5 ms·

Interesting although I’d love to see a discussion on the energy efficiencies as these catalyst aren’t free. CC (carbon carbon) and CH (carbon hydrogen) bonds a

Interesting although I’d love to see a discussion on the energy efficiencies as these catalyst aren’t free. CC (carbon carbon) and CH (carbon hydrogen) bonds are higher energy than CO (carbon oxygen) bonds. Hence why oxidizing (burning) carbon releases energy. You can’t reverse that reaction without an energy source. So maybe this process or a similar process could be driven from a sustainable non combustion source. The entire global economy is powered by burning stuff and first we need to figure out how to change that (the advances in wind and solar give me hope) then we need to generate enough excess power that we can start converting CO bonds back into CC or CH bonds.

dTal 7y ago
Hate to say it, but it will never happen. Energy is a limiting resource - there will never be a time when we have "excess power". It would be tantamount to throwing money away - you'll never convince anyone to do that, and especially not while there are other people still burning things as it would amount to "subsidizing" those people's harmful behavior. Would you rather be the guy burning cheap carbon, or the guy footing the bill?
- ricardobeat 7y ago
  Luckily we still live in organized societies where destructive behaviour eventually gets shunned, and there is a (survival) incentive for everyone to foot the bill.
- pietroglyph 7y ago
  We have excess energy all the time. Many power plants have fixed, unpredictable (e.g. solar/wind), or slow-changing output. When demand is low, these plants often are often producing excess power. An even more egregious example is gas flaring. The extraction rate is not totally controllable, so there can be more pressure than the plant can handle. Currently, most plants just burn this gas without generating anything, because it would be prohibitively costly (compared to the return) to transport that electricity.
  - thereisnospork 7y ago
    As appealing as that narrative is (just utilize waste electricity, its cheap/free!) a plant (making anything, not just this chemistry) that only runs 50% of the time for e.g. nighttime electricity costs twice as much[0] as one that runs all the time. To the parent re: efficiency and economics, the supplemental info: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b07310 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b07310 (as a rule, free/open access w/ 90% of the utility of a given paper) has the half cell potential at about 0.6V[1] vs RHE, which puts a whole cell potential at about 2V. So count the electrons to convert CO2 to propanol, take Coulomb's constant to get amps, convert to watts, and do the stoichiometry to get kwh/tonne propanol. This is all ignoring throughput and CAPEX utilization, which is almost certainly poor (but not unexpected at this stage of research). It is also worth noting that they are using a 3 dimensional, convoluted electrode (carbon cloth) to support their catalyst which may be responsible for the claimed 'trapping of CO'-effect, rather than their specific catalyst. Notably C3's have been observed before in CO2 reduction from less involved catalysts. tl;dr Probably not very efficient at all, I'm too lazy to do the math. If it was efficient, it would probably still be wildly uneconomic to make propanol via this route. [0]per unit of production, revenue [1]Don't forget to account for side product production, per the supplemental information they are making about 600 moles of H2 per mole of propanol (hard to read the chart).
    - soulofmischief 7y ago
      The fact of that matter is that this is something we have to do, both to undo the effects of climate change, and to ensure energy deposits for posterity in case we fuck it all up. It's non-negotiable. We have to do it. So the economics of it don't matter. We aren't wasting power. We're paying back a very large debt to the planet that we've been accruing for over a century.
      - thereisnospork 7y ago
        >economics of it don't matter Yes they do and saying they don't only hurts efforts with actual chances to succeed. Money isn't some made up thing, it is man-hours and resources, and spending people on feel-good technology keeps them from doing actual good to help the environment.
- jeff_friesen 7y ago
  We have excess power in many places almost every day with wind and solar. Often the utilities get charged whether they use it or not. Sometimes they even get charged on top of their regular rate for not using it. The more solutions that use this surplus power, the more the utility can cost-effectively integrate renewables into the grid.
modwest 7y ago
I bet if there's not a yeast or other fungus for making that conversion now, there will be sooner or later
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
If we're going to start using power to create liquids to burn again ("power-to-X-to-power") why not make those liquids carbon-free? Hydrogen is one option. Ammonia is another. Both can be burnt in engines, and have zero CO2 emissions.
- readams 7y ago
  It is carbon neutral to make hydrocarbons and then burn then as long as the energy source for making them is carbon neutral. The hydrocarbons have the advantage of far higher energy density, which makes them much better as fuels.
  - black_puppydog 7y ago
    More energy efficient maybe. But I'd much prefer a city where every of the (hopefully few) car/scooter engines is either electric, or the exhaust spews water vapor.
    - hkeide 7y ago
      Plugin hybrids would solve a lot of this problem. Battery can be ten times smaller and no range anxiety for much of the same benefits as fully electric
- PaulAJ 7y ago
  Hydrogen has huge practical problems with storage. Ammonia is an interesting idea, but direct combustion isn't practical due to NOx emissions and low temperature, and ammonia fuel cells are still at the lab prototype stage. The toxicity of ammonia is also an issue.
0xfaded 7y ago
I recently watched a TED talk which changed my opinion of renewables from "maybe" to "no". Basically he argues that solar and wind are low density energy sources that require significant resources to capture, which all become waste after 25 years. Meanwhile we have nuclear which provides consistent base load, and for very good reasons we have gotten good at containing all the waste/pollution produced. I'm now of the opinion we should be on a sprint towards fusion, investing heavily in other nuclear technologies, e.g. thorium, along the way. Sorry to leave a video link, but it's what changed my mind and therefore in my opinion the best delivery of the argument I'm aware of. https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Save yourselves a click, it's Michael Shellenberger's talk. A man with a serious axe to grind on nuclear, and so creative on facts with respect to renewables that he's either being disingenuous or is simply incompetent. His Bloomberg pieces are equally shoddy.
  - ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
    Did you mean serious axe to grind on renewables? As he hates renewables it seems. > so creative on facts with respect to renewables that he's either being disingenuous or is simply incompetent I work in an energy company making renewable forecasts amongst other things and I agree with your judgement.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Oops, yes I did. He either hates renewables, or badly wants nuclear.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Too late. Absolutely none of that will be online by 2030. The question of renewables recycling will become important, but it's hard to argue that the minerals required are both in short supply from mining and too expensive to recycle. Edit; it looks like WEEE is having the intended result, there's already a solar panel recycling plant in Europe: https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/first-recycling-plant-europe-solar-panels https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/first-recy... (I would expect there to be a small waste stream from installations due to panels damaged in handling, before the big waste stream begins in 10-20 years as the first installations start having degraded production and get upgraded)
rocqua 7y ago
This might be a nice usage of surplus renewable power. Just use it to unburn CO2.
raverbashing 7y ago
You don't get "free energy" by using a catalyst, but you do get it "cheaper" because usually you need much more than the reaction energy to break the bond. Or, putting it in monetary terms, the "price" is the same but the fees are cheaper.

