A Canadian company has made the news recently with some claims on carbon capture economic feasibility.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-potential-pitfalls-of-sucking-carbon-from-the-atmosphere/
http://carbonengineering.com/about-dac/
They claim they are using " a wet scrubbing air contactor with a calcium re-generation cycle similar to what is used by the pulp and paper industry" which, according to them is easily scalable. The Co2 thus captured is then used to synthesize fuels using the Fischer–Tropsch process.
I wonder if Cody could experiment around those ideas in his Lab.
The Fischer-Tropsch process is "a collection of chemical reactions that converts a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen into liquid hydrocarbons." Speaking simply, these processes will allow us to convert the synthesis gas—a micture of methane, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and water—we have been collecting from our coal gasification projects into a synthetic fuel to be used in vehicles and for power generation.
Small scale use of the Fischer-Tropsch process has already begun at coal gasification plants near our coal mines, though this has been in an experimental capacity. We are ready to ramp up production, with construction of additional facilities completed.
We will, truly, be an energy independent nation. We will rely on no one, and no one will be able to betray us in energy dealings.
I'm interested in learning everything I can about the Fischer-Tropsch process. A lot of people make their own syngas from wood or biomass feedstock and it doesn't seem to be too difficult. Could someone use a gasifier to run the GTL synthesis on their own or is that something that can only be done in a laboratory or factory?
I flaired this as general because it's a general interest (but serious) question.
Journal of the American Chemical SocietyDOI: 10.1021/jacs.0c06580
https://ift.tt/2PwnZag
I know fuel can be made with fischer tropsch, but the strucutre of edible oil is so similar to hydrocarbons I wondered can the same process be modified a little to prouduce oilive oil, coconut oil basically any oil for cooking and eating.
I am almost at the end of my undergraduate program and have two applications in for PhD study. One is a general structure-activity catalysis project, which I would say is my "back-up" option, and the other project is involved in Fischer Tropsch catalysis/kinetics. I can do literature searches myself, but wondered if anyone had suggestions about papers that would be considered "classic" in this relatively small field. I'm talking maybe the first few papers on the subject, massive advances... things I might not recognise as a newbie to the subject.
As a general note, are there many r/chemistry readers involved in catalysis, be it homo/heterogeneous, photocatalysis, synthetic catalysis etc? I do not see many posts on the topic, here or in r/chemhelp (It seems to dominated by what Americans refer to as OChem!).
Thanks!
Liquid fuels are great and I don't think we will every really get away from them because of the energy density. I'm wondering why we are spending so much money into biofuel research, which I feel is a waste of time.
The Fischer-Tropsch reaction allows you to produce carbon based fuels from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. We can produce hydrogen through the S-I cycle. We can produce carbon monoxide from a reverse water gas shift reaction with carbon dioxide. You can get some nuclear plant to power all of this. Basically, you can make fuel from air and water.
I'm wondering what the major hurdles are besides simply cost and whether or not this idea is potentially feasible.
EDIT: http://www.tbp.org/pubs/Features/Su07Uhrig.pdf Evidence that it is not economically unfeasible.
Guten Tag.
EINLEITUNG
Angesichts der kürzlich hier auf der MS DGF aufgetretenen Mißverständnisse in puncto Aluhüten & Trollen sowie wahrhaftig Suchenden & Fragenden wie z.B. den Hopi und (vielen) anderen Menschen mehr, sehen wir uns dazu veranlaßt, uns erstmalig mittels einer Einleitung zu unserem nachfolgenden Gedankenbeitrag selbst zu schützen.
Wir segeln auf der MS DGF unter den Prämissen & Maximen von Johan Wolfgang von Goethe**, welche lauten:**
"Was nicht umstritten ist, ist auch nicht sonderlich interessant."
"Der Irrtum wiederholt sich immerfort in der Tat. Deswegen muss man das Wahre unermüdlich in Worten wiederholen."
"Wer nicht mehr liebt und nicht mehr irrt, der lasse sich begraben."
"Das Kalte wird warm, der Reiche wird arm, der Narre gescheit: Alles zu seiner Zeit."
Folgender Beitrag möge unser Denken bereichern, schärfen und eben nicht agrressiv werden lassen, sondern uns veranlassen ÜBER unseren vorgesetzten und gewohnten Lebens-Teller-Rand (Hamster-RAD) & weit darüber hinaus zu blicken. Jegliche Einwände mögen bitte sachlich und allgemeinverständlich dargeboten werden, damit sich daraus auch eine sinnvolle Diskussion weiter ent-WICKELN kann, die nicht sofort mit Tot-Schlags-Wörten wie z.B. Aluhut & Co. im Keim erstickt wird. Kann man zwar alles machen und noch viel mehr, muß man aber de facto und a priori nicht ;-).
Freie Energie, Kraftwerks-Schwindel, Öl-Schwindel, Flugkerosin-Schwindel (Concorde & A380), Titanen auf der Erde
PRÄDIKAT: atemberaubend im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes (Adjektivs) .................................
