As the story says, this is a pilot plant. Just a proof-of-concept as part of the process of commercializing the technology. A full-up commercial operation would clearly need more capacity.
I wish the article had said something about the actual process. From what we're told, all we know is that CO2 goes in one end and methanol comes out the other. Not very informative.
With energy you divide water into oxygen and hydrogen. Than you let the hydrogen react with CO2.
Isn't there a net loss of energy? In other words, doesn't it take more energy to liberate the hydrogen in water and combine it with CO2 than the energy you'll get from the methanol you produce?
› Login to comment
7 Comments
PepinGalarga at 11:49 AM JST - 26th August
100 Tons?? that fits in my swimming pool.
frontandcentre at 04:16 PM JST - 26th August
If you want to go swimming in a pool full of methanol, good luck to you....
JohnBecker at 01:21 AM JST - 27th August
As the story says, this is a pilot plant. Just a proof-of-concept as part of the process of commercializing the technology. A full-up commercial operation would clearly need more capacity.
I wish the article had said something about the actual process. From what we're told, all we know is that CO2 goes in one end and methanol comes out the other. Not very informative.
sfg2001 at 04:21 AM JST - 27th August
With energy you divide water into oxygen and hydrogen. Than you let the hydrogen react with CO2.
Methanol is an energy storage.
Nessie at 06:57 AM JST - 27th August
Isn't there a net loss of energy? In other words, doesn't it take more energy to liberate the hydrogen in water and combine it with CO2 than the energy you'll get from the methanol you produce?
sfg2001 at 11:48 AM JST - 27th August
Of course there is always a loss. But you have to view it as energy storage. Without it, you loose 100%.
sfg2001 at 11:58 AM JST - 27th August
To combine it with CO2 is no problem, since you do not need energy for this.