Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Years ago James May did a piece on a bunch of guys in the US desert that were making petroleum distillate out of fresh air and sunlight. And this was no 2-bit outfit, they clearly had many millions of dollars of investment behind them. here - http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/S2P Sunlight is fine - that's a free energy input and there is lots of it in the desert. Basically they are doing the same as a large tree would. In this case though, they are taking energy from the grid and wasting it in the most pointless way possible. They'd be better off planting trees and harvesting them for biofuel than this crazy idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 You need a certain amount for base load yes to run the plant, but this process as described needs immense amounts of energy and is really more or less pointless - you are using energy to turn CO2 into petrol. Where does that energy come from? You will be better off just not burning the carbon in the first place. For example, if you completly combusted a barrel of petrol you would get a lot of CO2. To turn that back into petrol, you would need the energy input that you could get from burning another FOUR barrels of petrol. So you recovered a barrels worth of CO2 at the expense of creating another four barrels worth. It's a pointless idea. It's far better just to not burn it in the first place and use an electric vehicle instead. I'll to you, as I pass you by in the slow lane! I don't know why you are so completely negative about the idea! Do you work for an oil company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I read over my Dad's shoulder, his engineering magazine - which said people were experimenting trying to turn salt water into a fuel. We live in interesting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I'll to you, as I pass you by in the slow lane! I don't know why you are so completely negative about the idea! Do you work for an oil company? I don't know why you are so positive. Are you shilling for this company then? I'm negative about it because it is perforce, utter ******. They havent invented anything new. They haven't overcome the worlds energy problems. They are not creating petrol from fresh air. All they are doing is wasting good energy in the form of electricity to create a fuel that will at best release one eighth of the energy that was consumed in the first place to make it. That's very bad - especially when you can power an electric car far far more efficiently. Now if this was a thermal process using waste heat from a power station, then it would be a different matter. But it isn't. If it was using free energy, like the one referenced in the middle of the US desert that would be a different matter. But it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 I don't know why you are so positive. Are you shilling for this company then? I'm negative about it because it is perforce, utter ******. They havent invented anything new. They haven't overcome the worlds energy problems. They are not creating petrol from fresh air. All they are doing is wasting good energy in the form of electricity to create a fuel that will at best release one eighth of the energy that was consumed in the first place to make it. That's very bad - especially when you can power an electric car far far more efficiently. Now if this was a thermal process using waste heat from a power station, then it would be a different matter. But it isn't. If it was using free energy, like the one referenced in the middle of the US desert that would be a different matter. But it isn't. Obviously you didn't read the entire article. Just skimmed through it, and made your mind up it was bad! 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 the company believes it will eventually be possible to use power from renewable sources such as wind farms or tidal barrages. Doesn't matter where it's from. If it takes 100w of energy to make 90w of energy then it's still negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Obviously you didn't read the entire article. Just skimmed through it, and made your mind up it was bad! You've not quite grasped what Obelix meant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Obviously you didn't read the entire article. Just skimmed through it, and made your mind up it was bad! FFS... Do you understand the basic physics going on here? You cannot make energy out of nothing - it's not possible. You need an energy input to the system. Creating petrol out of fresh air and energy is wasteful - it is not efficient at all. It's far far better to use the energy input in a more sensible manner - like an electric car, like an electric train, rather than profligately use it to generate petrol. This is the problem when you have a decidedly non scientific reporter reporting on something they clearly understand bugger all about. The problem is that people then take it as gospel and it creates even more confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 Doesn't matter where it's from. If it takes 100w of energy to make 90w of energy then it's still negative. Ummmm..where in the article does it state the energy required to produce it? How do you know it takes more to make it than you get out of it? or are you assuming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Ummmm..where in the article does it state the energy required to produce it? How do you know it takes more to make it than you get out of it? or are you assuming? We're back to perpetual motion now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.