Synthetic fuel from green energy - News

This could really change a lot of things

formatting link

Reply to
Tim w
Loading thread data ...

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?

Reply to
Jethro_uk

Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

Reply to
Harry Bloomfield

That's certainly a spin that has been put on the news, that it will be the end of the electric car.

Tim w

Reply to
Tim w

That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

Reply to
Tim w

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

Reply to
Capitol

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is stated as 70%

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Tim W

Reply to
Tim w

Why do you need to heat water to 800C to electrolyse it? Electrolysis of water takes place very well at 20C, to give oxygen and hydrogen. Maybe it's an efficiency thing*. And I would have thought it better to capture the CO2 from coal- or gas-burning power stations than from ambient air, which would surely be very inefficient given the amount of air you'd have to process.

Unfortunate name for the German federal minister of education and research, Dr Johanna Wanka!

*yes it is. Just looked it up. See
formatting link
Reply to
Chris Hogg

Steam at those sorts of temps is quite corrosive of e.g. stainless steel. What is being proposed for transporting the steam?

Reply to
Tim Streater

Quite. Perhaps a bit like hydrogen.

Why not use the renewable energy to cut down on gas used for electricity generation or house heating, and use liquefied gas for road transport?

Makes sense to me to use any energy as efficiently as possible.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Even if it's 100% efficient, it only makes sense in certain specific ways. The process takes electrical energy, that can be used direct for traction and turns it into chemical energy that needs to be burnt to extract the energy again. That burning is far from efficient, as even the most efficient engine will produce much waste heat. (It needs to, so as to obey the laws of thermodynamics.)

The specific reasons it may make sense are: It may use electrical energy that would otherwise go to waste. We have an enormous infrastructure to use the oil produced, so it may be better to use that, rather than go over to an electric car infrastructure. The oil is easy to transport and store.

Reply to
GB

Does the NOx come from burning the fuel with air (that is mostly Nitrogen, of course) or is there Nitrogen in the fuel? I assume it's from the air, in which case this artificial fuel will produce NOx emissions.

Reply to
GB

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.) So no advantage there.

Reply to
harryagain

Unless you can stop the engine breathing air, high combustion temperatures will produce nox irrespective of fuel surely?

Tim

Reply to
Tim+

If you use the electricity from variable and unreliable sources, like wind farms, the fuel is, effectively, a way to store that energy for later use. Perhaps not the most efficient way to do it, but possibly the most useful.

Reply to
Nightjar

And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a market for the output.

Reply to
alan_m

Unfortunately it wont change the law of energy conservation.

So it wont change anything much.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Sure, if you don't mind paying £12 a litre for diesel

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Probably £10-£12

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.