*
TEIL 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG89OOE9Os4
TEIL 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ULlFlOcUc
A n m e r k u n g e n zu TEIL 1
Halten wir uns nicht mit dem unglücklichen Wort "Freie Energie" auf.
Debitisten wissen, daß es so etwas wie FREIE ENERGIE nicht gibt, genau so wenig wie es im Leben eine Freifahrt, einen Freiflug, eine Carte Blanche ... etc. ... ... ... OHNE diverseste (für uns nicht immer sofort ersichtliche) Rück-Koppelungs-Effekte (Feedbacks of all kind) gibt :-).
Der brilliante & logisch denkene Kanalbetreiber Lawrence Wright frägt ganz einfach woher unsere Energie kommt, die via giantischen Strom-Mast-Leitungs-Systemen weltweit
... keep reading on reddit ➡I've just stumbled across the West Virginia Coal Association website digging up more background on the recently covered US Naval Research Lab's electricity-to-fuel Fischer-Tropsch process using seawater for H2 and CO2 feedstocks. Rather stunningly, the organization appears to strongly support the research: "US Navy Announces $3/Gallon Jet Fuel from CO2":
> The United States Navy says herein categorically that we can make liquid hydrocarbon fuels, replacements for those now derived from natural petroleum sources, out of Water and Carbon Dioxide. And, we can do so using environmental, i.e., "wind or wave", energies to drive the process.
> Further, the Navy says that we can make those fuels at a cost between $3 and $6 per gallon.
> At $6, we might only be, overall, as a nation, breaking even - but, we would be avoiding Carbon taxes and foreign OPEC oil wars.
> At $3, we would be doing all of that and making one heck of a profit in the deal.
> The fact that we ought to be looking into it and figuring out just where we stood, and how we can make it better, seems obvious.
For a story I've found exceptionally poorly covered to the very limited degree it has been focused on in the press, the R&D blog of WVCA is quite detailed, digging into research papers, cost estimates, naval logistics, patents, and more, as it covers the story. And that it's the coal industry which is both so interested and positive is ... pretty stunning. And that's the third of a recent series of items on the NRL's investigations:
- "US Navy and Columbia University Recycle Atmospheric CO2"
- "The US Navy Recycles CO2 into Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels"
Not totally reformed...
WVCA do manage to live up to my preconceptions elsewhere, e.g., in "Iceland, August 2012, CO2 to Gasoline and Diesel" we have:
> For a long time, CO2, along with the Chicken Little-hyped hysteria over its conjectural contribution to global warming and climate change, was the Big Stick used on King Coal by people who have presented themselves as being defend
... keep reading on reddit ➡This would be more chemical in nature than most of your projects, but
- It has not been demonstrated before by any amateur scientist/engineer as far as I am aware
- Alternative energy receives a lot of interest these days (for good reason)
- It is challenging, yet doable and therefore fun.
- It would be totally awesome.
Fischer Tropsch seems to me the easiest, but ofcourse there are other methods.
Gail Tverberg's latest, "Why Standard Economic Models Don’t Work–Our Economy is a Network" includes a brief mention of a 1962 report by M. King Hubbert:
> This view [of substitution of oil with other fuels] is based on writing of M. King Hubbert back in 1957. At that time, it was commonly believed that nuclear energy would provide electricity too cheap to meter. In fact, in a 1962 paper, Hubbert talks about “reversing combustion,” to make liquid fuels.
I'd been thinking that it seemed likely that Meyer Steinberg's seawater-based fuel synthesis using nuclear power had been inspired by concern over future fossil fuel supplies. And from this report it seems that the call was made directly by Hubbert himself.
The paper is "Energy Resources: A Report to the Committe on Natural Resources, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. And on page 139 we find:
> Synthesis of Chemical Fuels. Automotive vehicles for both highway and air transportation are dependent for their energy supply upon the energy stored chemically in the form principally of liquid fuels, and, so far as can now be seen, will continue to be so. Heretofore these fuels have been obtained almost solely from the fossil fuels in which the energy was originally stored by photosynthesis. On the other hand, it has long been known to be possible to manufacture simpler but equally useful fuels by means of the schematic chemical reaction:
> Energy + CO2 + H20 -> Fuel + O2
> This has not been done because the energy required for the reaction would have to be obtained by burning already synthesized fossil fuels.
NB: It has been done, but generally in converting solid fossil fuels to liquid, e.g., Germany's coal-to-liquids program during WWII.
> With the advent of nuclear energy this situation is drastically changed. Here, with an almost unlimited supply of energy potentially available, it would be a a comparatively simple matter to synthesize any desireable quantity of liquid and gaseous fuels from common inorganic substances such as water and limestone. Were this eventually to be done, our remaining fossil fuels, comprising already synthesized complex organic molecules, could be more effectively used as the
... keep reading on reddit ➡
