Scientists Would Turn Greenhouse Gas Into Gasoline

Scientists Would Turn Greenhouse Gas Into Gasoline

ENLARGE SEEING GREEN Air pollution in downtown Los Angeles.

If two scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory are correct, people will still be driving gasoline-powered cars 50 years from now, churning out heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — and yet that carbon dioxide will not contribute to global warming.

The scientists, F. Jeffrey Martin and William L. Kubic Jr., are proposing a concept, which they have patriotically named Green Freedom, for removing carbon dioxide from the air and turning it back into gasoline.

The idea is simple. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.

This process could transform carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed cycle — equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed — would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming.

Although they have not yet built a synthetic fuel factory, or even a small prototype, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology.

"Everything in the concept has been built, is operating or has a close cousin that is operating," Dr. Martin said.

The Los Alamos proposal does not violate any laws of physics, and other scientists, like George A. Olah, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Southern California, and Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, have independently suggested similar ideas. Dr. Martin said he and Dr. Kubic had worked out their concept in more detail than previous proposals.

There is, however, a major caveat that explains why no one has built a carbon-dioxide-to-gasoline factory: it requires a great deal of energy.

To deal with that problem, the Los Alamos scientists say they have developed a number of innovations, including a new electrochemical process for detaching the carbon dioxide after it has been absorbed into the potassium carbonate solution. The process has been tested in Dr. Kubic's garage, in a simple apparatus that looks like mutant Tupperware.

Even with those improvements, providing the energy to produce gasoline on a commercial scale — say, 750,000 gallons a day — would require a dedicated power plant, preferably a nuclear one, the scientists say.

According to their analysis, their concept, which would cost about $5 billion to build, could produce gasoline at an operating cost of $1.40 a gallon and would turn economically viable when the price at the pump hits $4.60 a gallon, taking into account construction costs and other expenses in getting the gas to the consumer. With some additional technological advances, the break-even price would drop to $3.40 a gallon, they said.

A nuclear reactor is not required technologically. The same chemical processes could also be powered by solar panels, for instance, but the economics become far less favorable.

Dr. Martin and Dr. Kubic will present their Green Freedom concept on Wednesday at the Alternative Energy Now conference in Lake Buena Vista, Fla. They plan a simple demonstration within a year and a larger prototype within a couple of years after that.

A commercial nuclear-powered gasoline factory would have to jump some high hurdles before it could be built, and thousands of them would be needed to fully replace petroleum, but this part of the global warming problem has no easy solutions.

In the efforts to reduce humanity's emissions of carbon dioxide, now nearing 30 billion metric tons a year, most of the attention so far has focused on large stationary sources, like power plants where, conceptually at least, one could imagine a shift from fuels that emit carbon dioxide — coal and natural gas — to those that do not — nuclear, solar and wind. Another strategy, known as carbon capture and storage, would continue the use of fossil fuels but trap the carbon dioxide and then pipe it underground where it would not affect the climate.

But to stabilize carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would require drastic cuts in emissions, and similar solutions do not exist for small, mobile sources of carbon dioxide. Nuclear and solar-powered cars do not seem plausible anytime soon.

Three solutions have been offered: hydrogen-powered fuel cells, electric cars and biofuels. Biofuels like ethanol are gasoline substitutes produced from plants like corn, sugar cane or switch grass, and the underlying idea is the same as Green Freedom. Plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, balancing out the carbon dioxide emitted when they are burned. But growing crops for fuel takes up wide swaths of land.

Hydrogen-powered cars emit no carbon dioxide, but producing hydrogen, by splitting water or some other chemical reaction, requires copious energy, and if that energy comes from coal-fired power plants, then the problem has not been solved. Hydrogen is also harder to store and move than gasoline and would require an overhaul of the world's energy infrastructure.

Electric cars also push the carbon dioxide problem to the power plant. And electric cars have typically been limited to a range of tens of miles as opposed to the hundreds of miles that can be driven on a tank of gas.

Gasoline, it turns out, is an almost ideal fuel (except that it produces 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon). It is easily transported, and it generates more energy per volume than most alternatives. If it can be made out of carbon dioxide in the air, the Los Alamos concept may mean there is little reason to switch, after all. The concept can also be adapted for jet fuel; for jetliners, neither hydrogen nor batteries seem plausible alternatives.

"This is the only one that I have seen that addresses all of the concerns that are out there right now," Dr. Martin said.

Other scientists said the Los Alamos proposal perhaps looked promising but could not evaluate it fully because the details had not been published.

"It's definitely worth pursuing," said Martin I. Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University. "It's not that new an idea. It has a couple of pieces to it that are interesting."

Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common

Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

An artist's rendering depicts a montage of terrestrial worlds that may form around neighboring sunlike stars. A new study suggests that more than half of the sunlike stars in the galaxy could have terrestrial planets with the potential to harbor life.

More than half of the sunlike stars in the galaxy could have terrestrial planets with the potential to harbor life, a new study suggests.

The research, announced yesterday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston, Massachusetts, is just one of a set of recent findings that suggest the roster of potential life-harboring worlds is huge—even in our own solar system.

"Our observations suggest that between 20 percent and 60 percent of sunlike stars form rocky planets like our solar system's," said Michael Meyer, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, at a press briefing Sunday.

Meyer and his team used NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to study heat from the dust around sunlike stars of various ages, much like looking at "the smoke you see rising from chimneys in Boston on a cold day."

Such hot dust implies that larger rocky bodies are forming and colliding in the "messy" business of planet formation, Meyer explained.

Planet-forming dust was found at one to five times the distance from the sun to Earth, Meyer said (see an interactive map of the solar system.)

The dust was also seen in young stars but was absent from most stars older than 300 million years—a perfect fit with current models of planetary formation, he added.

The study will appear in an upcoming edition of the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Earth-Size Refugees?

At the briefing, scientists also advanced the possibility that our solar system contains hundreds or even thousands more dwarf planets like Pluto, hidden from view in the distant region known as the Kuiper belt.

There is a growing body of evidence that the poorly understood region contains several Earth- or Mars-size planets and many tinier bodies, said NASA planetary scientist Alan Stern, adding that this could very well be a "new Copernican revolution" in our understanding of planets.

"What we thought is, our outer solar system is actually our middle solar system," Stern said.

It would be a vindication for Pluto, which was recently "demoted" from full planet status by astronomers after a lively and controversial debate.

Pluto might be the best known representative of a third major class of planets, the dwarfs, "which could be far more common than either the terrestrial or gas giant planets," Stern said.

The initial solar system was quite cluttered with small bodies, he explained, but these were swept out as the four gas giant planets—Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune—finished forming.

Evidence for that can be seen in Uranus, which is lying almost on its side compared to the other planets, Stern said.

It must have been struck by a massive object several times the mass of Earth—an extraordinary coincidence if there were only a few such bodies around.

Exploring the Kuiper belt will be a slow process, Stern pointed out, as the objects in it are extremely difficult to find because of their distance from Earth.

These worlds would mostly be rocky bodies with icy surfaces, though larger ones might be able to harbor gassy envelopes.

But there is also the possibility that some could have "warm, wet interiors," Stern said.

Some scientists think it is "likely Pluto has an ocean in its interior, as does [Jupiter's moon] Europa and many of the other satellites of other planets," Stern said.

In the future, we might focus the search for life on such worlds, which could be far more common than planets like Earth with liquid water on their surface, he added.

Slow Search for Life

But directly detecting the kinds of planets that could harbor life remains a huge challenge, said Debra Fischer of San Francisco State University.

Such planets fall into an "anti-sweet spot," she said—far too small to detect using any of the common planet detection methods, which have so far found about 250 or more extrasolar planets.

But scientists have reasons to remain optimistic, she said.

If a planet with the right mass is found at the right distance from a star—in the so-called Goldilocks zone, where it is neither too hot nor too cold—most of the work is done.

"The raw materials for life are common," she said. "Water is probably the most common molecule in the universe."