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.
CO2 is presently a byproduct of the Great Plains Synfuels Plant boondoggle near Beulah, North Dakota, that produces methane from coal. They pipe the CO2 to Canada to sequester it by pumping it underground into oil wells.
Using hydrogen as a fuel is not viable even if storage problems are solved. The cheapest way to produce hydrogen is from methane and it would be cheaper and more energy efficient to use methane directly as the fuel rather than to produce hydrogen from it.
Lester Via says: The cheapest way to produce hydrogen is from methane and it would be cheaper and more energy efficient to use methane directly as the fuel rather than to produce hydrogen from it.
I think the issue is what happens when hypothetically the methane runs out (not that it ever will, given the ongoing biological processes) which pretty much leaves water as a source of hydrogen. There has been recent advances using catalysts and nanotechnology to reduce the energy required to generate hydrogen from water, so it is just a matter of time before it becomes an economical method. The marketplace will see to that.
KR:
At October 19, 2012 at 4:25 pm concerning outrageously expensive windpower you lie
That is PRICE not COST.
Windpower cost = price + subsidy + backup cost
Windpower is a scandalous rip-off of the public. But you know that, don’t you?
Richard
As Steve Paris in a comment above said “What happens to trees when you suck all the CO² out of the air? Doesn’t all that green stuff turn grey and die? And we all starve to death.”
What happens when you suck CO² out of the sea on an industrial scale. Don’t the fishes and other sea creatures like the salt water soup mixed the way that it is ? Change the sea and we potentially have a huge negative effect on our food chain and we all starve to death.
Ken Pollock is right: don’t ignore the second law of thermodynamics.
There is no free energy, there is no easy way out.
Often the terms “renewable” energy and “green” energy are used. Energy is not renewable nor does it have a color or the properties of good or bad.
cassandraclub:
Yes, this thread has been snowed by ‘green’ dreamers and, as Ken Pollock says, they have no idea of the fundamentals.
Some of he daft ‘green’ notions displayed are so silly that it is not possible to ridicule them.
Richard
Green Dreamer – courtesy of Supertramp.
Green dreamer, you know you are a dreamer
Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no!
I said green dreamer, you’re nothing but a dreamer
Well can you put your hands in your head, oh no!
I said ’far out, – what a day, a year, a laugh it is!’
You know, – well you know you had it comin’ to you,
Now there’s not a lot I can do
Green dreamer, you stupid little dreamer;
So now you put your head in your hands, oh no!
I said ’far out, – what a day, a year, a laugh it is!’
You know, – well you know you had it comin’ to you,
Now there’s not a lot I can do.
I’d like all of you solar and wind energy proponents to start a city powered only by wind and solar. No fossil fuels, no nuclear, no internal combustion engines. Electric cars and buses only.
Try that out and get back to us in a few years and let us know how it’s working out.
rgbatduke says:
October 19, 2012 at 7:02 am
I can get (being generous) 5 kW from my rooftop for 8 hours a day — call it 40 kWh (although it is more likely going to be more like 20). That’s just over one gallon of gasoline assuming perfect conversion efficiency. Gasoline has a whoppping 33 kWh per gallon!
=========
Exactly, this is what most folks aware not aware of. How little energy a solar panel puts out as compared to fuel. Residential electricity rates are about $0.1/kwh, so a gallon of gasoline is about the same as $3.30 worth of electricity.
In the example above, a rooftop of solar panels is going to cost $ 100K easily. To produce the equivalent of maybe $1500 worth of gasoline a year in energy. This might at first look like a 1.5% return on your money. However, the panels don’t last forever and are subject to wear and tear. Which means you must factor in this cost, which is going to be at least 5% a year, allowing for a 20+ year replacement. So, in reality, the panels are losing about $3500 every year.
I can make gas from CO2 and water vapor too. It is a highly proprietary process that I have in my “plant(s)”. Even better it uses solar energy too and it is organic. Never mind that I use as much energy to produce it as it will provide, it is GREEN!!! I will do an IPO of this later this year after I suitably flog and carpet post like a Harrop (as in Barrie).
In other news, it appears that the cabbage heads are returning with new schemes of wonderment.
more soylent green! I’d like all of you solar and wind energy proponents to start a city powered only by wind and solar. No fossil fuels, no nuclear, no internal combustion engines. Electric cars and buses only.
That makes no more sense than a city powered solely by gasoline. If the choice is between gasoline-powered home air conditioning and solar-powered home air-conditioning, then solar-powered home air conditioning wins out in most of the world. In some parts of the world solar for home lighting (and powering sewing machines) already beats out diesel for home lighting. The cities of the future will have a more diverse and stable source of electricity than what they have now, and solar and wind will be parts of that.
Solar power may eventually be cheaper than gas-powered electricity; it already is more productive than an equal area of hydropower (imagine a solar farm beside Lake Mead) and more reliable. As it becomes cheaper, it will spread, and in a few places of the world it is the cheapest source of electricity now, even without subsidies.
Solar and wind are not panaceas, but neither are they phantoms.
richardscourtney: If wind power were really useful then oil tankers would be sailing ships.
Don’t be absurd.
If batteries were really useful, then oil tankers would be running on batteries.
If gasoline were really useful, then oil tankers would be running on gasoline.
If hydropower were really useful, then oil tankers would be running on gasoline.
We will never have an economy where all of the energy is of a single source and kind.
richardscourtney: Yes, imagination is a wonderful thing. It is a pity that reality is nothing like it.
All of technology was imagined before it was built.
You are a smart person, but your comments on this thread are stupid.
ferd berple: Exactly, this is what most folks aware not aware of. How little energy a solar panel puts out as compared to fuel. Residential electricity rates are about $0.1/kwh, so a gallon of gasoline is about the same as $3.30 worth of electricity.
That depends on where you live, and those are current costs. In 2032 we’ll want to redo the calculations for Arizona, central India, and Namibia.
Matthew R Marler:
At October 20, 2012 at 11:18 am you say to me
Realism may be many things, but not “stupid”.
People can “imagine” whatever they want. And if they change their imaginings into something economic and practical then they make fortunes. But I object to people imagining perpetual motion machines or uneconomic and useless windfarms then expecting me to be forced to pay for the realisation of their dreams.
Richard
richardscourtney: imagining perpetual motion machines
That will matter when someone proposes a perpetual motion machine. This thread is about fuel from H2O, CO2 and electricity, where the source of electricity might be cheap, like wind, solar or (as suggested in a comment), nuclear power. What made your comments “stupid” was your blanket dismissal of possibilities that are obviously possible.
If [insert power source here] were useful, it would be used in oil tankers. Billions of people find pedal power useful, and it does not power a single oil tanker. Billions also have plenty of sun and wind but no cheap or reliable fuel. If the technologies that already exist can be mass-produced at low enough cost, someone will sell those people fuel made from solar, CO2 and H2O. Perpetual motion machines are not in the mix.
Matthew R Marler:
At October 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm you continue to misrepresent what I have said in this thread and the most outrageous example is your writing as a quotation of me
I actually wrote at October 19, 2012 at 1:43 pm
and what I did write is self-evidently true.
For thousands of years wind was the power source for ships. And the cargo of oil tankers is oil, and oil is used as their fuel. No shipper would consume his cargo without good reason, but fossil fuel has displaced windpower for all shipping including oil tankers. The reasons are both cost and reliability. The cost or the unreliable nature of windpower each alone stops wind from being “really useful” for shipping and for power generation: both problems together make it completely untenable except as a method to ‘farm’ subsidies.
Our ancestors did not abandon hydropower when fossil fuels became available because they were not stupid. But they did abandon biomass and windpower and their reason for that was also because they were not stupid.
As I said in the same post where I used the oil tanker illustration
Indeed, rgbatduke explains this same subject in more detail in this thread at October 19, 2012 at 7:02 am.
Richard
@richardscourtney
I presume you eat food to live. Unless you live on bread alone (102% efficient) you are alive and commenting thanks to the biggest perpetual motion machine scam in history, still going strong with 7 billion grateful adherents:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6252
I was happy enough to skim past your comments after the first few but then I realised there might be some people who are here, eagerly trying to get up to scratch on the science and fall into the same trap as you have if they read “perpetual motion” enough times. That’s the only reason I’m slipping this comment in. Well, that and the fact that these other guys seem to be having some difficulty convincing you despite their cogent arguments.
Gasoline alchemy indeed!!!
This is an appropriate title and unfortunately describes the state of “comptetence” that is currently being extensively applied to develop alternatives fuels. Just look at the track record of the current administration. They know how to pick failures. As long as a foolish government policy or some rich thermodamically challenged millionaire funds these activities there will be unethical folks taking their $$$ while making claims of replacing big bad oil with a green solution.
From the article:
“However, Professor Klaus Lackner of Columbia University in New York said that the high costs of any new technology always fall dramatically.
“I bought my first CD in the 1980s and it cost $20 but now you can make one for less than 10 cents. The cost of a light bulb has fallen 7,000-fold during the past century,” Professor Lackner said.
This shows the stupdity of the zealots. High costs ALWAYS fall dramatically regardless of how bad the technology actually performs? Certainly there are lots of ideas that are in the dustbin because the economics never make sense. This common green claim has no substance if fact and is used to avoid admitting a mistake and avoid doing proper economic studies!
Another similar claim for making ethanol from CO2:
“Recycling of CO2 is not a new idea by any means. Every chemistry book has a section outlining the process reactions. What is different, we do not use microbes and operate at room temperature/atmospheric pressure. The process is primarily based on a heterogeneous catalysis and co-catalysis that is not a microbe. This is entirely new and yes, the process works. Our pilot plant converts CO2 into sugar. It seems some are caught up in material balances and say the process can not work because the material balance is not correct. Again, the process works very well. The process is proprietary and will not be discussed. We are just saying, there is a low cost solution to produce sugar from CO2 that is outside a microbiological route. We also developed a fast fermentation process to very quickly convert CO2 into ethanol and capture the fermentation CO2 to produce more sugar. The goal is to cut biofuel production costs significantly and this is one such route to accomplish this goal. Thanks for your interest and comment.”
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?trk=view_disc&gid=110898&ut=1gI64_c3Jjx5s1&commentID=92479207&viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=139251266
One common problem with these concepts, Capturing CO2 is not inexpensive, and when captured needs to be compressed to a higher pressure, stored, and transported. It is hard to believe it will ever be economic despite what the Professor from Columbia thinks.
Scute:
I quote all of your post addressed to me at October 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm because it is so ridiculous I would not want people to read my reply out of context. It says
I presume you eat food to live. Unless you live on bread alone (102% efficient) you are alive and commenting thanks to the biggest perpetual motion machine scam in history, still going strong with 7 billion grateful adherents:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6252
I was happy enough to skim past your comments after the first few but then I realised there might be some people who are here, eagerly trying to get up to scratch on the science and fall into the same trap as you have if they read “perpetual motion” enough times. That’s the only reason I’m slipping this comment in. Well, that and the fact that these other guys seem to be having some difficulty convincing you despite their cogent arguments.
Kirk Sorensen has stated that conversion to the much safer, highly efficient molten salt, fluid fueled nuclear reactor technology (thorium-breeders or the simple uranium burners advocated by Dr. David LeBlanc) could be used to produce low-cost artificial transportation fuels.
LFTR in 5 minutes
“Published on Mar 31, 2012 by Jerry Chan”
5 likes, 0 dislikes, 221 Views; in this case 5:06 min (This is a clip)
Transportation fuels covered at the three minute mark.
Dr. LeBlanc’s position is that for now, there is enough uranium to enable the first generation molten salt reactors to be simple enhanced uranium burners.
