Posted on 03/31/2014 12:26:07 PM PDT by neverdem
The Scripps Energy and Materials Center (SEMC)
Natural gas is great at heating our houses, but its not so good at fueling our carsat least not yet. Researchers in the United States have discovered a new and more efficient method for converting the main components in natural gas into liquids that can be further refined into either common commodity chemicals or fuels. The work opens the door to displacing oil with abundant natural gasand reducing both carbon emissions and societys dependence on petroleum in the process.
Over the past several years, the United States and other countries have undergone an energy revolution as new drilling techniques and a process called hydraulic fracturing have made it possible to recover vast amounts of natural gas. Today, most of that gas is burned, either for heating homes or to drive electricity-generating turbines. But chemical companies have also long had the technology to convert the primary hydrocarbons in natural gasmethane, ethane, and propaneinto alcohols, the liquid starting materials for plastics, fuels, and other commodities made by the train load. However, this technology has never been adopted on a wide scale, because it requires complex and expensive chemical plants that must run at temperatures greater than 800°C in order to carry out the transformation. Converting petroleum into those commodities has always been cheaper, which is why weve grown so dependent on oil.
Two decades ago, Roy Periana, a chemist at the Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, Florida, started looking for metal catalysts that could transform natural gas into alcohols at lower temperatures. He knew he needed to find metals that were deft at breaking the carbon-hydrogen bonds that are at the heart of methane, ethane, and propane, short hydrocarbons known as alkanes, and then add in oxygen atoms that would transform the alkanes into alcohols. But all the catalysts he discoveredincluding platinum, rhodium, and iridiumare rare and expensive, and the technique was never commercialized.
Periana says that what he didnt appreciate at the time was that to be a good catalyst, the metals need to do another job in addition to transforming C-H bonds into C-O bonds. Thats because in a reactor, these catalysts are surrounded by solvent molecules. So before a metal can break an alkanes bond, the alkane must first nudge a solvent molecule aside. It turns out that the expensive metals Periana was using arent so good at that part of the process: They require extra energy to push the solvent molecules out of their midst. Perianas team realized that the different electronic structure of more abundant main group metals means that they wouldnt have to pay this energetic price, and, therefore, might be able to carry out the C-H to C-O transformation more efficiently.
It worked better than he expected, Periana says. When he and his colleagues at Scripps and Brigham Young University ran a methane reaction with thalliuma main group metalalkanes pushed the solvent molecules aside 22 orders of magnitude faster than when the reaction was run with iridium, reducing the overall energy required by about one-third, they report online today in Science. The success brought other benefits as well. The reaction runs at 180°C, and works on all alkanes at the same time, unlike the conventional natural gas conversion technology that works on only one species of alkane at a time. That could make it far easier, and thus potentially cheaper, to build chemical plants to convert natural gas to liquids using the new approach.
This is a highly novel piece of work that opens the way to upgrading of natural gas to useful chemicals with simple materials and moderate conditions, says Robert Crabtree, a chemist at Yale University. But that way is not entirely clear yet, Periana cautions. For now, the chemistry works one batch at a time. To succeed as an industrial technology, researchers must work out the conditions to get it to work on a continuous basis, he says. If they do, it may one day make it cheaper to derive commodity chemicals and fuels from natural gas than from petroleum. And that would be an energy revolution indeed.
25 pharmaceutical companies will phase out animal antibiotics
Autism Diagnoses Surge by 30 Percent in Kids, CDC Reports
Gunshot victims to be suspended between life and death
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
What happened to LENR?
Ping.
Here's the reason why: the development of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, a nuclear reactor that uses plentiful thorium-232 dissolved in molten fluoride salts as nuclear fuel in a liquid form. Extremely safe to run and with very little radioactive waste generation, LFTR's could be assembled on such a large scale that there will be enough excess power generated to do three things: 1) replace gasoline and diesel fueled internal combustion engines in automobiles with future electric batteries that allow for a single-charge range of 800 kilometers (497 miles), electrify all of our long distance railroad lines, and do truly large scale seawater desalinization to turn huge swaths of what was once desert into productive farmland.
Maybe the energy will be there. But progress in battery technology has been depressingly slow despite huge investments. The economy you describe does not exist without order of magnitude jumps in battery technology.
What about using that energy for cracking water for Hydrogen to use in fuel cells? They are making progress in that technology.
Maybe the energy will be there. But progress in battery technology has been depressingly slow despite huge investments. The economy you describe does not exist without order of magnitude jumps in battery technology.
..................
The tesla car gets 250 miles on a charge. So just doubling that to 500 miles would mean that teslas get more on a charge than most gasoline cars get from a tank of gas.
............
Doubling is not an order of magnitude. An order of magnitude is 10 times higher.
What about using that energy for cracking water for Hydrogen to use in fuel cells? They are making progress in that technology.
.............
seems to me that I see an article in physorg every so often about at new water catalyst that cracks water better/faster/cheaper but I never hear of a follow up.
Hogwash..we have commercial quick charging in 20 minutes...just need them built up all over.
Right. Natural gas will be abundant and cheap until everyone starts using it to power their truck fleets, electric power plants, etc.
Natural gas is great for heating homes and cooking food. Don't waste it on the other BS because it's "abundant". Mine coal, refine the thorium out of it to power LFTR reactors, and use some of the electricity to refine the remaining coal with the Fischer-Tropsch process.
Don't listen to the Watermelon Greenies about natural gas. IT'S A TRAP!
I think it would be more effective to generate hydrogen for motor vehicles.
I would consider a fuel cell fueled by hydrogen produced by electrolysis to be a form of battery in its own right.
IS nasty stuff.
Depends on your number system choice.
Nothing, it's just tough to pull off yet.
Nuclear Energy: Cleaner, Safer and Made in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aoAf-wWies
But your reactor could power the process described, or other processes for converting natural gas to liquid fuel. For the trains, and lots of other things, electricity is great, if it's cheap enough. But "go where you want to go, when you want to go there" mobile power is probably not one of them, except in hybrid power trains which take much less battery capacity.
Verses 2-3 minutes to fill up a completely empty tank? Maybe not a big deal, but a big irritant if one travels between cities much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.