| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/22 |
| 2008/2/23-26 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:49221 Activity:low |
2/23 LANL researchers may have developed a way to convert atmospheric co2
into fuel:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2b6a9l (nytimes.com)
http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554
\_ key word: may [I'll save you the trouble]
\_ Of note, the above mechanism is just an energey conversion process.
The actuall energy source is electricity, ideally supplied by
The actual energy source is electricity, ideally supplied by
nuclear plants.
\_ The award for most bizarre piece of nuclear power advocacy I've
seen in a while goes to this proposal from some scientists at
the Los Alamos Laboratory reported on by the New York Times -
constructing nuclear power plants to power the conversion of
CO2 into petrol. Of course, you could use the nuclear power for
electric vehciles instead, and use less than 20% of the energy
this process requires. Or you could just skip the nuclear
option entirely and plug your electirc vehicles into a clean
energy grid instead (hat tip Engineer Poet).
(From http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/02/turning-greenhouse-gas-into-gasoline.html
(From http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xb3vo (peakenergy.blogspot.com)
\_ What takes more CO2 out of the atmosphere? Electric
vehicles powered by nuclear or this conversion process?
I honestly don't know the answer, but if the answer is
the latter then it's not so bizarre.
\_ too long, didn't read? This process, at best, takes C02
out of the air only temporarily, as it goes right back
when the fuel is burnt. Electric cars require
less nuclear energy than cars burning gas produced by
this process.
\_ But the amount of C02 would not be increasing in
that instance. You just reuse the same C02 over
and over again, right?
\_ This is news? We have a better mechanism that is solar powered.
Its called plants"
\_ Dude, don't you remember? St. Ronald said that plants cause
air pollution!
\_ Do you mean bio-fuel, e.g. corn? |
| 11/22 |
|
| preview.tinyurl.com/2b6a9l -> dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/federal-lab-says-it-can-harvest-fuel-from-air/index.html?ref=science dotearth&posall=TopAd,Position1,Top5,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Ri ght5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Inv1,In v2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Top5&query=qstring&keywords=? Los Alamos National Laboratory: Scientists there say they have developed a way to produce truly carbon-neutral fuel and useful organic chemicals at large scale using water and carbon dioxide removed from the air as raw materials. There are plenty of schemes brewing to capture carbon dioxide, both directly from the atmosphere and from the stacks of power plants. All of them, for the moment, are costly or hard to envision at the billion-tons-a-year scale that would be needed to blunt the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere coming mainly from fuel burning. the electricity for driving the chemical processes, according to a white paper describing the overarching concept, would come from nuclear power. developed by a team led by George A Olah, a Nobel laureate at the University of Southern California, bears some resemblance to the fuel-generating part of the Los Alamos proposal. One selling point with Los Alamos's "Green Freedom" concept, and similar ones, is that reusing the carbon atoms in the captured CO2 molecules as a fuel ingredient avoids the need to find huge repositories for the greenhouse gas. The lab's researchers, led by F Jeffrey Martin, say their system could process vast volumes of air using existing giant structures like the cooling towers at nuclear power plants. No need to chop down rain forests or compete with food crops to grow carbon-grabbing fuel crops like corn or switchgrass. written for several years about the air-capture idea (and about why it hasn't gotten equal billing with options like biofuels). Details on the Los Alamos approach will come next week when Dr. Initial system and economic analyses indicate that the prices of Green Freedom commodities would be either comparable to the current market or competitive with those of other carbon-neutral, alternative technologies currently being considered." The release added: "The concept's viability has been reviewed and verified by both industrial and semi-independent Los Alamos National Laboratory technical reviews. The next phase will demonstrate the new electrochemical process to prove the ability of the system to both capture carbon dioxide and pull it back out of solution. An industrial partnership consortium will be formed to commercialize the Green Freedom concept." Other researchers, at Columbia University, have conceived of similar systems that would use solar-thermal plants to drive the process. There are many experts who doubt that nuclear plants -- whether directly generating electricity or, in this case, making fuel -- can play a significant role providing abundant energy in a carbon-constrained world, mainly because it takes so long to finance and build the structures. There are several articles touching on the nuclear question in our ongoing Energy Challenge series. Don't they know about conservation of energy at Los Alamos? Way cheaper to fill up a few more Strategic Petroleum Reserves. Thank goodness someone was bright enough to do that over the last few years. Regarding the scale, by one estimate, 2 square miles of algae farms could process the CO2 from a 1000MW coal power plant. On those 2 square miles, 40% or more of the CO2 could be recycled into biomass. So the land requirement isn't large and the reduction, applied to the coal-fired power plants in the country would result in a billion tons of CO2 recycled. I wish I had a better grasp for this kind of science and chemistry. For our atmosphere, this is cool, exciting, promising and hopeful. We'll be a more environmentally friendly military when we blow another nation to shreds. what does that mean for the 400 billion or trillion plus dollars we've already spent maintaining our "super, super, super, super power status" that operates on the old stuff? can accommodate carbon neutral fuel on their way to exterminating the "enemy"? And, I always have to wonder, what if our military devoted the same amount of time in their determination to remain on top on creating strategies and methodologies for waging peace and friendship? Far fetched and unrealistic I know, but I might as well dream big if I'm going to wish for a better world. All one must do is remove the CO2 and water from the air, phase shift the CO2 and water to a blend of carbon compounds which depends on the process, and then reform the (selected) carbon compounds to liquid carbon fuels such as synthetic diesel or gasoline. This is not particularly difficult but is energy intensive - probably yielding no more than 25% of the energy put into the process as a final product (probably on a par with the overall energy efficiency of making hydrogen - but with a much more familiar, high density end product. The concept of fuels from air is hardly new - I have been suggesting it is feasible for over ten years. An attractive feature of this proposal is the use of CO2 rich waste streams as feedstock. As a former hydrogen business area manager for Air Products I look forward to more details on the proposed CO2 scrubbing technology. CO2 is the stable form of carbon in an oxidizing atmosphere. Oxidation of hydrocarbon to CO2 releases about 478 kJ/mol C That's the minimum amount you need to reduce CO2 to liquid fuel assuming perfect conversion. Making fuel de novo from CO2 and water will likely never be more efficient than natural photosynthesis, so what will really be fueling our vehicles will be whatever energy source they use to force CO2 and water to make hydrocarbons-nuclear or solar. The position is that IF you have a carbon-neutral power source, such as nuke-electric, wind-electric, solar-electric, geothermal, etc, then the claim is that this process will efficiently produce liquid fuel from atmospheric CO2. The green energy' problem is twofold: 1, develop carbon-neutral' or renewable energy sources (capture sunlight); This project is addressing the second question, not the first. Whether or not this development represents an efficiency improvement has yet to be revealed. However the goal of making heavy liquid fuel instead of hydrogen is in line with infrastructure requirements. Nuclear is their preferred option for a variety of reasons. Nor does it apparently intend to directly, materially *reduce* the CO2 in the atmosphere (ie the reason for "creating" liquid hydrocarbon fuels would primarily be for transportation, so burning them would re-release the CO2, uncaptured, back into the atmosphere). Will wait to hear more, but to the extent that for certain applications (eg aviation) there are really no viable substitutions for liquid hydrocarbons on the horizon, at least a "carbon-neutral" source would be desirable... If it use soar energy like researching at Columbia University, it will be perfect technology. If this technology can sucess, human being will be save from crisis. Like chinese old words: " when the car arrive to mountain, there will be way". This tecnology is human being and our beautiful planet hopeful. Please Los Alamos researchs hard and progress, instanding use neclear to use solar thermal energy. Please the team of Columbia univeristy continue your researching, give people hope and future. Physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics have not been reinvented after all. I'm disappointed in the lack of clarity (regarding this aspect of the process) in the original Los Alamos description. So, apparently, if I understand this correctly, the idea is really about a way that actually requires an independent source of energy (and a big one) in order to make liquid fuels and other hydrocarbon-based products in a relatively "carbon-neutral" way. Of course, each step in a process involves some degree of efficiency (inefficiency). Also, the economics being discussed here shed light on an important matter: As we have discussed before, we'll need a carbon "cap-and-auction" or "cap-and-trade" system or a carbon tax to provide the "macro motivation" (and funds) to make any of these solutions work. By using electrical power directly, it's more... |
