Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe with this fuel, we could ditch the problematic garbage on the cars and trucks, get our power, fuel economy and reliability back, and still appease the fools who believe in the "climate change" myth.
Maybe with this fuel, we could ditch the problematic garbage on the cars and trucks, get our power, fuel economy and reliability back, and still appease the fools who believe in the "climate change" myth.
Or appease the fools that believe that Audi invented something here. The Fischer–Tropsch process of synthesizing diesel wasn't invented by Audi and isn't anything new. The lack of knowledge here is astonishing. Another post by someone who is uneducated on the topic and doesn't do even the most basic research before subscribing to an idea.
The feedstock for this process is usually coal. Currently you can do it for the equivalent of about $50 a barrel oil. There is no private investment for the same reason the oil fracking industry is now facing with OPEC dumping product on the market, it's a risky investment.
They are using the carbon in the air for this process, this can't possibly be feasible using "air" because of the small concentrations of carbon however if you used flue gases from a power plant you might be onto something.
One other thing, this process requires energy and lot of heat. When they are using coal that is the source.
Quote:
First of all, carbon dioxide are extracted with the air-capturing technology. Then, water content will be separated to hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis. Both of molecules will processed in reactive process with a high pressure and temperature to turn it into Blue Crude, a rich hydrocarbon liquid.
There is little bit more involved here than water and "air" because the energy for that has to come from somewhere;coal, natural gas etc. As if often the case with these types of claims, never mind the giant power cord attached to the machine.
While these processes can help provide a resource we need it will never be as efficient as directly using the source. e.g converting coal to liquid fuels will never be as efficient as just directly utilizing the coal as your energy source.
Maybe with this fuel, we could ditch the problematic garbage on the cars and trucks, get our power, fuel economy and reliability back, and still appease the fools who believe in the "climate change" myth.
My bet is that electrolyzing the water and processing the carbon into this fuel will require more energy than the final product will yield. Probably fairly clean burning, but the pollution caused by all the electrical power used to produce this "blue crude" will negate the low pollution from burning it in autos.
BTW, climate change isn't a belief.
Fools believe it's phony.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
