3 ms·

There is a lot of information about the process missing from the article. There is no mention of the energy input required, though exhaust CO2 is hot so there i

There is a lot of information about the process missing from the article. There is no mention of the energy input required, though exhaust CO2 is hot so there is some chance that can contribute to whatever energy is needed. Also, methanol contains hydrogen atoms, so there will need to be hydrogen as an input to this process. Where will the hydrogen come from? Also, how big is the market for methanol? If this is meant as a handy way to reduce some CO2 output while making a side business of methanol (or other) production then it might be good. If it's meant to be industrial scale CO2 elimination then probably not.

danuker 4y ago
At least the same amount of energy is required to "un-burn" CO2 as is released burning it up in the first place. Even if you do it cheaply with solar energy, the energy might be better used directly.
- phkahler 4y ago
  That's why using this to create methanol as a fuel is would be pointless. Hence the question about the size of market for methanol. Similarly there would be no point in using this to produce methanol for use in fuel for cars.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  The argument would be about whether it's a better plan to 1. Power cars with batteries charged from the grid or use 2. "Green" hydrogen, i.e. from cracking H2O with solar, or use 3. Synfuel derived from CO2 and green hydrogen, i.e. using the synfuel as a "battery", the output being CO2 and H20 again.
- worik 4y ago
  Storage and transport of otherwise inaccessible energy is the point, surely?
R0b0t1 4y ago
The authors likely didn't analyze it. It gives a value in eV, that can be extrapolated outwards though I am not exactly sure how. It would also depend on how you implement the process. However, the paper does mention the reactor is at 21 bar and 300-500C, to give you ballpark requirements for any implementation. This likely isn't a viable CO2 reduction method. It would be if there was a massive overbuildout of green energy collection. A more likely use is a green way to make a portable power source. It's possible to produce gasoline from CO2+extra+H and extreme heat and pressure. This seems more achievable. Such designs were, I think, using nuclear heat almost directly.
- jabl 4y ago
  > The authors likely didn't analyze it. That's my reading of the paper, yes. > It gives a value in eV, that can be extrapolated outwards though I am not exactly sure how. It gives values in eV, yes, and 1 eV ~= 96 kJ/mol, if you're more familiar with those units. However, what they're looking at is peaks in the x-ray diffraction spectra, indicating presence of compounds with various specific binding energies. That doesn't really tell anything about the energy efficiency of the process as a whole. > It's possible to produce gasoline from CO2+extra+H and extreme heat and pressure. This seems more achievable. Such designs were, I think, using nuclear heat almost directly. There's a whole raft of different processes to produce hydrocarbons given CO2, H2, and some energy input. Fischer-Tropsch is perhaps the most famous. This could be yet another one, if they can make it work out. If it can be more cost effective than existing approaches, it's really really awesome, but won't "save the world" by itself of course.
dylan604 4y ago
> Also, how big is the market for methanol? "Methanol serves many uses: it comprises gasoline and fuel, facilitates energy generation and forms many chemicals and chemical products, including plastics, paint, resin film, windshield washer fluid and numerous pigments and dyes. Methanol ranks among the most valuable substances due to its wide range of uses in various industries. It classifies as a basic alcohol, making it a cost-effective choice for producing gasoline and synthetic fuels."[0] Seems pretty useful to me [0]https://www.reference.com/science/methanol-used-eedca1b7f9f285a7 https://www.reference.com/science/methanol-used-eedca1b7f9f2...

danuker 4y ago

At least the same amount of energy is required to "un-burn" CO2 as is released burning it up in the first place. Even if you do it cheaply with solar energy, the energy might be better used directly.

phkahler 4y ago
That's why using this to create methanol as a fuel is would be pointless. Hence the question about the size of market for methanol. Similarly there would be no point in using this to produce methanol for use in fuel for cars.
wrycoder 4y ago
The argument would be about whether it's a better plan to 1. Power cars with batteries charged from the grid or use 2. "Green" hydrogen, i.e. from cracking H2O with solar, or use 3. Synfuel derived from CO2 and green hydrogen, i.e. using the synfuel as a "battery", the output being CO2 and H20 again.
worik 4y ago
Storage and transport of otherwise inaccessible energy is the point, surely?

R0b0t1 4y ago

The authors likely didn't analyze it. It gives a value in eV, that can be extrapolated outwards though I am not exactly sure how. It would also depend on how you implement the process. However, the paper does mention the reactor is at 21 bar and 300-500C, to give you ballpark requirements for any implementation. This likely isn't a viable CO2 reduction method. It would be if there was a massive overbuildout of green energy collection. A more likely use is a green way to make a portable power source. It's possible to produce gasoline from CO2+extra+H and extreme heat and pressure. This seems more achievable. Such designs were, I think, using nuclear heat almost directly.

jabl 4y ago
> The authors likely didn't analyze it. That's my reading of the paper, yes. > It gives a value in eV, that can be extrapolated outwards though I am not exactly sure how. It gives values in eV, yes, and 1 eV ~= 96 kJ/mol, if you're more familiar with those units. However, what they're looking at is peaks in the x-ray diffraction spectra, indicating presence of compounds with various specific binding energies. That doesn't really tell anything about the energy efficiency of the process as a whole. > It's possible to produce gasoline from CO2+extra+H and extreme heat and pressure. This seems more achievable. Such designs were, I think, using nuclear heat almost directly. There's a whole raft of different processes to produce hydrocarbons given CO2, H2, and some energy input. Fischer-Tropsch is perhaps the most famous. This could be yet another one, if they can make it work out. If it can be more cost effective than existing approaches, it's really really awesome, but won't "save the world" by itself of course.

dylan604 4y ago

> Also, how big is the market for methanol? "Methanol serves many uses: it comprises gasoline and fuel, facilitates energy generation and forms many chemicals and chemical products, including plastics, paint, resin film, windshield washer fluid and numerous pigments and dyes. Methanol ranks among the most valuable substances due to its wide range of uses in various industries. It classifies as a basic alcohol, making it a cost-effective choice for producing gasoline and synthetic fuels."[0] Seems pretty useful to me [0]https://www.reference.com/science/methanol-used-eedca1b7f9f285a7 https://www.reference.com/science/methanol-used-eedca1b7f9f2...