Pioneering scientists turn fresh air into petrol

donegal_road

according to this article they have just done this. If they succeed to mass produce it, it will change the world

Irishcrx

I was wondering when we'd start getting charged for air...here it comes..

Blisterman

They already have devices that can remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce fuel. They're called plants.

TheLastMohican

Could be a load of hot air at the moment

oppenheimer1

The theory behind this has been around a long time, the problem with the process is that it is energy intensive. In order for this to be a green solution the energy required to run the process would have to come from renewable sources.

This is a rather innovative way of storing energy, rather than the creation of a new energy source.

biko

Those scientists are probably currently living on secret locations, targeted by the oil conglomerates.

FatherLen

assassinated in 3....2......1......

smash

It'll never be put into use. This video is 5 years old and companies are still making engines that run on petrol.

CardBordWindow

If they change their tech slightly, they could make a mint from it!

steddyeddy

I think the hydrogen engine if perfected will solve our oil problems.

Spook_ie

Blisterman wrote: »

They already have devices that can remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce fuel. They're called plants.

But what about when we run out of CO2, what about then :eek:

Mr.Crinklewood

That's what you get for not drinking.

Sleepy

Eh, it's us that make the CO2, the plants live on it...

Jimoslimos

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The theory behind this has been around a long time, the problem with the process is that it is energy intensive. In order for this to be a green solution the energy required to run the process would have to come from renewable sources.

This is a rather innovative way of storing energy, rather than the creation of a new energy source.

Indeed, and with every transfer of energy from one form to another it becomes less efficient.

Also looking closer;

The company can and has used carbon dioxide extracted from air to make petrol, but it is also using industrial sources of carbon dioxide until it is able to improve the performance of "carbon capture".

So, in order for it to work properly they need to utilise CO2 (from fossil burning presumably), bit disingenuous to call it "fresh air into petrol".

the keen edge

You shouldn't call them Pioneering Scientists OP. I think you'll find they prefer to be called Boffins.

They're probably furious over that incorrect address right now.

Shame on you OP, if their endeavor fails I blame you.

GalwayGuy2

So, in order for it to work they need to utilise CO2 (from fossil burning presumably), bit disingenuous to call it "fresh air into petrol".

Don't humans create CO2?

ScumLord

It may simply be a waste of time trying to hang onto the combustion engine. Electric motors are great and the only reason not to use them is our batteries are terrible. We're already seeing production cars that run exclusively on electric motors and only use the petrol engine as a generator for power.

If one of the many battery technologies succeed and I'm sure they will, petrol will become obsolete. Because the battery technology will be useful in so many sectors outside of automotive it will become cheap and abundant pretty quickly meaning it will make more financial sense to use the batteries instead of any oil based combustion engine.

GarIT

Spook_ie wrote: »

But what about when we run out of CO2, what about then :eek:

We exhale.

Would the CO2 be released again after the fuel is burned?

GarIT

Jimoslimos wrote: »

"fresh air into petrol".

Stale air to petrol then?

ScumLord

GarIT wrote: »

We exhale.

Would the CO2 be released again after the fuel is burned?

Yes, but I'd assume it's considered carbon neutral because you're not creating any new CO2 just reusing what's already in the atmosphere.

Jimoslimos

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Don't humans create CO2?

Yes, but obviously not enough, given the concentration of CO2 in an exhaled breath is approximately 4-5%.

I'll try work out how many breaths it would take to theoretically produce a litre of petrol assuming 100% carbon capture...

dj jarvis

this fuel will still cause green house gasses when burnt in cars

so unfortunately it might help when the oil runs out , but with us all underwater from the ice caps melting - unless it runs under water city's and mini subs for all , in the long run its f2ck all use really

we need electric cars that can be charged without causing green house gasses, or hydro

otherwise its pointless

msg11

smash wrote: »

It'll never be put into use. This video is 5 years old and companies are still making engines that run on petrol.

The problem there is, the radio waves need a energy source to begin in the first place, but still something that could be worked on.

I personally think we are long way off with electric cars, the charge times and the energy the battery holds are pretty useless more advances are needed in battery power or just rethink the whole energy storage. Future wise , I say cars will run on gas, no idea now what type of gas, but there generally a lot more cleaner to burn.

smash

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the hydrogen engine if perfected will solve our oil problems.

Why bother extracting hydrogen from water when you can burn water as it is. Did you look at the link I posted above?

GoldenLight

GarIT wrote: »

Stale air to petrol then?

I had someone recently show me a proto type engine (nearly at test stage), based on renewable resource. I'm looking forward to seeing what the final results of the tests are on it. (the physics and mechanics behind it appear to be sound)

GalwayGuy2

If one of the many battery technologies succeed and I'm sure they will, petrol will become obsolete. Because the battery technology will be useful in so many sectors outside of automotive it will become cheap and abundant pretty quickly meaning it will make more financial sense to use the batteries instead of any oil based combustion engine.

