/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5170636]

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

>Scientists produce petrol from air
>Plan on producing it on an industrial scale within a year

Has Britain saved Earth or is it a giant crock of shit?

Pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.5170640]

I can't wait for the oil companies to buy it all out and bury it forever.

[Anonymous No.5170650]

>>5170640
buy all the fresh air and bury it?

[Anonymous No.5170651]

>conservation of energy
wat

[Anonymous No.5170653]

>>5170636
>is it a giant crock of shit?
The process still requires energy, more energy than normal petrol actually.

Buy people love to buy carbon neutral organic bullshit so it's probably a viable idea. And when/if we switch to fusion or LFTR as major energy source you can use the process to make the fuel for all legacy vehicles.

[Anonymous No.5170654]

>>5170651
Oil companies don't support conservation.

[Anonymous No.5170688]

>>5170651
>conservation of energy

Back to >>>/x/ with you sir.

[Anonymous No.5170690]

Various methods for the production of hydrocarbons have been around for years.

But, the cheapest and also most profitable is piping it out of the ground.

Those corporations that have bought into present methods will note allow alternative methods that could reduce their profits from gaining at this time.

I'm sure they have already found this method and many others for when piped hydrocarbons become expensive through diminishing returns (it will run out one day).

For this method - lots of energy in to get the hydrocarbons out - not cost effective at this time.

[Anonymous No.5170692]

This type of technology has existed for over 10 years. this is just a slightly different way to do it. by my count there exists around 15 different ways to make petrol/desil from other sources. people realy should stop with this petrol is running out bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5170702]

It's real. This could be a big deal when solar panels get stupidly cheap.

[Anonymous No.5170713]

Jerusalem crickets so in fact make some hydrocarbons. It probably isn't going to be cost effective. They are renowned for price gouging.

[Anonymous No.5170729]

this is so dumb. at first i thought this was something new, but it seems to be just a water gas shift followed by the FT reaction. the shit thing? SASOL has been using this as their only source of hydrocarbons for over 60 years and they produce petrol for 5 countries, based ONLY on this technology. the only difference is that since they need energy, they burn coal then use the CO2 produces directly to make the petrol. The reactor for this works just as well with wood or any biomass, and is sometimes used with biomass. so since wood is renewable, South africa already has the complete infrastructure in place to do this on a large scale, economically.

nice going Brittan, you cant even beat one of your failed colonies tech 60 years ago.

[Anonymous No.5170735]

>>5170702

those panels still need manufacturing and energy inputs. then the power converters need to be replaced periodically as well. and then infrastructure needs to be built to supply the increasing electricity needs. everything adds up.

some researchers far more intelligent than me calculated that out present living standards and efficiencies need an EROIE of 15-20:1. crude oil used to be 50:1 energy gained vs energy inputted.

keep in mind that 15-20:1 is for the sum total of all energy production. current crude is about 25:1. it's very clear we're approaching/at the limit of sustainability for anyone that isn't a cornucopian. there is no have-it-all future.

i bet the linked method is barely more efficient than hydrogen electrolysis. you're basically using the chemical fluid as an energy storage device for electricity.

[Anonymous No.5170740]

>>5170729
this.

when the oil runs out and the world ends south africa wont even be effected.

[Anonymous No.5170757]

>many regions in the world already have pollution problems
>want to turn fresh air into petrol
I LEL ERVYTIM 5EVA

[Anonymous No.5170780]

>"energy crisis"

AHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.5170785]

Now we just need thorium reactors to provide the energy needed

[Anonymous No.5170861]

Shouldn't the article say, "makes petrol out of CO2 in the air," rather than just 'air' so that all the tards don't assume scientists are synthesizing carbon macromolecules out of breathable O2? Or are we just having to much fun laughing at people crying, "nerps dernts turn mer air into gas??!!!!"

[Anonymous No.5170885]

Petrol produces energy by burning it into CO2 and water. Now take this CO2 and water and convert it in petrol again.
Infinite Energy!

[chemfag !Hzum9Tvcag No.5170900]

This is a potential solution to the fossil fuel sustainability issue, but is a net energy loss. More energy is required to produce the material than it actually provides. They aren't explicit in the article, but they say

>"We are converting renewable electricity into a more versatile, useable and storable form of energy, namely liquid transport fuels. We think that by the end of 2014, provided we can get the funding going, we can be producing petrol using renewable energy and doing it on a commercial basis,"

This means they're planning on using wind or solar energy to do this and assuming that the cost of their energy will be lower than the value of the liquid fuels.

