« Back to Home Page

Carbon Sciences: What if We Could Turn CO2 Into Gasoline?

RP Siegel | Wednesday February 23rd, 2011 | 7 Comments

Years ago, when I knew a lot less than I do now about sustainability, I found myself thinking that if only there was a way to turn CO2 into something useful, that could be a great money maker that would also go a long way to mitigating our climate change problem.

No doubt that’s what the folks at Carbon Sciences were thinking when they decided to pursue development of a liquid fuel that could be produced from a mixture of carbon dioxide and natural gas. They have now succeeded calling the resulting fuel CO2-GTL (CO2 gas to liquid) gasoline. This is not an entirely new idea. A process for converting CO2 and natural gas into liquid fuel had already existed before. In fact, it was derived from the coal to liquid Fischer-Tropsch process that the Germans used during WWII. But the process was energy intensive, expensive and dirty.


What the folks at Carbon Sciences have done is by incorporating a novel catalyst developed at the University of Saskatchewan and using a membrane reactor, they are able to eliminate a number of steps from the process which can now operate at a lower energy level while releasing little or no CO2 to the atmosphere and with minimal coking, a major problem in earlier efforts. The resulting high octane gasoline will contain no NOx, SOx or heavy metals, nor will it need any toxic MTBE-type additives. This is some impressive science that will no doubt prove beneficial as we work our way through the energy maze that lies ahead.

Why then you ask, is my enthusiasm so clearly muted?

On their website Carbon Sciences claims that they can get the gas they need from benign sources such landfills, gas flares, livestock gas and biofuel. But if this type of fuel is truly going to displace the 130 billion or so gallons of petroleum-based gasoline we use every year that’s not going to be enough. The only way to substantially increase the amount of feedstock is to encourage the use of more coal-fired electricity and to pull the CO2 off from the plants. Indeed DOE-funded research performed at the University of West Virginia on CO2-methane bi-reforming was clearly intending to do just that as the coal industry is desperately trying to stay relevant in the face of rising prices, competition from cheaper energy sources, risk and regulations.

Carbon Sciences has beaten them to the punch. From their website, “When our CO2-to-Methane module is developed, coal-fired power plants will have a complete industrial scale chemical process to transform CO2 emissions directly into gasoline, without methane.”

When I first thought about turning CO2 into something useful, I was thinking of building materials or something like that, something that wouldn’t be burned right away. That way the CO2 would be sequestered, at least for a while, until the material decomposed when its useful life was over. That would at least delay the time when the CO2 would be added to the atmosphere, perhaps giving the atmosphere more time to absorb it while we continued to reduce our emission levels.

But when that gasoline that is going to be so cleanly derived from coal smokestacks is burned in my car, the CO2 will go straight into the atmosphere just like it does now. So what have we really accomplished?

We would no longer be using oil and we would be capturing CO2 and methane that might have otherwise been emitted along the way (which is all good) but we would still be emitting CO2 at the end of the process.

It is not a closed system. If they could find a way to capture the CO2 coming out of the tailpipe of the vehicles and recycle it back into the gas tank, then it would be a closed system.

Perhaps that could be developed someday, but what is the likelihood that that would ever be cost effective? And since the amount of gasoline returned to the tank would be only a fraction of what you started with; it would still need to be replenished from somewhere.

In the mean time, this is incremental innovation, which is, by definition based on the premise that we don’t really want to change any more than we have to.

That might be fine for an interim solution, which this can clearly be. But to become truly sustainable, we’re going to move beyond the extractive mentality that our energy system is based on today and move to an entirely new approach. Interim solutions must be approached with caution, since they often compete with the more bold long-term solutions that usually involve larger investments.

If we migrate to electric vehicles, we have a real shot at a truly carbon free transportation system. Of course it will be expensive and take time. In the mean time, this technology could very well be a viable candidate to help minimize our carbon emissions as we make our way beyond it to a totally carbon-free system.

As for CO2, it turns out that the best way to take it out of the atmosphere is to convert it into something solid that will last for a very long time, like coal. This is, in fact, exactly what nature has done for us already and the best thing we can do with that is to leave it alone.

