Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

legitsigh t1_j5ve1gf wrote

It's not just a matter of cost. All carbon removal schemes have limited capacities, even tree planting. There are practical realities that will prevent many of them operating anywhere near the scale we need.

I can't see anything in the article about how much carbon they expect to remove, but I am confident it's not a lot, certainly nowhere near the 50 gigatons we need to scrub annually.

In any case the world has no use for 50 gigatons of methanol, and the carbon in that methanol will eventually go back into the atmosphere.

152

ChronWeasely t1_j5von6r wrote

Methanol is used in A LOT of different chemical/biochemical processes. Not 50 gigatonnes a year, but I'm sure we could find more uses for it or convert it into other chemicals.

81

WinterPiratefhjng t1_j5wn0ys wrote

You are right. Various sources indicate humans use about 100 to 150 metric tons per year.

But if a cheap source of methanol is created, we can stop using natural gas to create it. It can be used to create gasoline so we stop drilling for oil, and can be used to make durable things to keep the carbon captured.

Another very promising tool.

Edit: Yes, I dropped the million. 100 to 150 million metric tons per year.

Edit 2: Cool chart about production amounts from just the USA. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38412

71

stu54 t1_j5wznlm wrote

You must have made an error. Biodiesel production alone uses like 100 tons per day. You must have mean 100 million tons per year.

37

facecrockpot t1_j5ximdc wrote

I've seen turning methanol into gasoline before, but how does that work? Gasoline is hydrocarbon Paraffins, Olefins and isomers plus additives. Not that many oxgenates, or am I wrong?

3

ukezi t1_j5y0q54 wrote

You generally don't turn methanol into gasoline, you just burn it in an gasoline engine instead of gasoline. It may require some modifications in the engine.

3

facecrockpot t1_j5y0tgd wrote

Why not turn the CO2 into gasoline then instead of redesigning engines?

3

ukezi t1_j5y2t0z wrote

It's chemically a lot more complex for very little gain.

The redesign isn't much of one, you need better seals, maybe some different polymers for hoses and different timings. There were experiments done in the 80s.

8

facecrockpot t1_j5y3lz9 wrote

How is the methanol Synthesis easier than Fischer-Tropsch? Both are energy intensive in and of themselves not to mention the DAC of CO2

3

Pallasite t1_j5y87xa wrote

Why would the synthesize it if it s byproduct of carbon capture?

1

facecrockpot t1_j5y9j2w wrote

How are either of those a byproduct of CC? I haven't worked with CC so I really don't know.

2

kemisage t1_j66fvly wrote

Methanol is not a byproduct of carbon capture. Converting captured CO2 into methanol is an active step with the intention of creating methanol.

2

kemisage t1_j66fhhp wrote

Oxygen goes out in the form of water.

Right now several companies offer this technology. Examples:

Exxon

Topsoe

2

facecrockpot t1_j682avo wrote

I don't think it's chemically as easy as "take oxygen out and connect the carbon" do you have sources for the actual reaction and catalysis? It's probably patented that's why the websites don't tell, but I'm quite curious how they do it.

1

kemisage t1_j689tkh wrote

>I don't think it's chemically as easy as "take oxygen out and connect the carbon" do you have sources for the actual reaction and catalysis?

So are you asking for the actual mechanism and the catalyst used? It's different based on which catalyst is used, and there are also several different mechanisms proposed for the formation of carbon-carbon bonds. So it's still up for debate.

The initial dehydration of methanol is actually the easiest step. Such dehydration is performed with many different oxygenates in the industry using either acid-based catalysts or alumina. What comes after is where the debate exists as to what actually happens. That part has been known to be quite efficient using a specific zeolite as a catalyst.

>It's probably patented that's why the websites don't tell

Exactly. There are quite a lot of patents on the catalysts and the process technology. No matter which is used, converting methanol to gasoline is done in a reactor train, so 2-3 reactors are running in parallel with one of them being stopped for catalyst regeneration every now and then while the other two are running.

So far the way we have been designing these plants is to first convert carbon dioxide and hydrogen (or in the case of blue plants, it's natural gas + carbon capture) to synthesis gas (a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen), which is then converted to methanol (or methanol and dimethyl ether) and then subsequently to gasoline. This may also be followed by an upgrading step. The end-result is usually around 85-90% gasoline and 10-15% LPG.

There is plenty of literature if you search for "methanol to gasoline reaction" (example: this), but the source for the overview given above is me. I design this process (and others) for a living.

Edit:

If the technology mentioned in OP can be scaled up and has a high conversion (and rate) for CO2 to methanol, it will bring down the capital costs by a lot. That's why there has been plenty of work on this topic for years now.