| www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554 View most sent LOS ALAMOS, NM, February 12, 2008 -- Green Freedom(TM) for carbon-neutral, sulfur-free fuel and chemical production Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a low-risk, transformational concept, called Green Freedom(TM), for large-scale production of carbon-neutral, sulfur-free fuels and organic chemicals from air and water. Currently, the principal market for the Green Freedom production concept is fuel for vehicles and aircraft. At the heart of the technology is a new process for extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and making it available for fuel production using a new form of electrochemical separation. By integrating this electrochemical process with existing technology, researchers have developed a new, practical approach to producing fuels and organic chemicals that permits continued use of existing industrial and transportation infrastructure. "Our concept enhances US energy and material security by reducing dependence on imported oil. Initial system and economic analyses indicate that the prices of Green Freedom commodities would be either comparable to the current market or competitive with those of other carbon-neutral, alternative technologies currently being considered," said F Jeffrey Martin of the Laboratory's Decisions Applications Division, principal investigator on the project. Martin will be presenting a talk on the subject at the Alternative Energy NOW conference in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, February 20, 2008. In addition to the new electrochemical separation process, the Green Freedom system can use existing cooling towers, such as those of nuclear power plants, with carbon-capture equipment that eliminates the need for additional structures to process large volumes of air. The primary environmental impact of the production facility is limited to the footprint of the plant. It uses non-hazardous materials for its feed and operation and has a small waste stream volume. In addition, unlike large-scale biofuel concepts, the Green Freedom system does not add pressure to agricultural capacity or use large tracts of land or farming resources for production. The concept's viability has been reviewed and verified by both industrial and semi-independent Los Alamos National Laboratory technical reviews. The next phase will demonstrate the new electrochemical process to prove the ability of the system to both capture carbon dioxide and pull it back out of solution. An industrial partnership consortium will be formed to commercialize the Green Freedom concept. Los Alamos National Laboratory is a multidisciplinary research institution engaged in strategic science on behalf of national security. The Laboratory is operated by a team composed of Bechtel National, the University of California, BWX Technologies, and Washington Group International for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. Los Alamos enhances national security by ensuring the safety and reliability of the US nuclear stockpile, developing technologies to reduce threats from weapons of mass destruction, and solving problems related to energy, environment, infrastructure, health and global security concerns. |
| peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/02/turning-greenhouse-gas-into-gasoline.html New York Times - constructing nuclear power plants to power the conversion of CO2 into petrol. Of course, you could use the nuclear power for electric vehciles instead, and use less than 20% of the energy this process requires. Or you could just skip the nuclear option entirely and plug your electirc vehicles into a clean energy grid instead (hat tip Engineer Poet). If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, churning out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere -- and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming. In a proposal by two scientists, vehicle emissions would no longer contribute to global warming. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel. This process could transform carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed cycle -- equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed -- would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming. Although they have not yet built a synthetic fuel factory, or even a small prototype, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology. "Everything in the concept has been built, is operating or has a close cousin that is operating," Dr. The Los Alamos proposal does not violate any laws of physics, and other scientists, like George A Olah, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Southern California, and Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, have independently suggested similar ideas. Kubic had worked out their concept in more detail than previous proposals. There is, however, a major caveat that explains why no one has built a carbon-dioxide-to-gasoline factory: it requires a great deal of energy. To deal with that problem, the Los Alamos scientists say they have developed a number of innovations, including a new electrochemical process for detaching the carbon dioxide after it has been absorbed into the potassium carbonate solution. Kubic's garage, in a simple apparatus that looks like mutant Tupperware. Even with those improvements, providing the energy to produce gasoline on a commercial scale -- say, 750,000 gallons a day -- would require a dedicated power plant, preferably a nuclear one, the scientists say. PARC and its new focus on clean technology - including an interest in creating "liquid fuels from the air" - but using renewables rather than vast farms of nuclear power plants. Formerly Xerox's R&D center, Silicon Valley-based PARC is using its new status as an independent business to leverage its almost 40-year history in IT, mass production, microfluidics and other scientific expertise for a variety of mostly corporate clients--unlike the government focus of other research institutes. And now, there are a number of interesting cleantech-specific initiatives underway at the sprawling hillside complex, a stone's throw from Stanford University and the VCs of famed Sand Hill Road. The center's most visible cleantech-related initiative in recent years has been helping incubate solar concentrating startup SolFocus, which resided in and operated from PARC's labs until August of 2007. The success of the partnership inspired PARC to institute a formal incubation program, which it calls Startup@PARC. Fledgling cleantech and other companies can leverage PARC staff and facilities in exchange for cash, royalties, equity compensation, or a combination. We received a tour of the facility, and learned about the center's current cleantech-related projects, including: Printing for solar PV - Gridlines on the front of most manufacturers' silicon cells for collecting current tend to be relatively wide, hiding much of the substrate beneath from the sun. PARC developed a new extrusion method for printing narrower yet taller gridlines on silicon with the same conductivity, but less "shadow". The new technique apparently boosts the power output of a solar cell by 6 percent. we're looking at commercializing in a reasonably short timeframe," said Elrod. LED lighting - Could PARC's optics and thermal management experience translate into differentiated designs? Researchers pursued phosphor-based solid state lighting that has proven to be 10-20 percent more efficient than LEDs, PARC claims. The technology has been developed, and the center is now interested in engaging commercial partners. Membrane-less water filtration - A novel design inspired by years of toner manipulation through apertures has lead to what appears to be a high volume water filtration process not requiring a membrane. PARC scientists leveraged the centrifugal force of contaminants in water to direct them through an alternative path in a spiral flow. The technique requires little power, and appears to hold promise for wastewater treatment, according to PARC's Elrod. Liquid fuels from the air - Perhaps the most ambitious project underway at PARC is an investigation into the practicality of generating liquid fuels from simply water and carbon present in the air. PARC scientists are looking into using renewable energy to power large scale electrolysis, combining hydrogen from water with large volumes of carbon extracted from the atmosphere to produce hydrocarbon-based fuel. Admittedly, carbon would be released back into the atmosphere when the fuels combusted, Elrod acknowledged. But using the atmosphere for carbon "transport," as described on a PARC briefing slide, would guarantee fuel could be made anywhere, even on small islands. "This is speculative, high risk and potentially high reward," said Elrod. Other cleantech projects underway at PARC include demand response-like adaptive control technologies for data centers and power grids, new manufacturing techniques for small form-factor fuel cells that take advantage of PARC's print head expertise, biofuel from algae and reusable paper. In The Wake Apropos Quotes "No civilization can survive the physical destruction of its resource base" - Bruce Sterling "The second law of thermodynamics trumps the laws of economics" - unknown "If the world was made of oil there would still be a finite supply of it" - unknown "Deal with reality before it deals with you" - Matt Savinar "If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack." |
| preview.tinyurl.com/2xb3vo -> peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/02/turning-greenhouse-gas-into-gasoline.html New York Times - constructing nuclear power plants to power the conversion of CO2 into petrol. Of course, you could use the nuclear power for electric vehciles instead, and use less than 20% of the energy this process requires. Or you could just skip the nuclear option entirely and plug your electirc vehicles into a clean energy grid instead (hat tip Engineer Poet). If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, churning out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere -- and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming. In a proposal by two scientists, vehicle emissions would no longer contribute to global warming. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel. This process could transform carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed cycle -- equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed -- would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming. Although they have not yet built a synthetic fuel factory, or even a small prototype, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology. "Everything in the concept has been built, is operating or has a close cousin that is operating," Dr. The Los Alamos proposal does not violate any laws of physics, and other scientists, like George A Olah, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Southern California, and Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, have independently suggested similar ideas. Kubic had worked out their concept in more detail than previous proposals. There is, however, a major caveat that explains why no one has built a carbon-dioxide-to-gasoline factory: it requires a great deal of energy. To deal with that problem, the Los Alamos scientists say they have developed a number of innovations, including a new electrochemical process for detaching the carbon dioxide after it has been absorbed into the potassium carbonate solution. Kubic's garage, in a simple apparatus that looks like mutant Tupperware. Even with those improvements, providing the energy to produce gasoline on a commercial scale -- say, 750,000 gallons a day -- would require a dedicated power plant, preferably a nuclear one, the scientists say. PARC and its new focus on clean technology - including an interest in creating "liquid fuels from the air" - but using renewables rather than vast farms of nuclear power plants. Formerly Xerox's R&D center, Silicon Valley-based PARC is using its new status as an independent business to leverage its almost 40-year history in IT, mass production, microfluidics and other scientific expertise for a variety of mostly corporate clients--unlike the government focus of other research institutes. And now, there are a number of interesting cleantech-specific initiatives underway at the sprawling hillside complex, a stone's throw from Stanford University and the VCs of famed Sand Hill Road. The center's most visible cleantech-related initiative in recent years has been helping incubate solar concentrating startup SolFocus, which resided in and operated from PARC's labs until August of 2007. The success of the partnership inspired PARC to institute a formal incubation program, which it calls Startup@PARC. Fledgling cleantech and other companies can leverage PARC staff and facilities in exchange for cash, royalties, equity compensation, or a combination. We received a tour of the facility, and learned about the center's current cleantech-related projects, including: Printing for solar PV - Gridlines on the front of most manufacturers' silicon cells for collecting current tend to be relatively wide, hiding much of the substrate beneath from the sun. PARC developed a new extrusion method for printing narrower yet taller gridlines on silicon with the same conductivity, but less "shadow". The new technique apparently boosts the power output of a solar cell by 6 percent. we're looking at commercializing in a reasonably short timeframe," said Elrod. LED lighting - Could PARC's optics and thermal management experience translate into differentiated designs? Researchers pursued phosphor-based solid state lighting that has proven to be 10-20 percent more efficient than LEDs, PARC claims. The technology has been developed, and the center is now interested in engaging commercial partners. Membrane-less water filtration - A novel design inspired by years of toner manipulation through apertures has lead to what appears to be a high volume water filtration process not requiring a membrane. PARC scientists leveraged the centrifugal force of contaminants in water to direct them through an alternative path in a spiral flow. The technique requires little power, and appears to hold promise for wastewater treatment, according to PARC's Elrod. Liquid fuels from the air - Perhaps the most ambitious project underway at PARC is an investigation into the practicality of generating liquid fuels from simply water and carbon present in the air. PARC scientists are looking into using renewable energy to power large scale electrolysis, combining hydrogen from water with large volumes of carbon extracted from the atmosphere to produce hydrocarbon-based fuel. Admittedly, carbon would be released back into the atmosphere when the fuels combusted, Elrod acknowledged. But using the atmosphere for carbon "transport," as described on a PARC briefing slide, would guarantee fuel could be made anywhere, even on small islands. "This is speculative, high risk and potentially high reward," said Elrod. Other cleantech projects underway at PARC include demand response-like adaptive control technologies for data centers and power grids, new manufacturing techniques for small form-factor fuel cells that take advantage of PARC's print head expertise, biofuel from algae and reusable paper. In The Wake Apropos Quotes "No civilization can survive the physical destruction of its resource base" - Bruce Sterling "The second law of thermodynamics trumps the laws of economics" - unknown "If the world was made of oil there would still be a finite supply of it" - unknown "Deal with reality before it deals with you" - Matt Savinar "If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack." |
| nytimes.com The New York Times On The Web News Newspaper Current Event |