Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30
  1. #1
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Today @ 07:22 AM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    28,323

    Engineers make petrol out of thin air.

    This could be a game changer, unless one of the big oil companies buys it,kills everyone involved and buries it so deep it'll never be found untill the oil actually does run out.
    Though at 5 litres per three months it may take a while to get production to where we need it.

    British engineers produce amazing 'petrol from air' technology
    Revolutionary new technology that produces “petrol from air” is being produced by a British firm, it emerged tonight.

    An Air Fuel Synthesis technical team member with a flask of AFS fuel Photo: Air Fuel Synthesis
    By Andrew Hough11:30PM BST 18 Oct 2012160 Comments
    A small company in the north of England has developed the “air capture” technology to create synthetic petrol using only air and electricity.
    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.
    The technology, presented to a London engineering conference this week, removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
    The “petrol from air” technology involves taking sodium hydroxide and mixing it with carbon dioxide before "electrolysing" the sodium carbonate that it produces to form pure carbon dioxide.
    Hydrogen is then produced by electrolysing water vapour captured with a dehumidifier.

    The company, Air Fuel Syndication, then uses the carbon dioxide and hydrogen to produce methanol which in turn is passed through a gasoline fuel reactor, creating petrol.
    Company officials say they had produced five litres of petrol in less than three months from a small refinery in Stockton-on-Tees, Teesside.
    The fuel that is produced can be used in any regular petrol tank and, if renewable energy is used to provide the electricity it could become “completely carbon neutral”.
    The £1.1m project, in development for the past two years, is being funded by a group of unnamed philanthropists who believe the technology could prove to be a lucrative way of creating renewable energy.
    While the technology has the backing of Britain’s Institution of Mechanical Engineers, it has yet to capture the interest of major oil companies.
    But company executives hope to build a large plant, which could produce more than a tonne of petrol every day, within two years and a refinery size operation within the next 15 years.
    Tonight Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) officials admitted that while the described the technology as being “too good to be true but it is true”, it could prove to be a “game-changer” in the battle against climate change.
    Stephen Tetlow, the IMechE chief executive, hailed the breakthrough as “truly groundbreaking”.
    “It has the potential to become a great British success story, which opens up a crucial opportunity to reduce carbon emissions,” he said.
    “It also has the potential to reduce our exposure to an increasingly volatile global energy market.
    “The potential to provide a variety of sustainable fuels for today’s vehicles and infrastructure is especially exciting.”
    Dr Tim Fox, the organisation's head of energy and environment, added: “Air capture technology ultimately has the potential to become a game-changer in our quest to avoid dangerous climate change.”
    Peter Harrison, the company’s 58 year-old chief executive, told The Daily Telegraph that he was “excited” about the technology’s potential, which “uses renewable energy in a slightly different way”.
    “People do find it unusual when I tell them what we are working on and realise what it means,” said Mr Harrison, a civil engineer from Darlington, Co Durham.
    “It is an opportunity for a technology to make an impact on climate change and make an impact on the energy crisis facing this country and the world.
    "It looks and smells like petrol but it is much cleaner and we don't have any nasty bits."
    British engineers produce amazing 'petrol from air' technology - Telegraph
    "In my professional assessment as an intelligence officer, Trump has a reflexive, defensive, monumentally narcissistic personality, for whom the facts and national interest are irrelevant, and the only thing that counts is whatever gives personal advantage and directs attention to himself."

  2. #2
    Pedantic bastard
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,665
    [quote=Koojo;2245904]Th

    has developed the “air capture” technology to create synthetic petrol using only air and electricity.



    The “petrol from air” technology involves taking sodium hydroxide and mixing it with carbon dioxide before "electrolysing" the sodium carbonate that it produces to form pure carbon dioxide.

    I know I am not a chemist, but even though, I do have trouble matching up those red bits.....

  3. #3
    Thailand Expat
    VocalNeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    16-08-2019 @ 01:16 PM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    11,209
    Getting carbon dioxide from air is old technology. Same for making hydrogen. Hmm Sodium carbonate is washing soda so that's not new.

    Why not simply use the methanol? But hey I'm not getting paid to do it.

  4. #4
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Online
    07-08-2019 @ 11:41 AM
    Posts
    36,439
    There goes all the plant life...

  5. #5
    Have you got any cheese Thetyim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Mousehole
    Posts
    20,902
    Quote Originally Posted by VocalNeal
    Hmm Sodium carbonate is washing soda so that's not new.
    Is there enough Sodium Hydroxide in the world to make enough fuel to power the world ?

  6. #6
    Pedantic bastard
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    14,665
    Quote Originally Posted by VocalNeal View Post
    Getting carbon dioxide from air is old technology. Same for making hydrogen. Hmm Sodium carbonate is washing soda so that's not new.
    Hmm. Cough. Sodium hydroxide, not sodium carbonate.

    On edit: the carbonate is what they get mixing the Co2 and NaOH.

    On further edit - it all seems a bit off. Sodium carbonate is already mass produced - salt and limestone (both pretty common) - so why would they start with Co2 + sodium hydroxide?

  7. #7
    Lord of Swine
    Necron99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Nahkon Sawon
    Posts
    13,025
    5 litres in 3 months... Must be a refinery the size of a teapot.
    I can make all the oil in the world.
    I just need a few gigatons of biomatter, preasure and a little bit of time.

  8. #8
    M.A.D
    Carrabow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    06-11-2015 @ 06:37 AM
    Location
    Globe trotting
    Posts
    3,856
    If I could collect all of the mulch from cut yards, silage from all the fields, and trimmed branches from the world... I would mix it with my cane sugar.

    From there... the Ethanol is mixed with Soy ....

    10 % mixed with 80 % soy will give you Bio fuel, the other 10% is a loss.

    I can do this with peanuts as well


    All of your waste fruit, veggies, wood, grain and anythng that is compost... We can make GAS

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    334
    If we could reduce the world's population to no more than 1/2 what it is now and keep there, we could have all the raw materials we need for another 1000 years. Yes, shocking isn't it. I'm no expert so I don't know if this is true but what the heck let's give it a try! We could also try to genetically shrink people to barbie doll size. At that size one apple would feed a small city fruit for a day. Let's go nano!

  10. #10
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:37 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,711
    As I understand it, the sodium hydroxyde is used to gather the CO2 and it runs in a cycle so is not consumed.

    They also use air humidity to produce the water they need. I could think of easier methods to get water.

    Then they use electricity to produce the fuel from water and CO2. Somewhat unclear to me is using NaOH for gathering the CO2. I would think cooling air to produce liquid CO2 would be easier. That is the standard method used presently to produce pure CO2. But maybe their method is more energy efficient. They then produce hydrogen and oxygen from the water.

    Making fuel from CO2 and hydrogen is simple. The required technology would be known since early last century. So nothing new there at all. The rub of course is you need a lot of electricity. So unless you have unlimited cheap electricity it is worthless. No need by the oil companies to suppress it. You could see it as a method of storing solar electricity.

  11. #11
    Neo
    Neo is offline
    Dislocated Member
    Neo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    05-08-2019 @ 02:34 AM
    Location
    Nebuchadnezzar
    Posts
    10,577
    It's not Petrol from 'thin air' as pulp journalists would like their audiences to believe, it's actually petrol from air and water.. and yes the refining process is limited at the moment, but scale it up and the first customers will be motorsports due to it's very pure state.. and after that perhaps the rest of us.. asuming any of us can afford a liter by then.. the most important thing though of course is... they are not British.. they are English..

    that's right ENGLISH engineers..

    Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!"

  12. #12
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:37 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo
    It's not Petrol from 'thin air' as pulp journalists would like their audiences to believe, it's actually petrol from air and water
    Hydrogen is then produced by electrolysing water vapour captured with a dehumidifier.
    They claim to get the water from the air too. At their present production rate that would be possible.

    Especially with the air in England.

  13. #13
    M.A.D
    Carrabow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    06-11-2015 @ 06:37 AM
    Location
    Globe trotting
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo
    It's not Petrol from 'thin air' as pulp journalists would like their audiences to believe, it's actually petrol from air and water
    Hydrogen is then produced by electrolysing water vapour captured with a dehumidifier.
    They claim to get the water from the air too. At their present production rate that would be possible.

    Especially with the air in England.

    T.O,

    Rocket fuel is expensive, I forget the ratio.