[Anonymous No.5170904]

>Scientists produce petrol from air

>Has Britain saved Earth or is it a giant crock of shit?

Its a giant crock of shit. First, your suggestion that petrol is what is required to save the Earth. Petrol ruined the Earth. More petrol will ruin it faster.

The only thing petrol is going to save is our totally unsustainable living arrangements.

Petrol is a drug for 1st world people addicted to their personal mobility devices.

[chemfag !Hzum9Tvcag No.5170911]

>>5170904
Did you even read the article?

GTFO if you don't understand it and why liquid fuels are important.

[Anonymous No.5170912]

>>5170885

Imagine limitless cheap energy. Imagine how much damage we could do. No limits to the size of sport utility vehicles. No limit to the area of the Earth's surface we could tear up. No limit to the number of people that consume without limits.

This is a double edged sword, no savior. It is more likely to destroy conditions for life than perpetuate them.

[Anonymous No.5170921]

>>5170900
>This is a potential solution to the fossil fuel sustainability issue, but is a net energy loss
Of fucking course it's going to be a net energy loss. That's so obvious it shouldn't need to be said. We don't want to do this because it's going to be a net energy gain, we do it because we have a shitload of gas burning cars and we don't want to add more GHGs to the air.

[Anonymous No.5170927]

There's always some new breakthrough that's supposed to change the world and life will never be the same and all that shit. I'll bet you anything that in about a week everyone will have forgotten about it.

[Anonymous No.5170930]

>>5170636
"indusitral scale in a year"

that means there's going to be a 20 man business start up next year, and we won't see the fuel hit the pumps in the united states for decades.

[Anonymous No.5170934]

>>5170930

A close examination of history shows that only governments have the power and authority to rip patents from the hands of companies that will otherwise use their position to extort the maximum amount of money from the market.

[Anonymous No.5170938]

>>5170911

No I did not read the article. Do I have to? Its the manufacture of hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O via some molecular-level process. I'm only interested in what happens next, because what happens next has consequences.

[Anonymous No.5170940]

>>5170735
>those panels still need manufacturing and energy inputs. then the power converters need to be replaced periodically as well. and then infrastructure needs to be built to supply the increasing electricity needs. everything adds up.
Solar already provides ample EROI, and it's getting cheaper all the time. The only limit is that we're unlikely to make solar panels much cheaper than leaves. We're fast approaching the point where solar gives us a ridiculous overabundance of energy.

>i bet the linked method is barely more efficient than hydrogen electrolysis.
Are you a complete idiot? Obviously it is less efficient than hydrogen electrolysis, and would only make sense if energy was very cheap.

Oh god, peak oil nuts are impossible to talk to.

[Anonymous No.5170953]

It doesn't produce energy, converts electricity to gasoline. It might provide innovations that make the process of producing synthetic fuel more economical.

The article title is misleading.

[Anonymous No.5170957]

I'm leaning toard crock of shit... especially in how it claims it will take CO2 out of the air. The problem is that the end product will be burned, releasing it again.

Second, what kind of hydrocarbons are being produced? Probably a stable short chain gas like butane or propane. I would surmise it would be a lot more intensive in terms of energy inputs to manufacture a long-chain hydrocarbon that remains liquid at standard temperatures and pressures.

I doubt they'll produce a BTU anywhere near the cost of pumping a BTU out of the ground.

Lots of points in this energetic cycle for inefficiency and loss.

Lots of people in the UK are waiting on tippy toes to be able to run their hair dryers on guilt-free energy.

[Anonymous No.5170963]

>>5170957
>especially in how it claims it will take CO2 out of the air. The problem is that the end product will be burned, releasing it again.
It's at least not putting new CO2 into the air. Also, we don't just burn fossil fuels in our cars - they're the base chemicals used to synthesize pretty much every plastic material we use. That will account for some CO2 leaving the atmosphere semi-permanently.

[Anonymous No.5170964]

>>5170904
>totally unsustainable living arrangements.
Look, hippie, we're never going "back to the land". Get used to it.

The potential harm of increased atmospheric CO2 is easily managed by a wide variety of feasible options. The benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 are large, and not to be dismissed. We're not "killing the Earth" or "getting in trouble", we're making our environment more, not less, hospitable to us.

Our technology is progressing at a fantastic rate, providing more and more access to energy, and will enable us (if political considerations don't interfere) to support the entire world's population at a standard of living that makes the current first worlder's lifestyle look like a medieval peasant's during a plague.

