Peak Oil News and Message Boards

April 28, 2015
Sunfire, Audi en route to synthetic fuel of future

Namely, sunfire has succeeded in producing synthetic diesel from air, water and "green" electrical energy, and "an independent laboratory confirmed that the outstanding characteristics of the fuel are superior to the properties of fossil fuel." The synthetic sunfire diesel is particularly eco-friendly. As sunfire CTO Christian von Olshausen said, "The engine runs quieter and fewer pollutants are being created." The fuel is promoted as superior partly because the properties are such that the engine runs smoothly with fewer emissions. The fuel is free from sulfur and aromatic hydrocarbons,

4 min. video

More on the above story:

Audi Makes Synthetic Gasoline Using Zero Petroleum

Researchers at Audi have managed to do something that at first blush sounds impossible, or at least, highly illogical: They’ve created a small batch of synthetic gasoline without using any petroleum whatsoever. And they’re working to tweak the process so they can create the fuel using nothing but water, hydrogen, sunlight, and carbon dioxide.

Audi’s “e-benzin” is a fully synthetic 100-octane gasoline equivalent. Since it’s synthetic, it contains no sulfur or benzene, making it extremely clean-burning. With its research partner Gloabl Bioenergies, Audi has figured out how to create the synthetic fuel from biomass, or plant material, making the fuel carbon-neutral.

An Audi spokesperson tells us that, as of right now, the experiment has only produced a small amount of the fuel—think liters, not tanker trucks—and the next step is to test its performance in internal combustion engines in a lab setting. It’s a line of experimentation that Audi has been particularly focused on, having recently figured out how to synthesize diesel fuel from water and CO2 and operating a production facility that makes synthetic methane out of water, hydrogen, and CO2 to fuel the CNG-powered A3 Sportback g-tron.

caranddriver

Audi launches next-gen A4 with new Millerized TFSI engine; g-tron model w/ Audi e-gas

From:
will-we-ever-discover-an-alternative-to-oil-t71468-20.html#p1255012

StarvingLion wrote:I especially like this one where they show the solar refinery:
https://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/Sola ... r_0805.pdf

Blue crude: Audi pilot produces diesel fuel from CO2 and water : Renew EconomyAudi has successfully made diesel fuel from carbon dioxide and water - ScienceAlert

The process:

• Electrolysis of water: H2O -> H2 + (1/2) O2
• Combine with CO2: CO2 + 3H2 -> [CH2] + 2 H2O

The [CH2] is the "blue crude".

It has the nice property of being free from aromatic hydrocarbons (those with benzene rings) and sulfur, so it's relatively clean-burning.

They estimate a cost of 1 to 1.5 euros / liter, about $4 to $6 per gallon.

lpetrich wrote:Blue crude: Audi pilot produces diesel fuel from CO2 and water : Renew EconomyAudi has successfully made diesel fuel from carbon dioxide and water - ScienceAlert

The process:

• Electrolysis of water: H2O -> H2 + (1/2) O2
• Combine with CO2: CO2 + 3H2 -> [CH2] + 2 H2O

The [CH2] is the "blue crude".

It has the nice property of being free from aromatic hydrocarbons (those with benzene rings) and sulfur, so it's relatively clean-burning.

They estimate a cost of 1 to 1.5 euros / liter, about $4 to $6 per gallon.

I think this technology or a version of it puts a firm cap on world oil prices. Above something like $125/bbl synthetic fuel is price competitive with oil gotten out of the ground at higher prices.

Magical chemistry! Sounds like Audi's engineers discovered the "blue" formula made famous by the renowned (and fictional) chemist Walter White to "power" their design centers.

All kidding aside, this particular process is a variation of the Sabetier reaction and has been around for about a century. Yes, it can be done. Does it make sense? Very likely only if you are really-really-really desperate for a liquid hydrocarbon fuel and don't care to use your limited renewable energy in a more efficient way. I strongly suspect that there is some outrageously optimistic energy accounting going on to come up with $4-$6/gallon. Not that the Audi-VW people have ever tried to fictionalize their engineering when it comes to diesels.

Are you sure about the "CH2"? CH4 is actually methane. Thanks all the same but I'll let someone else burn the time figuring this one out. LOL.

But this might be a hint as to what they mean by "CH2":

The simplest organic compounds are composed of carbon and hydrogen and are known as hydrocarbons. There are four types, or classes, of hydrocarbons:

Alkanes: contain all C-C single bonds. These are known as saturated hydrocarbons.
Alkenes: contain at least one C=C double bond.
Alkynes: contain at least one C≡C triple bond. Both alkenes and alkynes are known as
unsaturated hydrocarbons
Aromatic hydrocarbons: contain a benzene structure

These are also called structural formulas. Since these take up a lot of space, condensed structural
formulas are used. So a hydrocarbon chain with 10 H's and 4 C's could be written: H3C-CH2-CH2-Ch3.

Beyond that you should take a course in organic chemistry. LOL

ROCKMAN wrote:Are you sure about the "CH2"? CH4 is actually methane. Thanks all the same but I'll let someone else burn the time figuring this one out. LOL.

But this might be a hint as to what they mean by "CH2":

The simplest organic compounds are composed of carbon and hydrogen and are known as hydrocarbons. There are four types, or classes, of hydrocarbons:

Alkanes: contain all C-C single bonds. These are known as saturated hydrocarbons.
Alkenes: contain at least one C=C double bond.
Alkynes: contain at least one C≡C triple bond. Both alkenes and alkynes are known as
unsaturated hydrocarbons
Aromatic hydrocarbons: contain a benzene structure

These are also called structural formulas. Since these take up a lot of space, condensed structural
formulas are used. So a hydrocarbon chain with 10 H's and 4 C's could be written: H3C-CH2-CH2-Ch3.

Beyond that you should take a course in organic chemistry. LOL

I imagine they aim for CH2 because you can string them together in arbitrarily long chains and then hydrogenate the two end bits into CH3 for stable straight chain hydrocarbons. As you pointed out everything from CH3-CH2-CH2-CH3 (Butane) on up to CH3-(20)CH2-CH3 are found in gasoline, kerosene and diesel and consequently in jet fuel, fuel oil, locomotive fuel and maritime fuel.

The [CH2] I meant as a shorthand for large hydrocarbons. For instance, octane is C8H18, or 8(CH2)H2.

The US Navy has prototyped a module to use nuclear electricity on aircraft carriers to manufacture jet fuel and eliminate the need for oil tankers.

https://youtu.be/G8zOHZINyG8

Sub - Outstanding! I assume it costs more then the available fuel from the market place. Maybe a lot more. Fortunately for the Blue shirts it's not their money. LOL.

Just like when I had a company truck and gas card: went with a V8 4WD. Unlike the Kia I that I bought and paid for the fuel out of my pocket. LOL.

ROCKMAN wrote:Sub - Outstanding! I assume it costs more then the available fuel from the market place. Maybe a lot more. Fortunately for the Blue shirts it's not their money. LOL.

Just like when I had a company truck and gas card: went with a V8 4WD. Unlike the Kia I that I bought and paid for the fuel out of my pocket. LOL.

The quoted cost is $2.70/gallon for jet fuel onboard the carrier vs $6.60/gallon for jet fuel delivered from shore to ship via high speed navy tanker ship.

Until they start deploying them on existing aircraft carriers I will take those numbers with a hefty lump of salt.

This is actually something I have been predicting the Navy would do for decades, I guess it took sustained $80/bbl oil prices to get them moving on it. Sounds like now that it is ready it could be a major benefit.

For all those that disparage nuclear power stations on the coast, this could actually be an effective way of using power when 'renewables' are at peak performance to synthesize fuel. That would actually recycle some human CO2 emissions and lower the ocean acidity while also eliminating the need for fossil fuels.

Subjectivist wrote:The quoted cost is $2.70/gallon for jet fuel onboard the carrier vs $6.60/gallon for jet fuel delivered from shore to ship via high speed navy tanker ship.

Until they start deploying them on existing aircraft carriers I will take those numbers with a hefty lump of salt.

As you should, that figure assumes that the energy needed is free. As soon as you factor in the conversion efficiency and the unit cost of energy it's a lot higher.

diemos wrote:

Subjectivist wrote:The quoted cost is $2.70/gallon for jet fuel onboard the carrier vs $6.60/gallon for jet fuel delivered from shore to ship via high speed navy tanker ship.

Until they start deploying them on existing aircraft carriers I will take those numbers with a hefty lump of salt.

As you should, that figure assumes that the energy needed is free. As soon as you factor in the conversion efficiency and the unit cost of energy it's a lot higher.

On a nuclear reactor powered aircraft carrier the power is effectively free. The concern would be the cost to manufacture and maintain the modules shown in that short video, but in all honesty it is just a variation of Fischer–Tropsch technology developed just over a century ago. The material processes, catalysts and maintenance of those things are mature technology.

The key to the success of this is two-fold, first the bureaucracy of the US Navy has to accept it as a good idea, then they have to find the budget to pay for it. Unfortunately experience has shown many many times that anything new introduced to the bureaucracy is fought tooth and nail unless it is forced along by someone powerful near the top. For example the USA kept building Battleships right through 1945 despite Pearl Harbor in 1941, the navy kept building diesel power submarines for a decade after the first nuclear subs were launched and they built two additional oil fired aircraft carriers after they built the USS Enterprise and waited over a decade before building the second nuclear carrier.

I know the US Navy spends insane amounts of money on jet fuel, they don't just burn it on the aircraft carriers, nearly every smaller ship has one or more helicopters with their own fuel supply and hangar deck and most new ships are powered by gas turbine engines that can go through liquid fuel like nobodies business. I hope this works out because if it does the cost savings to American taxpayers will be significant.

I found a followup to Audi's "blue crude" e-diesel: FIRST COMMERCIAL PLANT FOR THE PRODUCTION OF BLUE CRUDE PLANNED IN NORWAY - Sunfire

Blue Crude is created in a highly efficient, three-stage process, developed by Sunfire and consists of a patented power-to-liquid procedure employing nothing but water, CO2 and renewable energy – in Norway the continuously available, cost-efficient green energy from hydropower is put to use. The core element is the steam electrolysis process (SOEC) that efficiently splits steam into its components hydrogen and oxygen. Subsequently the CO2 is transformed into carbon monoxide (CO) and then the synthesis towards Blue Crude is effectuated. The gaseous CO2, employed as carbon source, is partly extracted on-site from the ambient air by using the Direct Air Capture (DAC) technology, developed by the Swiss company Climeworks. Especially the exploitation of the waste heat from the Sunfire process makes the DAC technology highly efficient.

I'm posting this here because it's the closest sort of big thread to this subject. The "gas" part is H2 produced by electrolysis and CO2 extracted from the air, though not natural gas.

ETA: IMO it is worth noting here because it uses renewable sources for its energy, so it is not substituting one fossil fuel for another.

So basically they are using the excess available water to power the process?

Newfie wrote:So basically they are using the excess available water to power the process?

Well, water and apparently a HELL of a lot of energy (red text below mine for emphasis). With a target price of "under 2 euros per liter", it attempts to be "affordable" in the scheme of European taxation.

Since it uses CO2 from the atmosphere, apparently the main goodness is a CO2 neutral process for the hydrocarbons produced (once they're consumed).

8000 tons of blue crude a year is a TINY number in the face of global consumption of 30 billion plus barrels of crude a year, but it's a start IF it can be shown to be commercially viable at scale.

https://www.sunfire.de/en/company/press ... -in-norway

Dresden (Germany), July 10th 2017. The mass production of the environmentally friendly synthetic crude oil substitute Blue Crude becomes reality: from 2020 the first plant shall start its operation in the industrial park Heroya in Norway. It will be operating with an electric capacity of 20 megawatts, producing 8,000 tons of Blue Crude per year. Nordic Blue Crude AS, Sunfire, Climeworks, EDL Anlagenbau and additional partners have already started with the engineering. The synthetic Blue Crude consists of various hydrocarbons – making it comparable with crude oil. Refineries can use it as raw material for waxes, but also petrol, diesel, kerosene and even rocket fuel.

30 billion barrels ~= 3.7 - 4.1 billion metric tons of crude oil (275 - 300 lbs/bbl).

2 euros/liter ~= 8.86 dollars/gallon at current exchange rates.