Turning C02 into Methanol

Jan 6, 2020
163
55
180
Scientist have figured out a way to turn Co2 emissions into methanol by using a photocatalyst particle (Cu2O) that is photocatalytically active for CO2 and reducing it to methanol. The process oxidizes water as it reduces the particulate CO2. The results are surprising reducing CO2 to methanol with the use of the Cu2O crystals at 72 per cent.
This process would eliminate the need for the production of windfarms that are detrimental to wildlife birds etc. Methanol is a clean burning fuel that can be harnessed without taking up acres of land to produce electricity from windmills.
Wind turbines at 1.5 kwh at capacity only produce electricity around 40 percent of the time. 60 percent of the time they produce nothing due to little winds, maintenance or shutdowns.
Solar panels at best only convert 15 percent of the sun into electricity.
Both windfarms and solar panels require a redundant system to be sustainable. It would be cleaner and economically sustainable to convert CO2 into methanol to burn.
America instituted recent policies to fund the planting of more trees around the world is a step in the right direction.
 
Jan 6, 2020
163
55
180
Europe uses 3 percent methanol as a gasoline additive. Environmental harm ask Europe apparently it is clean burning plus it is a high grade alcohol. It burns clean leaves no residue.
 
May 6, 2020
2
0
10
The use of such catalysts are interesting and presumably any commercial systems that would be derived from this system would be set up much like a solar panel. The problem with it is efficiency. As pointed out by Ront5353, solar panels are highly efficient at about 15% conversion of incoming solar radiation directly into electricity. This is actually pretty efficient and about 3 times more efficient than plant conversion of solar energy into a combustible molecule which in turn is converted into electricity (2 part conversion for plants compared to solar panels). By contrast, the reduction of CO2 to methanol via light has a top efficiency of between 5-6% according to the latest research. Then converting from methanol to electricity is traditionally only about 20% efficient although recent developments in combustible engines have shown efficiency as high as 35%. So realistically, it is about a fifth as efficient as solar panels. In any case, it does seem to have potential and more importantly comes with a number of potential positives. The important thing here is this is early tech and if it is cheap to construct, than despite the likelihood it will ever come close to being as efficient as solar, it certainly something to consider.
 
Mar 4, 2020
158
15
105
I am hopeful of a future where the use of the proper frequency and phase, should easily decompose any molecule. We need fast switches. And new mixing techniques.

And with a lot less energy than the bonding energy. The right rate and the right angle, along with the right time of induction should do it.

I believe that chemistry will be done with terahertz electronics in the future.

About solar.......I worked for a remote monitoring and control systems company that networked solar powered links all over the world. Many thousands of links in this country alone. These links were installed all over.....some in cities and a lot at very remote locations.

Each link had a line of site radio link and each site had a sat-link. And where available, a hard line phone link also. But city units were solar powered too....all units for reliability.

These solar powered stations were extremely reliable. Bullet holes, rutting buffalo, snow pac, eagles nest, knocked over and down in the dirt, we always had power. That was twenty years ago.

For a residence or small farm/business, solar power is great. If independence and reliability is your goal.

Can one even imagine, the global warming caused by a hydrogen powered car? Many times more "destructive" than CO2.

Solar-electrics for cars is the way to go. Light weight, dense storage is needed.

Perhaps a metal foam. Sooner or later something will be found.
 
Feb 19, 2020
90
18
55
The use of such catalysts are interesting and presumably any commercial systems that would be derived from this system would be set up much like a solar panel. The problem with it is efficiency. As pointed out by Ront5353, solar panels are highly efficient at about 15% conversion of incoming solar radiation directly into electricity. This is actually pretty efficient and about 3 times more efficient than plant conversion of solar energy into a combustible molecule which in turn is converted into electricity (2 part conversion for plants compared to solar panels). By contrast, the reduction of CO2 to methanol via light has a top efficiency of between 5-6% according to the latest research. Then converting from methanol to electricity is traditionally only about 20% efficient although recent developments in combustible engines have shown efficiency as high as 35%. So realistically, it is about a fifth as efficient as solar panels. In any case, it does seem to have potential and more importantly comes with a number of potential positives. The important thing here is this is early tech and if it is cheap to construct, than despite the likelihood it will ever come close to being as efficient as solar, it certainly something to consider.
Methanol? We are already converting vegetation (sugarcane and other 'biomass'). And it is taking over land for agriculture we can eat into ethanol to be combined with 90% of fossil fuels. And then immediately sold and burned in our vehicles. The same is true for beer, wine and spirits, even carbonated sodas. The problem of course is we should not use any of it...store it if the goal is to keep atmospheric CO2 from rising. And don't forget those solar panel 'farmers' are also out to take over the land being used for our agriculture. Not a very well thought out plan?
 
