T 42 Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I was on a thread a while ago where I mooted the thought that 'probably' someone somewhere could make a car run with just fresh air. They can. You just need to mix a bit of petrol in with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I agree it's probably in their interests to 'big it up'...it only makes sense if they're chasing funding. But surely it would never get as far as it has without there being some sort of basic science to the principle? To completely reject out of hand as being a non-starter is surely stupidity. We'd still be living in caves if that was projected across history! No one is disputing the science bit....it's the economically viable bit that's under debate on here (I think) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 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? Perhaps because he has an idea about chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 No one is disputing the science bit....it's the economically viable bit that's under debate on here (I think) Unboundless optimism cannot accomodate scientific reality. I notice that Pete is building a strawman again... The science is well founded and not even new - the Fischer-Tropsch process has been used for a long time with say a syngas feed and water shift to make syntehtic fuels - the Germans ran a lot of things in WW2 on this. That however converted coal into liquid fuels at a considerable energy cost. It's perfectly feasible to use this where you have massively abundent free energy - like a desert to make fuel. That of course isn't the case in the article, as it says it requires a grid connection. However as I've said all along, there are much better ways to use that energy especially if it's in the form of electric power. You could generate power in the desert, and connect it even from the Saraha to the UK grid using HVDC more efficiently than you could ship it as petrol. The real problem though is the reporting of it - promises to solve all the worlds energy shortages etc, when quite clearly it doesnt do anything of the kind. You cannot beat the first law after all. As a solver to the worlds energy issues it falls flat on it's face at the starting blocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 They can. You just need to mix a bit of petrol in with it. PMSL. Thanks, I need a new keyboard now. probably worth it though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 No one is disputing the science bit....it's the economically viable bit that's under debate on here (I think) This bit seemed interesting from the Independant article, The technology is also ideal for remote communities that have abundant sources of renewable electricity, such solar energy, wind turbines or wave energy, but little in the way of storing it, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-crisis-8217382.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 No one is disputing the science bit....it's the economically viable bit that's under debate on here (I think) Well yes. It is the economics of it. Initially they're talking about niche markets, like motor sports and perhaps far away places that have an abundance of renewable energy (sunlight for instance), where the plant doesn't need to be plugged into (or can't) the 'grid'. What's wrong with that?..Nothing in my view. I don't see that it can be rejected as poppycock, just because they can't immediately and overnight replace petrol perse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 This bit seemed interesting from the Independant article, The technology is also ideal for remote communities that have abundant sources of renewable electricity, such solar energy, wind turbines or wave energy, but little in the way of storing it, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-crisis-8217382.html Yes it's interesting but supplying fuel to a few islands is hardly going to solve the world's energy crisis as it says at the beginning of the piece "A small British company has produced the first "petrol from air" using a revolutionary technology that promises to solve the energy crisis " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Well yes. It is the economics of it. Initially they're talking about niche markets, like motor sports and perhaps far away places that have an abundance of renewable energy (sunlight for instance), where the plant doesn't need to be plugged into (or can't) the 'grid'. What's wrong with that?..Nothing in my view. I don't see that it can be rejected as poppycock, just because they can't immediately and overnight replace petrol perse! Why spend money on new tech like that for a few islands when there are perfectly good battery systems..? Would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 Unboundless optimism cannot accomodate scientific reality. I notice that Pete is building a strawman again... Strawman? Oh dear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.