Gizmodo- Turning Greenhouse Gas into Fuel

This Material Could Turn Greenhouse Gas Into Fuel

13,875

2

Maddie Stone

Filed to: CARBON CAPTURE 8/08/15 3:00pm

In the energy world, carbon capture technology is often seen as the Holy Grail: Imagine if we could just suck all pesky climate-changing CO2 out of the atmosphere. Scientists at the DOE are hot on the problem. They’ve just identified a new material that not only captures CO2, it helps convert the greenhouse gas into fuel.

It’s called a copper tetramer, and it consists of small clusters of four copper atoms each, supported by a thin film of aluminum oxide. Copper tetramers bind tightly to CO2 and help catalyze its conversion into methanol, which can be stored or burned again for fuel.

It’s a great example of how new materials might help close the loop on carbon emissions. But the catalyst has a long way to go before it’s ready for prime time. So far, scientists have only manufactured small amounts of the stuff, and the material’s long-term durability is unknown. Concepts like this are exciting, but if we want to avoid the worst effects of climate change, there’s no getting around the fact that we need to wean ourselves off carbon-based fuels in the first place.

[Argonne National Laboratory News]

---

Contact the author at maddie.stone@gizmodo.com or follow her on Twitter.

Top image: Carbon tetramer catalyst, via Larry Curtiss, Argonne National Laboratory

2 34 Reply

All replies

The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.

Show pending

• 

  Stephan Zielinski Maddie Stone

  8/08/15 4:25pm

  Abstract at Carbon Dioxide Conversion to Methanol over Size-Selected Cu4 Clusters at Low Pressures. More detailed writeup of the paper: Green Car Congress: Argonne team finds copper cluster catalyst effective for low-pressure conversion of CO2 to methanol with high activity.

  As other folks have noted, a crucial question here is “Where does the energy for this conversion come from?” Looking at the Green Car Congress writeup, the actual reaction is

  CO2 + 3 H2 -> CH3OH + H2O

  We’re looking at a technology that (A) requires a source of elemental hydrogen— probably very pure elemental hydrogen, because catalytic films are notoriously prone to poisoning, and (B) burns a third of the hydrogen to water. Producing elemental hydrogen is, of course, extremely energy-intensive.

  2 Reply
  • 

    theimmc Stephan Zielinski

    8/08/15 4:36pm

    Don’t make it sound more exotic than it is by calling it “elemental”. You can get hydrogen from electrolysis of water, with electricity coming from solar panels.

    Of course, this begs the question of why not just use the hydrogen in fuel cells directly.

    Reply
  • 

    vectorsprint theimmc

    8/08/15 4:43pm

    It’s not more exotic. “Elemental” hydrogen is hydrogen not bound in a molecule, as opposed to Molecular hydrogen. 

    Reply
  • 

    Stephan Zielinski theimmc

    8/08/15 4:50pm

    “Elemental” isn’t there because it sounds exotic; it’s there to distinguish it from hydrogen locked up in methane, water, Crisco, and the like. Working with it presents its own set of problems— it diffuses through metals, for instance, embrittling them in the process— so when a technology requires it, it’s worth noting. It’s a red flag that things are going to get expensive.

    1 Reply
  • 

    theimmc vectorsprint

    8/08/15 4:55pm

    Do you mean not bound in a molecule with other elements? Because that’s what I understand “hydrogen” to mean. And just to clarify in case of misunderstanding, no snark intended.

    Reply

  Show more replies in this thread
• 

  ECAsh Maddie Stone

  8/08/15 3:50pm

  part OF A PROBLEM HERE...

  We are carbon based life forms..

  EVERYTHING breaks down to carbon..

  Carbon is a just a special word to use...how about we simplify it..we called it something else in the 1970 and 80’s...POLLUTION.

  The USA made a bunch of laws regarding Pollution cleanup and soforth.. then Japan and ROC saw all the CRAP happening in their Own country and CUT manufacturing.. NOW China has all the manufacturing...and they are TRYING to move it to Africa..so they dont pollute their OWN country..

  There are Alternative products to the ones that Pollute the most..why not use them? because there isnt profit in it..

  Reply
  • 

    Tridian ECAsh

    8/08/15 4:07pm

    In the 1970’s and 80’s the problem wasn’t carbon dioxide (although in hindsight, we probably wish they were conscious of it). Particulates, sulfur compounds and many others were the big problems at those times. The laws enacted at the time were designed to address those issues because they were harmful to human, animal and plant life. Acid rain was also an issue that would erode infrastructure. Carbon dioxide was seen as “natural” and nature would deal with it.

    1 Reply
  • 

    Free Market Party Company ECAsh

    8/08/15 5:37pm

    Dangerous oversimplification. A more useful reduction: we are digging carbon out of the ground that had been successfully captured for tens of millions of years and pumping it into the atmosphere. There is simply too much there and we need to develop sustainable methods to capture it again.

    There’s a huge political component to getting this done, but finger-pointing accomplishes nothing.

    2 Reply
  • 

    Free Market Party Company Tridian

    8/08/15 5:42pm

    In hindsight, CO2 has been an issue for the past century. But in terms of sheer immediate threat particulates and oxides of nitrogen were easier to point to. The climate change threat seemed largely theoretical in comparison.

    The good news? Countries have come together to cooperate on environmental initiatives many times, and have succeeded on a massive scale on some of those occasions (acid rain, CFCs) . We can do it again.

    Reply
  • 

    pixelpusher220 Free Market Party Company

    8/08/15 6:30pm

    climate change is far from theoretical. It’s happening right now. Mass extinction, islands moving ever closer to being under water. Hell the mid atlantic coast is going to SINK 8-12 inches in the next century...while the oceans rise due to glacial melt.

    Look at Sandy in NYC/Jersey. The subways were flooded out because they couldn’t stop the rising waters. That’s going to become more and more common.

    Now, the worst cases are theoretical so far, but we’ve seen a steady progression towards them.

    Reply
  •