British Scientists Make Gasoline From Air

[MorganL4]

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.

Yeah, well the first message shot across the internet was a grand total of two letters. They didn't just say, "Meh it wasn't a full word, let alone a full sentence, let's give up." They worked to improve the system and today I can type this entire paragraph, and not bat an eyelid.

You don't give up on new technology just because it didn't provide results in huge quantities, you work to improve it so that in the future you have greater utility.

Do you not understand physics? Every single energy conversion, such as combining chemicals into gasoline to store energy in chemical form, is less than 100% efficient. This isn't due to unfinished technology, this is just the way it is. Which means that there is no possible way for this to not take more energy than you gain from it. Which means as long as it works off a fossil fuel power grid, it will always cause more pollution than it saves. Also, they use coal to generate the power, and coal is remarkably bad for the environment, far more so than gasoline. Even "clean coal" is bad for the environment, in fact the only power source it pollutes less than is regular coal. This isn't due to limited technology, it's due to massively high levels of impurities inherent in the coal.

No matter how much they refine this technology, it will always cause more pollution for the environment, which considering the current state of the world, is not a good thing.

If you re-read the article, the idea was to get the technology to a point where it COULD produce gasoline in viable quanitties, and then set up a factory to do that run by a solar power plant........ A lot of work yes.... but you would be using THE SUN as a power source, as such you wouldn't have to worry about the fact that you are expending more power to make the fuel... I mean you can't hog the sun, and we won't use the thing up for a few billion years yet so......

Kinda makes your point null and void.

Yes you'd be using the sun as a power source, but even then it's still not as green as it sounds. You still need more energy from the solar then you get out of the gas, and that solar energy could instead be used to power parts of the existing infrastructure and remove them from the coal system so it will still result in coal being burned to power it, one way or another.

Its going to be a while before we get solar plants to an efficiency where they can outstrip a coal plant in terms of power generation. I was thinking of this as more of a replacement for oil than coal (I mean we don't see coal powered cars on the road) I think that if your goal is to reduce coal plants the fastest way would be nuclear, and yes I am aware that nuclear plants come with their own host of issues, but with our ever expanding population it seems like the only viable technology we have at present.

 

[kuolonen]

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.

There are some flaws in that suggestion. Like how are you going to ensure a solar powered car keeps on going after sun goes down? Producing rechargeable batteries for the entire worlds infrastructure would produce a metric f***ton of less green waste. Gasoline is an easier method to store energy.

Then their is the fact that we already have combustion engine vehicles. It's far more simple to keep using them than to convert them all into using green energy. Also, if all those engines are rendered useless, we got a yet another pile of scrap metal to clean up.

 

[Vuliev]

Yes you'd be using the sun as a power source, but even then it's still not as green as it sounds. You still need more energy from the solar then you get out of the gas, and that solar energy could instead be used to power parts of the existing infrastructure and remove them from the coal system so it will still result in coal being burned to power it, one way or another.

1) Not sure if you're arguing for/against solar in general, but this point needs to be made because so many people don't know it: photovoltaics as a baseload generation source are incredibly expensive, unreliable, have been that for a long time, and the rate of efficiency increases isn't near fast enough to accommodate the amount of generation that people seem to want.

2) Gen IV nuclear reactors. No emissions (like all nuclear reactions), and very very little waste, as in damn near none.

3) Fusion. The National Ignition Facility is very close to breaking even, and there's also the ITER project under construction. Once fusion is economically viable, we'll have an absolutely unlimited supply of energy to power reactions like the air-to-gas one.


The three most viable clean baseload generation sources are hydro, nuclear, and fusion. By the time the air-to-gas process is economically viable, we'll have the means to support it with completely clean energy without sacrificing power grid generation. Hell, if people weren't so paranoid about nuclear, we'd be able to support it now with Gen IV nuclear reactors. But no, we piss money away at the pipe dreams of having solar and wind and baseload generation. >:|

 

[Racecarlock]

Brilliant discovery, but if wind and solar get to the points where they can be used for stuff like this, then what's stopping us from just switching over to those energy means entirely for vehicles? Sure, maybe this could be used while the research for the other things is still going on, but then again, you're just making gas with other gas, so it's more like instantly transporting fuel than actually making anything. Maybe if they make the gas from the air without using existing power that would be cool, but as it stands it's not really giving us any more fuel than we already have.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Does this mean we can finally see lower fuel prices?

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

Those renewable power sources will be insufficient.

Nuclear power, assuming fusion isn't relevant to our time-line, requires extremely low amounts of fuel and produces no fossil-by-products. I should say by-products of burning-organics, but most people would be shocked to learn that what is "organic" has to do with food only incidentally.

People demanding renewable fuel sources while decrying nuclear create conditions, in which only burning-organic fuel sources are acceptable as renewable fuel sources, are not nearly sophisticated enough on their own to meet demand.

I could go on pontificating, but I would never find an acceptable end.

Expect this debate to become much more serious when the rest of the world catches up to modernized nations and require fuel sources to power their waxing economies. If they all burn organic fuels, not only will they drive prices up significantly, but they will add to climate change conditions which are unacceptable. Ironically, only nuclear power schemes are acceptable under these conditions. They require very little fuel, produce no climate change, and if people gave a shit, the byproducts could predominantly be recycled into more nuclear fuel.

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

Yes you'd be using the sun as a power source, but even then it's still not as green as it sounds. You still need more energy from the solar then you get out of the gas, and that solar energy could instead be used to power parts of the existing infrastructure and remove them from the coal system so it will still result in coal being burned to power it, one way or another.

1) Not sure if you're arguing for/against solar in general, but this point needs to be made because so many people don't know it: photovoltaics as a baseload generation source are incredibly expensive, unreliable, have been that for a long time, and the rate of efficiency increases isn't near fast enough to accommodate the amount of generation that people seem to want.

2) Gen IV nuclear reactors. No emissions (like all nuclear reactions), and very very little waste, as in damn near none.

3) Fusion. The National Ignition Facility is very close to breaking even, and there's also the ITER project under construction. Once fusion is economically viable, we'll have an absolutely unlimited supply of energy to power reactions like the air-to-gas one.


The three most viable clean baseload generation sources are hydro, nuclear, and fusion. By the time the air-to-gas process is economically viable, we'll have the means to support it with completely clean energy without sacrificing power grid generation. Hell, if people weren't so paranoid about nuclear, we'd be able to support it now with Gen IV nuclear reactors. But no, we piss money away at the pipe dreams of having solar and wind and baseload generation. >:|

You put it much more succinctly than I.

 

[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.

There are some flaws in that suggestion. Like how are you going to ensure a solar powered car keeps on going after sun goes down? Producing rechargeable batteries for the entire worlds infrastructure would produce a metric f***ton of less green waste. Gasoline is an easier method to store energy.

Then their is the fact that we already have combustion engine vehicles. It's far more simple to keep using them than to convert them all into using green energy. Also, if all those engines are rendered useless, we got a yet another pile of scrap metal to clean up.

Or, you know we could have cars that run on an number of other green power methods that cut out the middle-man. The equation of CO2 -> Gas -> Energy seems like it could be simplified to Alternate Power Source -> energy. This seems more like bandage then a major break-through that revolutionizes things. Also, retrofitting (we talking about theoretical science here anyways I imagine science can find a cheap way to convert your conventional engine if it becomes a major thing) and cars have a large amount of recyclable metals in them, the problem would things like oils and lubricants and parts that contain chemicals, which are already a problem.

Also, the combustion engine is an inefficient nightmare of a machine that has needed to be replaced for the past 80 years. Why has no one come up with a more efficient engine? That can instantly make things way more efficient without even needing to do any anything special to get or use gas. (Damn you engineers! Also, major oil companies that sit on patents for potentially more efficient engines!)

 

[TheMann]

Ever heard of conservation of energy? Every chemical reaction is reversible, so if a combustion engine converts gasoline into carbon dioxide, water, and energy, then we should be able to convert carbon dioxide, water and energy into gasoline. And that's exactly what they did, so that's 0% surprising. In fact, they actually put more energy into producing the fuel than you can get out of it because of entropy.

You know, this is the first thing I thought of when I saw the title for this article. I would love to see the stoichiometry on this one. I mean this reaction would have to massively endothermic. So the only real question is whether or not the source of power is more efficient than the potential energy of the fuel produced. Exactly how many Joules=1 gallon/liter of hydrocarbon fuel? This is going to dictate the price of gasoline made this way and for all we know it may very well be much more expensive.

That sounds great if we can ever grow our non-fossil fuel power plants. Too bad everyone dislikes nuclear so much.

*Sigh* I know, right? Here's an idea: Why not start building some of these 4th gen reactors that all these nuclear scientists are getting a hard-on over? They're well past the design phase, are %50 more efficient than current models and far safer. And to be honest, current gen reactors are pretty safe to begin with, not to mention the fact that they produce over 15,000 times the energy per unit mass than fossil fuels. Or better yet, why not pump billions of dollars into fusion research. If we succeed at that, the worlds energy problems are pretty much solved forever.

*Ahem* Um, I mean, yay, gas from air, woohoo.

 

[OniaPL]

As others have said, I can't see how this would be anything more than an amusing piece of news since they have to use energy, more enrgy than they get from the gasoline, to make it out of air.

So they can transform energy made with, for ecample, solar panels into gasoline? Whoopty doo.
If you'd find a way to make solard energy or other renewable energy sources more efficient, now that'd be a news piece.

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to store and transport energy from renewable sources? Gasoline is a hell of a lot cheaper than batteries after all. Even if they DID make solar or wind power as efficient as is physically possable, the problem posed by the need to transport the energy around is still going to be there. This just solved that problem!

Christ man, it's not all about getting the energy. Get your head out of your little bubble and see this for the news worthy piece it is. Get a little exited for progress!

I do have an idea even with my minimal knowledge how difficult that is, but I don't see this gasoline being used as long as the amount of energy used, and therefore cost of producing the gasoline, is high. Correct me if I am wrong, but we are moving from fossil fuels to this as long as the process is not efficient enough. While this certainly brings light to the future and is progress, this is not the "It's gonna stop all global warming!" process that people seem to believe it is.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

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.

That and the oil Moguls will do everything in their power to make this go away.
Like they already have over the last 2 decades with every other form of oil substitute.
Muneys.

Also when I started reading the article my mind started to wander and I was imagining that the article was about the fact that our air is that polluted that we could now take the pollutants out of our existing air and make and turn those back in to fuel.
Turns out the reality is actually better. (and less cynical)

 

[Yoshisummons]

Edit

The energy from gasoline may be incredibly inefficient, but the efficiency of 20% in gas is a minute point because simply put it "in the great function of the useable energy per pound/volume" efficiency is just a variable you multiply with the joules per quantity to find out the thing we really care about, Useable energy per pound/volume. The inefficiency of gasoline is large no doubt about that but there is so much energy stored in that gas that it still beats the snot out of "90% efficient electric batteries" the problem is that gasoline has the best Net useable energy per pound than anything out there for the foreseeable future(Stupid organic lifeforms subsidies R&Ding only carbon based energy storage for billions of years).

Or just ignore me and read the clearer version of the whole thing.
[link]http://www.muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/old%20physics%2010/physics%2010%20notes/Electric%20cars%20.html[/link]

If anyone really cares to learn more just pick up "Energy for Future Presidents" By Richard A. Muller for far more detail on the energy crisis.

 

[Ukomba]

m'kay, but what's the conversion rate? If it's near 1 joule of electricity to make 1 joule worth of gas this is great. If, as is likely, it takes hundreds or thousands of joules of electricity to make 1 joule worth of gas then this is worse than worthless.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

now if we could only get oil companies to switch to this!

 

[spartan231490]

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.

Yeah, well the first message shot across the internet was a grand total of two letters. They didn't just say, "Meh it wasn't a full word, let alone a full sentence, let's give up." They worked to improve the system and today I can type this entire paragraph, and not bat an eyelid.

You don't give up on new technology just because it didn't provide results in huge quantities, you work to improve it so that in the future you have greater utility.

Do you not understand physics? Every single energy conversion, such as combining chemicals into gasoline to store energy in chemical form, is less than 100% efficient. This isn't due to unfinished technology, this is just the way it is. Which means that there is no possible way for this to not take more energy than you gain from it. Which means as long as it works off a fossil fuel power grid, it will always cause more pollution than it saves. Also, they use coal to generate the power, and coal is remarkably bad for the environment, far more so than gasoline. Even "clean coal" is bad for the environment, in fact the only power source it pollutes less than is regular coal. This isn't due to limited technology, it's due to massively high levels of impurities inherent in the coal.

No matter how much they refine this technology, it will always cause more pollution for the environment, which considering the current state of the world, is not a good thing.

If you re-read the article, the idea was to get the technology to a point where it COULD produce gasoline in viable quanitties, and then set up a factory to do that run by a solar power plant........ A lot of work yes.... but you would be using THE SUN as a power source, as such you wouldn't have to worry about the fact that you are expending more power to make the fuel... I mean you can't hog the sun, and we won't use the thing up for a few billion years yet so......

Kinda makes your point null and void.

Yes you'd be using the sun as a power source, but even then it's still not as green as it sounds. You still need more energy from the solar then you get out of the gas, and that solar energy could instead be used to power parts of the existing infrastructure and remove them from the coal system so it will still result in coal being burned to power it, one way or another.

Its going to be a while before we get solar plants to an efficiency where they can outstrip a coal plant in terms of power generation. I was thinking of this as more of a replacement for oil than coal (I mean we don't see coal powered cars on the road) I think that if your goal is to reduce coal plants the fastest way would be nuclear, and yes I am aware that nuclear plants come with their own host of issues, but with our ever expanding population it seems like the only viable technology we have at present.

My goals are irrelevant to the conversation. Coal is far far worse for the atmosphere than gasoline, and the only way that this will ever be ecologically sustainable is when the majority of coal plants have been shut down.

 

[spartan231490]

Yes you'd be using the sun as a power source, but even then it's still not as green as it sounds. You still need more energy from the solar then you get out of the gas, and that solar energy could instead be used to power parts of the existing infrastructure and remove them from the coal system so it will still result in coal being burned to power it, one way or another.

1) Not sure if you're arguing for/against solar in general, but this point needs to be made because so many people don't know it: photovoltaics as a baseload generation source are incredibly expensive, unreliable, have been that for a long time, and the rate of efficiency increases isn't near fast enough to accommodate the amount of generation that people seem to want.

2) Gen IV nuclear reactors. No emissions (like all nuclear reactions), and very very little waste, as in damn near none.

3) Fusion. The National Ignition Facility is very close to breaking even, and there's also the ITER project under construction. Once fusion is economically viable, we'll have an absolutely unlimited supply of energy to power reactions like the air-to-gas one.


The three most viable clean baseload generation sources are hydro, nuclear, and fusion. By the time the air-to-gas process is economically viable, we'll have the means to support it with completely clean energy without sacrificing power grid generation. Hell, if people weren't so paranoid about nuclear, we'd be able to support it now with Gen IV nuclear reactors. But no, we piss money away at the pipe dreams of having solar and wind and baseload generation. >:|

We've had nuclear reactions for a very very long time, there's a reason coal power still exists. People don't like nuclear, with good reason. I have my own separate issues with nuclear but that's not what this discussion is about and I don't care enough to derail the thread.

Also, you're wrong about solar. Solar isn't unreliable, I know someone who powers their house with it and if you can do it here, you can do it anywhere. I'm not sure what you mean by baseload generation, but I'm assuming you mean for a power grid, and you're correct, solar sucks for power grid generation because it needs a lot of space in order to generate that level of power, but it's nowhere near as inefficient or unreliable as people think, that's just propaganda.

 

[Vuliev]

Quick rundown of terms:

baseload: power that must be supplied to the grid at all times to keep everything running
intermediate: power that meets the day-to-day changes in power consumption (day/night changes, basically)
peak: power that must meet high-demand periods

We've had nuclear reactions for a very very long time, there's a reason coal power still exists. People don't like nuclear, with good reason.

It's "reason" based on two (admittedly very dangerous) accidents, both of which happened with very, very old nuclear technology that is in absolutely no way comparable to the Gen IV technology. The paranoia about implementing new nuclear generation is due mostly to ignorance of the new technology, which in turn causes the ignorant to push for baseload generation sources that are largely unsuited for that task.

Also, you're wrong about solar. Solar isn't unreliable, I know someone who powers their house with it and if you can do it here, you can do it anywhere. I'm not sure what you mean by baseload generation, but I'm assuming you mean for a power grid, and you're correct, solar sucks for power grid generation because it needs a lot of space in order to generate that level of power, but it's nowhere near as inefficient or unreliable as people think, that's just propaganda.

Fine, I'll be more specific: PV solar is incredibly costly and inefficient as baseload generation, but people have this absurd notion that "we can use solar and a little wind to solve all our energy needs!" which is horribly untrue. PVs can help reduce residential and some commercial intermediate needs, but that's still just reduction and not even in the baseload. You need high-energy reactors to have a strong base not only for the periods when solar can't produce power, but also to drive commercial and industrial needs.

There's a very large difference between using a handful of solar panels to reduce one's personal grid consumption, and using solar to power a city, a county, a state, or a country. When we have solar technology that is 60+% efficient, can easily and quickly adapt to meet demand, isn't heavily situational based on geography and long-term weather patterns, can store power effectively without using horrendously toxic materials, and is itself not dependent on horribly toxic materials, then I'll agree that it's a good source to meet much of our energy needs. Of those criteria, only the last is anywhere close to reality, with the recent creation of bio-voltaic solar panels.

So no, solar remains a source best left to small-scale generation, a field to which it's always been particularly suited.

 

[Spartan Altego]

If they can make it efficient enough to be viable long term, I'm all for this. Regardless of the effort put into it, the fact remains they made GAS out of AIR.

 

[Illyasviel]

I can keep driving about in petrol cars then? Awesome.