New Process Discovered to Convert CO2 to Ethanol

A team at Oak Ridge National Laboratory reports a technological breakthrough that could have an impact on some of the most perplexing environmental and energy issues of our day — how to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, how to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and coming up with an efficient method of storing excess energy produced by the electric grid.

The team was studying how to use nanotechnology to control chemical reactions. I their work they came across a method using a copper nanoparticle catalyst that allows them to take carbon dioxide and convert it into ethanol. They say this discovery was actually an accident since they were actually expecting to produce methanol.

Ethanol produced from food crops is widely used today as a liquid fuel for vehicles; however, many people are concerned that using crops to produce fuel has an adverse effect on the amount of food available.

According to their reports, the catalytic conversion process is an efficient enough (as high as 70 per cent), to be suitable for using excess power from the electric grid to produce ethanol as a means of storing energy.

A short video report is below.

A full report on the process has been published in an article in the journal Chemistry Select here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/slct.201601169/full

  • GordonDocherty

    Ethanol, of course, is not just used for fuel… perhaps there will now not just be Whiskey, Gin and Vodka, there will now also be … Oak Ridge?

  • GordonDocherty

    Ethanol, of course, is not just used for fuel… perhaps there will now not just be Whiskey, Gin and Vodka, there will now also be … Oak Ridge … or, as it can be used to reduce the effects of Global Warming, Sunshine ?

  • Warthog

    Interesting. Seventy percent conversion is pretty high for an initial lab experiment (and yes, I saw the quibble “as high as”). Still very much potential.

  • Warthog

    Interesting. Seventy percent conversion is pretty high for an initial lab experiment (and yes, I saw the quibble “as high as”). Still very much potential.

  • wpj

    “The overpotential. . .probably precludes economic viability for this catalyst“

    Always best to read the summary rather than the headlines!

    • Ged

      I guess it’s a long process to find a process to make a process to process CO2.

      • TVulgaris

        “Processing…processing…”

    • TVulgaris

      The overpotential is a little over a volt, so I’m not understanding that point, maybe leakage is the stumbling block. They did go on to suggest some tweaks (that seem straighforward, just totally outside the basis of this experiment). No, this doesn’t produce a liquid hydrocarbon “for free”, but it seems to be-
      A- very cheap to produce relative to other high-efficiency catalysts that have reasonable selectivity for producing alcohols (since most of them involve Pd, Pt, Au, Rh, and other familiar expensive metals)
      B- fairly efficient (I come up with 58% overall, which takes a little digging into the numbers)
      C- easily scalable
      D- much more useful as a carbon sequestration tool rather than a fuel production tool, although that’s not a bad energy storage solution.

      The fact that this is so selective for ethanol is surprising and interesting in that it indicates much research potential (get it?) for “novel reaction mechanisms”, involving more than just a few electrons.

      • wpj

        I agree in that it may be possible to use “green energy” when it is not required (such as wind farms during the night) and use this and an energy reservoir.

        The over potential is just that the energy of the material coming out is less than the energy going in, so you don’t want to make it using fossile fuel energy (e-cat may help here).

  • wpj

    “The overpotential. . .probably precludes economic viability for this catalyst“

    Always best to read the summary rather than the headlines!

    • Ged

      I guess it’s a long process to find a process to make a process to process CO2.

      • TVulgaris

        “Processing…processing…”

    • TVulgaris

      The overpotential is a little over a volt, so I’m not understanding that point, maybe leakage is the stumbling block. They did go on to suggest some tweaks (that seem straighforward, just totally outside the basis of this experiment). No, this doesn’t produce a liquid hydrocarbon “for free”, but it seems to be-
      A- very cheap to produce relative to other high-efficiency catalysts that have reasonable selectivity for producing alcohols (since most of them involve Pd, Pt, Au, Rh, and other familiar expensive metals)
      B- fairly efficient (I come up with 58% overall, which takes a little digging into the numbers)
      C- easily scalable
      D- much more useful as a carbon sequestration tool rather than a fuel production tool, although that’s not a bad energy storage solution.

      The fact that this is so selective for ethanol is surprising and interesting in that it indicates much research potential (get it?) for “novel reaction mechanisms”, involving more than just a few electrons.

