January 27, 2016 feature
Carbon dioxide captured from air can be directly converted into methanol fuel
(Phys.org)—For the first time, researchers have demonstrated that CO2 captured from the air can be directly converted into methanol (CH3OH) using a homogeneous catalyst. The benefits are two-fold: The process removes harmful CO2 from the atmosphere, and the methanol can be used as an alternative fuel to gasoline. The work represents an important step that could one day lead to a future "methanol economy," in which fuel and energy storage are primarily based on methanol.
The study was led by G. K. Surya Prakash, a chemistry professor at the University of Southern California, along with the Nobel laureate George A. Olah, a distinguished professor at the University of Southern California. The researchers have published their paper on the CO2-to-methanol conversion process in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
"Direct CO2 capture and conversion to methanol using molecular hydrogen in the same pot was never achieved before. We have now done it!" Prakash told Phys.org.
Over the past several years, chemists have been investigating various ways of recycling CO2 into useful products. For example, treating CO2 with hydrogen gas (H2) can produce methanol, methane (CH4), or formic acid (HCOOH). Among these products, methanol is especially attractive because of its use as an alternative fuel, in fuel cells, and for hydrogen storage.
The chemical industry currently produces more than 70 million tons of methanol annually because the simple compound also serves as a building block for many larger compounds, including two of the most highly produced organic compounds, ethylene and propylene, which are used to make plastics and other products.
A key factor in the CO2-to-methanol conversion process is finding a good homogeneous catalyst, which is essential for speeding up the chemical reactions so that methanol can be produced at a fast rate. The problem is that these reactions require high temperatures (around 150 °C), and unfortunately the heat often causes the catalysts to decompose.
In the new study, the researchers developed a stable catalyst based on the metal ruthenium that does not decompose at high temperatures. The catalyst's good stability allows it to be reused over and over again for the continuous production of methanol.
"Developing stable homogeneous catalysts for CO2 reduction to methanol was a challenge," Prakash said. "Majority of the catalysts stopped at the formic acid stage. Furthermore, we needed a catalyst that could reduce carbamates or alkylammonium bicarbonates directly to methanol. We have achieved both with our catalyst."
With the new catalyst, along with a few additional compounds, the researchers demonstrated that up to 79% of the CO2 captured from the air can be converted into methanol. Initially the methanol is mixed with water, but it can be easily separated out by distillation.
Looking at the work from a broader perspective, the researchers hope that it may one day contribute to a methanol economy. This plan involves developing an "anthropogenic carbon cycle" in which carbon is recycled to supplement the natural carbon cycle. In nature, carbon is continuously being exchanged, recycled, and reused among the atmosphere, oceans, and living organisms, but nature cannot recycle the carbon from fossil fuels as quickly as humans can burn them. Humans could counteract some of the CO2 we release by converting some of the carbon back into an energy source such as methanol.
More information on the anthropogenic carbon cycle can be found in this Perspective piece by Olah, Prakash, and Alain Goeppert.
As a next step, the researchers plan to lower the catalyst operating temperature and improve its efficiency.
"We will continue the studies to develop more robust catalysts that work around 100 to 120 °C," Prakash said. "We would like to perform the chemistry in a preparatively useful way, wherein there are no solvent or reagent losses."
Explore further
© 2016 Phys.org
User comments
Do you see YOUR problem? Stop blaming ignorance on religion. Two separate issues.
I know plenty of "scientists" or atheists who are every bit as much of a religious zealot as the wacko's they claim to rail against. BELIEVE AS I DO OR BURN IN HELL!!!
There are more than a few examples of productive Christians who are also Scientists - past and present. There are plenty of examples of Non Religious Scientists pumping out junk science - wasting everyone's time.
The idea that you can't be Religious and Scientific is idiotic at best.
I believe methanol's toxicity would rule that out.
I think MR166 is right: Batteries still look to be a better option.
As for using methanol for making plastics: I have a better idea consisting of a combination of:
1, ban all types of plastics that we don't know how to recycle (this may require further research and development into recycling different types of plastic so we are left with an acceptable large range of different types that we can recycle )
2, make sure ALL such recyclable plastic always really IS recycled with no more of it going into landfill.
thus virtually eliminating the need for using much nasty toxic raw material, such as methanol, to make any more plastics.
Aren't you aware CO2 levels still rising
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2
whilst this is still operative & also increasing thermal burden
https://en.wikipe..._forcing
which is so far, not refuted for >100yrs, soundly based upon
https://en.wikipe...transfer
Aren't you aware enthalpy increasing whilst insolation reducing
http://www.skepti...1024.jpg
Benni, for someone who claims to have graduated as an Electrical & THEN a Nuclear Engineer you don't show any of the training one would expect from university study and whats more you claim you will never read my links, either to learn or even to refute etc
And as an Engineer Benni, why can't you ask the most straightforward of all Engineering questions re this process:-
"How does the end to end thermodynamic calculation stack up re comparative processes ?"
etc...
Mike,
He has ski trails ne needs snow on...
Then if you "USE" the methanol for a fuel what do you get as a byproduct? CO2! So how does the energy required for the processes compare to the energy released when the methanol is "used"? Overall it sounds like another government-subsidized program to create jobs (bureaucrats) at taxpayer's expense.
Case 1 mass of FF as presently consumed
Case 2 convert some CO2 to fuel thus fossil fuel use reduced mass from Case 1 & repeat
wenkl2 wondersDoubt it, engineering approach is moderate FF infrastructure at many levels
Its is why key Physics understanding is essential for these types of projects for defraying the use of fossil fuel by; solar panels, hydroelectricity, thermo-solar etc which avoids susceptibility to (generally emotive) idle propaganda ie You become immune to politics, religion & facile ego claims, thus you're free to determine for yourself, not be reliant upon those make uneducated hand waving
Greenonions spot on re Mr166, ie feasible !
But the important point some of you dullards are missing is that methanol for this cycle did not come out of the ground. It came from the atmosphere. We could close some oil wells and gas wells if this catalyst becomes widely used.
Spot on Anti - We use methanol for racing and the stuff is nasty. We have to flush the fuel systems out with petrol after a day of racing or it will eat away every seal that it comes into contact with, the fumes are worse to breathe than petrol for your health and, when it catches fire in the case of a fuel leak, the flames are invisible to the naked eye.
There is no way you'd want methanol in vehicles on the public roads!
you are the only dullard I see ... your religious belief that CO2 is harmful is simply unscientific ignorance ...
In many ways, least of which *all* chemicals have toxicity thresholds. Why are you illustrating Ignorance/refusal to check Science before embarrassing yourself on a public forum & hiding behind anonymity ?
Exercise smarts to learn Physics details, then you might become immune to mindless propaganda blurted by crazy loons who have either a political agenda or merely wasting everyone's time to get attention but, fail dismally in basic Science communication.
kaiserderden saysYour claims are foolish re CO2 & worse, so very Easy to show you are Not genuine !
Gaseous exposure
https://www.kane....in-rooms
Food plants
http://www.abc.ne...2653.htm
Why disn't U check first, yah think ?
kaiserderden claimsProve it ?
Would you want to be in a room with Eg 3% CO2 and expect to be unaffected ?
Why can't you check first instead of lying & wasting everyone's time ?
My secondary area of interest/qualification is Food Science, its been known for ~ two decades that higher CO2 shifts some food plants equilibria (depends on type) to produce:-
1. Less protein more carbs & other effects eg mineral proporations changing
2. More cyanogens, Eg Cassava for humans & Clover for livestock
ie http://blogs.nich...neffect/
& for nonfood plants eg fast timber growth etc
3. Changes to chemical constituent respons to fires re lignin
I live in Australia we have more damaging wild fires, likely reasons;, higher average temperatures, less humidity, stronger lightning incidence, less dense more fire susceptible timber & brush & light combustibles
kaiserderden please find top 3 or at least ONE credible study which proves your facile claim & proves me wrong & make sure its "scientific" as you imply thats important :P.
If I am wrong I apologise, will you likewise to all here for obfuscation ?
Jeepers Muttering Mike, is there anything else in life for you to do other than live on this site almost 24/7?
Every post you put up requires 10-15 minutes of time from the first read of someone's post until you've put up your worthless Commentary. So far on this topic you've put in over an hour of time posting your mutterings. I could easily find you on half a dozen more topics where you have put in just as much time as this one. Adding up the time you spend here during a day could easily amount to 8-10 hours. Are you just too old & cranky to find a job where anybody is willing to put up with you that you need to spend so much time here?
Retirement is a tough life or what?
Magnette55 saysWhy *Must* you use the wrong seals then, its basic engineering Eg http://www.methan...pdf.aspx
Magnette55 saysNot completely & only if you Fail to add correct chemical, just as die is added to petrol so its distinguishable Eg Purple or Yellow etc
Magnette55 saysIn fill sure, but as low % additive fine Eg biodiesel/petrol
Why can't you answer my (technical) questions & you *only* bark criticism, how about Science & Physics links, tell us where/when you got your claimed Electrical AND Nuclear engineering uni degrees ?
Benni Fails in lack of comprehensionRe-read, see links offered commensurate with Science communication
Benni claimsNo, I use helper script ;-)
Benni focuses on mePhysics Benni, not me !
Benni claimsAlerts on topics of interest, EE self employed & daytrade shares
~40yrs ago I was fortunate to learn Lisp in great depth at uni from visiting French lecturer, an absolute genius in AI, whilst I was at Western Australian Institute of Technology. I also have adopted a philosophy of undertaking various tasks with a template based on a wide collection of reasons, some commercial
Even if it weren't for that, I'd still challenge idiots here who seem to go to a lot of trouble to prove they're witless & just can't learn & seem more concerned with idle criticism such as Benni who's a pattern confirmed by profiling software I was also lucky to acquire & which I am keen to adapt to provide useful information as a higher end AI filter, as I'm testing :P
What does me joining today have to do with anything? I see a subject about a chemical that I've used for years as a fuel and feel it is fine for me to respond. Explain your comment.
With regards to seals..Methanol proof seals are not available for use in the type of engines we use otherwise don't you think we'd be using them? Do you think after 20+ years of racing that, at some point, this might have occurred to us?
The physical precautions we have to take when using a methanol based fuel are far greater than when using petrol which you agree with. The general public may not be so aware.
Cont.....
We have yet to find a chemical dye that doesn't have a detrimental effect on 4000+hp engines and can also pass scrutineering for racing. Again, we'd be using it if it was available. There may be something available for road use so that flames are visible but you're adding another cost to the fuel and also burning methanol in a fire gives off more toxic fumes than petrol/diesel.
You can run a low % of methanol as a mix but it will still have long term detrimental effects on modern injection systems unless the vehicles are designed for it's use and even then the gains would be negligible and not worth the extra expense.
Magnette55 saysIf that's the truth fine, balance of probabilities offers alternate aspect :/
Magnette55 claimsYou are kidding or ignorant ? Injectors used methanol tolerant seals since late 1970's !
What's special re your engines precluding oxygenated fuel based seals, piping, pumps ie basic Chem Eng :-)
Magnette55 saysHope so, easy to get em
Magnette55 saysHence my note re additives, I also don't favour public but who cares, useful petro-chem feedstock !
But, as someone who purports to know methanol you *should* know wide available
In any case what fuel mix U using for modest power, most drag cars I've know start at 6000hp + at least & prefer nitro methane ?
M55You're going off tack, already not in favour for public pls move on
M55No, moved on.
M55Maybe but, NB I did say low %, tell us your opinion re differential % re your view ?
For someone who claims to be Electrical Engineer & THEN becomes a Nuclear Engineer as vain "appeal to authority" - you just don't
1 Write like any credible EE
2 Prove your claims
3 Understand basic algebra
4 show key aspect re Einstein's field equations or how to manage Planck re 'c' & wavelength !
Benni claimsNo. You Fail to read my post, testing various approaches re Ai s/w filters :P
btw: In case people guess I'm false/lying (as many sadly do here), I studied @ Western Australian Institute of Technology @ Bentley, Western Australia, now
http://www.curtin.edu.au/
EE 1976-1982 + *many* electives, Ba Sci 2008, Food Science/micro biology post grad 2010
& easy to prove, student # 07602128 call em :P
@Mag: Make use of the Report feature. Occasionally it works in conjunction with the Contact at the bottom of each page, but you need to be explicit about whom you are complaining, it can't be just a generic thing or Phys.Org will simply ignore it......I have successfully used both methods of contact.
Benni does urging Magnette55, make *any* sense at all under such circumstances ?
Benni claimsReally - Prove it ?
ie Uou saw a post by someone challenging your claims, either;-
1. Post was deleted
2. Poster contacted to change their approach
3. Other ?
Details ?
