Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

British Engineers Produce Amazing 'petrol From Air' Technology


Guest_FaFa!_*

Recommended Posts

wont be NEUTRAL till all the energy used to create the stuff produces no carbon.

Can you not read? The article states that it will only be carbon NEUTRAL if renewable energy is used for the process.

"The fuel that is produced can be used in any regular petrol tank and, if renewable energy is used to provide the electricity it could become “completely carbon neutral”."

The thing about oil, is that the energy of the Sun is embedded in it....few other fuels are as cheap to extract and some even take more energy to produce than they finally output.

The other thing about oil, is it's a finite resource and fiendishly expensive.

The technology, presented to a London engineering conference this week, removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

Eh? What is the point of posting this - that's HOW it's carbon NEUTRAL. It takes C02 from the atmosphere, and then when the fuel produced is burned the carbon returns to the atmosphere. If a form of energy that is itself carbon neutral (nuclear for example) is used to power the process, the whole thing is claimed to be carbon NEUTRAL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Given sufficient electricity, you can synthesise pretty much anything from anything, assuming you have the right atoms.

Long term, this is exactly the sort of technology you'll need to use if you want a liquid fuel - and liquid fuels are useful. The real problem is capturing enough CO2:

1 kg CO2 needs the complete stripping of about 1300 cubic meters of air, giving 272g Carbon, 727g Methanol, and then 320g (~400ml) petrol.

Reversing that, a typical 40 liter fillup needs 130,000 cubic meters of air to be processed, at perfect efficiency.

Energy requirements for:

CO2 + H2O -> CH2(-C) + 1.5O2 come out as 634 kJ/mol (14g) or 1,450,000 kJ for this 40l tank -> 400 kWh

If they can get 5p/kWh, that's £20. (Note: 1 barrel of oil is ~160l, so this is £80/barrel)

HOWEVER, at every stage I'm assumed perfect energy efficiency (and no losses at all for breaking down sodium carbonate). Personally, I'd stop at Methanol synthesis most of the time. And as far as possible use waste streams - paper, wood, plastic, anything with carbon in - as a starting point, so you don't have to capture CO2.

So.. If you have access to a very large amount of very cheap electricity and you can make the whole process highly energy-efficient then it's reasonable. If you want to capture CO2, you do need to figure out a way of efficiently processing a vast amount of air..

Mon Dieu!....California alone will suck ALL the air from the World to run their Aircon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.. If you have access to a very large amount of very cheap electricity and you can make the whole process highly energy-efficient then it's reasonable. If you want to capture CO2, you do need to figure out a way of efficiently processing a vast amount of air..

It's ******.

You generate electricity and use it.

Carbon capture and stripping from the air is an utter waste of time and energy. Grow some fecking trees or plants if you want to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/exclusive-the-scientists-who-turned-fresh-air-into-petrol-8217382.html

Although the process is still in the early developmental stages and needs to take electricity from the national grid to work, the company believes it will eventually be possible to use power from renewable sources such as wind farms or tidal barrages.

"We've taken carbon dioxide from air and hydrogen from water and turned these elements into petrol," said Peter Harrison, the company's chief executive, who revealed the breakthrough at a conference at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London.

"There's nobody else doing it in this country or indeed overseas as far as we know. It looks and smells like petrol but it's a much cleaner and clearer product than petrol derived from fossil oil," Mr Harrison told The Independent.

"We don't have any of the additives and nasty bits found in conventional petrol, and yet our fuel can be used in existing engines," he said.

From the Indy article on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you not read? The article states that it will only be carbon NEUTRAL if renewable energy is used for the process.

"The fuel that is produced can be used in any regular petrol tank and, if renewable energy is used to provide the electricity it could become "completely carbon neutral"."

The other thing about oil, is it's a finite resource and fiendishly expensive.

Eh? What is the point of posting this - that's HOW it's carbon NEUTRAL. It takes C02 from the atmosphere, and then when the fuel produced is burned the carbon returns to the atmosphere. If a form of energy that is itself carbon neutral (nuclear for example) is used to power the process, the whole thing is claimed to be carbon NEUTRAL.

