CO2 capture

[bascule]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/federal-lab-says-it-can-harvest-fuel-from-air/index.html?ref=science

 

This is probably the most interesting scheme I've seen yet.

 

Los Alamos claims it has the means to produce a carbon neutral fuel infrastructure, producing biofuels and other organic compounds from CO₂ and water using electrically-driven chemical processes.

 

The process seems ideally suited to work hand-in-hand with nuclear power plants, which would provide a carbon free source of electricity, and also hot air, from which CO₂ can be extracted. The waste heat of the nuclear plant can also be harnessed for the process (or so I gather from the article).

 

The result: carbon neutral biofuels that can work in today's diesel and E-85 vehicles.

 

Awesome!

[iNow]

I must admit, Bascule, I was reading your article very excitedly until I encountered the name Roger A. Pielke Jr. At that point, I stopped paying attention and realized it was likely crap.

 

 

 

There are many experts who doubt that nuclear plants — whether directly generating electricity or, in this case, making fuel — can play a significant role providing abundant energy in a carbon-constrained world, mainly because it takes so long to finance and build the structures.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't think "awesome" is the word I'd use to describe it, but it does seem like a reasonable idea to use nuclear power to create our liquid fuels. Quite realistic, even, if there weren't so many regulations on and people terrified of nuclear plants. By the time the bureaucrats and NIMBY's are satisfied, we will have found a better solution

 

In any case, the results should be applicable to fusion as well, if we ever figure that out.

[bascule]

I must admit, Bascule, I was reading your article very excitedly until I encountered the name Roger A. Pielke Jr. At that point, I stopped paying attention and realized it was likely crap.

 

Why? (I happen to indirectly know Roger A. Pielke Jr, btw)

 

In any case, the results should be applicable to fusion as well, if we ever figure that out.

 

That'd be the real hope: a carbon-neutral biofuel infrastructure which draws its power from fusion.

[Psyber]

I don't think "awesome" is the word I'd use to describe it, but it does seem like a reasonable idea to use nuclear power to create our liquid fuels. Quite realistic, even, if there weren't so many regulations on and people terrified of nuclear plants. By the time the bureaucrats and NIMBY's are satisfied, we will have found a better solution

 

In any case, the results should be applicable to fusion as well, if we ever figure that out.

Yes the renewed US interest in the moon is based on the prevalence of Helium3 in the lunar soil and its being an easier fuel to use for a controlled fusion reaction than Hydrogen

 

However, once we have the clean electricity extracting hydrogen from sea water as fuel would be much cleaner then synthesising biofuels perhaps?

[iNow]

Why? (I happen to indirectly know Roger A. Pielke Jr, btw)

 

Turns out this is his son. My distaste is for the father, Roger Pielke, Sr., for his denialist tactics and misinformation in so many things I've read regarding climatology. I need to retract my comment, as I don't really know much of anything about his son, Jr.

[foodchain]

I don't think "awesome" is the word I'd use to describe it, but it does seem like a reasonable idea to use nuclear power to create our liquid fuels. Quite realistic, even, if there weren't so many regulations on and people terrified of nuclear plants. By the time the bureaucrats and NIMBY's are satisfied, we will have found a better solution

 

In any case, the results should be applicable to fusion as well, if we ever figure that out.

 

I think France gets about 70% of its energy from national nuclear facilities right? So I guess its possible to integrate such technology into modern society but just like with fossil fuel consumption the environmental risk is nearly insane.

 

I don’t understand why energy has to have just one form for human consumption, and I would think that diversification would only lend to durability in times of uncertainty.

[swansont]

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/federal-lab-says-it-can-harvest-fuel-from-air/index.html?ref=science

 

This is probably the most interesting scheme I've seen yet.

 

Los Alamos claims it has the means to produce a carbon neutral fuel infrastructure, producing biofuels and other organic compounds from CO₂ and water using electrically-driven chemical processes.

 

The process seems ideally suited to work hand-in-hand with nuclear power plants, which would provide a carbon free source of electricity, and also hot air, from which CO₂ can be extracted. The waste heat of the nuclear plant can also be harnessed for the process (or so I gather from the article).

 

The result: carbon neutral biofuels that can work in today's diesel and E-85 vehicles.

 

Awesome!

 

It's only carbon-neutral if your energy source doesn't produce CO2. I notice that this, and other articles I've read, gloss over the production method.

 

"This plan has a minor hurdle, too; the electricity for driving the chemical processes, according to a white paper describing the overarching concept, would come from nuclear power."

