We have previously cited some of these Swiss scientists, relative to the technology they have developed, wherein flue gas Carbon Dioxide can be reclaimed and recycled.
CO2, through a low-energy process, can be transformed into the liquid hydrocarbon fuel, Methanol.
And, a critical read of the brief synopsis provided herein shows that they are, or, more than ten years ago were, working to solve a problem with the technology, which, from our point of view, ain't a problem.
As we explain following excerpts from:
"Hydrogenation of CO2 to Methanol with a Discharge-Activated Catalyst
Date: July, 1998; American Chemical Society
Authors: Baldur Eliasson, et. al.; ABB Corporate Research, Ltd.; Switzerland
Abstract: To mitigate greenhouse gas CO2 emissions and recycle its carbon source, one possible approach would be to separate CO2 from the flue gases of power plants and to convert it to a liquid fuel, e.g., methanol. Hydrogenation of CO2 to methanol is investigated in a dielectric-barrier discharge (DBD) with and without the presence of a catalyst. Comparison of experiments shows that this nonequilibrium discharge can effectively lower the temperature range of optimum catalyst performance. The simultaneous presence of the discharge shifts the temperature region of maximum catalyst activity from 220 to 100 C, a much more desirable temperature range. The presence of the catalyst, on the other hand, increases the methanol yield and selectivity by more than a factor of 10 in the discharge. Experiment and numerical simulation show that methane formation is the major competitive reaction for methanol formation in the discharge. In the case of low electric power and high pressure, methanol formation can surpass methanation in the process."
----------
First, the "dielectric-barrier discharge", as documented in earlier of our posts, is not that complicated; nor, is it a high-energy demand process.
Moreover, they can accomplish the conversion of CO2 at 100 C - the boiling point of water. Again, not too demanding.
Finally, our take on this is that they were, or are, straining at the gnat that the basic process, intended to produce Methanol, was producing, from Carbon Dioxide, more Methane than they wanted.
Yeah, Methanol is a fine thing to have, especially if we make it from CO2. ExxonMobil can convert Methanol, through their "MTG"(r) process, into Gasoline.
But, if we have Methane, Penn State University, as in other of our reports, can react, "tri-reform", it with even more CO2 to synthesize hydrocarbons.
Either way, these Swiss scientists again confirm that Carbon Dioxide, as we can reclaim it from the flue gasses of our Coal-fired power plants, is a valuable raw material resource. We could be recovering it, at it's points of emission, and converting it into hydrocarbon fuels; or, in the case of Methanol, into a raw material that can also be used in the synthesis of plastics, wherein the original CO2 would be permanently, and productively, sequestered.