Revolutionary method of using CO2 as fuel can greatly reduce global warming

[Klaus Lange]

A CO2 to Gasoline Process From Poland



Researchers from University of Maria Curie-Sklodowska (UMCS) in Poland are teaming up with Wrotkow Power of Lublin to test their method of converting CO2 emissions from the power plant into low-cost, high-octane fuel. The head of the research team, Professor Dobieslaw Nazimek at (UMCS) says they'€™re using a chemical process that resembles part of the photosynthesis cycle.

Intrigued?

'€˜Rom'€™ John Pietrosirski of Lublin-Wrotków Power thinks so saying, '€œThis is an idea that could revolutionize energy and fuel.'€

It'€™s piling on too, with scientists from Lublin committed to his invention. Nitrogen plants in Kedzierzyn-Kozle will feature the first commercial installation. This year, four of these environmentally friendly facilities may begin construction, if all works out.

The World Wildlife Federation'€™s Poland speaker Wojciech Stępniewski says, '€œ[This is a] good initiative, for which you do not see any indications of organic (processes).'€

The news report is getting lots of play over there. It deserves our attention as well '€“ as you'€™ll see from the translated interview with Dobiesław Nazimek:

Dobieslaw Nazimek of University of Maria Curie-Sklodowska


How do [you], the [dept. head] and your team from the Department of Environmental Chemistry, produce fuel from carbon dioxide?

Prof. Dobiesław Nazimek: We used a form of artificial photosynthesis, a chemical reaction during which water and carbon dioxide, in the presence of a catalyst and under the influence of deep ultraviolet, turns into methanol. Also concurrently is the thermal separation and synthesis of MTG (with methanol in petrol). We get synthetic hydrocarbons with practically no difference from the [native] substance, which [can run] cars. This 108-octane fuel is clean and environmentally friendly.

[color=#000000]You can do this inexpensively?

In Poland, with [traditional methods] it cost about 40 cents (Euro) to obtain 1 liter of methanol from methane. Our method allows to obtain the same effect at 9 '€“ 11 cents (Euro); so to produce a liter of gasoline goes from fourty to just a few cents. It is impossible to estimate how much you will pay for such fuel at the station, but the price should be competitive.

So you know how to produce cheap petrol (gasoline) on a large scale?

Yes. We developed a [repeatable] method by which [a factory can] produce fuel from CO2. Anywhere that carbon dioxide is emitted [in volume], you can build such a facility and sell petrol (gasoline).

How much will this limit emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

Calculations indicate that the technology will help to reduce CO2 emissions in its first year by about 25 percent.

Does this mean the end of troubles with the giant fees for excessive emission of this gas?

Now we can manage it.

It sounds like a revolution.

In our eyes, it is a true technological revolution. Most countries already have reached peak oil, year by year that the raw materials derived lag resources required. Production of fuel from carbon dioxide is a solution for the economies around the world. It is a strategy that can rid our dependence on imported fuel.

Is this the only benefit?

We hope that the technology will also allow for the construction of a modern processing industry base and modern research.

Where'€™s the catch?

We work to clean the flue, and we need time to see it in terms of actual greenhouse gas, in the presence of contamination.

How long have you been doing testing?

Six years, because science does not do anything quickly. The idea has been patented in the last year, but we must hurry, because our colleagues from the United States months ago obtained the same results as ours. It would be a pity if the whole world bought equipment from them, and not from us.

But the Ministry of Economy has not supported the project.

For many, our method is so abstract that they do not believe in its effectiveness. Several times I heard that it smacks of science fiction. It is science, but certainly not fiction.
That all sounds good, and I'€™ve heard it before. I ran a piece last year about Mitsui of Japan setting up a plant. A quick search turns up action in Singapore, Titanium oxide catalysts in Taiwan, and others, including a U.S. effort.

Yet Mitsui and now the Polish have committed capital to installations that one expects will work to one degree or another.

Where the Polish group stands out is they seem to know the cost structure, have the energy source figured out and grasp the complexities of getting to scale. I wish them luck. This CO2 to fuel stocks is a steep mountain. Cracking out the carbon isn'€™t necessarily so tough, but getting all that freed hydrogen to add to the mix still claims a lot of energy. Then it has to be all reassembled into a common fuel. It'€™s a multistep process that consumes energy the whole way.

Which the interview isn'€™t asking, and I suspect wouldn'€™t be answered or explained anyway for proprietary reasons. The clue might be in the opening question'€™s answer, a catalyst and deep ultra violet light.

On the whole, this field leavens the thoughts about what one should post to one'€™s blog. Having set a sort of guide, being the commitment of construction money seems to be a good standard. But one dearly wishes to know just how they'€™re getting from water and CO2 to methanol in a low energy process. Encouraging in a fundamental way, because if the is field is broken out into low energy driven CO2 to new fuel, then atmospheric CO2 recycling could go on endlessly with a greatly reduced ancient carbon cost and little if any other pollutants involved. It might well solve the whole energy as an issue and CO2 as a problem thing in a swoop. Not that it would have any effect on cap and trade or the global warming hysteria.

So it'€™s hard to believe, but my '€“ it'€™s interesting. A unit of high-density gasoline through to No. 2 diesel is a lot of energy in a small package. Crack that into a recycling system and the earth shifts mightily. One might be saving CO2 someday! Wouldn'€™t that be something.


copied from:
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenerg...ss-from-poland/

more info about that process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis

[Ferocious]

Well he says its cheaper to use his artificial photosynthesis, but not that its more efficient. The sun gives a limited amount of energy per scare meter (doenst go above 1400 watts per m^2 on earth methinks, on a cloudy day is like 100 w per m^2 or less). Even with 100% efficiency, which will never be reached, its not gonna solve our energy problems alone.

You can cover a whole continent with panels and produce energy at lower cost, but space is also limited, not only money. What ever materials you need to build all those are also limited.

I can understand that Prof Nazimek needs funding for his research, and donations from people and groups who read the interviews are welcome, but nothin that relies on direct solar radiation per square meter alone is going to provide all our energy. Raising efficiency and finding alternative methods is is always good and uselful, but its not as spectacular as some may try to make it look.

[Prysin]

like he said, it wont solve the CO2 pollution problem, it will only let us manage it in a better way.

There is no way to undo whats done, we can only improve on what we currently have. This method, its not a full-fledged solution, but its a step in the right direction.
A step that we need in order to find a viable solution to the damage we have created.

Although, something tells me that the oil industry gonna be lobby'ing hard to make it impossible to erect large scale production plants. After all, its a lot of money down there, in the dephts of the ocean. Just here in Norway we know of oil depots that if tapped into, can last for 50 years or more (but we cant since it would screw up the ecology in the area)

---

DHC Discord

[Diomedes]

I don't think this process relies on natural sunlight...it uses instead "deep ultraviolet," which they might be able to create with artificial bulbs.

What would be interesting to find out is the energy return on invested of the process. How much energy goes in for energy equivalent of fuel out?

That said, assuming the EROI is >1 or even =1, this seems a worthwhile process. The money numbers seem to be in check, and it converts a waste stream to a usable resource, which is huge in itself. Our only other alternative to stopping CO2 emissions from large scale sources (powerplants etc.) is to sequester it underground or replacing the plants with other technologies.

---

[Swallow]

You don`t get it.

In my country (i live in a capitol) the water is sold 7$ per 6 liters.
If they can trade drinkable water, then what will stop THEM to sell fresh breathable air?

---

FL MOD(EL)MAKING: TOOLS, RESOURCES, TUTORIALS AND MY SHIPS (OLD)

I am on discord: Roal-Yr#5994, I don't log on forum more than a few times a year.

I am not making ships for FL anymore, I am making my own space game instead:
https://github.com/roalyr/GDTLancer
https://roal-yr.itch.io/gdtlancer
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5HQB...cdH45LZgjj

[RAL]

They already do.



Oxygen bars.

[SA_Scavenger]

You don`t get it.

In my country (i live in a capitol) the water is sold 7$ per 6 liters.
If they can trade drinkable water, then what will stop THEM to sell fresh breathable air?

You probably paying for the purification of the water, not the water itself.

---