Yeah, you'd need a good jump in battery technology. And where would the electricity come from? Solar? Nuclear? Hydroelectricity? So on so forth.

Inscrutable

As one or two commenters have said this is 100 year old technology. The article is the product of disingenuous boffins conspiring with willingly ignorant journalists. The boffin gets recognition for his next grant from the government, the journalist gets an easy story. Everyone wins!

Jimoslimos

Inscrutable wrote: »

As one or two commenters have said this is 100 year old technology. The article is the product of disingenuous boffins conspiring with willingly ignorant journalists. The boffin gets recognition for his next grant from the government, the journalist gets an easy story. Everyone wins!

I don't think the scientists (I despise the word 'boffin') are being purposefully misleading, more the fault of the media. The science itself is good and it is an interesting development in energy storage, like it or not our transport system revolves around liquid fuel and that won't be changing any time soon.

0ph0rce0

Like it was said in an earlier post, if it was gonna change the world.

1. We would never know about it

And 2. Wont be long before they mysteriously vanish of the face of the earth.

Inscrutable

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I don't think the scientists (I despise the word 'boffin') are being purposefully misleading, more the fault of the media. The science itself is good and it is an interesting development in energy storage, like it or not our transport system revolves around liquid fuel and that won't be changing any time soon.

It might be interesting but still much too expensive with no clear route to oil parity other than pray oil price spikes. Which is no way to win private sector investment. The ridiculous analogy of Prof Klaus comparing to cost decline of CDs is typical of scientists and I dont know whether it's ignorance or talking their book.

ScumLord

msg11 wrote: »

I personally think we are long way off with electric cars, the charge times and the energy the battery holds are pretty useless more advances are needed in battery power or just rethink the whole energy storage. Future wise , I say cars will run on gas, no idea now what type of gas, but there generally a lot more cleaner to burn.

I don't think gas is really a viable option, it's just too dangerous, petrol is safer to transport than gas so it's a step back in safety. The fact is the electric crossover has started from next year we'll see much more electric cars on the market and in some ways they will be better cars. There are a lot of different concepts out there now but I think in the short term the electric motor using the combustion engine as a power source will be the winner. ford have brought out a new 1L focus that's faster than the previous years 1.6L engine. Economical engines like that coupled with the power saving of electric motors (they only have to be drawing power when their moving) will see many city folks switching to electric cars.

The Israelis are working on a battery rental system where you lease the battery use off them. They have stations all over the country (replacing traditional petrol stations) where you just drive in and the battery is quickly and automatically switched out for a new one.

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Yeah, you'd need a good jump in battery technology. And where would the electricity come from? Solar? Nuclear? Hydroelectricity? So on so forth.

Yes the electricity comes from the grid.

GalwayGuy2

Yes the electricity comes from the grid.

And where would the energy needed to create oil for all the cars in England come from?

ScumLord

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

And where would the energy needed to create oil for all the cars in England come from?

The world is having problems meeting current demand and you could say that there wouldn't be enough power to add cars to that that system but it would also be an incentive to improve the power grid as it needs to be done, with billions of added revenue there for the taking by electricity providers it's to big of a prise to ignore.

Micky Dolenz

ScumLord wrote: »

It may simply be a waste of time trying to hang onto the combustion engine. Electric motors are great and the only reason not to use them is our batteries are terrible. We're already seeing production cars that run exclusively on electric motors and only use the petrol engine as a generator for power.

If one of the many battery technologies succeed and I'm sure they will, petrol will become obsolete. Because the battery technology will be useful in so many sectors outside of automotive it will become cheap and abundant pretty quickly meaning it will make more financial sense to use the batteries instead of any oil based combustion engine.

Only problem with that is we need massive reform of how we create electricity, the the vast majority of power plants in Ireland still relying on fossil fuels to run their generators.

Jimoslimos

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Only problem with that is we need massive reform of how we create electricity, the the vast majority of power plants in Ireland still relying on fossil fuels to run their generators.

It is however easier to convert the few power stations we do have here to other sources rather than every single vehicle on the road.

Capt'n Midnight

Blisterman wrote: »

They already have devices that can remove carbon dioxide from the air and produce fuel. They're called plants.

Plants are only about 1% efficient because the selfish things use most of the energy for their own nefarious purposes. Plants are however cheap.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think the hydrogen engine if perfected will solve our oil problems.

The first hydrogen powered car was made in 1807 We don't need to make a more efficient hydrogen engine. Back in the 1960's NASA had fuel cells working.

Hydrogen has two problems. It's expensive to produce (you waste a lot of energy doing this) and difficult to store (this is an understatement).

This fresh air technology essentially extracts hydrogen from water for energy and uses carbon dioxide to store it as methanol

methanol can be used in existing petrol engines and it can also be used in fuel cells in which case you get a lot more energy released, trick it to make the fuel cells cheaper

Pottler

This is old hat, sure there's already a way of turning paper into petrol without any of that old scientific nonsense needed. I had a fifty this morning, now its outside in liquid form, powering my car. I used the Esso method.