• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Sustainable ethanol from carbon dioxide? A possible path

by Stanford University
June 20, 2017, 2:49 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 3 mins read
A A
8
Stanford scientists have designed a copper catalyst that produces ethanol from carbon dioxide and water.

Most cars and trucks in the United States run on a blend of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol, a renewable fuel made primarily from fermented corn. But to produce the 14 billion gallons of ethanol consumed annually by American drivers requires millions of acres of farmland.

A recent discovery by Stanford University scientists could lead to a new, more sustainable way to make ethanol without corn or other crops. This promising technology has three basic components: water, carbon dioxide and electricity delivered through a copper catalyst. The results are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“One of our long-range goals is to produce renewable ethanol in a way that doesn’t impact the global food supply,” said study principal investigator Thomas Jaramillo, an associate professor of chemical engineering at Stanford and of photon science at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

Scientists would like to design copper catalysts that selectively convert carbon dioxide into higher-value chemicals and fuels, like ethanol and propanol, with few or no byproducts. But first they need a clear understanding of how these catalysts actually work. That’s where the recent findings come in.

Copper crystals

For the PNAS study, the Stanford team chose three samples of crystalline copper, known as copper (100), copper (111) and copper (751). Scientists use these numbers to describe the surface geometries of single crystals.

“Copper (100), (111) and (751) look virtually identical but have major differences in the way their atoms are arranged on the surface,” said Christopher Hahn, an associate staff scientist at SLAC and co-lead lead author of the study. “The essence of our work is to understand how these different facets of copper affect electrocatalytic performance.”

In previous studies, scientists had created single-crystal copper electrodes just 1-square millimeter in size.

“With such a small crystal, it’s hard to identify and quantify the molecules that are produced on the surface,” Hahn explained. “This leads to difficulties in understanding the chemical reactions, so our goal was to make larger copper electrodes with the surface quality of a single crystal.”

To create bigger samples, Hahn and his co-workers at SLAC developed a novel way to grow single crystal-like copper on top of large wafers of silicon and sapphire.

“What Chris did was amazing,” Jaramillo said. “He made films of copper (100), (111) and (751) with 6-square centimeter surfaces. That’s 600 times bigger than typical single crystals.

Catalytic performance

To compare electrocatalytic performance, the researchers placed the three large electrodes in water, exposed them to carbon dioxide gas and applied a potential to generate an electric current.

The results were clear. When a specific voltage was applied, the electrodes made of copper (751) were far more selective to liquid products, such as ethanol and propanol, than those made of copper (100) or (111). The explanation may lie in the different ways that copper atoms are aligned on the three surfaces.

“In copper (100) and (111), the surface atoms are packed close together, like a square grid and a honeycomb, respectively” Hahn said. “As a result, each atom is bonded to many other atoms around it, and that tends to make the surface more inert.”

But in copper (751), the surface atoms are further apart.

“An atom of copper (751) only has two nearest neighbors,” Hahn said. “But an atom that isn’t bonded to other atoms is quite unhappy, and that makes it want to bind stronger to incoming reactants like carbon dioxide. We believe this is one of the key factors that lead to better selectivity to higher-value products, like ethanol and propanol.”

Ultimately, the Stanford team would like to develop a technology capable of selectively producing carbon-neutral fuels and chemicals at an industrial scale.

“The eye on the prize is to create better catalysts that have game-changing potential by taking carbon dioxide as a feedstock and converting it into much more valuable products using renewable electricity or sunlight directly,” Jaramillo said. “We plan to use this method on nickel and other metals to further understand the chemistry at the surface. We think this study is an important piece of the puzzle and will open up whole new avenues of research for the community.”

Read more at ScienceDaily

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 8

  1. MCPR says:
    9 years ago

    Even (or especially) if engineers get this working perfectly, it is sure to cause cancer or birth defects in California. No way the “Green” people are going to let better technology get in the way of their stone-age utopia.

    • G says:
      9 years ago

      LOL! So true!

      Not long ago, America’s leftists proclaimed that we need energy independence to free ourselves from foreign influenced powers and oil wars. Of course, they never thought that was possible, or they wouldn’t have said it… Now that America truly has energy independence via vast new discoveries and clean-burn technologies, they are all out to sabotage and stop that blessing in its tracks. How dare America succeed on its own terms!

  2. G says:
    9 years ago

    I’m all for any new and efficient means to produce ethanol as a fuel.

    I’m not in favor of politicians or bureaucrats forcing me to burn it in engines not designed for alcohol. Let the markets decide how such a technology develops. If it is valid and economical you can build it and they will come.

  3. Spurwing Plover says:
    9 years ago

    I have seen pictures of the estates of envromental minded celeberties and none of them had any solar pannels on their fancy digs and many like Al Gore and John Travolta(Who has a 707)with their private jets and DiCaprio who rented a arab oil tycoons yacht and who flew from Paris to New York and back to Paris to ecsept some dumb envomental award

  4. Sonnyhill says:
    9 years ago

    President Trump will be making a speech in Iowa today.

  5. David Lewis says:
    9 years ago

    It is time to get Alice out of Wonderland.

    The energy to make the electricity has to come from some where. With the high cost of solar and wind power, the limited hydro electric resources, and the unpopularity of nuclear, the electricity for this process would have to come from fossil fuels. It makes more sense to convert the fossil fuel into something engines can run off of.

    This article over looks a main reason for using ethanol from corn for fuel. The farmers strongly lobby for it so they will have the extra income. I have relatives in Nebraska that are all for it.

  6. Sonnyhill says:
    9 years ago

    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy – Ben Franklin.
    People who survived the Black Plague drank beer instead of water.
    Beer made Budweiser.
    Carbonation,ethanol,life. If only it was that easy.

  7. JayPee says:
    9 years ago

    It always has been theoretically possible to produce ethanol from carbonated water.
    George Gamow said so in the 50’s.
    Professor Gamow considered that it was to be regarded as proof that
    carbonated water is a living substance.
    And now, they may have found a proper catalyst.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • polar bear arctic landscapeShort Records, Big Media Claims: The Problem With Arctic Warming Headlines
    Dec 22, 2025
    Limited Arctic records, exaggerated media claims—a prominent meteorologist shows why headlines overstate so-called climate trends. […]
  • chinese money gavel26 State AGs Ask DOJ To Probe China Funding In Anti-Energy Climate Lawsuits
    Dec 22, 2025
    Twenty-six state AGs are asking the DOJ to investigate whether two climate-focused nonprofits failed to disclose lobbying for China. […]
  • palisades fire aftermathLA Times: Palisades Fire After-Action Report Downplays LAFD Failures
    Dec 22, 2025
    Previous draft reports show LAFD downplayed staffing, safety, and leadership failures during the deadly Palisades Fire. […]
  • protest earth dyingClimate Activists’ Mass Extinction Claims Crumble Under Real-World Data’
    Dec 22, 2025
    Eco activists’ mass extinction claims fall apart when empirical data is checked and climate dogma is discarded. […]
  • hochul climate allianceDems Retreat On Climate Mandates As Electricity Costs Hammer Voters
    Dec 22, 2025
    As electricity bills soar, Democrats retreat from climate mandates they sold as affordable energy solutions. […]
  • holiday cocoaData Doesn’t Support Claims That Climate Change Is Ending Holiday Foods
    Dec 19, 2025
    Media claims that holiday foods are vanishing don’t match long-term production trends for cocoa, coffee, vanilla, and cinnamon. […]
  • uk solar farm milibandEd ‘Net Zero’ Miliband Set To Miss Clean Energy Target By Three Years
    Dec 19, 2025
    Ed Miliband is on track to miss the UK’s 2030 clean energy target due to anemic wind farm growth, higher electricity bills, and rising power demand. […]
  • antarctic penguinsSea Levels Were 30 Meters Higher In East Antarctica 8,000 Years Ago, Study Finds
    Dec 19, 2025
    New research finds sea levels in East Antarctica were 30 meters higher 8,000 years ago—with today’s levels at the their lowest in millennia. […]
  • protest rising seas‘Never Mind:’ The High-Profile Retreat From Overblown Climate Claims
    Dec 19, 2025
    Prominent figures are stepping back from extreme climate predictions, signaling a shift away from alarmist rhetoric. […]
  • California Forces Ratepayers To Keep Funding Failed Ivanpah Solar Project
    Dec 19, 2025
    Despite high costs and poor performance, California regulators want ratepayers to keep funding the money-losing Ivanpah solar plant. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky