This research by Chinese scientists in Hefei is reported in Nature – Partially oxidized atomic cobalt layers for carbon dioxide electroreduction to liquid fuel
and Popular Mechanics – Breakthrough Material Is a Better Way To Turn CO2 Into Clean-Burning Fuel.
Could a process such as this be a basis for making CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage) more worthwhile?
Amazing! Could we finally see something useful come out of the hitherto barren field of CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage). The real question is however, what will it cost to make the fuel and how useable and useful is it?
Why do we not see IPCC, government funding, environmental group support etc for this technology? Because it will mean a dramatic halt to the CO2 scare gravy train.
Maybe this could also be applied directly to CO2 emission outlets? Chimneys of coal or gas plants, vehicle motors etc and to generate fuel from natural forms of CO2 emissions like volcanic gases.
You would think any new development that could make CCS closer to economic might be welcomed by the CCS funders.
Old CCS from GreenLabor years; any still progressing or is this a zombie website.
www.industry.gov.au/resource/LowEmissionsFossilFuelTech/Pages/Carbon-Capture-Storage-Flagships.aspx
Australian Government Emissions Reduction Fund Green Paper says carbon capture & storage CCS is “not commercial”, from 2 years ago
www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2702
2015 Energy White Paper;
ewp.industry.gov.au/
CCS seems to be not dead, Quote [Australia’s first operating carbon capture and storage (CCS) project, Chevron’s Gorgon LNG project, aims to begin storing approximately 3.4–4 megatonnes of CO2 underground each year from 2016. The Gorgon project will be the world’s largest CO2 storage project. Australia is set to be largely an early adopter of carbon capture technology. We have invested significantly in driving global approaches to lowering the cost of capture through the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute and the IEA.]
Gorgon seems a long ways away from where coal fired power stations make CO2.
Well Kev747 certainly spent big on our behalf.
Video memories – in mid 2009 Prime Minster Rudd announces $400million for carbon capture and storage
www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3950
Just to remind us of the vagaries of wind and solar – NemWatch shows wind to be near useless across vast areas of Australia around midday in the east – Great day for coal fired power stations all over. What is happening to solar in WA? Has the sun gone on holiday?
Larger version chart.
There seems to be wind at Albany and Geraldton yet little registering in the NEM.
The obvious objection of the Watermelons to this is that it is NOT CCS. It is Capture, Process, and BURN!!! Anything that provides the economy with useful power or products is not interesting to them. Fortunately, if it is economically useful, it will go forward on its own merits.
Warwick, this research is a waste of time and money. Green alarmists will latch on anything which might help their vision. They do not think about economics. Formic acid is already mostly oxidised and would not make a fuel. One way of making formic acid (HCO2H) is to oxidise methanol (CH2OH) over a Pt catalyst. One can make methanol by oxidising methane (CH4) over a copper catalyst at high pressure. Methanol is called wood alcohol and can be made by fermentation. But as a fuel it is cheaper to use methane (natural gas) directly. Ethanol C2H6OH has less oxygen in the compound than methanol and is used as a fuel (although much more expensive than methane, or LPG or petrol). Ethanol can be made by fermentation but much of the cost comes in the distillation. If it was taxed like Vodka or Gin (on the alcohol content) it would not be used as a fuel.
Going back to the original point
1/ CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere so minimising output or emission is a pointless excerise.
2/ There are huge sources of liquid fuels (gas, petroleum oils, and coal). There is no chance of running out in the next 300 years by which time there will be little need to have any.
Any research other than cheaper, better, and safer production of fuels and energy is a waste of time and money.
(by the way ants produce Formic acid -it is likely cheaper to collect lots of ants and distill them compared to making it from captured CO2)
Actually Cementafriend, a formic acid fuel cell using a palladium catalyst can be an effective vehicle fuel albeit only @ 100 ant power!
cementafriend:
I agree with you but am surprised you didn’t point out this is based on using your energy and having it too. With cake in place of energy everybody would have grasped the situation immediately.
From methane to methanol releases energy.
From methanol to “formate” (i.e. formic acid) releases energy.
From “formate” to carbon dioxide releases energy.
To go from carbon dioxide to “formate’ USES energy, i.e. the ‘recovery’ uses up a fair bit of the original amount of energy. In NO WAY do you gain any extra energy, rather you have the costs of gathering the CO2, re-“formate-ing” it as extra loses.
As an afterthought I point out that I have twice had formic acid (90%) on my skin. It is worse that sulphuric acid. Nitric, phosphoric and hydrochloric just don’t come near it. It is also toxic so hardly suitable for the public to handle as a fuel.
“The Gorgon project will be the world’s largest CO2 storage project. Australia is set to be largely an early adopter of carbon capture technology. ”
Typical dishonesty. Put 2 unrelated statements next to each other, and most people will think the second results from the first.
CO2 injection into NG wells isn’t carbon capture. The CO2 is removed from the gas mixture that comes out of the well, because it has to be to make a useable fuel, and it makes commercial sense to re-inject the CO2 into the underground structure to increase the yield of the well. This is a widespread practice that has been going on for a long time. The only thing new is that the oil/gas companies have discovered that if the call it carbon capture they get subsidies for doing what they would likely do anyway.