Green Freedom turns the air's CO2 into auto-powering fuel

Tired of the air not doing enough for you? Well, a new project called Green Freedom -- headed up by researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory -- seeks to improve air's contribution to our planet. The new technology would provide a method of extracting CO2 from the air and then converting the gas into fuel for cars or airplanes -- thus creating a renewable energy source. The process uses a form of electrochemical separation to siphon juice out of the typically non-partying carbon dioxide, yet has a low environmental impact with a small waste-stream output. The plan calls for the use of existing plants, which will stem the need to build new facilities, enabling the environmental footprint to remain relatively small. Clearly, it's not being put into general practice yet, but it's a hopeful taste of things to come.

[Via Inhabitat]

[Matt @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:11AM]

Uhm... how is this going to work? They've not been specific.

Take CO2 out of the air and use it as a fuel - well every checmical reaction creates end substances.

Sure you'll take CO2 out, but what are gonna put back into the atmosphere, one wonders?

[Pismodude @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:21AM]

Good point- I vote carbon, cuz oxygen is flammable and could be used as fuel, and carbon would have "a low environmental impact"

[Mike10010100 @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:46AM]

Also, CO2 is not poisonous, that is CO (carbon monoxide). The only way to die from CO2 is if there was no air left in the lungs, it just suffocates you, whereas CO actually actively poisons you.

[Mike10010100 @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:47AM]

Also, CO2 is not poisonous, that is CO (carbon monoxide). The only way to die from CO2 is if there was no air left in the lungs, it just suffocates you, whereas CO actually actively poisons you.

[fanman @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:11AM]

Surely taking too much CO2 out of the atmosphere would have equally undesirable effects as putting too much in.

[Arnie @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:24AM]

OMG!! O2 is not flammable. It allows for cleaner combustion but O2 in itself is not flammable. It is needed for almost all types of organic combustion though. Carbon in itself is also a very bad fuel but when part of a larger molecule (like most organic fuels) is necessary.

[geekboy314 @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:18PM]

Oxygen is NOT FLAMMABLE!!! Oxygen is a reactant in a combustion reaction- which means it just gets attatched to whatever is "burning" and the whole process put out a lot of heat. Therefore, oxygen is not a fuel, but it is needed for any fuel to burn.

All i can imagine happening with this is carbon being taken out of CO2, O2 being put back in the atmosphere, and the carbon being put into some kind of carbohydrate or alcohol or some other carbon based fuel and burned again- theoretically producing the exact same amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere. This in itself has absolutely no footprint, but when you take into the account the energy needed to do this, its alot bigger.

Fuel cells, solar, electric, wind, and wave power. You dont need anything else.

[nh @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:32PM]

It doesn't really describe how it works, but they certainly aren't getting any energy OUT of the CO2 since it is one of the lowest energy compounds there is.

Arnie, carbon is in all organic fuels, by definition.

[jroc @ Feb 23rd 2008 1:51PM]

I don't think Co2 is bad for the environment at all. We breathe it out, trees breathe it in, when trees die they let it out. Really anyone who buys the 'man-made global warming' scam has to do some research.

[dale_nx26 @ Feb 23rd 2008 2:05PM]

@jroc

that is some elementary logic right there. sure trees "breath" in CO2 but there's just too much CO2 out there that they can't breathe it all in. And global warming is the cause of even more excess of CO2 than there were before. Maybe you're the one who needs to do some research. And I can't believe there's still people who doesn't believe in "man-made" global warming. I guess you should convince Europe of the opposite and to stop them from their environmental protection effort.

[billedluh @ Feb 23rd 2008 2:20PM]

@jroc

Any substance in excess is bad for the environment. For the same reason why you can overdose on vitamin C, an increase in levels of C02 (a natural part of our oxygen cycle) beyond that which nature allows for can be a serious problem.

[maty @ Feb 23rd 2008 2:36PM]

You guys are going on about O2 being flammable... CO2 not being poisonous in response to my comment...

I never mentioned those factors. I simply stated if you use something as a fuel, doesn't matter if its CO2 or cheese, you'll get an output which they failed to mention; therefore, I shan't be cheering these guys until they tell me what the output products are!

:P

[Nick @ Feb 23rd 2008 4:18PM]

@jroc

yes trees breathe in CO2, but like someone said we have too much CO2 to begin with and then factor in the continual deforestation of the world. We are putting out more and more C02 and cutting down more and more trees with out replacing them. Its a problem.

[Sam Winter @ Feb 23rd 2008 5:46PM]

@jroc

No, YOU need to do some basic research. I have to ask, are you in grade school? I can't even believe how many arm-chair climatologists there are on sites like these. Based on your imbecilic comment, it appears you don't have even the most elementary understanding of science, less something as complex as the climate. I'll spare you some time here. Anthropogenic global warming is supported BY EVERY NATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION IN EVERY DEVELOPED COUNTRY. 99% of all climatologists on the EARTH also agree. When you come across individuals saying otherwise, you best look at their background and possible motives. Nearly every time I see someone claiming anthropogenic climate change is a "myth" or a "conspiracy", I find they work for a neo-conservative think-tank or other political organization that is affiliated with the oil and energy industry. The only other hoopla comes from a few outlying scientists with questionable motives.
Use wikipedia, it's your fiend. Although you cannot have complete trust in the accuracy of the information presented, it's a great place to find links to cited research and official documents.

[JLTate @ Feb 24th 2008 2:38AM]

@Sam Winter

"Nearly every time I see someone claiming anthropogenic climate change is a "myth" or a "conspiracy", I find they work for a neo-conservative think-tank or other political organization that is affiliated with the oil and energy industry."

The very fact that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there is credible opposition to your viewpoint screams the word 'ideology' to me. Science is never cut and dry or set in stone. Until you can prove without any reasonable doubt that anthropogenic global warming is real (or even non-man made global warming -- what specific methodology do you use to measure "average global temperature", anyway?) you will have skeptics, and at no point in science's history has skepticism been considered a "bad thing".

My point is, is please stop calling us skeptics heretics. There's more than just a tiny few of us that do not "work for a neo-conservative think-tank or other political organization that is affiliated with the oil and energy industry". And besides, can't we turn that around and say that nearly all climate scientists that claim that "global warming is real and we are to blame" have a vested interest in it? They get more money the more they say it, after all.

Attack the science, not the scientists.

[Nick @ Feb 25th 2008 9:49AM]

@JLTate: There is NO scientifically credible opposition to the concept of AGW. There are some crackpot theories that always turn out to have no basis when examined closely, but there is no explanation on the "sceptic" side of the argument for why excessive CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause the effect that basic physics says it should.

As far as the funding jibe is concerned, are you saying that no scientists can be trusted? That's a very strong assertion to make, but it is the natural extension of your argument, as all scientists have funding from some source or other.

The difference here is that there are literally VAST numbers of scientists involved, and it is extremely unlikely that they are all corrupt as you claim. In fact I have met some of them and I can assure you that they are all very conscientious types who are simply very concerned at the results of the work they do. In fact they are very much MORE concerned than is generally understood by members of the general public.

On the sceptic side there are a very small number of "scientists", and there is much evidence that many of them are funded by commercial bodies which do not want people to accept AGW as fact because it is not in their financial interests.

Science is, as you say, never entirely cut and dried. This fact is exploited by those who have ideological or financial reasons for not wanting AGW to be true as an excuse for the continual introduction of alternative theories for GW. But just because they keep trotting these ideas out doesn't make them true, or AGW any less true.

Follow the science, not some anti-AGW faith (for that is all it is). If you follow the science deeply enough you will know that AGW is true. There is no credible alternative explanation for what is happening to the world. Really.

[Pismodude @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:11AM]

Sweet!

[merevaudevillian @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:14AM]

I'm pretty certain that the nuclear reactors you've included in the photograph emit steam, plain ol' H20, not CO2.

[rumblerjon @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:45AM]

I'm pretty sure the cooling towers emit steam, not the nuclear reactors.

[mothity @ Feb 23rd 2008 1:26PM]

its not a nuclear reactor in the photo. you have those on standard coal power stations, the excess water from the boiler leaves out the tower as steam

[treetrunk @ Feb 23rd 2008 1:49PM]

They're natural convection cooling towers. They're basically giant heat exchangers - the steam comes from water used to cool the output of the turbines (in a separate loop- this steam is isolated from the reactor). Thermodynamics requires you to have both a hot source (the reactor/burner, depending on the type of power station) and a cold one, this is the latter.

[therpham @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:29AM]

I read "Green Freedom" as "Gordon Freeman". I'm a dork.

[JLTate @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:54AM]

If it were Gordon there might have been some credibility to what they're saying.

[Austin @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:05PM]

Same. Exact same comment. Sigh...if only.

[J. Evans Turner @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:18PM]

*cringing*

Ditto. Glancing at the headline immediately made me think of Gordon Freeman. I guess it's just the way my brain is wired to retrieve memories. Very strange.

[Jagannath A @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:21PM]

*sigh*

I'm not alone :D

[jgray @ Feb 25th 2008 4:27PM]

Same here, I only clicked this topic to see if anyone else did the same.

[mrpoo @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:37AM]

The problem with this approach is that the energy required to convert CO2 is typically higher than the energy available in the fuel you convert from it. They probably propose some giant solar array or windfarm to power the conversion process, but that energy would be better used in something like powering the grid to re-charge plug in hybrid vehicles.

By the way, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's not "poisonous." CO is poisonous.

[Will @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:23AM]

I read about this elsewhere, actually, and where I'd read about it before, it didn't say it'd be using existing energy sources to produce, but that each plant that'd produce about 750,000 gallons of this stuff a day would basically require its own nuclear plant to provide the electricity. It said that once this system gets ramped up the scale it's economical, it'd prolly be at the point that you could buy this fuel for like 3.40/gallon - but again, would require lots and lots of these plants with lots and lots of new nuclear reactors.

[ClaMs @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:40AM]

This doesn't make sense at all. We get energy by breaking bonds in organic molecules. It therefore requires energy to form bonds and make organic molecules. Every energy conversion involves a loss of energy.

In few words, you will get less energy from the whole thing than you need to extract this "fuel".


I googled up the following link which I think is related.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/19/turning-co2-into-gasoline-a-new-way-to-waste-energy/

[Richard @ Feb 23rd 2008 10:53AM]

Oh no! Prepare for global cooling! No, seriously, the earth needs lots of co2 to function (i.e not getting sub-zero temperatures at night). I say bad idea

[Kizorblade @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:04AM]

Global cooling? ICE AGE BABY!

[Boss @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:06AM]

Shame they cant convert bullshit into power because my mate is full of it. Or maybe even burn all the chavs for power. There's plenty of them in the UK.

[Earl @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:12AM]

So... it's like a huge ass catalytic converter?

[Zach @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:21AM]

If this is true, it would be awesome. However, with the given small amount of information, I don't understand how this could be economically feasible to filter the air.

IMHO, the real eviromental solution to our energy problems is new nuclear plants. New technologies make it a lot safer than it was. However, the problem is getting the public to accept it in their ignorance.

[KenRob @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:27AM]

Is CO2 a toxin? Is it a poisonous gas? I thought it was harmful to fauna because of the absence of a breathable form of oxygen. And, I though plants found it quite satisfying. I mean, O2 is very essential for life and we're most made of carbon, so where's the toxin? I'm a non-scientist, so what do I know.

[Jeremy Fowers @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:42AM]

Carbon dioxide is not a poison. We breathe it out. Its half a percent of the atmosphere we breathe in.

[hypercrabby @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:38AM]

This plan would only make sense if burning the "fuel" results in greenhouse-neutral effluents. Otherwise, it makes better sense to capture the CO2, pump it into a giant greenhouse full of fast-growing vegetation, and then convert the plants to alcohols for fuel.

[Frejole Breeze @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:39AM]

I thought this was a tech site. Do the bloggers not realize what picture they posted? These are evaporative coolers. The only thing that comes out of these stacks is water vapor. If you want do depict emissions, why not show pictures of flare stacks or something like that?

[I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Feb 23rd 2008 1:14PM]

Second that's a nuclear plant, there are no gas emissions. Third CO2 is the smallest of all greenhouse gasses water vapor is number 1!

[Phops @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:46AM]

Co2 is not a toxin. It is the basis for life on earth. Making fuel from it was discovered by plants billions of years ago. It is called photosynthesis. You breath it out, plants take it in, give of oxygen and the cycle repeats.
Oh yes, in very high concentrations it can indeed damage your brain, like when you are exposed to the hot concentrated noxious air coming from idiot politicians like Al Gore.

[J. Evans Turner @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:21PM]

Hear, hear!

[gas @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:39PM]

BAM!

[Sc00ter @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:50AM]

Ugh, will you remove that picture. That is not emitting CO2.

[Brandon @ Feb 23rd 2008 11:57AM]

mrpoo has it exactly right. More energy will be required to convert CO2 into a usable energy form, than will be gained out of that new energy form. Unless someone figures out a way to break the second law of thermodynamics.

Misconception: Carbon dioxide is not toxic. Try breathing pure CO2 for 5 minutes and see what happens. Water too, can be toxic, in excessive quantities.

[will @ Feb 24th 2008 3:26PM]

wouldn't it be more effecient to se the energy to aquire hydrogen from water?

and don't plants already do this for us? solor powered co2 converters makeing energy in form of sugars... ?

[IceHammer @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:15PM]

When this article showed up on the ny times or other papers, they stated the process would become competitive with gasoline from crude oil at about $4.5O a gallon or so. So while its true that you have a net loss when processing the CO2 into bigger hydrocarbons, gasoline is far more transportable than electricity and therefore this is an extremely good idea to help alleviate the coming shortage in oil.

[Jarhead2012 @ Feb 23rd 2008 9:43PM]

Wait, did I misunderstand you? It looked like you just said Gasoline would be good fuel to alleviate our need for crude oil?! I sure hope so, because if I didn't, then you need some lessons. Everyone knows that gasoline is made FROM crude oil.

[IceHammer @ Feb 24th 2008 12:55AM]

you did not read that in context. the gasoline in question would be created from hydrocarbons already in the atmosphere. therefore not from crude oil and not adding net carbon to the atmosphere.

[Mark Chesney @ Feb 23rd 2008 12:21PM]

I was going to post a comment about how atmospheric levels of CO2 aren't "toxic" or "poisonous" (we exhale it, plants love it), however I see that many others have already beat me to this comment.

It's nice to see how many intelligent readers there are out there that aren't swayed by the doom and gloom of those who hype global warming with such silly statements.

C'mon Engadget - get your act together and fix this article so it's not so tragically slanted. We want factual reporting, not spin.