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

Dude, where's my fuel?

prometheusfuels.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 191 posts

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#101

Post by ncmncm »

simulate-me wrote: post #82
DennisP wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > The main energy cost is in getting the CO2 to release from the absorbent — to desorb. And that’s when things get really expensive, because this requires a lot of energy...we don’t make or need pure CO2 gas, so we don’t need to desorb it. Therefore, we avoid the vast majority of this cost. Instead, we capture CO2 in water and then use it in water to make fuel. ARPA-E refers to this as “reactive CO2…

How good is water at capturing CO2 compared to the other absorbents? My guess, not as good. So is more CO2 released because they're capturing with water?

They are capturing with hydroxide salt dissolved in water. At issue in all such scenarios is how you get the CO2 back out. They claim to have something uniquely clever for that. It will soon be evident how well it works.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#102

Post by Manuel_D »

ncmncm wrote: post #97
Manuel_D wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still need to capture the same amount of carbon from the atmosphere. They claim that because it doesn't need to be pure carbon dioxide it'll be a lot cheaper. But that's based on an engineering assessment not an actual bill of materials from a working prototype. Just like how the hyperloop is amazing technology on paper.

Let somebody else invest. You can sit around and watch. Maybe amuse yourself with rude remarks. Hyperloop made no sense whatsoever, from day one.

Yes, I'm more than comfortable letting BMW put $12.5 million into Prometheus. If they shared even half of your confidence in this tech, they'd invest a lot more than that. My take, and likely the investors' takes too, is this is yet another carbon capture company, and it's success hinges on whether or not they can actually hit the performance their promising.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#103

Post by ncmncm »

Auracle wrote: post #53
sien wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. If you hit that you're sorted in Europe. https://www.tolls.eu/fuel-prices European prices seem to average about ~ EU 1.8 / litre or ~7.2 EU / Gallon or $US 7.6 / gallon. For C02 neutral fuel it would just work at that price.

A very large portion of what Europeans pay for gas is tax.

Presumably this stuff won't be taxed the same way. Taxes will need to be restructured so roads are paid for, maybe by vehicle licensing.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#104

Post by ncmncm »

universa1 wrote: post #98
ncmncm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tractor fuel produced at the foot of a wind turbine in the middle of a farmer's field, that doesn't need to be transported from a refinery, would have immediate value. Fences made of double-sided solar panels mounted a bit more than tractor-width apart, running N-S, coexist nicely with row crops, and cut water loss, improve conversion efficiency (via evaporative cooling), and often increase yield besides (via reduced…

While a nice theory, this is not competitive in practice... The capital costs and loss in productivity result in about a 2 to 3 times lower profit per unit of land compared to full solar. Just put solar on the non-ideal fields (iirc about 4% of German AG area would be needed to cover electricity demand with solar)

You miss the point that identically the same land is now producing two revenue streams, one year-round. And, that ag yield is increased. Fortunately, they don't need your approval. It is being done now. Japanese are leading.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#105

Post by nyokodo »

ncmncm wrote: post #88
nyokodo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The energy efficiency of converting wind -> electricity -> fuel -> mechanical power has to be less efficient than wind -> electricity -> mechanical power It depends on how efficient it is to use existing ICE tractors vs creating new electric tractors. If tractors are like other ICE vehicles then something like half the energy they take over their lifetime is used in their production so if you want to get to Net-0 s…

Efficiency is secondary. Cost is primary. As the cost of generator capacity continues on down, people worry less about efficiency. The top-line input, sunshine, is free. So it is a question of capital cost amortized over energy produced.

> Efficiency is secondary. Cost is primary.

While the question I was responding to was explicitly about efficiency, you might be right about cost. However, ICE tractors that are already owned along with the capital required for their use and maintenance are potentially a lot more attractive to keep vs new electric tractors. Sunshine might be free but it’s not available in sufficient quantities everywhere with current technology, and all technologies will require ongoing maintenance. With China becoming an untrustworthy trade partner the cost of solar panels will likely rise. If they do I hope they can make affordable efuel so that we make progress either way.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#106

Post by [deleted] »

Manuel_D wrote: post #102
ncmncm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let somebody else invest. You can sit around and watch. Maybe amuse yourself with rude remarks. Hyperloop made no sense whatsoever, from day one.