I can read...I also understand that some people dont read past the headlines and first few paragraphs.

hence, the "angle" on this story is in line 3.

they go on to clarify later on, as you say, but like all spin, its the first few bits that count in peoples minds.....this is what they remember and is the whole premise of "spin"....the facts are there but hidden in the later print.

The point is, it isnt carbon neutral.

TBH, id rather have carbon than U235 in my lungs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given sufficient electricity, you can synthesise pretty much anything from anything, assuming you have the right atoms.

Long term, this is exactly the sort of technology you'll need to use if you want a liquid fuel - and liquid fuels are useful. The real problem is capturing enough CO2:

1 kg CO2 needs the complete stripping of about 1300 cubic meters of air, giving 272g Carbon, 727g Methanol, and then 320g (~400ml) petrol.

Reversing that, a typical 40 liter fillup needs 130,000 cubic meters of air to be processed, at perfect efficiency.

Energy requirements for:

CO2 + H2O -> CH2(-C) + 1.5O2 come out as 634 kJ/mol (14g) or 1,450,000 kJ for this 40l tank -> 400 kWh

If they can get 5p/kWh, that's £20. (Note: 1 barrel of oil is ~160l, so this is £80/barrel)

HOWEVER, at every stage I'm assumed perfect energy efficiency (and no losses at all for breaking down sodium carbonate). Personally, I'd stop at Methanol synthesis most of the time. And as far as possible use waste streams - paper, wood, plastic, anything with carbon in - as a starting point, so you don't have to capture CO2.

So.. If you have access to a very large amount of very cheap electricity and you can make the whole process highly energy-efficient then it's reasonable. If you want to capture CO2, you do need to figure out a way of efficiently processing a vast amount of air..

Rather than trying to scrub Co2 from air I would have thought it would be more effective to utilise CO2 sources that are concentrated. The Brewing industry for examples produces a lot of CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given sufficient electricity, you can synthesise pretty much anything from anything, assuming you have the right atoms.

Long term, this is exactly the sort of technology you'll need to use if you want a liquid fuel - and liquid fuels are useful. The real problem is capturing enough CO2:

1 kg CO2 needs the complete stripping of about 1300 cubic meters of air, giving 272g Carbon, 727g Methanol, and then 320g (~400ml) petrol.

Reversing that, a typical 40 liter fillup needs 130,000 cubic meters of air to be processed, at perfect efficiency.

Energy requirements for:

CO2 + H2O -> CH2(-C) + 1.5O2 come out as 634 kJ/mol (14g) or 1,450,000 kJ for this 40l tank -> 400 kWh

If they can get 5p/kWh, that's £20. (Note: 1 barrel of oil is ~160l, so this is £80/barrel)

HOWEVER, at every stage I'm assumed perfect energy efficiency (and no losses at all for breaking down sodium carbonate). Personally, I'd stop at Methanol synthesis most of the time. And as far as possible use waste streams - paper, wood, plastic, anything with carbon in - as a starting point, so you don't have to capture CO2.

So.. If you have access to a very large amount of very cheap electricity and you can make the whole process highly energy-efficient then it's reasonable. If you want to capture CO2, you do need to figure out a way of efficiently processing a vast amount of air..

So just get coal power stations to have massive carbon capture tanks that capture the co2 emitted by them.Petrol producers can then pay coal plants for use of this concentrated co2.i didn't expect someone with so much belief in the man made global warming hoax to be so against this idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chemistry description is a bit sketchy, as is any account of energy input. However, if the IMechE endorse it it will surely have been properly appraised.

It is carbon-neutral insofar that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, and returns thre when the fuel is burnt. However, energy is needed in the manufacturing process. If this is from renewables (e.g. wind generators) then it could be more-or-less carbon neautral.

In a nutchell, it is a way of converting (ideally, renewable) energy into energy stored as a liquid fuel.

It is interesting and attractive for several reasons:

1 ) It can make use of unreliable (erratic) energy sources such as wind generation, where there could sometimes be over-capacity (if it is rolled enough to meet minimum capacity requirements for the grid).

