[HN Gopher] Prometheus: Fuel from the Air ___________________________________________________________________ Prometheus: Fuel from the Air Author : swamp40 Score : 61 points Date : 2022-08-16 19:15 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (prometheusfuels.com) (TXT) w3m dump (prometheusfuels.com) | ajsharp wrote: | The visualization of the co2 extraction process is incredible. | Kudos to whoever built this. Incredible. | more_corn wrote: | One of the best websites I've seen in years. Hopefully the tech | measures up. | gizajob wrote: | Fuel from the air, website from the era of Flash. | systemvoltage wrote: | At least it is breaking the design monoculture, i.e. 99% of the | violet iconed tailwinded SaaS cookie cutters with text set at | #CCCCCC that's impossible to read and have zero personality. No | one dares to be different anymore. | mattnewton wrote: | This is also nearly impossible for me to read on my iPhone | 13, I somehow broke the site by scrolling while it was | loading and now it won't let me browse the page. Reloading it | fixes for a bit but it runs like a sick dog. | systemvoltage wrote: | The point is that it is nearly impossible, but in a | different and original way. We're making progress, alright | :-). | sudobash1 wrote: | I am not a fan of the site either, but apparently some people | are: https://www.prometheusfuels.com/news/prometheus-site-of- | the-... | gizajob wrote: | I'd have to go through the whole rigmarole again to read | that. | andwaal wrote: | Love it! Reminds me of a time where every movie, game, band | etc. had amazing creative websites like this, often filled with | custom games, wallpapers and other cool stuff for a ten year | old discovering the World Wide Web for the first time. One | example of this that gets mentioned every time are | https://www.spacejam.com/1996/ | bee_rider wrote: | It was fun but it did make my laptop fan start. | gizajob wrote: | But this doesn't assume ten seconds of my time to load a | headache | throwntoday wrote: | It's completely broken on my iPhone. Can't scroll, can't click | on anything. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Their competitors' website comes from the gopher era. | | https://terraformindustries.com/ | scythmic_waves wrote: | > Why does our website look like this? At TI we believe we | can change the world by displacing fossil hydrocarbon | production at global scale. Like our website, our machines | are simple so we can build millions of them as quickly as | possible. Our website embodies our cultural commitment to | allocating resources where they solve the most important | problems. | kmeisthax wrote: | The website is unusable from an iPad with a Magic Keyboard. It | straight up _ignores_ platform scroll and demands that you use | the touchscreen because they didn 't expect touch devices to | have a scroll wheel. | margalabargala wrote: | It's all part of their plan to be carbon-neutral. | | If they just implemented their technology as designed, they | would be carbon-negative. So they have to cause more carbon to | be released, in order to get to break-even. | | They are crowd-sourcing increasing their carbon footprint via | the power requirements to load their website. | mszmszmsz wrote: | the website crashes on safari on 2020 iphone se - many times | throughout. | swamp40 wrote: | Better explanation of the process: | https://www.prometheusfuels.com/news/dude-wheres-my-fuel | singron wrote: | It's not entirely dishonest, but it's a huge caveat that their | process has 2 parts with an intermediate, so comparing just one | part to other processes doesn't make sense. E.g. in one | section, they mention that DAC to CO2 is targeted at $100/ton, | but their process is only $36/ton. However, that's only the | first half of the process. If you calculate for the whole | process and assume they can produce a standard gallon of gas | for $3 and 8.9 Kg CO2/gallon: ($3/gallon) / | (8.9 Kg/gallon) * (907 Kg/ton) = $306/ton | | I.e. their goal is 3x more expensive at capturing CO2 than DAC. | If you want to sequester carbon (e.g. by filling a cavern with | this fuel), this is not the technique to use. The only reason | to pursue this is to use zero carbon electricity to produce | nearly net-zero carbon fuel. | u320 wrote: | > The only reason to pursue this is to use zero carbon | electricity to produce nearly net-zero carbon fuel. | | That's the only thing they market it as | bit_logic wrote: | They're focusing on transportation fuel (cars and airplanes), but | another area of great potential is power generation. The current | trend is to build solar/wind and replace coal with natural gas | plants as a stop-gap until some grid-scale energy storage is | ready. Everyone assumes that energy storage will be batteries. | | But what if the natural gas plants don't have to be a stop gap? | Just keep building more and more solar/wind, as much as the land | can handle (imagine most of the desert in California converted to | solar). Who cares if generation greatly exceeds daily demand. Use | all the excess solar/wind to create fuel for the natural gas | plants. There's already a vast infrastructure and experienced | workforce to do this. Use the fuel during the evening and put any | excess fuel into storage, there's so much existing ways to store | fuel. Then use that during winter when solar generation | decreases. | | We need to stop thinking carbon fuel = fossil fuel and so carbon | fuel = bad. Carbon fuel is simply a form of energy storage, a | kind of "battery". | ReadTheLicense wrote: | Yes! The same way, using CNG or bio-diesel (for example wood or | algae-derived) in plug-in hybrid vehicles with smaller | batteries (50 km) would be much more ecological than large | battery vehicles. | marcinzm wrote: | Would they be more efficient? Burning gas is horribly | inefficient and has engines have weight as well. | ReadTheLicense wrote: | The conversion might not be as efficient but all cars | having a 350km battery for the rare occasion when they | leave the city 2-3 times a month seems like a bigger waste. | They would normally use the 50km battery and the lesser | efficiency would kick in only during long distance trips. | Modern range extenders can be pretty lightweight... It | could even be modular/take-out in your frunk. | galaxyLogic wrote: | > imagine most of the desert in California converted to solar | | I would start making a regulation that says all parking-lots | MUST have a light-weight roof on top of them on top of which | are solar panels. | | Imagine all (outside) parking lots having solar-panel covered | roofs. | | This would be easy to enforce in regulatory terms, which | regulating all of deserts is not. You want to have a parking | lot? You must have solar panels as well. And it could double as | a charging station. | MichaelCollins wrote: | I think you'd crush any brick-and-mortar business smaller | than Walmart like that. | MH15 wrote: | They've got smaller parking lots. | nagisa wrote: | My intuition would be that it is overall cheaper in the long | run to produce green hydrogen and build new or adapt existing | plants so that they can consume hydrogen. Just a few percentage | points in efficiency of the fuel generation would entirely | negate any capital cost savings of reusing the old plants. | dvirsky wrote: | > Use all the excess solar/wind to create fuel for the natural | gas plants | | I don't know what the efficiency of the process described in | TFA, but from Wikipedia I see that | Electricity->Gas->Electricity has an efficiency of 30-40%. | There are other alternatives like pumped hydro stations that | are way more efficient. | thrown_22 wrote: | > Just keep building more and more solar/wind, as much as the | land can handle (imagine most of the desert in California | converted to solar). | | This is called a dystopia. | immmmmm wrote: | I wish that the 3 law of thermodynamics laws were more commonly | taught... because here you are battling the 2nd and the 1st. | | A calculation by Jean Marc Jancovici showed that for a small | airport (GVA in this case) you'd need half a dozen nuclear | reactors just to produce the fuel for departing flights. That's | obviously assuming this kind of technology is functioning and has | 100% yield. | | I'm not saying that these technologies are not to be pursued, but | thinking that we (the rich) can keep flying as much as now due to | a miracle technology is unsupported by Science, to say the least. | | ps: i did 2 postdocs in material science trying to improve | various industrial/energy technologies. there's no miracle. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Or as their competitor puts it, we're going to need a lot of | solar panels. | | https://terraformindustries.wordpress.com/2022/07/24/were-go... | immmmmm wrote: | a few dozen of km2 according to my napkin calculation. for | one minuscule airport. | vagabund wrote: | The proliferation of solar farms is well underway and not | abating with or without e-fuels, this just gives greater | optionality to the energy they output and helps with | intermittency. The land-use footprint of their tech as such | is 100,000 gallons of car fuel per year per 'forge', each | of which fits on a flatbed truck, plus a slated 5 | manufacturing facilities to make the forges. That doesn't | seem too bad. | | On the land-use of the solar panels themselves, I wonder if | at some point in the future it might be possible to beam a | directed laser to earth from space-based solar arrays, so | the earth-based footprint is reduced. | steve76 wrote: | kaibee wrote: | Solar is cheaper than nuclear and still getting cheaper, so | looking at what you'd need in terms of nuclear reactors is | likely to be misleading. | defterGoose wrote: | I don't even want to think about how much surface area you'd | need for solar panels intended to replace 6 megawatt-scale | nuclear reactors, but I'm guessing football fields is the | wrong unit to use... | | Last time I checked, land wasn't cheap and they weren't | making any more of it. | immmmmm wrote: | yeah and there's crop failure coming decades in advance | compared to IPCC's predictions, so better not using crop | space. | usrusr wrote: | Regarding land use, just yesterday I was pondering about | what technology it would take to create survivable off | shore solar. Some loose grid of floating collectors happily | bouncing on the waves like a flock of resting seabirds, | perhaps cleverly reeling in and out link and anchor lines | to match the geometry of the waves? Or _just_ the right | amount of springyness, dynamically tuned to the wave | situation? | | Then it occurred to me that even nature hasn't really | solved ocean surface plants, what could be a more clear | indicator that it's a really hard problem... | Kon5ole wrote: | The correct unit to use is parking lots. If you base this | unit on the current area used for parking in the USA, you | can even use centi-parkinglots ;-) | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | Land isn't cheap, but there's a lot of land that can have a | solar panel on top of it without causing problems. A good | place to start is every building roof. | incrudible wrote: | > I don't even want to think about... | | I'd call that an argument from laziness. | | > Last time I checked, land wasn't cheap and they weren't | making any more of it. | | Land that is remote, not fertile and that doesn't harbor | any natural resources is actually rather cheap. Moreover, | "they" _are_ making more land in certain coastal areas | where land is expensive. | nine_k wrote: | What area would it take to produce several GW that a few | reactors would produce? | | In clear weather, a surface perpendicular to the sunlight | gets about 1 kW / m2. So 1 GW would take a square kilometer. | If our solar cells are top-notch 25% efficient cells, 1 GW | will take 4 km2 at best weather. And we need many multiples | of that. | | Verily, Sahara must be the best place for such an oil | factory. Maybe some of the US Midwest and West, with many | sunny days. And, unlike the cute pictures on the side, they | will need to be massive, all the way to the horizon. | | Maybe with a few nuclear plants thrown in if we learn to | build them efficiently again. | immmmmm wrote: | let's assume we can scale renewables+nuclear fast enough so | that our civilisation is not damaged too much by climate | change. | | let's also assume we stabilised biodiversity and avoided a | mass extinction. | | should we continue to produce massive amounts of energy so | that some can commute by plane daily and others can stream | cute kitten video in 8k? | usrusr wrote: | If all that were true, I'd say definitely, we earned it. | Make it a 80k kitten! | nine_k wrote: | If we can continue producing them in a renewable or at | least sustainable way, why not? | | If the only way to keep that up is burning oil, then no. | | Please also note that some of the most intense producers | of CO2 are poor(er) countries which burn coal because | it's cheap. Even natural gas can be too expensive for | them, let alone solar or wind installations. | | I wonder when the West would consider buying and | converting such plants. It's likely feasible in Africa, | hardly so in China. | rootusrootus wrote: | > What area would it take to produce several GW that a few | reactors would produce? | | Out of curiosity, I tried some napkin math on this. If | Nevada went whole hog, used say, 1% of their total land for | solar, they could produce almost half the electrical needs | of the US, if I haven't mucked up the math too much. | | Sounds plausible, but 1% of Nevada's land for solar would | indeed be 'all the way to the horizon' in many places. | dools wrote: | I don't think the goal is to keep flying as much, but to be | able to fly at all. | | Also electrifying entire trucking and car fleets will take | decades. | | This provides a means of producing an incredibly densely stored | source of energy from abundant inputs, that is the same price | as oil. | | It can solve for the problem of net zero production and | transportation of equipment used in renewable energy | production, for example, using present day transportation | technology. | | There are no silver bullets, but all of these innovations add | together in order to create a combined solution to the worlds | energy problems. | janef0421 wrote: | Why is commercial aviation as a form of transport a useful | goal? There are alternatives that have realistic energy | efficiencies and use available technologies, like rail and | nuclear shipping. | immmmmm wrote: | yes! rail is amazing in term of efficiency, a common high | speed train has around a credit card worth of contact area | with the rail for the whole train! it's also quite relaxing | and socially interesting. | | the problem is that rail is "boring" and rarely get | sufficient funding. | immmmmm wrote: | > There are no silver bullets, but all of these innovations | add together in order to create a combined solution to the | worlds energy problems. | | i worked all my professional carrer in science and | innovation, if you have a reference for that statement i'd be | glad you share it. maybe i missed something. | drpyser22 wrote: | Do you mean that there is a silver bullet,or that | innovations don't add together to provide solutions? | immmmmm wrote: | there's none. and (unfortunately for me) the best | solutions often involve less technology rather than more. | bartimus wrote: | I think the goal should be to be able to fly as much and | more. | paul wrote: | Show your math. Unless those nukes are very small, your claim | seems way off. | Sevii wrote: | Would be amazing if we could cover baseload power with | nuclear/hydro and then use zero marginal grid cost solar for fuel | synthesis. | schainks wrote: | I do like where this is going! Grid demand fluctuates during | the day by quite a bit. You have to have "peaker" generation | above base load to efficiently utilize your grid and respond to | dynamic conditions (especially things like equipment failures). | | Heavy investment in nuclear could create a grid with such cheap | energy we can use all the excess capacity for fuel synthesis | along with renewables. | beautifulfreak wrote: | The founder announced the launch of Prometheus (May 2019) on HN: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19842240 | lallysingh wrote: | FTA: The most important cost after electricity | is equipment cost, typically called capital cost. Adding | up the electricity and CO2 costs, we get $1.86/gallon. If | we want to stay below $3.00/gallon (for example), then we | need to keep the capital and maintenance costs less than | $1.14/gallon. Our cost models tell us that we can have | capital and maintenance costs that are significantly lower than | that | | The fonts are gigantic on my desktop monitor. | doitLP wrote: | Aren't all of these net zero or worse when accounting for | construction and lifespan? | | Or is the fact of using renewables to power going to hopefully | net positive over a long enough time scale? | warmwaffles wrote: | My father pointed out to me that it's a form of battery. In the | end we are still consuming energy to make the battery and will | burn that fuel at a later time. You could take excess power | created by solar or wind and create fuel and store it to burn | later when demand goes beyond what the panels can produce | during the night. | swamp40 wrote: | The fuel is also transportable... | rhinoceraptor wrote: | There will likely always be a need for hydrocarbon fuels until | there are order of magnitude improvements in battery energy | density, or we decide small nuclear reactors are acceptable for | things like cargo ships and aviation. | | Plus, having much better carbon capture tech means just simply | removing CO2 for some sort of inert long term storage is | cheaper. | bee_rider wrote: | Using renewables must be the plan, to make this sort of thing | environmentally beneficial. | | They could even run it when electrical demand is low (sucking | up extra watts and essentially subsidizing renewable over- | building) and then maybe even use their output to fuel a power | station, to help shave demand peaks. So, acting like an energy | storage device. Of course there are plenty of other ideas in | the energy storage device space, and probably most of them are | more efficient, but they don't produce legacy car fuel. | lallysingh wrote: | It's a lot less net than regular gasoline. | kmeisthax wrote: | There are a lot of situations where direct electrical storage | is unfeasible and chemical fuels will still be necessary. From | a carbon perspective this switches us from unearthing old | carbon out of the ground towards recycling it. | | Governments could also pay to have carbon pumped out of the air | and buried back into the ground as reconstituted liquid fuel. | Obi_Juan_Kenobi wrote: | In theory you could take some percentage of hydrocarbon | production and store it to reach zero. | phtrivier wrote: | I'm tented to trademark "Breevr : Air out of thin Air". | | Anyone with a couple billion dollars laying around ? | schainks wrote: | If you're literally blowing CO2 into water to get the process | started, where's the threshold between doing this with air and | just extracting acidic seawater or wastewater from somewhere? | supernova87a wrote: | I am intrigued by the idea but find the details hidden in the | Faraday reactor and separation nanotube membrane to be hard to | sanity check / the most important factor that is not well | understood. (or at least, I don't understand it / have not read | enough) | | What's the magical material in the Faraday reactor that can | somehow combine CO2 + water to form hexanol? I've never heard of | such a process occurring (again, probably my ignorance). And then | similar question for the separation filter? | | If I had to guess an analogy, it strikes me as similar to mining | and then recovering + refining miniscule fractions of uranium | isotopes at a similar energy cost. And when you require that much | energy/cost to get some small amount of material, it had better | be very valuable, and not something you just burn at $3/gallon. | | But I am glad to be educated on how this is breaking that | analogy. | stevespang wrote: | crazypython wrote: | Definitely worth getting excited about, though it seems the | current cost of fuel production as of Aug 8 including crude oil | cost is $3.40/gal minus taxes and distribution.[0] Prometheus | will likely cost less to distribute, since it doesn't need to be | shipped across seas, funneled through pipelines, and between | refineries, it can be produced next to solar or wind generation. | | For reference, Prometheus costs $1.86/gal to operate and they are | aiming to reduce the cost of the machine so it can be produced | including capex at $3.00/gal. | | [0]: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- | almanac/transp... | jensenbox wrote: | I would love for someone to provide me additional details on | exactly what a "Faraday Reactor" is. | jensenbox wrote: | Why does their logo remind me of Peloton? | mikkergp wrote: | P's man, can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. | andrewmcwatters wrote: | Neat site! Reminds me of something showcased on Awwwards/CSSDA. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-16 23:01 UTC)