[careinke]

Yawn.... Plants have been doing this for a long time.

[Carnot]

God help us. I never cease to be amazed at the shear nonsense thar gets posted on this forum.

Aeroplanes will suck CO2 from the air and pass it into a super hot solar reactor.

This must be the best from fantasyland this year. Think for a minute. A jet engine burns a mixture of air and fuel in a rough ratio of about 15:1. How are you going to get enough CO2 from the air when it's concentration is about 0.04%. You are going to have to suck on a lot of air. People get paid to dream up this BS.

It not worth punishing my brain any further on this one because the Master will only label me as irresponsible.

[Graeme]

Study suggests energy and GHG impacts of synthetic hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 are greater than impacts of existing hydrocarbon fuels

Researchers at the Institute of Environmental Sciences at Leiden University, The Netherlands) have concluded that the energy demand and climate impacts of using CO2 to produce synthetic hydrocarbon fuels by using existing technologies can be greater than the impacts of existing hydrocarbon fuels. Their quantitative lifecycle assessment of the environmental merits of liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced from CO2, water and energy compared to alternative fuel production routes is published in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology.

In their study, the researchers evaluated five hypothetical production routes using different sources of CO2 and energy. The team undertook the work specifically to investigate four general arguments that have been proposed in support of such fuels:

That such fuels are renewable and can be used in the existing energy infrastructure;

That solar fuels—liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced from CO2, water and solar energy—provide a synergistic solution to the problem of overabundance of CO2 and the abundance of renewable energy on the one hand, and the scarcity of hydrocarbon fuels on the other.

That solar fuels offer the promise of solar energy storage—a key challenge in a world predominantly relying on renewables.

That the costs of carbon capture can be offset by producing valuable fuels or chemical products from CO2.

greencarcongress

[Graeme]

Ionic liquid boosts efficiency of CO2 reduction catalyst

One useful product of such CO2 reduction reactions is carbon monoxide (CO), a building block for making methanol and liquid hydrocarbons that could replace gasoline. So far, the catalysts tried for this reaction are often lacking in efficiency and/or specificity; either they take too much energy, are too slow, or make too wide a variety of products to be useful. Now a group of chemists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory reports a new approach: performing the electrochemical reaction in an ionic liquid, which acts as both the solvent and electrolyte.

The process—described in a paper recently published in The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, published by the American Chemical Society (ACS)—was shown to boost both the energy efficiency and speed of the reaction for a well-known catalyst, with no loss of product selectivity, compared to the same reaction in a standard organic solvent solution. The paper was just selected as an ACS Editors' Choice article. Only one such article is selected each day from the entire portfolio of ACS journals.

phys.org

[Zanstel]

God help us. I never cease to be amazed at the shear nonsense thar gets posted on this forum.

Aeroplanes will suck CO2 from the air and pass it into a super hot solar reactor.

Of course not. The Co2 will be sucket for air, but not by the airplanes but by solar plants capable of generate electricity, pure water (from sea water), and hydrocarbons including jet fuel.
So, " airplanes running on CO2 that is sucked from the air" could be true, if you understand that the CO2 is not sucked by the airplane. The airplane will use a "fuel that was made from CO2 sucked from the air"... on ground.

[Graeme]

Here's an allied story.

Solar panels light the way from carbon dioxide to fuel

Research to curb global warming caused by rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, usually involves three areas: Developing alternative energy sources, capturing and storing greenhouse gases, and repurposing excess greenhouse gases. Drawing on two of these approaches, researchers in the laboratory of Andrew Bocarsly, a Princeton professor of chemistry, collaborated with start-up company Liquid Light Inc. of Monmouth Junction, N.J. to devise an efficient method for harnessing sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into a potential alternative fuel known as formic acid. The study was published June 13 in the Journal of CO2 Utilization.

The transformation from carbon dioxide and water to formic acid was powered by a commercial solar panel generously provided by the energy company PSE&G that can be found atop electric poles across the state. The process takes place inside an electrochemical cell, which consists of metal plates the size of rectangular lunch-boxes that enclose liquid-carrying channels.

sciencedaily

[Graeme]

Solar fuels company Joule looks to partner with Scatec Solar to bring photovoltaic power to Joule production plants

Joule, the developer of a direct, single-step, continuous process for the production of solar hydrocarbon fuels (earlier post), has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Scatec Solar ASA, a leading, independent solar power producer. In the MoU the parties have agreed to initiate a process to reach specific terms for a partnership, to support the roll-out of Joule production plants featuring photovoltaic power.

The terms of the MoU anticipate that Scatec Solar ASA will become preferred supplier and operator of photovoltaic power installations for Joule plants, with an initial deployment goal of up to 25,000 acres (~10,000 hectares) and a power requirement of 2 gigawatts. A deployment of this scale would generate up to 625 million gallons (~15 million barrels) of ethanol or 375 million gallons (~9 million barrels) of diesel per year, while consuming about 4 million tonnes of industrial waste CO2 annually in the process.

We have found an ideal strategic fit with Scatec Solar, who brings a turnkey solution for photovoltaic power along with a shared vision for sustainability. With ever-increasing global attention on the consequences of climate change, we have an opportunity to produce transportation fuels with the lowest-known carbon footprint—using solar energy both as a feedstock and a power source. This relationship exemplifies our approach to building an ecosystem of like-minded partners with complementary expertise, which in turn will fast-track the availability of CO2-neutral fuels to a planet in urgent need of scalable solutions.

—Paul Snaith, President and CEO of Joule

Joule’s proprietary process allows significant reductions in overall carbon footprint by using solar energy to convert waste CO2 directly into infrastructure-ready, carbon-neutral fuels. By closing the carbon cycle, Joule’s fuels enable a sustainable form of combustion. The use of photovoltaic power for plant operations is expected to reduce Joule’s system-level carbon footprint even further, netting more than a 90% improvement over conventional fuel production.

greencarcongress

[Sixstrings]

Gasoline from water and c02 in the air? What do you guys think?

German company can make gasoline from water and airborne CO2

Scarcity of hydrocarbon fuels is a bit ridiculous on the face of it; hydrogen is the universe’s most abundant substance, carbon the fourth-most abundant, and hydrocarbons are defined by having both those elements. Industrial processes are able to press carbon into diamond, now even with gem-level accuracy, and we regularly manipulate hydrogen to create hydrogen fuel. One would think that the sheer availability of these materials ought to beg for synthetic creation of hydrocarbon fuels, especially with so much excess carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere.

...

This rig works with proprietary “Power to Liquid Technology,” which is nicely diagrammed here. It all starts by creating steam, using electricity — Sunfire says the electricity will come from renewable, green sources like wind or solar, which seems believable when you think bout the inherent absurdity of burning one hydrocarbon fuel to create another. Regardless, this electricity is used to create steam from water, and this steam is then treated to remove the oxygen from the H20 molecules, leaving only H2 — or hydrogen gas. All we need now is a source of gaseous carbon — and I can think of a few.
http://www.geek.com/science/german-company-can-make-gasoline-from-water-and-airborne-co2-1609987/

[Outcast_Searcher]

Gasoline from water and c02 in the air? What do you guys think?
...
It all starts by creating steam, using electricity — Sunfire says the electricity will come from renewable, green sources like wind or solar, which seems believable when you think bout the inherent absurdity of burning one hydrocarbon fuel to create another.

So .... we what? Create gasoline to clean up the CO2 and then don't burn it since that creates pollution and releases the CO2 again.

As soon as I got to the word "renewable": the words "absurd" and "Rube Goldberg machine" came to my mind, before finishing the sentence.

I guess my question is -- what is the point? If we can create enough clean renewable energy from green sources -- why not just run a green economy with that, and dispense with hydrocarbons, except to make needed plastics and chemicals?

...

This reminds me a bit of the book "The Methanol Economy", where the author claimed that using Methanol as a way to store energy would solve many problems and help us clean up the CO2 problem.

Of course, I kept noticing this little problem that the processes involved, like heating oil to 850 degrees Centigrade takes a LOT of energy.

Then near the end of the book in an offhand way, the author says basically that if we just develop practical fusion, the energy issue would be no problem.

(Right -- use practical fusion, if we get it, to fool around with Methanol and other hydrocarbons. problems all "solved". I clutched my head and yelled a lot....)

[Outcast_Searcher]

Oh, and after reading the article, the little issue of economics rears its head. The last paragraph mentions that actually creating this will likely cost enough that this won't be economically feasible until all the recoverable oil is removed from the ground.

Given the gloom about the global economy as the usable oil gets more expensive to extract ....

Again, it's FAR easier to just visualize gradually growing a global green energy grid and dispensing with most use of hydrocarbons.

[Sixstrings]

Well, I don't know anything about energy.. I just thought I'd share this..

Somehow I knew you guys would poo-poo it.

Could it make money, though?

Is it really impossible?

Just put a windmill up there, hook it to this machine -- it's a real machine built in germany -- and then it makes gasoline from the carbon in the air and what, the oxygen or hydrogen from the water?

So why can't it work, then. Once you've got the windmill and the machine and gasoline comes out the other end, then how does it not work.

[Keith_McClary]

Well, I don't know anything about energy.. I just thought I'd share this..

Somehow I knew you guys would poo-poo it.

Could it make money, though?

Is it really impossible?

Just put a windmill up there, hook it to this machine -- it's a real machine built in germany -- and then it makes gasoline from the carbon in the air and what, the oxygen or hydrogen from the water?

So why can't it work, then. Once you've got the windmill and the machine and gasoline comes out the other end, then how does it not work.

The energy economy is currently based on the combustion of fossil fuels. As a liquid with a particularly high energy density, petroleum is of particular value in the mobility sector. Existing infrastructure is therefore tailored to its storage, handling and transportation. Climate change and the finite nature of fossil energy reserves nevertheless demand a switch to renewable energy sources. This requires the development of petroleum substitutes.
Established substitution concepts in the mobility sector are based on biomass (1st and 2nd generation fuels). Biomass is nevertheless both restricted in terms of its availability and required for food supply purposes. As a result of their low energy density, concepts which use hydrogen or electric batteries as energy sources do not offer the storage capacity necessary for long-distance travel, truck-based transportation or air travel.
http://www.sunfire.de/en/kreislauf/power-to-liquids

I guess they haven't heard of Tesla.

[Sixstrings]

Are you really saying this, Six? That you have no idea re eroei or the apparent oil-price ceiling? Really? If so, then you need to slow down, catch your breath, do a little homework. I'd suggest http://peakoil.com/ as a good place to start.

Well as I said I'm not an energy expert, I was just sharing this, I got no dog in the fight I won't argue about it or rant.

I'll just say,

You guys said the same EROEI thing about shale and tar sands and fracking. So okay, years go by, and now obviously there's some kind of energy returned on energy invested or else the USA wouldn't be #1 in energy now, and Canada wouldn't still be cooking tar sands.

So apparently you all are wrong, about EROEI.

Let's look at it logically:

a) some clever Germans have made this machine, it spits gasoline out the other end

b) it needs input of water and carbon dioxide

So, what is impossible about it?

You all are always talking about EROEI, but what if someone just buys this machine in Germany, and you can fly there first and make sure it really does spit out gasoline. Take the machine back home, hook it up to solar panels.. and you're getting gasoline for nothin, only issue is how much did the machine cost.

Just as a Tesla doesn't use gas, but the darn thing costs a hundred grand.

But then GM and others have EVs now that are what, twenty grand? Wait a few years, you can start to pick up cheap used car EVs.

I saw a used prius for like five grand that other day, ok now we're talkin my price range, maybe I'll go green after all. (that's another thread, but when do those batteries go bad on ev's?)

So -- even if this German machine costs a million bucks or something, we all know from the law of ever cheaper tech that once something works, all that will happen is it will get cheaper.

You guys talk about EROEI, but, the reality is that whenever oil price climbs then all these alternatives flip on light a light switch and are profitable and peak oil crisis is averted -- the market just grew, it didn't shrink after all.

How am I wrong about that?

Who even cares if energy winds up being 30% of our economy or something. People need jobs anyway. So what's the difference if in the future it just takes more work to produce our energy? And then there never really is peak oil, you'll have things like this German machine making gas from c02 in the air, you'll have solar so viable, you'll have more shale and tar sands, and fusion power is coming too.

So where is the peak oil doom? If alternative energy gets cheaper, and if rising costs just mean that these alternatives flip on and life goes on. We're already running on ethanol and oil sands and shale, and fracking, there's been no peak oil doom. The price at the pump has stayed the same for years, and within a decade we'll probably all be on EVs.

[Keith_McClary]

what if someone just buys this machine in Germany, and you can fly there first and make sure it really does spit out gasoline. Take the machine back home, hook it up to solar panels.. and you're getting gasoline for nothin, only issue is how much did the machine cost.

Why don't you email them and ask for a quote (including solar panels/windmills and CO2 concentrator).

[Sixstrings]

what if someone just buys this machine in Germany, and you can fly there first and make sure it really does spit out gasoline. Take the machine back home, hook it up to solar panels.. and you're getting gasoline for nothin, only issue is how much did the machine cost.

Why don't you email them and ask for a quote (including solar panels/windmills and CO2 concentrator).

If I can't afford a Tesla I doubt I can afford this thing.

[Sixstrings]

But Six, you too can become an 'energy expert.' I knew nothing re energy until I took the Study-at-Home-Easy Lesson Series (tm) here at . . . Peak Oil!

This is the Internet, where EVERYONE is an expert at everything! And has an opinion!

[Keith_McClary]

what if someone just buys this machine in Germany, and you can fly there first and make sure it really does spit out gasoline. Take the machine back home, hook it up to solar panels.. and you're getting gasoline for nothin, only issue is how much did the machine cost.

Why don't you email them and ask for a quote (including solar panels/windmills and CO2 concentrator).

If I can't afford a Tesla I doubt I can afford this thing.

My point is, if someone could afford it and produce cheap (carbon neutral) gasoline then there would no need for Tesla - you could just get a Camaro.

Seriously, they seem to say that this would be applicable in remote locations where there is a surplus of electricity with no way to export it, and also has a cheap supply of CO2. I think this is a very niche market.