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
Gamecock
April 10, 2014 4:59 am

Dermot O’Logical says:
April 9, 2014 at 8:10 pm
I think this has real potential.
If we make the aim to stabilise CO2 levels,
===========================
Well, sure, with that aim, many bizarre practices might become reality. But the aim itself is nonsensical.

Jim G
April 10, 2014 6:06 am

Probably been some redneck making shine back in the hills this way for a long time and these guys just stumbled upon it and made it more complicated than necessary.

Rud Istvan
April 10, 2014 6:25 am

There are a number of these developments, all with promise and limitations. Bioengineering includes Sapphire (algae) and Joule (Cyanobacteria). To solve water [problem in high insolation] areas, need bioreactors. And need CO2 as feedstock . Synthesis route include from methanol, methane and carbon monoxide. This appears a hopeful step away from Fischer Tropsch methods. There is another synthetic catalyst company able to make diesel direct from methane that will have a pilot plant next year.

Jim G
April 10, 2014 6:26 am

Steve says:
April 9, 2014 at 10:14 pm
“The field corn used in ethanol production is already not a food crop for humans.”
It is for cattle and hogs and wasting it for the dubious benefits derived from use as a gasoline additive still raises the price of food. Also, most crops are in many ways interchangeable economically, as land used to raise one cannot be used to raise another,simultaneously (some hay and some wheat crops excluded), like wheat or beans .
For my part you could also put the lead back in gasoline and stop all of this foolishness.

April 10, 2014 6:45 am

Berényi Péter says:
April 10, 2014 at 2:06 am
Distributing carbon monoxide directly to homes while people are fast asleep is a more efficient way to reduce their carbon footprint.

Europe and the US did this for about 150 years but switched to methane in the 60s and 70s.

Jake2
April 10, 2014 7:03 am

I’ve been wondering why we don’t use the next alcohol up in the chain for fuel – 1-propanol or propanol-2 (isopropyl alcohol). I’ve seen talk of using the next one, butanol (and I hear biobutanol REALLY stinks). Propanol holds more energy – can anyone tell me why we’re not using that as a fuel additive? Is it too expensive to make? Is it harder on engine parts than ethanol? Does it not mix well with gasoline?

April 10, 2014 7:07 am

george e. smith says:
April 9, 2014 at 11:22 pm
“””””…..Gamecock says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:28 pm
bhiggum says:
April 9, 2014 at 4:48 pm
It’s not a perfect fuel, but it’s far better than depending on other countries for petroleum.
================
Not a perfect fuel? It’s an inert filler, i.e., NO FUEL AT ALL. When they put 10% ethanol in gasoline, my mileage went down 10%……”””””
Well what did you expect.
Ethanol is Ethyl alcohol C2H6O often written C2H5OH but its just Ethane C2H6 + O or you can write it as 2(CH2)+H2O.
Any alcohol is just n(CH2) +H2O
So it contains water, which is about as low as you can get on the stored chemical energy scale. Well you can get a bit lower by adding salt; AKA seawater.
And yes Ethanol gives you less energy than burning Ethane and by just the amount you get when you burn hydrogen to get water.
So they literally are just adding water to the gasoline when they add any “oxygenate” to the fuel.
And that is superfluous, because any ordinary automobile already contains a device for oxygenating the fuel.
In most of these vehicles, the oxygenator apparatus is usually called an “engine”, or maybe a “motor”. Its sole purpose is to oxygenate fuel to create heat, which heats the working fluid often called “air” to produce rotary motion of some of the oxygenator parts.

Yes George the volumetric energy content of ethanol is lower than gasoline, however it has a higher octane rating and so the engine can be run at a higher compression ratio or better ignition advance so that the efficiency will be better.
Also the analysis you made is not quite correct.
2(CH) + H2O contains 4C-H bonds available to produce energy
whereas:
ethanol contains 1 C-C, 5 C-H and 1 C-O available and has to create 1 O-H.
C-C 347kJ/mole, C-H 413, C-O 358 and O-H 467

April 10, 2014 7:18 am

Jim G says:
April 10, 2014 at 6:26 am
Steve says:
April 9, 2014 at 10:14 pm
“The field corn used in ethanol production is already not a food crop for humans.”
It is for cattle and hogs and wasting it for the dubious benefits derived from use as a gasoline additive still raises the price of food. Also, most crops are in many ways interchangeable economically, as land used to raise one cannot be used to raise another,simultaneously (some hay and some wheat crops excluded), like wheat or beans .

The product left from production of the alcohol is still used for feed only the starch is used, see:
http://www.adm.com/en-US/products/feed/corn-co/Pages/default.aspx
For example:
Golden Gluten™ wet corn gluten feed
– Cost-effective alternative to traditional feed
– Protein- and energy-rich
– Can make up 20 to 50 percent of dry matter in total ration
– Fed with silage, alfalfa hay or haylage
– Stimulates digestion in the rumen for better protein utilization and improved feed efficiency
– Can help reduce sub-acute acidosis

David Chappell
April 10, 2014 7:47 am

“The field corn used in ethanol production is already not a food crop for humans.”
Indeed, it’s fed to animals who convert it to meat, which, when last I looked, is a food crop for humans.

Nylo
April 10, 2014 8:23 am

jim2 says:
April 9, 2014 at 1:38 pm
There is already a company with a process to convert CO2 to ethanol, gasoline, and diesel. They are building a commercial plant.
In which way is it “commercial”? They claim to have achieved a production of 8000 gallons/acre/year outdoors. How many people will need to be hired for the operation of the plant, per acre of extension? Because even if they sell the whole yearly 8000 gallons production directly at current market price for automotive gas, the revenue doesn’t cover one person’s salary. And I didn’t yet account for the other costs of the production. So even if it happens to be true that the productivity is several times higher than with other systems, I can’t say I’m impressed.

more soylent green!
April 10, 2014 8:35 am

I’m from Missouri, so you’ll have to show me the books when if this process ever makes it into commercial use. Will it be able to produce fuel at a competitive price without subsidies or mandates? Show me.
A related question — While fossil fuels are highly-concentrated energy sources, it take energy to refine crude oil into gasoline. So how much energy does it take to produce a gallon of gas? I realize the quality of crude oil makes a difference, as does the efficiency of the refinery.
And please, please don’t respond with specious arguments that Big Oil is subsidized, too. Big Oil is among the top taxpaying industries in this country and the net taxes paid by the industry far exceed the subsidies or special tax breaks.

Kjetil Nesheim
Reply to  more soylent green!
April 10, 2014 8:46 am

Rule off thumb is about 15%, but a more detailed descreption have a look her:
http://gatewayev.org/how-much-electricity-is-used-refine-a-gallon-of-gasoline

April 10, 2014 9:21 am

blockquote> “Dermot O’Logical says: April 9, 2014 at 8:10 pm
I think this has real potential.

That is one of the saddest comments thus far…
Sorry Epi Not’Logical; Mankind is only responsible for a small portion of CO2. The earth and oceans are responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions; both past present and future.
If you’re gonna be happy when you can keep, say 400ppm (parts per million!) CO2 than you better be ready to pump massive quantities of CO2 back into the atmosphere in a hurry when CO2 ppm levels fall.
Any, in fact all warming attributed to CO2 is beneficial to mankind!
Below a certain level, plants suffer for lack of sufficient CO2. The sheer fact that CO2 enhanced greenhouses grow faster greener and better plants is a hint that CO2 is already on the low side.
Any cooling due to a lack of CO2 is detrimental to mankind! This is easily provable, (unlike CO2 warming alarmist claims), just by reading history! Cooling atmosphere is not good for man in the short or long run!
/dream This ending leaves me truly puzzled.
Is your post sarcasm?
If so, I’ll ask nicely for you to please state so, bluntly. I’m one of those clueless males who needs hints applied via baseball bats or hockey pucks. I’d have said hockey sticks too, but since the mid nineties hockey sticks just aren’t worth the paper anymore.

