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

91–100 of 191 posts

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#91

Post by ncmncm »

db65edfc7996 wrote: post #30
johngalt wrote: post #3

Prometheus should be laser focused on being first to market in commercial quantities. There are people who want carbon neutral fuels today even if they are more expensive than fossil fuels. Capture that entire market with v1 of the process even if it's $10/gallon. Take everything learned to make v2 at $7/gallon and v3 at $5/gallon etc... The goal of $3/gallon is pushing Prometheus down the rabbit hole. Waiting for th…

One thing that is unclear to me - are there items that need to be replaced/regenerated? The article says the costs are mostly capital. If true, on a long enough timeline, are you not just looking at entirely operational costs (sourcing water + electricity)?

The chemical reagents are not consumed in operation, but they could be subject to contamination over time, and need to be replaced periodically.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#92

Post by ncmncm »

elil17 wrote: post #49
fswd wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The theranos vibes you're feeling I believe is from a "flaw" they make an assumption solar is 1 or 2 cents a kilowatt-hour. This isn't true (maybe with subsidies IDK) but it costs more to ship solar panels, and the wiring, fuses, breaker box, charge controller, adds a huge significant cost. You can't just take a panel cost and divide it by the watts without this in consideration. And the land cost. And unless you liv…

The U.S. "Sunshot" program sets USD$0.03/kWh as the target levelized cost for 2030 utility solar. At the moment that number is USD$0.06/kWh. If they used power only at production peaks and colocated with generation (saving ~10% line losses), $0.02/kWh seems in the realm of the possible. As to lack of resources to build enough solar capacity, concentrator plants make that a non-issue.

Concentrator plants cost much more -- i.e., 3x -- than PV. They can still be useful for producing process heat instead of electric power.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#93

Post by ncmncm »

ur-whale wrote: post #87

Unless I missed it, there is no mention of the environmental cost of the process itself. What I mean by that is all the chemistry / electrolysis / carbon nanotube stuff, they do mention that this is where the main cost is, but what happens when that equipment needs to be replaced? What is the environmental impact of the equipment itself?

Catalysts? Made of valuable, thus recyclable materials.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#94

Post by ncmncm »

Manuel_D wrote: post #90
10u152 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s capturing co2 that would otherwise go into the atmosphere…does it matter ?

Yes, because Prometheus fuels is trying to extract from atmosphere. Scavenging industrial CO2 byproduct is something you can only do opportunistically.

There are plenty of opportunities. Those will be taken up first.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#95

Post by Manuel_D »

ncmncm wrote: post #74
thereisnospork wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>many synthetic fuel companies that are blocked on the problem of carbon capture No one is 'blocked' by carbon capture. There is ample 'low hanging fruit' CO2 emissions from e.g. breweries that are clean and don't require significant separation or cleanup. Also most if not all commercially sold CO2[0] for sale is a byproduct of other industrial processes[1], so its utilization in a synfuel would be carbon-neutral. Ev…

Current capture is $600/ton. They point out they don't need to perform the expensive part of that.

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.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#96

Post by ncmncm »

simulate-me wrote: post #81
10u152 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s capturing co2 that would otherwise go into the atmosphere…does it matter ?

It makes the burning of fossil fuels more efficient, e.g. you can X tons of coal to produce Y MW of power and get Z additional gallons of gas. But it's really a stretch to call this carbon neutral.

There are other processes that produce CO2. E.g., cement manufacture.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#97

Post by ncmncm »

Manuel_D wrote: post #95
ncmncm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current capture is $600/ton. They point out they don't need to perform the expensive part of that.

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.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#98

Post by universa1 »

ncmncm wrote: post #63
toast0 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burried in the long post (as copied in the thread), it sounds like they are starting to move something to production, which they say will enable enough fuel to do demos and what not. Depending on what exactly that means when it happens, maybe they can start selling $10/gallon gasoline somewhere. If it's a turnkey fuel production device, I'm sure there's a market for hook up electricity in remote location and get a ta…

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)

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#99

Post by adultSwim »

gnulinux wrote: post #7
adultSwim wrote: post #4

Can someone explain how this is carbon neutral? It sounds like it produces regular gas, but using electricity instead of extracting petroleum. Wouldn't burning the gas produced still be a problem?

They catch CO2 from air. They make fuel only from this and electricity. Then once someone burns the fuel, it produces the same or less CO2.

Thanks. I understood the pieces of getting CO2 from air, getting electricity from solar/wind, using those plus water to somehow make fuel (magic?); but didn't connect the dots on it all being the same carbon throughout the process.

They're going to really need to knock people over the head with the part that what goes out is only what goes in, and also why that's better than extracting oil from the ground.

Re: Dude, where's my fuel?

#100

Post by ncmncm »

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 kerosene's, but usually tolerably so. It is unlikely to find use in cars.

Anyplace where LH2 aircraft operate, kerosene-powered airframes will be simply unable to compete. It is not clear that existing airframes can be retrofitted, and build-out of LH2 craft may take a long time. By 2040, if civilization has not collapsed yet, probably the majority will be LH2, and old kerosene airframes will be on marginal routes.

Synthetic hydrocarbon fuel will have strong demand for at least a decade or two, maybe longer depending on many factors including various costs, taxes, and regulations.

Post reply on HN