British Scientists Make Gasoline From Air

[More Fun To Compute]

You know, instead of using clean energy to make gasoline to power cars, why don't we just make cars that run on clean energy? I feel like that would be a lot simpler.

That means taking all the infrastructure and car fleet we have, scrapping them, and replacing them with new things. Those new things will take a lot of dirty energy to create and will create environmental problems as by products of their construction.

And creating this fuel would apparently remove carbon from the atmosphere if it was created using clean energy. A major problem with most renewables is that they only generate at peak at certain times which is dependant on the weather and not on demand. Energy storage is always a problem, and it just so happens that hydrocarbons are a great way to store energy.

 

[Harker067]

I think this is probably most interesting for aviation. If I'm not mistaken electric batteries are fairly heavy when you're talking about a car. Plus as the plane flies it's mass would stay the same unlike with a more traditional fuel where the plane becomes lighter the longer its in the air. Still as mentioned above plenty of problems to solve in the mean time.

 

[Batou667]

Dammit, now I have to work this out.
Assuming petrol is octane without any other hydrocarbons...

8CO[sub]2[/sub] + 9H[sub]2[/sub]O --> C[sub]8[/sub]H[sub]18[/sub] + 12.5O[sub]2[/sub]
I DIDN'T JUST EDIT A MISTAKE IN MY EQUATION BALANCING, YOU SAW NOTHING
That's entropically disfavoured - enthalpically as well, given that the reverse of that reaction is simply burning octane in air.
At least at room temperature.
Increasing pressure might bring equilibrium over a bit, and damned if they're not catalysing it somehow - but yeah, that'd be crazy expensive.
It's a nice idea, but it could very easily fall through if they can't make their process more efficient.

Hmm, I was wondering how the hell they were magicking energy out of the air (by ice-skating uphill, evidently).

The only benefit I can see to this liquid fools gold is the fact that the current infrastructure won't need to be changed a jot - we already have pipelines, tankers, fuel pumps and liquid-fuel engines. As the article pointed out, now we just have to make the input energy 100% renewable and we're laughing.

 

[direkiller]

I think this is probably most interesting for aviation. If I'm not mistaken electric batteries are fairly heavy when you're talking about a car. Plus as the plane flies it's mass would stay the same unlike with a more traditional fuel where the plane becomes lighter the longer its in the air. Still as mentioned above plenty of problems to solve in the mean time.

you would have to be mental(or a general lack of understanding of basic physics) to do this in the vehical you are planing to move.

Energy is required to move the vehical.

So if you were to somehow make this 100% efficient the vehicle would still not move because there is no energy being converted to movement.

much more likely is it will not be 100% efficient in the conversion process and you have just made a glorfyied heater.

 

[chadachada123]

Yeah, these guys are idiots. It takes more energy to make the gas than you get out of it. Also, since this energy comes from coal, you end up getting a lot more pollution from making the gas than you take out of the air by making it. It's stupid.

this is true for most biofuels as well as battery cars last i read up, though its been a few years.

but thats the fault of an energy grid. we MUST shut down ALL fossil fuel power plants and put atomic plants in their place and we would have a 100% enviromentally friendly energy.

This is still going to have potential impacts unless we have good battery technology cause we're going to have to mine, refine and dispose of the waste. Then there's still the nuclear waste problem which while I think its a better problem then the ones created then fossil fuels lets not kind ourselves into thinking its environmentally friendly.

True fact: Modern nuclear power plants have essentially zero waste. It uses basically ALL of its fuel during its lifespan. The older pre-1990 methods were absolutely unfriendly, yes, but modern methods leave far less damage than, say, hydroelectric or (possibly) wind power does. Edit: Apologies, but I was incorrect about just how useful it was (It apparently uses 95% as opposed to 99.9% in the repurposing process), and also because the US doesn't allow, with its fucked up laws, for fuel to be reused in this way, meaning extra waste. Yay.

The problem I have with nuclear power plants is that we'll end up running out if we rely solely on it, when we should save at least a good chunk of our Uranium, etc for space exploration in the future.

My favorite type of energy is geothermal. While it technically has a limited lifespan, that lifespan will last for longer than our solar system will. Just stick a circular piece of tube into the earth until it gets above boiling, and then bam, instant and basically free energy.