anticlimactic
April 10, 2014 9:29 am

The problem with any energy production is the EROEI – or energy returned on energy invested. For corn ethanol it was proved that it takes 20% more energy to make than it produces.
With the above process it will be the same or we have a source of infinite energy!
If it takes less energy to produce ethanol from CO2 than it creates then the resulting CO2 can be re-input to the system in an infinite loop.
It doesn’t seem likely! Much more likely it will need more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol will create – so what’s the point?

Bruce Cobb
April 10, 2014 9:49 am

Mike T says:
April 9, 2014 at 7:04 pm
“Ethanol? Who needs it?” I do, for one. In Australia E10 is 95 octane and cheaper than 91, 95 and 98 octane “normal” unleaded petrol. I get better economy from E10 than the other fuels, and save up to 20 cents per litre.
Fine, but ethanol needs to be able to compete on its own merits, without subsidies, without “carbon credits” and without mandates, and I highly doubt it could do so.

April 10, 2014 9:51 am

From (a href=http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/03/11/obamas-2015-budget-backs-costly-corn-ethanol-subsidies> US News “…Now for the bad news. Less than a month after signing the farm bill into law, the president proposed new subsidies for ethanol blender pumps in his FY 2015 budget proposal. The overall budget was released last Tuesday, with detailed back up documents following in the last few days. Buried on page 158 of the “Analytical Perspectives” document, released Monday, is up to $200 million in new advanced energy manufacturing tax credits for the “construction of infrastructure that contributes to networks of refueling stations that serve alternative fuels,” or in other words, more subsidies for corn ethanol blender pumps and other alternative fuel infrastructure projects. Such is the power of the corn ethanol lobby.
The corn ethanol industry has received more than its fair share of subsidies over the past 30 years. Through federal tax credits, loan guarantees, grants and other subsidies, billions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered on an industry that relentlessly seeks additional special interest carve-outs. A nearly identical tax credit to the one proposed by the president – the “Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit” – has been available to gasoline stations dispensing 85 percent ethanol. It expired last year but has a history of being renewed in “tax extenders” packages. A federal Renewable Fuel Standard also mandates the use of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2015. While the biofuels industry as a whole was intended to help achieve American energy independence, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and spur rural economic development, the corn ethanol industry has fallen short of achieving these goals while spurring numerous unintended consequences and long-term liabilities that have resulted in more harm than good.
All told, more than $3.3 million has been spent on corn ethanol blender pumps, in addition to numerous other federal subsidies. Instead of using the budget to reinforce one of the very few good policies in the farm bill, the administration is proposing to undo it and increase this amount by up to 66 times. Unfortunately, this time the bad news wins the day.”

Congress has gone after the ethanol subsidies. POTUS and his shills keep trying to sneak them back in. Nonetheless, ethanol has received substantial subsidies over the last few decades.
Ethanol may raise the octane slightly. As a fuel it works better for backpackers but not mountain climbers or for backpackers heading into arctic conditions.
If it was so great for cars, then cars should be using alcohol with perhaps a gasoline additive.
It used to be that people, especially those that are some distance from local pumps or those located in dense urban areas with price gougers, could install a tank and buy bulk gasoline.
Not anymore. Ethanol not only has an OH as part of it’s formula it has a strong affinity to more OHs and collects HOH (H2O) from the atmosphere. The higher the humidity, the faster it collects.
Water has a bad habit of not staying in suspension in gasoline or oil. When the H2O percentage reaches a certain level in the gas or fuel the water settles out and happily takes it’s ethanol pals with it.
The fuels themselves degrade faster than prior to the ‘ethanol additions’. If a large tank of fuel isn’t used fast enough, engines really don’t like the fuels, nor do the engine owners who find themselves tearing down fuel systems, injectors, and somewhat less frequently engines.
No if, ands or buts I get to rebuild all of my two cycles engines every other year and new seals for the carburetors every year. I have to pull out and replace all paper fuel filters several times a year as they get soggy.
Diesel fuels get to enjoy ethanol infusions also…
Those engines that like having water in their fuels are the ones where water in injected directly into the cylinders, not included as the fuel directly. Much like adding nitrous to a fuel system.
If ethanol is so great for fuels, then there is no need for ‘Laws’ requiring ethanol usage!
Therefore, any ethanol ‘mandated’ for inclusion into a fuel is technically a ‘subsidy’.