Evidence Benni, you at it again *only* barking criticism & especially so as you Fail always to "Prove claims" ?
Goes to show, Benni has serious self-esteem issues, as usual theres nothing in *any* of his posts that's ever proved useful, no physics, no links & even has the immense idiocy to claim he won't read my links - FFS !
@Ryan1981
Methanol -> Ethanol doable :-)
MR166 saysThere is no indication such dependency is causal. Since my eldest son graduated in Chem Eng 2013 & has been working on projects in my co, I've been made aware of widespread advances, some reported on phys.org with a few 'private'. Eg solar in many forms re catalysts, nuff said...
MR166 says on renewablesSure & a supportable position but, bear in mind the energy nature of that 50% ;-)
I think the room he lives in at that retirement enclave is lined in aluminum foil. A cogent thought for him is challenging enough, but boy, when he attempts to put it into words is when that cockney stuff really begins to make his postings indecipherable.
Exactly where does science begin and religion end???
"How does the end to end thermodynamic calculation stack up re comparative processes ?"
Of course MR166, you would know from your very long time here on phys.org with several opportunities for education in basic thermodynamics re AGW that the measurement & assumptions about input energy offering base assessment of "energy negative" issues would be subject to full formal analysis which must include comparative economic factors
MR166 asked excellent questionGood one, hence why Physics education is essential, yah think ?
This process is energy negative, in that the product has less energy than what it takes to produce it. So, it would be ignorant to use fossil fuels to drive this process, since it would add more CO2 to the atmosphere than it's removing. It would also be ignorant to use renewable energy, which can be consumed more efficiently elsewhere. Excess renewable energy on the other hand, provided that it cannot be stored more efficiently, could be used to drive this process. Hence the original statement from MR166.
That the process is energy negative means what, exactly? You driving your car down the road is a net negative energy process. You riding your bike is the same. You just sitting there reading this message is the same. What now?
I am also unsure what you are talking about re: fossil fuels either. If this reaction is just plain CO2 + heat -> methanol, then why not just hook it up to the waste output of any heat engine? Even the worlds dirtiest coal-fired power generator. If the capital investment is small enough for the expected payout, whatever would the owner of such a thing have to lose?
I'm not even sure what you mean by "efficiently consumed" "renewable energy". Can be specify which forms? Most of them are fickle things, outputs of which are basically random. Consider wind: hooking them directly to something like this would be a vastly better idea than the current nonsense where one burns methane when the wind is not blowing. Ditto for solar...
Do a little research on the energy required to capture CO2 from a coal plant.
Which is more efficient? Using electricity to run our homes and industries or to drive this process that results in a significant loss.
Please learn to read and comprehend.
Do you expect that the methanol produced would have more energy than what was used to make it?
Please don't be put off by a resident crank antigoracle, he often goads, makes things up adds random pointed personal attacks - even after being corrected often & in midst of that expects others to do his research for him but, then barks criticism & further personal attack
Just like a dull script with only aim of getting his jollies attacking whilst likely paid by AGW denier lobby to obfuscate any Science/Physics accepting even distant fringe aspects :-(
His behavior evidence found on this thread & so common elsewhere
https://sciencex....e/?v=act
Also has a robotic habit twisting positions raising slanted questions to try & put people into a corner but, gets caught out only superficially reading his own source links when he does bother - which is rare
Where is antigoracle's research, instead of barking complaint at a new member ?
Can antigoracle be quantitative re "..... results in a significant loss" - how significant ?
If you have ever wondered why I refrain from responding to you, it's because of idiotic comments like the above. In which universe is it possible to generate greater energy out of less? You take stupidity to an art form, so it's impossible to explain the simplest of things to you. My comment was an attempt to explain the very first one by MR166. Now, all I can say to you is find someone with a brain and infinite patience an have them show you the error of your ways.
Interesting what Greeno imagines is the most beneficial environment for the human race, he imagines permanent Ice Age conditions should be the norm with 2/3rds of the planet covered in snow & ice.
http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv
Extracting H2 from menthol/
And this article converting H2 into methanol.
Hey you guys at the Ministry of Truth get your act together.
Sigh.
USABLE.
He meant USABLE energy. You buffoon.
All it took was an epsilon of thought more to make sense of what he said. But being the mentally poorly equipped narcissist you are, you couldn't even make that leap. And yet, you think that you ARE equipped to use those same discount-rate faculties to point something out the climate science community has somehow missed for decades. Because--again--narcissist.
Just shut up, already.
Just keep braying, already.
You asked,
did you not?
This means you didn't understand that he was talking about usable energy. Otherwise, you would not have asked this question.
Thus, you continue to support my point about being a nacissist incapable of complex thought. Keep up the good work!
Hey Furry,
With your "reasoning faculties", how do you feel about the planet's Ice Age CO2 content until 10K years ago when it began to skyrocket to present levels? You prefer Ice Age CO2 content at half what it is presently? Or would you rather go back to IceAge CO2 levels where you imagine it was cozier to snuggle up to ice age mastadons a means of keeping warm?
I am not going to play this game of contending with assertions of dubious origin. I am sure you saw some kind of graph, suffered a subsequent bout of hypoxia, and then decided on a your current mouth-frothy interpretation of who the f*ck knows.
I am simply going to ask you to direct me to the specific data from which you make these claims, to verify, for myself, whether there is anything to them.
Once you provide this, we can get to to me alternately laughing at you and banging my head on my desk in exasperation. k?
(Well, ok, because I can't resist, I am also going to drop this here, because I know you guys do like your pictures: http://assets.cli...c_c.jpg)
Of course, being a simple-minded narcissist, you infer that I couldn't possibly have done this already. Keep it up!
By the way, just to help a dim bulb out, going back to the start of the conversation does not help.
Also,
makes absolutely no sense. CO2 content is not synonymous with energy content.
Theoretically, you can remove as much CO2 as you want. It's just that some of the CO2 (and energy) would go into waste products (water from the look of it: http://pubs.acs.o...jacsat).
Like what? That CO2 levels during the last Ice Age were half what they are now? Look it up, that is if you know how to use a search engine like Google. It isn't hard Furry guy, just delete your foul mouthed language content so you can get beyond the Content Standards.
Upon reexamination, it shouldn't have even taken an epsilon more of thought.
It doesn't require the entire energy content of an energy resource to make it. All you need is the energy required to corral its constituents, and bring them together.
I can't believe we are even having this conversation. In fact, I am more stupid for engaging you in it.
No, that isn't how this works. You make a claim that somebody does not believe. YOU back it up. The burden of proof is on you.
(By the way, like AG, you too, being a simple-minded narcissist, believe that I couldn't possibly have looked this up, already. Of course, I already did, which is why I posted that picture of CO2 levels for the last 100K years. Oops.)
Here it is again:
http://assets.cli..._c_c.jpg
Every post you make is a subversion of content standards.
Well then, that settles it, this can only mean atmospheric content of CO2 has nothing to do with "warming" or "coolng"...........Right?
No, it means you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. As I said, provide me with data.
Otherwise, all you're doing is making a bare assertion.
Bare assertions are easy to make.
For example, Benni likes to suck on electrical outlets.
See how easy that was?
So what then does atmospheric content of CO2 have to do with "warming" or "cooling"? Any graph any of you AGWs put up apparently shows the stuff all over the place. According to this statement you just made, there is no consistency of CO2 with Ice Ages, Warm Ages, or Hot Ages.
Now get someone with a brain to explain the difference between this process and the one described in this article. Hopefully you'll realize why one has been in use for decades and the other will never see the light of day.
Why are you quoting that argument above? It has nothing to do with whether CO2 causes global warming.
1) You have not provided me data (or even a graph I might add) that supports this position, or any past one. You are making a claim, which means you have to support it. Learn how to argue.
2) I have made this point before, though not here. Data and analysis trump graphs EVERY TIME, ESPECIALLY if you are a layman.
What does CO2, "all over the place", even mean?
More importantly, is your claim justified? Maybe it's just all over the place to you because you don't understand what a sigma is. How can I know, when you won't cite your claims?
But that just isn't the case, because you don't have Hydrogen just freely lying around like you have oil. The process is not comparable to oil refining because you have to MAKE hydrogen for the process, so you end up with a process that is net energy negative, and vastly so. Oil refining is net positive because the crude oil is already there.
Also, about your incessant complaints over people who "hate progress": progress isn't progress if it won't result in any practical improvement. Wasting loads of energy to make methanol in an extremely inefficient way is not a practical improvement.
The practical feasibility of such scheme is dependent on how much of the original energy you get out of it, and by burning the methanol in an engine etc. you lose almost everything anyways
If we take a look at a simple power-to-hydrogen-to-power scheme using the best available technology, just about 20% of the original energy comes out. That means - ignoring the cost of the system itself - the cost of the output energy is approximately five times the cost of the input energy.
So if you input, say wind power at 5 cents a kWh, whatever output you take costs 25 cents a kWh, and that's too expensive. Add the other cost, transmission and the infrastructure etc. and you're at well over 30 cents, and that's just not economically sustainable.
When you add an extra step to make methanol out of hydrogen, it's going to cost even more. Gasoline for a modern car engine costs about 35 cents a kWh at $4 per gallon, so nobody's going to buy your methanol because it's more expensive.
Of course you can go crony capitalist and make the government make the people pay you subsidies for it.
Point being that unless your energy storage system is efficient, it's not an improvement to the society; it's not progress. Using it means throwing millions of people under the bus as a sacrifice for making the inefficient system work by force.
I like to think of the problem in terms of "social EROEI", or how much of our overall energy (economic activity = spending energy) we use on producing our primary energy. Currently in the west it's between 5-8% whereas in countries with high levels of renewables etc. it's hovering to 10-12% and that rising fraction is largely due to inefficiency and high cost of the systems which necessitates more economic activity to pay for .
When we hit about 16% it turns into what's called energy poverty, because at that point energy costs so much we become paralyzed.
16% or approximately 1:5 is the tipping point where the modern western society ceases to function. Infrastructure cannot be maintained, people can no longer afford to drive to work, heat their houses, buy food etc. etc.
32% or 1:2 is the absolute maximum cost of energy tolerable to a technologically advanced efficient society where not a single Joule is wasted.
That is why it is paramount that the solutions we set up to make energy do not carry excessive cost and inefficiency. With efficiency improvements elsewhere, they can cost a little bit more than what we have now, but not dramatically more.
This is a non-sequitur. Just because you have to make something, it does not mean that the production process requires more usable energy than the product provides.
No, it's because it takes less energy to mine and refine crude oil, than to use it for energy.
Yes, that oil is fairly readily available makes it a good energy source, but it is not the only possible reason why something might be a good energy source. We don't have sulfuric acid freely lying around, as you put it, but that doesn't stop lead-acid batteries from being good energy sources.
That statement is wrong on so many levels. First of all a battery is not a Source of energy. Secondly, we have millions of tons of sulfur laying around unused from refinery operations. That, O2 and water are converted into sulfuric acid. The reaction gives up heat which is used to produce electricity. The only real energy hog in the process is the creation of O2.
As usual, Eikka is right on the money with his comments.
Eikka, don't think Furry doesn't already know this, he does and is the reason he's all out for his ludicrous calculations for calculating energy costs. Furry imagines a culture in which PEOPLE make the choices is a perverse system. He doesn't even know that alcohol has only 2/3rds the BTU content of gasoline.
LOL. Who woulda thunk that the solution to limitless energy is limitless stupidity. The power of stupidity, it can defy scientific laws.
"The fusion energy gain factor, usually expressed with the symbol Q, is the ratio of fusion power produced in a nuclear fusion reactor to the power required to maintain the plasma in steady state. The condition of Q = 1 is referred to as breakeven."
-The whole point being, to produce more energy than it takes to run the process.
Then there's the match you use to set your house on fire. This is called exothermia. Or also pyromania. Much more energy out than in.
Consider - if it took more energy to gather food than that food could produce, then we'd all be dead.
But your comment is inapplicable because in this case a catalyst is used to convert a useless contaminant into something useful.
Maybe such a catalyst can be found for your postings?
And your buddy magnetite should learn the difference between toxic and caustic.
"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another."
Thus the statement that you cannot generate energy is correct and Otto's statement is nonsense.
They have lots of "waste" heat to do cool stuff with
Eg 1 Refineries flare H2 waste therefore sensible to explore process per article as good fit !
https://www.googl...AO7DgZ94
Eg 2 Another as waste H2 !
http://www.fuelce...hydrogen
Eg 3 Here for making graphite battery electrodes too (I have lottsa shares :-)
http://www.hazerg...hnology/
Tech development, enjoy
https://www.youtu...Uoj6p9QA
Benni barksBenni should have learned in Electrical Engineering (EE) ie. Radiative transfer
Again Proof Benni Lies re his EE !
Despite benefit of sophisticated control systems they cannot perfectly predict HC feedstock quality consumed by their reformers/crackers !
Its easier to shift their equilibria slightly in favor of H2 instead of flaring off any valuable natural gas, obviously as it has higher energy/economic value ie H2 wasted very often !
I was involved in critical analysis of the Hydrogen Bus trial in Perth long ago, speak to the admins of BP Kwinana refinery, call em !
MR166 illustrates failures of local managementUgh,, this 'might' be case in disparate bad or old sites which are slow to respond re storage, speak to local industry groups please
Yea Mike someone in the middle of the jungle in Laos if flaring gas due to poor planning!
Think where we would be MR166, if the major oil producers took more care re CO2 emissions, exercised intellect re business development & applied less shallow costing methods to make use of natural gas by turn-key drop in reformers to produce plastics to aid the country's economic growth, do yah think they care ?
Contacted the local oil refinery industry groups to either confirm or refute my offering ?
How about ringing BP in Kwinana, Western Australia - largest producer of H2 for the fuel cell bus trial - they were rubbing their hands together when they didnt have to flare off H2, can you now appreciate article ?
Whats smarter MR166 ?
It's unsurprising how the Chicken Little moron so ignorantly tries to separate their idiot self out of equation. What's the economy, if not YOUR consumption of goods and services. So, want to halt the increase of CO2, then limit or end YOUR consumption of fossil fuels. But then, it's simpler to rant.
Well, those you stole from would be "happy" to know their money is "well" invested.
MR166 could also reflect on bad habitNo pressing need & "Significant" is comparative term in conjunction re "net present cost" of that utilisation at___that___time
Bean counters put high $ value on comparative risk vs low $ value of energy produced mindless applying to defray feedstocks & lazily point; Not a GHG issue because the water precipitates fast.
MR166 askedSee above sentence & bear in mind change means shift from traditional expectation of rate of high ROI
I brought this issue up after I returned from Sabah, I developed an adaptive alternator controller
http://iinet.net....us/Power
Even @ >150% profit thought too low :-(
Different today :-)
Unfortunately his outburst & incompetence by Uncle Ira to tell between prejudicial claim & Evidence makes them both look soundly stupid, driven only by ugly prejudice, not only failing to check but driving a knife in ie Ugly !
I fell ill in deep depression for ~18 mnths upon death of my mother from Alzheimers, product theft & loss of our family home before I could repatriate $ from o/seas. During that time a few angry teens couldnt contact me & claimed I stole but, *all* were offered public refunds as I recovered, Uncle Ira lied, wouldn't check with the forum admins ie Ugly !
& few criminals tried it on expecting refunds & antigoracle knew this ages ago ie Ugly !
Since this gas cannot easily be brought to market or to a plant capable of turning it into methanol it cannot be classified as a source of the H2 needed for this process. Mikes refinery gas could be used for this purpose and could be considered in energy conversion calculations.
Ag then says that more CO2 would be released than consumed but its not clear that this would happen. He would have to define the scope of a process wherein it would.
In hot fusion, potential energy is transformed into usable form. The subset is energy positive, just like with the power plant onions mentioned. As there are finite amounts of H2 and deuterium, hot fusion is ultimately energy neutral.
But who cares?
In this context, any process you wish to name could turn out to be either negative or positive. As onions says, you've got to investigate it to find out which.
Despite what ag claims, the product of any process cannot be assumed to be CO2.
Skippy, you still blame me for what the Google-Skippy say about you? I already apologized for that being all the Google-Skippy showed me. Maybe you should tell the Google-Skippy about the being liable for defaming your good name. That made the big impression in the emails to the physorg front office, everybody likes those.
Google-Skippy did not tell me about any of the good stuffs you are known for the world over. Skippy you are as dumb as a cypress stump. And the mental conditions are not making that any better, eh?
I hear about your emails everyday, so you are the liar.
Why you don't just call me a poopy-head too?
Just imagine the applications! Self-refilling flasks that we could take to concerts and avoid paying the price of drinks inside. This would surely be awarded with the Nobel Prize for Everything, most useful invention ever!
Words of wisdom from Stumpy.......welcome back from your ban. Does axemaster know?
