Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby JustaGirl » Mon 28 Dec 2009, 03:19:44

Posts like these are what makes me continue to come to this site. Well done, Tanada.

I'm also shocked to find out TheDude is not the mega-doomer I had pegged him to be :oops:
Only those who can see the invisible can do the impossible.
JustaGirl
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 09 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Petoria

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 28 Dec 2009, 06:06:38

JustaGirl wrote:Posts like these are what makes me continue to come to this site. Well done, Tanada.

I'm also shocked to find out TheDude is not the mega-doomer I had pegged him to be :oops:


Thank you :)

I ran the calculation to translate into figures I am more comfortable with than Tons per day and it came out that the prospective plant making gasoline would produce 75,000 bbl/d of fuel. Said plant would need 200 MWe constant supply and 800 MWth of heat.

The study presumes that both are supplied by nuclear fission but in actuality if you used a split design you could reduce your need for Limestone by using low grade coal as your heating fuel. This would give you the water you need and abundant CO2 to work with but would most definitely NOT be a carbon neutral fuel as you would be consuming coal as a major component. In essence it would be a modified Coal to Liquids plant with Limestone added in to provide a portion of the CO2 and Fission to provide the electricity, a needless complication if you are trying to make the fuel as cheaply as possible without a CO2 cost factored in.

If the Government ever gets around to passing a CO2 tax suddenly making the whole system carbon neutral to avoid that tax will provide a large incentive to build these conversion plants.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Quinny » Mon 28 Dec 2009, 07:17:40

For producing 'emergency/essential' fuels this would seem to be useful, but I'd question the scalability... How many of these plants would be needed to support BAU.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 28 Dec 2009, 11:11:27

Quinny wrote:For producing 'emergency/essential' fuels this would seem to be useful, but I'd question the scalability... How many of these plants would be needed to support BAU.


If decline rates are 6% and the world uses 86,000,000 bbl/d then every year you would have to add 5,160,000 bbl/d of new capacity. With each small nuclear plant (I read it as 520 MWe to get the 200 MWe and 800 MWth the process requires) producing 75,000 bbl/day you need to build 68 plants every year, year in and year out just to stay even with depletion.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Graeme » Mon 28 Dec 2009, 23:55:10

Looks like this concept is getting Federal financial support to fund research. Do you want to apply,Tanada?

DOE Launches $122M Energy Innovation Hub to Focus on Solar Fuels: “Fuels from Sunlight”

The US Department of Energy will invest up to $366 million to establish and operate three new Energy Innovation Hubs focused on accelerating research and development in three key energy areas, one of which is developing an effective solar energy to chemical fuel conversion system—i.e., “Fuels from Sunlight”. Each Hub, to be funded at up to $122 million over five years, will bring together a multidisciplinary team of researchers in an effort to speed research and shorten the path from scientific discovery to technological development and commercial deployment of highly promising energy-related technologies.

The objective of the Fuels from Sunlight Hub is to accelerate the development of a sustainable commercial process for the production of solar fuels, likely using mechanisms based on photosynthesis.


greencarcongress
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 29 Dec 2009, 14:27:18

Graeme wrote:Looks like this concept is getting Federal financial support to fund research. Do you want to apply,Tanada?

DOE Launches $122M Energy Innovation Hub to Focus on Solar Fuels: “Fuels from Sunlight”

The US Department of Energy will invest up to $366 million to establish and operate three new Energy Innovation Hubs focused on accelerating research and development in three key energy areas, one of which is developing an effective solar energy to chemical fuel conversion system—i.e., “Fuels from Sunlight”. Each Hub, to be funded at up to $122 million over five years, will bring together a multidisciplinary team of researchers in an effort to speed research and shorten the path from scientific discovery to technological development and commercial deployment of highly promising energy-related technologies.

The objective of the Fuels from Sunlight Hub is to accelerate the development of a sustainable commercial process for the production of solar fuels, likely using mechanisms based on photosynthesis.


greencarcongress


Interesting article but that seems like an awfully small budget to work with if you are going to prototype a process and prove its reliability.

Personally I think Geothermal, Fission, and large scale Hydro-electric are the only practical carbon free ways to carry forward this technology simply because like most large industrial plants it will only be efficient if it runs continuous for a long period of time between shut downs. Neither Solar nor Wind are very good for that, but the other three are all capable of steady state operation long term.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby yesplease » Tue 29 Dec 2009, 17:33:12

I think the viability of intermittent sources depends on how automated an industrial process is. IIRC many businesses hoover up off-peak electricity for things like compressed air systems, or use them in processes that aren't time sensitive, at very low prices because they agree to be cut off if problems occur and only use off-peak electricity.
Last edited by yesplease on Wed 30 Dec 2009, 00:07:32, edited 1 time in total.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 29 Dec 2009, 18:11:00

I agree that the global enhanced geothermal resources are enormous but exploitation of them is not yet proven to be technically or economically viable. This could change with more research. Image I'm following the development of this resource quite closely.

A similar situation exists with solar as this article suggests:

Solar Could Generate 15% of Power by 2020, If US Ends Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Solar power technologies could generate 15 percent of America's power in 10 years, but only if Washington levels the playing field on subsidies, a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says.

That means either rolling back fossil fuel subsidies, as President Obama proposed earlier this year, or increasing subsidies for clean energy, the association says.

Fossil fuels received $72 billion in total federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008, keeping prices artificially low, according to figures from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). About 98 percent of that went to conventional energy sources, namely coal and oil, leading to more emissions. The rest, $2.3 billion, was pumped into a new technology to trap and store carbon dioxide spewed by coal plants.

During that same period, solar got less than $1 billion, according to the SEIA, a trade group representing 1,100 solar companies across the nation.

To compete and gain market share — and stop global warming — this inconsistency "must reverse itself immediately," said Rhone Resch, SEIA president and CEO.

There had been hints of this happening.


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/29-9
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 30 Dec 2009, 08:36:05

Graeme wrote:I agree that the global enhanced geothermal resources are enormous but exploitation of them is not yet proven to be technically or economically viable. This could change with more research. Image I'm following the development of this resource quite closely.

A similar situation exists with solar as this article suggests:

Solar Could Generate 15% of Power by 2020, If US Ends Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Solar power technologies could generate 15 percent of America's power in 10 years, but only if Washington levels the playing field on subsidies, a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says.

That means either rolling back fossil fuel subsidies, as President Obama proposed earlier this year, or increasing subsidies for clean energy, the association says.

Fossil fuels received $72 billion in total federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008, keeping prices artificially low, according to figures from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). About 98 percent of that went to conventional energy sources, namely coal and oil, leading to more emissions. The rest, $2.3 billion, was pumped into a new technology to trap and store carbon dioxide spewed by coal plants.

During that same period, solar got less than $1 billion, according to the SEIA, a trade group representing 1,100 solar companies across the nation.

To compete and gain market share — and stop global warming — this inconsistency "must reverse itself immediately," said Rhone Resch, SEIA president and CEO.

There had been hints of this happening.


http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/29-9


If it were up to me I would cancel all the subsidies and see what the actual price structure of each method is, with the subsidies in place now it is impossible to know what things should cost. After a couple of years without subsidies you would be able to target what green sources are most competitive for expansion on a massive scale.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 30 Dec 2009, 21:06:07

I don't think the renewable industries will survive without financial support. Apart from direct subsidies from government, here is another source:

Feed-in tariffs would incentivize solar energy investment: white paper

Feed-in tariff policies will ensure that solar energy's popularity continues unabated, a white paper from a photovoltaic industry association says.

According to SEMI, 80 percent of PV demand is from countries that support FIT policies. The policies are the best way of increasing demand for solar projects, the manufacturing industry association adds, for three reasons. They are performance-based, paying for electricity generated; they don't require taxpayer subsidies; and they do not conflict with other renewable energy policies.


coolerplanet
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Wed 30 Dec 2009, 21:43:57

Personally I am very suspicious of PV as any kind of mitigation strategy. The fact is that massive amounts of energy goes into manufacture, taking 20 odd years to achieve net nuetrality, by which time the panel is in terminal decline. I believe solid state glass PVs were first invented in the 1940's, the system is not patentable and therefore no large manufacturer has gone into it. I'm not sure on the life expectancy of the plastic PVs starting to be made on mass in China, I know they are only about half the efficiency of standard cells, but far cheaper to manufacture in terms of materials and energy. I believe solar thermal has the potential to be made to last effectively for many decades or longer, with just cleaning and basic maintenance. People who think they are saving the world with standard cellular PVs on their roof are kidding themselves.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby yesplease » Thu 31 Dec 2009, 00:07:52