The conversion of either natural gas or CO2 to synthesis gas is quite expensive, the most capital-intensive step in the production of gasoline through this route. If it can eliminated (along with another expensive step of separating CO2 from the capture solvent), the economics would become significantly more favorable.

2

facecrockpot t1_j68ceof wrote

Thanks for the paper, I'll look into it. I'm actually about to start my PhD researching the hydrogenation of carbondioxide over ruthenium so I appreciate the reliable source.

1

kemisage t1_j68fio2 wrote

>I'm actually about to start my PhD researching the hydrogenation of carbondioxide over ruthenium

Nice! I have worked on this until I moved quite recently from the R&D organization in my company to the commercial/sales org. I can't reveal the exact information, but maybe a couple of pointers could help you.

Since you said ruthenium, are you gonna be working with Ru-Macho or its derivatives? The focus of industrial R&D has been (heavily) on using catalysts based on Fe, Mn, and Ni. Cost and abundancy are the factors here. I'd suggest, if possible, to design the equivalent catalyst structure using these cheaper metal ions once you do your initial testing with Ru-based catalysts.

We have noticed a spectacular lack of awareness among different research groups in considering the information published by other groups. This is with respect to the mechanism of CO2 conversion to formic acid, dimethylamine, methanol, etc. A couple of prominent groups have proposed their mechanisms and have focused their observations around their mechanisms, but there are reports out there of contradictory behavior that doesn't match with their proposed mechanisms. I have personally done detailed modeling for the entire mechanistic chain and found that the most widely cited mechanisms are only partially correct. They leave out important information and/or are wrong about the rest of the reaction mechanics.

I know it was a very general description, but don't take the published information on its face value (even if it's from "famous" scientists in the domain). This area is still so new that nobody is 100% correct.

2

facecrockpot t1_j68k10w wrote

It's actually Ru/TiO2 because we've found that using light we are able to produce hydrocarbons to at least C6. These preliminary experiments haven't been done by me that's why I'm not that familiar with the mechanisms that person suspected. The focus will definitely be hydrocarbons, no oxygenates.

I'm definitely planning on using other salts in my preliminary experiments. I think the previous research used Ruthenium chloride so if you got experience with a model component for that I'd appreciate your opinion.

I'm still working on my Masters Thesis (FTS with Co@m-SiO and Co@m-AlSiO) thats why my research into Ruthenium has been sparse so far. I appreciate the heads up about the papers. I also got the impression that the very few results there are, are a bit contradictory.

1

kemisage t1_j6951hz wrote

Sorry, I am not really familiar with photocatalysis besides my experience with catalytic adsorption of CO2 (no photochemical activation). I worked mostly on homogeneous and heterogeneous thermocatalytic pathways that integrate the CO2 capture and conversion processes, like the one proposed in OP. The photocatalysis group at my company was a lot more connected to and focused on academic research. I believe they were using Cu, Ni, Fe and other metals in the vicinity in their work, even though Ru probably exhibits the highest catalytic activity in general.

It's quite interesting that it can produce hydrocarbons to that length. I have only ever heard of CO and CH4 production via photocatalysis. There was a lot of emphasis on the importance of oxygen vacancies in the research I have heard of (same as it was with thermocatalytic adsorption).

One of the major reasons for contradictory behavior in this domain (again, same as in the case of adsorption) is that many people focus too much on the effect of metals on catalytic activity and selectivity. The support structure plays too big of role to ignore (for example: see this and this), but it's been changing in the recent years, so that's good news.

Anyway, good luck with your theses, both Master's and PhD.

2

DeathRebirth t1_j5y7fue wrote

How many gigatons would we need to cover annual gasoline usage?

1

Tearakan t1_j5vox7m wrote

And doing that kind of transformation would cost 1.95 trillion dollars a year. That's assuming the method can be scaled and as you mentioned the methanol doesn't get used.

Because we need to not use the end product. That CO2 needs to be put back into the ground to actually solve things.

12

-Merlin- t1_j5wloev wrote

>And doing that kind of transformation would cost 1.95 trillion dollars a year. That's assuming the method can be scaled and as you mentioned the methanol doesn't get used.

Yes, but you are assuming the idea scales by build numbers and that the cost doesn't scale by dollar value. Most researchers are projecting a significant decrease in costs as these units are scaled. There are also many people who think there is no long term way for humanity to adapt to climate change without learning how to efficiently remove carbon from the atmosphere. We get closer to making this work by discoveries like the one being researched in the article.

6

Tearakan t1_j5wzep1 wrote

It doesn't matter as long as we still emmit CO2 at a large scale. This would be great for use after we stopped emmisions.

−3

-Merlin- t1_j5x5go6 wrote

Agreed; this is how I view carbon capture technology. We need to learn to scale it now so that by the time we are at or near 100% renewables we can begin to remove the massive amounts of carbon we have pumped into the atmosphere over the past x many centuries.

10

Superb_Nature_2457 t1_j5x8j4z wrote

No time like the present to start building it out while we work on cutting emmissions, right?

2

Tearakan t1_j5x9zg3 wrote

Eh not really if it significantly increases emmisions while building. Once we get emmisionless vehicles and equipment sure. Until then we are just making the problem worse.

−4

P1xelHunter78 t1_j5x9xc5 wrote

2 trillion in the grand scale of things to literally save the planet as we know it isn’t really all that bad…

I mean it’s not like you can just buy all the carbon out of the air, but if all the governments in the world or at least the developed ones went gangbusters to do this we could at least develop a stop gap methanol fuel that well stop adding new carbon

6

Tearakan t1_j5xakw8 wrote

Oh I know. But that's literally 2 trillion less in profit for the capitalists controlling all of our governments.

That's less short term economic growth.

We would still need to not use the methanol fuel or we just dump the CO2 in the atmosphere again.

−2

realbakingbish t1_j5xiesw wrote

Cycling carbon from the atmosphere into our fuel, burning that fuel, and releasing the same carbon back into the atmosphere is still substantially better than pumping new carbon out of the ground and burning that into the atmosphere. It’s not perfect or ideal, but it’s still so much better than what we’ve got now.

9

Tearakan t1_j5xik2q wrote

The issue is we literally can't use that fuel to actually bring the carbon back out of the atmosphere. We run in laws of thermodynamics that stop us there.

Burning something that creates co2 and then using said energy to recapture it will end up in a net energy loss.

1

realbakingbish t1_j5xj2vq wrote

It’s not a complete solution on its own, you’re correct there. Combined with renewables and nuclear power to help minimize the use of fossil fuels in energy generation, there may be actual possibilities.

We’re decades out from the “perfect” solution to climate issues, so in the meantime, we have to continue investigating and researching solutions and finding ways to combine and utilize existing technologies to the end goal of minimizing carbon output for our existing societal needs, including energy, food production, transportation, etc.

It’s a multifaceted issue.

8

checkwarrantystatus t1_j60obz6 wrote

Really we just need to convince the capitalists that they too can have a piece of the new $2 trillion carbon capture biz.

1

Tearakan t1_j60pdqx wrote

That's not enough. As indicated by scientists effectively screaming that we are heading towards doom and our emmisions literally got higher than ever before in 2022.

1

DearJudge t1_j5wo57n wrote

Shipping is looking to methanol as the most likely future fuel for their vessels. Existing cars can be converted to run on methanol fairly cheaply and easily; the main issue tends to be cold weather starting. It's probably the most realistic way of reducing our carbon emissions, since both the hydrogen and carbon feedstock for methanol can be made carbon free (or even negative, depending on how you do it), the production process is already in place on an industrial scale, and it doesn't require everyone to fork out for a completely new vehicle.

Releasing carbon into the atmosphere is fine as long as in aggregate your fuel production doesn't use all of the carbon you pull from the atmosphere. When you do that, you're still carbon negative as long as what's left over doesn't oxidize. There are also a number of untapped sources for carbon. Sewerage, for example, contains carbon that was pulled from the atmosphere by a plant. Rather than letting it convert to methane, you can convert some of the carbon to methanol, and sequester the rest, effectively letting the carbon cycle work for you.

9

btribble t1_j5w86lt wrote

They also all come with their own carbon costs.

2

futatorius t1_j5yipto wrote

Yeah, I was doing some rough calculations.

Mass of earth's atmosphere: 5.1 * 10 ** 18 kilos, which is 5.1 * 10 ** 15 metric tons.

Concentration of CO2 in atmosphere: 415 parts per million as of 2021, according to NOAA.

That means the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 2,282,500,000 metric tons, give or take. To get us back to 1960 levels, we'd need to remove a fourth of that.

That 2.3 gigatons seems over an order of magnitude lower than the 50 gigatons you mentioned. How'd you get your number? Have I slipped a decimal place somewhere?

Regardless, this vast scale is why I'm deeply doubtful about the feasibility of industrial carbon-capture solutions.

Edit: Markdown doesn't like programmer-ish numerical expressions.

1

marker8050 t1_j5zw7t2 wrote

While I understand your skepticism I'm optimistic about the diversity of tactics we're creating between carbon removal and renewable green energy.

Hopefully this trend continues and we won't have to do the full 50 gigatons.

1

MithrilTuxedo t1_j610m4r wrote

>I can't see anything in the article about how much carbon they expect to remove, but I am confident it's not a lot, certainly nowhere near the 50 gigatons we need to scrub annually.

None. They're turning it into an economic intermediary, but there's no actual removal from the environment. They're using CO2 to carry energy, CO2 that's released when the energy is.

1