The reduced waste mentioned here is the dangerous long-lived, fissionable transuranic waste.
Solid fuel rods have to be removed after only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel has been consumed, because they become distorted by the buildup of nuclear waste products. Molten salt, fluid fueled reactors would not have this problem so it is expected that much less (perhaps only 10%) fuel would be required for the same energy production.
Moderators:
Thankyou for finding my reply to Scute. However, it seems its formatting is muddled. Hence, I am now resubmitting it in hope that this version has corrected formatting.
Richard
———————–
Scute:
I quote all of your post addressed to me at October 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm because it is so ridiculous I would not want people to read my reply out of context. It says
There have been NO “cogent arguments” for ‘renewables’ in this thread. Lots of ‘green’ wet dreams but nothing that approaches a viable and economic reality.
The “7 billion adherents” mostly exist because renewables were abandoned.in favour of the greater energy intensity available from fossil fuels. People need energy to survive and the human population took off when the energy of fossil fuels became available initially by use of the steam engine.
Indeed, your link goes to a site that lists the energy requirements of food production. You are deluded if you really think a return to biomass and a return to horses, oxen and slaves could replace the agricultural production enabled by fossil fueled tractors.
At present the world population is conservatively estimated at 6.6 billion and it is expected to peak at conservatively 8 billion around the middle of this century. Those additional billions need energy to survive. Burning wood and dung will not provide anywhere near enough of it. The only sources of sufficient additional energy are fossil fuels and nuclear power. Most of the needed increased energy supply has to be from fossil fuels because there are limits to the uses of energy from the end of a wire.
The idea that the increase in needed energy could come from renewables is not merely daft: it is evil. It condemns billions of people – mostly children – to death. The existing population was achieved by abandoning such low energy density sources and adopting fossil fuels instead.
Whether you like it or not, a device for producing energy which consumes more energy than it provides IS a perpetual motion machine. Don’t try the idiotic assertion that you could use a ‘renewable’ to provide the excess energy. If that energy were useful then it would be foolish to throw some of it away by using it as an input to the device.
Read the post from Catcracking at October 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm and try to learn something before again putting both feet in your mouth when making a post.
Richard
The selling price of any alternative fuel will have to be considerably lower than the present price of gasoline. The world’s crude oil price is now set by users bidding against each other for the limited supply available rather than by those producers that are willing to sell it the cheapest. OPEC sees to this by agreeing to limit how much oil they will pump out of the ground, a tactic which is a violation of the laws of most developed countries.
Anyone building a full scale synfuels plant will quickly go bankrupt unless it can compete with gasoline that sells for less than half the present cost. OPEC will simply increase production thus lowering the cost of gasoline to whatever it takes to maintain their oil monopoly by pricing competition out of the market. The only way that is certain to prevent this from happening is to have the capability of doing without any OPEC oil by increasing the non-OPEC oil production capability. Just the threat of a serious worldwide “drill baby drill” effort to increase non-OPEC oil production would cause a immediate drop in oil prices as OPEC is not run stupid people.
Catcracking: High costs ALWAYS fall dramatically regardless of how bad the technology actually performs? Certainly there are lots of ideas that are in the dustbin because the economics never make sense.
With knowledge that we have now, would you bet that this technology costs more or less than 10% of what it costs now, 20 years from now? At that time will liquid fuels from carbonaceous deposits cost more or less than what they cost now?
Functioning gas turbine engines were first operated in about 1939. Their development was entirely government funded. Do you think it will take longer to make this technology commercially feasible than it took the governments of the world to make turbine engines commercially feasible? For solar, we know the answer is “Yes”; given that solar is where it is today, it seems to me that catalyzed manufacture of liquid fuel from PV panels has a good chance to be commercially feasible in less than 20 years, especially for the populations of humans who have sun, water, but no reliable supplies of gasoline or diesel fuel.
Taking a hard line on what costs can’t possibly be reduced sufficiently to make a technology commercially feasible strikes me as being foolish.