50 ms·
The actual science: > Here we report a catalytic system composed of 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium-functionalized Mo3P nanoparticles coated with an anion-exchange
by londons_explore 3y ago
The actual science:
> Here we report a catalytic system composed of 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium-functionalized Mo3P nanoparticles coated with an anion-exchange ionomer that produces propane from CO2 with a current density of −395 mA cm−2 and a Faradaic efficiency of 91% at −0.8 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode over 100 h in an electrolyser.
This is almost too good to be true... they demonstrate commercially viable reaction rates, efficiencies and timescales.
They have presumably applied for a patent for it, so in 20 years when the patent expires this will become the standard thing to do with recovered CO2 I'd guess.
- PaulHoule 3y agoNot sure people really want that much propane. But really, this kind of process is still being pursued for e-Fuels despite horrific economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces... The economics are so awful because of a complex network of reactions, there are processes that build up larger hydrocarbons and break them down and you have to balance these just right to get liquid fuels and not paraffin wax or methane. Some kind of single-entity fuel has always seemed to make more sense to me: methane isn't that good of a destination because it's not that easy to handle or liquefy, propane is quite easy to handle in comparison.
- colechristensen 3y agoThe remaining issue is the durability of the catalyst.
- londons_explore 3y agoThey demonstrate 100 hours. That's plenty for commercial viability - replacing the catalyst every 4 days is very doable. And it's likely that the catalyst lasts far longer but the experiment only went on 4 days.
- neltnerb 3y agoEspecially if it can be regenerated, then it's really a non-issue.
- ur-whale 3y ago>The remaining issue is the durability of the catalyst. And its cost. Or more generally, where the catalyst sits in the supply chain (how easy it is to produce at scale, can it be recycled, is it expensive, what is the waste management for it, etc...)
- londons_explore 3y ago1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium-functionalized Mo3P nanoparticles don't sound very off-the-shelf...
- bluGill 3y agoThe question is can we make it cheaply enough at the required scale. Lots of things area off the shelf today that were not in the past. Other things used to be common and are not made anymore.
- biomcgary 3y agoChemistry can sound complex, but the compound mentioned is relatively simple for an organic chemist. Metal nanoparticles are fairly routine. Since this is a catalyst, not that much would be needed (relative to the likely difficulty of making it). Probably a rounding error in terms of the expense of the entire system.
- sschueller 3y agoHow much CO2 is generated to make one is the other question.
- eesmith 3y ago> They have presumably applied for a patent for it They have one in this space: "Methods and devices using tri-transition metal phosphides for efficient electrocatalytic reactions" at https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220154354A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220154354A1/en with abstract: ] Methods and devices for generating hydrogen gas with an electrocatalytic energy conversion cell by introducing a tri-transition metal phosphide catalyst at or on an electrode of the electrocatalytic energy conversion cell. The electrocatalytic energy conversion cell includes a first electrode including a tri-transition metal phosphide catalyst, such as MO3P, a second electrode of an anodic material, an electrolyte disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and an electric potential source connected to both electrodes. Oxidation and reduction reactions, such as hydrogen evolution reactions, occur at the first electrode. (Google Patents says "M03P", the PDF says "MO3P" in the abstract, but the text clearly has "Mo3P".) Even if this isn't exactly the technology discussed - Supplementary Figure 20 shows how ImF-Mo3P catalyst improves on "pristine Mo3P nanoparticles" - the authors have several other related patents, so I have no doubt a patent was filed for this technology as well.
- walnutclosefarm 3y agoRecovered CO2 if it's recovered from the atmosphere. Essentially all concentrated CO2 today is recovered from fossil fuel consumption, and while turning that into propane and then burning the propane (in a ship or home furnace, e.g.) would get double duty out of the carbon, it would still release it into the atmosphere. So, the real question is the combined efficiency of carbon capture from the atmosphere + catalytics propane production followed by propane combustion. It may pencil out for processes that require combustion heat, or where the portability of propane vs electricity are a huge win. Maybe as a storage medium for electricity production between renewables. All depends on numbers.
- danmaz74 3y agoIf you capture the CO2 produced when burning the propane, you can get more than double duty. If you used this process to store energy into propane when electricity is cheap, and then produce electricity by burning propane when electricity is expensive, you could potentially have a system with close to 0 CO2 emission. Compared to batteries, storing propane and CO2 even for months looks very cheap.
- gus_massa 3y agoOrganic reactions have a very low efficiency. Most of them only less than a 50%. Batteries have a better efficiency in the conversion.
- SoftTalker 3y agoAt some point, cheap trumps efficient. Propane is easy to store, easy to transport, propane storage tanks are cheaper than batteries, require no high-tech manufacturing or rare earth elements, and I'd guess the energy storage density is higher. Many (most) existing cars could be converted to run on propane and the engines will last longer and emissions will be lower as it's a cleaner-burning fuel.
- 93po 3y ago
- mhb 3y ago> They have presumably applied for a patent for it, so in 20 years when the patent expires this will become the standard thing to do with recovered CO2 I'd guess. And how many years would it have taken if a patent wasn't an incentive?
- hedora 3y agoIt’s a public university, and government funded research. so fewer?
- rayiner 3y agoThe history of everything from MIPS to BBN shows that a major piece of the puzzle is creating incentives for high caliber people to go into public university research, and then invest in commercializing the resulting technology. The government funding only provides the kickstart.
- Slava_Propanei 3y agoOr in less than 20 years when the patent is licensed. No point in sitting in it for 20 years.
- harvie 3y agoCan you please explain these numbers of layman terms? Let's say my car burns equivalent of 100kWh worth of LPG, how many kWh of propane i can recover from the exhaust gas and how many kWh of electricity i need to provide for that?
- LeifCarrotson 3y agoYou wouldn't recover the propane at the exhaust of the car. Instead, you'd have a fixed hydro/solar/wind renewable energy installation, spending ~25 kWh on an atmospheric capture program, or less if you can get it from more concentrated flue gasses coming off an industrial furnace/ammonia plant/cement plant, and then ~200 kWh to convert that CO2 by this process into 100 kWh worth of LPG. It's not viable (in terms of energy availability, packaging, or economies of scale) to run that sort of cryogenic high-pressure CO2 purification and storage system on the exhaust pipe of a vehicle. I could maybe imagine a solar installation with this attached being viable at, say, a remote farm with LPG-powered agricultural vehicles, or if I stretch my imagination to scifi timescales (and think about the number of remarkable compressors installed at scale in HVAC systems) to suburban homes with rooftop solar.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoI don't think it's ever going to be viable at the suburban level. However, for off-grid use I can definitely see it making sense. Large scale batteries for photovoltaic use make off-grid solar quite expensive on kWh basis. This is considerably less efficient (although I think you could up the efficiency with a turbine generator) but costs scale on throughput, not on capacity.
- spatular 3y agoYou'd need to spend at least 110kWh to convert CO2 back to propane, maybe much more. No matter what you do, LPG -> CO2 -> LPG cycle has to be energy-negative.
- pdabbadabba 3y ago> in 20 years when the patent expires... Well, only if the patent-holder makes no effort to maximize the return on its investment in those 20 years. But if the technology is really that effective and the patent-holder is even a little bit economically rational, then presumably the patent holder will be the one pushing hardest to make this the standard thing to do with recovered CO2 well before the patent expires. Not that patents are all roses and puppy dogs. But this is too big a part of the picture to just ignore.
- retrocryptid 3y agoThe patent-holder has licensed the technology to company with a large sunk cost in handling petroleum from the ground. I suppose SHV Energy could decide to put up a solar farm driving CO2 -> C3H8 catalysis, but where's the money in it for them? I would like to be happily surprised, but my guess is it's some form of green-washing.
- jncfhnb 3y agoThat’s backwards is it not? A fossil fuels company has deep incentive to minimize the harm of fossil fuels. A solar company has incentives to make fossil fuels as bad as they can. Even if you generally perceive fossil fuels guys as bad guys. Regardless. Any company has incentives to do this if someone (government) will pay for it. It doesn’t really harm any profits.
- deciplex 3y ago> A fossil fuels company has deep incentive to minimize the harm of fossil fuels. They have a deep incentive to capture the regulatory framework that might hold them accountable for that harm, which they have accomplished.
- SiempreViernes 3y agoYes, the sentiment is so completely ignorant of what they have actually done during the last four decades that I'm now on like the third or fourth take...
- varispeed 3y agoHopefully any patent will not be granted. That's not how you make progress. Understandable that competition would have a head start without incurring the substantial R&D costs, but we should rather strive to make R&D tax deductible, rather than maintaining harmful patent system. This way business that incurred substantial R&D expenditure could claw it back from the sold product. This also incentivises businesses actually using their R&D rather than shelving a patent and then going on fishing expeditions to see if someone come up with the idea independently and executed it only to slap them with a lawsuit. Patents? Nope.