General Discussion

muriel_volestrangler

(106,212 posts)

30. More interesting for air transport, I'd say; we had a thread on the company last year

Fri Sep 6, 2013, 06:45 AM

Sep 2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014272287

What they'd have to show for ground transport is if it's more efficient than battery-powered electric vehicles (or hydrogen, but that's not doing too well so far). For aircraft, however, weight becomes more important, and batteries are still heavy (and the pressurized tanks for hydrogen, or the materials that can be saturated with hydrogen, are heavy, even though the fuel itself isn't). A fuel that's liquid at room temperature has a lot of advantages, in terms of energy per mass (and handling). So any process than can produce a liquid fuel with no net carbon dioxide emissions is worth pursuing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

55 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A CAR that runs on fuel made from CO2 removed from the Atmosphere creating a carbon neutral loop! [View all] FourScore Sep 2013 OP

If it sounds too good to be true, it's probably not true. NYC_SKP Sep 2013 #1

It's a matter of storing the hydrogen solarhydrocan Sep 2013 #28

Bullshit! longship Sep 2013 #2

I'm not sure they are claiming to make energy from nothing. BlueStreak Sep 2013 #5

I still say bullshit. longship Sep 2013 #8

They claim they put energy in to H and CO2 and get out burnable hydrocarbons Recursion Sep 2013 #17

2nd law of Thermo says it's not worth it. longship Sep 2013 #39

It's not being touted as perpetual motion or even energy gain. Jim Lane Sep 2013 #43

I understood they would get Hydrogen from the electrolysis, to mix with CO2 they got from air. AnotherDreamWeaver Sep 2013 #12

Well, "remove" for a hot minute until we burn it again Recursion Sep 2013 #23

What if it were not turned into usable fuel? BlueStreak Sep 2013 #37

Solar power isn't directly burnable and we like to burn things Recursion Sep 2013 #20

People need to re-read references on perpetual motion machines whenever an idea like this comes up stevenleser Sep 2013 #9

Indeed, I thought the Eddington quote was all I needed. longship Sep 2013 #11

Not saying this will work, but it wouldn't be a perpetual motion machine-- unless Marr Sep 2013 #13

They aren't talking about net energy but about the form the energy takes Recursion Sep 2013 #18

I'd add, quite a few people doubt one of Maxwell's equations Recursion Sep 2013 #27

But that's physics. This thing is a scam. longship Sep 2013 #38

They aren't claiming over unity energy production whopis01 Sep 2013 #47

Indeed. That's an entirely different matter. longship Sep 2013 #48

Lol - all worth it for the Emily Litella reference. n/t whopis01 Sep 2013 #54

Hear,Hear ... GeorgeGist Sep 2013 #46

But what will the trees eat? nt kelliekat44 Sep 2013 #3

It looks promising sakabatou Sep 2013 #4

Lost me at "magic". MindPilot Sep 2013 #6

Cue the climate doomer skeptics(of mitigation prospects, that is) yelling, "impossible!". AverageJoe90 Sep 2013 #7

No, it cannot work. You cannot violate the second law of thermodynamics. See my comment above. nt stevenleser Sep 2013 #10

And it's not being violated. Energy goes into the system at the beginning Recursion Sep 2013 #25

Yeah, those stupid fucking scientists and their "Laws" of physics! NutmegYankee Sep 2013 #16

You're missing the point Recursion Sep 2013 #19

Unless the laws of enthalpy have changed, that's going to be difficult Recursion Sep 2013 #14

Did you mean entropy? NutmegYankee Sep 2013 #21

No, I meant enthalpy Recursion Sep 2013 #22

I don't disgree it's better, but NutmegYankee Sep 2013 #24

I agree, I just meant there's nothing here that on its face goes against Boltzmann Recursion Sep 2013 #26

Solar power to charge batteries is better. joshcryer Sep 2013 #33

How much electricity it takes bluedeathray Sep 2013 #15

Another potential route away from fossil fuels liberal N proud Sep 2013 #29

More interesting for air transport, I'd say; we had a thread on the company last year muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #30

magic chemistry.....interesting choice of words. ileus Sep 2013 #31

Alchemy is making a comeback? FSogol Sep 2013 #41

interesting but its just electrolysis which requires lots of electricity. DCBob Sep 2013 #32

Just burn hydrogen and you take carbon completely out of the equation. hobbit709 Sep 2013 #34

This sounds a little to inefficient to be in vehicles themselves Thav Sep 2013 #35

Doesn't pass the smell test Botany Sep 2013 #36

I'll park it next to my car that runs on wishful thinking! FSogol Sep 2013 #40

And people say.... CanSocDem Sep 2013 #42

The C=O bond in CO2 is extremely stable and requires substantial energy to break struggle4progress Sep 2013 #44

The technology isn't that far-fetched jmowreader Sep 2013 #45

There would be nothing like the perpetual motion machine to stir one's interests but for one thing. 1-Old-Man Sep 2013 #49

Not energy efficient, but has the advantage of working within our current infrastructure. Xithras Sep 2013 #50

As I imagine others on this thread are all over by now, it's a way to synthesize a fuel gristy Sep 2013 #51

It's only a neutral CO2 loop if the electricity used is from renewables NickB79 Sep 2013 #52

If we use solar and wind for the electricity then it may make sense. roamer65 Sep 2013 #53

Ethanol is made from CO2 removed from the atmosphere. gulliver Sep 2013 #55