"Go to England and see if they can produce votes from air."
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.
-—physics will win again-—
Libs are already busy figuring out how they can regulate it, as well as tax it.
“....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?
Simple question: How much energy goes in, how much comes out? Another perpetual motion machine. And the winner again is,.. Entropy by a length!
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.
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.
What utter rot. Fuel oil could be made from the wings of house flies but so what?
Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
Let us sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again!
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.
I already have one of their perpetual motion machines. Been powering my house and my car for years...
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).
Another BS Ormus scam....
If the Federal Reserve can conjure up money out of thin air why not this? Imma believer!
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.
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.
Send money.
Lots of money.
Don't forget the money.
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.