dTal 7y ago

Hate to say it, but it will never happen. Energy is a limiting resource - there will never be a time when we have "excess power". It would be tantamount to throwing money away - you'll never convince anyone to do that, and especially not while there are other people still burning things as it would amount to "subsidizing" those people's harmful behavior. Would you rather be the guy burning cheap carbon, or the guy footing the bill?

ricardobeat 7y ago
Luckily we still live in organized societies where destructive behaviour eventually gets shunned, and there is a (survival) incentive for everyone to foot the bill.
pietroglyph 7y ago
We have excess energy all the time. Many power plants have fixed, unpredictable (e.g. solar/wind), or slow-changing output. When demand is low, these plants often are often producing excess power. An even more egregious example is gas flaring. The extraction rate is not totally controllable, so there can be more pressure than the plant can handle. Currently, most plants just burn this gas without generating anything, because it would be prohibitively costly (compared to the return) to transport that electricity.
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  As appealing as that narrative is (just utilize waste electricity, its cheap/free!) a plant (making anything, not just this chemistry) that only runs 50% of the time for e.g. nighttime electricity costs twice as much[0] as one that runs all the time. To the parent re: efficiency and economics, the supplemental info: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b07310 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b07310 (as a rule, free/open access w/ 90% of the utility of a given paper) has the half cell potential at about 0.6V[1] vs RHE, which puts a whole cell potential at about 2V. So count the electrons to convert CO2 to propanol, take Coulomb's constant to get amps, convert to watts, and do the stoichiometry to get kwh/tonne propanol. This is all ignoring throughput and CAPEX utilization, which is almost certainly poor (but not unexpected at this stage of research). It is also worth noting that they are using a 3 dimensional, convoluted electrode (carbon cloth) to support their catalyst which may be responsible for the claimed 'trapping of CO'-effect, rather than their specific catalyst. Notably C3's have been observed before in CO2 reduction from less involved catalysts. tl;dr Probably not very efficient at all, I'm too lazy to do the math. If it was efficient, it would probably still be wildly uneconomic to make propanol via this route. [0]per unit of production, revenue [1]Don't forget to account for side product production, per the supplemental information they are making about 600 moles of H2 per mole of propanol (hard to read the chart).
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    The fact of that matter is that this is something we have to do, both to undo the effects of climate change, and to ensure energy deposits for posterity in case we fuck it all up. It's non-negotiable. We have to do it. So the economics of it don't matter. We aren't wasting power. We're paying back a very large debt to the planet that we've been accruing for over a century.
    - thereisnospork 7y ago
      >economics of it don't matter Yes they do and saying they don't only hurts efforts with actual chances to succeed. Money isn't some made up thing, it is man-hours and resources, and spending people on feel-good technology keeps them from doing actual good to help the environment.
jeff_friesen 7y ago
We have excess power in many places almost every day with wind and solar. Often the utilities get charged whether they use it or not. Sometimes they even get charged on top of their regular rate for not using it. The more solutions that use this surplus power, the more the utility can cost-effectively integrate renewables into the grid.

