Aircela - Fuel from Air - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 12:53:17 am
content: The dehumidifier grift has evolved:https://www.aircela.com/

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 01:34:30 am
content: The basic process has been know for a long time and does scale to that size (and smaller), so it isnotdodgy on the feasibility/technical side. Only question is the economics and how much are people willing to pay for the product.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 01:55:05 am
content: Quote from: Someone on June 11, 2025, 01:34:30 amOh, come on.From the blurb shown above:QuoteHow much energy input does that require?QuoteHow much energy (and what kind of catalyst) does that require? (And note the use of that highly technical term "methanol-to-gasoline". Actually, the acronym makes me think of that nutcase Marjorie Taylor Greene.)I'd say the net energy gain here is so negative that you might as well just set dollar bills on fire to power this.

author: Mr.B
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 02:03:31 am
content: Irrespective of the cost of the machine, if I am understanding the math correctly, it costs a fortune to run.The FAQ on that website states 75kWh of electricity to produce 1 gallon of gasoline per day.Ignoring the ‘per day’ statement, as I would not use than much:Because I am from a predominately metric country: 1 gallon = 3.79 litres.My car tank holds ~38 litres (conveniently ~10 gallons).Unleaded 91 octane petrol (gasoline) currently costs about $2.498 per litre in NZ.That’s about $95 to completely fill my tank. (about every four weeks).According to the FAQ, I would need 750kWh of electricity to generate 10 gallons (~38 litres).The average cost of domestic electricity in NZ is currently $0.33 per kWh.It would cost me $247.50 to generate $95 worth of petrol (gasoline).

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 07:10:35 am
content: Quote from: Mr.B on June 11, 2025, 02:03:31 amAnd that is why it needs renewable electricity, so that you can use it over and over again, just like the potassium hydroxide solution.In a way it looks like an interesting solution to get petrol without needing crude oil, but it does need water, and that has to be distilled to not pollute the hydrogen generator. And fresh clean water is also a scarce commodity.Another question is how much pollution does the production of this machine bring, and how many scarce resources are needed to make it. Same questions for running the thing.It does prevent CO2 increase, but won't decrease it either, because the moment the petrol is used, the CO2 will be released again.All in all an expensive way to get some petrol.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 07:22:43 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on June 11, 2025, 07:10:35 amI see an application for this; aircraft powered by nuclear electricity by proxy.That's because I cannot see any future where battery powered long haul aircraft become technically feasible, let alone commercially feasible. Not even lithium-air batteries.As such, aircraft will always be dependent on highly energy dense liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 07:48:15 am
content: Quote from: Mr.B on June 11, 2025, 02:03:31 amMy main issue with carbon capture from air is simply that it's incredibly foolish.There is a large concentration of CO2 available from power plants. This can be captured and converted to liquid CO2 at fraction of the cost than the diluted CO2, since the concentration of CO2 in that is 20% instead of PPMs. And power plants would gladly capture and sell the CO2 instead of releasing it, since they would get carbon credits for doing so.So any machine that doesn't operate from concentrated CO2 sources is just virtue signaling machine.Basically these things only make sense if you operate on the industrial scale, huge chemical plants that take trains full of the stuff.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 09:01:26 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on June 11, 2025, 07:22:43 amI don't doubt that there will be an application for it, but how usable is it really going to be in the large scale of everything. It is not just fossil fuels that are becoming scarce. Only if the process is up scalable to produce much more petrol with higher efficiency it would be a good way to keep the many millions of ICE vehicles running.The issue brought up by tszaboo is a good point in how things might be improved upon, but long term vision might show that power plants as is are not sustainable and may therefore no longer be available as a CO2 source in the future.Also true that it is not very useful as a stand alone single user setup. A gallon a day is not going to get you very far and when running it of of your own solar cells, how much will it produce during the time the electricity is available. Also not very handy in such a setup when the weather is bad.All in all more research and development will be needed to tackle the obstacles.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 09:22:02 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on June 11, 2025, 09:01:26 amThere will be power plants operated in the next 30 years.After that, develop some chemical or biological process that makes CO2 from plastics, we have an endless supply of trash plastic.And this process makes fuel. Burning that fuel creates CO2. Therefore there is always a supply of concentrated CO2 available for these processes.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 09:34:29 am
content: Quote from: Mr.B on June 11, 2025, 02:03:31 amYes. It's horribly inefficient.19.8kWh to produce 1l of gasoline.1l of gasoline releases 33.1MJ of heat energy.https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Widener_University/CHEM_175_-_General_Chemistry_I_(Van_Bramer)/11%3A_Thermochemistry/11.04%3A_Enthalpy-_Heat_of_Combustion1kWh = 3.6MJ19.8kWh = 19.8*3.6MJ = 71.28MJ of energy.Efficiency = 33.1/71.28 = 46.4%Don't bother. Buy an EV.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 11:06:44 am
content: There very likely will be areas where fuel produced similar to this (but on an industrial scale, with highly concentrated CO2 input) will stay relevant, even if we stop burning "proper" fossil fuels.Everything that needs a high energy density, like long distance planes.Never say never, but i can't imagine a plane on the scale of an A320 or Boeing 737 powered by batteries.Maybe also for long-haul road vehicles.But for your run of the mill commuter car? I agree, get an EV.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 11:08:43 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 11, 2025, 01:55:05 amThunderf00t just responded on X about this and said it's 3-10 times. So yeah, light the bills on fire.And there is this, Porsche tried it at scale:https://timelessdriving.com/news/2023/05/Porsche-will-build-the-largest-synthetic-fuel-plant-in-Texas-and-only-there-will-it-costa-about-30-per-gallon-now-it-costs-above-200-per-gallon/

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 12:21:22 pm
content: Porsche lobbied *heavily* in Germany to appeal the "ICE ban" that is currently still in the books for 2035.Their argument was exactly that "synthetic" fuels will become viable in the future and we must not abandon proven ICE technology.I didn't know that they had a large prototype facility for these fuels in the US.Given the political shift after the last elections in Germany and the rest of Europe, Porsche and the others will likely get their way, however non-viable synthetic fuels are still at the moment.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 02:07:02 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 11, 2025, 11:08:43 amNo surprising since they went with direct air capture.Right now CO2 price with direct air capture is about 800 EUR/t, and then I used a generous number.If you buy it on the market than even food grade CO2 is only about 120 EUR.Sourcing it from power plants might cost negative. Power plants currently have to pay 85 EUR/t in carbon credits, so they would be happy if someone would take that away for free. There is just no market for that currently, nobody wants to buy it.Quick calculation tells me that you need like 1.8Kg of CO2 for 1 liter of methanol, so the price of CO2 is about 0.2EUR/liter for the food grade. Water is practically free, and the amortized cost of renewable energy is difficult to calculate, but let's try it anyway.I calculated with a million liter per year, to get into utility scale, which is about 10 GWh electricity per year for the electrolysis. Which is about a 8MW peak solar installation, which is about 6 million EUR capital investment. Let's amortize it for 12 years to make it simple, then 1 liter fuel is 0.5 EUR in electricity cost (from your own power plant) and 0.2 EUR for the CO2. Plus however much the plant cost is for such a thing, I don't even want to guess.But your "BOM cost" is only 0.7 EUR, and fuel is currently sold after taxes at 1.8 EUR here. Shift taxes around, use a bit of goverment incentives, this could totally be a viable business.But no, they want virtue signaling, with carbon capture

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 04:31:19 pm
content: I don't think the CO2 capture will be a huge burden compared to the cost of the machine and the cost of the battery needed to run it at high duty cycle.If they want to sell this to rich off gridders and preppers, the DAC makes perfect sense. I'm sure all the tech bros will want this for their bug out compounds.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 06:03:08 pm
content: This *is* coming to EU, whether you like it or not.The CO2-certificates will turn this into a "cheap solution". Of course, it's overall nonsense and the consumers will have to pay, pay more, and then some.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 06:12:11 pm
content: Quote from: Ranayna on June 11, 2025, 12:21:22 pmMany car makers are currently working on newer ICE engines, all over the place.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 06:31:03 pm
content: There is a comic book figure that already solved the carbon capture from a cars exhaust pipe.In Dutch his name is Guust Flater, in French Gaston Lagaffe and in English Gomer Goof.In album number 6 he used a big sturdy balloon to capture all the exhaust fumes. Worked like a charm, until his colleague asked what to do when it is full. Oh, you just empty it into the air, no harm no foul. Last scene of the story, the whole street is covered with people passed out, green to the face, dying of need for air.Edit: Added the French last name Lagaffe.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 10:15:56 pm
content: Quote from: Mr.B on June 11, 2025, 02:03:31 amThat sounds too good to be true, electricity here costs ~10c/kwh and industrial rates can be even lower than that (sub 6c/kwh).Its still more expensive than the gas station (about $2/L vs $1.10 to $1.40), but not by a huge amount. USD.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2025, 11:57:38 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on June 11, 2025, 06:31:03 pmAny relation to the famous French performance artistLe Petomane? Or should I say "fartist"?

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 12, 2025, 06:15:10 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 11, 2025, 11:57:38 pmNot at all. It is a cartoon figure that fucks up almost everything he does, but in a funny way.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_(comics)

author: MisterHeadache
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 13, 2025, 09:33:44 pm
content: They state they are using the MTG (methanol to gasoline) process using zeolite as a catalyst. OK, that makes a variety of alkenes and hydrocarbons, which gets you CLOSE to gasoline but NOT gasoline. To be practical as a motor fuel, you need to know with some precision what the ratios of those alkenes and hydrocarbons are. Among other things, that determines the octane rating (knock potential), the energy content per liter, and so on. Not to mention gasoline also contains detergents, corrosion inhibitors, and various other small percentages of additives.So echoing was was stated above, this process is not practical at all to do at home. Best case, it's industrial, and would be done at (gasp!) a petroleum refinery.

author: paul cotter
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 10:30:16 am
content: I am rather late to comment as I only saw this today. Potassium hydroxide will absorb co2 readily to form potassium carbonate but getting the hydroxide reconstituted is not easy. Practical carbon capture techniques use an organic base such as ethylenediamine.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 10:47:09 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on June 11, 2025, 06:12:11 pmI suppose it depends on what "many" means, but I haven't found the same thing. They seem to be consolidating on fewer engines, which they sell to each other.Have you got a good source describing the current development activities in car engines?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 10:47:41 am
content: Quote from: paul cotter on June 25, 2025, 10:30:16 amPractical carbon capture is a tree planted in the ground.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 11:40:52 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 25, 2025, 10:47:41 amI'd even go one step further: Practical carbon capture is just not burning down rainforests and let nature recover from human destruction.Sidenote: A Populus alba planted itself on my property, after 10 years, it's now *huge* (and I probably have to cut it down a bit, as it is right next to a public road).

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 12:00:57 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 25, 2025, 10:47:41 amGrowing mature trees takes too long (in current climate terms). Planting fast growing stuff and then chipping it and feeding it into power stations instead of coal (Drax) is carbon neutralat best- carbon positive when you consider transporting it, and when they get caught adding mature trees into the mix!

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 08:43:51 pm
content: Quote from: Haenk on June 25, 2025, 11:40:52 amGlobal greening has been a absolutely insane. We had the lest amount of forests in the 1980, and it's been increasing ever since.Crop yields have been increasing as well.All the MSM will tell you that global warming is a positive feedback loop. While we hear nothing about the effects that actually slow it down.It's estimated that more than 65% of the ever emitted CO2 by people has been absorbed by nature. So the CO2 emissions are not inherently evil, the rate we are doing it is.I would like to see correct data and actual solutions. Instead we get doomsday scenarios, highly ineffective systems like these, and virtue signaling.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2025, 01:35:44 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on June 25, 2025, 08:43:51 pmI would like to see the data for that. Instead we get conspiracy theories.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2025, 03:08:05 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on June 26, 2025, 01:35:44 amWell, weknowthat some of that anthropogenic CO2--probably a large quantity of it-- has been taken up by plants. I'm not sure we actually know what proportion of it has been taken up that way, and I'd like to know what the margin of error would be for such a grandiose measurement.Keep in mind too that a lot of the CO2that's taken up by plants subsequently gets released by burning or other means. I'm not sure how you would account for such "recycling". Seems pretty complicated.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2025, 06:40:28 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 26, 2025, 03:08:05 amCO2sequestration in plants, can be made by weighing the plant material mass. Will vary across plant species and planting field density of course. Put simply, it is not a mystery quantity that we are unable to quantify.Also often forgotten is that plants at night in the dark will inhale oxygen and exhale CO2, exactly the same as animals.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2025, 06:57:52 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on June 26, 2025, 06:40:28 amSure, we can know how much CO2may be sequestered in a single plant to a near certainty.But do you really think that we--all those pointy-headed scientists and their eager-beaver assistants--can really know, to a certainty, the amount of CO2sequesteredacross the entire planet?That's my problem with "the science". While I cannot challenge it definitively and say to all those pointy-headed scientists (and their eager-beaver assistants) "you're wrong!", I do think it beggars the imagination to believe that we can measure such things accurately to within, say, an order of magnitude.I'm not confident we're even in the right ballpark here.This is almost as difficult a problem as analyzing AGW on a global scale, which is far, far from an exact science.And not to mention trying to extrapolate backwards to determine CO2levels of centuries or millennia ago, using indirect measurements--ice-core samples, tree-ring (dendrochronology) data, etc. How much potential inaccuracy is in each step of such calculations? How certain can we be of CO2levels before the Anthropocene?

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2025, 07:31:43 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on June 26, 2025, 01:35:44 amIf you only count the CO2 actually exhaled by humans this could work out. However not for the CO2 from burning the fossile fuels. Here a large part (some 50%) is absorb into the oceans, but it still produces problems (lowering the PH) there. For quite some time the absorbtion and transport to the deep see can save us. We could still emit something like 25% of the current emissions and the CO2 level could stay about constant for the next few hundred years. The target is thus not so much getting near zero emissions in 50 years but more like getting to 25% in 10 or 20 years. For the industrial countries this still means gettting well below 25% of the earlier emissions.For the long term absorbtion via increased plant (and algee) growth the current number is at some 28000 years as an effective lifetime for the CO2. So only a rather small effect. This would bring the absorbt fraction more in the 0.1 to 0.2% range.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2025, 07:47:34 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on June 26, 2025, 06:57:52 amDirect measurments go back to about 1900 and a few less accurate ones even a bit earlier. And not that much coal burning happend before that.The tree rings don't tell much about CO2. The main factor for tree growth is in many areas the water supply, not CO2. Another factor that pushed plant groth are the NOx emissions that acts as fertilizer. One can use the trees to get a data on carbon samples to than look at the C14 contend. The carbon from burning fossile fuel is essentially free of C14 and one can thus look at the C14 contend in the air to see the dillution of "old" CO2. There are still complications from CO2 emissions from peat and dewatered soil.Ice cores seem to work reasonable well, though there is some diffusion - so sharp details may get lost or a bit more tricky to get.We now have reasonable ice samples also from the years where direct measurement where made. So there are points to compare to.