 

That's because, AFAIK, like hydrogen, this doesn't represent an energy source. It's a storage medium.

 

"Roger A. Pielke Jr., a political scientist and blogger at the University of Colorado, has written for several years about the air-capture idea (and about why it hasn’t gotten equal billing with options like biofuels)."

 

It hasn't gotten equal billing because biofuels are net energy producers.

 

2 CH3OH + 3 O2 → 2 CO2 + 4 H2O

 

All you're doing (again, AFAIK, because the articles about this generally suck) is reversing this reaction. It will cost you, energy-wise. What you gain is a storage medium, assuming you have green energy already. That's idle, so you can use it for this.

 

Am I missing something?

[SkepticLance]

This process has been available in less efficient form for several decades. It strikes me that what is new is that the process is being made more efficient, and hence more practical. Good news.

 

Swansont.

I do hope you appreciate the relevence of this in terms of replacement of oil.

 

I have been an advocate for nuclear energy for decades. Not so much as first choice, but as a choice that should always be on the table for consideration, alongside others. I look at the political rejection of nuclear energy by the idiot greens, and feel nauseated by their selective blindness.

 

There is nothing new or uniquely harmful about nuclear. We are all exposed to the effects of radioactive decay, from before birth to death. Our species has evolved within a sleet of radiation (particular and electromagnetic) which is called the background level. We have evolved methods of dealing with it, and repairing genetic damage. Studies have shown that moderate levels of increased radiation do not increase cancer or lower lifespan. Only substantially higher levels compared to background radiation are harmful to health.

 

Nuclear waste is not a problem if dealt with responsibly. Even some forms of irresponsible action may be OK. Early on in the history of nuclear energy, the American industry put nuclear waste in steel drums and dumped them at sea. They must have rusted away many years ago. Yet no-one has reported any environmental damage from the release of that waste into the oceans.

 

The so-called environmental harm from the nuclear industry has been exaggerated by lobby groups for decades.

[bascule]

It's only carbon-neutral if your energy source doesn't produce CO2. I notice that this, and other articles I've read, gloss over the production method.

 

"This plan has a minor hurdle, too; the electricity for driving the chemical processes, according to a white paper describing the overarching concept, would come from nuclear power."

 

That's because, AFAIK, like hydrogen, this doesn't represent an energy source. It's a storage medium.

 

I think what's novel about this scheme is that the only energy inputs are electrical power and "waste" heat. This definitely makes the possibility of ramping up nuclear energy production and using it to produce fuels which run in today's vehicles, without a massive shift in the fuel distribution and consumption infrastructure.

 

All you're doing (again, AFAIK, because the articles about this generally suck) is reversing this reaction. It will cost you, energy-wise. What you gain is a storage medium, assuming you have green energy already. That's idle, so you can use it for this.

 

You don't need idle capacity... you can expand the capacity as the demand increases. The nice thing about this system is that it plugs straight into the grid, and generally we grow the grid with demand. To remain carbon neutral we'd have to grow the grid with carbon neutral electricity production, and nuclear power certainly seems like a tantalizing option in that respect.

 

Obviously the net energy balance of the whole process needs to be scrutinized, and compared to other processes which produce biofuels, such as this one:

 

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/12/solix_biofuelsc.html

[swansont]

I think what's novel about this scheme is that the only energy inputs are electrical power and "waste" heat. This definitely makes the possibility of ramping up nuclear energy production and using it to produce fuels which run in today's vehicles, without a massive shift in the fuel distribution and consumption infrastructure.

 

 

 

You don't need idle capacity... you can expand the capacity as the demand increases. The nice thing about this system is that it plugs straight into the grid, and generally we grow the grid with demand. To remain carbon neutral we'd have to grow the grid with carbon neutral electricity production, and nuclear power certainly seems like a tantalizing option in that respect.

 

 

I agree with the first point; that's an advantage this has over hydrogen. But the notion that we can expand capacity as demand increases glosses over the slow pace at which we can add green power (in the US at least, nuclear takes a long, long time). Even if the process is 50% efficient, that's a whole lot of capacity to add. Replacing gasoline consumption would represent over a TW of continuous power production in the US alone.

[SkepticLance]

To bascule

 

Your reference to oil from algae is also considerably interesting and looks most promising. You might be interested to know that there is a research team here in NZ who have been doing a parallel project. They have developed a process which uses algae on sewage oxidation ponds. They are 50% by weight of oil.

