ENVIRONMENTALY-FRIENDLY TEST TUBE GASOLINE
Arlington researchers create environmentally friendly test tube gasoline
Jeff Mosier Email jmosier@dallasnews.com Published: February 24, 2016 5:32 pm
UTA professors Frederick MacDonnell (left), and Brian Dennis (right) have found a new, efficient process for creating liquid fuel. (Courtesy of UTA)
University of Texas at Arlington researchers have discovered a streamlined, environmentally-friendly way to create a “crude gasoline mix” in the laboratory, according to an article published Monday in a prestigious science journal.
Scientists converted water and carbon dioxide into liquid fuel using a clear quartz tube, high pressure, common catalysts and lamps mimicking the sun’s heat and light. The experiments documented in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences used relatively cheap materials and sometimes off-the-shelf equipment to create a fifth of a teaspoon of the fuel.
“We opened a whole new path toward how to address this problem,” Dr. Frederick MacDonnell said about finding replacements for traditional fossil fuels. “You can’t speak with any certainty. But it’s got as much or more promise than anything else out there.”
MacDonnell, co-principal investigator of the project, described this as a “proof of concept” rather than technology ready to replace gasoline refined from oil. If successful, the process has the potential to supplement or replace gasoline, diesel, jet fuel or other liquid fuels without adding to the carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.
Cars burning this new fuel would emit water and carbon dioxide, the same elements used to create it. MacDonnell said that if manufacturers used carbon dioxide taken from the atmosphere as the raw material, it would help offset the emissions.
The use of solar energy to create the fuel would also maintain an environmental balance by not burning other petroleum products in the manufacturing process.
“The ultimate goal would be to create a carbon-neutral fuel cycle,” MacDonnell said.
Brian Dennis, a UTA engineering professor and the other co-principal, said there are other facilities – from Iceland to U.S. government labs – that have created liquid fuel from water and carbon dioxide. But he said those required multiple steps with multiple reactors and often operate at much higher temperatures.
This process works at about 400 degrees and uses just a single step. With industrial production in mind, the UTA group also used abundant elements rather than rare ones that would drive up costs.
Duane Dimos, UTA’s vice president for research, said that’s common at the Arlington university.
“People are doing state-of-the-art, world-class research but with a very practical approach in mind,” he said. “They are very conscious of what it takes for their ideas to potentially get used.”
Those considerations are particularly important with this research since low oil prices currently make traditional fuel so cheap, Dimos said.
A similar process was invented about 90 years ago in Germany, but those scientists used coal. Over the years, other efforts to transform water and carbon dioxide have been more effective at generating methane and other gases rather than liquid fuels.
Until recently, Dennis said there was little interest in trying to create this alternative fuel, which wasn’t considered economically feasible.
“Why do anything with CO2? Who cares?” Dennis said, describing the old thinking. “Suddenly, climate change is front and center.”
That, he said, changed the calculations.
MacDonnell said the effort to create liquid fuel – rather than gas – was important since it would fit into the existing infrastructure. It would run in existing cars and could be distributed through existing gas stations.
More environmentally-friendly vehicles, such as electric, hybrid and hydrogen cars, are now on roads but cost much more than the old technology and often have major downsides. Widespread adoption of those technologies would also require new nationwide fueling infrastructures.
Also, some vehicles – such as airplanes and tractor trailers – still need their traditional jet fuel and diesel.
MacDonnell, also UTA’s interim chair of chemistry and biochemistry, said he filed for a patent about a year ago and tried to raise money for further research. But investors wanted to see the results published in a peer-reviewed journal, which led to Monday’s article.
Now that’s done, MacDonnell said his team is looking for additional federal funding and potentially private investment.
Despite its promise, there’s more work needed to optimize the process. He said that only 13 percent of the material passing through the system turned into liquid fuel.
MacDonnell said increasing the pressure inside the reactor would likely improve efficiency but that would require pricier equipment. Also, he said making changes to one of the catalysts — titanium dioxide – could improve the process.
Dennis said there’s a great deal of research now about how to deal with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and reducing the amount emitted. Recently, billionaire Bill Gates wrote in his annual letter about the need for an “energy miracle” and helped start the Breakthrough Energy Coalition.
“I want to say it’s a game-changing thing, but there’s still a lot of work to be done,” Dennis said of the work at UTA. “We’ve cracked the surface, but there’s more work to be done…People are not going to be putting this in their gas tanks next year.”
Views: 403
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on -
Very interesting. How does one isolate CO2 from the air? I take it that compressors are used to liquify the CO2. How much energy does that process take? There are a lot of unanswered questions. There is a lot gee whiz statements about how good the process is. The bottom line is it cost effective? The Gerrnans in WW-II had to do something to generate fuel, cost was not an issue with them, need was. And thus it was a need driven development. Right now we are awash in the basic need for our fuel, crude oil.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
The science is in the early stages so there may not be answers to all the obvious questions just yet. I suggest using the links contained in the story to search for greater detail.
http://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2016/02/MacDonnell-Dennis-Fuels-PN...
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
When I think of CO2 in the context of the O&G industry, I think of Denbury Resources. They pair CO2 producing horizons with a distribution system (pipelines) that deliver the CO2 to the fields where they have EOR operations.
http://www.denbury.com/operations/operations-overview/default.aspx
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on
-
Good Morning Chip,
If you notice he produced a "fifth of a teaspoon of fuel". And how much energy do you have to put into the process to get the fifth of a teaspoon. He's obviously going to flood the market with gasoline from CO2. I'm selling my XOM stock tomorrow. He's going to put them out of business!!!!!!!
Me thinks he published this to get "mullet money".
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
As the articles point out, the research is in the early stages. No claim is made that the process is either refined or economic at this time. Although time will tell whether this specific process will be able to scale up it is an excellent example of the type of research being done throughout the private sector and academia regarding replacement of carbon based fuels.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Aldridge on
-
So what it comes down to: It is a "mullet trap". In other words he's looking for grant money to go in the lab and play.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Just like all those researchers in the private sector and academia that "mullet trapped" all that money for hydraulic fracture research in the 90's?
-
Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on
-
Interesting about fracking, it seems it has been around for more than 60 years per T. Boone Pickens. And horizontal drilling has been around almost as long. Yes, both technologies have been well developed in the mean time. So, yes, it has been improved much in recent years but not a new technology at all.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Most of that "horizontal" drilling 60 years ago is better characterized as "directional" drilling as opposed to "horizontal" drilling. Just a whipstock and a directional survey, Modern horizontal drilling came into being with the remotely steerable mud motor (sliding in the hole as opposed to turning a bit). Same with fracking. Once it meant dropping a stick of dynamite down the hole. George Mitchell, through years of trial and error, developed the "slick water", high pressure hydraulic fracture stimulation with proppant.
-
Permalink Reply by William C. Morrison on
-
Yes, George Mitchell did indeed come up with slick water fracking in the Permian Basin where the other forms of modern fracking were not very effective. I have read all his stuff. BTW he does not claim he invented it, did not patent it, just thought it up and tried it. It worked and the result is a resurgence of the Permian Basin and bringing back to life of Odessa and Midland, TX. Slick fracking may not work in the TMS and is of no value in the Austin Chalk.
-
Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on
-
Yes, the industry, and the country, owe a huge debt of gratitude to Mr. Mitchell. The technology that he pioneered is as transformational as Mr. Hughes' rotary drill bit.
-
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
-
Franklin County, Texas
8 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
