Saviour For The World’s Energy Crisis - Petrol From Thin Air - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 05:52:41 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--See below link to an article about a UK company that is going to make Petrol from Air.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fuel/9619269/British-engineers-produce-amazing-petrol-from-air-technology.html"Experts tonight hailed the astonishing breakthrough as a potential “game-changer” in the battle against climate change and a saviour for the world’s energy crisis. ... Company officials say they had produced five litres of petrol in less than three months from a small refinery in Stockton-on-Tees, Teesside ... if renewable energy is used to provide the electricity it could become “completely carbon neutral”. [Provided you do not count the gas or coal burned to provide the spinning reserve backup, or course.]"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field."Niels Bohr 1885 - 1962Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 07:44:24 am
content: The ideas have been proposed before. However, currently, it costs more to produce than drilling it from the sea or land, so it's unlikely to be viable. Plus, it wouldn't exactly be carbon neutral - you've still got to burn the fuel. If somehow the production required or encouraged the planting of trees it might be carbon neutral, but I am always sceptical of this definition, as trees never grow instantly.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 07:49:10 am
content: It has been possible to produce hydro carbons for many years from the raw materials of Hydrogen and carbon, at least a hundred years, it has been done on a commercial scale using coal as the raw product. It is also basically what happens in a refinery the crude is reduced to its basics and then rebuilt to whatever product is required so taking the carbon from the air along with the hydrogen is possible but most likely not economical, but if the capture point for the carbon was the chimney of a power plant without using all the electricity from the plant, now that might be of interest industrially.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 08:17:46 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on October 19, 2012, 07:44:24 amIt's carbon neutral if the carbon dioxide to make the stuff comes from the air in the first place, and burning it just puts that exact same carbon dioxide back in to the air again.The problem with it, though, is that it's not actually an energy source at all - the process requires an external input of electricity, and that comes from whatever the commercially viable source of electricity of the day happens to be. Right now, of course, *that* part of the process isn't carbon neutral.The main benefit of a process like this one would be in that it allows the existing infrastructure of oil burning engines to continue to be used, and whilst that's fantastic in principle, I have my doubts about just how commercially useful it will turn out to be. That question will come down to the efficiency of the process, ie. how much electricity has to be used in order to, say, propel a petrol engined car for one mile compared to the amount of electricity needed to propel a battery powered car the same distance. I'd hazard a guess that the answer is "dramatically more", and with eco-friendly electricity being in such short supply, I'm not sure I can see it really solving anything in the long run.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 09:13:21 am
content: It's much more efficient to use electric cars. A petrol engine is at most 25% efficient, an electric motor is over 95% efficient. It's a brain dead idea.

author: peter.mitchell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 09:18:14 am
content: Not thin air if it's got petrol in it! Ba-dum-tsch

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 04:15:39 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on October 19, 2012, 08:17:46 amI saw a program on about this on TV a few years ago. They were talking to some Americans somewhere sunny in the US and were hoping to use the sunlight to produce the petrol instead of electricity.Neil

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 05:35:43 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on October 19, 2012, 08:17:46 amIn theory a good idea.But petrol (and diesel) engines kick out a lot of other harmful stuff, such as carbon monoxide and sulfur.Although these aren't such a problem for the global environment they lead to a lot of smog problems... especially notable in Beijing and other parts of China.It could be a good interim solution - the best way forward is long-life batteries in electric vehicles. Petrol has had it's run, and it has served us well, but it's time will come.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 05:39:06 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on October 19, 2012, 05:35:43 pmIn the old days yes, but modern cars which have catalytic converters which get rid of most of the really bad stuff.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 05:49:30 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on October 19, 2012, 05:39:06 pmCatalytic converters convert most CO to CO2, but they don't do anything about sulfur. You do get low sulfur fuels, though as the name implies, they're not 100% sulfur free.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 05:52:51 pm
content: Quote from: Neilm on October 19, 2012, 04:15:39 pmI think I saw the same programme. Great science, but as with all current eco-friendly energy sources, the problem is simply quantity. It doesn't scale nearly enough.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 05:54:02 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on October 19, 2012, 05:49:30 pmBut then again, nor is the coal which would have to be burned in order to produce this new 'clean' petrol.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 06:25:25 pm
content: Quote from: AndyC_772 on October 19, 2012, 05:52:51 pmJames May's Big Ideas? I saw it too, but upon looking it up - I could never find anything on it! So no idea if they decided it was not viable, or if it was some kind of scam for investment...

