Life cycle analyzes of vehicles with different drive concepts are the subject of many studies. When it comes to CO2 emissions, the energy source is crucial. Two main developments are discussed today: the electrification of the propulsion system (i.e. fully and partially electrified vehicles) and the electrification of fuels (i.e. hydrogen and synthetic fuels).
In the manufacture of synthetic fuels, water is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen by electrolysis with renewable electricity. Due to the temporary oversupply of renewable electricity, this energy is particularly cheap. The hydrogen can then be used in hydrogen vehicles propelled by fuel cells. Alternatively, CO2 can be converted into hydrocarbons with hydrogen and then used in conventional combustion engines in a climate-neutral manner. The advantage of fuel cell vehicles is their high efficiency and the low cost of electrolysis. The disadvantage is the lack of a hydrogen infrastructure. Converting from hydrocarbons to hydrogen would cost trillions. The cheaper alternative would be synthetic hydrocarbons. However, the development is still in its infancy and the production of synthetic fuels cannot yet be carried out on a large scale.
Hydrogen and synthetic fuels are a necessary addition to electromobility, especially for long-distance and load transport. The widespread view that the low level of efficiency of internal combustion engines makes these fuels uninteresting ignores the possibility of using them to store and transport energy and to enable climate neutrality for air and shipping traffic. If you compare the CO2 emissions from electric motors and electrified fuels, it becomes clear that these mainly depend on the CO2 pollution of the electricity used.
The decentralized production of these fuels brings not only climate neutrality but also geopolitical gains. Since CO2 and renewable energy – in contrast to lithium – are generally accessible resources, users of this technology become independent of energy imports. At Frontis Energy we think these are strong arguments in favor of synthetic fuels.
Forests are vital to our society. In the EU, forests make up around 38% of the total land area. They are important carbon sinks as they eliminate around 10% of EU greenhouse gases. Efforts to conserve them are a key part of EU climate targets. However, the increasing demand for forest products poses challenges for sustainable forest management.
According to a report recently published in the renowned science magazine Nature, the EU’s deforested area has increased by 49% and with it the loss of biomass (69%). This is due to large-scale deforestation, which reduces the continent’s carbon absorption capacity and accelerates climate change.
The analyzed a series of very detailed satellite data. The authors of the report show that deforestation occurred primarily on the Iberian Peninsula, the Baltic States, and Scandinavia. Deforestation of forest areas increased by 49% between 2016 and 2018. Satellite images also show that the average area of harvested land across Europe has increased by 34 percent, with potential implications for biodiversity, soil erosion and water regulation.
The accelerating deforestation could thwart the EU’s strategy to combat climate change, which aims in particular to protect forests in the coming years, the experts warn in their study. For this reason, the increasing use of forests is challenging to maintain the existing balance between the demand for wood and the need to preserve these key ecosystems for the environment. Typically, industries such as bioenergy or the paper industry are the driving forces behind deforestation.
The greatest acceleration in deforestation was recorded in Sweden and Finland. In these two countries, more than 50% of the increase in deforestation in Europe has been recorded. Next in line are Spain, Poland, France, Latvia, Portugal and Estonia, which together account for six to 30% of the increase, the study said.
Experts suggest linking deforestation and carbon emissions in model calculations before setting new climate targets. The increase in forest harvest is the result of the recent expansion of global wood markets, as evidenced by economic indicators for forestry, timber bioenergy and international trade. If such a high forest harvest continues, the EU’s vision of forest-based mitigation after 2020 could be compromised. The additional carbon losses from forests would require additional emission reductions in other sectors to achieve climate neutrality.
At Frontis Energy, we find the competition between bioenergy and this important carbon sink particularly disturbing, as both are strategies to mitigate global warming.
In our previous post we briefed you on the energy storage potential in the United Kingdom. With Brexit, Italy will become the third largest member state after Germany and France. With extensive mountain terrain in the north, Italy has long been dependent upon hydroelectric generation. Until the mid 1960s hydropower represented nearly all electricity production in Italy. The installed capacity of hydropower has been stagnant since the mid 1960s, with a rapid growth in fossil fuel based generation driving the overall share of hydropower fall from ~90% to 22% in 2014. A detailed breakdown of electricity sources in Italy is shown below.
Considerable effort has been made to transition Italy to a low carbon electricity sector. As of 2016, Italy had the 5th highest installed solar capacity in the world and the 2nd highest per capita solar capacity, behind only Germany. In addition to its impressive solar progress Italy ranks 6th worldwide in geothermal with 0.9 GW.
Italy’s solar growth was propelled by feed-in-tariffs that wer enacted in 2005. This provided residential PV owners with financial compensation for energy sold to the grid. However, the feed-in-tariff program ceased on 06 July 2014 after the €6.7 billion subsidy limit was reached.
Even with its impressive accomplishments in renewable energy, traditional thermal generation (natural gas) still account for ~60% of total electricity generation in Italy. How much effort will go into reducing this number is still unclear. Italy has committed to 18% renewables by 2020 and is nearly 70% of the way there already so there is little urgency on reducing fossil-based electricity from the perspective of meeting this target. However, Italy is heavily reliant on fossil fuel imports (Deloitte) and energy security requirements will likely continue to push the development of more domestic electricity sources like renewables.
Energy Storage Facilities
Italy is dominating the electro-chemical energy storage market in Europe. With over 6,000 GWh of planned and installed electro-chemical generating capacity (~84 MW installed capacity), Italy is far ahead of 2nd place UK. This is largely due to the massive SNAC project by TERNA (Italy’s TSO), a sodium-ion battery installation totaling nearly 35 MW over three phases. A breakdown of energy storage projects, by technology type can be seen below.
Italy is one of the top markets in the EU for energy storage and is primed for growth. The Italian TSO, TERNA, has been investigating selling energy storage as a service. In 2014 the AEEG, the electrical regulator under which TERNA operates, proposed that batteries should be treated as generation sources similar to cogeneration plants. Italy has always been a market completely dominated by a small number of big centralized utility companies and this trend is likely to continue when it comes to EES deployment. These companies have been focusing their efforts on battery technologies and are expected to continue down this path.
However, the private market could present great opportunity for P2G. The International Battery & Energy Storage Alliance have summarized the reality of Italy’s untapped energy storage market as follows: “With high solar output of 1,400 kWh/kWp, net residential electricity prices around 23 cent/kWh and currently no FIT, the Italian energy market is considered to be highly receptive for energy storage.”
Italy is now well-stocked with residential PV systems that can no longer collect subsidies. Combine this with the fact that the vast majority of homes in Italy burn natural gas imported from Russia, Libya and Algeria and it is clear that Italy presents a unique opportunity for P2G at a residential/community level. This is echoed by Energy Storage Update who in 2015 concluded that Italy was “one of the top four markets worldwide for PV-and-battery-based energy self-consumption.”
While it is unclear exactly how many residential PV systems there are in Italy, it was speculated in late 2015 that there were over 500,000 PV plants in Italy.
While the UK has been heavily dependent on carbon-intensive sources of electricity, in 2008 they committed to a 15% renewable energy target (by 2020) and 80% reduction in CO2 emissions (by 2050; Department of Energy & Climate Change). However, the UK has stated that they will miss the 15% renewable target for 2020, due to the lack of properly designed policy measures. There has been considerable pressure to transition to a low carbon market and with one-quarter of existing generating capacity (mainly coal and nuclear) expected to close by 2021; it is expected that growth in renewable energy will lead to more energy storage capacities.
The UK has made excellent progress on its short-term clean energy goals and there is optimism that this trend will continue. Large-scale development of low carbon generation technologies such as wind and solar is expected to continue.
Energy Storage Facilities
As of late 2016, there were 27 non-PHS EES plants representing 430 MW of installed capacity in the UK (Sandia National Laboratories). The UK’s energy storage portfolio is dominated by electro-chemical based technologies (primarily lead-acid and lithium-ion battery installations). This is shown below.
As was shown for Germany, only a very small fraction of EES facilities are dedicated to renewables capacity firming. The existing EES capacity is almost exclusively dedicated to critical transmission support (on-site power). While nearly all of the EES capacity under development is dedicated to bulk energy storage (electric energy time shift).
There is still considerable uncertainty around the growth of EES in the UK, and with such a small sample size it is difficult to infer any correlation from the data in the figure above. According to the previous UK government, however, being geographically isolated and a net importer of electricity, one would expect the UK to place a heavier focus on renewables capacity firming in the long-term.
Energy Storage Market Outlook
The UK is in the midst of a major restructuring of their electricity generating portfolio and the market under which these assets operate. With a large portion of the existing capacity due for retirement in the next 10-15 years, the UK faces challenges in meeting energy needs while balancing decarbonization efforts. As part of this, major investment is needed in all areas of the electrical grid, including energy storage.
In its Smart Power publication, the National Infrastructure Commission outlined that while the UK is being faced with challenges to cover aging infrastructure this represents an opportunity to build efficient and flexible energy infrastructure. The Commission stated that energy storage was one of the three key innovations for a “smart power revolution”.
Many other official government bodies have expressed similar thoughts regarding energy storage. In its Low carbon network infrastructure report, the Energy and Climate Change Committee stated that “storage technologies should be deployed at scale as soon as possible”, while urging the Government to eliminate the outdated and unfair regulations that have been handcuffing energy storage development in the UK (Garton and Grimwood).
In April 2016, the Government acknowledged concerns regarding the regulatory hurdles facing energy storage projects (primarily double-charging of network charges) and stated that they would begin working with the National Infrastructure Commission and ECCC to investigate the issue. While there may be regulatory hurdles hindering energy storage in the UK, the Government has shown commitment through funding. Since 2012, the government has contributed over £80 million to energy storage research. In addition to this, the Department of Energy and Climate Change have developed a new £20 million fund to help drive innovation in energy storage technologies.
Overall, the outlook for energy storage in the UK is positive. There is considerable pressure to begin developing energy storage facilities at scale from not only industry, but also many government bodies. Investors are ready as well. As stated by the National Infrastructure Commission: “businesses are already queuing up to invest”.
Simply put: regulatory hurdles are holding back growth in the UK energy storage market. With the Government making major strides in renewable energy development and being vocal about its commitment to making the UK a leader in energy storage technology, these regulatory hurdles will likely be relaxed and there should be considerable growth in the UK energy storage market in the near-term.
At this point, specific technology types and service uses have not been hypothesized in detail. However, with the UK being geographically isolated and a net importer of electricity, logic would suggest an emphasis on renewables capacity firming in the long-term to maximize domestic consumption of renewable energy. Rapidly decreasing costs in electro-chemical technologies, coupled with the fact that much of the existing gas-fired capacity will be reaching end of life by 2030 suggest that the UK EES market would not be ideal for P2G technologies.
In our last posts we introduced electrical energy storage (EES) and the EU market for EES. Now, we focus on some important EU members, beginning with Germany. The country’s electrical energy portfolio reflects its status among the most progressive countries in the world in terms of climate action. As of November 2016, Germany had produced ~35% of its 2016 electricity needs from renewable sources as outlined in the Figure below.
However, these numbers are somewhat skewed based on the fact that the electro-mechanical category is essentially two large capacity CAES plants. In reality, electro-chemical projects (mainly batteries) are much more prevalent and represent the vast majority of growth in the German storage market. There are currently 11 electro-chemical type energy storage projects under development in Germany and no electro-mechanical projects under development (see figure below).
Services Uses of Energy Storage
As outlined earlier, there are a multitude of service uses for EES technologies. Currently the existing EES fleet in Germany serves grid operations and stability applications (black start, electric supply capacity), and on-site power for critical transmission infrastructure. A breakdown of service uses in the German market is shown below.
Logic seems to indicate that with aggressive renewable energy targets, a nuclear phase-out, and increased emphasis on energy independence Germany will need to develop more EES capacity. However, many have conjectured that the lagging expansion of EES in the short and medium term will not pose a barrier to the Energiewende. In fact, some claim that EES will not be a necessity in the next 10-20 years. For example, even when Germany reaches its 2020 wind and solar targets (46 GW and 52 GW, respectively), these would generally not exceed 55 GW of supply and nearly all of this power will be consumed domestically in real-time. Thus, no significant support from EES would be required.
The German Institute for Economy Research echos these sentiments and argue that the grid flexibility needed with significant renewable energy capacity could be provided by more cost-effective options like flexible base-load power plants and better demand side management. Additionally, innovations in power-to-heat technologies which would use surplus wind and solar electricity to feed district heating systems present significant opportunity, while creating a new market of energy service companies.
While there is work being done, economically feasible production of P2G is currently not achievable due to limited excess electricity and low guaranteed capacity. This limited excess electricity, is an example of the effect of power exports discussed earlier. While there may not be a significant commercial market in the short-term, introduction of P2G for transport could act as an additional driver behind continued renewable energy development in Germany.
Over the past decade, numerous studies have shown that global warming is roughly proportional to the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere. In this way one can estimate our remaining carbon budget. This is the total amount of man-made carbon dioxide that can still be released into the atmosphere before reaching a set global temperature limit. The nations of the world agreed on this limit in the 2015 Paris Agreement. It should not exceed 1.5°C, and in any case be well below 2.0°C. However, diverging estimates have been made for the remaining carbon budget, which has a negative impact on policy-making. Now, an international research group of renown climate experts has published a framework for the calculation of the global CO2 budget in Nature. The researchers suggest that the application of this framework should help to overcome the differences when estimating the carbon budget, which will help to reduce uncertainties in research and policy.
Since the fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the concept of a carbon budget has become more important as an instrument for guiding climate policy. Over the past decade, a series of studies has clarified why the increase in the global average temperature is roughly proportional to the total amount of CO2 emissions caused by human activity since the Industrial Revolution. In the framework, the research group cites numerous published documents that provide evidence for the linearity of this correlation. This literature has allowed scientists to define the linear relationship between warming and CO2 emissions as a transient climate response to cumulative CO2 emissions (TCRE). The linearity is an appealing concept because of the complexity of the Earth’s response to our CO2 emissions. Additional processes that affect future warming have been included in recent models, among them, for example, the thawing of the Arctic permafrost. These additional processes increase the uncertainty of current climate models. In addition, global warming is not just caused by CO2 emissions. Other greenhouse gases, such as methane, fluorinated gases or nitrous oxide, as well as aerosols and their precursors affect global temperatures. This further complicates the relationship between future CO2.
In the case of global warming caused by CO2, every tonne contributes to warming, whether that ton is emitted in future, now or in the last century. This means that global CO2 emissions must be reduced to zero, and then remain zero. This also means that the more we emit in the next years, the faster we have to reduce our emissions later. At zero emissions, warming would stabilize, but not disappear. It may also reverse. An overdraft of the carbon budget would have to be compensated by removing the CO2 later. One way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere would be a technology called direct air capture, which we reported earlier. Ultimately, this will probably be the only way left, as carbon neutral renewable energy source sources only make up 5% of our energy mix. Establishing a global carbon budget will further highlights the urgency of our clean energy transition. Unfortunately, there is a large divergence when it comes the amount of the CO2 remaining in our carbon budget. In their framework, the researchers cite numerous studies on carbon budgets to maintain our 1.5°C target. Starting 2018, these range from 0 tonnes of CO2 to 1,000 gigatons. For the 2.0°C target, our carbon budget ranges from around 700 gigatons to nearly 2,000 gigatons of remaining CO2 emissions. The aim of the researchers is to limit this uncertainty by establishing a budget framework. The central element is the equation for calculating the remaining carbon budget:
The budget of the remaining CO2 emissions (Blim) for the specific temperature limit (Tlim) is a function of five terms that represent aspects of the geophysical and human-environment systems: the historical man-made warming (Thist), the non-CO2 contribution to the future temperature increase (TnonCO2), the zero emission commitment (TZEC), the TCRE, and an adaptation for sources from possible unrepresented Earth system feedback (EEsfb).
Key choices or uncertainties
Level of understanding
Choice of temperature metrics that allow global warming, the choice of pre-industrial reference and consistency with global climate targets
Medium to high
Historical man-made warming
Incomplete data and methods for estimating the man-made component; see also Tlim
Choice and uncertainty
Medium to high
Non-CO2 contribution to future global warming
The level of non-CO2 contributions coinciding with global net zero CO2 emissions; depends on policy choices, but also on the uncertainty of their implementation
Choice and uncertainty
Non-CO2 contribution to future global warming
Climate reaction to non-CO2 forcers, such as aerosols and methane
Low to medium
The extent of the decadal zero emission commitment and near-zero annual carbon emissions
Transient climate response to cumulative emissions of CO2
TCRE uncertainty, linearity and cumulative CO2 emissions that affect temperature metrics of the TCRE estimate
Low to medium
Transient climate response to cumulative emissions of CO2
Uncertainty of the TCRE linearity, value and distribution beyond peak heating which is affected by cumulative CO2 emissions reduction
Unrepresented Earth system feedback mechanisms
Impact of permafrost thawing and duration as well as methane release from wetlands on geomodels and feedback
It remains a challenge to adequately characterize the uncertainties surrounding the estimates of our carbon budget. In some cases, the reason of these uncertainties is inaccurate knowledge of the underlying processes or inaccurate measurements. In other cases the terminology is used inconsistently. For better comparability and flexibility, the researchers propose to routinely measure global surface air temperature values. This method gives robust data for models and model runs over selected time periods. More detailed comparisons between published estimates of the carbon budget are currently difficult because the original data used for publication often are missing. The researchers therefore propose to provide these in the future along with publications.
Breaking down the carbon budget into its individual factors makes it possible to identify a number of promising pathways for future research. One area of research that might advance this field is to look more closely at the TCRE. Future research is expected to narrow down the range of TCRE uncertainties. Another promising area of research is the study of the correlation between individual factors and their associated uncertainties, for example, between uncertainties in Thist and TnonCO2. This could be achieved by developing methods that allow a more reliable estimate of historical human-induced warming. It is also clear that less complex climate models are useful to further reduce the uncertainties of climate models, and hence the carbon budget. Currently, each factor of the framework presented by yhr researchers has its own uncertainties, and there is no method to formally combine them.
At Frontis Energy, too, we think that progress in these areas would improve our understanding of the estimates of our carbon budget. A systematic understanding of the carbon budget and is crucial for effectively addressing global warming challenges.
Researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have developed a cheap method for producing high-octane gasoline from methanol. They recently published their method in the journal Nature Catalysis. Methanol can be synthesized from CO2 via various routes, as we reported last year. Biomass, such as wood, is one possibility.
The production of biofuels from wood, however, is too expensive to compete with fossil fuels. To find a solution to this problem, the researchers combined their basic research with an economic analysis. The researchers initially aimed at the most expensive part of the process. Thereafter, the researchers found methods to reduce these costs with methanol as an intermediate.
So far, the cost of converting methanol to gasoline or diesel was about $1 per gallon. The researchers have now reached a price of about $0.70 per gallon.
The catalytic conversion of methanol into gasoline is an important research area in the field of CO2 recovery. The traditional method is based on multi-stage processes and high temperatures. It is expensive, producing low quality fuel in small quantities. Thus, it is not competitive with petroleum-based fuels.
Hydrogen deficiency was the initially problem the researcher had to overcome. Hydrogen is the key energy containing element in hydrocarbons. The researchers hypothesized that using the transition metal copper would solve this problem, which it did. They estimated that the copper-infused catalyst resulted in 38% more yield at lower cost.
By facilitating the reintegration of C4 byproducts during the homologation of dimethyl ether, the copper zeolite catalyst enabled this 38% increase in product yield and a 35% reduction in conversion cost compared to conventional zeolite catalysts. Alternatively, C4 by-products were passed to a synthetic kerosene meeting five specifications for a typical jet fuel. Then, the fuel synthesis costs increased slightly. Even though the cost savings are minimal, the resulting product has a higher value.
Apart from the costs, the new process offers users further competitive advantages. For example, companies can compete with ethanol producers for credits for renewable fuels (if the carbon used comes from biogas or household waste). The process is also compatible with existing methanol plants that use natural gas or solid waste to produce syngas.
As a loyal reader or loyal reader of our blog, you will certainly remember our previous publications on ammonia energy storage. There, we describe possible ways to extract ammonia from the air, as well as the recovery of its energy in the form of methane (patent pending WO2019/079908A1). Since global food production requires large amounts of ammonia fertilizers, technologies for extraction from air is already very mature. These technologies are essentially all based on the Haber-Bosch process, which was industrialized at the beginning of the last century. During this process, atmospheric nitrogen (N2) is reduced to ammonia (NH3). Despite the simplicity of the molecules involved, the cleavage of the strong nitrogen−nitrogen bonds in N2 and the resulting nitrogen−hydrogen bonds pose a major challenge for catalytic chemists. The reaction usually takes place under harsh conditions and requires a lot of energy, i.e. high reaction temperatures, high pressures and complicated combinations of reagents, which are also often expensive and energy-intensive to manufacture.
Now, a research group led by Yuya Ashida has published an article in the renowned journal Nature, in which they show that a samarium compound in aqueous solution combined with a molybdenum catalyst can form ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen. The work opens up new possibilities in the search for ways to ammonia synthesis under ambient conditions. Under such conditions, less energy is required to produce ammonia, resulting in higher energy efficiency for energy storage. In today’s Haber-Bosch process, air and hydrogen gas are combined via an iron catalyst. The resulting global ammonia production of this process ranges from 250 to 300 tonnes per minute, delivering fertilizers that provide nearly 60% of the world’s population (The Alchemy of Air, available at Amazon).
On industrial scale, ammonia is synthesized at temperatures that exceed 400°C and pressures of approximately 400 atmospheres. These conditions are often referred to as “harsh”. During the early days, these harsh conditions were difficult to control. Fatal accidents were not uncommon in the early years of the Haber-Bosch development. This has motivated many chemists to find “milder” alternatives. After all, this always meant searching for new catalysts to lower operating temperatures and pressures. The search for new catalysts would ultimately reduce capital investment in the construction of new fertilizer plants. Since ammonia synthesis is one of the largest producers of carbon dioxide, this would also reduce the associated emissions.
Like many other chemists before them, the authors have been inspired by nature. Nitrogenase enzymes carry out the biological conversion of atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia, a process called nitrogen fixation. On recent Earth, this process is the source of nitrogen atoms in amino acids and nucleotides, the elemental building blocks of life. In contrast to the Haber-Bosch process, nitrogenases do not use hydrogen gas as a source of hydrogen atoms. Instead, they transfer protons (hydrogen ions, H+) and electrons (e−) to each nitrogen atom to form N−H bonds. Although nitrogenases fix nitrogen at ambient temperature, they use eight protons and electrons per molecule N2. This is remarkable because the stoichiometry of the reaction requires only six each. This way, nitrogenases provide the necessary thermodynamic drive for nitrogen fixation. The excess of hydrogen equivalents means that nitrogenases have a high chemical overpotential. That is, they consume much more energy than would actually be needed for nitrogen fixation.
The now published reaction is not the first attempt to mimic the nitrogenase reaction. In the past, metal complexes were used with proton and electron sources to convert atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia. The same researchers have previously developed 8 molybdenum complexes that catalyze nitrogen fixation in this way. This produced 230 ammonia molecules per molybdenum complex. The associated overpotentials were significant at almost 1,300 kJ per mole nitrogen. In reality, however, the Haber-Bosch process is not so energy-intensive given the right catalyst is used.
The challenge for catalysis researchers is to combine the best biological and industrial approaches to nitrogen fixation so that the process proceeds at ambient temperatures and pressures. At the same time, the catalyst must reduce the chemical overpotential to such an extent that the construction of new fertilizer plants no longer requires such high capital investments. This is a major challenge as there is no combination of acids (which serve as a proton source) and reducing agents (the electron sources) available for the fixation at the thermodynamic level of hydrogen gas. This means that the mixture must be reactive enough to form N−H bonds at room temperature. In the now described pathway with molybdenum and samarium, the researchers have adopted a strategy in which the proton and electron sources are no longer used separately. This is a fundamentally new approach to catalytic ammonia synthesis. It makes use of a phenomenon known as coordination-induced bond weakening. In the proposed path, the phenomenon is based on the interaction of samarium diiodide (SmI2) and water.
Water is stable because of its strong oxygen-hydrogen bonds (O−H). However, when the oxygen atom in the water is coordinated with SmI2, it exposes its single electron pair and its O−H bonds are weakened. As a result, the resulting mixture becomes a readily available source of hydrogen atoms, protons and electrons, that is. The researchers around Yuya Ashida use this mixture with a molybdenum catalyst to fix nitrogen. SmI2-water mixtures are therefore particularly suitable for this type of catalysis. In them, a considerable coordination-induced bond weakening was previously measured, which was used inter alia for the production of carbon-hydrogen bonds.
The extension of this idea to catalytic ammonia synthesis is remarkable for two reasons. First, the molybdenum catalyst facilitates ammonia synthesis in aqueous solution. This is amazing because molybdenum complexes in water are usually degraded. Second, the use of coordination-induced bond weakening provides a new method for nitrogen fixation at ambient conditions. This also avoids the use of potentially hazardous combinations of proton and electron sources which are a fire hazard. The authors’ approach also works when ethylene glycol (HOCH2CH2OH) is used instead of water. Thus, the candidates for proton and electron sources are extended by an additional precursor.
Ashida and colleagues propose a catalytic cycle for their process in which the molybdenum catalyst initially coordinates to nitrogen and cleaves the N−N bond to form a molybdenum nitrido complex. This molybdenum nitrido complex contains the molybdenum-nitrogen triple bond. The SmI2-water mixture then delivers hydrogen atoms to this complex, eventually producing ammonia. The formation of N−H bonds with molybdenum nitrido complexes represents a significant thermodynamic challenge since the N−H bonds are also weakened by the molybdenum. Nevertheless, the disadvantages are offset by the reduction of the chemical overpotential. The SmI2 not only facilitates the transfer of hydrogen atoms, but also keeps the metal in a reduced form. This prevents undesired molybdenum oxide formation in aqueous solution.
