Startup born in Princeton lab turns carbon dioxide into fuels (e.g. methanol)

[Bill USA]

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/95/96G16/index.xml?section=featured

Ask Andrew Bocarsly about the innovation behind Liquid Light, a New Jersey startup company that turns carbon dioxide into fuels and industrial chemicals, and the Princeton University chemistry professor smiles ruefully. "The project goes back to the early '90s," he said. "But nobody cared about carbon dioxide at that time."

Today, carbon dioxide (CO2) is a hot topic. Scientists around the globe are searching for ways to store, dispose of, or prevent the formation of the greenhouse gas, which is a major driver of global climate change. Liquid Light hopes to take this concept one step further and harness waste CO2 as a source of carbon to make industrial chemicals and fuels.

Liquid Light lab

~~

The technology behind the process is simple: Take CO2 and mix it in a water-filled chamber with an electrode and a catalyst. The ensuing chemical reaction converts CO2 into a new molecule, methanol, which can be used as a fuel, an industrial solvent or a starting material for the manufacture of other chemicals.
~~
~~

In Cole's setup, photons hit a gallium phosphide semiconductor and excite its electrons to travel to the semiconductor's surface and into the surrounding water. The catalyst then shuttles the electrons to the CO2. Those electrons attract hydrogen from the surrounding water to turn CO2 (one carbon and two oxygens) into methanol (one carbon, one oxygen and four hydrogens) with the release of oxygen.

(more)

[madokie]

1. Now we're talking

Sounds like a plan to me.

[longship]

2. And delicious, too. Hic! ;) nt

[madokie]

3. thats the other alcohol that some finds delicious

this one not so good for the body

[longship]

4. Oops, read it wrong.

Hey!!! Why Can't I see anytfuixs?

[Yo_Mama]

6. Cracking up

But someone will try it!!!

[kristopher]

5. How are you going to get adequate quantities of Co2 from atmospheric concentrations?

Answer: you aren't, the energy investment required is too large.

Solution: Use exhaust streams of fossil fuel plants.

Consequence: additional profit stream for fossil fuel plants. Allows them to continue operations longer by making them more competitive with alternative energy sources. Provides very small overall decrease in Co2 emissions.

Th suggestion is balderdash.

[Nay]

7. That's my question as well. The problem with CO2 is that we can't easily get it out of the

atmosphere, not that we don't know what to do with it if we could.

[madokie]

8. convert the coal plants

to gasification from direct burn and its easy to capture the CO2 too. I know you are going to tell me it can't be done as you have before and I'm going to counter that yes it can be done. If there is a will there is a way. The firing of the boilers is a small part of the overall coal fired power plants operation and yes it could be converted.
I built my first gasifier world burning stove way back in the early '80s. I don't build any anymore as my lungs won't allow me to do the welding now. It wasn't or isn't, whichever, hard to build a gasifier wood stove, very little has to change actually from direct burning of the wood, same with coal. The stove in my shop's flue is as clean as it was the day it was installed 20 years ago and its not been cleaned once. Looked at yes but cleaned no.
I'd rather we got away from coal and hope we do someday but in the mean time lets clean up the exhaust of them

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/
http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research

[kristopher]

9. Never said it couldn't be done.

I said it isn't worth doing with fossil fuels. Effectively what you do is increase the efficiency of a fuel fired thermal plant a few points but the cost of changing old tech to new is not worth it. And considering we are sitting at 400ppm building new coal plants - gasifiers or not - when they have a 60+ year lifespan is simply insane.

There might be an application for biomass plants, but that is going to provide far less of our power than coal or natural gas presently does.

[madokie]

10. the efficiency of a coal powered power plant

is a quiet a bit more with gasification due partly to the fact they can be operated as a co gen plant. I fail to see why this wouldn't be a smart thing to do.
Somewhere someone made a decision to begin with to use direct burn rather than a gasifier and that is where the wrong headedness began IMO

[kristopher]

11. I agree about the decisions of the past being wrongheaded.

Gasification would have been a wise investment back in the 70s considering what we knew. But with what we know now, where we need to get to and the most effective route to get there, it would be just as wrong headed to convert existing plants or build new coal plants specifically because they use gasification technology.
Biomass plants would be an exception. Smaller and designed to take advantage of waste heat while capturing CO2 will probably be an effective design, you're right.

