide and more fuel – a closed-loop, emissions-free process.

“Technology already exists for converting CO2 to carbon monoxide, but the missing piece was the efficient conversion of carbon monoxide to a useful fuel that’s liquid, easy to store and nontoxic,” Kanan said. “Prior to our study, there was a sense that no catalyst could efficiently reduce carbon monoxide to a liquid. We have a solution to this problem that’s made of copper, which is cheap and abundant. We hope our results inspire other people to work on our system or develop a new catalyst that converts carbon monoxide to fuel.”

###

 

The Nature study was coauthored by Jim Ciston, a senior staff scientist with the National Center for Electron Microscopy at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

The research was supported by Stanford University, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy.

This article was written by Mark Shwartz, Precourt Institute for Energy at Stanford University.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

140 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike T
April 9, 2014 3:50 pm

Ethanol has been made from industrial grade flour (presumably made from low grade wheat) in Australia for decades. The gluten is separated for sale, some of the remaining starch is sold off while the rest is fermented (after conversion to suitable sugars) into ethanol. Low value crops like sorghum are also used to make ethanol. In Queensland, sugar cane is used. This might be seen as diverting a food crop to industrial use, but it gives cane farmers another market especially at times when the world price for sugar is low and they might otherwise barely cover the cost of harvest. A large proportion of the maize crop in the US goes into industrial processes, rather than food. Maize is used to produce high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) which is widely used as a sugar substitute since import tariffs on real sugar are high.

Jim Cripwell
April 9, 2014 3:54 pm

Rob, you write “Since cellulosic ethanol is still five years away from commercialization”
I suggest you visit
http://poet-dsm.com/news
http://biofuels.dupont.com/cellulosic-ethanol/nevada-site-ce-facility/
The POET/DSM plant, capable of producing 20 million gallons of cellulose ethanol a year is scheduled to go into production in Q2 of 2014. The Dupont plant, 30 Million gallons per year, should be in production this year.

April 9, 2014 3:55 pm

Ken Hall says:
“Well they could try another novel market and try selling their corn for, oh I dunno…. Food?”
Agreed. My thoughts are not welcome here in Wisconsin, as I am for ending all farm subsidies. If they can’t make a profit without a subsidy, then they are growing the wrong crop, or need to get out of farming.

Catherine Ronconi
April 9, 2014 4:04 pm

Oh, no!
What about all those dangerous oxygen atoms that will be released in turning CO2 into CO? This will make the air flammable! We can’t have that!

CRS, DrPH
April 9, 2014 4:06 pm

At Kraft Foods in Melrose, MN we made thousands of gallons of fuel-grade ethanol every year from parmesan cheese whey ultrafilter permeate. If we converted all of the fermentable industrial wastes available into ethanol (confectionary, bottling etc.) we’d have a surplus of the stuff. It’s still a lousy vehicle fuel….low energy content, corrosive, can’t be shipped via pipeline etc.

Catherine Ronconi
April 9, 2014 4:09 pm

Jim Cripwell says:
April 9, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Doesn’t the cellulose feedstock require fossil fuel fertilizers & pesticides to grow? Or more chemicals for the soil to replace the nutrients not plowed back in?

April 9, 2014 4:13 pm

“But growing crops for biofuel requires thousands of acres of land”
“Make that millions of acres.”
Make that tens of millions of acres!
“But we have a lot more work to do to make a device that is practical.”
“Translation : ain’t gonna happen, but send funds anyway”
Great idea but it probably won’t. The amount of energy needed to convert this into the compact, energy rich liquid hydrocarbon form to power vehicles for instance would greatly exceed the yields. This is the form, of course, needed to be compatible with our country’s fuel and transportation infrastructure.
Not only would this result in a poor investment, losing energy return but it would have to take place on such a massive scale as to not be practical, even if the return was positive.
This appears to be an attempt at a perpetual motion machine type process that can never work because of the laws of thermodynamics.
We don’t need to find something to replace ethanol from corn, used for fuel. We just need to completely discontinue the ruinous policy of growing corn for ethanol. It would be great to find something but this policy has just made crop farmers, politicians and people benefiting from the ethanol industry rich and everybody else, poorer. Corn pollutes the most and uses the most natural resources(especially water when its used for fuel).
The Ogallala Aquifer in the Plains is being drained faster because of corn grown for ethanol production. We need corn for food and animal feed. It’s ok to use vital water supplies for this……..not to make fuel.
http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/01/4452173/the-ogallala-aquifer-an-important.html
Corn uses tremendous amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. Humans being able to manufacturer synthetic forms of this from natural gas is one of the biggest factors in corn yields quadrupling since around 1940.
Problem is that heavy rains cause run off of this fertilizer that makes it into streams, rivers and eventually, much of it gets into the Gulf of Mexico.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-06-14/gulf-of-mexico-s-extinction-by-ethanol
Growing corn requires use of other chemicals, that end up as pollution. It’s impossible to grow food to feed the world without some of this. It’s really dumb to be doing it to make a fuel that has 25% less energy, wrecks small engines, uses up natural resources, uses up 30 million acres of the most fertile land in the world……..meaning less acres to grow everything else and much higher prices for all crops/food because the price of everything else MUST go higher to give producers/farmers enough incentive to grow those other crops that must compete with corn. Farmers will plant whatever makes them the most money.
Ethanol is not making much of a dent with our dependence on fossil fuels either. It makes no sense to burn fossil fuels to make it. Just eliminate the ethanol and its numerous problems and use efficient fossil fuels.
However, using all these negatives that ethanol has to draw attention/support for something that doesn’t have most of those negatives(the process described above) only makes sense if the replacement is viable.

April 9, 2014 4:16 pm

Figures.
The drinking and driving rate is actually reducing and now them revenuers went and invented a process to make alcohol from car exhaust.
Soon, hidden stills will be in many cars and drivers will be able to drive while they drink.
I do find this statement either wrong or just plain absurd;

“…The challenge was to find a cathode that would reduce carbon monoxide to ethanol instead of reducing water to hydrogen…”

CO reduces to C and O, C2 and H2. In order to grab the hydrogen necessary to make the OH part of alcohol, some of those dangerous GHG water molecules have to surrender their hydrogen.
2CO + 6H₂O == Ch₃Ch₂OH + 3O₂ + O
Of course the oxygen is released singly and must combine to form the O2 molecules. With the electrical impetus I wonder if any of the aggressive oxygen atoms decide to go for O3 (commonly called ozone). That makes the formula 2CO + 6H₂O == Ch₃Ch₂OH + 2O₃ + O.
Nothing like rapidly corroding parts of the car.
The good news is that high schoolers and even college kids will learn basic chemistry again.

R. de Haan
April 9, 2014 4:17 pm

Why do we need to replace food based ethanol anyway. We just have to stop this moronic and criminal behavior fueling cars with food. Look what happened to the food prizes, the Middle East and North Africa where all the problems started with food protests.
We are the “bad guys” now.
Besides that, ethanol is a very poor car fuel.

April 9, 2014 4:17 pm

A water-solution based process to produce ethanol from CO immediately runs into two immediate problems, even with 100% electrochemical efficiency.
First is that the solubility of CO in water at room temperature is about 28 ppm (~1 milliMolar for you chemists out there). The rate of ethanol production is CO concentration-limited. Low concentration = low production rates. Saturated solutions of CO = 28 ppm are a non-starter for industrial production.
Second problem is that ethanol, the product, is water soluble at all concentrations. The process produces a solution of ethanol in water. The ethanol must be removed from the water. The only way to do that is distillation, which takes energy.
Problem two-b is that ethanol and water form a constant-boiling azeotrope at ~96% ethanol, ~4% water. The last 4% of water can’t be removed, even if you carefully re-distilled the 96-4 solution until the universe dies of heat-death (unless physical constants are slowly time-varying). Removal of the last 4% typically requires an additive. The usual additive is benzene. Benzene-water-ethanol forms a lower-boiling ternary azeotrope that will remove the water. The ethanol and residual benzene form a binary azeotrope that allows removal of the benzene. Other additives than benzene also work, but the purification problem remains.
The 4% water can also be removed from the 96-4 solution by multiple cycles through molecular sieves, or by chemical dehydration, but none of those methods are cheap.
And after all that — Voila! Pure ethanol! Economical for fuel? Not a chance.
On the other hand, if they can made the reaction gas-phase, then you’ve got something interesting. Maybe a high-temperature stream of CO and H2O, entering into a porous copper electrode could emerge enriched in ethanol. Problem is, the other reaction product is hydroxide (OH¯), which hasn’t any vapor pressure. It would probably deposit and end up corroding the electrode. Reality always bites. . .
Problem two-b also shows up in fermentation ethanol from corn or waste cellulose, of course. In that case energetic inputs are supplied by yeast. Much less electric power required.