I think the twenty year figure bandied about, in what is in my opinion astroturfing, is from the early 80s. As of 2002 PV energy payback was from one to five years depending on cell type and location. Cell lifespan is proportional to the amount of energy processed, so while payback may be longer in areas w/ less solar energy, lifespan will also probably be longer than in areas w/ more sun provided the panel is maintained properly. Most panels are also warrantied for ~80-90% output at 20-30 years, so even if the drop in output is linear, dropping to 80% after 20 years, 60% after 40 years, and so on, it still provides a lot of energy for the user. Do you have any more info on the plastic PVs?
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Gerben » Thu 31 Dec 2009, 09:09:50

Feed-in tariffs would incentivize solar energy investment: ... they don't require taxpayer subsidies

This is a blatant lie. The feed-in tariffs only work if the tariffs are higher than normal. The difference is paid for by a tax on electricity, which is used to subsidise the Feed-In tariff for solar power. Energy taxes in the Netherlands are rising next year (~US$ 25,-/household on average) and will continue to rise for decades to come because we want a few % sustainable energy.
User avatar
Gerben
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed 07 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Holland, Belgica Foederata (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 31 Dec 2009, 21:19:57

This is what Wikipedia says about FIT's.

A feed-in tariff (FiT, feed-in law, advanced renewable tariff[1] or renewable energy payments[2]) is a policy mechanism designed to encourage the adoption of renewable energy sources. It typically includes three key provisions: 1) guaranteed grid access, 2) long-term contracts for the electricity produced, and 3) purchase prices that are methodologically based on the cost of renewable energy generation.[3] Under a feed-in tariff, an obligation is imposed on regional or national electricity utilities to buy renewable electricity (electricity generated from renewable sources, such as solar thermal power, wind power, wave and tidal power, biomass, hydropower and geothermal power), from all eligible participants. [4].

The cost-based prices therefore enable a diversity of projects (wind, solar, etc.) to be developed, and for investors to obtain a reasonable return on renewable energy investments. This principle was first explained in Germany's 2000 RES Act:

“The compensation rates…have been determined by means of scientific studies, subject to the proviso that the rates identified should make it possible for an installation – when managed efficiently – to be operated cost-effectively, based on the use of state-of-the-art technology and depending on the renewable energy sources naturally available in a given geographical environment.” (RES Act 2000, Explanatory Memorandum A)[5]

As a result, the rate may differ among various forms of power generation, and for projects of different sizes.

In addition, FITs typically offer a guaranteed purchase for electricity generated from renewable energy sources within long-term (15–25 year) contracts [6]. These contracts are typically offered in a non-discriminatory way to all interested producers of renewable electricity.

As of 2009, feed-in tariff policies have been enacted in 63 jurisdictions around the world, including in Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, China, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and in some states in the United States. [7]

In 2008, a detailed analysis by the European Commission concluded that "well-adapted feed-in tariff regimes are generally the most efficient and effective support schemes for promoting renewable electricity." [8]. This conclusion has been supported by a number of recent analyses, including by the International Energy Agency [9], [10], the European Federation for Renewable Energy [11], as well as by Deutsche Bank [12].
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 31 Dec 2009, 23:07:51

Could we keep the Solar commentary more general please? As in it is a potential carbon free alternative to power this proposed carbon neutral fuel supply for conventional ICE engines.