[madokie]

12. In the mean time we have this infrastructure that we can be tapping

to help us transition to biomass. I can't see that it would be that difficult to add a gas turbine generator as well as the gasifier unit to our existing coal plants. Again since we already have the infrastructure in place. I'm not saying that it would be good for the long term as there is a lot of reasons that coal is not a good thing besides just the CO2 part. In the mean time it would help us to cut down on our CO2 emissions as we ramp up biomass, wind, solar and where applicable geothermal.
Plus the added gas turbine would also increase the output of the coal plants, negating the need for a call for more nuclear. I'm really against nuclear as I don't see it as safe, clean nor cheap. Especially safe
Anyways just talking and sharing my ideas, no harm done either way. In fact I might just learn something from this.

[Bill USA]

15. there will be power plants and industrial operations producing CO2 waste output for many years yet.

We can let the CO2 go into the atmosphere or let individuals like these who invented this process stop the CO2 from going into the atmosphere and turn it into useful chemicals and fuels. ... or NOT, and just let the CO2 go into the atmosphere.

Uh-huh, that's real smart.

[kristopher]

16. Or we can dedicate ourselves to shutting the plants down.

And stop promoting technologies that:
- actually produce almost no direct CO2 reductions while giving the appearance of helping (greenwashing),
- increase the profitability of the fossil plants we are trying to shut down.

[Bill USA]

20. dedicating outselves to replacing coal power plants with wind and solar - how long will it take to

replace coal plants with wind and solar power?

How much CO2 will be pumped into atmosphere during those decades??

You are saying that employing technologies that capture CO2 which will be exhausted from industrial sources regardless, means we will not remain committed to converting to renewables (like wind and solar).

THis is fraudulent nonsense and innappropriate and offensive on ANY forum on DU.


Refusing to use technologies that could make fuel from CO2 that otherwise would go into the atmosphere will only allow Global warming to get worse and reach a point where it will not be possible to turn it around no matter what we do (without massive active CO2 removal schemes, practical examples of which haven't been invented).

Such childish petulance will only lead to disaster.

[Bill USA]

21. as I asked before- How long to replace coal powerplants with wind and solar power AND how much CO2

will be released into atmosphere over that time?

Awaiting an answer....

[kristopher]

22. Asked and answered elsewhere.

However long it takes will be made longer by your proposals.

Apparently you don't read the replies to your posts. Or do you expect the same question to be answered over and over in all the threads you try to smother the board with?

Do you really think you are making a persuasive case with this type of approach?

[Bill USA]

23. you did not answer it. LOL, let's see the link to it then..LOL

.... or type a few characters...How many years/decades.. do we do nothing in the meantime?



I first asked "how long will it take to replace coal power with wind and solar"

here (post 20) http://www.democraticunderground.com/112743568#post20

.. you haven't answered the question. Don't try to weasel out, where's your answer??

You can type it in you answer

and....

The approaches offered by the individuals in articles referenced actually might save the Earth from global warming - while doing nothing but waiting till electiric cars - hybrids and plug-ins make a dent in gasoline consumption and substituting wind and solar for coal will consign the Earth to disaster.

this is obvious.

[GliderGuider]

33. Will "Never, at this rate..." do for now?

In 2011 the world consumed ~1500 TWh more renewable electricity than in 2000 (incl hydro, wind, solar, biomass etc.)
In 2011 the world consumed ~5100 TWh more non-renewable electricity than in 2000 (incl fossil fuels and nuclear).

It doesn't look to me like those lines are going to cross any time soon. The growth demand for electricity is enormous. Renewables are not making much of a dent - yet. Something drastic needs to change - both to boost the rate of renewable uptake, and to slow down the uptake of non-renewable electricity. Reducing the growth in electricity use will be a tough sell, because it would spell economic (and potentially physical) death for too many.

And once we have that taken care of, we need to address the other 60% of the world's primary energy that's not currently consumed as electricity, but almost entirely as fossil fuels.

I think we have 20 years or so to get it all done, before climate change starts putting a major crimp in our efforts. Is the global political and economic will there to do it? Not that I've seen so far.

[Bill USA]

38. thanks for showing the readers what an informative comment looks like. I'll give the BS King

... a link so he doesn't miss it. ... (lol)

[Bill USA]

24. or do you mean 'elsewhere' as in another thread. Come on wise guy give us a link...LOL!!!

not effective? that's why you've spent so much time typing your BS...LOL.



HOw much time till we replace coal with wind and solar??? you can give us a link, can't you?

And your saying we should do nothing while this is done.. as the earth heats up and the oceans rise??

There really is no satisfaction in trying to reason with such a shameless casuist.

I hate wasting time on you, but can't let you throw BS around like you do without identifying it as such.

[Bill USA]

39. here is link to an informative and informed comment looks like. NOt that you will give up your

penchant for BS over information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=44242

[FogerRox]

25. Co2 still ends up in the air

While a modern wind turbine goes carbon neutral in less than a year. I dont see that liquid fuels have a long term place in the market.

[Bill USA]

37. if we can convert CO2 destined for the atmosphere into methanol which can replace a fossil fuel -

that is, gasoline, then we will be reducing the additions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Wind is growing rapidly, but unfortunately, it takes quite a while to replace all the Coal fired plants already in place. Until we do, why not convert the CO2 into methanol and use it to reduce the amount of gasoline (fossil fuel) being burned and putting more CO2 in the atmosphere.

But to say that this will somehow rehabilitate coal or 'save' coal is nonsense. (It's hard to believe anybody could believe that) The operating and maintenance costs of coal are too high. It will not survive. They won't be able to make anywhere near enough methanol or other chemicals to make a difference.

The big question is, will we reduce GHG emissions quickly enough to make a difference (be able to turn Global Warming around, someday)? Right now it does NOT look good. But I say: "Never say die." ... the Earth depends upon us trying.

[Bill USA]

13. Quick email Ashby Rice LiquidLight's CTO (chemical engineer with over forty years experience...

.. managing and directing industrial R&D.

Email: [email protected]

[font size="3"]Let us know what the response to your critique is.[/font]

Ashby Rice
CTO


Ashby Rice is a chemical engineer with over forty years experience managing and directing industrial R&D. Prior to joining Liquid Light as CTO, Ashby spent nine years as VP Technology for DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC, a $1 billion plus synthetic elastomers joint venture between Dow Chemical and E.I. DuPont. Prior to DuPont Dow, Ashby held various R&D management positions with The Dow Chemical Company, including R&D Director for Polyolefins, and Vice President of R&D for Dow Chemical Canada. After retiring from Dupont Dow in 2005, Ashby founded PO&E Tech Consulting LLC, a private consulting firm specializing in Polyolefin & Elastomer Technologies.

"Liquid Light's technology offers the potential to make these chemicals at lower cost than today's methods, which involve starting with fossil fuels such as petroleum and natural gas."

[NickB79]

14. What's the EROEI here to concentrate atmospheric CO2?

What energy sources are going to be used to capture, concentrate, store and process the atmospheric CO2, and how efficient would this be compared to simply using the electricity directly to power electric-drive vehicles instead?

[Bill USA]

17. and what's the cost of letting the CO2 be added to that in the atmosphere? what is the power source

for your electric vehicles?.. how long will it take to replace coal with wind and solar power? At what point will Global Warming be too far along to call back???


"capture, concentrate, store" ? they aren't talking about sequestration. they are talking about making a valuable chemical andor fuel using the CO2.

[kristopher]

18. No, they are talking about making money for themselves.

They are using a CLAIM of CO2 benefits to justify getting that money.

Their claim isn't valid.

[nebenaube]

26. excuse me...

but if you can go from C02 to CH4 then you can divert the synthesis and also engineer CH3+CH2+CH2+CH2+... And since one is scrubbing, then the process of generating the fuel and consuming it is probably as carbon neutral as you're going to get.

[kristopher]

28. Where are you going to get the CO2?

What percentage of CO2 emissions from a 1GW coal plant is it feasible to divert to this process? Is it in the 90%+ range or is it in the <5% range.

When the coal company is subjected to legitimate criticism, will this give them a way to greenwash their image?

And IF your objective is to end fossil fuel use - what type of incentive is created by establishing an industry built around this approach?

a) you create an incentive to end fossil fuel use by giving it another profit center and giving the FF industry sham green credentials.
b) You create a perverse incentive to continue fossil fuel use by giving it another profit center nd giving the FF industry sham green credentials.

The correct answer is "b".

This will be my last post on these threads. I've made my point and they deserve only to sink into oblivion; so I'll not kick any of them again.

