Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Email This Story
Share This Story
Reader Comments (21)
Image Gallery (1)
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
Using concentrated solar energy to reverse combustion, a research team from Sandia National Laboratories is building a prototype device intended to chemically "reenergize" carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide using concentrated solar power. The carbon monoxide could then be used to make hydrogen or serve as a building block to synthesize a liquid combustible fuel, such as methanol or even gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
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.
The prototype device, called the Counter Rotating Ring Receiver Reactor Recuperator (CR5, for short), will break a carbon-oxygen bond in the carbon dioxide to form carbon monoxide and oxygen in two distinct steps. It is a major piece of an approach to converting carbon dioxide into fuel from sunlight.
The Sandia research team calls this approach "Sunshine to Petrol" (S2P). "Liquid Solar Fuel" is the end product — the methanol, gasoline or other liquid fuel made from water and the carbon monoxide produced using solar energy.
Sandia is a National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) laboratory.
CR5 inventor Rich Diver says the original idea for the device was to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen could then fuel a potential hydrogen economy.
The Sandia researchers came up with the idea to use the CR5 to break down carbon dioxide, just as it would water. Over the past year they have shown proof of concept and are completing a prototype device that will use concentrated solar energy to reenergize carbon dioxide or water, the products of combustion. This will form carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and oxygen, which ultimately could be used to synthesize liquid fuels in an integrated S2P system.
Coresearchers on the project are Jim E. Miller and Nathan Siegel. Project champion is Ellen B. Stechel, manager of Sandia's Fuels and Energy Transitions Department.
Stechel says that researchers have known for a long time that theoretically it might be possible to recycle carbon dioxide, but many thought it could not be made practical, either technically or economically and therefore not much effort has been put toward the research until now.
"Not only did we think it was possible, the team has developed a prototype that they fully anticipate will successfully break down carbon dioxide in a clever and viable two-step process," she says.
Stechel notes that one driver for the invention is the need to reduce greenhouse gases.
"This invention, though probably a good 15 to 20 years away from being on the market, holds a real promise of being able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while preserving options to keep using fuels we know and love," she says. "Recycling carbon dioxide into fuels provides an attractive alternative to burying it."
Providing funding for Sunshine to Petrol is Sandia's internal Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program. The research has also attracted interest and some funding from DoD/DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).
"What's exciting about this invention is that it will result in fossil fuels being used at least twice, meaning less carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere and a reduction of the rate that fossil fuels are pulled out of the ground," Diver says.
As an example, he says, coal would be burned at a clean coal power plant. The carbon dioxide from the burning of the coal would be captured and reduced to carbon monoxide in the CR5. The carbon monoxide would then be the starting point of making gasoline, jet fuel, methanol, or almost any type of liquid fuel.
The prospect of a liquid fuel is significant because it fits in with the current gasoline and oil infrastructure. After the synthesized fuel is made from the carbon monoxide, it could be transported through a pipeline or put in a truck and hauled to a gas station, just like gasoline refined from petroleum is now. Plus it would work in ordinary gasoline and diesel engine vehicles.
Miller says that while the first step would be to capture the carbon dioxide from sources where it is concentrated — e.g., power plants, smokestacks, and breweries - 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.
"Our overall objective with this prototype is to demonstrate the practicality of the CR5 concept and to determine how test results from small-scale testing can be expanded to work in real devices," Miller says. "The design is conservative compared to what might eventually be developed."
Diver says the prototype should be completed in the first part of this year. He hand-built the precision device in a shop at Sandia's National Solar Thermal Test Facility and is now waiting on a few parts to finalize it. Initial tests will break down water into hydrogen and oxygen. That will be followed by tests that similarly break down carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide and oxygen.
Besides having a nearly completed prototype, the research team has already proven that the chemistry works repeatedly through multiple cycles without losing performance and on a short enough cycle time for a practical device.
"We just now have to do it all in one continuous working device," Siegel says.
No, this is a really stupid idea!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
The only drawback would be the toxic nature of NH3. This would require additional safety measurements.
Lucas
Toxicity of carbon monoxide is a first concern for me.
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.
Too much corn is grown already for political reasons that are intensely inefficient and harmful to the health of our people and environment.
There are plants with high sugar or starch production that can be grown on the same roots for many years. This reduces the costs and topsoil loss of tilling.
I do not trust the government or large corporations to be careful enough with carbon monoxide production.
There is nothing wrong with thinking out of the box. Let the researchers determine if it makes energy/economic sense.
After all, they have done a little more work with it that we have and understand the energy equation better than we do.
Although this may not be the most efficient process the development of these types of technology are key to a global sustainable energy future. 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. Electric cars and trains are great, but flying batterys are not just over the horizon (pardon the pun).
Lucas is so right. This idea of converting CO2 into fuel is not thinking outside the box. The box is urban sprawl with cars and trucks, roads and hardscape. The solution is to get friendly to nature. Change is what we must do. Does someone out there really love our current fuels? Gasoline? Please... Photosynthesis is the natural source that creates the living means for our survival. Nature's way. Converting CO2 into fuel produces nothing but a prolonging of our current downward spiral into oblivion. 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. Solar electricity, electric cars, and pedestrian friendly urban development is the heart of the new world we are heading for. At least I hope so.
I will explain it second time.
You have possible solution with the same source (solar and coal):
Solution 1:
- A coal plant producing electricity and CO2
- Solar energy, to convert CO2 into fuel
Solution 2:
- A coal plant producing fuel
- Solar energy, to produce electricity.
If you look at the LONG term, solution 2 will very likely to be more competitive to solution 1.
So, this is why it makes no sense on the long term.
On the short term, you can much easier reduce CO2, by replacing existing coal plants.
So, that is why it makes no sense on the short term.
It only makes sense on the long if you can take the CO2 out of the air.
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.
It's a question of thinking outside the box and not allowing what is done here and now to cloud future developmental ideas
Tom Will -
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.
Graham Jesmer
News Editor
Previous Article
