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

61–70 of 213 posts

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

#61

Post by dotancohen »

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 Sabatier reaction is very energy intensive. It is pretty much the basis of Musk's demonstrations of cities on Mars, powered by lots of solar power. It has other advantages for human colonization as well, such as producing oxygen as a byproduct.

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

#62

Post by markkanof »

jl6 wrote: post #54
wibagusto wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be clear, the solution to climate change is first to stop burning fossil fuels, and then to start removing carbon from the atmosphere. This technology won’t help long term removal of carbon if we just burn the resulting fuel, but it might help displace fossils as a source for some applications that would otherwise be at the very end of the fossil ramp-down.

With this technology, assuming it can capture large amounts of carbon, couldn't some of it be converted to fuel for current use and some of it sequestered. It would certainly take longer to significantly reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but should still do the job. Instead of introducing new CO2 into the atmosphere by burning newly extracted oil, we would be sequestering some and "recycling" some.

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

#63

Post by dotancohen »

jl6 wrote: post #54
wibagusto wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be clear, the solution to climate change is first to stop burning fossil fuels, and then to start removing carbon from the atmosphere. This technology won’t help long term removal of carbon if we just burn the resulting fuel, but it might help displace fossils as a source for some applications that would otherwise be at the very end of the fossil ramp-down.

There still must be some input of energy. From what I understand, the Sabatier reaction is really only viable from an environmental perspective if it is powered by some other non-carbon energy, such as solar or wind.

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

#64

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#65

Post by mrguyorama »

colordrops wrote: post #20
yholio wrote: post #15

No, enough with this nonsense. Capturing, liquefying and transforming CO2 into fuel requires energy - due to thermodynamic limits, much more energy than what the fuel can give back. You then take that fuel, and... burn it into 25% efficient engines that spew the very same CO2 back into the air, along with some new carcinogenic fumes and acid-rain inducing nitrogen oxides? No, just no, full stop. They way forward is e…

Agreed that the future is electrification, but it will take trillions of dollars and a lot of time to replace all internal combustion engines. What should we do in the meantime? It seems that using renewable energy to make carbon neutral fuels for these vehicles makes a lot of sense. What is "nonsense" about this?

It would take more time, energy, money, and resources to build out enough solar and wind (etc) to turn enough CO2 into enough fuel for all our cars than it takes to just replace the cars with electric ones and use that massive solar and wind grid to just power them straight

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

#66

Post by throwaway894345 »

dang wrote: post #30
throwaway894345 wrote: post #2

The actual title is "UC reactor makes Martian fuel" and the subtitle is "A gas station on Mars? Engineers envision the possibilities." But the submission title is "UC reactor converts carbon dioxide to fuel to address climate change"? While it does talk about applications with respect to carbon capture, if we consume the fuel byproduct, presumably we just end up with co2 in the atmosphere? > “In the future we’ll deve…

There's more than one actual title. The submitter used the HTML doc title, which is a legit choice, and they probably picked it on the grounds that it was more substantive/less baity. Since the climate change mention has turned out to be baity in its own right, I took that bit out above.

Huh, makes sense. I didn't realize there could be more than one title. Thanks for the clarification.

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

#68

Post by xondono »

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.

Don’t give Musk more ridiculous ideas, he might just get them funded!

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

#69

Post by s1artibartfast »

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…

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

I feel like this is the crux of your problem. People and governments have multiple priorities to balance

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

#70

Post by spiorf »

trevcanhuman wrote: post #59
btilly wrote: post #18

This isn't the only team trying this. See https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/making-methane-m... for another team working on the same thing for the same purpose. It is worthy of note that the process that is described is exactly the one that Elon Musk was already planning to use on Mars. This is exactly why finding water on Mars is critical to his plans, and is also why Starship is designed to run on methane…

Ironically, both are UC. I even though at the beginning that OP's article was from the University of California. Pretty big coincidence. > It is also worth pointing out that producing methane here on Earth for use around Earth is not particularly helpful. Methane is hard to store and is a better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Couldn't we run the methane through one of those electric generators used in farming fo…

> Couldn't we run the methane through one of those electric generators used in farming for cows' feces ?

You get back the co2 and the energy you expended to make methane in the first place.

Post reply on HN