Oh yea, I got banned for life, I think, from physicsforums.com for questioning the moderation protocols of one of there moderators. Stumpy is lucky that Physics.org is a little more reasonable.
Uncle Ira claimsWhere is this apology, prove it please ?
Uncle Ira saysNo, why mindlessly copy a bad link & why can't you tell claim vs evidence ?
Uncle Ira claimsProve it ?
Uncle Ira claimsProve it ?
What is smart as a copycat, not knowing difference between claim versus Evidence ?
Uncle Ira claimsProve it ?
Uncle Ira *only* continues ugly claims, why is he even more ugly ?
&
What's a "Skippy" are you ill ?
Uncle Ira displays more immaturitySmarter to address those who make idle mindless unsupportable claims, ugh !
So far, from someone who only used to offer occasional obtuse humor you've gone down a path of showing an ugly dumb side to your character
Reason you say for stalking & making things up & not just me but others is "gravitas", ugh !
Why in hell would an intelligent rational person on a Science reporting site be concerned with the nebulous issue of appearance AND go to trouble tell us "gravitas" as you put it is so very important to you, who has the mental condition - stalker or defendant ?
Mindlessly pasting a link to show us you stalk & dig for dirt is ill
Where is your *claimed* apology & why do you continue making more ugly claims ?
Physics please !
Admitting it......
As for all your "prove it"'s up there. Hooyeei, that was a bunch so to keep things orderly I just give the one "proof" for all of them. You just did "prove it" for all of them.
Guess what I been working on? Yeah, a computer like you that you feed all the foolishment on the physorg into and see what comes out. I am thinking mine is working better than yours so far. When I plug in all your foolishment it spit out in no time,,,
Borderline Personality Disorder.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Histrionic Personality Disorder.
Passive-Aggressive Disorder
Then he ask me if all that foolishment I put in was from just one person. I said it was and the computer he told me: "That is one sick Skippy you got there".
I just told you.Your trying to play the gravitas is not important to me. But is seems to consume you and that can't be healthy.
I said I was sorry Google-Skippy only showed me the bad stuffs and did not have the wonderful stuffs.
As to MR166 and antigoracle's standpoint, yes, it may only make sense to use this with excess renewable energy. However, I thought the main problem with renewables was that they are intermittent and are not generated at the same time as consumption. That is, they inherently produce a lot of excess energy. Here, problem solved.
Okay, storing the excess energy in batteries may be marginally more efficient, so maybe that problem was already solved, in theory. But batteries are heavy, so they aren't as efficient as liquid fuels for transportation purposes. And batteries that are big enough for grid storage are expensive, toxic/dangerous, or they don't last many cycles.
Solving real-world problems means looking up from the equations. You just denigrate and reject the whole idea rather than building different (and very real) use cases.
Do I even have to say anything to that guy who's rejecting anthropogenic climate change and ocean acidification?
Hey there Stumpy/Phys 1,
No different than when axemaster's sockpuppet vote brigade got Docile banned, all of his Commentary never once contained the quantity of filth that pours from your mouth from just one of your postings. Well anyway, he's back just like you are, and we'll just keep clicking the Report on you & sending email messages via the Contact link at the bottom of the page.
Dnatwork that is exactly the crux of the discussion. What is the best way to turn intermittent renewable power into grid worthy reliable power while reducing , if that really matters, CO2 emissions? Most of the solutions offered increase costs to an economy to killing levels or make unwarranted assumptions as to the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
I will be the first one to admit that fossil fuels have a terminal life span. But, that being said, I think that renewables should gradually dominate the energy spectrum as fossil fuels become less economically viable.
This transition will be hastened by energy storage since 24/7 power is a prerequisite of a functioning society.
http://www.asx.co...do#!/rfx
Recent price rise since ABC catalyst article here, lucky for some ;-)
http://www.abc.ne...8364.htm
suffice to say I have a small shareholding waiting for financials to be settled as I feel a capital raising is on the cards to expand production & cheaper than coal
Notice some UK links don't work from outside British Isles, so those interested please check the video/mp4 on catalyst link & if you are restricted, let me know, I will upload to one of my ftp sites, np :-)
Also in respect of Hazer, where I also have shares, this completes great transition from gas to useful graphite & H2 :-)
http://www.asx.co...do#!/hzr
Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more