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!
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 ...
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
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.
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.
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.
Send money.
Lots of money.
Don't forget the money.
And lets not forget the several hundred acres you need to power one of these with solar panels.
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).
Well that’s what the H1B program is for, silly! ;)
Sounds like what the Breathairians have been powering their lives with.
There are a lot of things that can be produced out of thin air — it’s just that most of them don’t last.
Not very good with economics. Tying capital up in inefficient production makes for a very expensive product. And turning expensive electricity via a further inefficient process only worsens the losses.
Hell, Europe is trying to get away from nuclear energy.
So I'm not all that sensitive about buzz words like “child labor”.
It will keep you warm. ;~))
And don't forget Fusion Energy. We have only been 10 years away from that for 45 years as I recall.
And where in the hell is my flying car that Popular Mechanics promised me back in the 50s? I want my flying car!
WELL. Since they are now going to be getting our gasoline from the air, maybe that will give them a reason to tax the air?
But don’t you see comrade? The child labor you took part in was in service of evil capitalist swine that exploited your working capital to benefit the evil capital-industrialists, not the people!
The child must NEVER labor for anyone but the people (or the DNC)! It is after-all, a glorious paradise in which his labor will bring to fruition. Should he selfishly labor for himself or his wrong-thinking capitalist family, do the people benefit? I think NOT!
Get your mind right comrade!
Yours Truly,
Comrade Normshavik Len(nin)hart
(Hero of the People!)
;)
“Not very good with economics”
Like I said, if it was off the grid...continually producing, say, ONLY when the wind blows or the sun shines...than economically it could well be a very good investment.
Point being it could allow excess, unused, unconcentrated power to be STORED (in liquid form)...which is simply THE economic problem with alternative energy.
One can produce loads of megawatts in wind—but so what, when our grid only needs a steady supply, something no alternative source can provide—hence they ALL must be backed by conventional sources in the grid. (And the only reason privately owned wind-mills make any sense—is that the government has forced power-companies to pay individuals for any power they produce—even though not needed. In essence EVERYONE pays more for power—to reimburse the alternative-extra-energy producers we now have, connected to the grid. Alternative energy connected to the grid is WASTED energy.)
If however, a factory can produce ALL the power they need to produce oil (presumably in some place very windy, or sunny), they are in effect taking an unused source, and turning it into power storage.
So even if, say with solar—it has some low-efficiency rating—since the oil is permanent storage, so what? My point being, it would only make sense if such production from alternative power sources would be independent of the electrical grid.
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.