Cyclone Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-is-breakthrough-a-milestone-on-the-road-to-clean-energy-16226456.html 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. I was soundly derided. Although this isn't quite the same. It's a good as, in my book. Of course it will be years before it's perfected for mass production, but I wonder if the oil companies will try to bury the idea? This is not making a car run with fresh air though. It's making a car run with petrol. And the petrol is made with carbon from the atmosphere and hydrogen from water, and shed loads of electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn 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 They could store it in a low friction near perpetual motion machine of the third kind. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 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 " Well yes I do agree it is a bit optomistic to say the least. That's journalist for you! Their own website claims nothing of the sort though! http://www.airfuelsynthesis.com/home.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 19, 2012 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. It's not entirely pointless. If we can get energy cleanly from somewhere (fission, fusion in the future) then this just becomes a form of energy storage like hydrogen. Batteries don't have the energy density we'd like for electrical vehicles and can't be refilled quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 It's not entirely pointless. If we can get energy cleanly from somewhere (fission, fusion in the future) then this just becomes a form of energy storage like hydrogen. Batteries don't have the energy density we'd like for electrical vehicles and can't be refilled quickly. Maybe they can They have batteries that can do that now - 10% to 90% charge in about six minutes. That's viable to use it in a plutonium economy. The probelm, as ever is cost - although new tech usually does end up getting cheaper real fast if it is of any use at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 It's not entirely pointless. If we can get energy cleanly from somewhere (fission, fusion in the future) then this just becomes a form of energy storage like hydrogen. Batteries don't have the energy density we'd like for electrical vehicles and can't be refilled quickly. I beleive I said that it would be good if you have electricity you cannot use. That's hardly the case in the UK though and it's hard;y the free energy panacea that the press are making it out to be. You can charge Li cells fairly quickly though, (sadly the main article is paywalled) http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134635-scientists-develop-lithium-ion-battery-that-charges-120-times-faster-than-normal That, along with a proper investment in whole actinide or even a plutonium only economy would be a much better way of dealing with things, as well as reducing roadside emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 19, 2012 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. If it was 90% efficient that would be pretty amazing. Suggesting that we should just use battery powered cars instead is foolish when the technology isn't there. A car that takes 8 hours to fill up and has a 100mile range is not a car, it's a toy. This isn't some sort of magic solution, but petrol happens to be a very high energy density storage medium for power and we have an international distribution system for it. So, we still need a clean source of power in the first place, but given that this is superior to either battery or hydrogen powered vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 This is not making a car run with fresh air though. It's making a car run with petrol. And the petrol is made with carbon from the atmosphere and hydrogen from water, and shed loads of electricity. From their website they quote this: Outline designs for a 1-tonne a day containerised production plant are available and first units could be in place and producing within 18 months of funding. A 1-tonne a day plant requires 3MW renewable electricity. Both wind turbines and AFS fuel plant could easily be located within the boundaries of a typical motor racing circuit or off-site. Is 3 MW a lot? I'm presuming it is quite a lot, but they do say 'renewable' energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 If it was 90% efficient that would be pretty amazing. Suggesting that we should just use battery powered cars instead is foolish when the technology isn't there. A car that takes 8 hours to fill up and has a 100mile range is not a car, it's a toy. Why? I mean seriously why does that make it a toy? Plug in and charge overnight and I have a commute of 15 miles each way to work. Such a car would be eminently feasible for me to use in everyday life. It's not of course going to be ideal if you do a long distance daily, or have to charge at your destination, but for a lot of people electric cars are very useful, apart from the high purchase cost and the battery costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted October 19, 2012 Author Share Posted October 19, 2012 They could store it a low friction near perpetual motion machine of the third kind. jb Hahahaa...you can save that for the other thread Barley!...:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.