This process has the capability if not to change the world, certainly to create a new paradigm shift that is probably even more valuable than the shale oil, gas breakthrough.
There are many numerous benefits of being able to convert CO2 into methanol that it boggles the mind. I just hope the guys working on this project have never tried getting Cold Fusion to work.
PING
Isn't this pretty much the OLD definition of catalyst?
Unless it violates the second law of thermodynamics, you have to put more power in than you get out. Which, ultimately, means using nuclear power plants to provide power going into the process.
Nothing wrong with that, but the greenies will predictably object. And the regulators have pretty much guaranteed that there will be little or no new nuclear power in the foreseeable future.
Also, it’s not necessarily green, since if you convert enough CO2, you’ll starve the plants.
Problem solved....(I dislike methanol)
Sounds like they may be awhile finding a way to synthesize the hydroborane. There is always a twist in the road.
Stop hallucinating. The process is not cost effective and who knows when it will be. So far it is just an interesting chemistry experiment....
Unicorns prancing through the flowery meadows ...
Maybe you can accept a lot of inefficiency if you have some otherwise wasted energy like solar, wind or nuclear during off-peak hours.
I usually stop reading, or at least read on with skepticism when a “popular science” like publication makes an absurd statement such as “chemists are looking for catalysts that would yield the opposite reaction.”. First off, catalysts don’t “yield the opposite reaction. They lower the activation energy barrier on an otherwise thermodynamically favorable reaction, thus improving kinetics and therefore the forward reaction rate. There is no “catalyst” that magically turns the arrow around on an energetically favored (but maybe blocked by an energy barrier) forward reaction.
The only downside of the operation is the price tag.
“CO2 to methanol catalysis requires a source of hydrogen and chemical energy.”
The main source of hydrogen today is . . . petroleum. Not real sure how this process is going to be much help.
for later
Burning alcohol actually dirtier than gasoline and less fuel efficient.
“but for now the process is expensive,” explained Professor Fontaine. “It takes a lot of energy to synthesize hydroborane”
LOL! Guess there’s no free lunch after all.
Yep, this is a WONDERFUL process except it takes, oh let’s say, 50,000 BTU to make 5,000 BTU worth of methane.
Given that this is one of those magic catalyst schemes, for a second I thought this was a Kevmo post, but then I saw that the chemists admitted their scheme was essentially a fantasy because it had just one teensy, weensy, teeny, tiny, itsy, bitsy, lil problem, namely it’s all basically BS afterall.
So, essentially, we have a hydrogen-fueled system. If this were successful, guess where all the hydrogen would come from? Why, yes...natural gas recovered via fracking.
What makes more sense? Generating power via combustion of NG in combined cycle plants? Or going to all the trouble of separating H2 from NG, then synthesizing "hydrobrane" and using it in a system to convert CO2 to methanol and then burning the methanol to make power?
Gee. All that’s missing is a Mr. Fusion Carberator and you’d have the perfect system.
If someone comes up with a safe and COST EFFECTIVE way to convert CO2 to methane the result will be a depletion of the CO2 needed to support plant growth resulting in a collapse of crop yields, mass starvation, worldwide war, global cooling resulting in a new ice age, the return of wooly mammoths and saber tooth cats, Alley Oop will be the new world dictator, sea levels will fall ten thousand feet in fifteen minutes, oh,no, please don’t let it be true!
“The only downside of the operation is the price tag. ... for now the process is expensive,” explained Professor Fontaine. “It takes a lot of energy to synthesize hydroborane, which makes it more expensive than methanol.”
Nice - a gasseous version of solar energy...
Aye, there's the rub! There are many power sources that are "better" than fossil fuels... but they are all just too expensive to make into large-scale replacements. Funny how money is actually important to folks. =^)
Cheers to the first one to actually make a cost-efficient alternative, especially without subsidies!