A Chemistry Breakthrough That Could Fuel a Revolution
Now methanol can be made from natural gas and captured carbon dioxide.
By GEORGE A. OLAH And CHRIS COX
A personal note first. I took a lot of Organic Chemistry in
College. Not because I I Needed it for a Degree, but because I loved
the whole Thing. Jungle Jim was the pet name we had for our instructor.
A few years ago when the whole fuel
issue was on the table, I thought about wA Chemistry Breakthrough That Could Fuel a Revolution
Now methanol can be made from natural gas and captured carbon dioxide.
By GEORGE A. OLAH And CHRIS COX
A personal note first. I took a lot of Organic Chemistry in
College. Not because I I Needed it for a Degree, but because I loved
the whole Thing. Jungle Jim was the pet name we had for our instructor.
A few years ago when the whole fuel
issue was on the table, I thought about why couldn't somehow CO2 and CH3
be combined reactivity to Create CH4O, methanol in liquid form that
would burn straight up in gasoline vehicles. Now it appears we are on
the cusp... if we can get government out of the way. This is far more
encouraging than first appears.
In the three weeks since the Obama administration issued its
long-promised proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it has become
clear the plan is far from perfect. By placing the burden of expensive
new carbon capture and sequestration technology on the U.S. alone, and
potentially requiring steep cuts in domestic energy to conform to carbon
caps, the proposal could send the U.S. economy into shock without
making a significant dent in global emissions.
There is a
better approach that can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions while growing
the economy and increasing U.S. energy independence.
In place
of expensive mandates and wasteful subsidies, what is needed are
powerful economic incentives. These incentives should operate not just
in the U.S., but in other countries as well.
Thanks to recent
developments in chemistry, a new way to convert carbon dioxide into
methanol—a simple alcohol now used primarily by industry but
increasingly attracting attention as transportation fuel—can now make it
profitable for America and the world to reduce carbon-dioxide
emissions.
At laboratories such as the University of Southern
California's Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute (founded by George
Olah, one of the authors here), researchers have discovered how to
produce methanol at significantly lower cost than gasoline directly from
carbon dioxide. So instead of capturing and "sequestering" carbon
dioxide—the Obama administration's current plan is to bury it—this
environmental pariah can be recycled into fuel for autos, trucks and
ships.
Related breakthroughs in chemistry now make it possible
to efficiently convert natural gas from shale into methanol. Hydraulic
fracturing is making shale gas so inexpensive and abundant that America
now taps more natural gas than either Saudi Arabia or Russia. Until now,
however, that abundance of supply has not translated directly into
benefits for drivers in the form of lower fuel costs, or reduced
dependence on foreign oil. The methanol-conversion process can be a game
changer, because shale gas can immediately be put to use as liquid
transportation fuel.
Methanol has long been known as a superior
fuel for cars, one that is better for the environment than either
gasoline or ethanol. Beginning in 1989, the California Energy Commission
tested the viability of methanol as a vehicle fuel and found that it
generates much lower vehicle emissions. Methanol-gasoline blends have
cleaner burning properties than gasoline alone, reducing harmful NOx
emissions—mono-nitrogen oxides, which produce smog and acid rain—and
polluting particulate matter.
Methanol also provides higher
performance. It has an octane rating of 100, greater than premium
gasoline, one reason that pure methanol was used for decades to fuel the
race cars at the Indianapolis 500. Yet putting methanol in the gas tank
is economical, too. It is significantly cheaper per mile driven than
either gasoline or ethanol. Unlike ethanol, methanol does not raise food
prices. Now it appears we are on
the cusp... if we can get government out of the way. This is far more
encouraging than first appears.
In the three weeks since the Obama administration issued its
long-promised proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it has become
clear the plan is far from perfect. By placing the burden of expensive
new carbon capture and sequestration technology on the U.S. alone, and
potentially requiring steep cuts in domestic energy to conform to carbon
caps, the proposal could send the U.S. economy into shock without
making a significant dent in global emissions.
There is a
better approach that can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions while growing
the economy and increasing U.S. energy independence.
In place
of expensive mandates and wasteful subsidies, what is needed are
powerful economic incentives. These incentives should operate not just
in the U.S., but in other countries as well.
Thanks to recent
developments in chemistry, a new way to convert carbon dioxide into
methanol—a simple alcohol now used primarily by industry but
increasingly attracting attention as transportation fuel—can now make it
profitable for America and the world to reduce carbon-dioxide
emissions.
At laboratories such as the University of Southern
California's Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute (founded by George
Olah, one of the authors here), researchers have discovered how to
produce methanol at significantly lower cost than gasoline directly from
carbon dioxide. So instead of capturing and "sequestering" carbon
dioxide—the Obama administration's current plan is to bury it—this
environmental pariah can be recycled into fuel for autos, trucks and
ships.
Related breakthroughs in chemistry now make it possible
to efficiently convert natural gas from shale into methanol. Hydraulic
fracturing is making shale gas so inexpensive and abundant that America
now taps more natural gas than either Saudi Arabia or Russia. Until now,
however, that abundance of supply has not translated directly into
benefits for drivers in the form of lower fuel costs, or reduced
dependence on foreign oil. The methanol-conversion process can be a game
changer, because shale gas can immediately be put to use as liquid
transportation fuel.
Methanol has long been known as a superior
fuel for cars, one that is better for the environment than either
gasoline or ethanol. Beginning in 1989, the California Energy Commission
tested the viability of methanol as a vehicle fuel and found that it
generates much lower vehicle emissions. Methanol-gasoline blends have
cleaner burning properties than gasoline alone, reducing harmful NOx
emissions—mono-nitrogen oxides, which produce smog and acid rain—and
polluting particulate matter.
Methanol also provides higher
performance. It has an octane rating of 100, greater than premium
gasoline, one reason that pure methanol was used for decades to fuel the
race cars at the Indianapolis 500. Yet putting methanol in the gas tank
is economical, too. It is significantly cheaper per mile driven than
either gasoline or ethanol. Unlike ethanol, methanol does not raise food
prices.
Google the title and read the whole thing.
A critical creative look at issues of Economics, Politics and Finding a Purpose in Life - Let's talk about it. I try to leave the woodpile higher than I found it.
What is the reaction chemistry and the energy input required to make this happen?
ReplyDeleteAt what scale(s) has it been demonstrated: lab/bench/pilot/commercial?
From a chemical engineering/thermodynamic point of view, it seems counter-intuitive this would be a net energy-positive reaction.
http://www.topsoe.com/business_areas/methanol/~/media/PDF%20files/Methanol/Topsoe_large_scale_methanol_prod_paper.ashx
ReplyDeleteAppears that the technology is in place. Uses Natural Gas to provide energy. SO, the cost of liquid per therm used may be higher, the net result as good. I'm for it.