A CAR that runs on fuel made from CO2 removed from the Atmosphere creating a carbon neutral loop!

[FourScore]

Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 06:27 PM PDT
A CAR that runs on fuel made from CO2 removed from the Atmosphere creating a carbon neutral loop!
by Lefty CoasterFollow

This is absolutely brilliant! A British company Air Fuel Synthesis has found a way using Air Capture Technology to get vehicle fuel out of the atmosphere around us by extracting the constituent carbon and hydrogen from it.

Well the invisible video is there somewhere since it wouldn't embed so here's the LINK
Please do watch it!

The magic chemistry involves capturing carbon dioxide and water. Then through electrolysis, electric current isolating the hydrogen from the water, then having it react carbon dioxide to make liquid hydrocarbons. The outcome: a clean carbon neutral fuel, that holds the promise of dramatically reducing transportation's carbon footprint.

Its the creating of a closed loop by taking the carbon out of the atmosphere that's causing Global warming and um, and using it to make fuel.

The report said this technology is still in its early stages of development. If the energy inputs for the electric current needed came from sustainable sources this would be a green source of liquid hydrocarbon fuel.

This is really exciting to think about the possibilities this technology could open up for rapid conversion to a green transportation infrastructure without having to replace the existing vehicle fleet, with all the resources that would require. Air Capture Technology could conceivably be useful as a bridge technology to power older vehicles greenly as they are being phased out.

PlanetForward.org

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/05/1236655/-A-CAR-that-runs-on-fuel-made-from-CO2-removed-from-the-Atmosphere-creating-a-carbon-neutral-loop

[NYC_SKP]

1. If it sounds too good to be true, it's probably not true.

Not entirely true, at least.

For starters, electrolysis requires electrical power, that's not free. Sure it could be wind or solar, fine.

Second, this just creates a replacement for existing liquid fuels to be used in internal combustion engines or turbines, so I don't think it's going to be as efficient as electric vehicles.

And I doubt that it's any more carbon neutral than wind/solar derived electron.

Still, research is fun!

[solarhydrocan]

28. It's a matter of storing the hydrogen

this guy claims to have the answer but we can't all build particle accelerators in our back yards.

In any case, imagine if a fraction of the money spent the last 10 years on M.E. wars was spent on

1. Methods and Materials for Electrolysis (Alternatives to Platinum, etc)

2. Hydrogen Storage

A search on Youtube for Solar Hydrogen brings up lots of interesting results

Remember that if you let the batteries in your Tesla go too low it's about $40 K to replace.
http://www.plugincars.com/tesla-model-s-replacement-battery-packs-125571.html

Now combine Hydrogen with the low maintenance of a Turbine engine and it's a whole new world

Honda unveils new solar hydrogen station
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2010/01/honda-unveils-new-solar-hydrogen-station/

[longship]

2. Bullshit!

If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, 1927.

So it goes for these woo woo devices that make energy from nothing.

It's nothing but newage (rhymes with sewage) woo woo.

And people actually believe this may be real?

[BlueStreak]

5. I'm not sure they are claiming to make energy from nothing.

They are talking about using electrolysis to pull CO2 out of he atmosphere, and that energy presumably would come from non-carbon sources. But they would just turn around and release the CO2 again, so nothing is accomplished.

Wouldn't it make more sense just to use the non-carbon energy directly INSTEAD of carbon fuels in the first place?

If they have a process that can such CO2 out of the atmosphere and break it apart with electrolysis, that could be a good thing -- a good use of extra wind electricity that we don't need on the grid at any moment, for example.

[longship]

8. I still say bullshit.

They claim that they have a car that runs off CO2.

That's woo woo rubbish.

It takes more energy to make the fuel than is released by the combustion of the fuel. That's why I posted the Eddington quote.

I agree that the technology might be okay for static energy storage. But they're claiming they have a car. Nope! They don't.

[Recursion]

17. They claim they put energy in to H and CO2 and get out burnable hydrocarbons

We know that's possible because plants do it every day. The question is how much energy that conversion takes and whether it's worth it or not.

[longship]

39. 2nd law of Thermo says it's not worth it.

You never get out more than you put in. Never!

[Jim Lane]

43. It's not being touted as perpetual motion or even energy gain.

I agree with you about woo in general but here you're overreacting by seeing it where it doesn't exist.

The claim is not that the device will somehow defy the first or second law of thermodynamics. Here's the actual argument:

* Right now, virtually our vehicles move by burning irreplaceable fossil fuels. That bit about "irreplaceable" means that the practice is unsustainable in the long run (and maybe not very long), plus in the short run it's causing a net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, with adverse effects already being observed. We do have access to renewable energy sources, but powering a car by putting a wind turbine or a solar panel on its roof isn't feasible.

* The purpose of this technology would be to take the energy from, for example, a large wind farm, and use it to create a concentrated fuel that could be stored in a vehicle's "gas" tank. The process is sustainable as long as the sun keeps shining and has no net effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The electric cars now in use seek to accomplish the same thing. This proposed carbon-extraction technology may or may not turn out to be a better way of doing it, but certainly there's no reason to write it off a priori. I think even Eddington would agree with that.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

12. I understood they would get Hydrogen from the electrolysis, to mix with CO2 they got from air.

Some folks want to just use Hydrogen as fuel. The value to being able to remove CO2 alone is worth more investigation. Interest would be great in a large scale development. Could we bring it back to under 300 ppm?

[Recursion]

23. Well, "remove" for a hot minute until we burn it again

The carbon would be sequestered in the fuel and then re-released upon burning, so it's net effect is 0. Which is better than burning carbon that was sequestered back in the Triassic period.

[BlueStreak]

37. What if it were not turned into usable fuel?

There must be forms of hydrocarbons that are suitable for sequestration of CO2, and not suitable to be burned in a vehicle.

If there were such a process, one can easily imagine "CO2 suckers" all over the planet that used any excess wind and solar energy that is not otherwise needed on the grid. During times of excess energy production, these plants could suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and place in permanent storage. This seems a lot more stable and compact than trying to pump the CO2 gas into underground chambers.

Of course, there is a "business model" problem because we only seem to be able to do things that make big profits for the 1%. However if we could ever get to a true carbon trading environment, that would be the economic framework that would pay for these "CO2 suckers".

[Recursion]

20. Solar power isn't directly burnable and we like to burn things

A lot of our power needs are for burnable substances, which sunlight isn't. This is (conceivably) a carbon-neutral way to convert solar energy to a compact, transportable, physical fuel, which could be awesome. But keep in mind we already have something like that, called "wood", or biodiesel in its more refined forms: the plants sequester atmospheric carbon that is then released when they burn for a net 0.

[stevenleser]

9. People need to re-read references on perpetual motion machines whenever an idea like this comes up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Perpetual_motion_of_the_second_kind

[longship]

11. Indeed, I thought the Eddington quote was all I needed.

Nota bene: it's the first quote at your link.

[Marr]

13. Not saying this will work, but it wouldn't be a perpetual motion machine-- unless

you consider windmills and plants to be perpetual motion machines.

It would be using potential energy around it for power.

[Recursion]

18. They aren't talking about net energy but about the form the energy takes

They claim they can add energy to hydrogen and carbon dioxide to make hydrocarbons. This is obviously possible because plants do it all the time. The question is whether it can be done efficiently enough to matter (adding X + 1 tons of carbon to the air to get the energy to extract X tons of carbon would be pointless).

[Recursion]

27. I'd add, quite a few people doubt one of Maxwell's equations

Most quantum guys I know are convinced (erroneously, IMO) that there are in fact magnetic monopoles, we just don't have the energy to break them yet.

[longship]

38. But that's physics. This thing is a scam.

The magnetic monopole deal has been known for decades or more.

But over unity energy production is known to be rubbish.

[whopis01]

47. They aren't claiming over unity energy production

They are claiming that they would create liquid hydrocarbons using CO2 from the air. The energy required to produce those hydrocarbons would come from solar (or some other renewable source).

Of course there is more energy put into the system than is generated - that's not the point. The point was to generate and use liquid hydrocarbons in a way that has no carbon footprint.

Putting the whole thing in a car has confused people into thinking it was all about the car being able to produce its own fuel - it is really about using renewable energy sources to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere to be used as storable, transportable energy sources.

[longship]

48. Indeed. That's an entirely different matter.

Nevermind.

(I feel like Emily Litella now.)

[whopis01]

54. Lol - all worth it for the Emily Litella reference. n/t

[GeorgeGist]

46. Hear,Hear ...

[kelliekat44]

3. But what will the trees eat? nt

[sakabatou]

4. It looks promising

We'll see how it works if it does.

[MindPilot]

6. Lost me at "magic".

[AverageJoe90]

7. Cue the climate doomer skeptics(of mitigation prospects, that is) yelling, "impossible!".

Seriously, though, this sounds promising. Yes, this tech may be in its early stages but it certainly does have some promise......

[stevenleser]

10. No, it cannot work. You cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics. See my comment above. nt

[Recursion]

25. And it's not being violated. Energy goes into the system at the beginning

Energy (from some theoretical clean source) is applied to the CO2 and H. The O2 is liberated and the C and H form hydrocarbons (pro-tip: I'd avoid smoking near that processing chamber). The energy that you put in is now stored in the enthalpy of that molecular arrangement, and can be liberated by setting the hydrocarbons on fire, producing CO2 and H2O, and releasing (some percentage of) the energy you put in.

It's not about generating energy, but about storing it in a burnable fuel without adding to the amount of carbon currently in the atmosphere.

[NutmegYankee]

16. Yeah, those stupid fucking scientists and their "Laws" of physics!

No process is ever 100% efficient.

The magic chemistry involves capturing carbon dioxide and water. Then through electrolysis, electric current isolating the hydrogen from the water, then having it react carbon dioxide to make liquid hydrocarbons. The outcome: a clean carbon neutral fuel, that holds the promise of dramatically reducing transportation's carbon footprint.

Its the creating of a closed loop by taking the carbon out of the atmosphere that's causing Global warming and um, and using it to make fuel.

The stuff in bold would require more energy than is created in the fuel. Where does that energy come from?

[Recursion]

19. You're missing the point

This isn't about "energy for nothing" this is about "burnable hydrocarbons with no net carbon increase". The question is how much energy it takes to get the CO2 and H into burnable form, and how much carbon that energy itself releases in its generation. If we could get from, say, solar power to burnable fuel that pulled CO2 out of the air in its production, that would be awesome.

[Recursion]

14. Unless the laws of enthalpy have changed, that's going to be difficult

Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2013, 04:37 AM - Edit history (1)

CO2 is so common precisely because it's the low energy point.

That said, it's clearly possible since plants are constantly doing it. It's just a question of how much energy and how dirty that energy is.

[NutmegYankee]

21. Did you mean entropy?

[Recursion]

22. No, I meant enthalpy

Entropy per se has little importance here. The reaction from CO2 to pretty much anything I know of is going to be endothermic, which is why it takes energy to get from CO2 + H to whatever hydrocarbons are coming out. A CO2 molecule is much lower-enthalpy than any other arrangement of those atoms.

That said, solar power -> sequestered CO2 -> fuel is unquestionably better than fossils.

[NutmegYankee]

24. I don't disgree it's better, but

It takes a LOT of energy to make a liquid hydrocarbon out of CO2 and H2O. I don't know if the process is really sustainable. As for entropy, I'm more concerned with the net energy into the process versus what we get out. If batteries are cheaper in the long run, perhaps we should just use the electricity for other purposes.

[Recursion]

26. I agree, I just meant there's nothing here that on its face goes against Boltzmann

or Maxwell; in fact, this is precisely what plants do all the time. This is a way to store energy from some source in the form of the enthalpy of a hydrocarbon and free oxygen.

Can it be done at low enough energies for this to matter? Not yet, but this does seem better than anything we have done before.

[joshcryer]

33. Solar power to charge batteries is better.

Because there are going to be losses converting the CO2 to fuel and batteries are 80+% efficient.

Fossil / gasoline vehicles are only about 15% efficient, too, so not only are you losing energy to convert the CO2 to fuel, you're only able to get back 15% of that energy that you've stored in that fuel. The rest goes to heat.

[bluedeathray]

15. How much electricity it takes

To perform the conversion, and the source of that electricity will be interesting to see.

Comments about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and "perpetual motion" machines are spot on. And so far in human history, immutable.

I'm very glad to hear of research ongoing.

[liberal N proud]

29. Another potential route away from fossil fuels

The oil companies will not tolerate this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. More interesting for air transport, I'd say; we had a thread on the company last year

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014272287

What they'd have to show for ground transport is if it's more efficient than battery-powered electric vehicles (or hydrogen, but that's not doing too well so far). For aircraft, however, weight becomes more important, and batteries are still heavy (and the pressurized tanks for hydrogen, or the materials that can be saturated with hydrogen, are heavy, even though the fuel itself isn't). A fuel that's liquid at room temperature has a lot of advantages, in terms of energy per mass (and handling). So any process than can produce a liquid fuel with no net carbon dioxide emissions is worth pursuing.

[ileus]

31. magic chemistry.....interesting choice of words.

[FSogol]

41. Alchemy is making a comeback?

[DCBob]

32. interesting but its just electrolysis which requires lots of electricity.

You might as well just have a solar powered car.

[hobbit709]

34. Just burn hydrogen and you take carbon completely out of the equation.

And the volume of air you must process to get enough carbon to make fuel is enormous. Atmospheric CO2 is about 0.039% by volume.

[Thav]

35. This sounds a little to inefficient to be in vehicles themselves

If they made it more, that'd be awesome.

However, what about using this tech, combined with renewable energy, to create plants that create fuel? That'd be pretty neat. And if the tech is small enough to put in a car, it's small enough to put in your garage.

[Botany]

36. Doesn't pass the smell test

now if we could just hook up a car's drive shaft to the "dipping bird's" butt then
we might have something

[FSogol]

40. I'll park it next to my car that runs on wishful thinking!

[CanSocDem]

42. And people say....

...Americans don't like science.

THEY WORSHIP (some)SCIENCE.


.

[struggle4progress]

44. The C=O bond in CO2 is extremely stable and requires substantial energy to break

The bond can be broken, of course: plants, using energy from sunlight, break the bond and eventually incorporate carbon from CO2 into carbohydrates

But according to ordinary thermodynamics, breaking the bond to create an energy source to burn, and then burning the source to recover that energy, will not be anywhere near 100% efficient

So it matters how the original electricity for the electrolysis is produced. A lot of our electricity comes from burning coal or natural gas, which are not carbon-neutral methods of generation. In fact, NONE of our generating methods are carbon neutral: producing and maintaining any large industrial facility injects CO2 into the atmosphere

[jmowreader]

45. The technology isn't that far-fetched

It's called the Sabatier process

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_process

In addition to all the other problems we've brought up...is there enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to make this commercially viable? Or is he going to have to forget about recovering CO2 from air and get it some other way? There is a lot of CO2 on the market...but if he's buying CO2 he'd be better off buying CO and doing Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (which gets you liquid hydrocarbons directly) rather than Sabatier, which gets you methane that you have to convert to liquid molecules in subsequent reactions.

[1-Old-Man]

49. There would be nothing like the perpetual motion machine to stir one's interests but for one thing.

There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

[Xithras]

50. Not energy efficient, but has the advantage of working within our current infrastructure.

The real problem that I see with it is simply volume. The conversion of CO2 into liquid hydrocarbons is an energy intensive one, and in order for this system to actually produce any environmental benefit, the input power source would need to generate less CO2 per output-liter than would be produced by drilling and burning the fuel directly. The only power sources capable of accomplishing that are solar and nuclear...and politically, solar is the only one that could realistically happen.

We'd have to cover several states with solar panels in order to generate enough power to make this work on a national scale. The energy requirements to artificially generate 900 million gallons of gasoline per day would be mind-bogglingly large.

In spite of that, I could see this as having a smaller role. There are many situations in which battery-powered vehicles will never work, so there will always be some call for combustion engines. Having a carbon-neutral way to produce their fuel is certainly a better solution than relying on the current system.

[gristy]

51. As I imagine others on this thread are all over by now, it's a way to synthesize a fuel

It's not a source of energy, free or otherwise.

[NickB79]

52. It's only a neutral CO2 loop if the electricity used is from renewables

IE wind, solar, hydro, etc.

If you burn coal or natural gas to generate the electricity needed for electrolysis, it's not a CO2-neutral loop.

Also, they gloss over the fact that you need energy to capture, compress and store the CO2 feedstock when it's extracted from the air. There's a good reason most CO2 capture is done at coal power plants: it's MUCH more concentrated than the 400 ppm found in the air around us.

I get the impression this is a press release dedicated more to driving up stock prices and getting new investors than it is in delivering an actual product at this point.

[roamer65]

53. If we use solar and wind for the electricity then it may make sense.

It won't stop the CO2 buildup but it will make a big dent in it.

[gulliver]

55. Ethanol is made from CO2 removed from the atmosphere.

And cars run on that.