[Bill USA]

30. If it's not feasible (based on supply/concentration of CO2) how could it be an incentive?

"What percentage of CO2 emissions from a 1GW coal plant is it feasible to divert to this process? Is it in the 90%+ range or is it in the <5% range. "


... are you offering this as a statement - oh excuse me, it's not a statement at all. It's a question... oh, well, as a claim that it's not remunerative ???


if so, then how could it be a "perverse incentive" as in:

" You create a perverse incentive to continue fossil fuel use by giving it another profit center"

now, either it's DESTINED to be forever impractical and unprofitable OR it's a "another profit center" BUT IT CAN'T BE BOTH..

well, unless of course, you are proffering bullshit arguments - again.



.... OH YEAH, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO REPLACE COAL WITH WIND POWER AND SOLAR POWER?... AND HOW HOT WILL IT GET BEFORE THAT CONVERSION TAKES PLACE??

NO ANSWER?? HUH, WHAT'S THAT?

YOU ONLY DEAL IN BULLSHIT? OH, I SEE.

[Bill USA]

27. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO REPLACE COAL POWER WITH WIND AND SOLAR POWER ? LET'S SEE YOUR ANSWER!

why don't you email or call Andrew Bocarsly, PH.D. Chemistry, MIT, and tell him he's full of shit, LOL. Don't be worried that he's a Ph.D. in Chemistry from MIT, or that he has published 175 papers in peer revfiewdhournals and co-authored six patents, go ahead and help him see how full of shit he is! LOL



http://abbgroup.mycpanel.princeton.edu/about_andy

Andrew Bocarsly received his Bachelor of Science degree jointly in chemistry and physics from UCLA in 1976, and his Ph.D. in chemistry from M.I.T. in 1980. He has been a member of the Princeton University, Chemistry Department faculty for thirty years. Professor Bocarsly has published over 175 papers in peer reviewed journals and co-authored six patents. Research in his laboratory is focused on the materials chemistry associated with elevated temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells, including composite membranes for elevated temperature cells and electrocatalysts for direct alcohol fuel cells; visible light photoelectrochemistry for the conversion of carbon dioxide to alcohols; cyanogel sol-gel processing routes to refractory materials, metal alloys and nanostructures; and molecule-based multielectron photoinduced charge transfer processes.

Professor Bocarsly serves as a consultant and contractor to various fuel cell and alternate energy companies. He is a founder and President of the Science Advisory Board for Liquid Light Inc., a company formed to commercialize the formation of organic commodity chemicals from carbon dioxide using alternate energy sources. Professor Bocarsly has received an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, the Sigma Xi (Princeton Section) Science Educator Award, the American Chemical Society-Exxon Solid State Chemistry award, and serves as the electrochemistry editor for Methods in Materials Research. Presently, he is serving as a volume editor for Structure and Bonding in the area of fuel cells and batteries.

[NickB79]

19. No one cares about the cost of adding it to the atmosphere

If they did, we'd have meaningful carbon credit systems and carbon taxes in place. Instead, we get platitudes from politicians telling us they'll study the issue more and have more conferences. Sad, but true at this stage in the game.

"capture, concentrate, store" ? they aren't talking about sequestration. they are talking about making a valuable chemical andor fuel using the CO2.

The article discussed using atmospheric CO2 as a carbon source to generate methanol. To do so, you must capture, concentrate and store the CO2 in order to generate methanol on a commercial scale, as the current 400ppm is far too low for large-scale generation. You can't make a valuable fuel without the feedstocks required in it's formation.

This thread has rapidly spun out from the initial claim in the OP of making fuel from atmospheric CO2 into another way to generate an income stream for coal-fired plants by utilizing their emissions. Interesting......

[Bill USA]

29. here is Andrew Bocarsly's info, you should be able to find an email so you can explain how he's

wasting his time and how his idea has no chance of being practical.

Oh, you might want to email: [font color="blue"] "Kyle Teamey, an entrepreneur who was representing a venture capital firm that wanted to invest in clean-energy technologies" [/font]

... and [font color="blue"] "the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFSOR), the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy (DOE)"[/font]

.. from whom Bocarsly received funding for his research. They must have thought there was something to what he was proposing.



http://abbgroup.mycpanel.princeton.edu/about_andy

Andrew Bocarsly received his Bachelor of Science degree jointly in chemistry and physics from UCLA in 1976, and his Ph.D. in chemistry from M.I.T. in 1980. He has been a member of the Princeton University, Chemistry Department faculty for thirty years. Professor Bocarsly has published over 175 papers in peer reviewed journals and co-authored six patents. Research in his laboratory is focused on the materials chemistry associated with elevated temperature proton exchange membrane fuel cells, including composite membranes for elevated temperature cells and electrocatalysts for direct alcohol fuel cells; visible light photoelectrochemistry for the conversion of carbon dioxide to alcohols; cyanogel sol-gel processing routes to refractory materials, metal alloys and nanostructures; and molecule-based multielectron photoinduced charge transfer processes.

Professor Bocarsly serves as a consultant and contractor to various fuel cell and alternate energy companies. He is a founder and President of the Science Advisory Board for Liquid Light Inc., a company formed to commercialize the formation of organic commodity chemicals from carbon dioxide using alternate energy sources. Professor Bocarsly has received an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, the Sigma Xi (Princeton Section) Science Educator Award, the American Chemical Society-Exxon Solid State Chemistry award, and serves as the electrochemistry editor for Methods in Materials Research. Presently, he is serving as a volume editor for Structure and Bonding in the area of fuel cells and batteries.


http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/95/96G16/index.xml?section=featured

One person who read that paper was Kyle Teamey, an entrepreneur who was representing a venture capital firm that wanted to invest in clean-energy technologies. He was attracted to the idea that waste CO2 could be put to use as a starting material for making fuels and industrial chemicals that could be sold at a profit.

"Everyone had been talking about burying CO2 underground," said Teamey. "Why not instead turn carbon dioxide into something valuable?"

After months of talks with Bocarsly and Cole as well as other advisers, Teamey and Cole co-founded Liquid Light. The company licensed the technology from the University. Teamey serves as company president, while Cole and her team of chemists tackle the practical issue of how to scale up a laboratory invention to an industrial scale. Bocarsly serves as chair of the company's scientific advisory board.

The research has received funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFSOR), the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy (DOE). The collaboration between Liquid Light and the University was supported by the DOE Small Business Innovation Research program and the AFOSR Small Business Technology Transfer program.
(more)

[NickB79]

32. At least you now admit to requiring coal waste streams

Rather than the BS of using atmospheric CO2 like you tried to claim in the OP.

He was attracted to the idea that waste CO2 could be put to use as a starting material for making fuels and industrial chemicals that could be sold at a profit.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong with a venture capitalist trying to make gobs of money manufacturing chemicals from the waste streams of coal-fired plants?

[Nihil]

34. And isn't that the truth though ...

> Gee, what could possibly go wrong with a venture capitalist trying to make
> gobs of money manufacturing chemicals from the waste streams of coal-fired plants?

Let me think ...



I know! We could always ask a second opinion from the chemical engineers
who'd be employed by his investment if they could provide an objective response!

[Bill USA]

35. waste streams from coal fired plants are part of the atmosphere. They don't exist in another

dimension. You go where the source of your raw material is (i.e. at highest concentration). I certainly didn't think this had to be explained.

when CO2 is exhausted from smoke stacks where's it going?..into the atmosphere!

[Bill USA]

36. NOW I get it. He's saying making methanol from CO2 could rehabilitate Coal? This is ludicrous.LOL

using waste streams of CO2 to make useful chemicals to include methanol which could be used to reduce consumption of a fossil fuel such as gasoline is a great idea.

proposing that you could save coal power this way is incomprehensible.

Wind Power is now cheaper than coal, closing in on natural gas. the operating and maintenance costs of coal are high. Making some methanol from exhaust CO2 won't save coal. It will just enable us to convert CO2 enterring the atmosphere to a fuel which will replace a fossil fuel. Thus, reducing the amout of additions of CO2 to the atmosphere. But coal is on it's way out.

However, even with aggressive investment in wind and solar, it will still take quite a while to replace coal with renewables. In the mean time, let's convert all the CO2 to methanol and replace as much fossil gasoline as we can.

... but save coal power???...ridiculous!

[formercia]

31. Feh: The low-tech approach.

Plant a fucking Tree...plant Millions of trees, but then, who is going to get a Tax Break for planting trees?

[leveymg]

40. The whole question turns on the efficiency and carbon reduction of the CO2 production process.

That question hasn't been answered satisfactorily here.