LeeHarvey
April 9, 2014 4:18 pm

Well that’s just super! Let me go over here to tap into this huge stockpile of carbon monoxide that I just happen to have lying around!
Oh, wait…

April 9, 2014 4:19 pm

“…CO reduces to C and O, C2 and H2….”
My error, I mistyped and I even have a full size keyboard.
Corrected.
“…CO reduces to C and O, C2 and O2….”

Dr Burns
April 9, 2014 4:25 pm

Burn coal to make CO2 and electricity, convert the CO2 to CO then use the CO and electricity to make fuel. Yeh right. Good for some grants no doubt though.

John
April 9, 2014 4:29 pm

The ironic part of these exercise is people actually consider oil and gas “fossil fuels” when they are actually renewable fuels as they are part of a biological/geological cycle. Then they consider solar panels and wind-power renewable, go figure.

April 9, 2014 4:31 pm

@RockyRoad says:
January 25, 2014 at 11:02 am
And you forgot that each GCM has programmed into it’s assumptions & calculations the thesis that CO2 will rise monotonically, causing water vapor to rise monotonically, causing temperature will rise monotonically.
Clean & simple, a QED of sorts, but why do we need models… because they were hoping for a more believable & disguised lie.

April 9, 2014 4:48 pm

I can’t believe all the vitriol and half-truths that gets spewed on here about corn-based ethanol. 800 gallons of water to grow a bushel of corn? Okay, but some research on the USDA site shows me that only 15% of the total corn acres in 2007 were irrigated. Just like I’m skeptical about what the media tells me about AGW, I’m skeptical about what hear about ethanol. It’s not a perfect fuel, but it’s far better than depending on other countries for petroleum. And if you want to call the RFS a subsidy, well, then you should also call the tax breaks the oil refiners get subsidies. Whatever, everyone loves money from the government.
But the argument that really gets me is that it’s diverting a “food” crop for fuel- come on! It’s field corn- it’s fed to cows, pigs and chickens. And guess what? When corn is fermented, not all the solids become alcohol- there’s a lot of protein, fiber and even a bit of starch left over. Where does that go? Well, shockingly, it gets fed to cows, pigs and chickens. Food gets more expensive because oil gets more expensive, not because of ethanol. Read the World Bank report from 2010 (http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2010/07/21/000158349_20100721110120/Rendered/PDF/WPS5371.pdf).

Steve from Rockwood
April 9, 2014 4:58 pm

Ah, that’s nothing. The U.S. Navy has found a way to convert sea water to jet fuel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/09/seawater-to-fuel-navy-vessels-_n_5113822.html?utm_hp_ref=green

Steve from Rockwood
April 9, 2014 5:04 pm

bhiggum says:
April 9, 2014 at 4:48 pm
I can’t believe all the vitriol and half-truths that gets spewed on here about corn-based ethanol.
————————————————–
Exactly what “tax-breaks” do oil refineries get?

Bruce of Newcastle
April 9, 2014 5:04 pm

The biggest problem with this is the anode reaction. At the anode they are producing oxygen. Even with catalysts this reaction has a high overpotential.
This is lost energy since it ends up as heat. I’m not clear what the cell voltage is, so I’ll assume 2 V. (The K value for the chemical reaction is 5.83×10^-143 at 25C (HSC Chemistry) which suggests a cell voltage of at least 2 V with O2 overpotential, depending on the cell configuration and current density.)
If we take the cell voltage to be 2 V, which is not too bad since the very best water electrolysers can get down to about 1.5 V, then the calc is this:
2CO + 8H+ + 8e = CH3CH2OH + H2O
4H2O = 2O2 + 8H+ + 8e
Therefore one molecule of ethanol needs 8 electrons. Faraday’s constant is 96485.3 C/mol.
One mole of ethanol, 46g, therefore needs 2V * 8 * 96485.3 / 1000000 = 1.54 MJ
1 tonne of ethanol needs 1.54 * 1000000 / 46 = 33478 MJ.
Convert to kWh: 33478 * 0.2778 = 9300 kWh/t
Convert to US gallons using SG of ethanol: 9300 * 0.789 * 3.78 / 1000 = 27.7 kWh/gal
That is a theoretical minimum assuming 100% Faradaic efficiency and all the CO converted to ethanol, and not acetate, which is hard to see happening even with optimisation of the process.
If you use an electricity cost of 10c/kWh, which is arguably reasonable in a world where ethanol is needed for vehicles, that gives you a cost of about $2.77 per gallon for the electricity alone. Add the cost of the carbon monoxide, the depreciation of capital, wages and etc and it will be substantially higher.
The ethanol price in the US has averaged about $2.50/gal so far this year.
In other words, great chemistry, but go find another project guys and girls. Or find a different anode chemistry. I hate being negative about innovative ideas but it just isn’t ever going to make economic sense for such a low value product.
I would be very pleased if someone can show this calc is wrong.

