Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

British Engineers Produce Amazing 'Petrol From Air' Technology
Telegraph(UK) ^ | October 18, 2012 | Andrew Hough

Posted on 10/18/2012 8:36:34 PM PDT by Steelfish

British Engineers Produce Amazing 'Petrol From Air' Technology Revolutionary new technology that produces “petrol from air” is being produced by a British firm, it emerged tonight.

Andrew Hough 18 Oct 2012 A small company in the north of England has developed the “air capture” technology to create synthetic petrol using only air and electricity.

Experts tonight hailed the astonishing breakthrough as a potential “game-changer” in the battle against climate change and a saviour for the world’s energy crisis.

The technology, presented to a London engineering conference this week, removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The “petrol from air” technology involves taking sodium hydroxide and mixing it with carbon dioxide before "electrolysing" the sodium carbonate that it produces to form pure carbon dioxide. Hydrogen is then produced by electrolysing water vapour captured with a dehumidifier.

The company, Air Fuel Syndication, then uses the carbon dioxide and hydrogen to produce methanol which in turn is passed through a gasoline fuel reactor, creating petrol.

Company officials say they had produced five litres of petrol in less than three months from a small refinery in Stockton-on-Tees, Teesside. The fuel that is produced can be used in any regular petrol tank and, if renewable energy is used to provide the electricity it could become “completely carbon neutral”.

The £1.1m project, in development for the past two years, is being funded by a group of unnamed philanthropists who believe the technology could prove to be a lucrative way of creating renewable energy.

While the technology has the backing of Britain’s Institution of Mechanical Engineers, it has yet to capture the interest of major oil companies.

But company executives hope to build a large plant, which could produce more than a tonne of petrol every day, within two years and a refinery size operation within the...

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: carbondioxide; energy; hydrogen; methanol; petrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last
To: Steelfish

Yikes...Be really afraid, they’re going to go after huge sums of taxpayer money in subsidies.

Hopefully Obama will be long gone.


21 posted on 10/18/2012 9:01:02 PM PDT by jazusamo ("Intellect is not wisdom" -- Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squawk 8888

You beat me to it. IF the process could be made efficient enough then it could be used as a means of storing excess energy generated from a nuclear power plant. It can never be used to generate power, however, since it will always take far more energy to create fuel than can be recovered from the fuel.

By the way, I learned how to create clean burning pure hydrogen out of water back in my high school chemistry class 40 years ago. This is not new technology.


22 posted on 10/18/2012 9:02:48 PM PDT by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation Continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

It’s a lot easier to create “Petrol” from Coal
The Germans worked it out in WWII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process
http://seekingalpha.com/article/850891-a-new-vision-the-potential-for-coal-gasification-and-coal-chemical-industry-development-in-mongolia


23 posted on 10/18/2012 9:04:37 PM PDT by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunnut

It would appear that the process is ‘carbon neutral’. Any CO2 taken out of the atmosphere to produce the fuel would then be returned to the atmosphere when the fuel is burned. Of course this does not take into account any CO2 produced creating the energy inputs necessary to create the fuel in the first place.

Conservation of Energy rules the day.


24 posted on 10/18/2012 9:07:47 PM PDT by rottndog (WOOF!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I am really excited about carbon-neutral gasoline /sarc


25 posted on 10/18/2012 9:09:00 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature not nurture TM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
The technology, presented to a London engineering conference this week, removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The “petrol from air” technology involves taking sodium hydroxide and mixing it with carbon dioxide before "electrolysing" the sodium carbonate that it produces to form pure carbon dioxide. Hydrogen is then produced by electrolysing water vapour captured with a dehumidifier.

The company, Air Fuel Syndication, then uses the carbon dioxide and hydrogen to produce methanol which in turn is passed through a gasoline fuel reactor, creating petrol.


The above process is seriously energy-intensive. From the first Law of Thermodynamics they're obviously not going to get the same energy out of the 'petrol' that they put into making it (duh), but reading the above I'm wondering just how bad the gap between energy-in and energy-out is for this. Might not even be the same order of magnitude.

I love how they put "electrolysing" in quotes like it's a made up term.
26 posted on 10/18/2012 9:09:42 PM PDT by verum ago (Some people must truly be in love, for only love can be so blind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squawk 8888
Correct, there is no way around the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Sure there is... but you kinda have to be God for that route to work.