    It takes too much electricity to split water

  14. #14
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:37 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrabow
    T.O,
    Rocket fuel is expensive, I forget the ratio.
    It takes too much electricity to split water
    Certainly, even considered that fuel is less than 0,5% of launch cost. Maybe hydrogen a little more.

    BTW Most if not all present suggestions for a manned Mars mission propose making the fuel for Mars ascend locally using a small nuclear reactor or solar electricity.

    The Mars atmosphere is mostly CO2 and they could split it to 2CO + O2 and use that as fuel. Or use local water also and produce methane. It has been recently established that there is very much water on Mars, not only on the poles. But not everywhere so you would have to select a location with water for the landing. But locations with water would be preferred anyway because of the (small) chance to find life.

  15. #15
    M.A.D
    Carrabow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    06-11-2015 @ 06:37 AM
    Location
    Globe trotting
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrabow
    T.O,
    Rocket fuel is expensive, I forget the ratio.
    It takes too much electricity to split water
    Certainly, even considered that fuel is less than 0,5% of launch cost. Maybe hydrogen a little more.

    BTW Most if not all present suggestions for a manned Mars mission propose making the fuel for Mars ascend locally using a small nuclear reactor or solar electricity.

    The Mars atmosphere is mostly CO2 and they could split it to 2CO + O2 and use that as fuel. Or use local water also and produce methane. It has been recently established that there is very much water on Mars, not only on the poles. But not everywhere so you would have to select a location with water for the landing. But locations with water would be preferred anyway because of the (small) chance to find life.
    Our Moon has helium3.

    That can be a good source.

    Makes sense to put a fort on the frontier and then head out. Gravity on the moon is 1/3 rd of our home. A launch would be gravy

  16. #16
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:37 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrabow
    Our Moon has helium3.

    That can be a good source.
    I thought so too, given all the hype about He3. But then I looked up on it.

    Wikipedia Helium 3

    He3 won't help with energy production. It is actually much harder to achieve fusion of He3 than what we are trying to achieve right now in fusion development. It would only help in appeasing the green mob because He3 fusion would produce less neutrons and so less secondary radioactive materials. That is not really important as that radiation is quite easy to handle and much shorter lived and far less than the fission products of our present nuclear fission power plants.



    Quote Originally Posted by Carrabow
    Makes sense to put a fort on the frontier and then head out. Gravity on the moon is 1/3 rd of our home. A launch would be gravy
    That is a major point of contention among us space enthusiasts.

    Some believe fuel from the moon would be the key to exploration of the solar system. But that would be oxygen and hydrogen from water found on the moon. There are two major drawbacks for that plan.

    One is there is no real hard data on water on the moon. It may be very little and very hard to get.

    Second is the problem with hydrogen as fuel. It needs to be cooled extremely deep to be liquid and there are major unsolved problems with storing it for long flights. You can fill it in a rocket but you lose some of it every minute. So good for launch but no good for use at the destination of a long flight.

  17. #17
    M.A.D
    Carrabow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    06-11-2015 @ 06:37 AM
    Location
    Globe trotting
    Posts
    3,856
    Look Brother,

    In 1969 we hauled ass to the moon...

    WTF?

    We aint done shite since then ....

    Oh... we sent some Robots Mars...

    That was 42 years ago. Yer Cell phone has more computing power than the lunar lander had...

  18. #18
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:24 AM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    17,651
    The cost of the electricity to make the 5 litres of petrol was what?

  19. #19
    M.A.D
    Carrabow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    06-11-2015 @ 06:37 AM
    Location
    Globe trotting
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    The cost of the electricity to make the 5 litres of petrol was what?

    What year? Rockets use Hydrogen and O2. That is made from WATER brother.

    How much is that in electricity?


    Now they say we can use H3, which they say is all over the moon.

  20. #20
    Thailand Expat
    OhOh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:24 AM
    Location
    Where troubles melt like lemon drops
    Posts
    17,651
    ^I would suggest that the cost of fuel to fill the average Joe's car is more important than the cost of fuel for a missile or a space mission. IMHO

  21. #21
    M.A.D
    Carrabow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    06-11-2015 @ 06:37 AM
    Location
    Globe trotting
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh View Post
    ^I would suggest that the cost of fuel to fill the average Joe's car is more important than the cost of fuel for a missile or a space mission. IMHO


    NASA


    C'mon bro! They spend in one minute what you spend in a lifetime...

    Fookin' 'ell... We aint made it past the Moon

  22. #22
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:37 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,711
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh
    ^I would suggest that the cost of fuel to fill the average Joe's car is more important than the cost of fuel for a missile or a space mission. IMHO
    If you can make fuel for 5000€ a liter on Mars for lifting people or soil samples from the surface it would be a lot cheaper than ferrying it in from earth.

    And don't get me started on NASA wasting money. Even if it is mostly not NASAs fault but politics as the root cause.

  23. #23
    M.A.D
    Carrabow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    06-11-2015 @ 06:37 AM
    Location
    Globe trotting
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by OhOh
    ^I would suggest that the cost of fuel to fill the average Joe's car is more important than the cost of fuel for a missile or a space mission. IMHO
    If you can make fuel for 5000€ a liter on Mars for lifting people or soil samples from the surface it would be a lot cheaper than ferrying it in from earth.

    And don't get me started on NASA wasting money. Even if it is mostly not NASAs fault but politics as the root cause.

    We need to get our Uni's and scientific students rolling on gravity.

    You can float a coil of wire with AC voltage for a time... The key is to pulse the coil, and not overheat it. In space the cooler temps will control the burn.

  24. #24
    Thailand Expat
    Takeovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 12:37 AM
    Location
    Berlin Germany
    Posts
    5,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrabow
    We need to get our Uni's and scientific students rolling on gravity.

    You can float a coil of wire with AC voltage for a time... The key is to pulse the coil, and not overheat it. In space the cooler temps will control the burn.
    The floating coil has nothing to do with gravity. It uses a strong magnetic field. Not very useful in space, maybe in LEO (Low Earth Orbit) using the earth's magnetic field.

    But there is something good ready to be used.

    Variabale Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket = VASIMR

    That's an Ion Drive Engine with much higher thrust than those used so far. It needs several Megawatt of electric power. That could be provided using nuclear reactors or solar arrays. Solar arrays can be made very big in space and might drive Space Tugs soon ferrying freight from LEO to high orbit or even to Mars. Slow but uses far less fuel than chemical rockets.

    One very interesting idea would be to shift a Mars ship to the L2-point using VASIMR or similar thrusters. That is a point beyond the moon from earth. When the ship is ready Astronauts could fly there the fast route and then off to Mars. It would save a lot of fuel.

    But these Ion drives won't supply enough thrust to lift of from the Earth or Mars or even the Moon. They go slow but steady so good for move in space between orbits.

  25. #25
    M.A.D
    Carrabow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Online
    06-11-2015 @ 06:37 AM
    Location
    Globe trotting
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Takeovers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Carrabow
    We need to get our Uni's and scientific students rolling on gravity.

    You can float a coil of wire with AC voltage for a time... The key is to pulse the coil, and not overheat it. In space the cooler temps will control the burn.
    The floating coil has nothing to do with gravity. It uses a strong magnetic field. Not very useful in space, maybe in LEO (Low Earth Orbit) using the earth's magnetic field.

    But there is something good ready to be used.

    Variabale Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket = VASIMR

    That's an Ion Drive Engine with much higher thrust than those used so far. It needs several Megawatt of electric power. That could be provided using nuclear reactors or solar arrays. Solar arrays can be made very big in space and might drive Space Tugs soon ferrying freight from LEO to high orbit or even to Mars. Slow but uses far less fuel than chemical rockets.

    One very interesting idea would be to shift a Mars ship to the L2-point using VASIMR or similar thrusters. That is a point beyond the moon from earth. When the ship is ready Astronauts could fly there the fast route and then off to Mars. It would save a lot of fuel.

    But these Ion drives won't supply enough thrust to lift of from the Earth or Mars or even the Moon. They go slow but steady so good for move in space between orbits.

    T.O

    I screw around with lots of stuff. Am I smart like you? No... I do understand how stuff works. That is how we got where we are today.


    We have been using bottle rockets for years. Now... they talk about ram jets??? The Germans were using those back in WWII???

    We aint going forward...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •