[HN Gopher] Oxxcu, converting CO2 into fuels, chemicals and plas...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Oxxcu, converting CO2 into fuels, chemicals and plastics
        
       Author : PaulHoule
       Score  : 16 points
       Date   : 2024-01-23 21:04 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.maddyness.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.maddyness.com)
        
       | f_devd wrote:
       | While these technologies definitely seem to have a future, it's
       | important to remember that, in order to create fuel from CO2 it
       | requires _at least_ as much energy as burning fuel creates (at
       | 100% efficiency), so in the long term this is more of a  "way to
       | compress excess energy from the grid for light-weight
       | applications" rather than a replacement for all our current fuel
       | consumption. It seems that they know that as well since they are
       | targeting aviation.
        
         | 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
         | Creating synthetic fuels also seems like the only practical
         | option in the table for seasonal storage. If solar energy is
         | free in summer, even pathetic round trip efficiency could be
         | worthwhile to provide winter reserves.
        
           | schiffern wrote:
           | If you're already making an energy-intensive material
           | _anyway_ , you can avoid the round-trip loss on seasonal
           | storage by just going 'one way.'
           | 
           | https://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/factobattery/
           | 
           | The main "downside" to factobatteries is the same for
           | e-fuels: high capital cost due to low equipment utilization.
        
       | ltbarcly3 wrote:
       | These "turn polution into X" technologies are fraudulent on their
       | face. Carbon is extremely easy and cheap to source. However the
       | cheap plentiful sources are not tightly bound to oxygen and thus
       | requiring a massive energy input to use. Then there is the need
       | for hydrogen as well, which would mean splitting water, which is
       | also energy intensive.
       | 
       | Theres no scenario I can think of where it actually makes sense
       | to use 5000 units of energy to clean up the CO2 generated by the
       | production of 100 units of energy, rather than just turning off
       | the 100 and keeping the 5000 instead. The obvious case would have
       | been offsetting cars, but hybrids and electrics make that absurd
       | as well. This is a scam.
       | 
       | CO2 is fungible. If a plane produces CO2, we should still replace
       | all the coal power plants before we worry about airplanes. Once
       | all the coal and oil and natural gas uses are replaced by
       | renewables there is no need to offset planes anymore as humanity
       | is well below the CO2 production level to avoid warming.
        
         | philipkglass wrote:
         | This process addresses a different problem. It produces
         | aviation fuel that is usable by existing long range aircraft.
         | There is no battery powered alternative to an Airbus A330 or
         | Boeing 777.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-01-23 23:00 UTC)