Yes, I'm more than comfortable letting BMW put $12.5 million into Prometheus. If they shared even half of your confidence in this tech, they'd invest a lot more than that. My take, and likely the investors' takes too, is this is yet another carbon capture company, and it's success hinges on whether or not they can actually hit the performance their promising.

[deleted]

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#107

Post by ncmncm »

Manuel_D wrote: post #102
ncmncm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let somebody else invest. You can sit around and watch. Maybe amuse yourself with rude remarks. Hyperloop made no sense whatsoever, from day one.

Yes, I'm more than comfortable letting BMW put $12.5 million into Prometheus. If they shared even half of your confidence in this tech, they'd invest a lot more than that. My take, and likely the investors' takes too, is this is yet another carbon capture company, and it's success hinges on whether or not they can actually hit the performance their promising.

BMW are certain to understand investment strategy better than you.

Probably they are putting seed funding into a bunch of different start-ups, and will invest more as they see further evidence of viability. That is a much more productive activity than carping ignorantly from the sidelines.

Most startups flop for reasons unrelated to their technology underpinnings. E.g., incompetent website implementation.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#108

Post by coderenegade »

ncmncm wrote: post #100
coderenegade wrote: post #84

All the best to them, but I'll believe it when I see it. I'm also skeptical that petrol / diesel / long chain hydrocarbons are even the right fuel to make. If the average length of the carbon chain for something like diesel is around eight, you can make roughly eight times the number of methanol molecules for the same carbon input. Hydrogen requirements are also lower, so the cost limitation there is reduced as well.…

The sweet spot for synthetic fuel, in most cases, is anhydrous ammonia. It stores in liquid form at room temperature under mild compression. Ammonia can be burned in place of natural gas in generators, and in place of bunker oil in ships given retrofitted tankage and plumbing. It is probably practical for retrofitted freight trucks, rail locomotives, and farm machinery. Its volumetric energy density is lower than ker…

Maybe. Ammonia is certainly the best carbon-free fuel, the only real issue with it is its toxicity. Methanol is a lot easier to handle since it's a liquid at SSL conditions, and generally less dangerous, but it has it's own downsides (it's hygroscopic, for example). But I agree with you in the sense that, to me at least, the two most sane options for an e-fuel are methanol and ammonia. I think the path of trying to make synthetic petrol and diesel is probably the wrong choice.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#109

Post by ehnto »

universa1 wrote: post #98
ncmncm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tractor fuel produced at the foot of a wind turbine in the middle of a farmer's field, that doesn't need to be transported from a refinery, would have immediate value. Fences made of double-sided solar panels mounted a bit more than tractor-width apart, running N-S, coexist nicely with row crops, and cut water loss, improve conversion efficiency (via evaporative cooling), and often increase yield besides (via reduced…

While a nice theory, this is not competitive in practice... The capital costs and loss in productivity result in about a 2 to 3 times lower profit per unit of land compared to full solar. Just put solar on the non-ideal fields (iirc about 4% of German AG area would be needed to cover electricity demand with solar)

It might not need to be 100% of fuel used, subsidizing the fuel supply would be enough I think. It would also allow those farms to claim some of that as carbon credits and other green certificates.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#110

Post by Simon_O_Rourke »

beachy wrote: post #25
neonate wrote: post #14

[Since a lot of people can't read the article and the format is annoying enough that even archive services haven't captured it, here's the text.] As you know, Prometheus converts renewable electricity from solar and wind power into zero net carbon gasoline, diesel, and jet e-fuels (short for “electro-fuels”) that compete with fossil fuels on price. What some readers may not know is that the process we use to do this…

I don't think I've ever seen a web site where the content was so interesting, but the presentation was so piss poor that the bulk of visitors likely leave without having even read any of this cool stuff. For the love of god, throw your web site away and start again with some simple, static HTML pages.

I'd second this, just tried loading it on a tablet and gave up on the load screen. It was 50/50 I'd read the comments but I'm glad I did now.

Please please, for goodness sake, put a quick loading static page front and center quick! This stuff is too important and too cool to be lost to same hokey web design.

Post reply on HN