Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

91–100 of 291 posts

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

#91
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you switch to 100% renewables and then still have CO2 emissions from heating? Is the first statement just about transport?

A plurality of home and commercial heating in the US involves direct burning of fossil fuels. So even if the grid is 100% renewables, you’re talking about spending thousands of dollars per house to replace oil and gas furnaces with heat pumps.

Okay, so 100% renewable grid.

A rapid transition would be hellishly expensive, but new installations can certainly be looking at heat pumps.

I wonder if there is a way to structure penalties/incentives so that home builders and landlords end up installing systems with lower lifetime costs (and lower environmental impact), rather than whatever is cheapest upfront.

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

#92
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. >…

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 carbon taxes/credits. If you can be the low cost producer of a commodity like gasoline or polyethylene, it's possible to grow zero or negative carbon capture very quickly to very large scale. If all transportation fuels, heating fuels, and plastics were from atmospheric CO2 capture, this would be more than 10 GT of CO2 a year, which is hugely significant.

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

#93

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.

I don't think inaction causing extinction is certain. All extinction scenarios involve unproven positive feedback loops like the clathrate gun hypothesis. It seems to me quite likely that billions of humans will survive in the remaining habitable regions, even if the fight for those regions turns into World War 3. Really it's not much worse than the Cold War-era nuclear war scenarios.

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

#94
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…

Note that article is three years old and carbon emissions increased significantly over that time instead of going down as in the middle graphic. (It didn't even stay constant as in the first graphic, which would push the deadline to go to zero emissions to 2021.) So in reality we probably have to go to net zero by 2020.

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

#95
post #68

Likely a lot easier to make gasoline out of: (1) Crude oil. (2) Coal, water, and electric power. (3) Some biological reactions. To address the hidden agenda here, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

Remember when government funded science told us of the dangers of cannabis? They went as far as suffocating research animals with smoke.

Yet today CBD oil is marketed as a cure all.

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

#96
post #87

Hi HN! I'm Rob, founder of Prometheus. Just saw this, catching up now and will try to answer any questions.

"Unburning" CO2 takes energy. Where does your energy come from?

We use zero carbon solar and wind electricity. As long as the electricity source is zero carbon and low cost, it makes economic and practical sense to make zero carbon fuel.

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

#97

Hi HN! I'm Rob, founder of Prometheus. Just saw this, catching up now and will try to answer any questions.

You seem pretty optimistic about the economics of your tech. Is that based on extracting CO2 from air or from more concentrated sources such as power plant flue gas?

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

#98
post #12

Soooooo many questions. Gasoline is a distillate made up of several hydrocarbons -- is he synthesizing all of them, or just octane? What about additives, like anti-knock agents? Plans for diesel? No amount of fancy CNTs gets around thermodynamics. CO2 and H20 are far more stable, thermodynamically, than octane, it's partially why octane is a good fuel. Where does the extra energy come from? What is the efficiency of…

Hi, this is Rob, founder of Prometheus. The conversion of CO2 and water to gasoline is not a super efficient process, likely 50-60% at best in the near term, but that's ok, if the electricity is from a zero carbon source like solar or wind, and the cost of the electricity is low (which these days it is).

The CNT membranes are being made at full commercial scale now by my previous startup, Mattershift. Ready to go!

We've got scientists and engineers from national labs and previous efforts like Project Foghorn at Google. Hope to share some new hires soon.

There was a podcast that was associated with the article, that runs 21 minutes and goes into more details: https://megaphone.link/BLM3585271197

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

#99
post #68

Likely a lot easier to make gasoline out of: (1) Crude oil. (2) Coal, water, and electric power. (3) Some biological reactions. To address the hidden agenda here, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

Hi Graycat, it actually may be easier to make fuel by mining air. We used to make fertilizer by mining guano and collecting animal droppings, but once Haber and Bosch figured out how to make ammonia from atmospheric N2, it just make more economic and practical sense. It's hard to mine oil, transport it, refine it, etc. Compare that to making it where and when you need it with no waste. I think it will be better.

Air is awash in N2 but has darned little carbon, e.g., parts per million for CO2 and that has the O2 and not just the C and each O weighs 16 or so and each C about 12. There ain't much C in air.

There's so little C in air that it's astounding that some plants can get the C they need to grow just from air.

For C, we have much better sources than air. And if want C from air, then go to, say, any electric power plant burning fossil fuels, any plant making cement (heat calcium carbonate and let the CO2 escape), etc.

We know the prices of oil and gasoline, and oil prices are due to fall due to the Arctic, ANWAR, Venezuela coming back on-line, pipelines to make better use of the Alberta tar sands, US offshore drilling, much more in fracking, e.g., what the USGS reported about west TX, etc. more fuel efficient cars, etc.

As expensive as gasoline is, it is still much easier to fill up a 20 gallon tank of gasoline than to get the same energy that fast from electric power. Gasoline just ain't that easy to compete with, fundamentally and from existing well engineered infrastructure.

In a car, super tough to compete with a 20 gallon take of gasoline. Yes, it takes an internal combustion engine to use the gasoline to turn the wheels, but we're really good at making those -- 300,000 miles with minimal maintenance. Typically the body, fuel lines, brake lines, gas tank, radiator, parts of the frame, even the oil pan are rusted out before the engine wears out. We're GOOD at making the engines. Yes a battery in every way as good as a 20 gallon tank of gasoline would be terrific because the motor is much simpler and don't need a transmission, but batteries are a long way from such a tank of gas. And, again, as shocking as it is, now the piston engines are really good.

If we really care about the waste from the oil patch, then demote Jane Fonda from our de facto Secretary of Energy at large and get back to good nuclear fission power and also breeding, fissionable elements other than uranium and plutonium, really safe reactor designs, etc. Then make gasoline like South Africa and Hitler did -- start with coal and add water and electric energy. Besides can use the same nukes to make really good drinking water, maybe cheap enough for a lot of farming, and get down electric bills and permit electric home heating, etc. "too cheap to meter".

If solar power were so cheap, then the US SW would be covered with solar panels, importing water and coal, and filling pipelines with gasoline whenever the sun was shining. Same for lots of places with lots of sun. But they aren't -- net, solar power is not as cheap as it is cracked up to be.

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

#100
post #75
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be ironic. We would gradually go from coal and (natural gas) powered electric cars, to nuclear powered ICE cars.

I think the point is that we 1. Keep making more electric cars 2. Rather than throwing away ICE cars, we give them better fuel to use.

Agreed!
Post reply on HN