This seems almost scam quality – only time will tell if it is just another pipe dream.
From WUWT Tips and Notes by J B Williamson;
A small British company has produced the first “petrol from air” using a revolutionary technology that promises to solve the energy crisis as well as helping to curb global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Air Fuel Synthesis in Stockton-on-Tees has produced five litres of petrol since August when it switched on a small refinery that manufactures gasoline from carbon dioxide and water vapour.
The company hopes that within two years it will build a larger, commercial-scale plant capable of producing a ton of petrol a day. It also plans to produce green aviation fuel to make airline travel more carbon-neutral.
UPDATE: In comments, Ric Werme points out:
Also interesting – http://www.21stcentech.com/military-update-did-a-cancer-researcher-inspire-the-navy-to-turn-seawater-into-jet-fuel/
The Naval Research Laboratory is using an electrochemical acidification cell (see image below) to take seawater through a two-step process to capture carbon dioxide and produce hydrogen gas. Carbon dioxide is concentrated in seawater at levels 140 times greater than in the atmosphere. A portion of it is carbonic acid and carbonate, but most is bicarbonate. Harvesting all that carbon coupled with the hydrogen is what the electrochemical acidification cell does employing a catalyst similar to that used to create synthetic oil from coal but with much greater efficiency.
in the nick of time, more on Artificial Photosynthesis here:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429681/artificial-photosynthesis-effort-takes-root/
RE: Matthew R Marler: (October 22, 2012 at 2:10 pm)
in the nick of time, more on Artificial Photosynthesis here:
No matter how you slice it there is only a fixed amount of sunlight arriving at the Earth’s surface. Facilities used to collect solar energy diverted to creating fuel must compete for space with facilities using solar energy to create food and space for the natural environment.
There are many high-tech resources that are becoming ever more difficult to obtain. We have already depleted many native resources. There is no one suggesting that the fiscal problems in California could be solved by an all-out search for those huge gold ore bodies that ‘must’ be just out of reach.
It is hard to escape the fact that huge tracts of land will have to be devoted to solar energy collection and the energy return on energy investment will be low with most high-tech solar energy collection solutions, when one considers the extra energy required to extract special resources needed to construct them. Even with massive government funding, solar and wind power solutions have had a hard time exceeding one percent of our total energy supply.
I believe, only a wise exploitation of nuclear energy offers any hope of replacing carbon combustion as a primary energy source for mankind at the rate we are accustomed to. Nuclear reactions have on the order of a million times the energy of a chemical carbon bond. The point has been made that existing solid fuel nuclear technology may be suboptimal because it burns only a small fraction of the fuel and is non-sustainable due to the steady accumulation of dangerous, long-lived transuranic waste products. However, molten salt, fluid fueled reactors are claimed not to have these problems because they burn (or fission) almost all their fuel and transuranic waste, leaving behind only the short-lived, benign, radioactive fission fragments.
I see this stuff popping up all the time….carbon dioxide is a valuable substance. Petronas is a serious player, unlike some guy in a garage someplace in England!!
Spector: I believe, only a wise exploitation of nuclear energy offers any hope of replacing carbon combustion as a primary energy source for mankind at the rate we are accustomed to.
Spector, I look forward to the day when the US starts to build new nuclear power plants at the rate we constructed our current set. Over the time it would take to do that, about 25 years, we should continue to invest in R&D in wind, solar and biofuels as well. It’s foolish to say that we know for certain now that they will never be cheap enough to make a useful contribution, because the costs are being reduced by active research. As to your argument about the amount of land needed, that argument is weaker for solar, wind and biofuels than it is for hydropower, and we know that hydropower is useful.
To those of you who are jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts I will simply ask you to consider the differences between this and photosynthesis. They are both synthesising a hydrocarbon chain from only water and carbon dioxide, yes it is a natural process in plants that we do not completely understand but considering our previous achievements what is to stop us from doing it.
If you believe in this technology, I suggest you invest your $$$ in it.
I wouldn’t because I have see so many false claims including many from the DOE