A new catalyst turns carbon dioxide into ethanol at over 90 percent efficiency.
The Department of Energy Learned How to Turn Carbon Dioxide Into Liquid Fuel
I saw this article, ethanol is useful, I think methane, would be better, but it is a start.
if they can get the claimed 90% efficiency that would be great.
The Department of Energy Learned How to Turn Carbon Dioxide Into Liquid Fuel
I saw this article, ethanol is useful, I think methane, would be better, but it is a start.
if they can get the claimed 90% efficiency that would be great.
if they have a 90% efficiency, that day is a lot closer!Maybe it will be economical to make fuel from CO2 trapped out of the air one day.
While the article does not say, I think water is also needed.Should be useful on Mars.
The Department of Energy Learned How to Turn Carbon Dioxide Into Liquid Fuel
I saw this article, ethanol is useful, I think methane, would be better, but it is a start.
if they can get the claimed 90% efficiency that would be great.
Do you care to elaborate on the differences?Faraday efficiency is not the same as energy efficiency.
Maybe it will be economical to make fuel from CO2 trapped out of the air one day.
Then we'll have an atmospheric CO2 shortage. People will yell at fuel manufacturers to stop sucking CO2 out of the air.
if they have a 90% efficiency, that day is a lot closer!
Once we have any hydrocarbon, we can make different hydrocarbons.
The path from C2H5OH to say jet fuel at C8H16, is not that difficult.
If we say the overall efficiency from scratch to transport fuel is 80%, (assuming a 10% cost to rearrange the carbons and hydrogen atoms)
then a gallon of gasoline at 33.4 Kwh per gallon would take 37.1 Kwh to make.
If wholesale electricity can be purchased at $.05 per Kwh, then each gallon of gasoline
would have a cost of goods sold of $1.86, equal to oil at about $65 a barrel.
Do you care to elaborate on the differences?
While the article does not say, I think water is also needed.
There is no hydrogen in CO2, but plenty in C2H5OH.
Fuel produced from atmospheric CO2 would have a net zero emissions.Maybe it will be economical to make fuel from CO2 trapped out of the air one day.
Then we'll have an atmospheric CO2 shortage. People will yell at fuel manufacturers to stop sucking CO2 out of the air.
Fuel produced from atmospheric CO2 would have a net zero emissions.
Not putting new CO2 into the atmosphere for transport, would greatly reduce global emissions.
More important is that the process scales down, so a small remote village could have fuel for a tractor,
and running irrigation pumps, drinking water systems, ect.
I'm not an expert but I think a rough explanation is FE is the losses incurred during the chemical reaction that are a result of undesired interactions. This catalyst primarily converts CO2 to ethanol but 10% of the energy in the reaction ends up doing something else entirely. (could be producing some other byproduct or contaminant, or just waste heat) It's not the same as comparing the total energy input to the energy you get from burning said ethanol.
I'm extrapolating a bit because the article didn't actually mention Faraday Efficiency, but used the acronym FE and in context it seemed to fit.
Faraday Efficiency is mentioned in the article link inside the PM article, but we should never expect 100% efficiency.
Argonne National Lab Breakthrough Turns Carbon Dioxide Into Ethanol
Still, 90% efficiency is great for a chemical process.
The Naval research Labs is only claiming 60% for jet fuel, and Sunfire is saying 70% for gasoline.
Like I said the Navy and Sunfire say the process efficiency is between 60 and 70%,Yes, higher faraday efficiency is good.
But it could still be an energy-intensive reaction and therefore expensive. I didn't see a figure for the energy efficiency.
While the article does not say, I think water is also needed.
There is no hydrogen in CO2, but plenty in C2H5OH.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?