Bruce Cobb
April 9, 2014 5:05 pm

Great, another pipe dream. Wake me when they can get the price per gallon from $20 down to $3. Hint: aint gonna happen.
Ethanol? Who needs it?

April 9, 2014 5:15 pm

Steve from Rockwood says:
April 9, 2014 at 5:04 pm
bhiggum says:
April 9, 2014 at 4:48 pm
I can’t believe all the vitriol and half-truths that gets spewed on here about corn-based ethanol.
————————————————–
Exactly what “tax-breaks” do oil refineries get?

Well, here’s a few from the first page of a Google search for “oil refinery tax breaks”. I really like the last one.
http://www.freep.com/article/20140314/NEWS01/303140013/Tax-break-for-Marathon-refinery-expansion-fails-to-bring-jobs-for-Detroit-residents-city-officials-say
http://daily.sightline.org/2014/02/04/what-would-repealing-an-accidental-tax-break-cost-oil-refineries/
http://www.law360.com/articles/523904/alaska-gov-calls-for-new-oil-refinery-tax-breaks
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Reply to  bhiggum
April 10, 2014 6:18 am

Sorry Bhiggum – those are not “subsidies”. Oil companies get to use GAAP rules for expenses before declaring a net income. That covers costs and depreciations. They do not get money for being oil companies. And the last one? That is amusing, but that is called working the system – tax avoidance. indeed, even the IRS says that tax avoidance is a good thing. Yell at Apple for sequestering their profits off shore to avoid the confiscatory taxes of the US (highest in the industrialized world).
The problem with so many jumping on the “Big Oil Subsidy” wagon is they hear the talking points and repeat them without understand what they are talking about. A “Subsidy” is when the government GIVES you money (or if it is a private subsidy, when a person does). NOT paying taxes is not a subsidy as the money never belonged to the government in the first place. At least not in the US – yet.

Reply to  philjourdan
April 10, 2014 7:19 am

Here’s what I said, philjourdan-
if you want to call the RFS a subsidy, well, then you should also call the tax breaks the oil refiners get subsidies.
I understand what subsidy is, and that’s why it irritates me to hear people say ethanol is subsidized. I completely agree that too many people hear talking points and repeat them without understanding what they are talking about.

Reply to  bhiggum
April 10, 2014 10:56 am

@Bhiggum – Thank you for the clarification. I jumped too quickly. I guess I was just getting antsy for that Big Oil Check. 😉

u.k.(us)
April 9, 2014 5:21 pm

“Most materials are incapable of reducing carbon monoxide and exclusively react with water,” Kanan said. “Copper is the only exception, but conventional copper is very inefficient.”
========
Not to mention copper is expensive, and the copper in the coils of the windmills powering the process ………
What ?

Bill H
April 9, 2014 5:33 pm

When they have carbon captured the CO2 in the air below 250ppm what is going to feed the plants which we need for food?
Those pesky unintended consequences of this endeavor. Why do these people not think things through?

David L.
April 9, 2014 5:33 pm

RACookPE1978 on April 9, 2014 at 3:43 pm

“Well, you – uhm, appear to have “accidentally skipped” a few “minor” steps there.
You take power station electricity, generated at efficiencies between 38% to 62%, and transmitted across the state at some 98% to 93% efficiency, to go into a battery and get converted into stored chemical energy at about a 72% to 76%…”
———–
Fair enough. Where does the electricity originate and what are it’s production/transmission efficiencies that power the ethanol electrolysis contraption?

Kjetil Nesheim
April 9, 2014 5:42 pm

“That means 57 percent of the electric current”.
In other words nearly halfe the energy is lost. Then you loose another half when you use it, and since CO also can burn this energy most also be added. Less then 20% return off energy when used is a BAD deal.