April 10, 2014 10:09 am

Seems to be one more announcement before proof of concept, as Nature is now getting us used to.
What is the process to economically and safely produce Carbon MONOxide?
What is the energy balance of the proposed process?
How long does it take for these wonderful copper-oxide anodes to be clogged?
Photosynthesis is a pretty inefficient way of “de-burning CO2”. And this one?

Michael J. Dunn
April 10, 2014 12:52 pm

I would make two points in addition to the ones already covered:
(1) Just burn the CO to CO2. No fuss, no muss. The fact that it is the result of inefficient primary combustion raises the question of whether it makes better sense to improve that upstream process instead.
(2) Everyone seems to accept the assertion that human CO2 production causes increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. I will assert that it has absolutely no effect. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is the result of a vapor pressure equilibrium between atmospheric and oceanic CO2. (I believe I have read in these webpages that the ocean contains about 70 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere, so the oceans rule.) It doesn’t matter what we do; the natural absorption and production processes will adjust to maintain the equilibrium condition, which is generally set by temperature. This is called Le Chatlier’s Principle, and it is covered in every first-year university chemistry class. (An interesting source might be the pools of liquid carbon dioxide that have been discovered on the sea floor.)

george e. smith
April 10, 2014 1:46 pm

“””””….
Phil. says:
April 10, 2014 at 7:07 am
george e. smith says:
April 9, 2014 at 11:22 pm
“””””…..Gamecock says:
April 9, 2014 at 6:28 pm…..”””””
Well Phil, I’m more than happy to let you dot the t,s and cross the i,s I simply went by the “hets of combustion numbers from old handbooks.
People keep telling me how ethanol increases the octane rating, which lets you raise the engine compression ratio and increase the “efficiency” of the engine.
I get all that. Believe me, I studied sports car design in great detail, and how to make high power engines.
But the fact is, that California (regular) gas is still 87 Octane, with the ethanol, and it was 87 octane with the MTBE before we made them get rid of that, and it was 87 octane when it had tetra-ethyl lead in it, and it will still be 87 octane, after we get the ethanol out.
As you well know, the longer carbon chain molecules give higher octane ratings. Octane is much higher than methane or ethane; just try running those in an ordinary engine.
Also it is very well known that the increased power of high compression engines burning high octane fuels, is a direct result of increased thermal efficiency due to the MUCH HIGHER temperatures and pressures, found in high compression engines.
Those higher temperatures and pressures, that give higher efficiency also are the conditions that result in the engine also burning the nitrogen in the air to make NOx, and it is for that very reason that high compression engines are banned in the USA.
All cars sold in America must operate properly, on ordinary 87 octane fuel. Yes a lot of yuppie cars recommend that you use premium fuel. But they can’t require that you do so. They have to run properly on 87 octane fuel
(in the USA)
Those same combustion conditions, also result in an enormous increase in the bearing loads in the engine, so the standard Detroitosaurus maximus Vee-8 engine is sadly deficient in crankshaft bearings, when you try to run at high compression ratios.
Superchargers run even lower compression ratios, and pressures, and temperatures, so they create less NOx, but are also lower thermal efficiency, so you end up with radiator cooling problems. But it can be made to work, by driving the supercharger from an exhaust gas turbo.
Maybe ethanol is high octane. High octane gasoline is also high octane; but high octane gas has more carbon, and less hydrogen, than low octane gas, so you get less energy and more CO2, CO and unburnt C from high octane fuel usage.
The reason, the yuppie cars recommend premium gas, is because the push the envelope a bit on compression, so their cars carbon up and start pinging sooner, So they perpetuate the myth of 50,000 mile tuneups, by recommending premium, so you don’t notice the pinging.
There’s lots of ways to make high power cars; if you don’t mind the EPA knocking down your doors.
My Subaru impreza, gets 50 +MPG at 60-65 mph on hiway 101, when construction bottlenecks let me actually drive at 60-65 mph.
My long term overall average speed right now is just 18 mph. I have never driven at 18 mph in my life. It is road construction and traffic lights that eat up gasoline.
They can raise the café standards to 100mpg, and it won’t change things one iota; the traffic lights breed, and more and ore incompetents, are given driver’s licences, and allowed to clutter up the roads.