      • wpj

        I agree in that it may be possible to use “green energy” when it is not required (such as wind farms during the night) and use this and an energy reservoir.

        The over potential is just that the energy of the material coming out is less than the energy going in, so you don’t want to make it using fossile fuel energy (e-cat may help here).

  • clovis ray

    Nice one Frank,
    We can only hope it pans out to be ,economical , and it’s another nail in the coffin lid of big oil.

  • clovis ray

    Nice one Frank,
    We can only hope it pans out to be ,economical , and it’s another nail in the coffin lid of big oil.

  • cashmemorz

    What would the deniers argument towards such activity be?

    “See, we told ya, another way to make money off of the green scam. Then, when too much CO2 is pulled out of the air, the plants won’t have enough to grow and another “green” scam will have to be found to cover that. When a solution is found the “green scientists” will take credit while making big money. All part of the long green con to make themselves rich.”

    I shouldn’t fuel their fire but I like the comic relief I get thinking up these devious protocols.

    • TVulgaris

      There seems to be a straight line connecting “serious” CT people, and deniers generally fall into this category, and stupidity, nothing devious about it…
      But I also derive tremendous entertainment value reading and watch the videos from the CT camp when they’re not banal.

  • cashmemorz

    What would the deniers argument towards such activity be?

    “See, we told ya, another way to make money off of the green scam. Then, when too much CO2 is pulled out of the air, the plants won’t have enough to grow and another “green” scam will have to be found to cover that. When a solution is found the “green scientists” will take credit while making big money. All part of the long green con to make themselves rich.”

    I shouldn’t fuel their fire but I like the comic relief I get thinking up these devious protocols.

    • TVulgaris

      There seems to be a straight line connecting “serious” CT people, and deniers generally fall into this category, and stupidity, nothing devious about it…
      But I also derive tremendous entertainment value reading and watch the videos from the CT camp when they’re not banal.

  • Ciaranjay

    Pull the CO2 out of the air, burn it as fuel, put it back into the air.
    How is this a solution to excess CO2 in the atmosphere?
    However, I agree it is better than using valuable agricultural land to create ethanol fuel and causing food crop prices to increase.

    • TVulgaris

      Even partially closing the loop makes a difference- perhaps a large enough one.

      • Ciaranjay

        Presumably the additional energy needed to pull the CO2 out of the air also creates additional CO2.

        • TVulgaris

          That’s your presumption, and not at all necessary. The paper’s authors make a point about using solar or other intermittent power generators and making a fuel to smooth generation- but

          that’s an expensive and inefficient use of ethanol, since it is a very useful industrial chemical/resource.

    • Ged

      The global biosphere is remarkably increasing in productivity due to the higher CO2 levels (nothing compared to CO2 levels in the deep past of course, like the late Cretaceous which was around 1700 ppm or so; nor green houses which use around 2000 ppm typically to boost plant productivity), which means more food and biodiversity for animals and better crops for us ( http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/ ). So, the current levels of CO2 are very much good–but too high will not stay that way.

      The whole point of biofuels or the process described here is recycle CO2, so that levels become steady state and no longer increase. It basically plugs our energy into the carbon cycle, instead of adding new carbon through CO2 from deep earth carbon stores (oil, coal, nat gas). We could even reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere with these processes at a high enough volume (particularly if 70% conversion rate they claim at today’s concentrations is accurate). But that would be a very bad idea. If too much CO2 leaves the atmosphere, the greening we see today reverses, mass die offs will occur, and once CO2 gets low enough (around 140 ppm or so) most plant life will go extinct, taking most animal life with it.

      We shouldn’t demonize or be afraid of CO2, but understand its parameters for the biosphere. As, on long enough time scales, CO2 has been decreasing over the life of this planet as it gets deposited in the ocean floor as carbonate minerals and the slow in volcanism hasn’t kept up in replenishing–meaning eventually the planet may run out of CO2 at levels needed for most life, and even us tapping into the planetary carbon stores is just a temporary delay in that end as carbon continues to be locked away in solid rock.

      • Ciaranjay

        Fair enough, you could take the view that there is no straight forward answer to what is the best level for atmospheric CO2. What is good for humans may not be optimal for plants, or even sea life.
        However along with the benefits of higher CO2 in the Cretaceous, such as no poler ice caps, was the result that the sea level was 100 to 200 meters higher than today.

        Also as this great experiment of releasing CO2 continues there is the real worry that we cross unknown thresholds where the climate adjusts into a new pattern such that the Asian monsoon weakens, or shifts where the rain falls, or perhaps California becomes drier.

        • Ged

          Indeed. Right now, at the current level, things are great. But how much higher can it go before things stop being so great for us? No one knows for sure due to just how many factors are working at the same time. We would probably be fine with around 500-600 ppm, but probably not so beyond that.

          Methods like in this article could allow us to hold CO2 around those nice set points that keep the world the way we and life as it is now are familiar. We’ll have to see if it or other technologies pan out. We are close to or at peak oil demand according to what we see of the global market, so we may be at or past the half way point for human induced CO2 increase. There are a lot of unknowns we are still working to solve, which is why processes like the above are so important to develop to hedge our best and give us options if we have to drop fossil fuels cold turkey.

  • Ciaranjay

    Pull the CO2 out of the air, burn it as fuel, put it back into the air.
    How is this a solution to excess CO2 in the atmosphere?
    However, I agree it is better than using valuable agricultural land to create ethanol fuel and causing food crop prices to increase.

    • TVulgaris

      Even partially closing the loop makes a difference- perhaps a large enough one.

      • Ciaranjay

        Presumably the additional energy needed to pull the CO2 out of the air also creates additional CO2.

        • TVulgaris

          That’s your presumption, and not at all necessary. The paper’s authors make a point about using solar or other intermittent power generators and making a fuel to smooth generation- but

          that’s an expensive and inefficient use of ethanol, since it is a very useful industrial chemical/resource.

    • Ged

      The global biosphere is remarkably increasing in productivity due to the higher CO2 levels (nothing compared to CO2 levels in the deep past of course, like the late Cretaceous which was around 1000-1700 ppm or so; nor green houses which use around 2000 ppm typically to boost plant productivity), which means more food and biodiversity for animals and better crops for us ( http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/ ). So, the current levels of CO2 are very much good–but too high will not stay that way.

      The whole point of biofuels or the process described here is to recycle CO2, so that levels become steady state and no longer increase. It basically plugs our energy into the carbon cycle, instead of adding new carbon through CO2 from deep earth carbon stores (oil, coal, nat gas). We could even reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere with these processes at a high enough volume (particularly if 70% conversion rate they claim at today’s concentrations is accurate). But that could be a very bad idea. If too much CO2 leaves the atmosphere, the greening we see today reverses, mass die offs will occur, and once CO2 gets low enough (around 140 ppm or so) most plant life will go extinct, taking most animal life with it.

      We shouldn’t demonize or be afraid of CO2, but understand its parameters for the biosphere. As, on long enough time scales, CO2 has been decreasing over the life of this planet as it gets deposited in the ocean floor as carbonate minerals and the slow in volcanism hasn’t kept up in replenishing–meaning eventually the planet may run out of CO2 at levels needed for most life, and even us tapping into the planetary carbon stores is just a temporary delay in that end as carbon continues to be locked away in solid rock.

      • Ciaranjay

        Fair enough, you could take the view that there is no straight forward answer to what is the best level for atmospheric CO2. What is good for humans may not be optimal for plants, or even sea life.
        However along with the benefits of higher CO2 in the Cretaceous, such as no polar ice caps, was the result that the sea level was 100 to 200 meters higher than today.

        Also as this great experiment of releasing CO2 continues there is the real worry that we cross unknown thresholds where the climate adjusts into a new pattern such that the Asian monsoon weakens, or shifts where the rain falls, or perhaps California becomes drier.

        • Ged

          Indeed. Right now, at the current level, things are great. But how much higher can it go before things stop being so great for us? No one knows the exact number for sure due to just how many factors are working at the same time. We would probably be fine with around 500-600 ppm, but probably not so beyond that.

          Methods like in this article could allow us to hold CO2 around those nice set points that keep the world the way we and life as it is now are familiar. We’ll have to see if it or other technologies pan out. We are close to or at peak oil demand according to what we see of the global market, so we may be at or past the half way point for human induced CO2 increase. There are a lot of unknowns we are still working to solve, which is why processes like the above are so important to develop to hedge our bets and give us options if we have to drop fossil fuels cold turkey.

          • Chapman

            I think we have overlooked the obvious here…

            CO2 + H2 + Miracle Catalyst + Solar Panel = VODKA!!!

            “Green Spirits”
            “Do your part to save the planet”
            – A Fifth a week, that’s all we ask –

  • If this process does not use any fresh plant growth, then I have no objection to it even though ethanol is a very low energy undesirable fuel that attracts water out of the atmosphere. The older “Green Freedom” CO2-from-the-atmosphere derived synthetic fuel process has never gone anywhere because it is so expensive. That process can make high energy density gasoline from atmospheric CO2, but the costs are very high.

    https://www.lanl.gov/discover/news-release-archive/2008/February/02.12.synthetic-fuel.php

    I think it is a wise idea to use low cost, easy to implement methods to reduce the output of CO2 into the atmosphere as a precautionary measure, but I do not believe that there is any proof that atmospheric CO2 causes dangerous global warming. Carbon dioxide is a relatively impotent greenhouse gas, not a potent killer greenhouse gas that we should all fear, and there is not much of it,… less than .04% of the atmosphere. That said, using LENR, simplified hot fusion, or molten salt thorium reactors to produce systemic fuel would be better than what we have now, with the added bonus of lower air pollution and reduced CO2 output. CO2 is not a “pollutant”, but other chemicals are produced when we burn diesel fuel and gasoline that are pollutants. I cannot imagine using ethanol to power ships because it is so low in energy per gallon.

    I have a new compilation video on the climate change controversy at:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO1ukCq9vlw

    • Ged

      Where tech like this may also be useful is for other planetary bodies, such as Mars. There are already ideas to get O2, methane and other rocket fuel componants from the negligable atmosphere and soil there, but as the atmosphere is ~90% CO2, this process may be pretty good for making ethanol in particular. Not going to use that for rocket fuel or as a major power source, but it has a lot more uses for medical or fuel cell that a starting out colony could need.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      The CO2 issue likely makes this process more politically correct, but as noted our CO2 output not an issue that people need to worry about.

      However, using electricity to split water, or in this case to create some fuel likely is not very efficient. If splitting water was an efficient process, then we would be using fuel cells now as a battery storage system. The same applies to this process – if it is not efficient, then it not much use. And regardless of efficient, it only represents an energy storage system – not an energy source. You not going to get more energy out then the process used to create the fuel – same as splitting water – it really is akin to pushing a marble up a hill, and then letting the marble roll down to return the same energy used to push the marble up the hill – there no energy gain here.

      If a catalyst for splitting water (or this process) could increase the “large” losses of energy used to push the metaphorical marble up the hill to store the energy, then this process could be of some use – same goes for splitting water.

      Either way, we talking about an energy storage system – not an energy source.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • If this process does not use any fresh plant growth, then I have no objection to it even though ethanol is a very low energy undesirable fuel that attracts water out of the atmosphere. The older “Green Freedom” CO2-from-the-atmosphere derived synthetic fuel process has never gone anywhere because it is so expensive. That process can make high energy density gasoline from atmospheric CO2, but the costs are very high.

    https://www.lanl.gov/discover/news-release-archive/2008/February/02.12.synthetic-fuel.php

    I think it is a wise idea to use low cost, easy to implement methods to reduce the output of CO2 into the atmosphere as a precautionary measure, but I do not believe that there is any proof that atmospheric CO2 causes dangerous global warming. Carbon dioxide is a relatively impotent greenhouse gas, not a potent killer greenhouse gas that we should all fear, and there is not much of it,… less than .04% of the atmosphere. That said, using LENR, simplified hot fusion, or molten salt thorium reactors to produce systemic fuel would be better than what we have now, with the added bonus of lower air pollution and reduced CO2 output. CO2 is not a “pollutant”, but other chemicals are produced when we burn diesel fuel and gasoline that are pollutants. I cannot imagine using ethanol to power ships because it is so low in energy per gallon.

    I have a new compilation video on the climate change controversy at:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO1ukCq9vlw

    • Ged

      Where tech like this may also be useful is for other planetary bodies, such as Mars. There are already ideas to get O2, methane and other rocket fuel componants from the negligable atmosphere and soil there, but as the atmosphere is ~90% CO2, this process may be pretty good for making ethanol in particular. Not going to use that for rocket fuel or as a major power source, but it has a lot more uses for medical or fuel cell that a starting out colony could need.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      The CO2 issue likely makes this process more politically correct, but as noted our CO2 output not an issue that people need to worry about.

      However, using electricity to split water, or in this case to create some fuel likely is not very efficient. If splitting water was an efficient process, then we would be using fuel cells now as a battery storage system. The same applies to this process – if it is not efficient, then it not much use. And regardless of efficient, it only represents an energy storage system – not an energy source. You not going to get more energy out then the process used to create the fuel – same as splitting water – it really is akin to pushing a marble up a hill, and then letting the marble roll down to return the same energy used to push the marble up the hill – there no energy gain here.

      If a catalyst for splitting water (or this process) could increase the “large” losses of energy used to push the metaphorical marble up the hill to store the energy, then this process could be of some use – same goes for splitting water.

      Either way, we talking about an energy storage system – not an energy source.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Mike

    I don’t really see any real sensational about this. CO2 must be combined with something that contains hydrogen. The Sabatier reaction uses CO2 and H2 to produce methane, so the idea of using CO2 to produce a fuel that can be transported or used in an existing infrastructure is not new.

  • Mike

    I don’t really see any real sensational about this. CO2 must be combined with something that contains hydrogen. The Sabatier reaction uses CO2 and H2 to produce methane, so the idea of using CO2 to produce a fuel that can be transported or used in an existing infrastructure is not new.

    • Finnishdude

      Well think about oil burning, or wood burning, they can filter co2 to produce ethanol which clears the heating process output by factor of 70%. That is huge advancement and makes burning heat processes much air friendlier.

  • atanguy

    Planting trees maybe a better solution to trap carbon dioxyde…

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, turning the Sahara desert into a garden would have been a great carbon sink.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei13RX2W8FQ

      • TVulgaris

        You need the vegetation right next to the mass emitters of CO2 for any kind of reasonable remediation of the problems the local spikes in concentration cause, which are not trivial. The vegetation will also remove a lot of other pollution generated as well, but that doesn’t generally boost growth (it usually damages plants more than the increased availability of sulfur and ammonia will boost mass). This is not a brand new idea, utility-scale algae operations to scrub power plant exhaust are being tried in many places- but it’s not cheap, and the utilities DEMAND cheap…somehow they never have a problem raising their rates, though.

  • atanguy

    Planting trees maybe a better solution to trap carbon dioxyde…

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah, turning the Sahara desert into a garden would have been a great carbon sink.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei13RX2W8FQ

      • TVulgaris

        You need the vegetation right next to the mass emitters of CO2 for any kind of reasonable remediation of the problems the local spikes in concentration cause, which are not trivial. The vegetation will also remove a lot of other pollution generated as well, but that doesn’t generally boost growth (it usually damages plants more than the increased availability of sulfur and ammonia will boost mass). This is not a brand new idea, utility-scale algae operations to scrub power plant exhaust are being tried in many places- but it’s not cheap, and the utilities DEMAND cheap…somehow they never have a problem raising their rates, though.

  • bachcole

    He should speak for himself. CO2 is not a problem for me and my friends the trees. This carbon nanotube “solution” to the CO2 problem does NOT solve the real problem, which is all of the other pollutants, and doesn’t help the plants any. Unlike most “solutions” to the CO2 “problem”, this solution is useless.

    Well, not quite. Ethanol is far less toxic than gasoline and ethanol burning is far less toxic that burning gasoline. Plus, probably, eventually this method will bring down the cost of energy greatly. Plus, this solution is forever, and gasoline is not.

    • TVulgaris

      CO2 is no problem to you? You should have no problem living inside the flue of a coal generation plant then, your plants and trees will grow like gangbusters !

      • bachcole

        Please don’t talk clueless by exaggerating my position. You know as well as any 6th grader that all plants must “breathe” carbon dioxide. You may not know that carbon dioxide build up in the tissues of human beings is necessary to stimulate breathing in all mammals (and presumably all animals). Internally generated carbon dioxide is the stimulation that causes us to breathe and when we develop an internal deficiency, we can develop anxiety attacks. And I am sure that scientists aren’t through with how important carbon dioxide is for our health. This, of course, has very little if anything to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide, but it does demonstrate how clueless you are.

        Take note that my comment above yours was balanced, while your response was hysterical. And your aggressiveness has impelled me to get a little hysterical at your unbalanced hysteria. So kindly stop it.

  • Arthur Robey

    May I suggest that you read James Lovelocks Planetary Medicine book.
    He was a scientist of independent means.

    I assume that we are arguing in good faith.

    He shows that the living biosphere regulates temperature over millenia by drawing down carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
    But why would it need to regulate the temperature? Because the sun is a nuclear fireball that obeys its own logic.
    And the early sun was 20% cooler than the present sun.
    The biosphere has reached the limits of Carbon capture. It is now a trace gas. Very efficient scrubbers, the C4 plants, grasses, predominate.

    In other words the old trick of maintaining a constant temperature is failing, hence the recent (on a geological timescale) sudden onset of temperature instability, the onset of the Ice ages.
    Instability is the symptom of a failing feedback mechinism.

    So no, pumping carbon dioxide into the protective atmosphere is not good for trees.
    It is an uncontrolled experiment in geo-engineering with no moral or ethical oversight.

    • psi2u2

      You should follow his more recent statements. Lovelock is now a skeptic on global warming and now says that fifteen years ago when he was as alarmist as anyone, he was over-reacting to incomplete data.

      Details: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/02/james-lovelock-on-climate-prediction-ive-grown-up-a-bit-since-then/

      • Schooled! 😉

      • Arthur Robey

        Thank you I will follow up Lovelocks position as I have a great deal of respect for the man.

      • Arthur Robey

        I followed up your lead to the well-funded wattsupwiththat website and was disapointed to find it led to some disreputable newspaper.
        Undetered, I persued the matter to Prof. Lovelock’s own website where I found this snippet from his address to the Royal Society in 2007.

        “Sadly, even the most pessimistic of the climate prophets of the IPCC panel do not appear to have noticed how rapidly the climate is changing.”
        http://www.jameslovelock.org/page24.html

        In the interests of seriousness, please do not offer anything from wattsupwiththat. Their reputation preceeds them.

      • bachcole

        We got cyber whacked this afternoon and I tried to respond to psi2u2 then, but could not get in. I told my wife that we are in a war, but not a shooting war, a cyber war. Our government will discover who did it. There will be economic consequences, and the war will be over. But it will flare up again and again and again . . . . . Right now, even as we speak, brave soldiers are pecking away at keyboards defending our right to worship at the Altar of Modern Medicine and Highly Refined Foods.

        Getting to psi2u2’s comment, I was in exactly the same situation. I believed in man-made global warming for many years also, but then I looked at new, much broader data sets, and decided that it was bunk. Yeah, we may have global warming, but to say that human beings are causing it is a huge leap. But this does not acquit us of the crime of $hitting in our own nest and causing all kinds of ill health in children and other living things.

  • TVulgaris

    CO2 is no problem to you? You should have no problem living inside the flue of a coal generation plant then, your plants and trees will grow like gangbusters !

  • psi2u2

    You should follow his more recent statements. Lovelock is now a skeptic on global warming and now says that fifteen years ago when he was as alarmist as anyone, he was over-reacting to incomplete data.

    Details: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/02/james-lovelock-on-climate-prediction-ive-grown-up-a-bit-since-then/

  • Radbug

    The team reports that one carbon outcomes (methanol) have been easier to generate than two carbon outcomes (ethanol), so keep working on those catalyst architectures, guys! Jong Beom Baek and his team have a set of really nice DMFC’s waiting for you!

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Alan DeAngelis