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

191–200 of 213 posts

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

#191

Post by phreeza »

5faulker wrote: post #51
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…

Space junk piling up as we speak.

Not sure what you mean. Anything in LEO like the ISS will burn up after a couple years at the latest if left unattended.

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

#192

Post by jillesvangurp »

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?

You have to put that in perspective bit. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas but it breaks down in a few years as well. And then there is the notion that there is quite a lot of it leaking in the atmosphere already through natural processes, melting of the permafrost, and indeed as a side effect of oil/gas production. You'd have to produce stupendous amounts of fuel to have leakage to an extent that it actually matters.

So, if we'd actually capture and burned the gas, there would be little to worry about. Especially considering we'd be getting less of it out of the ground in fossil form.

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

#193

Post by jillesvangurp »

ehsankia wrote: post #130
generalizations wrote: post #115

The problem, in general, is obtaining the CO2. Ironically, in industries where massive amounts of CO2 is needed (including biodiesel production from algae), one of the cheapest ways to get it is to just make it. Pulling it out of the air isn't feasible.

Pulling it out of the air isn't feasible. What about pulling it right where it's mostly produced (heavy polluting factories or electricity generators).

Plants get their CO2 from the air. So, not completely impossible. There have been attempts to extract CO2 from air: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22663597/largest-direct-ai...

While that's a pretty expensive way of carbon capture, it does seem to work.

The question is of course how much energy it costs. It's probably quite a lot. Meaning that turning CO2 into methane is probably not a very efficient process. I.e. not a great use of clean energy.

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

#194

Post by jillesvangurp »

twostorytower wrote: post #107
perfunctory wrote: post #91

On the side note, anybody knows what happened to the prometheus startup [0]? Are they still alive? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240

Looks like they're still alive and well: https://prometheusfuels.com/technology

They just closed a series B round. https://prometheusfuels.com/on-the-road/prometheus-is-first-...

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

#195

Post by arethuza »

NickNameNick wrote: post #135
makeitrain wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's insane, I didn't realize it was that much. If we could see cars drop carbon turds on the road instead of venting it invisibly in the air we'd all be freaking out right now.

Well, we used to have horses... There's a reason all the old buildings in big cities are elevated a few steps above street level...

Where I used to live in the New Town of Edinburgh each house had a boot scraper fixed next to the step to the front door.

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

#196

Post by freemint »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #122
diarrhea wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's even worse than zero net effect, it's negative, owed to all the auxiliary inefficiencies. Add to that methane slip and it's infeasible by a long shot. The solution can never be to remedy surface-level GHG. The sources need to remain buried and replaced by true renewables. Anything else is just an afterthought, patching what's already too little too late. Almost all fossil-based material that made it to the surfa…

Do not forget market forces: there would be a strong incentive to improve upon the CO2 scrubbing technology, which can then be used in the tech to permanently remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Do not forget command economies: there can be even stronger incentives in those.

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

#197

Post by diarrhea »

jerf wrote: post #77
mirekrusin wrote: post #36

We just need long pipe from Earth to Mars to pump out CO2 there. It has to be long in case it gets entangled with the Sun. The best is to fund it from crypto tokens. Winning Elon's XPrize should buy few km of McDonald's straws to kick it off.

For giggles: A 3 square-foot pipe from here to Mars at Mars' closest point of approach would hold about 31.7 million metric tons of CO2 at atmospheric pressure [1], which looks to be about 2 day's worth of US emissions. [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=38.6+million+miles+*+3+feet%...

I had trouble believing that (astronomic scales always seem so much more vast), but it checks out (SI units):

    p = 1e5
    l = 38.6e9 * 1.61
    A = 0.27871
    R_m = 8.3141
    M_CO2 = 12 + 16 * 2
    R = R_m / (M_CO2 / 1000)
    T = 273.15
    V = l * A
    m = p * V / (R * T)
    f"{m:_}"
    '33_558_455_134.769554'

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

#198

Post by epistasis »

indymike wrote: post #174
epistasis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's far more reasonable to use solar than nuclear for this, solar has leapfrogged nuclear now. The carbon capture startup founder of Carbon Engineering talks about how he got this wrong, and how they switched their plans from using nuclear to solar. Here's a talk from two years ago on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYopOt9siLg Note that many disagree with his optimism on the carbon capture side of things, but…

What is a technologist?

I'm using it to mean somebody who studies the technologies in the field. It would include both analysts and those who are actively performing research in industry and academia.

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

#200

Post by marcosdumay »

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.

The amount of carbon in solid form on our planet is enormous.

If we get into a deficit, we just get some rocks and convert them.

Post reply on HN