Capturing CO2 With Copper, Scientists Generate 'Green Methane'
Capturing CO2 With Copper, Scientists Generate 'Green Methane'
Carbon in the atmosphere is a major driver of climate change. Now researchers from McGill University have designed a new catalyst for converting carbon dioxide (CO2) into methane—a cleaner source of energy—using tiny bits of copper called nanoclusters. While the traditional method of producing metha...
Carbon in the atmosphere is a major driver of climate change. Now researchers from McGill University have designed a new catalyst for converting carbon dioxide (CO2) into methane -- a cleaner source of energy -- using tiny bits of copper called nanoclusters. While the traditional method of producing methane from fossil fuels introduces more CO2 into the atmosphere, the new process, electrocatalysis, does not. "On sunny days you can use solar power, or when it's a windy day you can use that wind to produce renewable electricity, but as soon as you produce that electricity you need to use it," says Mahdi Salehi, Ph.D. candidate at the Electrocatalysis Lab at McGill University. "But in our case, we can use that renewable but intermittent electricity to store the energy in chemicals like methane."
By using copper nanoclusters, says Salehi, carbon dioxide from the atmosphere can be transformed into methane and once the methane is used, any carbon dioxide released can be captured and "recycled" back into methane. This would create a closed "carbon loop" that does not emit new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The research, published recently in the journal Applied Catalysis B: Environment and Energy, was enabled by the Canadian Light Source (CLS) at the University of Saskatchewan (USask). The team plans to continue refining their catalyst to make it more efficient and investigate its large-scale, industrial applications. Their hope is that their findings will open new avenues for producing clean, sustainable energy.
Making more methane seems like a risky option, given its role in climate change.
This is great in theory, but all it really does is give us a reason to cling onto a dirty, leaky natural gas grid. Much like CCS, this technology allows fossil fuel producers to continue business as usual under the promise of one day maybe sortof going green, and if this system leaks much more than ~1%, its not actually "carbon neutral" in useful human timescales, because its converting CO2 into something 50-100x more impactful on the climate
If it can be done cheaper this way than extracted via drilling (fracking) wells, then it's a pure win because it will displace the activity that increases CO2 and the vast majority of Methane leaks while the transition to other technologies occurs. It would be a tremendous benefit in terms of eliminating the acceleration of greenhouse effects.
How would you feel if those fossil fuel producers stopped extracting fossil methane and instead were producing methane from atmospheric CO2 and fossil free energy?
Batteries are 90% or better efficiency
Unless this process has a similar efficiency, not sure how useful it will be.
Furthermore, presumably the methane will be used to generate heat.
Heat pumps are 500% efficient and induction is also highly efficient
Gas appliances are not...
This could be useful for making synthetic aviation fuel at scale. Need methane + hydrogen + lot of energy.
Copper is abundant compared to the other rare earth catalysts, thus reducing cost.
This makes more sense than the other response. But...
(I have a pilot licence for light aircraft)
The reality is that engines for aviation suck. They're loud, they're inefficient and expensive to operate.
You also need very high octane fuel on any real planes.
They also rely on oxygen and require a lot of maintenance. Most light aircraft can't take off at higher altitudes for that reason (you need turboprops)
You also have to contend with balancing fuel tanks and blocked fuel air vents and a lot of hardware like magnetos.
Startup checks are also a pain.
Also, even bad electric motors tend to be highly responsive and high torque and can be used to regenerate power during descent
it's fairly common for the startup checks to fail because there is excess oil you need to burn off fouling the spark plugs (but you can simply increase the power).
Because the tanks are so big too, water can condense inside, so you need to check the fuel for contamination constantly
I think a lot of pilots are looking forward to moving away from avgas. The only advantage currently for fuel is energy density by weight and refueling time. But there is no reason they couldn't battery swap in the future or improve batteries
Batteries may be more efficient, but we can't use them to store all the energy we need. And heat pumps still need electricity when there is less renewable electricity available.
Looking at nature, long carbon chains are the way to store lots of energy and being able to use just electricity to get carbon out of the air is a great first step. Capturing the methane will allow us to process it further.
This is the best news regarding energy storage I've seen in a long time.
Why can't we use batteries? There's no reason we can't given all the battery chemistries available including chemistries which are still undiscovered.
As you said, it's really just energy. And if this process is only 75% efficient, and then using it is 75%, it's a waste of a huge amount of energy.
I'd we're just going to burn it and put it back in the air, it's not a solution at all... We're just replacing one greenhouse gas with one that is just as bad