Robert Allan and MTU partner to develop first LNG-fueled shallow-draft pushboat design
California ARB announces grant solicitation for Clean Mobility in Schools Pilot Project

Kopernikus Project P2X integrated container-scale test facility produces first fuels from air-captured CO2 and green power

Partners of the P2X Kopernikus project on the premises of Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) in Germany have demonstrated the production of fuel from air-captured CO2 using—for the first time—a container-based test facility integrating all four chemical process steps needed to implement a continuous process.

2019_107_Kohlendioxidneutrale Kraftstoffe aus Luft und Strom

World’s first integrated Power-to-Liquid (PtL) test facility to synthesize fuels from the air-captured carbon dioxide. (Photo: P2X project/Patrick Langer, KIT)


Worldwide, wind and sun supply a sufficient amount of energy, but not always at the right time. Moreover, a few important transport sectors, such as air or heavy-duty traffic, will continue to need liquid fuels in the future, as they have a high energy density.

—Professor Roland Dittmeyer, KIT, coordinator of the “Hydrocarbons and Long-chain Alcohols” research cluster of the Power-to-X (P2X) Kopernikus project

Dittmeyer suggests that is thus only reasonable to store unused green power in chemical energy carriers.

The project partners Climeworks, Ineratec, Sunfire, and KIT recently combined the necessary chemical process steps in a compact plant, achieved coupled operation, and demonstrated the functioning principle.

This combination of technologies promises optimal use of the carbon dioxide and maximum energy efficiency, as mass and energy flows are recycled internally.

The existing test facility can produce about 10 liters of fuel per day. In the second phase of the P2X Kopernikus project, it is planned to develop a plant with a capacity of 200 liters per day. After that, a pre-industrial demonstration plant in the megawatt range, i.e. with a production capacity of 1500 to 2000 liters per day, will be designed.

That plant may theoretically reach efficiencies of about 60%—i.e., 60% of the green power used can be stored in the fuel as chemical energy.

Four steps to fuel. In a first step, the plant captures carbon dioxide from ambient air in a cyclic process. The direct air capture technology by Climeworks, a spinoff from ETH Zürich, uses a specially treated filter material for this purpose. As air passes across them, the filters absorb the carbon dioxide molecules like a sponge. Under vacuum and at 95°C, the captured carbon dioxide releases from the surface and is pumped out.

In the second step, the electrolytic splitting of carbon dioxide and water vapor takes place simultaneously. This co-electrolysis technology commercialized by the technology venture Sunfire produces hydrogen and carbon monoxide in a single process step. The mixture can be applied as synthesis gas for a number of processes in chemical industry. Co-electrolysis has a high efficiency and theoretically binds in the synthesis gas 80% of the green energy used in chemical form.

In a third step, the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis is used to convert the synthesis gas into long-chain hydrocarbon molecules, the raw materials for fuel production. For this, Ineratec, a spinoff of KIT, contributes a microstructured reactor that offers a large surface area on smallest space to reliably remove the process heat and use it for other process steps. The process can be controlled easily, handle load cycles well, and can be scaled up in a modular way.

In the fourth step, the quality of the fuel and the yield are optimized via hydrocracking. This process was integrated into the process chain by KIT. Under a hydrogen atmosphere, the long hydrocarbon chains are partly cracked in the presence of a platinum-zeolite catalyst and, thus, shift the product spectrum towards more directly usable fuels, such as gasoline, kerosene, and diesel.

Due to its modular character, the process is of great potential. As a result of the low scaling risk, the implementation threshold is far lower than for a central, large-scale chemical facility. The process may be installed decentralized at locations where solar, wind or water power is available.

P2X Kopernikus Project. “Power-to-X” refers to technologies converting power from renewable sources into energy storage materials, energy carriers, and energy-intensive chemical products. Power-to-X technologies enable use of energy from renewable sources in the form of customized fuels for vehicles or in improved polymers and chemical products with a high added value.

Within the framework of the government-funded Kopernikus program, a national “Power-to-X” (P2X) research platform was established to study this complex issue. Altogether, 18 research institutions, 27 industrial companies, and three civil society organizations are involved in the P2X project.

Within a period of ten years, new technological developments are planned to be developed to industrial maturity. The first funding phase focuses on research into the complete value chain from electrical energy to energy-carrying materials and products.

Comments

Davemart

IMO this is way more practical and low carbon on a total lifecycle emission basis than fooling around with big battery BEVs for anywhere with large seasonal variations in climate.

SJC

There are plenty of sources for bio CO2.

Engineer-Poet

Not one mention of what this costs, or the end-to-end efficiency.

I've run the numbers for F-T synthesis.  Making hydrocarbons is a surprisingly lossy process, which is why there's so much heat available for "reuse".  That includes methane.  Methanol turns out to retain considerably more of the chemical energy of syngas than hydrocarbons do.

Davemart

'That plant may theoretically reach efficiencies of about 60%—i.e., 60% of the green power used can be stored in the fuel as chemical energy.'

Would appear to be what they are claiming as end-to-end effriciency, but I would have to see far more comprehensive and broken down figures.

mahonj

OK, so you can make hydrocarbons at 60% efficiency, using overflow renewable electricity. You then use them in vehicles which are mostly 20% or less efficient. I know ICE engines can get to 40% efficiency, but mostly they are run inefficiently at low revs and low power.
IMO, you'd be better putting it into batteries.

The trick is to see EVs as batteries on wheels, so you make a big effort to make sure that they can be attached to the grid as much as possible and used for buffering the renewables.
Then, you can at least get some value from having a 60+ kwH battery, even if you only use 10-15 kwHs most days.

Davemart

@mahonj:

'You then use them in vehicles which are mostly 20% or less efficient. I know ICE engines can get to 40% efficiency, but mostly they are run inefficiently at low revs and low power.'

'Mostly?'

'Mostly' battery cars are wildly uneconomic, and 'mostly' they lose loads of range in cold weather, and 'mostly' whenever they are not massively subsidised sales plummet.
And 'mostly' enormous amounts of very environmentally unfriendly energy is needed to produce batteries.

You are applying criteria in two entirely different ways, according to what you fancy.

Present hybrid technology can hit something like approaching 40% efficiency, right now, and on a lifecycle basis hammers battery cars, especially big battery ones, let alone cost.

You are assuming zero improvement in ICE and hybrid technology, in fact are not even rating it for proven current perfromance, whilst assuming vast increases in battery technology, and the energy and emissions cost of produving them.

And even then, a PHEV running on renewably produced synfuel when the battery is depleted would still be a formidable competitor.


Lad

Stop at stage 2 above and either convert the hydrogen to electric power for storage or use it as fuel for hybrid aircraft, ships, etc.
The idea of continuing to burn carbon in the air is obsolete and continues to drive us on a destructive course.

Engineer-Poet
so you can make hydrocarbons at 60% efficiency, using overflow renewable electricity.

That's 60% theoretical, sometime in the future.  We are not told how efficient this unit is, but I suspect that it's somewhere between 40% and 50%.

You then use them in vehicles which are mostly 20% or less efficient.

I seem to recall the figure of 38% for some model of the Prius.  Even so, and assuming that the 60% theoretical efficiency is actually achieved, that's a busbar-to-flywheel efficiency of just 22.8%.  Put another way, it takes at least 4.39 kWh in to get 1 kWh out.  This turns the "consumer of surplus renewable power" notion upside-down.

Take the example of a system using PHEVs, half* powered by grid electricity at 70% grid-to-wheels and half powered by motor fuel made by this scheme at 22.8% efficiency.  Supplying 1 kWh to the wheels requires 1.43 kWh by the electric route, but 4.39 kWh by the renewable fuel route—more than 3x as much.  The fuel-maker is going to be the primary consumer of electricity under this scenario, and it's not going to get it at "surplus" prices; it is going to have to pay full freight.

The trick is to see EVs as batteries on wheels, so you make a big effort to make sure that they can be attached to the grid as much as possible and used for buffering the renewables.
Then, you can at least get some value from having a 60+ kwH battery, even if you only use 10-15 kwHs most days.

Using expensive vehicle batteries as buffers for unreliables, forsaking their primary purpose of being there to provide motive power when needed, is one of the worst ideas out there.  PEVs can do well at buffering grid imbalances on a time-scale of seconds to a minute or so with no compromise to their primary purpose.  But using up their lifetime cycles when something like Highview Power's LAES can do the job with far less capital cost and no wear to speak of is foolishness of the highest order.

* I'm assuming half because charging demand will be among the first things to be curtailed when generation falls short, so the full fuel-displacement potential of the PHEV will not be available.

Engineer-Poet
The idea of continuing to burn carbon in the air is obsolete

It won't be obsolete until it stops being the best solution for certain problems.  Besides, the PEM keeps the carbon on the fuel side of the membrane; this FC is tailor-made for CO2 capture on-board the vehicle.

The comments to this entry are closed.