Petrol from Fresh Air ...

[johnnya24]

This is interesting ...

A small British company has produced the first "petrol from air" using a revolutionary technology that promises to solve the energy crisis as well as helping to curb global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Air Fuel Synthesis in Stockton-on-Tees has produced five litres of petrol since August when it switched on a small refinery that manufactures gasoline from carbon dioxide and water vapour.

The company hopes that within two years it will build a larger, commercial-scale plant capable of producing a ton of petrol a day. It also plans to produce green aviation fuel to make airline travel more carbon-neutral.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-crisis-8217382.html

[Don Quixote]

This is interesting ...



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8217382.html

The fact that you have to put energy IN to get petrol out is buried within the article.

[johnnya24]

I wouldn't say that creating more petrol is essentially the most environmentally premise in the first place ... although if you are sucking C2o from the atmosphere to create it, that could have the potential to create a more carbon neutral solution. It certainly research that is worth following.

[chancellor]

The fact that you have to put energy IN to get petrol out is buried within the article.

That's true for virtually any chemical reaction; now the key will be reducing the energy level required to get to a level where it's net significantly usable energy positive. Coming up with the system that gets this close is what's novel - it'll allow for extensive material experimentation with catalysts to improve the process, for example.

Here's hoping they're successful and this isn't cold fusion II

[swampdragon]

actually this is important

http://www.scandinavianhydrogen.org/h2moves

I just wish that average American would understand that reduction of oil consumption and alternative fuels is the correct idea rather than drilling more and more for a non renewable energy source (OIL)

[chancellor]

I just wish that average American would understand that reduction of oil consumption and alternative fuels is the correct idea rather than drilling more and more for a non renewable energy source (OIL)

Well, if we want to maintain anything of a manufacturing base and not completely bury our standard of living, we better realize we need to do both, not one or the other.

[onejayhawk]

The fact that you have to put energy IN to get petrol out is buried within the article.

Energy, in the form of electric power, is more available than petrochemicals. It has some potential if the molecules can be tailored. Instead of gas, you could get cleaning solvents, for example.

Still, the easy way is to run the CO2 through algae, and process the waste.

J

[swampdragon]

Drill more? I don't believe the facts support that assertion...

you silly liberals - worrying about facts

I am also guessing that some of those tax "loopholes" that Romney wants to eliminate probably encourage alternative energy.

[Steve]

I can make gas from beans. Does that help?

[chancellor]

Drill more? I don't believe the facts support that assertion...

Really? You're going to tell me that solar and wind and biofuels are anywhere near remotely cost competitive right now?

So, yes, in order to keep fuel costs in line, we better both drill more (natural gas and oil) AND invest in next level fuel generation. Of course, if you really want to hurt the poor and lower middle class, just ignore known fuel sources and let costs continue to rise.

[chancellor]

No, what I'm saying is that the facts don't support the assertion that "drill baby drill" will have an impact on the price of gas at the pump.

Not instantly, of course. But I'm talking overall fuel costs, not just gasoline at pump. Natural gas prices have dropped a lot in the past few years because of our unlocking of huge sources domestically. That's resulted in lower heating bills and lower electrical bills for many people - and, most importantly, helping the poor and lower middle class the most. We can do something similar - not to the same order of magnitude as natural gas, but still have a positive impact with oil. There's been recent huge finds - oil reserves went up 3 billion barrels from '08 to '10, an increase of 16%, which was unthought of during the time of the Chicago study. Given recent finds here, in Brazil, in Canada, and in Chile, it's clear potential for decreasing costs in the Western Hemisphere can be a reality - if we want it to be.

All that being said, I fully support next gen fuel research.

[Pogues]

If we drill too much oil and other materials from out of the ground, will the earth's surface collapse inward like a sinkhole?

[chancellor]

Well, sounds like you're pimping fracking as our country's energy solution. You'll never be able to sell me on a process that ends up with families local to fracking endeavors being able to light the water that comes out of their faucet on fire. Fracking is extremely dangerous and the folks that most suffer from its use are the ones that you're purportedly trying to help --- the poor and middle class. There isn't even adequate information right now about what fracking really means to communities, much less the environment as a whole. Injecting benzene, toluene, zylene and ethylbenzene into the ground has environmental fallout? Ya don't say....

Wow, for a guy who touts science instead of scare tactics, that's a pretty bizarre statement. For the science:

In the UK: http://phys.org/news/2012-07-frackin...effective.html

In the US: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...atestHeadlines

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/02/mixed-verdict-on-fracking.html?ref=hp

And where the EPA has poorly attacked fracking, they've gotten their butts handed to them due to...lack of good scientific procedures, with the latest embarassment being: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03...nst-range.html

[johnnya24]

Fracking stopped in the UK because it was causing mini earthquakes in built up areas. Word is that the Govt. are going to allow it to resume very soon. A Tory govt were never going to stand in the way of this for long.