 

I could envisage a process which would involve a pre-treatment of human sewage to render it liquid - basically a mix of nitrates, phosphate, and other nutrients - which would be pumped through very shallow pools full of algae. Most of the algae would be removed at the end for processing into bio-diesel, and a small part reintroduced into the beginning of the process. If the surface area of the sunlit ponds was enough, the amount of bio-diesel would be massive.

 

To swansont

 

Your argument falls down on the assumption that these new technologies would have to be introduced relatively quickly. There is enough fossil oil for some decades yet. We have time. As new technologies are introduced slowly, the use of fossil oil can be accordingly reduced.

[bascule]

But the notion that we can expand capacity as demand increases glosses over the slow pace at which we can add green power (in the US at least, nuclear takes a long, long time).

 

That's something I think needs to change, and I think it's largely due to paranoia and negative stigma over nuclear power, not legitimate safety concerns.

 

Even if the process is 50% efficient, that's a whole lot of capacity to add. Replacing gasoline consumption would represent over a TW of continuous power production in the US alone.

 

The nice thing is since the end result is biofuel, there's no need for a drastic retooling of the infrastructure. This is something which can be added gradually and can supplement other means of producing biofuels. We don't need to spontaneously add a TW of power production.

 

Turns out this is his son. My distaste is for the father, Roger Pielke, Sr., for his denialist tactics and misinformation in so many things I've read regarding climatology. I need to retract my comment, as I don't really know much of anything about his son, Jr.

 

I guess I should mention I know him indirectly through his father...

 

I think France gets about 70% of its energy from national nuclear facilities right? So I guess its possible to integrate such technology into modern society but just like with fossil fuel consumption the environmental risk is nearly insane.

 

Why is the environmental risk insane? There's the potential that an accident will occur when transporting nuclear material to a safe storage facility. Wherever the waste material is stored... yes, that's going to be pretty nasty. But that aside, and I think all of that is moot, it's an otherwise clean technology.

 

I don’t understand why energy has to have just one form for human consumption, and I would think that diversification would only lend to durability in times of uncertainty.

 

It depends on the lifestyle of the person. It's a sad state of affairs here in America: ubiquity of fuel is a must because of the sorry state of our transportation. For example, if we want to go spend the night in Denver, we can catch a bus ride down there, and be at our destination after a few transfers. But coming home? We're out of luck. The last bus back to the town I live in leaves at midnight. Our only option is an expensive cab ride back, and I'm talking ~$80 USD (but split between multiple people).

 

It's far less expensive to just drive down there in a car.

 

We're supposed to get light rail! Eventually. Last I heard it's supposed to be in 4 years, but that was two years ago.

 

Our public transportation here is kind of a joke. I mean, in the city, it's awesome, but go anywhere out of the city and you're SOL. The systems don't interconnect. Buses travel within 5 miles of train stations but don't drop passengers off there. The entire system shuts down at midnight. Thanks to the awesome weather buses are often delayed. Oh, and did I mention that buses comprise pretty much all there is of our public transportation infrastructure? Nobody can use trains, unless they're actually in the city of Denver, and they didn't get light rail until about 10 years ago. Trains are a new thing to us!

[iNow]

I guess I should mention I know him indirectly through his father...

I really don't care if he's YOUR father... My distaste remains.

[jeskill]

Here's Pielke Jr's blog, in case you want to figure out if you like him or not.

 

This may be a dumb question, but how would you actually capture CO2 from the atmosphere?

[iNow]

This may be a dumb question, but how would you actually capture CO2 from the atmosphere?

 

 

Carbon Sequestration

 

 

I personally am a big fan of the benefits of biochar and terra preta.

[CaptainPanic]

Right now there is absolutely no point in making a fuel from electricity... and there will be no point in doing that until all electricity is generated sustainably.

 

At the moment, the scheme goes something like this:

 

Fuels --> electricity

 

This means that there is no reason to find a solution for the problem: electricity --> fuels.

 

but it's a fun thought experiment while we're working towards clean electricity from nuclear power. And sometimes science is just that: fun

[swansont]

Right now there is absolutely no point in making a fuel from electricity... and there will be no point in doing that until all electricity is generated sustainably.

 

At the moment, the scheme goes something like this:

 

Fuels --> electricity

 

This means that there is no reason to find a solution for the problem: electricity --> fuels.

 

but it's a fun thought experiment while we're working towards clean electricity from nuclear power. And sometimes science is just that: fun

 

True. Fun, and also there is a practical point in learning how to make fuels from electricity, for when the clean/green electricity comes online.