I understand that Iceland uses this power a lot to great effect.

 

[PorkChopXpress]

 

[The Lugz]

We get fuel out of the god damned air, how can we NOT be living in the future now?

I say we work on setting up a decent warp drive now...

warp drive theory exists we just don't have the power.. as usual

invent the warp reactor first, then you're cooking.

 

[Strazdas]

Yeah, these guys are idiots. It takes more energy to make the gas than you get out of it. Also, since this energy comes from coal, you end up getting a lot more pollution from making the gas than you take out of the air by making it. It's stupid.

this is true for most biofuels as well as battery cars last i read up, though its been a few years.

but thats the fault of an energy grid. we MUST shut down ALL fossil fuel power plants and put atomic plants in their place and we would have a 100% enviromentally friendly energy.

This is still going to have potential impacts unless we have good battery technology cause we're going to have to mine, refine and dispose of the waste. Then there's still the nuclear waste problem which while I think its a better problem then the ones created then fossil fuels lets not kind ourselves into thinking its environmentally friendly.

Batteri technology unlike combustion engine te chniology is moving forward at high speeds.
We have enough materials needed for modern lithium-ion batteries to alst for centuries. A good proof is the recent Lithium depoasit discovery in afganistan. We have enough regular nuclear fuel to last thousands of years if not millions and if thorium engine is created (they are working on it) the time we got nuclear fuel for quadriples, not to mention that then we could just put micro-reactors inside cars and produce the pwoer striaght to the engine, without ned of batteries.
Battery waste is not a problem. well would not be if peopel learn that they cant5 just throw batteries with regular trashj, as so many idiots do. Nuclear waste is a real problem, i agree, but our current methodology of storage can store them CHEAP for 50+ years, and by that time maybe my suggestion of "carry nuclear waste to space, make it drift towards the sun, it will get removed and the sun wont even feel its impact as nuclear explosinos happesn there all the time (admittedly of another kind but it wouldnt affect the suns life).
atomic energy has 0 impact on enviroment, and if the fuel is carried for properly, it also has 0 impact on enviroment. it IS enviromental friendly.

 

[dyre]

This won't happen. It'll work with renewable energy to fuel the process of... creating fuel, but why not just increase the amount of renewable energy that gets produced and use that? Oil will always be needed but gasoline won't if engines just run off of other power sources.

But converting the entire population to using alternate fuel sources for their cars isn't feasible.

It's not as simple as designing a bitching car that runs off of happy thoughts. You have to consider the titanic infrastructure changes you'd need to undergo. First and foremost is making it efficient, Honda have been trying for years to find alternate, efficient energy sources for cars. And then when they find it, they've got to find a way to conveniently allow people to refuel. It's not like back in the 30's when you could slowly introduce the concept of petrol stations. Adding 1 or 2 to every town over the course of a few years won't cut it. People expect to be able to refuel round the corner. And we're not at a point where we can make a mobile fuel source that can last seemingly indefinitely.

Like it or not, the best option is to find more efficient ways to get large quantities of fuel that's already in use.

About the refueling thing, I interned at an energy forecasting firm over the summer, and from the research I did there it looks like in the next few decades we might see enough fueling stations created/converted for it to be economically viable to switch trucks, buses, etc from diesel to natural gas (trucks obviously don't need as many fueling stations as cars).

It's not as plentiful as air, but we do have a lot of it.

That's pretty damn cool, I assume the switch for commercial wagons is some sort of test, or proof of viability for cars or something?

I think it's really just for trucks, buses, maybe pickup trucks, etc, and not meant to be moved to cars. We might see enough natural gas stops in cities for buses (which have fixed routes, so a small number of gas stations could be placed strategically to meet an entire city's needs), or enough fuel stops on heavily used highway routes for trucks, but like you said earlier, people expect to refuel their cars around every corner, and afaik such a large scale conversion isn't planned for the distant future.

edit: However, most of my work was centered around diesel to natural gas, so it's possible there's something going on for gasoline cars that I'm not aware of.

I was half hoping they'd try to get petrol distributors to adopt it. I imagine it would be feasible to add natural gas pumps to existing petrol stations over the course of about 30 years or so.

I guess anything can happen in the future. I think right now there are some obstacles hampering widespread use of natural gas in regular cars, like more complex infrastructure needed for natural gas pumps, lack of competitive technology in terms of natural gas engines vs gasoline engines, etc, but who knows, if it works out for trucks maybe we'll see more R&D and infrastructure investment for natural gas in cars too.

 

[KiKiweaky]

If somebody told me this I would say bullshit and laugh at them.... I really cannot believe what I'm reading O.O

Grounbreaking stuff lads keep up the good work!

 

[orangeapples]

well, now we are literally burning our atmosphere. TAKE THAT NATURE!!!

 

[Imthatguy]

We get fuel out of the god damned air, how can we NOT be living in the future now?

I say we work on setting up a decent warp drive now...

The big thing here is that it still requires energy input so... energy crisis not resolved. Perhaps if the process is efficient enough and cost effective we won't have to replace our gasoline powered transportation fleets with something else.

This won't happen. It'll work with renewable energy to fuel the process of... creating fuel, but why not just increase the amount of renewable energy that gets produced and use that? Oil will always be needed but gasoline won't if engines just run off of other power sources.

Because batteries are inefficient, expensive and usually very toxic.

Ecologically, this will never be viable until the power grid, and arguably every power grid on earth, is renewable, because no energy conversion is 100% efficient so it will always produce more CO2 to generate the electricity than is removed from the atmosphere to produce the gasoline.

1: Use Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Nuclear, ect
2: Create 'Fuel' use said energy + CO2 & Water
3: Burn Fuel and release CO2 + Water
4: Repeat 2 and recapture equal amounts of CO2 & water
5: Allow biosphere to reabsorb emissions from previous era
6: Profit (I.e. Pseudo-closed energy system based on indirect sources of solar energy)

 

[cerebus23]

Yeah, these guys are idiots. It takes more energy to make the gas than you get out of it. Also, since this energy comes from coal, you end up getting a lot more pollution from making the gas than you take out of the air by making it. It's stupid.

this is true for most biofuels as well as battery cars last i read up, though its been a few years.

but thats the fault of an energy grid. we MUST shut down ALL fossil fuel power plants and put atomic plants in their place and we would have a 100% enviromentally friendly energy.

well minus the nuclear waste that is, though i agree we should make more use of nuclear power, but the old stigma of the 70s puts a damper on that lest over here, NIMBY and 3 mile island go hand in hand anytime someone suggests we should build more nuclear plants.

IMO we need to do all the drilling, nuclear etc a combination of all resources available while putting research into biofuels, a one way or the highway approach that politicians put us on is unworkable and just plain backwards, when it takes far more energy to make hydrogen and biofuels than you get out of them.

and do not even get me started on the asshat move of mandating corn for biofuel while we cannot even use the plant part of the plants to make it. and skyrocketing global corn prices as a result. ethanol should have been a 10 or 20 year down the road thing and not today, simply because it is not ready, and the world cannot afford to pay more for corn.

meanwhile we cut off drilling.

why i say politicians are either completely ignorant or criminally motivated.

 

[Harker067]

Yeah, these guys are idiots. It takes more energy to make the gas than you get out of it. Also, since this energy comes from coal, you end up getting a lot more pollution from making the gas than you take out of the air by making it. It's stupid.

this is true for most biofuels as well as battery cars last i read up, though its been a few years.

but thats the fault of an energy grid. we MUST shut down ALL fossil fuel power plants and put atomic plants in their place and we would have a 100% enviromentally friendly energy.

This is still going to have potential impacts unless we have good battery technology cause we're going to have to mine, refine and dispose of the waste. Then there's still the nuclear waste problem which while I think its a better problem then the ones created then fossil fuels lets not kind ourselves into thinking its environmentally friendly.

True fact: Modern nuclear power plants have essentially zero waste. It uses basically ALL of its fuel during its lifespan. The older pre-1990 methods were absolutely unfriendly, yes, but modern methods leave far less damage than, say, hydroelectric or (possibly) wind power does. Edit: Apologies, but I was incorrect about just how useful it was (It apparently uses 95% as opposed to 99.9% in the repurposing process), and also because the US doesn't allow, with its fucked up laws, for fuel to be reused in this way, meaning extra waste. Yay.

The problem I have with nuclear power plants is that we'll end up running out if we rely solely on it, when we should save at least a good chunk of our Uranium, etc for space exploration in the future.

My favorite type of energy is geothermal. While it technically has a limited lifespan, that lifespan will last for longer than our solar system will. Just stick a circular piece of tube into the earth until it gets above boiling, and then bam, instant and basically free energy.

I understand that Iceland uses this power a lot to great effect.

Or look up thorium another fissionable fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power. There's a lot more thorium in the earth then uranium and we could run power plants off that for a very long time. Ice land has the advantage of people in a geologically interesting fault zone not sure how well geothermal works away from such areas.

I think this is probably most interesting for aviation. If I'm not mistaken electric batteries are fairly heavy when you're talking about a car. Plus as the plane flies it's mass would stay the same unlike with a more traditional fuel where the plane becomes lighter the longer its in the air. Still as mentioned above plenty of problems to solve in the mean time.

you would have to be mental(or a general lack of understanding of basic physics) to do this in the vehical you are planing to move.

Energy is required to move the vehical.

So if you were to somehow make this 100% efficient the vehicle would still not move because there is no energy being converted to movement.

much more likely is it will not be 100% efficient in the conversion process and you have just made a glorfyied heater.

Do which? Run a plane off a gasoline like fuel as I'm suggesting this technology might be an interesting tool for cause we move planes currently using jet fuel. Or are you suggesting trying to create an electric plane would make it a brick? Cause we can make a model plane that runs on batteries right now so again I don't think that's as dire as you suggest. Either way I have no idea where 100% efficient comes into this or what you're arguing for try to rephrase your complaint.

If my original point wasn't clear I'm suggesting using a primary energy plant using the researchers method to create jet fuel. Since weight constraints are much more important in aviation then in ground based locomotion this jet fuel may be more cost effective for aviation. A battery which may be fine for cars might be too heavy or not meet other needs for running a plane. This was merely speculative.

Yeah, these guys are idiots. It takes more energy to make the gas than you get out of it. Also, since this energy comes from coal, you end up getting a lot more pollution from making the gas than you take out of the air by making it. It's stupid.

this is true for most biofuels as well as battery cars last i read up, though its been a few years.

but thats the fault of an energy grid. we MUST shut down ALL fossil fuel power plants and put atomic plants in their place and we would have a 100% enviromentally friendly energy.

This is still going to have potential impacts unless we have good battery technology cause we're going to have to mine, refine and dispose of the waste. Then there's still the nuclear waste problem which while I think its a better problem then the ones created then fossil fuels lets not kind ourselves into thinking its environmentally friendly.

Batteri technology unlike combustion engine te chniology is moving forward at high speeds.
We have enough materials needed for modern lithium-ion batteries to alst for centuries. A good proof is the recent Lithium depoasit discovery in afganistan. We have enough regular nuclear fuel to last thousands of years if not millions and if thorium engine is created (they are working on it) the time we got nuclear fuel for quadriples, not to mention that then we could just put micro-reactors inside cars and produce the pwoer striaght to the engine, without ned of batteries.
Battery waste is not a problem. well would not be if peopel learn that they cant5 just throw batteries with regular trashj, as so many idiots do. Nuclear waste is a real problem, i agree, but our current methodology of storage can store them CHEAP for 50+ years, and by that time maybe my suggestion of "carry nuclear waste to space, make it drift towards the sun, it will get removed and the sun wont even feel its impact as nuclear explosinos happesn there all the time (admittedly of another kind but it wouldnt affect the suns life).
atomic energy has 0 impact on enviroment, and if the fuel is carried for properly, it also has 0 impact on enviroment. it IS enviromental friendly.

I don't particularly disagree on the main points. There's always the possibility that battery technology will stall of course but that's probably unlikely. I just didn't want to see the environmental impact quite so white washed (I am in fact a proponent of more nuclear power). Nothing we do is environmentally friendly. We mine the earth for rare metals used in solar cells, for fissionable materials none of that is really environmentally friendly.

Solar is generally considered environmentally friendly. But current plans for a solar plant in the Mojave have run into problems with endangered tortoises in that same desert. We shouldn't be thinking of things as environmentally friendly vs destructive. Instead we should be realistically considering and discussing the pros and cons of these technologies.

 

[direkiller]

Do which? Run a plane off a gasoline like fuel as I'm suggesting this technology might be an interesting tool for cause we move planes currently using jet fuel. Or are you suggesting trying to create an electric plane would make it a brick? Cause we can make a model plane that runs on batteries right now so again I don't think that's as dire as you suggest. Either way I have no idea where 100% efficient comes into this or what you're arguing for try to rephrase your complaint.

Jets move forward based on basically one thing
The amount of fuel expelled at a velocity(like a rocket)

So the change in mass is required for a jet to work. No change in mass no movement. and when you change energy from one state to another there is always heat loss.(hence the heater)

 

[Icehearted]

Wizardry like this can only be dealt with one way. Let's grab us some torches and a stake and have a good ol' fashioned witch burning!

 

[Harker067]

Do which? Run a plane off a gasoline like fuel as I'm suggesting this technology might be an interesting tool for cause we move planes currently using jet fuel. Or are you suggesting trying to create an electric plane would make it a brick? Cause we can make a model plane that runs on batteries right now so again I don't think that's as dire as you suggest. Either way I have no idea where 100% efficient comes into this or what you're arguing for try to rephrase your complaint.

Jets move forward based on basically one thing
The amount of fuel expelled at a velocity(like a rocket)

So the change in mass is required for a jet to work. No change in mass no movement. and when you change energy from one state to another there is always heat loss.(hence the heater)

Note that I'm talking about planes in general and not specifically jets (a subset of planes). You can in fact make electric planes that fly but which are not jets. So I don't see how that affects the fact that one might be able to make an electric passenger plane. Or the idea that using this kind of fuel process to power your plane instead of an electric plane could be advantageous.

Here as an extra here's the wiki page on electric planes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft

 

[Twilight_guy]

So this reaction requires that you put energy into the equation? Doesn't that mean a greater drain on our energy resources? Even if we power it through green energy... why not just invent cars that run on green energy and cut out the middle man and the energy necessary to turn air to gas int he first place? If CO2 removal is our concern, why not try to invent a solar powered CO2 absorber? This seems like a good thing but the core logic seems flawed, like we invented an unnecessary middle step.

 

[direkiller]

Do which? Run a plane off a gasoline like fuel as I'm suggesting this technology might be an interesting tool for cause we move planes currently using jet fuel. Or are you suggesting trying to create an electric plane would make it a brick? Cause we can make a model plane that runs on batteries right now so again I don't think that's as dire as you suggest. Either way I have no idea where 100% efficient comes into this or what you're arguing for try to rephrase your complaint.

Jets move forward based on basically one thing
The amount of fuel expelled at a velocity(like a rocket)

So the change in mass is required for a jet to work. No change in mass no movement. and when you change energy from one state to another there is always heat loss.(hence the heater)

Note that I'm talking about planes in general and not specifically jets (a subset of planes). You can in fact make electric planes that fly but which are not jets. So I don't see how that affects the fact that one might be able to make an electric passenger plane. Or the idea that using this kind of fuel process to power your plane instead of an electric plane could be advantageous.

Here as an extra here's the wiki page on electric planes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft

Yes im well aware electric planes exisist.
They are not well suted to large scale commercial use and never will be due to the nesesity of being prop driven(due to reason stated before) and the inability to store that much electricity on a plane and still carry an economical amount of passages.


Here is the math and why this idea is absurd


Assuming you made a plain with the same energy use as a 747 just with electricity

A 747 burns 5 gallon of fuel per mile(or about 100miles to the gallon per passanger)
a gallon of gas is 1.3x10^8 Joule of energy
so 130,000,000J= 1.3*10^8J

A lithium Sulfur battery has a Energy density of 1MJ/kg or 10^6 J per kilogram

So to move 1 mile it would have to drain the energy found in 130kg of the high end of rechargeable batteries.

To fly to NYC to LA you would need
a 317,000 kg battery at full charge or about 95% of the 747's total takeoff weight excluding the plane

 

[Matt King]

As fantastic as this is, I can see it disappearing into nothing within a few years because it just isn't profitable enough for the people with one too many bags of cash.

but.. it's from air? how much will it really cost if they perfect it?



also isn't this kinda win-win, won't this help with the whole global warming thing