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 08:16:31 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on October 19, 2012, 06:25:25 pmThat was it. I couldn't find anything on it either except links back to the program.Neil

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 08:33:32 pm
content: All this talk of electric cars being better, but how do you get the energy storage density for a 40 ton articulated lorry with a 500 mile plus range, its got to be diesel for the foreseeable future. Diesel made from CO2 and water will have no sulfur problem.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 08:46:26 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on October 19, 2012, 08:33:32 pmCompletely agree - as it stands, electric is only useful for commuter vehicles - and even then, it needs a lot more work. But it's looking more hopeful.Though I have heard that Cessna (aircraft manufacturer) are developing a version of the Cessna 172 which will be electrically powered.

author: Noize
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 10:25:42 pm
content: Quote from: Neilm on October 19, 2012, 08:16:31 pmMaybe they were paid a large amount of money by the oil companies?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 19, 2012, 11:59:22 pm
content: Quote from: Noize on October 19, 2012, 10:25:42 pmSounds great in theory, but I'm sure an oil company would LEAP at the idea of being able to produce nearly unlimited fuel without having to build a well and refinery, which are massive investments. Especially as they can then dictate supply, enabling them ultimate market control of prices. I doubt they'd want to destroy the technology - unless it was already public domain.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2012, 04:55:39 pm
content: According to some recent research by the Norwegian of science and technology greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically if electricity from coal powered stations is used with electric cars also the factories that make electric cars emit more toxic waste than conventional car factories. The only truly green option looks like shanks pony.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2012, 05:28:19 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on October 20, 2012, 04:55:39 pmIt's not true. Even if electric cars were powered entirely from coal, they'd be responsible for about 1/2 to 1/3 the CO2 of petrol cars. And in the UK, only about 50% of our energy comes from coal, and that figure is dwindling even more.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2012, 06:47:57 pm
content: the factories that make electric cars emit more toxic waste than conventional car factories.Bullshit. Link to a source.A car is a car. Volts don't come from some special new factory where only Volts can be built, they're built in an old plant in Hamtramck that was, as virtually all plants are with each new model run, retooled for the Volt. The only substantial difference between the Volt and any other car is the battery - which virtually every internal combustion vehicle also has and which virtually every big rig has by the handful.Right now a li-ion battery costs about $500 kw/hr. A lead acid battery costs about $125. Demand for each is going to be about the same, so one can pretty much base cost on real price. There's a slightly higher technology cost with li-ion, but that's in protection circuitry not metals usage. And both can be recycled. Basically, that means it costs 4 times as much to make the same battery in kw/hr for li-ion vs the toxic lead acid. And lead acids are not getting any cheaper - but li-ions are, which means the gap is closing.Recycling facilities for lead acid batteries are pretty nasty places due to the toxic chemicals used and the waste produced. Right now there are two Billion li-ion cells sold every year for laptops, cellphones and such. These can all be recycled and, even if they aren't, they can safely be dumped into landfills - something which CANNOT be done with the lead heavy batteries presently installed in cars.http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9002586/Dell_battery_recall_not_likely_to_have_big_environmental_impact

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2012, 08:21:25 pm
content: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/fullhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/oct/05/electric-cars-emissions-bad-environment

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2012, 09:23:23 pm
content: OK but... WHERE does it say "ev car plants produce more pollution (toxins, whatever) than conventional car plants?"It doesn't, because that's not true. Brakes are brakes, fenders are fenders, seats are seats. You can argue the EVs use lighter materials but that's not going to be true for long as IC vehicles are also made more efficient. You can make a Volt with a gas engine, it's the same damn car except the means of motive force. Fenders (and upholstery) can be made from recycled soda bottles for either vehicle (and they are). This is just one example of lightening vehicles that was going on long before there was serious talk of evs.This study is also based on some very fallacious assumptions right off the bat. To wit:Because production impacts are more signi?cant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP bene?ts of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17%to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the bene?t of EVs to 9%to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from thoseof a diesel vehicle.In other words, "because comparing these numbers based on normal, typical, expected vehicle lifetimes blows our argument out of the water, we're going to ignore those numbers and use our own."My 1987 Mustang was still winning drag races when it had 300,000 miles on it. That's without an engine rebuild and only on transmission overhaul. The body had cracked under the seats from all the stress, but the car still ran like a bull and handled as well as it ever had.MOST new cars are "just getting broken in" at 100,000 miles and there is virtually no reason to expect EVs - which are made from the exact same materials as any other car - cannot also meet these expectations. They quote car makers as "estimating" the lifetimes of vehicles as 150,000 miles but the fact remains that the highways and used car lots are filled with cars with substantially more miles on them than that - carmakers base their "assumptions" on all sorts of things having to do with accidents (remember when you couldn't swing a dead cat without seeing a Mustang some teenager had wrapped around a pole strapped to the back of a salvage truck?) and (most importantly) "expected useful lifetime" as it relates to their mandated terms of support for new vehicles - iow they have to balance competitive forces with their desire to get out from under mandated support contracts as soon as possible; Ford does not want to be required to replace catalytic convertors on cars with 250,000 miles on them.This is such a "problem" in fact the government recently did a BUY BACK program ("cash for clunkers") to encourage people to turn in for disposal all those "old" and "inefficient" cars. This was not the first of its kind, in fact, as the sight of mobile car crushers in parking lots was once a fairly common site in the US.http://moneyland.time.com/2012/03/20/what-you-only-have-100k-miles-on-your-car-thats-nothing/Now if we add the initial cost of the vehicle into the equation, with hybrids now commanding a premium over others, we have even more value added later in life.http://askville.amazon.com/long-battery-hybrid-cars-expected/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3963105Battery production contributes 35% to 41% of the EV production phase GWP, whereas the electric engine contributes7% to 8%. Other powertrain components, notably invertersand the passive battery cooling system with their high aluminum content, contribute 16% to 18% of the embodied GWPof EVsAgain, as I said: BATTERIES. A technology which is evolving rapdily, and which is not an apples to apples equation in this paper since they seem to ignore completely the recycling of these materials. Recycling lead acid car batteries is a toxic business. Li-Ion batteries can simply be ground up and reprocessed.The rest of the materials - especially the aluminum and copper, are readily recycled and a significant market exists for this material. It is a lie to not account for this reality.human and water toxicities along with metal depletionpotentials are always greater for electric transportation independent of the electricity sourceBased on what? An assertion? A lithium ion battery can be safely thrown in a landfill. Most states don't even have laws against this. Try dumping a car battery in a landfill. Not only does this risk contamination from heavy metals, the liquid used in them is toxic and, even if neutralized so as not to be caustic, remains a toxic waste.Due to the greater emissions intensity of its productionphase, changing the vehicle lifetime has a greater effect onthe GWP per kilometer for EVs than it does for ICEVs. Increasing the lifetime of EVs from 150,000 km to 250,000 kmpotentially decreases the GWP {substantially}... whereas the same lifetimeincrease for ICEVs only decreases the GWP per kilometer... {much less}. Selecting an appropriate lifetime assumptionfor EVs is challenging, as many uncertainties arise related to battery degradation and failure rates, cost of operation and retirement decisions, and the driving patterns associated with EV use."Retirement decisions." How many original owner cars get sent to the crusher? My father used to "retire" all his cars after only about 4 years or 70K miles - byreselling them- because cars back then didn't last much longer than that. They do now.Muchlonger. There are taxis running with half a million miles on the clock, and guess what happens when a battery goes flat? They REPLACE it. You don't "retire" an entire vehicle because of a bad battery - not even if that vehicle is an ev.http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/f49/expected-hybrid-battery-life-27732/

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 20, 2012, 10:35:20 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--G7PSK has said "According to some recent research by the Norwegian of science and technology greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically if electricity from coal powered stations is used with electric cars also the factories that make electric cars emit more toxic waste than conventional car factories. The only truly green option looks like shanks pony."--Poptones replied, politely as usual "Bullshit. Link to a source." This from someone who almost never posts sources for his contentions, even when, politely, requested to, and sometimes answers "Look it up".--G7PSK responds by posting the source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full--Poptones then give short shrift to the fact that the study supports G7PSK's contention that "greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically if electricity from coal powered stations is used with electric cars." And replies "OK but... WHERE does it say "ev car plants produce more pollution (toxins, whatever) than conventional car plants? It doesn't, because that's not true.--Actually the Norwegian study cited by G7PSK does actually indeed state "ev car plants produce more pollution (toxins, whatever) than conventional car plants" in the First Paragraph of the study about 7 lines down. And I quote:"EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain."--Point awarded to G7PSK."All I wants of you, Cap'n Simmons, is plain seevility, and that of the commonest goddamndest kind!"Zeph W. PeaseBest RegardsClear Ether

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2012, 10:45:18 pm
content: ROTFL. I blew holes in that study and sarge, of course, makes his entire case on one completely out of context and easily disproven assertion.EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chainApparently sarge does not understand the easily made distinction between "supply chain" and the plants themselves. And even the "supply chain" is based on completelyt made up bullshit numbers, which I pointed out. Because it appears he has decided not to read anything I said, I'll say it again.OK but... WHERE does it say "ev car plants produce more pollution (toxins, whatever) than conventional car plants?"It doesn't, because that's not true. Brakes are brakes, fenders are fenders, seats are seats. You can argue the EVs use lighter materials but that's not going to be true for long as IC vehicles are also made more efficient. You can make a Volt with a gas engine, it's the same damn car except the means of motive force. Fenders (and upholstery) can be made from recycled soda bottles for either vehicle (and they are). This is just one example of lightening vehicles that was going on long before there was serious talk of evs.This study is also based on some very fallacious assumptions right off the bat. To wit:Because production impacts are more signi?cant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP bene?ts of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17%to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the bene?t of EVs to 9%to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from thoseof a diesel vehicle.In other words, "because comparing these numbers based on normal, typical, expected vehicle lifetimes blows our argument out of the water, we're going to ignore those numbers and use our own."My 1987 Mustang was still winning drag races when it had 300,000 miles on it. That's without an engine rebuild and only on transmission overhaul. The body had cracked under the seats from all the stress, but the car still ran like a bull and handled as well as it ever had.MOST new cars are "just getting broken in" at 100,000 miles and there is virtually no reason to expect EVs - which are made from the exact same materials as any other car - cannot also meet these expectations. They quote car makers as "estimating" the lifetimes of vehicles as 150,000 miles but the fact remains that the highways and used car lots are filled with cars with substantially more miles on them than that - carmakers base their "assumptions" on all sorts of things having to do with accidents (remember when you couldn't swing a dead cat without seeing a Mustang some teenager had wrapped around a pole strapped to the back of a salvage truck?) and (most importantly) "expected useful lifetime" as it relates to their mandated terms of support for new vehicles - iow they have to balance competitive forces with their desire to get out from under mandated support contracts as soon as possible; Ford does not want to be required to replace catalytic convertors on cars with 250,000 miles on them.This is such a "problem" in fact the government recently did a BUY BACK program ("cash for clunkers") to encourage people to turn in for disposal all those "old" and "inefficient" cars. This was not the first of its kind, in fact, as the sight of mobile car crushers in parking lots was once a fairly common site in the US.http://moneyland.time.com/2012/03/20/what-you-only-have-100k-miles-on-your-car-thats-nothing/Now if we add the initial cost of the vehicle into the equation, with hybrids now commanding a premium over others, we have even more value added later in life.http://askville.amazon.com/long-battery-hybrid-cars-expected/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3963105Battery production contributes 35% to 41% of the EV production phase GWP, whereas the electric engine contributes7% to 8%. Other powertrain components, notably invertersand the passive battery cooling system with their high aluminum content, contribute 16% to 18% of the embodied GWPof EVsAgain, as I said: BATTERIES. A technology which is evolving rapdily, and which is not an apples to apples equation in this paper since they seem to ignore completely the recycling of these materials. Recycling lead acid car batteries is a toxic business. Li-Ion batteries can simply be ground up and reprocessed.The rest of the materials - especially the aluminum and copper, are readily recycled and a significant market exists for this material. It is a lie to not account for this reality.human and water toxicities along with metal depletionpotentials are always greater for electric transportation independent of the electricity sourceBased on what? An assertion? A lithium ion battery can be safely thrown in a landfill. Most states don't even have laws against this. Try dumping a car battery in a landfill. Not only does this risk contamination from heavy metals, the liquid used in them is toxic and, even if neutralized so as not to be caustic, remains a toxic waste.Due to the greater emissions intensity of its productionphase, changing the vehicle lifetime has a greater effect onthe GWP per kilometer for EVs than it does for ICEVs. Increasing the lifetime of EVs from 150,000 km to 250,000 kmpotentially decreases the GWP {substantially}... whereas the same lifetimeincrease for ICEVs only decreases the GWP per kilometer... {much less}. Selecting an appropriate lifetime assumptionfor EVs is challenging, as many uncertainties arise related to battery degradation and failure rates, cost of operation and retirement decisions, and the driving patterns associated with EV use."Retirement decisions." How many original owner cars get sent to the crusher? My father used to "retire" all his cars after only about 4 years or 70K miles - byreselling them- because cars back then didn't last much longer than that. They do now.Muchlonger. There are taxis running with half a million miles on the clock, and guess what happens when a battery goes flat? They REPLACE it. You don't "retire" an entire vehicle because of a bad battery - not even if that vehicle is an ev.http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/f49/expected-hybrid-battery-life-27732/

