Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Sunshine to Petrol Project Seeks Fuel from Thin Air

January 10, 2008   |   21 Comments
Team to chemically transform carbon dioxide into carbon-neutral liquid fuels.

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
Miller says that while the first step would be to capture the carbon dioxide from sources where it is concentrated, the ultimate goal would be to snatch it out of the air. A S2P system that includes atmospheric carbon dioxide capture could produce carbon-neutral liquid fuels.
21 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 21
January 10, 2008
<p>No, this is a really stupid idea!!!</p><p>Because, if you use coal to create electricity and reuse the CO2 with solar to make fuel. Then it is much easier, to use the solar to generate electricity and use the coal to make fuel (those processes already exist). So, this solution will never be optimal.</p><p>This makes only sense, when you can take CO2 out of the air. But this is rather difficult, because of the low concentration of CO2 in the air.</p><p>As syntatic fuel, probably ammonia is a better idea. This is NH3 and doesn't contain carbon. Since air consists of 3/4 of N, this can completely be synthetical.</p><p>Running a car on NH3, can with conentional technology (ICE). Although, it might be more efficient to strip the N in your car, and use a fuel cell.</p><p>The only drawback would be the toxic nature of NH3. This would require additional safety measurements.</p><p>Lucas</p>
Comment
2 of 21
January 10, 2008
Amazing.&nbsp; Truly amazing, but..... how much &quot;Concentrated Solar Energy&quot; does it take to run this amazing device, and would it be more efficient to just use this energy in the grid, displacing the coal in the first place?
Comment
3 of 21
January 10, 2008
Amazing. Truly amazing.
Comment
4 of 21
January 11, 2008
Tom Will; my wife's aunt drove a truck during WWII in Germany that was fueled by CO from charcoal. The major drawback, at that stage of things, was that the truck was very slow and not very strong. However it just plodded along, seemingly forever. I suspect that with our superb present time engineering skills those faults could be overcome. Go straight for the jugular and don't mess with Mr. inbetween. <br />
Comment
5 of 21
January 11, 2008
I don't know why my earlier comment is slated for deletion when others have expressed similar opinions. Some addtional thoughts thinking out-of-the-box. CO is a great fuel in its own right. Oil refineries use it as fuel to fire boilers. (It is a product of incomplete combustion during coke burn to regenerate catalyst.) Actually the CO to CO2 combustion has more energy than&nbsp;C to CO combustion. CO was used during WW II to fuel cars by piping it from a charcoal burner in the trunk which ran with insufficient oxygen.&nbsp; We do not have to convert the CO from this new technology to liquid fuel, just compress it and use it directly like CNG.
Comment
6 of 21
January 11, 2008
While I would not necessarily recommend this approach as a means to deal with CO2 emissions, there are are emission streams that are currently used for generating energy which start off at approximately 50% CO2 - biogas.&nbsp; The idea of first converting the CO2 to CO could increase the overall energy yield from a PEM based system while significantly reducing the CO2 footprint of the use of biogas.
Comment
7 of 21
January 11, 2008
<p>Toxicity of carbon monoxide is a first concern for me.&nbsp; </p><p>According to David Blume in Alcohol Can Be a Gas, we have enough weed species, such as mesquite and kudzu to produce large quantities of alcohol for fuel. &nbsp;</p><p>Too much corn is grown already for political reasons that are intensely inefficient and harmful to the health of our people and environment. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>There are plants with high sugar or starch production that can be grown on the same roots for many years.&nbsp; This reduces the costs and topsoil loss of tilling. &nbsp;</p><p>I do not trust the government or large corporations to be careful enough with carbon monoxide production. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
8 of 21
January 11, 2008
It's not either/or. All potential energy sources need to be be considered. The solution to our long term energy problems as well as reducing greenhouse gas production will not come from one idea, rather the sum of many. Many ideas that seemed at first to be unfeasible have led to major advances.
Comment
9 of 21
January 11, 2008
<p>There is nothing wrong with thinking out of the box.&nbsp; Let the researchers determine if it makes energy/economic sense.&nbsp; </p><p>After all, they have done a little more work with it that we have and understand the energy equation better than we do.&nbsp; </p>
Comment
10 of 21
January 11, 2008
This concept has 1 advantage over direct solar generation via either PV or steam - It produces a fuel that can be stored for use at night or during inclement weather.&nbsp; <br /><br />I am more than a little concerned about the generation and storage of LARGE quantities of CO (Carbon Monoxide), because of it's deadly nature to most red blooded forms of animal life.&nbsp; Remember, CO is tasteless and has no odor, and kills at a low % in the air because red blood's hemoglobin prefers combining to CO rather than Oxygen.<br /><br />Considering the past history of dealing with large quantities of poisonous gases, our industrial giants have not always had a good record, as witness the Union Carbide diaster in India, so I feel this is a valid concern.
Comment
11 of 21
January 11, 2008
<p>Although this may not be the most efficient process the development of these types of technology are key to a global sustainable energy future.&nbsp; Existing solar and coal technologies will likey produce more energy, but being able to put it into a form usable by the long range transportation industry is worth a premium in my opinion.&nbsp; Electric cars and trains are great, but flying batterys are not just over the horizon (pardon the pun).</p>
Comment
12 of 21