27 posted on 10/18/2012 9:12:45 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

hmmm, if the Brits decide to go through with this, I should buy stock in their electric companies!


28 posted on 10/18/2012 9:13:06 PM PDT by verum ago (Some people must truly be in love, for only love can be so blind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
How much energy in for how much energy out?

Envirofascists never want to answer that question.

29 posted on 10/18/2012 9:13:06 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the psychopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

That’s all fine but I have the true revolutionary fuel. There are these small round things made from nickel and copper. And you can make energy with NOTHING but electricity. You put electricity in them and they store it. Then you hook these things up to am electric motor and BAM you can propel your car with electricity!

I think I am going to apply to nObama for a billion dollar financing. I think I am going to call these things.... Batteries.... Yeah that sounds right...


30 posted on 10/18/2012 9:15:56 PM PDT by Syntyr (Happiness is two at low eight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

And I have developed a process for turning dog turds into gold bars.


31 posted on 10/18/2012 9:19:18 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ghannonf18
This is the kind of innovation that will attract the wrath of oil producers, but the petroleum industry would embrace because they can produce and sell it without being dependent on questionable governments. I am skeptical, but the process could work especially as a method of storing interrupted power sources such as wind and solar. I like the effects without consideration of the environment, and we need to push all possible methods.

Well, it might work if you were partnering w/ a brewery and capturing/processing the carbon-dioxide waste from fermenting*... that's kind of how we got gasoline in the first place: it was a waste product.

It might not be enough to dent the global supply, but if crude-prices are high it might be enough to turn a bit of profit.

32 posted on 10/18/2012 9:22:13 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I vote that this is a scam.


33 posted on 10/18/2012 9:27:08 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verum ago
The above process is seriously energy-intensive. From the first Law of Thermodynamics they're obviously not going to get the same energy out of the 'petrol' that they put into making it (duh), but reading the above I'm wondering just how bad the gap between energy-in and energy-out is for this. Might not even be the same order of magnitude.
I love how they put "electrolysing" in quotes like it's a made up term.

True; but it only takes a little over one volt to do electrolysis w/ water (that could easily be produced by solar) -- I don't know what the energy cost for sodium hydroxide electrolysis is though.

Even so, it would make more sense to partner with a brewery, as fermentation produces carbon-dioxide as a waste-product (and IIRC it's fairly high purity).

34 posted on 10/18/2012 9:27:43 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
I vote that this is a scam.

It likely is, as it seems to be trying to take carbon dioxide straight from the air... rather than capping a brewery or somesuch.
In all likelyhood, the best 'alternative energy' source is biodiesel, considering that there is no modification to the engine (or current designs) needed to use it and that the algae-production method looked very promising last I heard about it.

But then again, maybe it's because it could work that I haven't heard about it in a few years.

35 posted on 10/18/2012 9:32:34 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tony in Hawaii

No, that was practical and useful. After all, if it stopped running, you could park it in your living room as sculpture. :P


36 posted on 10/18/2012 9:40:55 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

From the information given, there’s no way to know whether this can go into mass production. But if electricity can be converted into gasoline with reasonable efficiency, then nuclear energy will fill up our gas tanks. If cold fusion can be made practical, even better.


37 posted on 10/18/2012 9:42:56 PM PDT by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
"using only air and electricity"

That should be all anyone needs to know in order to make a reasonable conclusion regarding this process. It will most likely take 100 bucks worth of electricity to produce an ounce of fuel.

I hope I'm wrong, but so far, history has shown us a 100% accuracy rate of pessimistic observations regarding any such magical energy production methods.

38 posted on 10/18/2012 9:43:56 PM PDT by FunkyZero (... I've got a Grand Piano to prop up my mortal remains)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
five litres of petrol in less than three months from a small refinery in Stockton-on-Tees, Teesside

The £1.1m project, in development for the past two years

Five liters in three months, at a cost of 1.1 MILLION British Pounds.... what a bargain. So you use enough energy to power how many cities to produce this fuel in limited quantities... Don't let Obama hear- he will sink US Taxpayer $$$ into it...

39 posted on 10/18/2012 9:46:47 PM PDT by TheBattman (Isn't the lesser evil... still evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Pretty clear to me that the vast majority of posters here are missing the point. Ah never mind....


40 posted on 10/18/2012 9:47:21 PM PDT by Paradox (I want Obama defeated. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson