[HN Gopher] The Air Force has a plan to make jet fuel out of air ___________________________________________________________________ The Air Force has a plan to make jet fuel out of air Author : nradov Score : 73 points Date : 2021-10-23 14:29 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.thedrive.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.thedrive.com) | candiodari wrote: | This sort of research always runs stuck on the concentration of | CO2 required to operate it effenciently. Even the climate-change | tripled CO2 content of the atmosphere is only 0.04 percent. If | you can get even 0.5% CO2 gas it is possible to hit 10% | efficiency with very old processes, but that's just not possible | to do without a lot of energy. Efficiently isolating it either | takes months or uses way too much energy. | | Now of course in warfare conditions "way too much energy" may not | such a big problem. Price may also not be much of a problem. | Militaries have done it in the past. | hagbard_c wrote: | Stick one of those factories on the tailpipe of a coal-fired | powerplant to raise the incoming CO2-concentration for a double | win: you get to use coal (and, hence, gain votes in coal | states) while producing JP6 (or something similar) without | adding any CO2 to the environment. | pjc50 wrote: | You can just Fisher-Troph coal directly to aviation fuel. | Nazi Germany was forced to do this and the Allies kept | bombing the plants. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuna_works | | "A total of 6,552 (!!) bomber sorties over 20 US Eighth Air | Force and 2 RAF attacks dropped 18,328 tons (!!) of bombs on | Leuna ... Leuna bombing from May 12, 1944 to April 5, 1945 | cost the Eighth Air Force 1,280 airmen (!!)" | hagbard_c wrote: | Sure you can, but that means you're using additional coal | just for the purpose of making jet fuel, adding additional | CO2 to the balance. By using CO2 from existing coal power | plants you'll be CO2-neutral for the jet fuel. After all, | if the point is to get fossil jet fuel it is even easier to | use crude oil, of which there is plenty to go around. The | Germans used the FT-process to get around the fact that | they had coal of different types but only little oil, not | because it is the easiest way to produce liquid | hydrocarbons. | kfprt wrote: | The correct price comparison is the cost of getting fuel to | some remote FOB in Afghanistan which is extremely high. | wffurr wrote: | How do you generate enough electricity at said remote FOB to | create a useful amount of fuel? Forward-deployed nuclear | reactors would do the job, but would also be enormously | expensive and vulnerable. | kfprt wrote: | Solar? It doesn't matter really since the technology is too | far out. | wffurr wrote: | Fischer Tropsch synthesis is ancient tech. It's not far | out at all. | | Perhaps making it portable with a convenient, also | portable, energy source is? | p_l wrote: | US Navy AFAIK considers using nuclear power on carriers to | ignore the high energy requirements, and it's a net win for | them as it reduces UNREP needs for aviation fuel. | jagger27 wrote: | The two reactors of a Gerald R. Ford super carrier can output | more than a gigawatt of power together. Seems like plenty to | me. | spockz wrote: | What is the effect on the nu nuclear fuel and in the | maintenance windows? I don't know enough about nuclear | power plants. But it seems to me they degrade faster under | full load. Or is this not the case? | jagger27 wrote: | Yes, I think the fuel would be spent faster. No clue | about maintenance windows (I am a layperson on this | topic). | photochemsyn wrote: | I think with membrane separation you can get staged | concentration, like they do with say, isotopic separation of | heavy water (H2O vs D2O). With a 10-fold increase at each stage | (400ppm -> 4000ppm -> 40,000ppm -> -> pure CO2) you end up with | a pure CO2 stream (which is typically what you want for | efficient high-pressure, high-temperature industrial | chemistry). | | The real question is what kind of scale is needed to generate | fuel at the levels desired - powering the concentrators, the | water electrolyzers, the actual process (high pressure high | temperature F-T synthesis). Ten square kilometers of solar | panels and wind turbines for one oil tanker's worth per month? | | Of course, if the world had exhausted its fossil fuel reserves | by say 1970 we'd already be doing this at scale. | photochemsyn wrote: | It looks like a modified Fischer-Tropsch, so they're likely | concentrating CO2, blowing off one O to make pure carbon | monoxide, and then adding hydrogen gas (from water) under | pressure over a catalyst to generate long-chain hydrocarbons. | | Now, what would be nice to see as a proof-of-concept is an entire | oil tanker's worth of jet fuel made by this process. How far off | is that? | barney54 wrote: | The problem isn't the proof of concept, it's reducing the | energy penalty. It takes a lot of energy to reverse combustion. | adrian_b wrote: | The Germans used this process during WW2 to cover a part of | their fuel needs. That is enough of a "proof of concept". | | So there is no doubt that it works. It was abandoned after the | war only because it was more expensive than extracted | petroleum. | | Almost a century later after its invention, it should be | possible to have better efficiencies than in the past. | philipkglass wrote: | Sasol of South Africa has made liquid fuels via the Fischer- | Tropsch process for decades. The synthesis gas comes from | coal or natural gas. Clean synthesis gas from water, CO2, and | clean electricity should be a drop-in replacement for fossil | derived syngas. But it's relatively expensive to make liquid | fuels this way even when starting with cheap coal. I only | expect synfuels to be used for performance critical | applications and niches like keeping collectible classic cars | running. | dredmorbius wrote: | Since the 1950s. | | https://www.sasol.com/media-centre/media-releases/sasol- | prod... | bobthepanda wrote: | Yup. | | For the Air Force, their particular need is to avoid | billions of dollars in contractor expense for reliably | supplying fuel to remote bases in hostile territory. | kwere wrote: | shouldnt itself manage fuel logistic or it is contracted | away? | pstrateman wrote: | regardless of who is doing the logistics it's expensive. | | synthesizing fuel also means nuclear powered aircraft | carriers would be vastly more self sufficient | spockz wrote: | I read elsewhere on hacker news that the us military runs | through 20 million barrels of fuel _per day_. I can | imagine there is a great desire to be less dependent on | suppliers both in terms of quantity _and_ logistics. | Imagine a nuclear powered aircraft carrier being able to | generate fuel for its planes and support ships. | njarboe wrote: | Since world production of oil is currently about 75 | millions of barrels per day (mbpd)[1], this 20 mbpd | figure is certainly wrong. Probably someone wanted to | make the figure seem higher than it was and used gallons | instead of the standard barrels unit. Even then, 1/2 | million barrels of fuel per day would seem high to me | when the US is not in an active shooting war. | | 20 million barrels of oil would be worth about $1.6 | billion dollars. So the military would be spending about | $580 billion a year on fuel. Or 3/4th its budget. | | [1] | https://ycharts.com/indicator/world_crude_oil_production | vlovich123 wrote: | You're missing the point. The really large number _feels_ | right. | nradov wrote: | Yes the US Navy has been researching synthesizing | aviation fuel onboard nuclear powered carriers since at | least 2013. The goal is to reduce fleet dependence on | vulnerable tankers. | | https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy-aircraft- | carriers... https://www.autoevolution.com/news/us-navy- | aircraft-carriers... | pm90 wrote: | Amazing. At what point do these carriers become totally | self sufficient. | tastyfreeze wrote: | When they can make food from waste. | Lev1a wrote: | - water filtration/desalination | | - Maybe in the future they could use fusion reactors for | power, synthesizing Deuterium and/or Tritium to enhance | their endurance (maybe indefinitely?) | | - make the carrier (with minimal crew) and the planes | into drones (AFAIK already in research/testing) since | even if the material could be at sea forever the people | could not endure and also many probably wouldn't sign up | for such a job | adolph wrote: | Is what the AF attempting much different from plans to make | methane on Mars? | | https://www.space.com/future-astronauts-methane-rocket-fuel-... | dredmorbius wrote: | The Mars process is the Sabatier process, rather than | Fischer-Tropsh, and reuslts in methane (and water) rather | than heavier alkanes (petroleum-analogue hydrocarbons). | | (Corrected from earlier misstatement of methanol production, | thanks to philipkglass.) | philipkglass wrote: | The Sabatier process yields methane, the lightest member of | the alkane series. Methane also has the best gravimetric | energy density of the alkanes. But for ease of handling, | heavier alkanes that liquefy at above-cryogenic | temperatures are better. | dredmorbius wrote: | Thanks, corrected. | pjc50 wrote: | This has been around for a while in various forms: | https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/fuel-seawater-what... | (2014) | | I wonder how close it is to "production" status and whether | that's public information. | | (I would also note that if the elaborate plans Musk has for Mars | are ever to come to fruition, there has to be a CO2-to-fuel | technology deployable there ...) | systemvoltage wrote: | Interesting. I kind of err on skepticism based on previous | attempts ala "Electric cars were tried in 60's, it will never | work". It is worth trying and retrying old attempts at a | problem, since a lot of underlying technologies, economics and | affordability change rapidly. There is probably a whole host of | old attempts that might be worth revisiting today in a startup | context. | | Apparently, Twelve is a new spinoff/rebranding from Opus-12 | here in Berkeley which I had heard of, opus-12.com URL now | points to Twelve.com, but certain pages are still accessible: | https://opus-12.com/press | qayxc wrote: | > I kind of err on skepticism based on previous attempts | | There's a very powerful yet simple tool that helps with that: | just ask yourself "what has changed?". | | In your electric vehicle example it was battery technology | that made all the difference. | | The Fischer-Tropsch process hasn't changed in the past 100 | years and neither has the underlying physics and chemistry or | its efficiency (edit: efficiency improved with new catalysts | and technology, but not as dramatically as with batteries). | | The reason synthetic fuels didn't take off is that they're | more expensive to produce than crude oil can be extracted and | refined. | | This is still true today, but the AF has a different problem | statement than the economy of fuel production - it's the | economy of fuel _logistics_ - a subtle, yet important | difference. | | As long as Twelve's concept relies on syngas from water, it | won't be any better in terms of that, though (if the area of | operations includes deserts and dry land). | | Otherwise there's no fundamentally new technology or | breakthroughs required here. It's just a matter of finding | creative ways to get the required hydrogen, really (in terms | of improved fuel logistics, not necessarily cost vs fossil | fuels). | lordnacho wrote: | What does the energy balance for this process look like? I don't | know anything about it, but I would guess that it takes some | energy to pull the CO2 out of the air and turn it into fuel. | That's gotta come from somewhere? How does it become carbon | neutral? | philipkglass wrote: | I'd guess that 30-40% of the original electrical energy gets | stored as chemical energy. If the electricity originally comes | from nuclear power or renewables, the life cycle carbon | footprint is far lower than for fossil fuel. It's still not | _exactly_ carbon neutral because even nuclear power has a non- | zero CO2 footprint, but it 's tiny compared to the status quo. | | Since many military aircraft are going to need chemical fuels | indefinitely, it makes sense that the Air Force is interested | in electricity-to-fuels. There was an analogous surge in | researching coal-to-liquids in the 1970s after the oil price | shocks. Liquid fuels are going to have at least military demand | for a very long time, and planners are interested in mitigating | supply threats before they become supply emergencies. | mulmen wrote: | So this is less efficient than something like pumped hydro | for energy storage, yeah? But what about the _density_? Or | maybe a better question is how does energy /m^3 storage | compare between pumped hydro and fuel synthesis? Could we do | some kind of closed-loop combustion process where we capture | the exhaust gas then re-synthesize the fuel? Or are the | conversion losses just too great? | barney54 wrote: | The energy balance is significant negative. The point is to | take cheap renewables and renewable hydrogen to make the fuel | so I can be carbon neutral. But basic thermodynamics says it | will always be energy negative. | bobthepanda wrote: | Well, the point is not really to make it carbon neutral, but | rather to reduce the amount of liquid fuel that needs to get | supplied to a base, since tanker trucks and ships are fairly | soft targets. | callesgg wrote: | If you are on a aircraft carrier you have nuclear reactors for | power. | systemvoltage wrote: | My inner voice: "Scale those damn bastards! Build a whole | bunch of these, stack 'em on land and boy you've got yourself | something really special. Nuclear driven CO2 suckers." | | Tell me why this is a bad idea? | colechristensen wrote: | If you wanted to retool a big chunk of the world economy | you could indeed solve the co2 problem by mass producing | nuclear reactors attached to synthetic hydrocarbon plants | that dumped the products in deep mines. | | You would have to spend trillions of dollars though. | systemvoltage wrote: | If we assume the price for a carrier nuclear reactor + | generator would stay the same. Wouldn't the costs come | down simply from basic economies of scale? The costs are | high because we've build a few dozen of these ever. | colechristensen wrote: | building reactors has a lot of up front expense, | operating them is expensive, and you would have to make a | whole lot of them to make a meaningful dent | nradov wrote: | That's not a _bad_ idea necessarily, it 's just not | economical for regular civilian use. Fossil fuels are still | far cheaper than synthetics regardless of the power source. | Aachen wrote: | I'm not sure the Paris agreement optimises for "far | cheaper" but for a maximum temperature increase instead. | The consumer can't be expected to individually take one | for the team (as it is presumably cheaper in the long run | to not deal with a globally failing ecosystem) so through | legislation and incentives we'd transition to clean | energy, not necessarily by making something cheaper. | | Of course, where possible the solution is to just use | batteries, but try telling frequent fliers that they'll | need to take a train in the future. We're going to need | some synthetic fuels where energy density is paramount. | dredmorbius wrote: | Energy is lost in the process. | | _Flexibility_ and _utility_ are gained, in the form of a high- | enegy-density (by both volume and mass) energy store with | excellent storage capabilities, a widely-developed extant | handling and utilisation infrastructure and knowledge, and, | considering the capabilities, extremely positive safety and | interactions properties: hydrocarbon fuels are non-explosive, | non-toxic with incidental exposure, and do not erode metallic | or polymer components of fuel and power systems. | | Net energy loss is at least 40% of input (hydrolysis to produce | hydrogen), as well as the energy cost of carbon capture (this | varies by methods). For seawater-based carbon sourcing, net | synthesis costs of about 50% are what I've seen (see my earlier | long comment on sources and references). | | For _seawater_ extraction: "CO2 extraction from seawater using | bipolar membrane electrodialysis", Matthew D. Eisaman et al is | a 2011 paper discussing CO2 extraction via a "BPMED" (bipolar | membrane electrodialysis) process. It delivers CO2 at 1.52 | kWh/kg, vs. a value of 0.54 kWh/kg cited by Terry, though it's | not clear on first reading if Terry performed actual | experiments or used theoretical values. | | http://talknicer.com/co2extraction.pdf | | My recollection is that atmospheric extraction costs are 1.5-- | 3x higher, though I'm uncertain of that precise figure. | | Recovered energy through Carnot and Rankin-cycle engines is on | the order of 20--40%. The round-trip energy recovery from input | electricity to delivered motive power is about 10--20%. Those | are inherent to the processes and cannot be improved on. | | Note that electric generation itself converts only about 30-- | 40% of input thermal energy (from a nuclear reactor in the US | Navy's scenario). Again, this is an unavoidable energy loss | given the physics of thermal-to-mechanical energy conversion | | Military aircraft and marine vessels can make at best limited | use of direct electrical power given limitations of batteries, | extension cords, and transmission lines, particularly with | regard to energy and power demands. Any fuel, even | throwawaysea wrote: | Since you seem knowledgeable about this process - can it be | miniaturized for personal production? I realize it is a net | loss but storable high density energy is useful for various | applications like off grid use or home generators. For | example, people who need refrigerated insulin but live in | remote areas (where they often get delayed fixes when a | weather event disrupts utilities). | bobthepanda wrote: | And as far as flexibility goes, there are military bases in | hostile territory with fuel demands far exceeding what the | normal supply chain demands even if it were reliable. | dredmorbius wrote: | Land-based synthesis strikes me as more problematic. | There's a lot of gain in offsetting fuel use entirely | (solar and wind generation, both of which see fairly | extensive use). | | For a large established base there might be some benefit. | But there's also the last-mile problem. | | Aircraft are effectively addressing the last-mile fuel | delivery problem directly (by carrying it with them). They | tend not to loiter long over the engagement area. | | Long-mission drones might be an exception to this. If | sufficiently lightweighted and dedicated largely to | surveillance, these could benefit by solar + battery | electric power. Personnel risks would be low, and aircraft | flight dynamics improve as scale is _decreased_ (square- | cube law of lift (square) vs. mass (cube) relation. This is | the inverse of aerostats, which are more efficient at | providing lift with size. | bobthepanda wrote: | Why would there be a last mile problem if you were | directly generating on base for synthesis? | | Solar and wind have the issue of land usage, in that the | large land requirements of renewables mean more land to | secure. That and military bases do not have the luxury of | being conveniently sited next to the best places for such | things. | | It would hardly be the first environmental disaster | happening on a military base. Even as recently as Iraq | and Afghanistan: | https://www.military.com/benefits/veteran-benefits/what- | burn... | dredmorbius wrote: | I'm not talking of last-mile in terms of fuel synthesis | alone, but in terms of _all_ logistics. | | Land-based actions have a last-mile problem in that to | put _and establish_ boots on the ground, they need to | traverse that mile directly, and extend supply lines to | that last mile. | | Tactical aircraft have an effective combat range measured | in hundreds or thousands of miles. Mechanised infantry in | miles or tens of miles. Foot soldiers in yards to miles. | | A Naval task force's operation is at sea, outside the | effective range of virtually any of the opponents the US | has faced in combat since WWII.[1] Aircraft and crew | depart a carrier or other base, conduct a mission, and | return to base, outside the area of engagment. The | logistics chain occurs through what has been for nearly | three quarters of a century non-hostile territory. | | An FOB is right in the stinkin' middle of the mess. It's | within the area of engagement, supply lines move through | hostile territory, are subject to ambush attacks, both by | live opponents and remotely-activated or passively- | triggered IEDs and mines. Total supply requirements are | too great for aerial supply alone. | | That's the last-mile problem. | | At the same time, FOBs and other installations are | subject to enemy attack, and large-scale renewables | deployments and synfuel equipment would be attractive and | viable targets for relatively simple attacks (mortars, | drones, missles), which could easily degrade, disable, or | entirely destroy such equipment. | | I'm unsure of what a major Army or Marine unit's fuel | requirements are, but assuming a 40% conversion | efficiency from sunlight and 8 hours at 200W per m^2 of | PV array, creating 1 barrel of oil per day (42 gallons) | would require on the order of 2,700 m^2 of PV array, or a | square roughly 50 m on a side. A 100m square might | provide 4 barrels/day. | | There might be some land-based operations which could | support this, but I strongly suspect many could not. | | Actual solar performance would also likely be far lower, | likely yielding only 25--50% of the output I'm listing | here (spacing factor, overcast, and other standard | reductions on nameplate capacity), even before accounting | to combat-based degradation. | | ________________________________ | | Notes: | | 1. Five ships were lost to mines during the Korean war, | the USS _Liberty_ was scrapped after it was attacked by | Israeli forces in 1967. The USS _Cole_ was damaged, but | not lost, in a suicide-bombing attack in 2000. Numerous | other vessels have been lost largely through accidents | and occasional sabotage (all by US nationals or service | members). The USS _Pueblo_ was captured intact in 1967. | https://news.usni.org/2012/08/28/notable-us-navy-ships- | lost-... | bobthepanda wrote: | I suppose in the Air Force's mind, even a slight | reduction in delivering fuel via tanker would be a | significant cost savings. Either way, they're operating | from land. | voakbasda wrote: | I expect the military will be the among the first to | deploy portable nuclear generation in containers. Then | this process becomes an obvious win for these bases. | breakyerself wrote: | Since they're already removing co2 from the atmosphere as part | of the process they could divert some of that to get | sequestered underground. The process could be carbon neutral or | carbon negative even. | dredmorbius wrote: | The process described is not new, and has been explored in | various forms for 59 years by institutions including Brookhaven | National Laboratory, M.I.T., the US Naval Research Lab (USNRL), | and Google (Alphabet)'s Project Foghorn, an X-project "moonshot" | which was cancelled on economic considerations. That is the | constant theme for this work, which I'll address after noting | research. | | Prospects are often announced as "new" and "novel", despite | extensive prior science and technology. In numerous cases, this | is true not only of press and news releases, but of articles | themselves ... as if, say, an evolutionary biology paper failed | to credit Darwin and Wallace's original work. Much research has | been by or associated with the US Navy, which has a considerable | fuel-related logistical problem, especially with its aircraft- | carrier-based force-projection capacity and supply-chain | vulnerability. Other military branches have similar concerns, | though have additional challenges with prospects of _in situ_ | fuel synthesis. For all branches, the cost of fuel delivered to | combat and operational theatres is many times, often orders of | magnitude greater, than the domestic "price at the pump". Given | energy and feedstocks, synthesis is absolutely a credible option. | | The chemistry works and is proven. Scale, operations, | maintenance, logistics, and costs appear to remain hurdles. | | I researched this topic fairly extensively in 2014 following | release of a number of papers and articles over earlier USNRL | studies and reports. | | Early history is covered in a history of synthetic fuels roughly | 1944--1960, "The Early Days of Coal Research: Wartime Needs Spur | Interest in Coal-to-Oil Processes": | | http://web.archive.org/web/20120111183405/http://fossil.ener... | | 1962 M. King Hubbert (peak-oil pioneer) mention as an alternative | to petroleum fuel, using limestone and hydrolsis-generated | hydrogen as feedstocks utilising nuclear power to create a non- | carbon-neutral hydrocarbon synfuel: | https://web.archive.org/web/20061030044204/www.hubbertpeak.c... | | Meyer Steinberg at Brookhaven picked up research based on | Hubbert's suggestion: | | Steinberg, M., and Beller, M., "Liquid Fuel Synthesis Using | Nuclear Power in a Mobile Energy Depot System," Transactions of | the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 8, pg 159, June 1965. | | Steinberg, M. et. al., "Methanol as a Fuel in the Urban Energy | Economy and Possible Source of Supply", BNL 17800, Brookhaven | National Laboratory, April 1973. | | Steinberg, M., and Dang, V.D., "Use of Controlled Thermonuclear | Reactor Fusion Power for the Production of Synthetic Methanol | Fuel from Air and Water", BNL 20016, Brookhaven National | Laboratory, April 1975. | | Steinberg, M., "Electrolytic Synthesis of Methanol from C02," | United States Patent #3,959,059, May, 1976. | | Steinberg, M., "Nuclear Power for the Production of Synthetic | Fuels and Feedstocks," 11th International Energy Conversion | Engineering Conference, American Institute of Chemical | Engineering, New York, 1976. | | Steinberg, M., "Combined Coal and Nuclear Plants for Power, Heat, | and Synthetic Fuels," Transactions of the American Nuclear | Society, Vol. 27, November, 1977. | | Steinberg, M, Fillo, J.A., and Powell, J., "Synthetic Fuels and | Fusion," Nuclear Engineering and Design. Vol. 63, No. 2, | February, 1981. | | Several Masters theses at M.I.T. listing Michael J. Driscoll as | advisor also reported on the prospect, with at least three | appearing in 1977, 1992, and 2012. | | Robin Paul Bushore, "Synthetic Fuel Generation Capabilities of | Nuclear Power Plants with Applications to Naval Ship Technology", | 1977 | | https://calhoun.nps.edu/public/bitstream/handle/10945/18307/... | | Kevin B. Terry, "Synthetic Fuels for Naval Applications Produced | Using Shipboard Nuclear Power", 1995 | | https://archive.org/details/syntheticfuelsfo00terr | | John Michael Galle-Bishop, "Nuclear Tanker Producing Liquid Fuels | From Air and Water", 2011 | | http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/76359 | | Terry's thesis includes multiple citations of Meyer Steinberg. | Sadly none of these appear to be generally available online, | though some (and a few other papers) appear in Google Scholar. | I've listed these above. | | US NRL research ran from 2010--2013 (it may have continued though | I've seen no further announcements). Conspicuously, Willauer | cited no research prior to the 1990s IIRC, an exceedingly | misleading practice. | | "The Feasibility and Current Estimated Capital Costs of Producing | Jet Fuel at Sea Using Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen". Heather D. | Willauer, Dennis R. Hardy, Frederick W. Williams. Navy Technology | Center for Safety and Survivability, Chemistry Division. | September 29, 2010. NRL/MRi6180--10-9300 | | https://web.archive.org/web/20131031050117/http://www.dtic.m... | | "Extraction of Carbon Dioxide from Seawater by an Electrochemical | Acidification Cell Part I--Initial Feasibility Studies". Felice | DiMascio, Heather D. Willauer, Dennis R. Hardy, M. Kathleen | Lewis, Frederick W. Williams. Navy Technology Center for Safety | and Survivability, Chemistry Division. July 23, 2010. NRL/MR/6180 | --10-9274 | | https://web.archive.org/web/20201031083322/https://apps.dtic... | | "Extraction of Carbon Dioxide from Seawater by an Electrochemical | Acidification Cell Part II--Laboratory Scaling Studies eather D. | Willauer". Heather D. Willauer, Felice DiMascio, Dennis R. Hardy, | M. Kathleen Lewis, Frederick W. Williams. Navy Technology Center | for Safety and Survivability, Chemistry Division. April 11, 2011. | NRL/MR/6180--11-9329 | | https://web.archive.org/web/20140427044107/http://www.dtic.m... | | "Extraction of Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen from Seawater by an | Electrochemical Acidification Cell Part III: Scaled-up Mobile | Unit Studies (Calendar Year 2011)". Heather D. Willauer, Dennis | R. Hardy, Frederick W. Williams, Felice DiMascio. May 30, 2012. | NRL/MR/6300--12-9414 | | https://web.archive.org/web/20140427044107/http://www.dtic.m... | | "Extraction of Carbon Dioxide and Hydrogen from Seawater by an | Electrochemical Acidification Cell Part IV: Electrode | Compartments of Cell Modified and Tested in Scaled-Up Mobile | Unit". Heather D. Willauer, Dennis R. Hardy, Frederick W. | Williams, Felice DiMascio. September 3, 2013. NRL/MR/6300-- | 13-9463 | | https://web.archive.org/web/20140427001947/http://www.dtic.m... | | These references and some additional discussion are noted here: | | https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28nqoz/electri... | | And I've posted a number of additional items about related | research which can be found through subreddit search: | | https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=fischer-tropsc... | | Project Foghorn is noted here: | https://x.company/projects/foghorn/ | | Again, the chemistry works, the economics do not. However that is | due to a mis-pricing of fossil fuel resources that may well prove | fatal to civilisation. | | The principle problem with synfuel economics is that the process | pays full energy costs _of the actual creation of hydrocarbons_. | By contrast, petroleum and other fossil-fuel _extraction_ | supports present utilisation _at millions of times the rate of | initial formation._ Whilst we often hear of carbon taxes and | similar costs for the _output consequences_ of this activity, | economics is completely silent on the question of _total resource | input costs_ of hydrocarbons, which includes the time factor at a | rate five million times current extraction. If I were to spend | money at five million times my level of income ... I could live | extravagently. For a short time. Geologically, this is precisely | what the current fossil-fuel-powered economy has been doing for | roughly 250 years. That gravy train will run out shortly | (presuming we don 't choke ourselves, or flood ourselves, or | experience other as-yet-undetermined unanticipated consequences | first). | | An excellent analysis of the particulars of fossil fuel formation | inputs (including also the very considerable biomass inputs) is | Jeffrey S. Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine". I cannot recommend | the PDF highly enough, despite its awkwardness on many mobile | devices. There's a short HTML summary as well: | | HTML summary: https://plus.maths.org/content/burning-buried- | sunshine | | Full PDF: https://www- | legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_C... | | (I believe I've checked all URLs and swapped in archive links | where necessary, please comment if any are still missing or are | misdirected.) | nickthemagicman wrote: | Very cool. What are your thoughts on peak oil? | poetaster wrote: | Thank you for your labours, above and below the surface. | dredmorbius wrote: | It has occurred. | | Traditional (nonenhanced) extraction of liquid petroleum | peaked in the early 2010s, largely as forecast. The peak was | delayed a few years possibly due to both economic slowdowns | and efficiency measures (the late 1990s Asian financial | crisis, the post-9/11 crash, the 2007-12 global financial | crisis), though China and India's meteoric growth compensated | in the other direction. | | I'd have to dig into US DOE (EIA) and IEA data and charts, | but enhanced and nontraditional recovery (deepwater drilling, | which presents its own risks, fracking, heavy crudes as from | Venezuela, and tar sands) have held up to demand, but at | extreme cost and with huge impacts on prices and volatility. | The industry itself is highly sensitive to _both_ demand | increases (surging prices and leading to political | instability) and decreases (bankrupting extractors and their | fianciers, and leading to financial instability). It 's a | tightrope walk. Swing producers (low-cost with excess | capacity) such as KSA remain hugely influential globally, | even for markets to which they do not ship directly. A | tankerfull of oil can move across the globe for 1% of the | realised energy capacity of that cargo. Oil markets remain | global due to the commodity's extreme liquidity, in both | physical and financial senses. | bit_logic wrote: | An interesting possible future, as the EROEI of traditional | fossil fuels continues to drop (the cheap easy oil is gone), the | oil price naturally goes up. At the same time, renewables (solar | + wind) massively increases, but there's no cost effective | solution for storing the intermittent excess energy produced. | These two factors (increasing oil price + a way to store excess | renewable energy) combine to make synthetic oil competitive. If a | carbon tax is introduced, that's another third factor that could | help synthetic oil. Would the market favor increasing | electrification or a synthetic oil that works immediately in all | the existing carbon based infrastructure? | snek_case wrote: | Battery powered electric vehicles are much more efficient than | gasoline engines in terms of energy use per mile. With | synthetic oil, you're losing energy both during the synthesis | step and while using it. However, I think for airplanes or long | term energy storage it could still make a lot of sense. | boplicity wrote: | Agreed, in terms of airplanes. For airplanes, one of the most | important considerations is the amount of energy per mass of | fuel. Batteries are not practical, in this sense, as they | weigh too much. It is simply not possible for batteries to | fuel a large plane over long distances. | [deleted] | DeathArrow wrote: | If they are going to use electrolysis to make hidrogen to be used | in Fischer-Tropsch process, wouldn't it be cheaper to develop | some engines which can run on hidrogen? | mcguire wrote: | Isn't the cheapest way to get hydrogen to break down natural | gas? | repiret wrote: | Two reasons: | | * There are dozens of aircraft models in use each of which | would require significant design changes to run on hydrogen. | It's more practical to design one alternate jet fuel source. | | * Hydrogen has worse energy density than jet fuel. Energy | density is especially important for aircraft. | | * hydrogen is a lot harder to handle than than jet fuel. It's | more corrosive, more flammable, needs to be kept under pressure | or at cryogenic temperatures. | colechristensen wrote: | Hydrogen is scary to handle regularly in large quantities and | more expensive to achieve the right energy densities. | | So no it's not cheaper to redesign every engine and piece of | equipment to use hydrogen. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-23 23:00 UTC)