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

A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 291 posts

Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

#181

Post by bobthepanda »

nordsieck wrote: post #169
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, decarbonizing fuels before you ship them to market is a way more serious solution. E.g. we already have big plants in the petrochemical industry that go natural gas -> hydrogen and CO2 -> separate out CO2 -> geological CO2 storage. The benefit with capture at this level is that the partial pressure of CO2 is orders of magnitude larger, so you pay a lot less (both CAPEX and OPEX) for the same amount o…

> natural gas -> hydrogen and CO2 -> separate out CO2 -> geological CO2 storage. Everything I've seen about H2 tells me that electric cars are just better. Luckily for your theory, it's still possible to do what you want with electric cars - just carbon capture at electric power plants.

Maybe cars, but the weight of batteries is a problem for larger vehicles that need long range, like a bus, truck, or plane. For those hydrogen might be better.

Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

#182

Post by dredmorbius »

natch wrote: post #167
dredmorbius wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sea and air transport, as well as remote-location generation, and several industrial processes, rely on or benefit greatly from fuel or hydrocarbon-based inputs.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but we already have an existing supply of hydrocarbon based fuels which are relatively cheap compared to the proposed "quest."

They are destroying the environment on which we depend. They are also finite.

To further point out the obvious.

https://www.ipcc.ch

Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

#183

Post by scythe »

nordsieck wrote: post #169
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, decarbonizing fuels before you ship them to market is a way more serious solution. E.g. we already have big plants in the petrochemical industry that go natural gas -> hydrogen and CO2 -> separate out CO2 -> geological CO2 storage. The benefit with capture at this level is that the partial pressure of CO2 is orders of magnitude larger, so you pay a lot less (both CAPEX and OPEX) for the same amount o…

> natural gas -> hydrogen and CO2 -> separate out CO2 -> geological CO2 storage. Everything I've seen about H2 tells me that electric cars are just better. Luckily for your theory, it's still possible to do what you want with electric cars - just carbon capture at electric power plants.

For cars, sure. But there are applications where being able to carry around buckets of energy is very helpful. It's particularly important if you need to supply power to somewhere that doesn't have power lines; carrying batteries around is likely to be difficult, and they can be easily damaged. Emergency generators in a crisis area might need to be refueled before the grid can be brought back up. Flying vehicles will probably remain fueled for a long time as well. The military is another big consumer of fuels and they strongly prefer not to be limited by availability -- world wars have been influenced by that kind of thing.

Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

#184

Post by tonyedgecombe »

bobthepanda wrote: post #181
nordsieck wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> natural gas -> hydrogen and CO2 -> separate out CO2 -> geological CO2 storage. Everything I've seen about H2 tells me that electric cars are just better. Luckily for your theory, it's still possible to do what you want with electric cars - just carbon capture at electric power plants.

Maybe cars, but the weight of batteries is a problem for larger vehicles that need long range, like a bus, truck, or plane. For those hydrogen might be better.

Trams, trains, high speed rail.

Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

#185

Post by dredmorbius »

natch wrote: post #165
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would someone in China charge their electric car with clean electricity generated in the United States?

Whoosh... Nobody suggested what you are asking about. But it seems you are suggesting that rather than generating electricity locally by sustainable means, it would be a better idea to create synthetic gasoline in the US, then ship that to China for them to burn?

It costs only 1% of the energy capacity of liquid hydrocarbon fuel to ship it literally around the globe. A penny per dollar of delivered value.

The chemical potential energy stored is proved stable for literally hundreds of millions of years. Few electrical energy storage options are useful for more than a few weeks, most operate in the range of seconds to hours.

The fuel and its combustion products are remarkably non-toxic (though excess accumulation at the scale of the globe over decades to centuries can be quite problematic). They don't attack or degrade most materials used in the construction of storage, transfer, processing, or utilisation.

The source elements are abundant and relatively easily obtained.

There is a vast infrastructure and 1-2 centuries' experience in working with and applying the materials.

The energy densities by both weight and volume are all but wholly unmatched by nonnuclear energy sources. Only hydrogen, by mass, is higher, and it presents numerous other challenges.

Fossil fuels have proved exceedingly problematic. We must stop using them for combustion.

Liquid and gaseous hydocarbons are amazingly useful and flexible. While they may be substituted for in some applications, it's likely that a base-level need will remain.

Electricity is an amazing power transmission and transformation technology, and is exceedingly useful in informatiin technologies. It does exceeding poor at storage, though, and likely always will, for reasons of basic physics and chemistry.

Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

#186

Post by icelancer »

ForHackernews wrote: post #60
rayiner wrote: post #5

This 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. >…

It has to be both. If we want to have any hope, we have to dramatically cut emissions AND we also have to invent magic new carbon-scrubbing technology and deploy it at a global scale in the next 30 years or so. https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos... > As you can see, in either scenario, global emissions must peak and begin declining immediately. For a medium chance to avoid 1.5 degrees, the w…

>> we have to dramatically cut emissions

The "we" in this is primarily China and keeping third-world countries from industrializing using the means that the Western world used to get up to speed. It is not the Western countries, as raynier pointed out. As long as we understand the magnitude - and perhaps incredible unfairness - of the problem, then that's fine.

But cutting emissions in the United States and Europe isn't going to do anything.

Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

#187

Post by icelancer »

binichgross wrote: post #84
ForHackernews wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has to be both. If we want to have any hope, we have to dramatically cut emissions AND we also have to invent magic new carbon-scrubbing technology and deploy it at a global scale in the next 30 years or so. https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13118594/2-degrees-no-more-fos... > As you can see, in either scenario, global emissions must peak and begin declining immediately. For a medium chance to avoid 1.5 degrees, the w…

Your children will die unless you lobby your representative to listen to this person. This shit is realer than any other crisis in the history of mankind and we face extinction if we do not fight it now. Pay attention.

They'll die even if I do, assuming you are right and you think this problem is as large as you say it is. Our representatives care little about us.

Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

#188

Post by icelancer »

natch wrote: post #32
rayiner wrote: post #5

This 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. >…

Well no, this is really, fundamentally wrong-headed technology. We already have more than enough petroleum to catastrophically ruin our environment. As AOC put it, climate change is our World War II. We won't solve it by sitting on our hands and being negative about the real solutions that are out there. > But the rest of the world has added 15 gigatons since 1990. That 15 gigatons represents a shift from desperate p…

>> But just taking China alone, they are shifting massively away from carbon emitting technologies and into alternatives.

The data in the OP does not support this.

Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

#189

Post by etaioinshrdlu »

whenchamenia wrote: post #145
etaioinshrdlu wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might find this youtube channel interesting: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2rzsm1Qi6N1X-wuOg_p0Ng/vid... He has run a gasoline engine on a whole slew of fuels, including some that may be surprising, such as isopropyl alcohol, various solvents, crude oil, and a 50% diesel gas mix. Gasoline engines can also run on pure propane, but the fuel pump, tank, and some other parts do need to be replaced. I guess the po…

Thats a low compression mower engine. Modern automobile engines are indeed quite sensitive to predetonation from slower ignition times offered by most alternatives without being designed for them.

Maybe this can be handled by adjusting valve timing in software.

Re: A Quest to Make Gasoline Out of Thin Air: Prometheus (YC W19)

#190

Post by petre »

rmcginnis wrote: post #92
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pow…

Hi, Rob from Prometheus here! Most of the skepticism about CO2 removal from the air is focused on "carbon sequestration and storage" or CSS, which is mitigation of emissions from fossil fuel by putting CO2 into the ground, for example. Turning CO2 from the air into useful products like fuels and building materials is much more capable of scaling because these products have value independently from regulations or carb…

> Turning CO2 from the air into useful products like fuels and building materials

You mean something like DME synthesis from CO2 and H2? Isn't atmospheric CO2 capture sort of expensive at 400 ppm? Obe would obtain one kilogram of CO2 from 2500 kgs of air.

Turning atmospheric carbon to building materials is already being done with plant based fiber mixtures such as hempcrete or fiber cement.

Post reply on HN