https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/g … 26da&ei=85
Molecular structure of Mn-2 (CCDC 2256362). Displacement ellipsoids correspond to 30 % probability. C-bound hydrogen atoms and co-crystallized solvent are omitted for clarity. Credit: ChemCatChem (2023). DOI: 10.1002/cctc.202301053
Molecular structure of Mn-2 (CCDC 2256362). Displacement ellipsoids correspond to 30 % probability. C-bound hydrogen atoms and co-crystallized solvent are omitted for clarity. Credit: ChemCatChem (2023). DOI: 10.1002/cctc.202301053
© Provided by Phys.orgResearchers hope to produce the raw material methanol at the edge of a field or on the farm using renewable energy. In addition to wind or sun, water and CO2 would be needed to produce the raw materials for the green methanol process: carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen (H2), which react catalytically to form methanol.
This is made possible by a new catalyst developed in Rostock. A process based on this completely dispenses with fossil raw materials. And it is highly selective, producing virtually no by-products.
The catalyst is based on manganese, as Gordon Neitzel from the Leibniz Institute for Catalysis (LIKAT) explains, "The metal atom forms the catalytic center. It is fixed and protected by a kind of scaffold, the so-called ligand."
As part of his doctorate, Gordon Neitzel optimized the molecular structure of this ligand and put the finishing touches to the catalyst complex, so to speak. The results were published in the journal ChemCatChem.
Climate-neutral Management - article continues on the web site
(th)
]]>https://www.hte-company.com/en/industri … drocarbons
The web site at the link above discusses the challenge of short lived catalysts needed for conversion.
(th)
]]>Holy Moley! Bingo!
My reaction is to note (immediately) the connection to earlier discussion in NewMars, about how to make a workable internal combustion engine for Mars.
I had (obviously) NOT put 2 and 2 together as you have done.
it is no criticism of kbd512 to note that he did not think of that either, during the Zoom meeting.
However, the suggestion seems to me most helpful!
Let's pick it up in the Prometheus topic!
I'd like this topic to follow the presentation in Beyond Oil and Gas.
On the ** other ** hand, a powerful contribution like yours is most definitely welcome!
(th)
]]>Interestingly, as synthetic CH4 or methanol will be a zero sulphur fuel, we could use something like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell
Solid oxide fuel cells work at temperatures of 500 - 1000°C. They can reform fuels like methane or methanol into hydrogen at the anode. The exhaust gases from the fuel cell contain unburned fuel, CO2 and H2O. The exhaust from the fuel cell can be directly coupled to the inlet of a gas turbine. Within the gas turbine combustion chamber, additional oxygen and CO2 would be added and the volume of gases would increase whilst retaining a temperature of 900°C. The turbine would require very little compressor work, as hot fuel gas will be added at high pressure and temperature. Only the small additional feed of oxygen and CO2 need be compressed. A 3 stage cycle of fuel cell, gas turbine and waste heat steam boiler, could be over 80% efficient. Some CO2 gas would be recirculated. The remainder would be removed as condensed liquid and could presumably be stored for reuse.
]]>I confess to having been distracted by other topics since then, but the topic is back on the high burner all of a sudden.
kbd512 and Calliban have entered into a colloquy about design, construction and operation of a solar powered diesel/gasoline manufacturing plant that would be located in Texas and in operation in two years (ie, Summer of 2024).
Since the of this topic was recommended by Calliban, I think it is time to bring it back to front an center once again.
I'll open this new (renewed) series with a quotation from Page 400 - Further Reading and Information
As a reminder to anyone not already a member of NewMars forum .... See Recruiting Topic for procedure if you want to help out.
Page 400 - Further Reading and Information
CO2 Capture and Storage
Carbon Capture and Storage Association
http://www.ccsassociation.org/CO2 Capture Project. http://www.co2captureproject.ort/
Department of Energy (U.S.) Office of Fossil Energy. Carbon capture and storage.
https://energy.gov/fe/science-innovatio … e-researchDOE/NETL (2015) DOE/NETL carbon capture program: carbon dioxide capture handbook
https://www.netl.doe.gov/European Commission Program on Climate Action
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/Global CCS Institute
http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/Haszeldine, S. (2009) Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2016b) 20 years of carbon capture and storage
Accelerating future development, Paris
http://www.iea.org/International Energy Agency *IEA) Carbon capture and storage website
https://www.iea.org/topics/ccs/IEA Greenhouse Gas Research & Development Programme
http://www.ieaghg.org
Kemper. J. (2015) Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: a review
Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 40:401-430National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL, U.S.)
https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-capturePrinceton University Carbon Mitigation Initiative
http://www.princeton.edu/~mi/Smit,B., Reimer, J.R., Oldenburg, C.M., and Bourg, I.C. (2014)
Introduction Carbon Capture and Sequestration. Imperial College Press
Updated with the detail from page 400 at 23:04 local time
(th)
]]>Thanks tahanson43206,
Your latest customer review is live on Amazon. We and millions of shoppers on Amazon appreciate the time you took to share your experience with this item.
Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy 5-*
from tahanson43206 on October 3, 2021
Foundation for Private Enterprise in the Age of Climate Change
This book was recommended by a Scottish engineer. It provides a thorough grounding in the technology needed to set up a business to make Ethanol using CO2 from the atmosphere and water. This is the latest edition of the work. I find it very well documented, and...
See your full reviewIf you have past items that you would like to rate, please click here.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Amazon.com
facebook twitter pinterest instagram© 2021 Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. Amazon.com, 410 Terry Avenue N., Seattle, WA 98109-5210.
(th)
]]>Thank you for your continued interest in ** this ** topic!
If you are serious about continuing to assist with development of ** this ** topic, please start reading from the top.
I have no idea of where your interests may lie, but if you are interested in engineering, mathematics, chemistry, finance or building successful organizations to deliver goods and services to human society, you may be able to carve out a niche here.
Start at the top, and ask any questions you may have about any post in the series.
The topic is constructed to follow the work of the authors, sentence by sentence, over a period of (about) two years.
The end result ** should ** be the ability to set up a corporation or a plant within a corporation to deliver methanol from nuclear power plants at prices that are competitive or superior to fossil extraction technologies.
A definite wind-at-the-back for such organizations is that the human race is rapidly moving toward revulsion against burning of original fossil fuel. Consumption of synthetic fuel is acceptable in the modern frame, and this topic is headed straight-as-an-arrow toward that ability.
(th)
]]>This post is dedicated exclusively to the topic of making methanol from water and carbon dioxide in air. This topic is NOT about electric vehicles or batteries or anything else.
But it's related to the topic.
Methanol and synth fuels use hydrogen-electricity for the synthesis. It's the most difficult part to reduce the prices, and it's linked to electricity.
Most projections about synth fuels to become cheaper is because they expect renewable or nuclear energy to become cheaper.
But at the same time, this scenario means that electricity should be cheaper too.
Fuel synthesis always require a less efficient route than a battery route. Create chemicals and burn them is less efficient than electric storage. So, no matters how cheap methanol turns, electricity storage will always be cheaper.
It's relevant because you can't compare today prices of electric cars with future methanol cars, because optimistic projections for methanol means optimistic projections for electric cars too. It will remain uncompetitive no matter how much electricity prices drop.
That's a good argument why it's very difficult for methanol/synth fuels on a future scenario to have a big fraction of the vehicle market. It could be interesting for other markets where batteries are not suitable because lacks of enough energy density like airplanes or maybe long range ships.
]]>To keep tahanson43206's topic, on-topic, I responded to your post here:
]]>It is good to see your Name posting in the forum again after a time away.
This post is dedicated exclusively to the topic of making methanol from water and carbon dioxide in air. This topic is NOT about electric vehicles or batteries or anything else.
This topic is exclusively about the accumulation of knowledge and understanding for production of methanol from water and carbon dioxide using energy.
The post you quoted was about production of methanol from air and water using wind power.
If you would like, I can copy your post to a topic better suited for discussion of electric vehicles or batteries or whatever you think might be better.
(th)
]]>The fuel will be more expensive than fossil fuels, but in my opinion, that is a temporary situation.
In just a few years it will become a social faux pas to extract fossil fuel in order to use it for something so crude as burning it.
The technology needed to make synthetic fuel exists. The challenge is to find ways to make it in sufficient quantity, and at a competitive price, so that it makes more sense to use ** real ** hydrocarbons as lubricants and for other useful products.
(th)
Market tends to choose best suited solution. fuel from electricity will be always more expensive that using electricity directly using batteries.
Of course, there is niches where price is not important, like rich people doesn't care about that, or maybe there is some aspect that is more important in that context. For example, police cars dedicated to persecution, it could be better not to be restricted by short range.
But I don't see good reasons for most people to use the expensive alternative when they can buy an electric car with a lot more cheap recharge.
Yes... Electric cars are more expensive... now. But it is a scale thing. If massive production, the price of batteries will be more cheap than the accumulated price of fuel-recharge difference across the vehicle life. Now, is around the same value. In next years, the difference will be obvious.
Besides... there is some bottlenecks in production. Well... It's expected that it will take time to scale the infrastructure. Battery factories, mining, mineral processing, adapt car manufacturing, etc. etc.
But the sells of electricity cars are exponential. Even if the numbers are low, with exponential numbers it will take less time that most think.
]]>At a global scale, batteries don't work to power anything beyond laptops and cell phones. Simple physics doesn't care about the feelings of our magical thinkers
But physics doesn't forbid anything of that. Biases does.
I see electric cars working perfectly now, and I didn't see "Mr Physics" appearing screaming to forbid it.
Every solar panel and wind turbine on the planet was made using fossil fuels. That is a fact, whether anyone likes it or not.
What did you expect? You live in a world that works mostly on fossil fuels, so every industry, including renewable, using a lot of fossil fuels in the process.
But also uses electricity in a lot of steps of the process... And electricity has partially renewable based.
So, over the same argument, fossil fuels also use renewable energy embedded.
That's a sophism in a broader sense and doesn't means nothing. The thing is that the process to build renewable doesn't require fossil fuels. It uses because our current model uses.
It could need carbon materials and energy for sure. But that doesn't need fossil fuels per se.
In fact, most steps could be changed into electricity based alternatives that are more efficient with cheap electricity. Obviously, that isn't right if the electricity is fuel based from start, so the electricity generation is more wasteful than use the fuel directly in the industry.
But with renewable becoming more and more cheap, and fossil fuels becoming more and more expensive, there is a time where using renewable electricity in a electricity based industry is better and using fossil fuels in a burning fuel based industry.
Things like produce cement or steel will use a lot more electricity and a lot less fuel in next decades, because of the change of the energy mix of this future.
And the rhetoric of "renewable use fossil fuel" will turn false one step at a time.
As an argument about "because that renewable can't work" is flawed.
]]>Familiarity breeds far too much contempt amongst far too many people who have received incalculable benefit from fossil fuels. Every solar panel and wind turbine on the planet was made using fossil fuels. That is a fact, whether anyone likes it or not. All this wonderful technology we have today wouldn't exist without liquid hydrocarbon fuels. Pricing more than half the country out of the energy market only leads to famine, pestilence, war, and ultimately, destitution. I've never heard anyone tell me that they want to be destitute for the rest of their life, but that's where all this "make-believe" regarding energy alternatives ultimately leads to.
Unless our "deep thinkers" really want to go back to living the way we did in the Middle Ages, then they really ought to think about the ultimate viability of their purported solutions. Word to the wise, during the Middle Ages intellectuals were stoned to death far more often than they were put up on pedestals. Recall the demise of Socrates or Aristotle, or what nearly befell da Vinci, if you require something to jog your memory.
If your product is 10 times more expensive than what it purports to replace, or even twice as expensive, then it's a plaything for the opulently wealthy to poke and prod at, not a practical substitute for existing technology. Let's go with something that doesn't cost 10 times more to make, whatever that happens to be, until we can figure out how to get that cost down to something tolerable for the majority of people who use the product.
What, pray tell, amounts to "understanding what the problem is"?
What problem do you imagine you're actually solving by making fuel 10 times more expensive?
I can't determine what problem you're solving, so I need you to explain it further.
Collectives don't solve problems, they merely create new ones. A solution for you will not be a solution for someone else, due to objective physical reality, not imagined dragons.
What new problem are you willing to live with that's caused by depriving people of energy resources?
Are you willing to live in a country without trees?
How about a country where entire towns of people are wiped out by marauders?
How about no food, no clean drinking water, and no access to medical care?
None of those scenarios created by depriving people of energy resources are something I look forward to, but maybe your opinion differs?
Perhaps you think you won't be affected?
I can't count the number of people who have made that error, nor can you.
]]>The point I was trying to make was that the technology Calliban brought to our attention is already in service, and the wind farm in Chile is the latest example. It will be a while before (if ever) I learn enough to find out if nuclear fission is capable of generating methanol at a price that is competitive with dug-up fuel.
As far as half the population killing the other half ... we humans seem to be doing a ** really good job ** of setting up that scenario by collectively failing to understand what the problem is, and what we collectively need to be doing to solve it.
And! Not to worry ... methanol is a feed stock for all sorts of fuels. Invest the energy and charge what you need to make a profit.
The point of making methanol is that the process is known. The process works. The process ** is ** working. Let's go with it.
(th)
]]>You think it's going to be "a global crime" to extract fuel to generate power "in just a few years"?
What alternate universe are you living in?
There is no "beyond oil and gas", in much the same way that there is no "beyond Iron" or "beyond Aluminum" or "beyond Physics 101", either. At a global scale, batteries don't work to power anything beyond laptops and cell phones. Simple physics doesn't care about the feelings of our magical thinkers, nor their night terrors over their favorite boogeyman which has never physically harmed them, namely "global warming", so most people use gasoline or diesel and call it a day. 10 years from now, we'll be drilling for oil. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional in the extreme. We sure as hell won't have a colony on Mars without all that natural gas we extract to burn in the rockets to send people there.
Incidentally, there's a simple reason why we don't power cars on methanol / ethanol. It takes twice as much methanol (9,500BTU/lb) for equivalent range, as compared to gasoline (18,400BTU/lb). At $37 USD per gallon, I'm not sure who Porsche will be selling their methanol to, but it won't be the majority of people who use cars, nor the majority of Porsche owners.
Go back to the drawing board. See if you can come up with a solution that doesn't end with one half of the populace murdering the other half.
]]>