The new process still has significant operational hurdles to overcome before it can be used on an industrial scale. For example, SmI2 is used in large quantities, which generates a lot of waste. The separation of ammonia from aqueous solutions is difficult in terms of energy consumption. However, if the process were used for energy storage in combination with our recovery method, the separation would be eliminated from the aqueous solution. Finally, there is still a chemical overpotential of about 600 kJ/mol. Future research should focus on finding alternatives to SmI2. These could be based, for example, on metals that occur more frequently than samarium and promote coordination-induced bond weakening as well. As Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch have experienced, the newly developed method will probably take some time for development before it becomes available on industrial scale.
The mass loss of the Greenland ice sheet has recently increased due to the accelerated melting of its surface. As this melting is critically affected by surface albedo, understanding the processes and potential feedbacks regardinng the albedo is required for accurately forecasting mass loss. The resulting radiation variability of the ablation zone caused the ice layer to melt five times faster compared with hydrological and biological processes, which also darken the ice sheet. Variations in the snow limits due to the shallower ice layer at higher altitudes have an even greater impact on melt when the climate is warmer. As a result of these fluctuations, the mapped ice surface during the summer of 2012, the record year of snowmelt, was the largest and had an area of 300,050 km2. That is, bare ice accounted for 16% of the ice surface. The smallest extent of bare ice was 184,660 km2 and was observed in 2006. This corresponded to 10% of the ice surface, i.e. almost 40% less area than in 2012. However, the observed snowpack variation was high and the observation period was too short for a solid trend assessment.
Current climate models are too inaccurate in predicting the sea level rise during flood years, leading to uncertainty in the estimation of Greenland’s contribution to global sea level rise. To understand the factors that influence melting, Jonathan Ryan of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, and his colleagues have investigated Greenland’s snow line. At altitudes below the snow line, the darker ice is not covered by snow. This snow line moves up or down during Greenland’s seasons. The researchers mapped these movements between 2001 and 2017 using satellite images. The average height of the snow line at the end of the summer in 2009 was between 1,330 m and then 1,650 m in 2012. The fluctuations in the snow line are the most important factor when it comes to how much solar energy the ice sheet absorbs. Modelers must consider this effect to improve their predictions. Knowing how much and how fast the Greenland ice melts will help us to take better protective measures. At Frontis Energy, we think that the best protection against sea-level rise is the prevention and recycling of CO2.
At Frontis Energy we have spent much thought on how to recycle CO2. While high value products such as polymers for medical applications are more profitable, customer demand for such products is too low to recycle CO2 in volumes required to decarbonize our atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. Biofuel, for example from field crops or algae has long been thought to be the solution. Unfortunately, they require too much arable land. On top of their land use, biochemical pathways are too complex to understand by the human brain. Therefore, we propose a different way to quickly reach the target of decarbonizing our planet. The procedure begins with a desired target fuel and suggests a microbial consortium to produce this fuel. In a second step, the consortium will be examined in a bio-electrical system (BES).
Today’s atmospheric CO2 imbalance is a consequence of fossil carbon combustion. This reality requires quick and pragmatic solutions if further CO2 accumulation is to be prevented. Direct air capture of CO2 is moving closer to economic feasibility, avoiding the use of arable land to grow fuel crops. Producing combustible fuel from CO2 is the most promising intermediate solution because such fuel integrates seamlessly into existing urban infrastructure. Biofuels have been explored intensively in recent years, in particular within the emerging field of synthetic biology. However tempting the application of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) appears, non-GMO technology is easier and faster to implement as the required microbial strains already exist. Avoiding GMOs, CO2 can be used in BES to produce C1 fuels like methane and precursors like formic acid or syngas, as well as C1+ compounds like acetate, 2-oxybutyrate, butyrate, ethanol, and butanol. At the same time, BES integrate well into urban infrastructure without the need for arable land. However, except for methane, none of these fuels are readily combustible in their pure form. While electromethane is a commercially available alternative to fossil natural gas, its volumetric energy density of 40-80 MJ/m3 is lower than that of gasoline with 35-45 GJ/m3. This, the necessary technical modifications, and the psychological barrier of tanking a gaseous fuel make methane hard to sell to automobilists. To produce liquid fuel, carbon chains need to be elongated with alcohols or better, hydrocarbons as final products. To this end, syngas (CO + H2) is theoretically a viable option in the Fischer-Tropsch process. In reality, syngas precursors are either fossil fuels (e.g. coal, natural gas, methanol) or biomass. While the former is obviously not CO2-neutral, the latter competes for arable land. The direct conversion of CO2 and electrolytic H2 to C1+ fuels, in turn, is catalyzed out by electroactive microbes in the dark (see title figure), avoiding food crop competition for sun-lit land. Unfortunately, little research has been undertaken beyond proof of concept of few electroactive strains. In stark contrast, a plethora of metabolicstudies in non-BES is available. These studies often propose the use of GMOs or complex organic substrates as precursors. We propose to systematically identify metabolic strategies for liquid bio-electrically engineered fuel (BEEF) production. The fastest approach should start by screening metabolic databases using established methods of metabolic modeling, followed by high throughput hypothesis testing in BES. Since H2 is the intermediate in bio-electrosynthesis, the most efficient strategy is to focus on CO2 and H2 as direct precursors with as few intermediate steps as possible. Scalability and energy efficiency, economic feasibility that is, are pivotal elements.
Yeasts are among the microorganisms with the greatest potential for liquid biofuel production. Baker’s yeast, (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) is the most prominent example. While known for ethanol fermentation, yeasts also produce fusel oils such as butane, phenyl, and amyl derivate aldehydes and alcohols. Unlike ethanol, which is formed via sugar fermentation, fusel oil is synthesized in branched-off amino acid pathways followed by aldehyde reduction. Many enzymes involved in the reduction of aldehydes have been identified, with alcohol dehydrogenases being the most commonly observed. The corresponding reduction reactions require reduced NADH but it is not known whether H2 produced on cathodes of BES can be involved.
Clostridia, for example Clostridium acetobutylicum and C. carboxidivorans, can produce alcohols like butanol, isopropanol, hexanol, and ketones like acetone from complex substrates (starch, whey, cellulose, etc. ) or from syngas. Clostridialmetabolism has been clarified some time ago and is different from yeast. It does not necessarily require complex precursors for NAD+ reduction and it was shown that H2, CO, and cathodes can donate electrons for alcohol production. CO2 and H2 were used in a GMO clostridium to produce high titers of isobutanol. Typical representatives for acetate production from CO2 and H2 are C. ljungdahlii, C. aceticum, and Butyribacterium methylotrophicum. Sporomusa sphaeroides produces acetate in BES. Clostridia also dominated mixed culture BESs converting CO2 to butyrate. They are therefore prime targets for low cost biofuel production. Alcohols in clostridia are produced from acetyl-CoA. This reaction is reversible, allowing acetate to serve as substrate for biofuel production with extracellular energy supply. Then, energy conservation, ATP synthesis that is, can be achieved from ethanol electron bifurcation or H2 oxidation via respiration. While possible in anaerobic clostridia, it is hitherto unknown whether electron bifurcation or respiration are linked to alcohols or ketone synthesis.
Phototrophs like Botryococcus produce C1+ biofuels as well. They synthesize a number of different hydrocarbons including high value alkanes and alkenes as well as terpenes. However, high titers were achieved by only means of genetic engineering, which is economically not feasible in many countries due to regulatory constrains. Moreover, aldehyde dehydration/deformylation to alkanes or alkenes requires molecular oxygen to be present. Also the olefin pathway of Synechococcus depends on molecular oxygen with the cytochrome P450 involved in fatty acid decarboxylation. The presence of molecular oxygen affects BES performance due to immediate product degradation and unwanted cathodic oxygen reduction. In contrast, our own preliminary experiments (see title photo) and a corrosion experiment show that algae can live in the dark using electrons from a cathode. While the enzymes involved in the production of some algal biofuels are known (such as olefin and aldehyde deformylation), it is not known whether these pathways are connected to H2 utilization (perhaps via ferredoxins). Such a connection would be a promising indicator for the possibility of growing hydrocarbon producing cyanobacteria on cathodes of BES and should be examined in future research.
At Frontis Energy we believe that a number of other microorganisms show potential for BEEF production and these deserve further investigation. To avoid GMOs, BES compatible co-cultures must be identified via in silico metabolic reconstruction from existing databases. Possible inter-species intermediates are unknown but are prerequisite for successful BES operation. Finally, a techno-economical assessment of BEEF production, with and without carbon taxes, and compared with chemical methods, will direct future research.