2 ) It stores the energy generated.

3 ) It is a more efficient storage of energy than batteries, in terms of weight and volume

4 ) It can feed into the existing petrol infrastructure, and be used in conventional engines

5 ) Refuelling would be faster than for electric vehicles.

6 ) It reduces dependence on foreign sources of oil.

There are downsides. Sodium Hydroxide is made via an energy-intensive process, electrolysing salt water, that produces a lot of chlorine as well.

There are several manufacturing processes, which mostly use asbestos or mercury.

So, it will produce lots of chlorine, and use a lot of sodium hydroxide, and also requires mercury and/or asbestos. All nasty chemicals.

My guess is that, even scaled up, it will be very expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chemistry description is a bit xketchy, as is any account of energy input. However, if the IMechE endorse it it will surely have been properly appraised.

It is carbon-neutral insofar that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, and returns thre when the fuel is burnt. However, energy is needed in the manufacturing process. If this is from renewables (e.g. wind generators) then it could be more-or-less carbon neautral.

In a nutchell, it is a way of converting (ideally, renewable) energy into energy stored as a liquid fuel.

It is interesting and attractive for several reasons:

1 ) It can make use of unreliable (erratic) energy sources such as wind generation, where there could sometimes be over-capacity (if it is rolled enough to meet minimum capacity requirements for the grid).

2 ) It stores the energy generated.

3 ) It is a more efficient storage of energy than batteries, in terms of weight and volume

4 ) It can feed into the existing petrol infrastructure, and be used in conventional engines

5 ) Refuelling would be faster than for electric vehicles.

6 ) It reduces dependence on foreign sources of oil.

There are downsides. Sodium Hydroxide is made via an energy-intensive process, electrolysing salt water, that produces a lot of chlorine as well.

There are several manufacturing processes, which mostly use asbestos or mercury.

My guess is that, even scaled up, it will be very expensive.

Using electricity (and other expensively produced chemicals that require massive energy inputs) to produce a liquid fuel substitute is b o l l u x.

Battery technology is already higly efficient.

Electric motors are amazingly efficient, far more so than any IC engine.

Speed, torque and power electric control systems are amazingly efficient compared to ANY mechanical equivalent.

CHarging systems and batteries capable of fast charging are improving all the time, as are energy desnity, peak discharge rates.

We do not need a liquid fuel substitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have met these guys and some of their competitors as well.

1. The chemistry is viable (the US Navy is working on similar processes too...)

2. It is hideously expensive, not worth thinking about till oil hits $250 a barrel (or Carbon taxes go up loads). More expensive than similar Fischer-Tropsch type processes.

3. It is very inefficient

4. The idea is that it is an alternative to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for large industrial emitters where the geology doesn't work (one of their competitors is approaching owners of large CO2 emitters for access to good quality CO2). Clean CO2 is the key to bringing the costs down. Scrubbing and concentrating pushes the costs up massively.

5. Teesside (Billingham and Wilton) where they are based happens to be the home of the largest CLEAN CO2 sources in the UK so ideally sited. As Kurt points out breweries, distilleries, bio-ethanol and ammonia plants are ideal CO2 sources for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's not petrol from air then, it's petrol from air and sodium hydroxide. Wikipedia says we make 60 million tons of that per year globally. How much would be need to make to fuel our cars this way (even ignoring the energy input requirements)? Can we make that much?

I should add I don't know what sodium hydroxide is or where it comes from so if this is a really stupid point please say so.

Sodium hydroxide is made from sodium chloride i.e. common table salt which the sea is full of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloralkali_process

You do need energy though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two applications where I can see this method making sense despite being very inefficient / expensive are nuclear powered aircraft carriers - no need to dock to take on more jet fuel - and remote army bases - no need for huge and hard to protect supply chains running across Afghanistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just get coal power stations to have massive carbon capture tanks that capture the co2 emitted by them.Petrol producers can then pay coal plants for use of this concentrated co2.i didn't expect someone with so much belief in the man made global warming hoax to be so against this idea.

Not sure if I am for or against, I'm just trying to put numbers on it.

You do realize that applied chemistry and physics are not political?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not need a liquid fuel substitute.

The correct answer is we do not know.

Maybe batteries or other technologies can be developed that can store a viable amount of energy or maybe they can't.

Maybe this fuel from air technology is viable or maybe it isn't. If one used energy from nuclear or renewable sources that would otherwise be idle then the energy input could be essentially free.

The right thing to do is to investigate and find out what works and what doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The correct answer is we do not know.

Maybe batteries or other technologies can be developed that can store a viable amount of energy or maybe they can't.

Maybe this fuel from air technology is viable or maybe it isn't. If one used energy from nuclear or renewable sources that would otherwise be idle then the energy input could be essentially free.

The right thing to do is to investigate and find out what works and what doesn't.

Batteries already store a viable amount of energy. Even with no installed high speed charging facilities current battery technology is more than enough for most households to run at least one of say two cars.

Using electricty, power, insfrastructure, money, time and effort to sequest CO2 is total ********, especially from air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Batteries already store a viable amount of energy. Even with no installed high speed charging facilities current battery technology is more than enough for most households to run at least one of say two cars.

The best electric cars on the market have a range of < 100 miles, take up to 8 hours to charge and are very expensive as well: Nissan Leaf (11 on) - Review

Thanks to the capacity of the Leaf’s battery you can drive up to around 100 miles on one charge. This can drop substantially if the conditions aren’t good, however, or if the car is driven hard.

A full charge can take up to eight hours but charging points are available that allow for a quick charge of up to 80% capacity in 30 minutes.

So if batteries are as good as you say where are the viable electric cars?

Using electricty, power, insfrastructure, money, time and effort to sequest CO2 is total ********, especially from air.

Says who?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humankind will reach a point where we will have exhausted the energy stored on earth over millennia.. the next step is to go directly to the energy source and capture energy.... capsules sent to the sun to return with the energy required for earth for a year at a time say... using the suns energy to synthesize uranium.. for example ... you read it here first!! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted Today, 08:35 AM

Voice of Reason, on 19 October 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

So it's not petrol from air then, it's petrol from air and sodium hydroxide. Wikipedia says we make 60 million tons of that per year globally. How much would be need to make to fuel our cars this way (even ignoring the energy input requirements)? Can we make that much?

I should add I don't know what sodium hydroxide is or where it comes from so if this is a really stupid point please say so.

Caustic soda or lye. Not a stupid point though, given the disparity in production of NaOH and consumption of fossil fuel, it's plain to see that the current infrastructure wouldn't work.

That said if it were possible to provide fuel security I'm sure they would divert copious amounts of money towards it.

The way I read it is that sodium hydroxide is used to remove the carbon dioxide from a certain amount of air, giving a quantity of sodium carbonate. This sodium carbonate is then "electrolysed" to regenerate the sodium hydroxide, which process also gives a useful quantity of pure and concentrated carbon dioxide which is used in a further stage. So it's a reversible cyclical process which doesn't actually consume sodium hydroxide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best electric cars on the market have a range of < 100 miles, take up to 8 hours to charge and are very expensive as well: Nissan Leaf (11 on) - Review

So if batteries are as good as you say where are the viable electric cars?

Says who?

I say so. :lol:

You are correct on the expense front, that is largely to do with volumes, economies of scale will reduce that significantly without any fruther technologcal improvement.

100 mile range is more than enough for a second car. That is a viable car. I can't even remember the last time I went by car over 100 miles. So even long charge times are not the drawback that they seem, top up charges are also useful in the mix.

Fast charging solutions will come and pretty quick.

Using energy (lots of electricity) to create a fuel substitute that then gets burnt in an IC engine with little over 20% efficiency (that's just the engine) plus all the other mechanical losses, idling, braking (straight into heat) is just lunacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll never run out of oil

SELF GENERATING ABIOTIC OIL

(I don't believe it 100% myself, and I run a 1.2L car just in case)

Well. there are two theories:

1 - Oil is being generated and moved to the surface at rates comparable with current production.

OR

2 - There is oxygen in the atmosphere.

One of these is correct. They can't both be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.