Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pioneering British firm produces 'petrol from air' in breakthrough that could solve energy crisis
The London Daily Mail ^ | October 20, 2012 | Damien Gayle

Posted on 10/20/2012 1:31:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

A British firm has produced the first 'petrol from air', it emerged today - in a pioneering scientific breakthrough that could end mankind's reliance on declining fossil fuels.

Air Fuel Synthesis in Stockton-on-Tees, Teesside, claims to have made five litres of petrol since August using a small refinery that synthesises the fuel from carbon dioxide and water vapour.

Experts have hailed the incredible breakthrough as a potential 'game-changer' in the battle against climate change and solution to the globe's escalating energy crisis.

While the company is still developing their process and still need to take electricity from the national grid, it believes it will eventually be possible to power the synthesis entirely from renewable sources.

Within two years it hopes to build a commercial-scale plant capable of making a ton of petrol a day and expand into producing green aviation fuel to make airline travel more eco-friendly.

The technology involves mixing air with sodium hydroxide, then electrolysing the resultant sodium carbonate to release pure carbon dioxide...

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: economy; energy; environment; gasoline; greenenergy; oil; petroleum; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 10/20/2012 1:31:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I find it surprising that the non-critical thinking press doesn’t realize this has been done back in WWII.

This is fuel from air and electricity, lots of electricity.

It is cheaper to get the fuel from the ground.


2 posted on 10/20/2012 1:37:10 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

-—physics will win again-—


3 posted on 10/20/2012 1:37:56 PM PDT by rellimpank (--don't believe anything the media or government says about firearms or explosives--)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Libs are already busy figuring out how they can regulate it, as well as tax it.


4 posted on 10/20/2012 1:41:42 PM PDT by Leep (Forward! to serfdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“....end mankind’s reliance on declining fossil fuels.”

.
Declining fossil fuels — what liberal BS.

First of all we have 500 years of proven reserves in oil, gas and coal and almost every year new sources are discovered. Ever heard of the ocean of methane to be harvested from the ocean bottom?

The real question is — what does it cost in $/Btu to produce “petrol from air” or petrol from fossil fuel?


5 posted on 10/20/2012 1:44:06 PM PDT by 353FMG (The US Constitution is only as effective as those who enforce it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Simple question: How much energy goes in, how much comes out? Another perpetual motion machine. And the winner again is,.. Entropy by a length!


6 posted on 10/20/2012 1:50:57 PM PDT by nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

I’m starting to believe in the anaerobic theory that the Russians have used, with some success, to find reserves. If that is wholly or even partially true, petroleum is just as renewable as corn or bamboo.


7 posted on 10/20/2012 1:51:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dila813

Yep, another con job and we are not energy poor.


8 posted on 10/20/2012 1:51:23 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Not a bad idea for a country looking for energy independence, that does not have a lot of native fossil fuels. Build a bunch of Nukes, and you can make all the liquid fuel you need. Nice.


9 posted on 10/20/2012 1:53:52 PM PDT by Paradox (I want Obama defeated. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Rurudyne; steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; xcamel; AdmSmith; ...

Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
...claims to have made five litres of petrol since August using a small refinery that synthesises the fuel from carbon dioxide and water vapour.

10 posted on 10/20/2012 1:54:43 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It seems quite plausible, at least for natural gas. I’m not at all convinced regarding oil. Then again, I’m just guessing.


11 posted on 10/20/2012 1:54:43 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Why not build the nuclear plants and run everything on the resulting elecricity? Wouldn’t that be “greener” abd much simpler?


12 posted on 10/20/2012 1:55:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Sure.

Today and today only, I’m selling carbon credits at 1/2 off. No checks.

If interested please email me your pin and account number.


13 posted on 10/20/2012 1:59:03 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813

Is it an energy negative process, where you get gas but using more energy than it creates?


14 posted on 10/20/2012 2:05:09 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No, the question should be: how many $$ in production cost does it take to make a gallon of “petrol from air” vs. the production cost of making a gallon of petrol from fossil fuel?

Of course, the Btu value of one gallon of the “petrol from air” must be equal to the number of Btus in the gallon of “petrol from fossil fuel”.

One should also include in the equation that in order to make “petrol from air” the production process will have to use energy from fossil fuel.


15 posted on 10/20/2012 2:06:15 PM PDT by 353FMG (The US Constitution is only as effective as those who enforce it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Leep

If it becomes cost effective, they’ll start protesting it.


16 posted on 10/20/2012 2:10:27 PM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Me too. No one has ever answered or hardly even brought up the question of how dinosaurs and prehistoric vegetation got 1,2,3,5+ miles down below the earth to create oil. The abiogenic theory make alot more sense.


17 posted on 10/20/2012 2:11:00 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (Election 2012 - America stands or falls. No more excuses. Get involved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What utter rot. Fuel oil could be made from the wings of house flies but so what?


18 posted on 10/20/2012 2:12:00 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813
This is fuel from air and electricity, lots of electricity.

That's where the E-CAT comes in !
19 posted on 10/20/2012 2:14:41 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Thanks for driving the house fly wing market up. Millions of poor little flies walking around. The horror......the horror.


20 posted on 10/20/2012 2:17:37 PM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Why not build the nuclear plants and run everything on the resulting elecricity? Wouldn’t that be “greener” abd much simpler?

Not necessarily, because making an electric car that is as convenient, with the same performance and range, as a regular car is not going to be simple, might not even be possible any time soon.

21 posted on 10/20/2012 2:19:51 PM PDT by Paradox (I want Obama defeated. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

US Department of Energy will send a grant of $150 billion!


22 posted on 10/20/2012 2:22:00 PM PDT by satan (Plumbing new depths of worthlessness on a daily basis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

IIRC, we’re about 10 years away from an “impulse” engine for space travel, a cure for cancer and diabetes, computers inside eyeglasses and talking dogs. What’s battery life compared to those? LOL


23 posted on 10/20/2012 2:23:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

They’re only going to use free range flies that have had a long life and have died of natural causes. Yes, they will have a moment of silence before their little wings are pulled off. With respect too! With respect.


24 posted on 10/20/2012 2:24:42 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Happy days are here again

The skies above are clear again

Let us sing a song of cheer again

Happy days are here again!


25 posted on 10/20/2012 2:27:01 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Simple thermodynamics and conservation of energy will demonstrate the fallacy of the claim.

CO2 and water are the products of combustion of hydrocarbons. The reason that energy is released when hydrocarbons are burned is that the energy contents (heats of formation) of CO2 and water are lower than the energy content of the hydrocarbon fuel. To go back in the other direction, you have to put all of that energy back in.

So, where does the energy come from? The article says they are currently using electricity. I believe the thermal efficiency of generating electricity in a hydrocarbon-fueled power plant, and delivering it through transmission lines, is about 35%. The rest of the heat gets released to atmosphere in low level heat which is not useful for generating electricity. In other words, if you had a 100% efficient process of converting CO2 and water to hydrocarbon (an impossibility), you would still have to burn almost three times as much hydrocarbon to make the required electricity.

The article also says that later they anticipate the electricity can be produced from renewable fuels. But the efficiency of generating the electricity will not be improved by doing this.

God invented a process to naturally make hydrocarbons from CO2 and water. It’s called photosynthesis. If someone can find a way of mimicking that process to make useful fuel, they might have something.


26 posted on 10/20/2012 2:31:54 PM PDT by Rocky (Obama is pure evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I already have one of their perpetual motion machines. Been powering my house and my car for years...


27 posted on 10/20/2012 2:33:24 PM PDT by pabianice (washington, dc ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

"Go to England and see if they can produce votes from air."


28 posted on 10/20/2012 2:37:23 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (I'm not voting for Obama, so therefore I must be helping Romney!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Pointless over-selling of a marginally useful technology: isolated outposts with plenty of wind or sun could use this to avoid the need to bring motor fuel in from afar. Other than that, until frackable oil and natural gas are used up in a millenium or so, this isn’t very interesting (and if the Russian theory of non-fossil petroleum formation turns out to be wrong never will be except for the use I just proposed).


29 posted on 10/20/2012 2:39:00 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nomad
Simple question: How much energy goes in, how much comes out?

Simple answer: Quite a bit more energy goes in than comes out. However, the energy that comes out is in the form of a convenient liquid fuel, whereas the energy that goes in is electrical. So, if liquid fuel is scarce and electricity (from nuclear, solar, wind, etc.) is plentiful, this process is potentially useful. But my bet is fossil liquid needs to get a lot scarcer and non-fossil electricity a lot more plentiful in order for this process to be economically viable.

From the company website:

The AFS Process - turning air into a sustainable fuel

i) Air is blown up into a tower and meets a mist of a sodium hydroxide solution. The carbon dioxide in the air is absorbed by reaction with some of the sodium hydroxide to form sodium carbonate. Whilst there are advances in CO2 capture technology, sodium hydroxide has been chosen as it is proven and market ready.

ii) The sodium hydroxide/carbonate solution that results from Step 1 is pumped into an electrolysis cell through which an electric current is passed. The electricity results in the release of the carbon dioxide which is collected and stored for subsequent reaction.

iii) Optionally, a dehumidifier condenses the water out of the air that is being passed into the sodium hydroxide spray tower. The condensed water is passed into an electrolyser where an electric current splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Water might be obtained from any source so long as it is or can be made pure enough to be placed in the electrolyser.

iv) The carbon dioxide and hydrogen are reacted together to make a hydrocarbon mixture, the reaction conditions being varied depending on the type of fuel that is required.

v) There are a number of reaction paths already in existence and well known in industrial chemistry that may be used to make the fuels.

(1) Thus a reverse-water-gas shift reaction may be used to convert a carbon dioxide/water mixture to a carbon monoxide/hydrogen mixture called Syn Gas. The Syn Gas mixture can then be further reacted to form the desired fuels using the Fisher-Tropsch (FT) reaction.

(2) Alternatively, the Syn Gas may be reacted to form methanol and the methanol used to make fuels via the Mobil methanol-to gasoline reaction (MTG).

(3) For the future, it is highly likely that reactions can be developed whereby carbon dioxide and hydrogen can be directly reacted to fuels. 

vi) The AFD product will require the addition of the same additives used in current fuels to ease starting, burn cleanly and avoid corrosion problems, to turn the raw fuel into a full marketable product. However as a product it can be blended directly with gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel.


30 posted on 10/20/2012 2:40:44 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

No, one can use energy from a nuclear power plant or even windmills or solar panels. (So this process gives a way to power your gasoline burning car with nuclear energy.)


31 posted on 10/20/2012 2:41:07 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

LOL.....yeah, right

I am rolling


32 posted on 10/20/2012 2:41:37 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Even coal gasification would be less energy intense, wouldn’t it?


33 posted on 10/20/2012 2:43:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Another BS Ormus scam....


34 posted on 10/20/2012 2:47:54 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If the Federal Reserve can conjure up money out of thin air why not this? Imma believer!


35 posted on 10/20/2012 2:49:00 PM PDT by dennisw (Government be yo mamma - Re-elect Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Air Fuel Synthesis in Stockton-on-Tees, Teesside, claims to have made five litres of petrol since August using a small refinery that synthesises the fuel from carbon dioxide and water vapour.

At 34.8 megajoules/liter, that is the energy equivalent of 48.33 kilowatt-hours of electricity.

While the company is still developing their process and still need to take electricity from the national grid,

How much electricity? Even if less than 100% efficient, this would be good for converting energy into a portable, storable form if you have power plants like nuclear ones which run best at 100% all the time. Dump the excess energy at night into producing gasoline.

36 posted on 10/20/2012 3:02:17 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Big Bird is a brood parasite: laid in our nest 43 years ago and we are still feeding him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
If the Federal Reserve can conjure up money out of thin air why not this? Imma believer!

Only if every joule of energy produced out of thin air reduces the brightness of every light bulb in the country. Back when my grandfather was a kid they used to be able to light the entire room with a 5-watt bulb. Now it takes 100 watts to do the same thing.

(20-1 loss was picked because that's what the Fed has done to the dollar in 100 years.)

37 posted on 10/20/2012 3:05:42 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Big Bird is a brood parasite: laid in our nest 43 years ago and we are still feeding him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
If you can produce a battery that can accept and store a full charge, capable of driving an SUV 350 miles, within 5 MINUTES, let's talk. Otherwise, you can see the problem.

Drive across the country, from Portland Maine to Portland Oregon. You will see big long stretches of cornfields, and forests, and then as you cross rivers, and pass dozens of small towns, day after day, the fields turn into range, and mountains, where you see cattle and antelope, together out in the sage brush.

No one has any idea of what it is like until they personally drive across country, and get some small idea of just how Huge these United States are. Start out in Iowa in the morning, and plow across Nebraska, hour after hour, and you won't see Wyoming until dusk. Utah and Idaho are still hours away.