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2012, 10:49:41 pm
content: "A trolling we will go, a trolling we will go..."Hi ho the merry-O, eh sarge?Have you ever made a sound argument in your life?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 20, 2012, 11:03:20 pm
content: Oh, how much I have missed the arguments between poptones and SgtRock. They make me feel at home.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 21, 2012, 09:07:52 am
content: A lead acid battery for starting is fairly small and only needs changing once every 5 years or so. The batteries of an EV are very large and last such a short time that some manufacturers do not sell you the batteries when you buy the vehicle you get a lease on them and with only a few hundred charges available you could need a new battery a year or more.Eventually petrol cars will leave the road, but will it be rechargeable battery cars that replace them, I am not so sure all too often it is some apparently new technology that come from the sidelines that wins the day.At the present time EV are not at where the Model T was in its time as far as general usability.I think we can all agree that we cannot keep burning fossil fuels at the rate we do but EV at present are only novelty town run around's and are of absolutely no use to any one living in the sticks 40 miles from town.By the way I only reported that I had read of some research not that I had done it or that I necessarily believed it but on some peoples reaction to it I tend to believe that there is some merit in it. Methinks the man doth protest to much.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 21, 2012, 09:26:33 am
content: Funny thing is NiMH cells for automotive use are covered by a patent that is not used, but which inhibits the use of a pretty good battery tech for EV use. Low resistance, good charge retention and able to source and sink significant current along with a good recycle path and low toxicity for the electrolyte, which is mostly water, and can be made serviceable with caps to allow topping up.

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 21, 2012, 07:06:41 pm
content: The batteries of an EV are very large and last such a short time that some manufacturers do not sell you the batteries when you buy the vehicle you get a lease on them and with only a few hundred charges available you could need a new battery a year or more.1985 called, they're asking for you.Apparently sarge isn't the only one who didn't bother with the links I provided.Seven years is the warranty offered by one maker, something similar by the other. Reports of over 100,000 miles (that's mile not km) on a battery. And the batteries are designed in cells to allow replacing a few bad cells rather than the entire system at once.And, as I said before, the cells are easily recycled. Do you have any idea how many car batteries are junked every year?I don't see how evs are lacking in usability. The pure evs are limited in range but hybrids are not. There are entire fleets of Prii running around here in Tucson, I have no reason to expect such is not the case in most big cities. These command only a slight premium in lease over the giant fords and vans which I would attribute not to higher maintenance costs but to greater city mileage. I know one cabbie who never turns his in - it's his personal car. He leases it 7 days a week and takes the weekends off in which he may drive to the grand canyon, or vegas, or san diego and never has a worry. I doubt many peoplle would be willing to set off across the desert in a model T even if this were 1924.