Apr 30, 2020
15
0
30
Scientist have figured out a way to turn Co2 emissions into methanol by using a photocatalyst particle (Cu2O) that is photocatalytically active for CO2 and reducing it to methanol. The process oxidizes water as it reduces the particulate CO2. The results are surprising reducing CO2 to methanol with the use of the Cu2O crystals at 72 per cent.
This process would eliminate the need for the production of windfarms that are detrimental to wildlife birds etc. Methanol is a clean burning fuel that can be harnessed without taking up acres of land to produce electricity from windmills.
Wind turbines at 1.5 kwh at capacity only produce electricity around 40 percent of the time. 60 percent of the time they produce nothing due to little winds, maintenance or shutdowns.
Solar panels at best only convert 15 percent of the sun into electricity.
Both windfarms and solar panels require a redundant system to be sustainable. It would be cleaner and economically sustainable to convert CO2 into methanol to burn.
America instituted recent policies to fund the planting of more trees around the world is a step in the right direction.
The method you describe is not useful. The carbon in the methanol will entirely turn back into carbon dioxide when burned! Also using the efficiency of solar panels which is higher than you suggest is a poor argument. So, 85% of the suns energy heats your roof. So what! Very cheaply a house with a 3 kw output will reduce carbon emissions by 7 tonnes per annum and over its life of 25 years will cost nothing to maintain. A householder would get his investment back over about 10 years. I'm tired of hearing about new ways of stopping carbon emissions which can never equal solar panels in their potential. We need an overall plan using renewable energy to hydrolyse water into hydrogen which can be stored.
Elon musk is getting rich on electric cars which people will soon find they cannot afford, they can't run cables across footpaths to charge them, you can't fill the world with charging points and more to the point the world already had to many cars turning it into a car park.
The real and incidentally ONLY problem with wind and solar energy is storing it. Hydrolysis solves that problem! It is already being used to replace natural gas in national distribution systems.
Forget having to use agricultural land for solar panels! We've got 30 million houses.
 
Feb 19, 2020
90
18
55
The problem with any of these solutions is the fact that eventually the captured carbon will be recycled back to CO2. Only the permanent long-term burial of carbon can affect the Earth's climate. Nature was able to do that but it took millions of years. Humans cannot duplicate that in the huge amounts needed...many billions of tons. And so-called renewables sequester none. Even biofuels, that are 90% fossil fuel, are immediately burned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitefeather
Whitefeather ((at 0927!!)) points out the 'turn-around' of things. Design and build to last, with little to no maintenance.

Further, we must streamline our function to use less devices, and our hearts to need less. Only Resource-based Economy facilitates these, with no shenanigans.

Battery-wise, at least this looks sterling:

 
Last edited:
Apr 30, 2020
15
0
30
I am hopeful of a future where the use of the proper frequency and phase, should easily decompose any molecule. We need fast switches. And new mixing techniques.

And with a lot less energy than the bonding energy. The right rate and the right angle, along with the right time of induction should do it.

I believe that chemistry will be done with terahertz electronics in the future.

About solar.......I worked for a remote monitoring and control systems company that networked solar powered links all over the world. Many thousands of links in this country alone. These links were installed all over.....some in cities and a lot at very remote locations.

Each link had a line of site radio link and each site had a sat-link. And where available, a hard line phone link also. But city units were solar powered too....all units for reliability.

These solar powered stations were extremely reliable. Bullet holes, rutting buffalo, snow pac, eagles nest, knocked over and down in the dirt, we always had power. That was twenty years ago.

For a residence or small farm/business, solar power is great. If independence and reliability is your goal.

Can one even imagine, the global warming caused by a hydrogen powered car? Many times more "destructive" than CO2.

Solar-electrics for cars is the way to go. Light weight, dense storage is needed.

Perhaps a metal foam. Sooner or later something will be found.
I don't know where you got that information about hydrogen being more dangerous that carbon dioxide because its completely untrue! Hydrogen burns to give only water. As you may know the is nothing whatsoever harmful about water. Using excess energy in the form of sunlight to make hydrogen from water to then burn it again is about as clean a process as you can get. You cannot be serious.
 
Mar 4, 2020
158
15
105
If your concern is global warming, water is a lot worse than CO2. H power would warm the earth much faster than fossil fuels.

H power is a false solution. Solar electric is the only clean fuel. Wind is not clean and disrupts climate patterns.

The earth warming is a blessing, not a danger.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY