4 ms·

Yeah that feels like it defeats the point. Not that I know the math, but it feels like there's a potential for it to be a net contributor of carbon emissions by

Yeah that feels like it defeats the point. Not that I know the math, but it feels like there's a potential for it to be a net contributor of carbon emissions by encouraging more steam reforming of cng (and thus more cng pumping) or through power consumed to split water—power which invariably will come from dirty sources until we've done a better job moving away from dirty power. I'd be curious to see someone graph out where this transitions from being carbon positive to being carbon negative (or vice versa)

PaulHoule 4y ago
No, e-Fuels like this are a way to make fuel from carbon free sources and that means splitting water to make hydrogen and sucking CO2 out of the air. The navy is interested in making e-fuels from electricity on nuclear aircraft carriers since a gallon of jet fuel delivered to an aircraft carrier costs a lot more than a gallon of jet fuel delivered to a civilian airport and the aircraft carrier has to slow down a lot so a tanker it refuels from can catch up with it.
DennisP 4y ago
The point is not to get free energy. The point is to turn energy into hydrocarbon fuels that can be used without net carbon emissions, especially for vehicles that aren't easy to electrify.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Yes, this sort of thing is best thought of as a different sort of battery. You put energy in, and later get energy out. It's not a fuel. If you could do it with solar power, it's sort of like free energy but no more than charging batteries from solar is. There are still infrastructure costs at minimum.
- jalk 4y ago
  Potentially also as way of storing excess wind/solar generated energy
bryanlarsen 4y ago
Here's a scale model of a methane production plant https://twitter.com/TerraformIndies/status/1591255472572895233/photo/1 https://twitter.com/TerraformIndies/status/15912554725728952... If you burn gas to create gas, you end up with less gas than you started with. It'd be cheaper to burn dollar bills. It only works when the input energy is cheaper than the output energy. Right now solar and wind are the only energy sources cheaper than fossil energy.

PaulHoule 4y ago

No, e-Fuels like this are a way to make fuel from carbon free sources and that means splitting water to make hydrogen and sucking CO2 out of the air. The navy is interested in making e-fuels from electricity on nuclear aircraft carriers since a gallon of jet fuel delivered to an aircraft carrier costs a lot more than a gallon of jet fuel delivered to a civilian airport and the aircraft carrier has to slow down a lot so a tanker it refuels from can catch up with it.

DennisP 4y ago

The point is not to get free energy. The point is to turn energy into hydrocarbon fuels that can be used without net carbon emissions, especially for vehicles that aren't easy to electrify.

SoftTalker 4y ago
Yes, this sort of thing is best thought of as a different sort of battery. You put energy in, and later get energy out. It's not a fuel. If you could do it with solar power, it's sort of like free energy but no more than charging batteries from solar is. There are still infrastructure costs at minimum.
jalk 4y ago
Potentially also as way of storing excess wind/solar generated energy

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Here's a scale model of a methane production plant https://twitter.com/TerraformIndies/status/1591255472572895233/photo/1 https://twitter.com/TerraformIndies/status/15912554725728952... If you burn gas to create gas, you end up with less gas than you started with. It'd be cheaper to burn dollar bills. It only works when the input energy is cheaper than the output energy. Right now solar and wind are the only energy sources cheaper than fossil energy.