Catalyst for Converting Atmospheric CO2
Engineering360 News Desk | December 08, 2016Research conducted by a University of Pittsburgh team has created a method for designing a catalyst that could result in large-scale implementation of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and conversion.
The discovery, published in Catalysis Science & Technology, promises two benefits: an economically feasible method to reduce atmospheric CO2 and production of methanol, a “green” fuel.
These results build on previous research on catalysts conducted by team lead Karl Johnson and postdoctoral researcher Jingyun Ye. Existing technologies for capturing carbon and converting it to methanol can be complex and expensive. A common method for converting CO2 to methanol requires cracking the CO2 bond, removing an oxygen atom, and combining the remaining CO with water.
The strength of the CO2 bond requires steady application of very high heat, up to 1000 degrees Celsius. Johnson’s team aims to simplify the process by designing a catalyst capable of breaking the CO2 bond at much lower temperatures. Johnson and Ye determined that two qualities of a good catalyst are hydrogen absorption energy and Lewis pair hardness.
With these results as background, the team worked to design a catalyst using metal organic frameworks (MOFs). MOFs could enable a single process for capturing CO2 and converting it to methanol. Rather than attempt trial-and-error work with individual compounds, Johnson and Ye relied on computation for compound simulation, a process that can eliminate dead ends and facilitate progress faster than traditional research methods.
Development of a new MOF catalyst can lead to a sustainable CO2 sequestration and conversion process. According to Johnson, "This new MOF catalyst could provide the key to close the carbon loop and generate fuel from CO2, analogously to how a plant converts carbon dioxide to hydrocarbons."
Will someone explain me what's the advantage.
CO2 is there because someone has burnt carbon or hydrocarbon to extract energy from this combustion at an efficiency no better than 50%, probably much lower than this.
Now the idea is to convert CO2 back to a hydrocarbon at the cost of much more energy to perform the conversion.
If this development is for a future of cheap abundant renewable energy, it is Ok. Otherwise...