If we get into the minutia of every possible source there are threads dedicated to those sources which would be better recipients of those posts, not to mention it derails the purpose of this particular thread.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Graeme » Fri 01 Jan 2010, 00:11:08

Sorry Tanada. Didn't mean to highjack your thread. I've merely tried to bring the discussion up to date with the USDOE research proposal of funding for solar-based synthetic fuels rather than nuclear described in the original article. Solar now seems to be the preferred ENERGY source in the equation of the title of your thread. However, it is interesting that Shell considered extracting CO2 directly from the atmosphere, which is still a concept that is being discussed now. This research and technology on carbon-free solar synthetic fuels requires financial support from a variety of sources.
Last edited by Graeme on Fri 01 Jan 2010, 00:42:58, edited 1 time in total.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Fri 01 Jan 2010, 00:36:46

While attempting thoroughly environmentally sound sources is laudible, what I get from Tanada's angle is that nuclear seems to be an unavoidable transition step in the process towards renewable sufficiency. It seems to be the only source which is capable of keeping anywhere near up with demand as oil wanes. Humanity needs to get itself under control and educated, to avoid massive tragedy/ dieoff. It seems nukes may provide the cushion to delay the inevitable fall in population. The biggest problem I have with this is that TPTB seem frozen in their mindset with regards to growth economics and therefore will most likely use the nukes and such technologies as decribed in this thread to perpetuate further growth. Most likely outcome is that these technologies will come into play as dieoff starts to really bite, not before. In a way this may be the only possible wake up call humanity will listen to. Unfortunately, logic is not the main driver of human behaviour. The modern, globalised world is a new child, who is learning by playing with fire. How many of us get burned before the child learns and modifies it's behaviour remains to be seen. Education being the key to humanity having a future is a cliche whose timelessness never reduces it's truth.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: CO2 + H2O + Energy = synthetic fuel

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 03 Jan 2010, 21:45:41

SeaGypsy wrote:While attempting thoroughly environmentally sound sources is laudable, what I get from Tanada's angle is that nuclear seems to be an unavoidable transition step in the process towards renewable sufficiency. It seems to be the only source which is capable of keeping anywhere near up with demand as oil wanes. Humanity needs to get itself under control and educated, to avoid massive tragedy/ dieoff. It seems nukes may provide the cushion to delay the inevitable fall in population. The biggest problem I have with this is that TPTB seem frozen in their mindset with regards to growth economics and therefore will most likely use the nukes and such technologies as described in this thread to perpetuate further growth. Most likely outcome is that these technologies will come into play as die off starts to really bite, not before. In a way this may be the only possible wake up call humanity will listen to. Unfortunately, logic is not the main driver of human behavior. The modern, globalized world is a new child, who is learning by playing with fire. How many of us get burned before the child learns and modifies it's behavior remains to be seen. Education being the key to humanity having a future is a cliche whose timelessness never reduces it's truth.


Correct, more or less.

We need energy to make our technology operate, no matter what level of tech you are referring too.

IMO we need to get off of fossil carbon as fast as humanly possible just in case we have not yet flipped the climate switch to hothouse.

Be that as it may the only three truly large scale green energies currently available are Fission, Large Scale Hydro, and Hotspot Geothermal.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

CO2 in the air could be green fuel feedstock

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 14 Jan 2010, 18:21:06

CO2 in the air could be green fuel feedstock

Carbon dioxide could soon be ready for a PR makeover. With a bit of clever chemistry, the gas could become a feedstock for alternative fuels or find a role in cooling freezers rather than warming the atmosphere.

Carbon capture and storage schemes propose to snatch CO2 from industrial chimneys and bury it in ocean basins or geological formations. But having gone to the trouble of capturing the gas, squirrelling it away underground is a wasted opportunity, says Dermot O'Hare at the University of Oxford. He thinks converting CO2 into methanol for use as fuel is a smarter move.

But that's easier said than done. "One of the difficulties chemists have is doing anything with CO2," O'Hare says. The trouble is that the molecule is so stable, it's hard to find chemicals reactive enough to target CO2 but specific enough to ignore other components of the atmosphere such as carbon monoxide and oxygen.

Now O'Hare and Andrew Ashley, also at Oxford, have demonstrated how to do it at the relatively low temperature of 160 °C and at standard pressure. All it takes is a bit of frustration.


newscientist
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: CO2 in the air could be green fuel feedstock

Unread postby Graeme » Thu 14 Jan 2010, 18:26:25

Chaperones for climate protection

"Rubisco is one of the most important proteins on the planet, yet despite this, it is also one of the most inefficient", says Manajit Hayer-Hartl, a group leader at the MPI of Biochemistry. The researchers are now working on modifying the artificially produced Rubisco so that it will convert carbon dioxide more efficiently than the original protein. Their work has now been published in Nature (Nature, January 14, 2010).


physorg
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests