Axioms Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 http://www.iol.co.za...89#.UIVBNaNvLc8 http://www.youtube.c...h?v=9jHRDFqk_Ys Air Fuel Synthesis in Stockton-on-Tees has produced five litres of petrol since August in this small refinery.
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 If the costs can be brought down under what we pay for aviation fuel, that could mean a tremendous boost for tourism as well as reducing carbon emissions. I love ideas that solve multiple problems!
Moontanman Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 This is a great idea, if it can be scaled up why not scale it down? How about a small condensed unit for home use? I can see a small box, maybe a cubic meter that does this for me while I sleep... Power grids supplied by nuclear (I live near a nuclear reactor) or sources like wind or tidal supply energy not based on burning hydrocarbons turn this into enough "petrol" to run my car every day... Best of both worlds... Carbon neutral and higher energy density than batteries...
mississippichem Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) I personally don't see how they can ever pull it off and make a profit. They are going thermodynamically uphill if they are going from carbon dioxide to alkanes (the primary components of things like gasoline or diesel). You can lower the activation energy for a chemical process with a catalyst but that doesn't change the overall energy change for the reaction. Unless they can figure out a way to do it with power from a renewable source, and one that you can collect passively like solar or wind, I don't think they'll ever be able to make this commercially viable. As usual the news story has no scientific details. Interesting story though. EDIT: Am I missing something obvious here? Edited October 22, 2012 by mississippichem
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 This is a great idea, if it can be scaled up why not scale it down? How about a small condensed unit for home use? I can see a small box, maybe a cubic meter that does this for me while I sleep... Power grids supplied by nuclear (I live near a nuclear reactor) or sources like wind or tidal supply energy not based on burning hydrocarbons turn this into enough "petrol" to run my car every day... Best of both worlds... Carbon neutral and higher energy density than batteries... Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see much in the way of personal power in the future. Believe me, I would love to have some kind of home generated electricity and a couple of electric cars. I'd slowly replace my appliances to run on DC. But with something as volatile as av fuel, I don't see local gov allowing people to create and store their own fuel. Unless you could start a grassroots lobby movement that could outspend the big guys who've built the current infrastructure. I personally don't see how they can ever pull it off and make a profit. They are going thermodynamically uphill if they are going from carbon dioxide to alkanes (the primary components of things like gasoline or diesel). You can lower the activation energy for a chemical process with a catalyst but that doesn't change the overall energy change for the reaction. Unless they can figure out a way to do it with power from a renewable source, and one that you can collect passively like solar or wind, I don't think they'll ever be able to make this commercially viable. As usual the news story has no scientific details. Interesting story though. EDIT: Am I missing something obvious here? You're right, this would have to go hand-in-hand with renewable energy as it becomes cheaper. No way is this viable as anything but an air cleaner until then.
Moontanman Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 But with something as volatile as av fuel, I don't see local gov allowing people to create and store their own fuel. Isn't aviation fuel just kerosene? I know piston engine aircraft do use hi octane "gasoline" but commercial jets burn kerosene.
Axioms Posted October 22, 2012 Author Posted October 22, 2012 EDIT: Am I missing something obvious here? Their intentions are to use renewable energy sources to manufacture the fuel. They mentioned wind and tidal energy in the article. I think it is a new way to store renewable energy in a more efficient manner. What we normally think of with renewable energy is setting up a system that is going to supply energy to a nearby building or house etc. If you set up large refineries in remote locations ( The Sahara for example) you can now transport the energy, in the form of fuel, to areas that would need the extra bit of energy in the near future. There are just so many applications for this its ridiculous.
Phi for All Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 Isn't aviation fuel just kerosene? I know piston engine aircraft do use hi octane "gasoline" but commercial jets burn kerosene. I guess what they're working with here, from this Wikipedia article, is avgas, a type of aviation fuel, or something of similar quality. Their intentions are to use renewable energy sources to manufacture the fuel. They mentioned wind and tidal energy in the article. I think it is a new way to store renewable energy in a more efficient manner. What we normally think of with renewable energy is setting up a system that is going to supply energy to a nearby building or house etc. If you set up large refineries in remote locations ( The Sahara for example) you can now transport the energy, in the form of fuel, to areas that would need the extra bit of energy in the near future. There are just so many applications for this its ridiculous. I wonder if remote areas would actually have that much excess CO2 to capture. I also wonder what the effect on plant life would be if this were put into large scale production. Maybe a stupid question, but do we know how much CO2 is considered "excess", and what is necessary for trees and other flora?
Axioms Posted October 22, 2012 Author Posted October 22, 2012 I wonder if remote areas would actually have that much excess CO2 to capture. I also wonder what the effect on plant life would be if this were put into large scale production. Maybe a stupid question, but do we know how much CO2 is considered "excess", and what is necessary for trees and other flora? That is an interesting point. I always assumed that there would be a kind of "flow" of CO2 across the world due to changes in pressure. Has anyone ever taken readings of CO2 levels in the Sahara or places like that? I know in populated areas there are models but I cant seem to find anything on remote areas.
John Cuthber Posted October 22, 2012 Posted October 22, 2012 To a good approximation, we know how much is "excess" because we put it there and, more often than not, we paid tax on it. There'a are also historical records of the CO2 concentration in the air going back to the start of major fossil fuel use. The numbers pretty much tally. the CO2 mixes fairly well over the course of a year or so.
xXxD4r7hP4ndaxXx Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I am incredibly excited for this project. I think it demonstrates, not only the cunning nature of science but, our remarkable capacity for inventive solutions to serious problems. I'd love to see this as a step toward total energy recycling. Imagine if most, if not all, of the energy that we use was collected and converted back into usable energy. I know that this already partially happens but does anyone else see this technology's potential as above stated? I'm very interested to check back with this company in 2015 when their plant is opened.
khadega Posted November 20, 2012 Posted November 20, 2012 it is a great invention , what a big use of air i think this invention will help world in the future widely because petrol will finish soon
Recommended Posts