January 11, 2008
While conceptually I like this new idea, the chemistry and engineering are way over my head. In response to some of the prior posts, it is the total of many diiferent activities that got us to where we are today, and it is going to take the total of many other new activities to get us where we need to be tommorrow. There is no one cure all. And some of the solutions may be found by accident as it appears at least a portion of this one was. All avenues should be explored.
Comment
13 of 21
January 11, 2008
<p>Lucas is so right.&nbsp; This idea of converting CO2 into fuel&nbsp;is not thinking outside the box.&nbsp; The box is urban sprawl with cars and trucks, roads and hardscape.&nbsp; The solution is to get friendly to nature.&nbsp; Change is what we must do.&nbsp; Does someone out there really love our current fuels?&nbsp; Gasoline?&nbsp; Please...&nbsp;&nbsp; Photosynthesis is the&nbsp;natural source&nbsp;that creates&nbsp;the living means for our survival.&nbsp; Nature's way.&nbsp; &nbsp;Converting CO2 into fuel produces nothing but a prolonging of our current downward spiral into oblivion.&nbsp; Just like ethanol, another really bad idea that does nothing for us but put more pressure on the ecosphere, reduce food production and increase pollution from us driving around everywhere all the time.&nbsp; Solar electricity, electric cars, and pedestrian friendly urban development is the heart of the new world we are heading for.&nbsp; At least I hope so.&nbsp; </p>
Comment
14 of 21
January 11, 2008
Switchgrass and corn already do an admirable job of using solar energy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into sugars and cellulose which we can ferment and turn into liquid fuel. Does anyone know the relative efficiency of this new process versus photosynthesis?&nbsp; If it can do it faster and at higher efficiency, then lets spend millions to develop it.&nbsp; If not, take the money and plant more switchgrass.
Comment
15 of 21
January 11, 2008
<p>I will explain it&nbsp;second time.</p><p>You have possible solution with the same source (solar and coal):</p><p>Solution 1:</p><p>- A coal plant producing electricity and CO2</p><p>- Solar energy, to convert CO2 into fuel</p><p>Solution 2:</p><p>- A coal plant producing fuel</p><p>- Solar energy, to produce electricity.</p><p>If you look at the LONG term, solution 2 will very likely to be more competitive to solution 1.</p><p>So, this is why it makes no sense on the&nbsp;long term.</p><p>On the short term, you can much easier reduce CO2, by replacing existing coal plants.</p><p>So, that is why it makes no sense on the short term.</p><p>It only makes sense on the long if you can take the CO2 out of the air.</p>
Comment
16 of 21
January 11, 2008
Lee F - All are good, if not great, ideas. The hurdle in energy thought is going from where we are today to where we would like to be tomorrow in one step. No single technology really holds the key to integrating into our institutionalized fuel industry. The 'crawl - walk - run' scenario will occur. Albeit we've been crawling through the politics for so long we cannot envision even walking. Stationary power ideas like solar, wind, hydro are easier to imagine but thats not the major source of CO2 or major consumer of fossil fuels. Its really transportation. So until we find a replacement for what goes into the tank of a car, truck, plane, ship, train, etc. we really don't make a significant dent in oil / gas consumption. So with that in mind the research at Sandia is exciting in that it holds the key to producing a liquid fuel, probably too expensive in any forseeable future, but what the heck we'll be at $6.00 gasoline and diesel before too long.
Comment
17 of 21
January 11, 2008
From a net energy standpoint, it still makes more sense to use a thermoacoustic generator ( http://www.io.com/~frg ) to convert solar and other waste heat resources directly into electricity.&nbsp; That reduces carbon emissions more efficiently, uses waste energy from fuel already burned in vehicles and power plants, and has to be more efficient than scavenging CO2 from the atmosphere or from exhaust gases.&nbsp; Even solar steam generation makes more sense.<br />
Comment
18 of 21
January 11, 2008
<p>Lucas K - Why so stupid? Of course use the solar for energy but if the technology can be used in say, the scrubbing of coal emissions - and we are assured there will be a lot of those worldwide despite growing awareness of the dangers of coal burning - then surely this will be a positive thing. Motive power is not the only demand for energy. CO2 is already extracted and compressed from a variety of sources including air during the production of other gases. This can also be used as a raw source for the technology outlined. </p><p>It's a question of thinking outside the box and not allowing what is done here and now to cloud future developmental ideas </p>
Comment
19 of 21
January 14, 2008
I read this article several days ago and I took me a while to process because this is a bizarre idea.&nbsp; But, I don't know who likes the use of petrol over say a hydrogen fuel cell.&nbsp; I don't want to make or use gasoline ever if other alternatives abound.&nbsp; If this technology is 20 years away, lets shoot for a hydrogen economy and not continue to pollute with CO2 and other heavy metals and toxins spewing out of our tailpipes.
Comment
20 of 21
January 15, 2008
<p>Tom Will -</p><p>Your comment is not slated to be deleted. As part of upgrades to our site, users now have the option of deleting thier own comments. Thanks for noticing and I hope that explains things.</p><p>Graham Jesmer<br />News Editor </p>
Comment
21 of 21
February 26, 2010
Well , it's 2010. Does anybody know what happened to this? I can't find anything on the net dated later than 2008 and that includes the SANDIA official web-site !
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

2GreenEnergy.com Krannich Solar Inc. Schneider Electric Southwest Windpower Renewables Academy AG (RENAC) Schletter Inc. Renewable Energy World Europe
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters