A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)
1–10 of 291 posts
Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)
#2After reading this article, all I can say is ... ugh. What I really wanted to know was "Where does the energy come from?", and the article didn't answer that at all.
The world doesn't really have a "carbon" problem, it has an energy problem, and right now carbon fuels are the cheapest, most abundant source of energy. Even if you somehow got carbon capture to work, you're still going to have to power it - with solar, or wind, nuclear, geothermal, whatever. At that point, then the question just becomes whether using the storage medium of gas is better than the storage medium of something else, like batteries. But the article doesn't go into the core question of where the energy is coming from to turn CO2 into gas.
Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)
#3that entire article can be reduced to "nanotubes"
since its a YC company though maybe we could get the underlying story?
Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)
#4There's no way this is a net energy producer right? So it only makes sense if it's powered by carbon-free sources?
Basically this has two uses then:
- As a stop gap till batteries and electric vehicles take over from ICE. Although if it generates carbon-neutral jet fuel that would be very useful.
- Maybe as a carbon capture device, except that gasoline doesn't seem like a great way to store excess carbon. Although the article indicates the carbon could be converted into other materials. That part isn't very clear.
Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)
#5This is really, fundamentally important technology. Emissions reduction will not work: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nations-are-not-r...
> The authors of the report stated in a press release that the kind of drastic, large-scale action the planet desperately needs has yet to be seen, even though global emissions have reached record levels at 53.5 billion metric tons in 2017, with no signs of peaking.
> Cities, states, the private sector and other nonfederal entities may be best placed to take bold actions on climate change. According to the report, the globe may need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 19 billion metric tons by 2030 to close the 2 C gap.
That's a 35% reduction in global CO2 emissions over the next decade. It's not going to happen. CO2 emissions are growing like this: http://folk.uio.no/roberan/img/GCB2018/PNG/s11_2018_Projecti.... The U.S. and EU could go back to 1960 levels of emissions and it would cut only about 3 gigatons. China alone increased its usage 3 gigatons in the last 10 years. The rest of the world increased its emissions by that much in the last 15. Bringing Indian emissions up to Chinese per-capita levels would add 7.5 gigatons.
A 30% reduction is taking the world back to 1990. The U.S. has added maybe half a gigaton since 1990, and the EU actually dropped about a gigaton since then. (The difference is largely due to the fact that the EU28 countries grew only 8.5% since 1990, while the US grew 30%.) But the rest of the world has added 15 gigatons since 1990. That 15 gigatons represents a shift from desperate poverty in Africa, India, and China to lower income status (though still many gigatons away from the standard of living enjoyed in the US and EU). That cannot be undone.
The only serious solution to climate change is carbon recapture.
Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)
#6After reading this article, all I can say is ... ugh. What I really wanted to know was "Where does the energy come from?", and the article didn't answer that at all. The world doesn't really have a "carbon" problem, it has an energy problem, and right now carbon fuels are the cheapest, most abundant source of energy. Even if you somehow got carbon capture to work, you're still going to have to power it - with solar,…
I would bet photovoltaic. Lowest cost per watt, the process can likely be designed to tolerate day/night variations, and the plant can be located where the sun shines.
Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)
#7This is really, fundamentally important technology. Emissions reduction will not work: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nations-are-not-r... > The authors of the report stated in a press release that the kind of drastic, large-scale action the planet desperately needs has yet to be seen, even though global emissions have reached record levels at 53.5 billion metric tons in 2017, with no signs of peaking. >…
+100000
I couldn't agree more. I saw some real interesting research a few years ago about artificial leaves. I really wish one of these billionaires would stop building giant rockets and solve carbon recapture first. Apparently, our government isn't interested in it.
Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)
#8After reading this article, all I can say is ... ugh. What I really wanted to know was "Where does the energy come from?", and the article didn't answer that at all. The world doesn't really have a "carbon" problem, it has an energy problem, and right now carbon fuels are the cheapest, most abundant source of energy. Even if you somehow got carbon capture to work, you're still going to have to power it - with solar,…
At the end of the day - does it matter where it came from?
They could be like Tesla and build a solar arm, or a wind farm, or do geothermal. You could pull it out of the grid and it'd still be better for the environment than pulling it out of the ground.
TBH saying the world doesn't have a carbon problem contradicts all of the people fighting greenhouse gas emission based climate change so I'm curious as to your logic behind that statement.
Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)
#9This is really, fundamentally important technology. Emissions reduction will not work: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nations-are-not-r... > The authors of the report stated in a press release that the kind of drastic, large-scale action the planet desperately needs has yet to be seen, even though global emissions have reached record levels at 53.5 billion metric tons in 2017, with no signs of peaking. >…
How much do today's "carbon recapture" methods need to grow? What's the timeline on them looking like?
P.S. The first Google result for carbon recapture is titled "“Direct air capture” of carbon dioxide won't solve climate change"
P.P.S From Wikipedia with a cited source:
capturing and compressing CO2 and other system costs are estimated to increase the cost per watt-hour energy produced by 21–91% for fossil fuel power plants;
Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)
#10I saw this paper http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE... on HN recently which claims that it shouldn't be too expensive to convert to 100% renewable energy by 2050 (but you have to actually start on it of course). Liquid fuel would still be used for ships, jets, rockets, and some trucks and to be net zero carbon that fuel needs to be produced either by plants (biofuel) or by Prometheus-style direct capture. In this case the fuel is not a source of energy but a denser storage medium for renewable electricity.