stas peterson
April 10, 2014 3:43 pm

It amazes me about the gullibility of people who should know better, Given the proper amount of energy you an make Gold. But you don’t get anything for FREE. All of man’s technology does is make useful products from other things by adding energy.
You would have perpetual motion machines if you could manufacture fuel, burn it, and then reconstitute it on an energy gain basis.
Unfortunately the world doesn’t work that way!

Janice
April 10, 2014 5:44 pm

So, where do we find a bunch of water that is saturated with carbon monoxide? Because if there isn’t naturally-occurring carbon monoxide saturated water, then it has to be made, which takes energy, which means that this concept is like using the “free” energy from sunshine or wind.

Matthew R Marler
April 10, 2014 6:25 pm

rgbatduke: Way cool.
I agree.

Matthew R Marler
April 10, 2014 6:42 pm

stas peterson: All of man’s technology does is make useful products from other things by adding energy.
PV panels and wind turbines make electricity from sun and wind, more electricity than was consumed in their manufacture. Electricity powers catalysts to make CO from CO2; and electricity powers catalysts to make ethanol from CO. There is no perpetual motion machine involved in getting liquid fuel from sunlight and wind.
The question is whether the manufacturing can be scaled up and prices reduced sufficiently to make a liquid fuel (and industrial feedstock) this way cheaper and more reliably than other sources of liquid fuel. After this invention announced today, it looks possible.
Solar and wind are not the only sources of electricity of course, and in most places in the US not the cheapest. By running the base generating electricity power plants more at night, it might be possible now, following this announcement, to use these catalyzed reactions to make liquid fuel and industrial feedstocks cheaper than those based on petroleum. I don’t know, but it is clearly worth some investment to find out.

Gamecock
April 10, 2014 8:15 pm

Matthew R Marler says:
April 10, 2014 at 6:42 pm
Solar and wind are not the only sources of electricity of course, and in most places in the US not the cheapest. By running the base generating electricity power plants more at night, it might be possible now, following this announcement, to use these catalyzed reactions to make liquid fuel and industrial feedstocks cheaper than those based on petroleum. I don’t know, but it is clearly worth some investment to find out.
====================
You are pretty free with Other People’s Money.
If it’s your money you are talking about, pls accept my apology.

theBuckWheat
April 10, 2014 9:14 pm

It is so foolish to use food crops as the feedstock from which to assemble molecules of vehicle fuel products when non-food feedstocks like coal could be used. At the very least, ethanol mandates tie the world price of food grains to the world price of petroleum.

Cc
April 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Carbon Monoxide Questions and Answers | CPSC.gov
https://www.cpsc.gov/…/Carbon-Monoxide…/Carbon-Monoxide-Questions-…
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a deadly, colorless, odorless, poisonous gas. It is produced by the incomplete burning of various fuels, including coal, wood, charcoal, …
So, take the output of coal plants as well as steam from cooling towers. Am I missing something here? What are you going to do for food and the loss of water used in the production of ethanol?