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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
140 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 10, 2014 10:02 pm

“Matthew R Marler says: April 10, 2014 at 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.”

Oh? What’s the payback schedule on your PV panels and wind turbines? I’d be surprised if you achieve payback before the productive lifespans of those generators are over. That’s with tender loving care and maintenance which only bring to costs higher.
At this point in time the only reason PV panels and turbines make it seem worth utilizing are the subsidies.
Replacing generation capabilities before they’re fully paid for means they cost more than the fuels they’re replacing. Both panels and turbine efficient productive lifespans are out there, without gloss, fluff or other sales pitches.

“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.”

Even with ‘this’ invention? This is a proposal, not a guaranteed solution! When they have a fully constructed set up producing cheap fuel without hidden tricks, then call us.
Scale up? Prices reduced? Fancy talk. What does it mean? Explicitly! Forget the ‘dropped words’, glib phrases found in popular mechanics or other drivel. Explicitly state the terms necessary, the costs defined, exactly how and when scale is achieved and exactly how much prices will drop.

“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.”

More dreamy phrases, speculative words and with them you are still describing ‘perpetual motion’ machines and some irrational logic leap from bad energy efficiency concepts to competing with Earth’s millions of years carbon fuel accumulations.
Then you follow that with a evanescent wisp of thought that you don’t know but it’s worth investment… Which, by investment, I suppose you mean our money.
Not if I have any choice! As I mentioned above, when there is an operating, fully functional facility, then it is worth considering for investment. Before that point, you can be the philanthropist; though gambler is usually the term used.

Dr. Strangelove
April 11, 2014 12:31 am

This is just electrolysis. Why are these scientists impressed with 57% efficiency? Alkaline electrolysers used to produce hydrogen fuel from water have 80% efficiency, and water is cheap and abundant vs. carbon monoxide. Yet electrolysis of water is still expensive. This new technology will be even more expensive as you have to produce carbon monoxide. You want cheap fuel? It’s in your kitchen. Just remove the impurities in your used cooking oil. That’s biodiesel. It has 3x more energy than the explosive nitromethane fuel used in drag racing. Cooking oil can power a jet engine, instead of throwing it in the kitchen sink.

Gail Combs
April 11, 2014 1:20 am

bhiggum says:….
Do you understand the difference between a tax break (you get to keep the money YOU EARNED) and a subsidy (You get to STEAL money from everyone else)?
And I go along with the others. Corn is not a ‘nice plant’ It is a big feeder and needs a lot of room to grow. Translated that means it wears out the soil, promotes erosion and promotes run off of fertilizers/chemicals into rivers and streams. Also because of the demand, grass filter strips are no longer used and farmers are plowing from the edge of the road to the edge of the next road making erosion even worse.
I refuse to rent my bottom land (next to a big river) to a guy who wants to plant corn for all these reasons.

Matthew R Marler
April 11, 2014 1:56 pm

Gamecock: You are pretty free with Other People’s Money.
If it’s your money you are talking about, pls accept my apology.

Now that the catalyst has been invented (and assuming for now that others can repeat it), whoever can produce enough of it at a low enough cost stands to earn a lot of money doing so. I’d bet that the first people to give it a good try would be those large-scale users of industrial catalysts the oil refineries. Especially if they can make butanol instead of ethanol, a task that has already been carried out with different catalysts. Liquid fuels are right up their alley.
Liquid fuels are made from carbohydrates, coal, natural gas and petroleum. This opens up a fifth way to make liquid fuel from abundant and widely distributed feedstocks. All of the methods of producing liquid fuel consume energy and labor. Whether this method becomes competitive remains to be seen, but the announcement makes it seem likely. And for what it’s worth, this method will still be available to us if the other feedstocks become rare or expensive.

Matthew R Marler
April 11, 2014 2:07 pm

ATheoK: This is a proposal, not a guaranteed solution! When they have a fully constructed set up producing cheap fuel without hidden tricks, then call us.
Scale up? Prices reduced? Fancy talk. What does it mean? Explicitly! Forget the ‘dropped words’, glib phrases found in popular mechanics or other drivel. Explicitly state the terms necessary, the costs defined, exactly how and when scale is achieved and exactly how much prices will drop.

