British engineers create petrol out of thin air

[biffvernon]

It's just been discussed on Radio 4 Today Programme. Where PowerSwitch leads...

Of course when we all become sensible and ban all burning of fossil carbon then using renewably generated electricity to synthesise hydrocarbons will be the only way we fuel internal combustion engines.

No sign of that paradigm shift any time soon.

[kenneal - lagger]

That's because we don't have enough nuclear plants, if we did then we would have excess energy at off-peak periods which could, if this technology works, produce liquid fuels.

There are some that would say that we have too many already; some would say one is too many!!

[SleeperService]

Hmmm... this reaction was known to Lord Kelvin, it's Steam Age Engineering, it was revived in the 1980s by Martin Marietta as a way of developing rocket propellent on Mars to make Mars missions possible with Saturn V boosters.

That is about the only use that I think will ever be 'economical' the whole idea of making petrol with it is almost laughable.

[Mark]

It's just been discussed on Radio 4 Today Programme. Where PowerSwitch leads....

It was on Radio 5 Live too (my choice of early morning listening....)
I understand that it was also on the front page of the Independent.

The guy being interviewed came across quite well I thought - they're getting backing from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and plan to get the electricity from wind.

[Catweazle]

That's because we don't have enough nuclear plants, if we did then we would have excess energy at off-peak periods which could, if this technology works, produce liquid fuels.

There are some that would say that we have too many already; some would say one is too many!!

Then I would beg to differ with some.

[kenneal - lagger]

It's just been discussed on Radio 4 Today Programme. Where PowerSwitch leads....

It was on Radio 5 Live too (my choice of early morning listening....)
I understand that it was also on the front page of the Independent.

The guy being interviewed came across quite well I thought - they're getting backing from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and plan to get the electicity from wind.

Just shows the desperation to keep BAU going strong!

[Mark]

Just shows the desperation to keep BAU going strong!

True, but there must be $billions spent globally researching into all manner of different things. Personally, I prefer when it's spent on something like this rather than developing a new brand of cat food (to take a totally random example).

[Cabrone]

Its not new but is interesting none-the-less.

Some guys in the US have been looking at petroleum from air for a while, in their case they use sunlight to drive their reaction.

The energy needed to create the petroleum just highlights how amazingly energy dense the stuff is.

Would be a good fit with nuclear IMO.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... 008/01/S2P

[Little John]

Hmmm... this reaction was known to Lord Kelvin, it's Steam Age Engineering, it was revived in the 1980s by Martin Marietta as a way of developing rocket propellent on Mars to make Mars missions possible with Saturn V boosters.

That is about the only use that I think will ever be 'economical' the whole idea of making petrol with it is almost laughable.

Yep, the only point in using electricity to extract gases from the atmosphere is for specialist uses such as hydrogen and oxygen for gas cutters etc. It's not energy efficient, but it allows energy to be stored in a medium that can be used in a specialist way. Even then, though, electricity can even be used directly in things like plasma cutters.

[Snail]

This sounds like the methanol economy which i've read about before.

According to Wikipedia, methanol has a number of disadvantages.

However, just wondering how something like this stacks up when compared to using Batteries and electric vehicles. Would methanol be a better alternative to batteries and electric-cars? Both aren't BAU; just wondering is all. Damn tired.

[adam2]

This sounds like the methanol economy which i've read about before.

According to Wikipedia, methanol has a number of disadvantages.

However, just wondering how something like this stacks up when compared to using Batteries and electric vehicles. Would methanol be a better alternative to batteries and electric-cars? Both aren't BAU; just wondering is all. Damn tired.

AFAIK the proposal is to produce a fuel that very closely resembles petrol from crude oil, rather than to produce methanol.
There is nothing impossible in the synthetic petrol idea, but it is most unlikely to be viable.
The huge amount of electricity required will probably mean the burning of a lot of coal or gas to produce it. The use of coal or gas burning vehicles, or electric vehicles would probably make more sense.
If the electricity was from renewable sources, then the idea might have some merit in theory, but in practice electric transport might be more viable than the costs and complications of turning the electricity into petrol.

[johnhemming]

The issue is entirely one as to how much energy is require for the outcome.

[kenneal - lagger]

The issue is entirely one as to how much energy is require for the outcome.

According to the Laws of Physics that would be more energy will be input than is achieved by the output. The only way you can seemingly get more out than you put in is where an input is conveniently forgotten about as in biofuels, for instance, where the solar input to the crops is what makes the difference between an EROEI of less than one ( a loss) and a return of more than one (a gain).

Pre the fossil fuel revolution the wealthiest people in the country were land owners as they controlled the harvesting of the only energy source available, solar energy. They controlled the food supply and the fuel supply, firewood and charcoal. We could go there again unless something like fusion power can be made to work to an EROEI of more than one.

To keep our economies going as in the recent past fusion power will have to have an EROEI of over ten and preferably over twenty. It's only taken fifty years to get the system going for a few seconds with a huge energy loss so we might get there in a few years. Any guesses less than another 50?

[biffvernon]

The issue is entirely one as to how much energy is require for the outcome.

Not entirely

In a sensible world, where we did not burn any fossil fuel because we knew it would produce greenhouse gasses which would lead to the end of life as we know it, there would still be a case for this sort of technology.

Using solar generated electricity to extract CO2 from the air and reduce it to a liquid fuel that could be easily stored and used for transport could make a lot of sense.

The physics and chemistry are entirely supportive of the process. It fails to compete on economic grounds just as long as the cost of a new planet is discounted when accounting the cost of fossil fuel.

[Little John]

The issue is entirely one as to how much energy is require for the outcome.

Not entirely

In a sensible world, where we did not burn any fossil fuel because we knew it would produce greenhouse gasses which would lead to the end of life as we know it, there would still be a case for this sort of technology.

Using solar generated electricity to extract CO2 from the air and reduce it to a liquid fuel that could be easily stored and used for transport could make a lot of sense.

The physics and chemistry are entirely supportive of the process. It fails to compete on economic grounds just as long as the cost of a new planet is discounted when accounting the cost of fossil fuel.

With a billion of us, we could all be carbon kings.

With 7 billion we will be beggers.