modwest 7y ago

I bet if there's not a yeast or other fungus for making that conversion now, there will be sooner or later

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

If we're going to start using power to create liquids to burn again ("power-to-X-to-power") why not make those liquids carbon-free? Hydrogen is one option. Ammonia is another. Both can be burnt in engines, and have zero CO2 emissions.

readams 7y ago
It is carbon neutral to make hydrocarbons and then burn then as long as the energy source for making them is carbon neutral. The hydrocarbons have the advantage of far higher energy density, which makes them much better as fuels.
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  More energy efficient maybe. But I'd much prefer a city where every of the (hopefully few) car/scooter engines is either electric, or the exhaust spews water vapor.
  - hkeide 7y ago
    Plugin hybrids would solve a lot of this problem. Battery can be ten times smaller and no range anxiety for much of the same benefits as fully electric
PaulAJ 7y ago
Hydrogen has huge practical problems with storage. Ammonia is an interesting idea, but direct combustion isn't practical due to NOx emissions and low temperature, and ammonia fuel cells are still at the lab prototype stage. The toxicity of ammonia is also an issue.

0xfaded 7y ago

I recently watched a TED talk which changed my opinion of renewables from "maybe" to "no". Basically he argues that solar and wind are low density energy sources that require significant resources to capture, which all become waste after 25 years. Meanwhile we have nuclear which provides consistent base load, and for very good reasons we have gotten good at containing all the waste/pollution produced. I'm now of the opinion we should be on a sprint towards fusion, investing heavily in other nuclear technologies, e.g. thorium, along the way. Sorry to leave a video link, but it's what changed my mind and therefore in my opinion the best delivery of the argument I'm aware of. https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Save yourselves a click, it's Michael Shellenberger's talk. A man with a serious axe to grind on nuclear, and so creative on facts with respect to renewables that he's either being disingenuous or is simply incompetent. His Bloomberg pieces are equally shoddy.
- ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
  Did you mean serious axe to grind on renewables? As he hates renewables it seems. > so creative on facts with respect to renewables that he's either being disingenuous or is simply incompetent I work in an energy company making renewable forecasts amongst other things and I agree with your judgement.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Oops, yes I did. He either hates renewables, or badly wants nuclear.
pjc50 7y ago
Too late. Absolutely none of that will be online by 2030. The question of renewables recycling will become important, but it's hard to argue that the minerals required are both in short supply from mining and too expensive to recycle. Edit; it looks like WEEE is having the intended result, there's already a solar panel recycling plant in Europe: https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/first-recycling-plant-europe-solar-panels https://www.livingcircular.veolia.com/en/industry/first-recy... (I would expect there to be a small waste stream from installations due to panels damaged in handling, before the big waste stream begins in 10-20 years as the first installations start having degraded production and get upgraded)

rocqua 7y ago

This might be a nice usage of surplus renewable power. Just use it to unburn CO2.

raverbashing 7y ago

You don't get "free energy" by using a catalyst, but you do get it "cheaper" because usually you need much more than the reaction energy to break the bond. Or, putting it in monetary terms, the "price" is the same but the fees are cheaper.