In the distant future, when we do run out of carbon fuels or reach a point where further increase of atmospheric CO2 would be irresponsible, this technology demonstrates that we'll be able to continue producing and using them if we so choose, as stores of energy rather than primary sources.

[Anonymous No.5170967]

>>5170957
>Second, what kind of hydrocarbons are being produced? Probably a stable short chain gas like butane or propane. I would surmise it would be a lot more intensive in terms of energy inputs to manufacture a long-chain hydrocarbon that remains liquid at standard temperatures and pressures.
It is clearly stated that they produced gasoline.

[Anonymous No.5170986]

>>5170964

>cornucopian bullshit

Let's dissect this post, shall we?

> is easily managed by a wide variety of feasible options.

If it was easy it would have been done already. I'm sure you already know that breaking away from a fossil fuel-centric infrastructure is a difficult and time-consuming process. Geoengineering has been proposed, but to date there are no large-scale experiments to demonstrate feasibility and safety. Adaptation to protect crops and coastal cities will cost, at the very least, hundreds of trillions over the next century.

>The benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 are large

According to the Stern Review, the total economic impact of unmitigated climate change could exceed 20% by the end of the century, and this GDP impact would continue indefinitely into the future. This would be roughly equivalent to a neverending Great Depression.

[Anonymous No.5170992]

>>5170986

If climate change was the ONLY environmental change that was occurring, then sure, maybe animals could migrate to new habitable zones, populations could recover and adapt to their new situation. But unfortunately it is not. Migration routes are cut off by cities and transportation networks. For animals adapted to the highest latitudes and poleward habitats, there is simply nowhere to migrate to. Combined with overfishing, forest decline, ocean de-oxygenation, and other impacts, climate change could very well trigger the next great mass extinction event. Give the number of recorded extinctions and projected extinctions of species not-yet-discovered, conservation biologists already believe this is happening.

Agricultural impact: more arable land in the North is not a good trade-off for losing arable land closer to the equator. As you know, the Earth is a spheroid. if heat stress and desertification expands poleward, new land brought under cultivation will not cover a larger area than that lost to climate change. Furthermore, these new areas are currently boreal forest. They have only a thin layer of topsoil over the bedrock and lack the nutrients to sustain high-yield production. The growing season is shorter at higher latitudes, and some plant metabolisms (e.g. corn) do not benefit from increased CO2 concentrations.

[Anonymous No.5171003]

>>5170992

>we're making our environment more, not less, hospitable to us.

According Sherwood and Huber (2009 PNAS), at the highest level of projected global warming, +7 degrees by the end of the century, for the first time in tens of millions of years, parts of the Earth will be rendered uninhabitable to mammals.

+12 degrees, which is possible by the end of the 22nd century, would place more than 50% of the Earth's land area into the realm of human/mammal habitability.

Perhaps we should invest in city-dome technology?

[Anonymous No.5171007]

>>5171003

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552

[Anonymous No.5171013]

>>5170986
>If it was easy it would have been done already.
There has been no harm to manage. The increase in CO2 thus far has mainly resulted in signicantly increased crop yields.

>I'm sure you already know that breaking away from a fossil fuel-centric infrastructure is a difficult and time-consuming process.
A pointless and idiotic one.

>Geoengineering has been proposed, but to date there are no large-scale experiments to demonstrate feasibility and safety.
The feasibility and safety (and downright cheapness) of geoengineering to prevent or manage increases in temperature from increases in atmospheric CO2 has been established with considerably greater scientific rigour than the link between increases in atmospheric CO2 and increases in surface temperature.

>Adaptation to protect crops and coastal cities will cost, at the very least, hundreds of trillions over the next century.
Increased atmospheric CO2 and warmer surface temperatures considerably increase crop yields. If we choose to allow the temperature to increase, there are a variety of feasible options for mechanically lowering the level of the ocean -- we're very good at moving large amounts of material around cheaply, and it would certainly not cost "hundreds of trillions" to dredge enough material from the ocean floor onto land or into new islands to prevent the forecasted ocean rise entirely.

>According to the Stern Review, the total economic impact of unmitigated climate change could exceed 20% by the end of the century, and this GDP impact would continue indefinitely into the future.
The Stern Review is laughably simpleminded propaganda.

[Anonymous No.5171018]

>>5171013
>The increase in CO2 thus far has mainly resulted in signicantly increased crop yields.
Which, research has demonstrated, has a capped effect. Increased yield due to CO2 is no an indefinite effect. There's a point (which we're approaching) where the plant is harmed by increased levels of CO2.

Increased crop yield is not a long-term benefit to increased CO2.

[Anonymous No.5171020]

>>5171018
>There's a point... where the plant is harmed by increased levels of CO2.
True.
>(which we're approaching)
Ridiculous lie.

[Anonymous No.5171028]

great, I love a good whiff of smog in the morning, I really enjoy it. I wouldn't know what to do if people suddenly stopped blowing shit into the air.

[Anonymous No.5171043]

>>5171020
>Ridiculous lie.
Only on a very short term. Experimental conditions have shown decreased seed yield in the 1000-2600 ppm range. On our current emissions path we're set to hit 1000 ppm by 2100.

It's not ridiculous, it's what to expect if we don't change our emissions profile.

[Anonymous No.5171054]

>>5171043

>ignores temperature
>ignores extreme weather
>ignores drought
>ignores flooding
>ignores pests

Beware the Dunning-Kruger effect

[Anonymous No.5171064]

>>5171043
>very short term
>2100
>crackpot extreme prediction of exponentially increasing use of coal presented as reasonable projection
Nuclear phenomena and the photovoltaic effect were barely recognized 90 years ago, and both were decades away from any practical power generation.

Nuclear's now barely more costly than coal or natural gas and advancing rapidly. Photovoltaics are on the cusp of creating ridiculous surpluses of cheap power during the daylight hours, which we're going to have to find some creative ways to soak up.

And you think 90 years is the "very short term" in energy policy?

But you go on preaching your "We must change now because [STUPID FUCKING BULLSHIT]!"

[Anonymous No.5171065]

>>5171054
Oh no, the Dunning-Kruger effect! My argument is unwritten in one blow!

[Anonymous No.5171067]

>>5171064
>>crackpot extreme prediction of exponentially increasing use of coal presented as reasonable projection
I must have missed when we redefined "using the projection that most closely matches the last decade of emissions activity" as "crackpot science".

[Anonymous No.5171072]

>>5171067

[Anonymous No.5171081]

>>5171072
Sorry, but that doesn't apply here. The example in xkcd is a model that's blind to the underlying phenomena. The IPCC models aren't blind extrapolations of the rate of emissions, they're constructed considering the driving forces behind carbon emissions.

[Anonymous No.5171094]

What company is behind this does anyone know?
What company is behind this does anyone know?

[Anonymous No.5171095]

>>5171081
I'm sorry, but that's just laughable.

No reasonable person could seriously consider it likely that in the face of advancing technology, we can confidently predict increasing use of coal through the remainder of the century.

[Anonymous No.5171109]

>>5171095
>No reasonable person could seriously consider it likely that in the face of advancing technology, we can confidently predict increasing use of coal through the remainder of the century.
It's a hell of a lot more scientifically rigorous to assume a constant state that's modeled on the real world than rely on near-magical, as-yet-unrealized technological advances that will counteract emissions.

[Anonymous No.5171112]

>>5171109
>It's ... scientifically rigorous to assume
And there you have it: the essential mindset of all global warming alarmists and peak oil kooks.

[Anonymous No.5171116]

>>5171112
All science is based on assumptions. If this is seriously what you're quibbling over, you misunderstand scientific practice in a fundamental way.

[Anonymous No.5171214]

>>5171116
All science is based on awareness that assumptions are assumptions.

You people spout, "It is certainty!", "We must act now!", "There is no room left for doubt!", "There is a scientific consensus!" but when we start arguing details, you shift to, "All science is based on assumptions." and "We feel our arbitrary assumptions are more scientifically rigorous than your questioning of our assumptions."

[Anonymous No.5171253]

>>5171214
>All science is based on awareness that assumptions are assumptions.
Of course everyone knows assumptions are assumptions. This changes nothing about either of our arguments.

>You people spout, "It is certainty!", "We must act now!", "There is no room left for doubt!", "There is a scientific consensus!" but when we start arguing details, you shift to, "All science is based on assumptions."
You seem to be have some deep misunderstandings about the use of assumptions in science. No climate scientist speaks in terms of facts and certainties; that's how pundits and journalists speak, not scientists. Scientists are careful to couch their language in qualifiers to signify that there are assumptions to their models that may not be correct.

Furthermore, it is not contradictory to say "there is a scientific consensus" and "science is based on assumptions". In fact, the existence of a scientific consensus based on projections and models implies the existence of assumptions.

>"We feel our arbitrary assumptions are more scientifically rigorous than your questioning of our assumptions."
You're not just questioning assumptions, you're using the fact that you're questioning assumptions as counter-evidence to scientific conclusions.

Questioning assumptions is fine, and it's something that everyone should do, scientists included. But the act of questioning assumptions is not in and of itself evidence, no matter how much you want it to be.

[Anonymous No.5171281]

>>5170992
>Furthermore, these new areas are currently boreal forest. They have only a thin layer of topsoil over the bedrock and lack the nutrients to sustain high-yield production. The growing season is shorter at higher latitudes, and some plant metabolisms (e.g. corn) do not benefit from increased CO2 concentrations.

Good luck explaining agriculture to urban climate deniers. After all, the modern food system is a magical conveyor belt from some theoretical piece of dirt straight into their pie holes. And dirt is a limitless resource!

[Anonymous No.5171303]

Unless they've figured out some kind of fantastic photocatylist that uses sunlight to directly transform CO2 and H2O to hydrocarbons, there's no way you can just undo combustion without putting in more energy than you'll get out. If their plant is completely solar powered, then this is a good way to let us keep using the same hydrocarbon based technology for vehicles, otherwise it's a money pit. It's also roundabout when you can improve solar and battery technology and use electric cars.

[Anonymous No.5171306]

>>5171013
>There has been no harm to manage. The increase in CO2 thus far has mainly resulted in signicantly increased crop yields.

Harm management begins with harm avoidance. Its called the precautionary principle. The idea that a minority of Earth's inhabitants harm the rest of the population is bad enough- that this permanently reduces the carrying capacity of the planet going forward is, for lack of a better word, insane.

[Anonymous No.5171329]

>>5170940

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3910

these EROIE numbers seem pretty shit to me. gosh, cornucopians are so hard to talk to. haveitall! instead of changing our cultural landscape

[Anonymous No.5171330]

>>5171253
>You're not just questioning assumptions, you're using the fact that you're questioning assumptions as counter-evidence to scientific conclusions.
I'm using the obvious implausibility of the assumptions as counter-evidence to idiotic bullshit and manipulative misrepresentations.

In all human history we've increased CO2 from ~270 ppm to ~390 ppm. Several emerging and maturing technologies which involve no carbon emissions are approaching cost-competitiveness with carbon fuels, with every sign of having potential to far exceed them within decades.
>we are approaching 1000-2600 ppm in the very short term

You have no claim to reasonability, let alone "scientific conclusions".

[Anonymous No.5171335]

>>5171306
>Harm management begins with benefit avoidance.

>>5171329
I'm not going to read your stupid blog.

[Anonymous No.5171339]

>>5171335

>Professor Charles Hall of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
>thinks he's smarter than the author of the article!

what are your qualifications sir?

[Anonymous No.5171343]

>>5171339
I'm not going to read your long blog post and pick through to try and find the point that you think you're making. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.5171347]

>>5171343

i am over the fact that you are willfully ignorant.

[Anonymous No.5171349]

>>5171329
Oh my god, this stupid cunt sampled a variety of photovoltaic installations, including some samples factoring in battery storage for continuous power and experimental pilot projects, and AVERAGED their EROI.

[Anonymous No.5171350]

shit like this comes up all the time, I remember reading about a bacteria that eats CO2 and shits out petrol and oxygen a couple of years ago but nothing ever came of. Oil companies waste a lot of resources suppressing technologies like these, dont be surprised if nothing comes out of this OP

[Anonymous No.5171353]

>>5171329
That is an extremely casual handwaving overview, and you should be ashamed for posting it.

[Anonymous No.5171356]

>>5171349

he still gives you the chart for separate installations. you can make your own conclusions. all those numbers are pitiful.

[Anonymous No.5171358]

>>5171353

nope. why would i be. some cunt here cant even read the heading title to find the PV section. like i'm going to go out and find a proper white paper going over research, construction, viability, and future technological projections.

[Anonymous No.5171360]

>>5171330
>>5171214
>>5171112
>>5171095
>>5171072
>>>/x/
it's time to go back there

[Anonymous No.5171365]

>>5171356
>all those numbers are pitiful.
>45.45:1
>33.33:1
Sure. Pitiful.

Anyway, there are other factors to consider than EROI. The day will come when solar panels are not significantly more expensive than shingles or siding. Then they'll sit and produce power with no maintenance for decades. So what if it takes a few years for them to cover the energy costs of their production? You still get decades of free power.

[Anonymous No.5171407]

>>5171365

cherry picking 2/14 examples isn't being diligent. also not including the lowerbound values. why don't we use the highbound values for everything. durrr. and due to the nature of the overview, no mention of peak vs average power generation, no mention of electrical transmission inefficiency.

that CPV system you're so fond of doesn't work in diffuse lighting, limiting install locations.

well, i'm done. if you guys want to tear yourselves away from studying math and physics, you might find studying practical engineering to be interesting.

[Anonymous No.5171447]

>>5171407
>cherry picking 2/14 examples isn't being diligent
And you think declaring "all those numbers are pitiful" when some of those numbers are excellent is?

Averaging samples from different applications where EROI is often irrelevant is the opposite of being diligent.

It's not like these aren't option we can choose between. If EROI is a problem, we'll obviously pick options with the highest EROI. If it isn't, then there's no point in making a fuss about EROI.

[Anonymous No.5171563]

EROI isn't even a coherent concept.

Let's say you spend 1 J to get 5 J. EROI of 1:5, right?

But what if that opportunity's still there? You spend 1 J to get 5 J and then you spend 5 J to get 25 J. You put in 1 J and got 25 J. EROI of 1:25.

Comparing EROI figures only makes sense if there is some cost, consequence, or limit on making the transaction that is consistent between transaction opportunities.

A transaction that returns 1.0001 J for every 1 J invested can be superior to one that returns 1,000,000 J for every 1 J invested. The first one could be costless and capable of being performed without limit with a cycle time under a nanosecond, while the second one requires a thousand man-hours and can only be done once a year.

People who try to compare EROI figures between things like consumer photovoltaic cells and coal power plants are kooks, plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.5171591]

>>5171339
>http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3910
>Professor Charles Hall of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

http://www.esf.edu/EFB/hall/
>Department of Environmental and Forest Biology

The Oil Drum is clearly trying to disguise this biologist as a scientist.

[Anonymous No.5171595]

>>5171350 Oil companies waste a lot of resources suppressing technologies like these, dont be surprised if nothing comes out of this OP

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/company-that-made-petrol-from-air-breakthrough-would-
refuse-investment-from-big-oil-8218812.html

>A small British company that claims to have made “petrol from air” said today it will refuse any investment offers from petrochemical companies because of fears that the oil industry will take over the firm with the aim of closing it down.

>“I would shudder at the prospect of an approach from the oil industry. My reaction would be ‘I don’t want to know’ because I’d be fearful that they would buy into the business and through various ways and means work to shut it down,” said Professor Marmont, who used to work for Shell.

[Anonymous No.5172582]

>>5171595

>take CO2 from air and hydrogen from water electrolysis
>make petrol

Speaking as an industrial chemist, BULLSHIT. As if no-one has ever tried to do this before and failed outright due it being several times the cost of mineral fuel

[Anonymous No.5172604]

>>5172582
>failed outright due it being several times the cost of mineral fuel
That's not failing outright.

And these guys aren't claiming their version economically viable with current oil prices either. But keep an eye out for what happens as electricity costs for opportunistic processes come down due to cheap photovoltaics.

[Anonymous No.5172672]

>>5172604

It is if you are trying to make a business out of it. If oil prices rise to point where it would become viable, we'd have long since abandoned liquid fuels for electric vehicles.

[Anonymous No.5172686]

>>5172672
If you pay attention, I'm talking about two trends lines crossing: oil getting more expensive, photovoltaic electricity getting cheaper.

Electric vehicles kind of suck, to say nothing of electric aircraft. Batteries take a charge efficiently, but hydrocarbons are a much more dense store of energy, and tanks to store them in for long-term reserves are cheap.

If the power's cheap enough, the efficiency difference won't matter.

[Anonymous No.5172696]

>>5172672

Existing infrastructure relies heavily on internal combustion engines. A fuel we can generate, and use immediately in our current equipment, for the expense of sunlight is much more desirable than manufacturing billions of lithium ion batteries

[Anonymous No.5172714]

>>5172696 manufacturing billions of lithium ion batteries

It's worth noting that batteries are not the only cost. The chassis of any engine driven car is not built to hold electrical equipment. Any conversions to electric will be expensive and time consuming. Choice is to scrap the car and buy new or convert.

[Anonymous No.5172718]

>>5172582 Speaking as an industrial chemist

It's too bad you're not a real chemist or an engineer because then your opinion might not have been so bad.

[Anonymous No.5172774]

>>5172718

Swing and a miss. Keep going, you're nearly at the bottom.

[Anonymous No.5172898]

>>5170636
>reinventing Green Freedom method
Been there, done that.