SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Scientists successfully generate gasoline out of thin air
Breakthrough technology takes carbon, hydrogen and oxygen from CO2 and water in the air to create methanol and then converts it into gasoline.
Thu, Oct 25 2012 at 12:46 AM
Related Topics:
Gasoline is the quintessential non-renewable fuel, but British scientists could soon change that. They have developed a way to make gasoline not only renewable, but also carbon neutral. How is that possible? By plucking the fuel out of the air, according to New Scientist.
It sounds like alchemy or magic — an idea about as sensible as growing money on trees. But it's real. Researchers have developed a way to convert air into gasoline. In fact, the concept has been around for decades, ever since the oil crisis of the 1970s.
Here's basically how it works: first scientists collect carbon, hydrogen and oxygen from the CO2 and water that are readily present in the air. These raw materials are all that are needed to generate methanol, and methanol can be converted into gasoline.
It seems so simple that you may wonder why we haven't been getting our gasoline this way all along. Well, that's because there's just one small complication: So far scientists haven't been able to prove that the process generates more energy than it requires. The technique requires electricity for its chemical conversions, and the process cannot be viable until it is demonstrated that the energy needed as input costs less than what is gained as output.
That's where British company Air Fuel Synthesis comes in. The company has taken on the task of demonstrating that the technique works, that it produces a viable fuel, and that it can be made energy-efficient. The first half of the equation has now been settled, as the company has successfully demonstrated the conversion process.
"I take my hat off to Air Fuel Synthesis. They have taken a concept that has been around for 35 years and gotten the process going," said Peter Edwards, an inorganic chemist at the University of Oxford.
The fuel is not only viable; the company believes it will be suitable for high-performance vehicles. But the biggest benefit of the fuel is its sustainability. Since burning the fuel only releases the same carbon dioxide that was already in the air to begin with, it is carbon neutral. (That is, so long as the electricity required to make the necessary chemical conversions is sourced from renewable energy like wind or solar.)
Another potential benefit of the fuel is that it will be price-predictable. Gas prices won't fluctuate because the fuel source will be stable.
Before any of this is possible, however, Air Fuel Synthesis needs to demonstrate the vital second half of the equation: the energy-efficiency of the process. For that, the company will need a bigger plant. They expect to have one up and running by 2015. Given the success of the process so far, the company is optimistic.
"The demonstrator has given us the confidence that this next level of gasoline plant will be efficient enough," said AFS marketing manager Graham Truscott.
You can view a BBC presentation about the technology in the video at top.
Related stories on MNN:
- 10 surprisingly easy sources of alternative energy
- What is methane (and why should you care)?
- 6 surprising sources of methane
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- What a grocery store without bees looks like
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- 7 surprising things Pope Francis has done in his first 100 days
- 9 habits that may do more harm than good
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- Watch: Sir David Attenborough deals with a band of cannibals the British way
- Henry Cavill's 'Man of Steel' workout video
- Food fraud: 10 counterfeit products we commonly consume
- Obesity: It's officially a disease
- Muggle scientists develop Harry Potter 'Marauder's Map' technology
From our sponsor
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
Given enough energy inputs, you can make practically anything our of 'thin air'. This is only important if somehow having $200/gallon gas is something we want.
Why not build a plant in Iceland, as there is more than enough electricity generated from geothermal activity, they have so much power there that there was even talk of supplying Europe, however i do not know what has come of this idea, case in point is also the huge aluminium plant there for the very reason that there is so much renewable electricity available, however this is only an amateur observation, possibly somebody with more knowledge could comment further.
If you have doubts do a google search on Stanley Meyers and his water powered dune buggy. Sort of a similar process releasing Hydrogen and Oxygen from hydrolyzing water. Unfortunately after his TV appearance showing the hydrolyzer in his hand and the dune buggy demonstration, and his making the announcement that within 2 years he would have a hydrolyzer kit on the market at a cost of about $1500, he came up dead. I still think it can be done if the controllers let us.
Stanley Meyers was a fraud. Look in Wikipedia.
It would eventually overflow because the energy FOR THE CONVERSION would be less than the amount of energy IN THE PRODUCT, however the process requires two materials which are not exactly simple to make. Basically we would trade our nee for oil to create gasoline into a need for Methanol and DME but those can both be produced from water and CO2 using renewable resources.
No, the energy required for the conversion would be MORE than the amount fo energy in the product. But it would cost less, hypothetically.
Which is why scientists were initially so excited by the discovery (which fairly quickly led to the first atomic bombs) that smacking the tar out of atoms released a whole lot more energy than the smacking process required. And it was very nearly perpetual energy. As profound as the discovery of making fire - and a lot more devastating for all of us.
It's just energy conversion. There's nothing spooky about it. The question is just whether the energy cost of the conversions is worth what we're getting in return. This is not science fiction.... it's a question of how practical it is, not whether it can be done.
no, it's not "perpetual motion," and it doesn't invalidate the conservation of energy either.
the energy you put in it refers to the cost of creating an environment in which such a fuel can be created. they aren't talking about inputing the potential energy of the newly formed chemical bonds with a syringe.
Someone put these guys in the witness protection program before Big Oil puts a hit out on them and we never see them again.
This is brilliant! Too bad if it ever becomes something standard then some company or government will, more than likely, screw over its customers/citizens.
So what would happen to rain patterns if the water is being plucked out of the air?
Nothing.
In the grand scheme of things, this amount of water is irrelevant. Besides that, the water is just re-released when the fuel is burned. All combustion reactions (with the exception of Magnesium) release water.
Pages