Convert waste carbon dioxide into gasoline – fill up now!
Thread Content
This post was last edited by Dedication on 2021-1-26 at 08:51. Another update on January 26, 2021 – I can’t stop everyone’s enthusiastic responses. It’s always good to engage in research and development; what matters is the process involved. How much effort is required to perfect a manufacturing process? Ammonia synthesis was also rejected by short-sighted people for many years back; what about now? Weren’t carbon/carbon composites also an accidental discovery during the research process? And what about now? Looking at the sarcastic replies from Hai Chuan’s high school alumni, his PhD graduates, and his technical team, it’s really laughable. Go ahead and continue to use your keyboards to “help” develop new chemical technologies. Chemical processing is after all a process – shouldn’t we focus more on the overall processes as well? In Shandong province, the environmental impact assessment for this project has already been completed; if everything goes well, it holds great promise. The core technology behind this pilot project comes from the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. The expert team at the institute first reported on this technology in 2017, successfully converting waste carbon dioxide into high-octane gasoline. The technical details were published in the journal Nature Communications in the same year. At the same time, related technologies have applied for invention patents in countries such as China, the United States, Canada, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, and others. This technology has the following features: 1) Low catalyst cost: The main component is an iron-based catalyst ； 2) High yield per pass for gasoline fractions: the selectivity for C5 to C11 compounds is as high as 78%, which represents the highest level among similar technologies ； 3) Mild reaction conditions: the reaction pressure is 2.0–3.5 Mpa, the bed temperature is 250–350°C, and the cost of the reactor is low ； 4) High carbon dioxide consumption: Approximately 6 tons of carbon dioxide are consumed to produce 1 ton of gasoline and 0.5 tons of light hydrocarbons ； 5) Short process flow and easy operation: The process flow is similar to that of methanol synthesis, and the target product can be obtained by conventional distillation of the reaction products. Therefore, it is also suitable for the retrofitting of methanol and synthetic ammonia, as well as the comprehensive utilization of hydrogen-rich exhaust gases. In accordance with the relevant regulations of the **Ministry of Science and Technology and the agreement between the two parties, Zhuhai Fuhuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd. holds the exclusive right to use this technology developed by the Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. With the support of the research and development team at that institute, Fuhuan Company funded the construction of a pilot-scale facility for this technology, and plans to proceed with industrial-scale demonstrations on a ten-thousand-ton scale once engineering-scale data is obtained from the pilot tests. (Ma Daoyuan, Zhuhai Fuhuan Energy Technology Co., Ltd.)
This is a major breakthrough in the field of carbon dioxide. Currently, carbon dioxide can be obtained from various sources, its production cost is low, and the relevant technology is mature; if it can indeed be put into industrial use, it will be a highly promising technology
It seems like this term is a bit absurd; the title goes against the law of conservation of energy. Although carbon dioxide is used as a raw material, it is hydrogen that provides the energy. Just like in the production of synthetic ammonia, it is generally said that ammonia is synthesized using coal, oil, and natural gas as raw materials; but has anyone ever said that it is synthesized using air and water as raw materials?
Isn’t it just hydrogen? Dahua focuses on hydrogen-based processes, as well as coal-based synthesis of ammonia, coal-based methanol production, coal-based olefin production, and coal-to-oil conversion. . . It’s always good to master a skill; as for when to use it, that depends on the market
:Dizzy: What’s the difference between this and that water-based car? With clean energy, hydrogen and carbon dioxide are combined, burned to produce water and carbon dioxide again, or you can simply burn hydrogen directly. . . . Economically, it’s of no use other than for consuming energy; its manufacturing process might have some advantages, but nothing else
It does not mention where the hydrogen source comes from or how much is consumed
On the roads, most vehicles run on gasoline or diesel; there are a small number of battery-powered vehicles, as well as those that use LNG or LPG. How many vehicles use hydrogen as fuel? Due to the different carriers used to transport energy, the performance varies greatly. The only advantage of this technology is its ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by capturing directly emitted carbon dioxide; thus, its environmental benefits outweigh its economic advantages. Sharing it with units that produce large amounts of carbon dioxide, such as thermal power plants, might be somewhat valuable
I agree with this view; it simply makes no sense. Why not use hydrogen as a power source directly? It makes no sense to use a hydrogen to carbon dioxide ratio of 3:1 on a molar basis to produce gasoline... Carbon dioxide is easy to produce, but hydrogen is not... Currently it is a byproduct; only when hydrogen runs out will hydrogen be produced through electrolysis – which is complete nonsense……
It’s certainly possible to use hydrogen as a fuel in cars; it’s not some new technology. Europe has already been modifying engines to use hydrogen as a fuel, but the cost of hydrogen is too high, making it unattractive from a cost-efficiency perspective. The cost of using hydrogen as a fuel is much higher than that of using methane… Although hydrogen has a high calorific value, per unit volume, the total calorific value of methane is more than three times that of hydrogen when storing it in containers. The key issue lies in the production of hydrogen. Without cost-effective methods for producing hydrogen, the cost of using hydrogen-powered cars would be dozens of times higher than that of using gasoline-powered cars. Electrolysis isn’t a viable option, and coal-based chemical processes only produce hydrogen as a byproduct. Apart from electrolysis, there’s no better method currently available for producing hydrogen specifically……
Ha, you make it sound so easy. Tell me how to produce hydrogen economically... All the methods you mention for producing hydrogen involve it as a by-product, and the amount produced is limited... If hydrogen is used to power cars through combustion, that amount of by-product isn’t even enough to account for a fraction of what’s needed……