Scientists Turn Air Into Petrol

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
856
Location
Frisco, TX
This is extremely interesting...

http://www.airfuelsynthesis.com/home.html

"The news of how one team of researchers from the UK succeeded in using air to make petrol just hit the online community, and it is causing quite a stir.

While skeptics are busy arguing that it all sounds too good to be true, the scientists behind this project claim that, since August until presently, the technology they developed allowed them to produce five liters of petrol from carbon dioxide and water vapors.

One does not have to be a specialist to realize that this breakthrough stands to tackle two major issues at the same time: removing CO2 from the atmosphere and taking the energy crisis off the table.

The official website for the company lets us in on all the science talk, which basically states that, by mixing air with sodium hydroxide, the scientists obtained a chemical compound known as sodium carbonate, from which pure CO2 can then be extracted.

Later on, the carbon dioxide is made to react with hydrogen, and viable fuels are just around the corner.

During a conference at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London, Peter Harrison, the chief executive for Air Fuel Synthesis, explained their achievement in a straightforward way, “We've taken carbon dioxide from air and hydrogen from water and turned these elements into petrol,” The Independent reads.

Although, for the time being, the electricity they have used to power up these chemical reactions is being provided by fossil fuels, the researchers hope that they will soon switch to renewables, thus greening up their working agenda even further.

According to the same source, it will only take about two years before the idea is implemented on a much larger scale, and a commercial plant is built.

Should things go as planned, this technology could lead to a ton of petrol being produced daily.

“We think that by the end of 2014, provided we can get the funding going, we can be producing petrol using renewable energy and doing it on a commercial basis,” company representatives said."
 
C + H20 in the presence of heat gives CO + H2. The products are termed water gas and are combustible. Discovered in the 1700's. Allows coal to be turned into a combustible gas.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: zloveraz
"Should things go as planned, this technology could lead to a ton of petrol being produced daily."

One ton? That's it? Assuming a short ton of 2,000 lbs, that's about 330 gallons, which would power my car for about 9,000 miles.

Worldwide gasoline production in 2008 was about 21,400,000 barrels, or 898,800,000 gallons of gasoline.

I tried to divide 330 by 898800000, but my calculator choked. But, given the error I got, I think the percentage is 0.000037%.

Besides the volumetric problem, how much more did it cost the researchers to stick their C's and H's together artificially than it would have cost to simply collect and clean the C's and H's that were already stuck together in natural crude oil? We already know those natural HCs cost less you than $4 per gallon.

You can make gasoline from just about anything, provided you have carbon and hydrogen in the source chemicals, but how much does it COST? The COST is the killer; it's the same thing that keeps wind and solar from being anything more than activists' playthings.
 
Originally Posted By: zloveraz


One does not have to be a specialist to realize that this breakthrough stands to tackle two major issues at the same time: removing CO2 from the atmosphere and taking the energy crisis off the table.


But while one does not have to be a specialist to realize the above "fact", one does have to be a complete moron to be willing to ignore the thermodynamics behind the creation (it TAKES energy to do this...and that comes from???) and one must be willing to suspend common sense to believe that this process would make any measurable difference in the current energy crisis...

The key question that they did not answer: how do you get from CO2 to fuels?

Oh, yes, hmm...I see, "it's just around the corner"...yes, yes, brilliant. So, far, these "scientists" have managed to make, uh, CO2...is that about right?

Yes, CO2...ah, pure genius...they have made CO2...and from there, of course, it's so easy to make hydrocarbons...why, its' "just around the corner"...

Sorry...the "hogwash detector" just pegged again...how could anyone be fooled by this?
 
Nothing new, and the adsorption rates are so poor it is impractical. Also it takes a TON of energy to drive the reverse WGS reaction to make any real quantity of syngas (41 kcal/mol, IIRC), and then getting a good product distribution from there is tough again.

Not undoable, just impractical, IMO.
 
I have discovered that you can use a generator to charge a battery.... and a motor to run the generator.... that motor can be run from another battery....

Once again, perpetual motion is at hand. Investors, send me money now!!

So, you take a fossil fuel, lose 60 percent converting it to electricity, then lose likely that same amount to turn it back into fuel....
 
Originally Posted By: fsskier
I have discovered that you can use a generator to charge a battery.... and a motor to run the generator.... that motor can be run from another battery....

Once again, perpetual motion is at hand. Investors, send me money now!!

So, you take a fossil fuel, lose 60 percent converting it to electricity, then lose likely that same amount to turn it back into fuel....


Nobody is claiming perpetual motion.

There is basis to do this, the reactions and process are well understood, and if we are sticking with liquid fuels as the most energy dense means for transport, these processes may be beneficial.

Note my concerns stated above.

But with "free" and clean energy (wind, solar, nuke), this could be a means of producing liquid fuels, which have the sole benefit of energy density.
 
This takes enormous amounts of energy, and is only practical since the Navy has excess capacity in their reactors.

They "make" breathing air and drinking water from seawater too. Very inefficient but again, when you have your own reactor that may not be running at full capacity you might as well use the energy for something.
 
Whatever happened to that Joules Unlimited company that was supposed
to make gasoline and diesel out of genetically engineered bacteria?
 
It is only practical if your cannot use your source energy and it would turn to waste, that it is better to turn it into a liquid fuel that can be stored.

Assuming the source energy is electricity or heat, it would be more practical to use the electricity directly or use the heat to generate electricity or other high temperature process (i.e. smelting or distillation) than this.

As for turning it into a petro or other liquid fuel, it is more useful if it is converted into something that is in short supply (i.e. solvent or feedstock of plastic), than to burn it as fuel to obtain heat or motion.

On a spaceship that needs to convert H20 into hydrogen and oxygen gas for rocket fuel that may be useful. To refuel an ATV in Antarctica with solar panel may be useful, but making gasoline in California with solar panel? It may be more practical to just buy an electric car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top