I agree wholeheartedly that those are pertinent points that need to be addressed. For examples that there is a possibility, consider the steep drops in the costs to manufacture other catalysts for fuel production (used in refineries), the steep drops in the costs to manufacture fiber-optic cables, communications satellites, cell phones, microprocessors and such.
There is not a guaranteed solution! The only guarantee is that whatever is not studied will not be learned. Imagine if you will a nation with a large industrial infrastructure that imports liquid fuel. Can they make their liquid fuel cheaper with this new technology in 5 to 20 years or by continuing to import liquid fuel? There is only one way to find out. The answers will not be learned by the nations and companies that do not follow up on this development.

Matthew R Marler
April 11, 2014 2:23 pm

ATheoK: More dreamy phrases, speculative words and with them you are still describing ‘perpetual motion’ machines and some irrational logic leap from bad energy efficiency concepts to competing with Earth’s millions of years carbon fuel accumulations.
No perpetual motion machine is involved. I described a different way to make liquid fuel from coal, which might or might not be cheaper than the Fisher-Tropsch process, which is neither cheap nor efficient, and which requires large capital investments per installation.

anengineer
April 11, 2014 3:55 pm

Demonstrated on the lab bench, now how about a pilot plant?
90% of the ideas fail at each stage of scale-up. Bench to pilot, then pilot to small scale, and finally small scale to commercial, only 1 in 1000 actually works.

April 11, 2014 5:05 pm

More geniuses will end up murdered in the desert, not far from their lab, and the new technology that threatens the status quo will simply vanish like many others have in the past…..

April 11, 2014 5:21 pm

http://www.worldcarfans.com/111101237346/smart-cdi-wins-the-mpg-marathon-with-a-9924-mpg-rating
Here in Ameristan, I’m not allowed to buy the Smart I wanted. I’m only allowed to buy the 36mpg Smart made for Ameristan with its 75hp, 3cyl, gas guzzling Mitsubishi engine that REQUIRES 93 octane gas, a requirement other posters have said is not legal in 87-octane Ameristan. Not true. Daimler-Benz has produced the Smart gas guzzler for Ameristan since 2008.
On topic….Ameristan will never be allowed to have a vehicle that comes near 100mpg except the tiny percentage of electrics, which, if ever successful, will drive up the price of electricity to $5/KwH to support all the heavy recharging, making the pollution much worse, especially nuclear we have no idea what to do with its waste except bury it and pray.

Big Mac & Chips
April 12, 2014 7:15 pm

Wait a moment folks…..
“Kanan envisions taking carbon dioxide (CO2)
from the atmosphere to produce carbon monoxide”
So he “envisions” that does he, but I’m afraid that it
will take rather more than an “envisioning” to accomplish
such a process, and due to the conservation of energy laws
it will of course cost energy and thus the “system” will not
Create ANY energy, only Destroy some energy in every
cycle of the process. If that were not the case, then the laws
of Physics must have changed.
How exactly will the “magic” process of creating all this
required Carbon Monoxide actually work. I mean is there
any valid process to do that, If we require Carbon Monoxide,
usually we simply make it in a Coking Column, with COAL.
I hope Kanan isn’t waiting for the so called “Sandia Reactor”
which is supposed to be solar powered and produce vast
amounts of CO from CO2, In 2007, the company stated that
the reactor would be full operational “by the spring” (2008).
By November 2009, more than two years later …
“Sandia researcher Rich Diver tinkers
with the CR5, a potential breakthrough”
By May 2011, the “process” was still being described as an
“Experiment”, which the Sandia team in New Mexico estimates
that it “could make” diesel or jet fuel for roughly $10 per gallon.
And after adding on distribution costs and a profit margin, who
would buy this fuel, even supposing that they “could” make it ?
On Sandia’s website TODAY, information about this Magic Process,
hasn’t changed, since they updated a Dec 2007 press release in
Nov 2012. In this press release, Sandia state that ….
“To realize this concept, Sandia’s S2P team is addressing
and solving complex chemical, materials science, and
engineering problems for the prototype thermochemical
heat engines and crucial enabling metal-oxide working
materials. They must also demonstrate techno-economics
of a full system (sunlight to liquid hydrocarbon fuels) are
viable in a competitive market place. The team has proven
the concept in the laboratory ”
http://energy.sandia.gov/?page_id=776
(Note Sandia is part of The US DoE)
Alas “TheTeam” has not proven this IN REALITY !!!!
No other potentially theoretically economically viable
model of producing Carbon Monoxide from CO2 has
even been proposed by anybody.
Sandia’s main business is developing and using CO2
in liquid phases as a gas coolant in nuclear reactors.
Bah !
….. more stuff and nonsense

1 4 5 6