RP Siegel, PE, is the co-author of the eco-thriller Vapor TrailsLike airplanes, we all leave behind a vapor trail. And though we can easily see others’, we rarely see our own.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.


▼▼▼      7 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • greg

    so what is the energy penalty for this conversion? what is the cost relative to fossil fuels? where is the economic/political incentive to do this?

  • David Tebbutt

    Electric vehicles are a neat solution but they’re not emission-free. Quite apart from manufacture and disposal (which applies to all vehicles) emissions are created by the power stations creating the electricity. Unless they are replaced with renewable energy (and you still have a lifetime emissions issue with, say, nuclear or wind turbines), you are merely concentrating the emissions in power stations that work on hydrocarbon combustion. The good thing about this is that the emissions are concentrated where they have the potential of being captured and dealt with.

    • Steve Puma

      As a matter of fact, even though you are correct, we’d still be better off if we converted all cars to electric, and continued with the same power mix that we have now. The thing is, electric vehicles are INCREDIBLY more efficient than their gasoline-powered cousins, so there would be a significant overall net drop in emissions.

      Also, as you say, it is a lot easier to deal with the power/emission source than thousands of power/emission outlets (cars). Then, all you need to do is replace that dirty power plant with something better.

      This argument, which is sometimes used as a reason not to convert to EVs (I don’t think that is what YOU are saying here) is a red herring. It is only a distraction. The truth is that electricity, regardless of where is is generated, is the most efficient way to power a vehicle, and we need to continue converting to electricity ASAP.

  • Steve Puma

    I smell something fishy here. Something tells me that the life cycle analysis on this one isn’t going to be too pretty.If I remember my high-school chemistry, that same CO2 that is converted back into liquid fuel will end up back in the atmosphere, one it is burned in a car.

    Now, we could theorize that this same gallon of recycled fuel is replacing a gallon of gasoline at the pump. Perhaps this has some short-term advantages, such as reducing dependance on foreign oil, and reducing non-CO2 contaminants. However, I doubt that these advantages will outweigh the total net costs.

    The thing is…the chemical process that takes the CO2 and turns it into gasoline is going to require some extra energy, likely in the form of heat. The question is HOW MUCH ENERGY HAS TO BE ADDED to make it work? If this added energy is more than the energy that you actually get out of the resulting gallon of fuel, then the process is pointless. If the added energy is not the same, or less than, the amount of energy that is required to extract and refine a gallon of crude oil into gasoline, then it will not be economically feasible, because the resulting fuel will simply cost more than gasoline.

    As they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

    Obviously, I am missing a large number of facts, to know the truth. But, I would caution anyone to be very, very, skeptical about recycling schemes, such as these. They may, ultimately, have their purpose, but it may not be the one that seems most obvious. Or, they might be complete scams.

    On a more positive note, you might want to check out a company called New Sky Energy. They have a patented process that does just what you described in your article: converts CO2 to solid substance. This substance can be made into building materials that have an extremely long shelf life, thus sequestering the CO2.

    HTH,

    Steve Puma

  • Gabriel

    Electric vehicles will need a power-source to charge them. Simply switching to EV will not solve the problem without resorting to renewable resources. The difference between gazoline cars and EVs is that EVs allow a more “centralized” CO2 emittor — the power stations. This makes it much easier to sequester CO2 from a handful of power stations rather than from millions of gasoline cars. And, don’t let the idea fool you: Burn gasoline, you get power. Recover gasoline from CO2 will REQUIRE power. Don’t miss-out the hidden “Perpetuum Mobilae” dream that has deluded many scientists in the middle-ages. The use of biological processes which mimic photosynthesis may be one of those solutions to the problem.

  • Ray

    Most are missing the Trillions saved by not importing 0000000 any oil and the 10 million Jobs created.

  • bremmer

    They made the catalytic converter to remove contaminates from the air I am sure their is a market for a devise that would remove co2 and then you can have your co2 filter changed every two thousand miles like we had to change our oil filter then ship them off to Carbon science to recycle and reuse the carbon collected any thing is possible if we put our mind to it unfortunately we have to many nay Sayers and not enough doers Dam the liberal progressive and their agendas.