TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Electrolyzer efficiently converts CO2 into renewable propane fuel

335 pointsby conse_ladover 1 year ago

21 comments

londons_exploreover 1 year ago
The actual science:<p>&gt; Here we report a catalytic system composed of 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium-functionalized Mo3P nanoparticles coated with an anion-exchange ionomer that produces propane from CO2 with a current density of −395 mA cm−2 and a Faradaic efficiency of 91% at −0.8 V versus reversible hydrogen electrode over 100 h in an electrolyser.<p>This is almost too good to be true... they demonstrate commercially viable reaction rates, efficiencies and timescales.<p>They have presumably applied for a patent for it, so in 20 years when the patent expires this will become the standard thing to do with recovered CO2 I&#x27;d guess.
评论 #37224412 未加载
评论 #37222087 未加载
评论 #37222482 未加载
评论 #37219272 未加载
评论 #37223094 未加载
评论 #37286435 未加载
评论 #37227226 未加载
评论 #37222628 未加载
评论 #37222722 未加载
bertilover 1 year ago
There’s no clear indication whether that would require some CO2 or a concentrated atmosphere of CO2 without O2. Extracting CO2 from the atmosphere at 0.4% is expensive.<p>If this is meant to use concentrated CO2 coming out from a furnace, would that need to be local, piped in over a long distance, or using bottles? Are there use cases where we must burn propane because we can’t replace that process with electricity?
评论 #37220478 未加载
评论 #37220006 未加载
评论 #37220270 未加载
评论 #37219882 未加载
评论 #37221020 未加载
评论 #37224387 未加载
评论 #37227042 未加载
Animatsover 1 year ago
Whatever happened to a similar announcement from Stanford in 2019?[1]<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.stanford.edu&#x2F;2019&#x2F;10&#x2F;17&#x2F;new-catalyst-helps-turn-carbon-dioxide-fuel&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.stanford.edu&#x2F;2019&#x2F;10&#x2F;17&#x2F;new-catalyst-helps-turn...</a>
评论 #37220523 未加载
Const-meover 1 year ago
I wonder can they use the same membrane&#x2F;catalyst for the inverse process: oxidize propane with atmospheric oxygen, release water and CO2, and instead of heat directly produce electricity without too much energy wasted in the process?<p>If yes, the consequences for energy storage might be significant. The energy density of propane is 49.6 MJ&#x2F;kg. Apparently, Li-Ion batteries are about 0.8 MJ&#x2F;kg, more than 50x the difference.
评论 #37227459 未加载
评论 #37225194 未加载
londons_exploreover 1 year ago
Electrolyzer reactions tend to be reversible...<p>If they could do the reverse (water+propane to CO2+hydrogen+electricity) at the efficiency claimed (91%), they can replace all gas turbine generators (who typically have efficiencies of only 60% at best)
评论 #37219406 未加载
评论 #37219333 未加载
评论 #37219526 未加载
berbecover 1 year ago
actual paper: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41560-023-01314-8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41560-023-01314-8</a>
Tade0over 1 year ago
The press in my corner of the world is going to have a field day with this, considering that over 13% of passenger cars around here are dual-fueled with petrol and LPG (so mostly propane) - they put it even in hybrids.<p>Hilariously enough even at this rate of adoption few underground garages allow entry for such vehicles.<p>I suppose it won&#x27;t see adoption in cars anytime soon because looking at electricity prices it can&#x27;t hope to be less expensive than fossil fuels.
shmdeover 1 year ago
Probably the best time to be a propane and propane accesories salesperson.
评论 #37223685 未加载
评论 #37221010 未加载
ccorcosover 1 year ago
FYI, there’s a startup doing CO2 → Methane conversion called Terraform Industries.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;terraformindustries.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;terraformindustries.com&#x2F;</a><p>I asked the cofounder of his thoughts here:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;ccorcos&#x2F;status&#x2F;1694021803654693342" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;ccorcos&#x2F;status&#x2F;1694021803654693342</a>
评论 #37225184 未加载
murktover 1 year ago
