UOP, USC to Develop Technology to Transform CO2 into Clean-Burning Alternative Fuels

UOP LLC, a Honeywell  (NYSE: HON) company, announced that it will partner with the USC Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute to develop and commercialize new technology to transform carbon dioxide into clean-burning alternative fuels.

USC developed fundamental chemistry to transform carbon dioxide to methanol or dimethyl ether, two potentially cleaner-burning alternatives to traditional transportation fuels, thereby reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas known to contribute to global warming.

This agreement could pave the way toward the practical implementation of the “Methanol Economy™, a concept that involves the production and use of methanol on a massive scale. Pioneered by USC Nobel Laureate George A. Olah, the Methanol Economy™ is a conceptualized future economy in which methanol will increasingly supplement fossil fuels.

“UOP already has commercial technology that uses methanol as a key intermediate in petrochemicals production. We believe methanol can also be a viable option for transportation fuels in the future. The partnership between UOP and USC is aimed at achieving the breakthroughs needed to make this happen.”

-- UOP President and CEO Carlos A. Cabrera

Methanol (or methyl alcohol, CH3OH) is a light, colorless, flammable liquid frequently used to produce other intermediate chemicals, which are then used to produce products like plastics, plywood and paints. Methanol is liquid at normal temperatures, allowing it to be stored easily. It is easy to reform into hydrogen or dimethyl ether, the latter of which is a diesel fuel, making it a viable alternative fuel source. It is a superb fuel in combustion engines and fuel cells and is now used on a limited basis as a fuel for internal combustion engines.

The agreement grants UOP exclusive access rights for commercialization of technology and intellectual property developed by USC researchers for production of methanol, dimethyl ether and other chemicals from undesirable carbon dioxide. UOP and USC will jointly work on development for a commercially viable process.

A Chemical & Engineering News article sheds some more light on the uses and production of methanol from CO₂:

As an automotive fuel, methanol initially looks unpromising—its energy content, 64,500 Btu per gal, is about half that of gasoline. The values for gasoline and ethanol are 124,800 Btu per gal and 76,500 Btu per gal, respectively. Also, methanol is toxic when ingested. Similar to ethanol, it is corrosive to current gas tank liners and pipeline seals and gaskets.

On the positive side, the costs to adapt current infrastructure to accommodate methanol would be similar to those for ethanol and far less onerous than developing an infrastructure to compress and transport hydrogen or liquefied natural gas. Methanol burns cleanly, producing CO₂ but eliminating other products of gasoline combustion such as benzene and particulate emissions. Methanol is harder to ignite than gasoline and burns cooler, making it less of a fire hazard. It's also miscible in water, and would likely dilute and biodegrade in a spill.  . . .

The direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC), developed by researchers at USC-Loker and California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, is another promising design. With a platinum-ruthenium catalyst at the anode and platinum at the cathode, the fuel cell overall consumes methanol and oxygen to produce CO₂, H₂O, and electricity.

DMFCs have been hampered by low efficiency levels relating to methanol's ability to permeate of the commercial Nafion membrane. However, USC-Loker researchers have improved efficiencies by developing a proprietary membrane made of polystyrene sulfonic acid cross-linked within a poly(vinylidene fluoride) matrix. DMFC technology is still considered too expensive to implement in vehicles but instead is being developed to power portable electronics. In October, Toshiba unveiled a DMFC-powered multimedia player that the company says runs for 10 hours on 10 mL of methanol.  . . .

One of the downsides of producing methanol from coal or natural gas is that the processes produce CO₂. Generally companies don't yet have a concrete plan for dealing with CO₂ emissions. Says Dow's Chen, "CO₂ is one of the most important topics we'll look at in the feasibility study" of the coal-to-methanol-to-olefins facility. He adds, "we'll do everything we can to find a solution, but what the outcome will be is difficult to say."

Aside from the usual options of funneling CO₂ into oil wells or sequestering it underground, several groups are investigating using CO₂ to make commodity chemicals, fuels, and materials.

USC's Olah has a particularly ambitious proposal: use it CO₂  to make more methanol.

In one incarnation, CO₂ would be captured from industrial flue gases at fossil-fuel-burning plants and cement factories. In another, engineers would find ways to absorb CO₂ from the air, dialing back the atmospheric concentration of the greenhouse gas.

Olah proposes two CO₂-to-methanol reactions. One is to hydrogenate CO₂ with H₂ produced from water electrolysis. The second path to methanol is to reduce CO₂ electrochemically. Both pathways require energy, but that energy could come from a renewable source such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power; hydrogen could also come from microbial fuel cells fed with biomass. Methanol would thus provide a means for storing energy from renewable sources for use at nighttime or during overcast or windless days.

Comments

[Gary]

Taking CO2 to make methanol to burn and produce CO2? This must require more energy in than it produces. And while the energy supplied may be available from power plants while the energy expended will be used in cars (so it is an energy transfer scheme), overall it sounds a bit like perpetual motion - unfeasable and unsustainable.

[donb]

This process only makes sense as a method to produce liquid fuel (for transportation) using a clean, emissions-free primary energy source.

It is not a way to reduce CO2 emissions. The CO2 would likely come from a coal or natural gas fired power plant. For effective CO2 reduction, one would directly substitute the emissions-free power source for the fossile-fuel power source.

But if oil is expensive, and emissions-free energy is less expensive, and liquid fuel is necessary (as for air transport, for example), and we are willing to accept the CO2 production, then this process makes sense.

[GreyFlcn]

How is this news?

1. Methanol synthesis formation has been known for decades

2. The concept was already put forward and shot down due to it's toxicity

3. Why are we even talking about Methanol Fuel Cells, can you imaging how amazingly inefficient that is?

4. Why Methanol and not FT Diesel?

[Peter Hunt]

Methanol has been opposed vigerously by the oil industry since I was working in the Congress back in the 70's. It's lower BTU than gasoline is greatly offset bu it higher natural octane of 114 making it great for high compression and more efficient engines.

The NOX problem is not there because of its's lower flame temp. Indeed it is a near perfect liquid fuel and has been in Indy engines since the 30's because of this.

It is just that the ever powerful oil industry sees it's invasion of their turf as a " rice bowl " issue. The addition of dimethy ether is just a nice addition.

The seal and gas tank issue are trivial. Ford said $5 to correct them and GM 25 cents per car.

[Robert McLeod]

Methanol's main problem, aside from the low specific energy (i.e. Joules/kilogram) is that it is a neurotoxin.

And yes, you can't transform CO2 to methanol without a ton of energy inputs, which has to come from somewhere. It shares all of the same problems as hydrogen, except that it's a liquid at room temperature.

[solarpowerassets]

Oh Dear,
Yes you can transform CO2 + energy + H2O ---> CH4 + O2... But when you burn CH4 as natural gas.. you get energy + CO2 (again).. So now what do you do?

[Christopher]

Yes, producing methanol from CO2 requires energy (it is the opposite of combustion), more than one will get out when burning the methanol. In this electrochemical case it requires electrical energy. This is carbon-neutral because they produce the methanol using carbon-neutral energy: "Both pathways require energy, but that energy could come from a renewable source such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric power..."

Gary, it is not perpetual motion; only if they were claiming to make the methanol from electricity produced by combusting the methanol would it resemble that. They are only claiming to store renewable energy as methanol and then use it as a transportation fuel. You state this yourself. So how does it resemble perpetual motion any more than "taking water to make hydrogen to burn and produce more water"?

donb has it correct: "But if oil is expensive, and emissions-free energy is less expensive, and liquid fuel is necessary (as for air transport, for example), and we are willing to accept the CO2 production, then this process makes sense." Except for the "willing to accept the CO2 production" part; CO2 production from industry and power plants will continue for a long time, in which case this process would recycle it once. Or as the article says, CO2 could be collected from the atmosphere in the long term. Also, you did not mention why this would be preferred over biofuels, although there are many reasons.

Robert McLeod said, "It shares all of the same problems as hydrogen, except that it's a liquid at room temperature." That is exactly hydrogen's largest problem, so what you are saying is that it is produced similarly to hydrogen except it doesn't share any of the storage or distribution problems.

I am working on a similar process, but not to produce methanol. I don't know of a good reason to produce methanol rather than ethanol or gasoline-like hydrocarbons.

[DaveMart]

Christopher, the 'gasoline-like hydrocarbons' are where it is at - keep us posted on how it goes!

[Cyril R.]

Actually hydrogen has other severe issues and it's not so easy to say which one is the largest problem:

* Expensive equipment, materials (catalysts). Need cheaper materials, production processes without lowering:

* Efficiency. Burning H in an ICE is currently cheaper but much less efficient. That means more low carbon energy needed to begin with, which just isn't here. As a result, more fossil energy will be used. Distractions such as hydrogen could actually end up exacerbating climate change rather than mitigate it.

* Expensive infrastructure. No one wants to pay for it because it's not commercially viable (the above issues but the storage problem as well). And it won't become comercialized because of a lack of major investment. Plus, transporting H over long distances is inherently wasteful so there's a good chance the infrastructure can never be commercially viable.

The 'methanol economy' tm (not worth trademarking if you ask me!) would at best partially solve the above problems.

Also, this scheme would only be sustainable if the CO2 is taken from the atmosphere or perhaps from biomass burning.

Although a methanol economy could have some advantages, overall there are better alternatives to the methanol economy.

[Robert Hargraves]

The hydrogen for methanol and dimethyl ether synthesis can be produced with energy from a high temperature gas nuclear reactor, such as the pebble bed reactor. This technology is under develop at Idaho National Laboratory, with further research being conducted in China and South Africa.

[Johnnyb]

Making methanol from CO is no big deal, they have been making syngas since the 30s. Whats a big deal is finding an efficient way to make methanol from CO2 on an industrial scale without dicking around with wussy ass solar power.

Finding some way to use a nuke plant to cook this stuff up would take it out of the hands of the hippies who want to run the world on reprocessed soy beans and put it in the hands of the real men who want to drive something that has some balls on a fuel thats been cooked up in a nuclear reactor.

If they could make this stuff cheap enough it would be awesome, after all they do use methanol in top fuel dragsters and Indy 500 cars. So it seems possible that maybe in the future we will still be able to have cars that haul ass and don't cost a fortune that would be great!

[Cyril R.]

Nuclear power would certainly make the prospects of large scale methanol fuel production much better.

The idea of combining peaker nukes with methanol production on non-peak times was recently mentioned. That could make low capacity factor nukes economical, allowing them to serve peaking needs, while producing valuable transportation fuels at the same time.

[Andreas]

Great post, thanks for the information.
I comes from Indonesia, I've written many articles about indoor air purifier We suggest you check out his other guide on Indoor Air Purifier Tips & Guide.
Keep growing.

[Air Purifier]

They're doing some great stuff at USC with this technology.

[beverage marketing]

There will always be downsides, but as long as we're moving in the right direction, that's great!

[acting classes in los angeles]

Very interesting article, glad we're trying to reduce CO2!

[backup camera system]

Amazing that we are able to do stuff like this now!