[Skye]

Right now there is absolutely no point in making a fuel from electricity... and there will be no point in doing that until all electricity is generated sustainably.

 

At the moment, the scheme goes something like this:

 

Fuels --> electricity

 

This means that there is no reason to find a solution for the problem: electricity --> fuels.

 

but it's a fun thought experiment while we're working towards clean electricity from nuclear power. And sometimes science is just that: fun

Right now we have great stores of energy in fossil fuels. But if we are going to move towards sustainability then we'll need other stores. The thing is that most of the renewable sources of energy come as flows. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc. Biomass comes as a store, and that's about it. I'm guessing that we'll probably want to be able to create more stores of energy. Not just for things like bateries, but because of the inherent variability of the flow of energy coming from renewables. This is all long term stuff, but it isn't a bad idea to keep the ball rolling along.

[insane_alien]

well, we would look really silly if we switched over to solar power and didn't have a way to store it to use it at night. or if entire cities needed to shutdown because it was a calm day.

 

we can always use extra storage.

[CaptainPanic]

Right now we have great stores of energy in fossil fuels. But if we are going to move towards sustainability then we'll need other stores. The thing is that most of the renewable sources of energy come as flows. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc. Biomass comes as a store, and that's about it. I'm guessing that we'll probably want to be able to create more stores of energy. Not just for things like bateries, but because of the inherent variability of the flow of energy coming from renewables. This is all long term stuff, but it isn't a bad idea to keep the ball rolling along.

 

One quite old technology to store energy (used for at least 100 years) is height. Hydro dams store lots of energy (their energy buffer can last for a year, which is more than the stores of fossil on the surface. Only fossil fuels in the ground exceed this energy storage).

 

The good thing is that pumping water to a higher altitude is quite efficient. Making it come down through a turbine is also efficient. I think 80% for both processes is reasonable for a long term (so 64% efficiency for first storing and turning it back into electricity - higher should be possible with current (2008) technology though).

 

The geology of the earth enables us to build a few more hydro dams than we already have, and even if that is not possible, we can create some circular dams. (The Netherlands is already seriously considering this... http://www.dvhn.nl/nieuws/noorden/groningen/article2872248.ece - not a great link, and it's in Dutch... but references are important in science!).

 

Only if we discard bio-fuels as an option, and we still want hydrocarbons as a fuel for transportation, then I'd go for something like the schemes proposed here (although when it is from nuclear (nucular) power, I won't call it "bio" anymore).

[bascule]

Right now there is absolutely no point in making a fuel from electricity... and there will be no point in doing that until all electricity is generated sustainably.

 

Where can I buy a fission-powered car?

 

Last I checked these were on backorder:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

[SkepticLance]

To bascule

 

I know you were being ironic. A fission powered car sounds good - no re-fuelling for 1,000,000 miles! However, as you know, it is seriously unlikely to ever happen due to a wide range of problems.

 

To Captain Panic.

 

Storing energy, such as wind power, by pumping water uphill, is not a good solution, since there are substantial energy losses - first in the pumping stage, and secondly in the re-generating stage. An alternative suggestion was storage by compressing air. That idea has the same drawback.

 

Intermittent energy sources, such as wind power, have their place, but will never be able to provide 100%. Personally, I think the best use of wind power is to produce fuels, such as hydrogen gas, and synthetic methanol. Making those fuels are going to involve energy loss no matter how it is done, and the fact that this energy source is intermittent is less important, since the energy is stored chemically.

[iNow]

I know you were being ironic. A fission powered car sounds good - no re-fuelling for 1,000,000 miles! However, as you know, it is seriously unlikely to ever happen due to a wide range of problems.

Such as......

 

 

 

Storing energy, such as wind power, by pumping water uphill, is not a good solution, since there are substantial energy losses - first in the pumping stage, and secondly in the re-generating stage.

Such as.....

[Reaper]

Such as...... (In response to nuclear powered car)

 

Such as radioactivity. There wouldn't be enough shielding to protect the person on something as small as a car. And, what happens to that stuff if you get into a car accident?

 

Storing energy, such as wind power, by pumping water uphill, is not a good solution, since there are substantial energy losses - first in the pumping stage, and secondly in the re-generating stage. An alternative suggestion was storage by compressing air. That idea has the same drawback.

 

Care to be a little more specific on that? As for compressed air, it works just fine in cars...