Gasoline, until The Great Liar, was relatively cheap, and easily found. Only a Marxist would trash the oil industry and smugly explain that it was for your own good.

38 posted on 10/20/2012 3:09:40 PM PDT by jonascord (Democrats are the people on the Left Side of the IQ Bell Curve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

:) !!!!


39 posted on 10/20/2012 3:09:47 PM PDT by dennisw (Government be yo mamma - Re-elect Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dila813
This is fuel from air and electricity, lots of electricity.

Oh! But the article answered that concern.

While the company is still developing their process and still need to take electricity from the national grid, it believes it will eventually be possible to power the synthesis entirely from renewable sources.

You see, windmills and solar panels don't need to be manufactured [in messy factories hidden away in China.] Unicorns poop them.

It's all basically free.

40 posted on 10/20/2012 3:15:45 PM PDT by BfloGuy (Teach a man to fish and you lose a Democratic voter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=4Xi&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=rcs&q=Communism+is+socialism+plus+electricity&oq=Communism+is+socialism+plus+electricity&gs_l=serp.3..0i10i30.22462.22462.0.22816.2.2.0.0.0.0.65.126.2.2.0.les%3Beqn%2Cfixedpos%3Dfalse%2Cboost_normal%3D40%2Cboost_high%3D40%2Ccconf%3D1-2%2Cmin_length%3D2%2Crate_low%3D0-035%2Crate_high%3D0-035%2Csecond_pass%3Dfalse%2Cignore_bad_origquery%3Dtrue..0.0...1c.fPX9zSBSap8

Back in Stalins day they used to say -— “Communism is socialism plus electricity”

Rural people USSR and here and everywhere were extremely grateful to have one 30 watt light bulb burning in their barn on a cold winter night so they could (dimly) get around. Far superior to a kerosene lantern which could (would) burn down your barn. One 30 watt light bulb in the kitchen and outhouse


41 posted on 10/20/2012 3:15:45 PM PDT by dennisw (Government be yo mamma - Re-elect Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
This sound very much like the Sabatier reaction for producing methane from CO2 and hydrogen, except that this process uses an electrochemical cell, whereas the Sabatier reaction involves high temperature and pressure.

It was at one time used to produce gas for lighting and heating.

It has also been proposed as a means of manufacturing rocket fuel on Mars, using hydrogen brought from Earth or, if water can be found on Mars, using that as a source of hydrogen.

In any case, the reaction consumes more energy than can be obtained from the resulting hydrocarbons. Entropy wins again.

42 posted on 10/20/2012 3:16:57 PM PDT by JoeFromSidney ( New book: RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY. Buy from Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


43 posted on 10/20/2012 3:18:47 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio; All

The problem with alternative sources for the grid is that none of them is 100% all the time (even windmills near the North Sea, as Denmark has found out). Our grid needs 100% all the time.

However, if one could use the excess that alternative sources produce to JUST produce this fuel—where the plant doesn’t need 100% power all the time...it could be an excellent way to store the extra energy that alternatives produce, when they are running...

If they can make a plant that produces NOT attached to the grid, than great! Even if, as stated above solar or other sources have low-efficiency rates, so what? If it can all go into oil production...with no drain on the grid for the rest of us—than a major new source of energy-storage (THE issue for alternative energy) may be upon us.


44 posted on 10/20/2012 3:30:28 PM PDT by AnalogReigns (because the real world is not digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

This will give the feral animals that public schools produce something to do as gainful employment. At least their violent natures will come in as ‘job skills’.

And with the coming Soviet style economy, child labor will be the next big thing.


45 posted on 10/20/2012 3:34:27 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
P.S.

Send money.

Lots of money.

Don't forget the money.

46 posted on 10/20/2012 3:38:10 PM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy

And lets not forget the several hundred acres you need to power one of these with solar panels.


47 posted on 10/20/2012 3:51:41 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Yes, but the frackable oil and natural gas will out last the conveniently recoverable coal which will continue to be burned to make electricity. And my one narrow use for the process announced in the article — petrol in the bush — is unlikely to be helped by coal gasification (or liquification).


48 posted on 10/20/2012 3:53:52 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
Child labor? Whyyyy...without child labor who would we have to be politicians?
49 posted on 10/20/2012 4:13:35 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Well that’s what the H1B program is for, silly! ;)


50 posted on 10/20/2012 4:17:09 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson