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.
I think most of the comments miss the point.
Back in the 60’s, when I was a student in a Jr college chemistry class, the instructor gave as an assignment. The task, as he stated it, if in the future we run out of petroleum products, we had to construct (on paper) from readily available basic building blocks (carbon, oxygen, CO2, H2O, etc) simple hydrocarbons that could be then combined to form oil.
Obviously the processes required energy to construct the molecules and basic thermodynamics says you cannot get more out of the end product than you put into it. Where you get the energy to construct the molecules was not part of the problem. With this approach, one can turn nuclear energy into oil, should we run out of the cheap stuff in the ground.
My chemistry prof was way ahead of his time.
Yes Dennis Kazura (11:06), most commenters missed the point. There was a long feature on this on the BBC World Service overnight including interviews with the company concerned.”
I think the concept is best viewed as a method of energy storage. Probably better and more convenient than running your car off a battery of limited capacity. And a better use of wind farm production than feeding an intermittent supply to the electricity grid. That said the question still remains “Is it necessary?”
There is nothing innovative here – it is old technology. The only reason this isn’t being done already is because it is not possible to scale up (fuel is a commodity) and it can never be affordable.
The first stage of the process would require massive amounts of Sodium Hydroxide. So effluent monitoring and treatment from any commercial scale plant would be expensive.
The second stage requires splitting H2 from water using electrolysis – this is massively expensive and requires large amounts of electricity (presumably only makes sense if they can find large enough quantities of renewable electricity). The only reason we are not running around in fuel cell powered cars is because there is no cheap source of hydrogen. If you want low carbon H2 this adds extra expense.
The third stage of the process is no cheaper. The Fischer-Tropsch process involves the conversion of the syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, into liquid fuels. Again it’s a very energy-intensive process that will require massive amounts of renewable energy to reach the high temperatures and pressures required. The yields are generally poor – again adding to the expense.
Finally the product is useless – its too pure and has to have the addition of presumably fossil impurities added to ensure efficient operation of today’s engines. Crude oil has aromatics and branched-chain alkanes and other impurities containing nitrogen and oxygen. These have lubricant effects in engines and help to swell rubber seals in fuel systems to prevent leakage.
Also would you listen to a company that puts out blatent lies?
From their Q&A:
1. Question: What if there is no shortage of oil? The conversion of coal and gas to liquid fuels is well established. Peak coal and gas are decades away. Furthermore, lots of shale gas has been discovered recently. There is no shortage of fossil fuels.
Answer: There is absolutely no evidence that this is true (just the opposite) but in any case we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. The danger of runaway greenhouse effect is also a real one. The emission of carbon dioxide from transport on its own is enough to exceed the allowable emissions. Therefore the ability to capture CO2 from the air is a very useful and valuable technology. http://www.airfuelsynthesis.com/faqs.html
Scute says:
October 19, 2012 at 8:18 am
This is inserted cleverly between one of Mr. Harrison’s, admittedly, more breathless assertions and a reported summary of Mr Harrison talking about “using the extracted carbon dioxide”. I was caught out reading that first time round. I thought Mr Harrison was acknowledging that he was gallantly embarking on scrubbing all the man-made CO2 out of the atmosphere for us. Of course, he’s not- he knows the CO2 gets spewed straight back out as exhaust. He knows it’s CO2 neutral, which is good but isn’t the same as “Remov[ing] the principle greenhouse gas from tbe burning of fossil fuels…”. Only the Independent asserts that and should be ashamed of themselves for trying to put it into the heads of their readers.
Scute
****************************************************************************************************
You beat me to it on the CO2 scrubbing front
Many others on this thread have not realised that this process is not removing CO2 from the air permanently – the fuel produced will be burnt and the CO2 returned almost immediately.
Similarly, others have worked out the cost of fuel produced in this manner (including the extra energy costs). All these calculations have omitted the fuel taxes imposed by most western governments which rely on huge taxes on motor fuel to run ” their” finances. This could add significant costs.
In most cases it will be cheaper to go on collecting the petroleum products being produced deep down in the earth, but I agree with the military uses of this process.
Steve T
“What process doesn’t “use” more energy than it produces?”
Burning fuels, for example.
zbcustom: That said the question still remains “Is it necessary?”
I disagree. The question is “Can it be made to work cheaply enough?”
Cheaply enough for what? you may ask:
a. to drive industrial/economic development in places of the world where fossil fuel is now relatively expensive (relative to the EU) and deliveries are unreliable.
b. to replace gasoline/diesel fuel from petroleum and natural gas.
as to a, I think the answer is probably yes, now, in a few places in the world.
as to b, I think we’ll have a better handle on the answer 10-20 years from now. What economies of scale and improvements in the production process will be invented I have no clue.
anthony holmes:
At October 19, 2012 at 5:57 am you say
Yes, imagination is a wonderful thing. It is a pity that reality is nothing like it.
I can imagine another source of “giant petrol pumps filling themselves automatically for next to no cost”: indeed, at no cost at all. You distil the farts from unicorns.
Richard
Thanks, Anthony! I wish them well, but I have doubts their process will work.
The good news is, carbon dioxide is finally being recognized as a valuable substance. As a former consultant to the gas industry (BOC, Linde etc.) we would harvest CO2 from ethanol fermenters for use in beverage carbonation, substitute for acids in wastewater treatment and solvents for degreasing etc. It’s really a nice substance with many uses, and extremely non-toxic and biocompatible.
US govt is spending beaucoup of our bucks on trying to directly convert CO2 into fuel. Direct routes are expensive, but routes via bacterial fermentation or photosynthesis (mostly microalgae) are showing promise. I can produce diesel oil equivalent for about $1/gallon.
Don’t worry about using up the damn “plant food,” there is no shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere & not likely to be. Better worry about “peak phosphorus,” my friends…..this is going to cause a shooting war and catch everyone off guard.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/20/peak_phosphorus
Ric Werme: Have you priced the cost of delivering jet fuel to an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Pacific? I think it makes all sorts of sense to use excess energy to make jet fuel while an aircraft carrier is traveling to a destination, and using the fuel once it gets there.
An excellent example.
@rgbatduke
The average electric car uses ~300WH/mile.
The full processing (well to wheel) cost in electrical energy per US gallon of fuel is ~6.5KWH.
The scam to process C02 back into fuel means building up to 3x more wind turbines to overcome the inefficiencies of the process. They will gain extra carbon credits for this plus further carbon credits for the fuel plant.
ITS A SCAM!!!
KR:
At October 19, 2012 at 10:09 am you repeat the canard floated by several others in this thread; i.e.
All energy is “free” but there is cost in collecting it and converting it to a useful form.
The energy density in fossil fuels and from nuclear power is so high that there is no possibility of so-called “renewable” sources of energy (except hydro-power) ever being competitive with them. That is why wind, biomass and solar were abandoned when the higher energy density in fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine.
If wind power were really useful then oil tankers would be sailing ships.
Fuel cost is negligible but capital cost is high for nuclear power.
Fuel cost is negligible but capital cost is too high for viability of wind and solar.
(Maintenance uses fuel).
Richard
Why extract CO2 from air when I am sure that any coal, oil, or gas fired power generator would be delighted for anyone to remove the CO2 from their exhaust? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to extract CO2 from an exhaust which might approach 20% CO2 as opposed to from air at 0.00038% CO2? There is also a ready source of water in either the exhaust from an oil or gas fired plant as well as from the cooling towers.
It is supposed to be a future power storage under the assupmtion that renewable energy, particularly solar production goes close to zero.
Then efficiency considerations are not of interest.
Energy storage as fluid or gas is best compatible with todays demand.
What matters is, if solar energy will get that cheap (what I think will) and if such devices can be built at low cost, currently not.
This is supposed to be a future power storage under the assumption that renewable energy cost, particularly solar energy production goes more or less to zero.
Then efficiency considerations are not of interest.
Energy storage as fluid or gas is best compatible with todays demand.
What matters is, if solar energy will get that cheap (what I think will) and if such devices can be built at low cost in the future, currently not.
Well, what is needed is a source of enormous pressure, heat, and percolating water rich with dissolved carbonates .All are freely available at the ocean-thermal vents.
But hey! isn’t that where the methane and those other hydrocarbon deposits came from in the first place?
Just testing….my first time access in the comment box for days.
This alchemy is going on in my part of the world; I hope they leave some CO2 for the plants! The cold wet weather this ‘summer’ has played havoc in this neck of the woods.
“has produced five litres of petrol since August”
Oh well that’s all right then, stop the gas refining at
conventional refineries tomorrow, we don’t need it anymore.
I smell sh*t !!!!!!
son of mulder says:
October 19, 2012 at 12:19 am
I think I’ve answered my own question ref above. Corrections appreciated.
To run the current UK road transport systems using fuel from the new process would require 249,300 UK wind turbines assuming the process to produce the fuel is 40% efficient. Another 100,000+ to include aviation. Currently there are 3,873 wind turbines installed. If you want a career then try wind turbine maintenance.
(WP=Wind Power in the following)
A. Road Transport UK in 2011
B. Oil Equivalent Energy used for road transport 39,775,000,000 KG
C. I KG Oil equiv Energy 42,000,000 Joules
D. Annual Road Transport Energy 1,670,550,000,000,000,000 Joules BxC
E. UK WP Nameplate capacity 2012 6,858,000,000 Watts
F. WP efficiency 30%
G .UK WP Output 2,057,400,000 Watts ExF
H. Efficiency of Conversion to petrol process 40%
I. Effective WP Output in process 822,960,000 Watts GxH
J. Seconds per year 31,536,000
K. Annual UK WP Output effective Energy 25,952,866,560,000,000 Joules IxJ
L. Factor to increase installed base by 64 x UK Installed base of WP D/K
M. No turbines installed 2012 3,873
N. Total Turbines needed to produce enough petrol 249,300 LxM
richardscourtney – Amazing. You’ve quoted me out of context on the same thread. Compare what you quoted to what I said in full, which included infrastructure/collection costs.
High density? That’s what makes this thread, about producing hydrocarbons from renewable sources, interesting. Liquid fuels such as this are one way to distribute energy for high density uses, such as transportation fuel.
Cost? The levelized cost – over the lifespan of the plant – for new power plants (http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html) shows that onshore wind is currently neck and neck with cheapest/least efficient new coal plants, and ranges from 80-150% the power cost from gas turbines, depending on the turbine technology. And that cost is expected to drop ~25% over the next 20 years. Solar is 2 (PV) to 3 (solar thermal) times more expensive than fossil fuels, and has a longer way to go before becoming cost competitive – but PV prices are dropping like the proverbial rock given the Moore’s Law effects of increased production. Your cost claims simply don’t hold up. Keep in mind that when coal first started to be used as an electrical power source, it’s costs were huge too.
Renewable energy is currently >14% of US electrical production, wind and solar energy production is growing exponentially (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/19/are-we-wildly-underestimating-solar-and-wind-power/).
Personally, I believe the term “fossil” applies not just to the fuels, but to attitudes associated with them.
Chairman Al says: The only reason we are not running around in fuel cell powered cars is because there is no cheap source of hydrogen.
The problem with hydrogen is the same as the problem with natural gas: there is no way to store the gas without a large expenditure of energy to compress it (and waste heat) and the extremely heavy containers to hold it (unless you go cryogenic which requires even more energy and has its own problems with storage. To make matters worse there is a loss of available energy (cooling) as the gas is released from pressure.
In San Diego they had (maybe they still do) natural gas powered transit buses that had two roof mounted high pressure tanks that ran the length of the bus which replaced the much smaller diesel tank.
If one could figure out the storage issue, hydrogen would be viable.
numerobis says:
October 19, 2012 at 8:20 am
An aside: I was involved in some modeling for a methanol-from-atmosphere plant a long time ago at NASA. The goal was to get pure CO2 out of the Martian atmosphere and turn it into rocket fuel — CO+O2 or CH4+O2 — for a return trip. The amount of energy involved was gigantic, and only made sense because it is cheaper to produce electricity on Mars than to send up all the fuel from Earth. But rockets can’t burn electricity,
———————————————————-
Actually, they can, but they won’t produce enough thrust to get you into orbit (or even off of the ground). But that did get me to thinking about Zubrin’s Mars Direct some more. If I’ve got a nuke pile sitting on Mars to make fuel, why not go all the way to NERVA and just extract/crack water to get the H2 fuel? Presumably just technical maturity, but who knows…
Ric Werme says:
October 19, 2012 at 10:41 am
Have you priced the cost of delivering jet fuel to an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Pacific? I think it makes all sorts of sense to use excess energy to make jet fuel while an aircraft carrier is traveling to a destination, and using the fuel once it gets there.
————————————
Presumably you would want to size the system to produce enough fuel to handle daily flight operations or perhaps just a little under that. It seems like you could reduce the fuel storage and handling needs on the carrier that way which would free up space and make the ship more survivable.. One other thing I’m wondering about is life impact on the carrier’s reactors. I haven’t done the calculations but I would expect that this would result in a noticeable shortening of the time between refuelings which would have to be factored in. Still seems like a good idea to me…
The Fischer Tropsch process starts with carbon monoxide, which can be produced from oxygen, carbon and heat. Since CO readily oxides to CO2, reversing the process on any commercial scale ought to be interesting.
Concentration of CO2 would be needed, but that’s relatively simple. An adsorption process can be used.
These guys have quite a “green” scam going.
Exactly, Don! Technologies are being developed to capture this fossil fuel carbon dioxide very efficiently & cost-effectively. It is an under-utilized byproduct (as are most pollutants) that will eventually be the basis for its own branch of the chemical process industries. Once an economic value is given to it, it will become a commodity & the utilities will charge for it. Watch and see.
The same thing happened with SO2 scrubber gypsum (used to make wallboard), coal ash (used to make cinderblock) etc. Industry is very creative in re-packing its waste & re-selling it to consumers!!
Galloping decimal point
@ur momisugly Donald Mitchell 1:44 pm
CO2 is 0.038% or 0.00038 (fraction), not 0.00038%
IanM