Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

uc.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 213 posts

Re: Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

#41

Post by realusername »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #29
realusername wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thermodynamics is about energy not CO2, you can design negative CO2 devices and we even have proof in nature of that since that's what trees are doing.

The problem is that this requires reversing entropy. Turning CO2 into something that can burn into CO2 requires more energy than you get back while burning it, even in an optimal engine. This is true if humans reverse entropy or if trees do it.

Economics are a different story yeah, there's no way to make carbone absorption economically possible without some carbon scheme designed by the country. They won't happen on their own that's for sure, that's where legislation should come in place.

Re: Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

#42

Post by invisible »

It's been seemingly impossible to motivate the world to switch to alternatives to fuel. We're between a rock and a hard place with society and the environment.

It seems like there isn't even a conspiracy, it's just a combination of poor choices, greed, and new technology. Solar is great, but often it's more expensive than just consuming grid power or has unpredictable payoffs. Wind has a lot of upfront costs. Massive batteries are just starting to roll out. Energy companies are trying to keep prices low in the short-term and keep things reliable, so they mostly use cheap and plentiful fuel. Consumers without a lot of money can't put the capital down for a new car, so they buy used or cheap. It happens that most used/cheap cars use petrol-based fuel. Additionally, car companies have a product that sells, why risk that or their reputation?

Finally, you have the government deciding policy based on much more than just the environment.

Perhaps this will create a better storage mechanism, but addressing getting to carbon neutrality feels very dreary.

Re: Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

#43

Post by dylan604 »

bialpio wrote: post #12

I wish they addressed the fact that methane that they will be producing is said to be an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Are there any worries about the leakage for example?

Sure. If you're using the methane as rocket fuel that is leaking, then nobody likes a rocket leaking fuel. That tends to not end well.

Re: Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

#44

Post by brokensegue »

qw3rty01 wrote: post #40
whatever1 wrote: post #9

I like how in the media publications for carbon capturing they always forget to mention that these things need a ton of energy to run.

They do mention it, just not directly: > Right now we have excess green energy that we just throw away. We can store this excess renewable energy in chemicals. The idea is that it can be used to store excess energy from green sources

unless we price carbon high enough this excess energy is just going to get burnt into bitcoin

Re: Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

#45

Post by realusername »

peteradio wrote: post #22
realusername wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thermodynamics is about energy not CO2, you can design negative CO2 devices and we even have proof in nature of that since that's what trees are doing.

But thats not what this is. Fuel is intended to be consumed, seems like this is at best carbon neutral assuming totally neutral power source. Are our current power sources on average neutral or are they much more carbon positive?

> But thats not what this is. Fuel is intended to be consumed, seems like this is at best carbon neutral assuming totally neutral power source

Indeed, that's their goal, the issue is that currently we emit a lot so even making the fuel close to neutral (minus production inefficiencies) is already a huge progress. Going negative isn't for tomorrow unfortunately.

Re: Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

#46

Post by president »

invisible wrote: post #42

It's been seemingly impossible to motivate the world to switch to alternatives to fuel. We're between a rock and a hard place with society and the environment. It seems like there isn't even a conspiracy, it's just a combination of poor choices, greed, and new technology. Solar is great, but often it's more expensive than just consuming grid power or has unpredictable payoffs. Wind has a lot of upfront costs. Massive…

If it was really an issue, wouldn't free market forces have paved the way to widespread fuel alternative consumption a long time ago? Sure you can force everyone to stop using gasoline and buy an electric car but there are costs to that. I think most people believe there are more dire issues that need fixing and funding.

Re: Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

#47

Post by dexwiz »

gpm wrote: post #24
lizknope wrote: post #13

The article claims they are already converting CO2 to fuel on the ISS. This process has been TESTED but we aren't using it right now. Article claims: > Known as the “Sabatier reaction” from the late French chemist Paul Sabatier, it’s a process the International Space Station uses to scrub the carbon dioxide from air the astronauts breathe and generate rocket fuel to keep the station in high orbit. Reality: We just sh…

The ISS uses rechargeable zeolite beds for CO2 scrubbing, they don't need a new one frequently, and the fact that we shipped a new one is coincidence. Zeolite is a mineral, you get a bunch of small pellets of it in a bed, and run air over it while cooling it. The CO2 (and H2O) stick to it while everything else goes over it. Once you're at capacity you vent it to space and heat it, the CO2 (and H2O) leave the bed (int…

If both operations are exothermic, why the heat exchanger? I would assume one process would need to be endothermic.

Re: Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

#48

Post by mattnewton »

president wrote: post #46
invisible wrote: post #42

It's been seemingly impossible to motivate the world to switch to alternatives to fuel. We're between a rock and a hard place with society and the environment. It seems like there isn't even a conspiracy, it's just a combination of poor choices, greed, and new technology. Solar is great, but often it's more expensive than just consuming grid power or has unpredictable payoffs. Wind has a lot of upfront costs. Massive…

If it was really an issue, wouldn't free market forces have paved the way to widespread fuel alternative consumption a long time ago? Sure you can force everyone to stop using gasoline and buy an electric car but there are costs to that. I think most people believe there are more dire issues that need fixing and funding.

I think the issue is that the costs of using fossil fuels are “external” to the purchaser, so a market solution doesn’t work until the negative externality of pumping co2 into our shared atmosphere can be accounted for.

It would be like expecting people who dump their industrial waste upstream in a river to be corrected by market forces - the market will probably choose that people don’t care about the down river people as long as they get their goods slightly cheaper.

Also a wrinkle in a pure market based solution is that the US substantially subsidizes fossil fuels because I think the 70’s taught politicians that fuel price shocks will get them voted out immediately. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...

Re: Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

#49

Post by chrisBob »

wibagusto wrote: post #23
jl6 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? The process would still be great news if true, as it could be a carbon-neutral source of hydrocarbon fuel for applications that are hard to electrify, like aviation.

I just imagine the scramble to get carbon neutral allowing huge carbon-processing factories and then we enter some kind of carbon deficit, back in the same situation we are in—a teetering balance between overconsumption and moderation.

If, some day in the future the oil companies all start pushing hard for carbon capture, then we will know this is a real possibility.

Re: Engineers are developing new ways to convert greenhouse gases to fuel

#50

Post by hannob »

bialpio wrote: post #12

I wish they addressed the fact that methane that they will be producing is said to be an even more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Are there any worries about the leakage for example?

This is an important point. Not for the "we'll build a gas station on mars"-scenario, but for the "we'll propose this as a climate solution".

Every way of replacing natural gas with some other source of methane - be it the sabatier process or biogas/biomethane - has this problem. It can only be a climate solution if you can bring leaks down close to zero, which is very challenging.

It also makes one wonder whether e-methane is really such a good idea or whether you'd rather look at other chemicals like ammonia or methanol.

Post reply on HN