&gt; 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium-functionalized Mo3P nanoparticles coated with an anion-exchange ionomer<p>How hard&#x2F;expensive are all their materials to produce at scale?<p>Molybdenum is not as rare and expensive as platinum, so that’s certainly a win.
评论 #37220085 未加载
mdoliwaover 1 year ago
Stupid question, if we find a commercially viable way of converting CO2 into fuel is there a danger of &quot;global cooling&quot; because people will get too greedy with this?
评论 #37220094 未加载
评论 #37220068 未加载
评论 #37220034 未加载
评论 #37220042 未加载
评论 #37221605 未加载
评论 #37220065 未加载
评论 #37223402 未加载
评论 #37221200 未加载
评论 #37220372 未加载
flakinurover 1 year ago
Doing quick napkin math it looks like to process a ton of CO2 it will require 1.6kW of energy, burning that amount of propane generates at 50% power plan efficiency you get ~3kW of energy generation...<p>8CO2+24H2O+24e→3C3H8+16O2.<p>Moles of CO2=1000×1000&#x2F;44.01≈22726moles.<p>Total moles of electrons= 24&#x2F;8×22726≈68178moles.<p>Total charge=68178×96485≈6.58×10^9C.<p>E=Q×V=6.58×10^9×0.8≈5.27×10^9J.<p>E_actual=5.27×10^9&#x2F;0.91≈5.79×10^9J.<p>E_actual=5.79×10^9&#x2F;3.6×10^6≈1608kWh.<p>----------------------------------<p>Moles of propane= 3&#x2F;8×22726≈8522moles.<p>Mass of propane=8522×44.1≈375,670g≈376kg.<p>Total energy content=376×50.35≈18,932MJ.<p>Usable energy= 10,791&#x2F;3.6≈2,997kWh.
评论 #37220029 未加载
评论 #37220536 未加载
评论 #37219480 未加载
评论 #37220969 未加载
评论 #37220635 未加载
dghughesover 1 year ago
It&#x27;s a great idea for places like northern Canada where many technologies like solar don&#x27;t work during a sunless winter. Wind is OK but it&#x27;s complex to set up and maintain in such isolation. Diesel tends to be an easy solution but endless propane would be great if the regulator didn&#x27;t freeze.<p>Propane also needs to be compressed from what I can see to about 200psi. Not a huge amount but it would take special equipment and power to run a pump.
评论 #37221174 未加载
apiover 1 year ago
Propane always struck me as a potential lower carbon aviation fuel since it easily liquifies under modest pressure, making the whole system lighter and more compact than natural gas or hydrogen.<p>Batteries would AFAIK need a 2-4X power&#x2F;weight density improvement to do anything more than short haul electric flight. Short haul electric planes are possible today but not beyond a few hundred miles range.
Derbastiover 1 year ago
So, we could take concentrated CO2 from a furnace, and instead of releasing it into the atmosphere directly, convert it to Methane, and then burn that incrementally?<p>Or could we possibly fit an exhaust-gas tank onto our engines that holds all the combustion products, and is collected and recycled at the gas station?
评论 #37221133 未加载
j-a-a-pover 1 year ago
It would be great if natural gas is replaced with propane for households. Just imagine to fill up your ICE&#x2F;LPG car at home, and to have a real wok burner without the need to change gas tanks.
评论 #37226457 未加载
tastyfreezeover 1 year ago
Offtopic... does anybody have a good link to find papers that have been written after sci-hub stopped adding papers?<p>My desire to read papers like this outstrip my funds to do so.
war-is-peaceover 1 year ago
C3H8 + 5O2 =&gt; 3CO2 + 4H20<p>reminder that propane burns <i>into</i> CO2 - this process doesn&#x27;t actually unlock any new energy source, it merely just reverses a reaction that has already taken place (presumably with electricity or some other form of energy)<p>this isn&#x27;t some kind of miracle infinite energy source to solve climate change woes, more like an interesting way to convert one usable form of energy (electricity) into another (a petrochemical)
评论 #37219447 未加载
评论 #37220563 未加载
评论 #37221108 未加载
评论 #37219517 未加载
hosejaover 1 year ago
What form of CO2 does this work with? I suspect highly concentrated, not the minuscule amounts in ambient air.
UberFlyover 1 year ago
Too early. I&#x27;m still healing from the super-conductor that wasn&#x27;t.
评论 #37219821 未加载
jokoonover 1 year ago
I don&#x27;t like those techs because they don&#x27;t guarantee that they will offset fossil fuel extraction.<p>What&#x27;s really needed it&#x27;s culture change on growth and consumption.<p>The best technology is light technology.
评论 #37219407 未加载
评论 #37219871 未加载
评论 #37219282 未加载
评论 #37219565 未加载
评论 #37219306 未加载
评论 #37219683 未加载