6 ms·

While these technologies definitely seem to have a future, it's important to remember that, in order to create fuel from CO2 it requires at least as much energy

by f_devd 3y ago

While these technologies definitely seem to have a future, it's important to remember that, in order to create fuel from CO2 it requires at least as much energy as burning fuel creates (at 100% efficiency), so in the long term this is more of a "way to compress excess energy from the grid for light-weight applications" rather than a replacement for all our current fuel consumption. It seems that they know that as well since they are targeting aviation.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
Creating synthetic fuels also seems like the only practical option in the table for seasonal storage. If solar energy is free in summer, even pathetic round trip efficiency could be worthwhile to provide winter reserves.
- schiffern 3y ago
  If you're already making an energy-intensive material anyway, you can avoid the round-trip loss on seasonal storage by just going 'one way.' https://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/factobattery/ https://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/factobattery/ The main downside to factobatteries is the same as for e-fuels: high capital cost due to low equipment utilization.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    As that article says, there aren't many factories for what this is cost effective. (If energy costs are too low for it to be effective for aluminum smelting, you won't find many alternatives.) What really means that it's a job for the government. Because overbuilding on solar is a social safety matter, and it will probably never be profitable. (As also is storage for long-tail events.)
    - schiffern 3y ago
      > As that article says, there aren't many factories for what this is cost effective. ... a problem that's even worse for e-fuels, because you have the same fundamental inefficiency plus round-trip losses. That's my point. >What really means that it's a job for the government. Subsidizing unnecessarily wasteful tech with taxpayer dollars isn't the answer, but of course you'll never hear that from the ones looking for a free handout... The real answer? "It's the Market, stupid." A carbon tax (or even better, cap-and-dividend) is consistently rated as the most efficient solution by economists. One-sided subsidies (or even worse, privatization as you propose) unavoidably causes false corrupted price signals, which leads to both economic and energy inefficiency. The government's proper role is to be the referee, not to pick winners and losers. The Invisible Hand Of The Market should decide which technology "wins," not some bureaucrat in Washington.
      - marcosdumay 3y ago
        > of course you'll never hear that from the ones looking for a free handout What government exactly? Because mine is a tropical country that won't need those things for decades. But yay! Free market! Let's just hope your free market cares about you not freezing up on a 1 in 10 years weather. Anyway, you do you.
        schiffern 3y ago
        I think we may be arguing past each other. There's a difference between treating the market as an end and using one as a means. You (and yukkuri below) are criticizing the former, but I'm advocating the latter. When society sets the values ("reduce this harmful pollution below X please"), a market can be a very efficient means of accomplishing that. NOx trading is one example. The problems come when the market itself starts getting held up as the primary underlying value in-and-of-itself. Markets should be considered as powerful tools, not the main goal. Just my opinion. Anyway cheers.
        marcosdumay 3y ago
        No amount of taxing and mingling will make protection against long-tail events profitable. It's something that either the government does or it hires, the market will not provide. (But, well, it can order too, that works.) For seasonal balancing, nothing is certain. Maybe you luck-out and there's a profitable way to consume the summer overproduction. But I'd advise against betting your life on it. Anyway, carbon taxing does absolutely nothing to change the profitability of this one. The funny thing is that the US (I imagine this is your context, because most people thinking this way are there) is one of the democracies that most intervene on energy safety. It doesn't show on the final result, but the amount of reserves that government holds is so large that when it changes its mind on something it bankrupts people.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        schiffern 3y ago
    - numpad0 3y ago
      Am I being literacy handicapped or does this article read like the author have never seen a machine larger than a car? Turning on and off an industrial plant every days and nights? Surely that's like at least, during days and nights on the surface of the Moon?
  - KaiserPro 3y ago
    > The main downside to factobatteries is the same as for e-fuels: high capital cost due to low equipment utilization. shorter equipment life, and significantly reduced efficiency for things that require heat. A lot of processes are continuous, where the cost of stop/starting is much greater than absorbing the energy price differential. aluminium, smelting is a prime example. Yes you need kiloamps to smelt, but you also have to keep the alumina molten.
- westurner 3y ago
  "Solar energy can now be stored for up to 18 years, say scientists" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34027647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34027647 : > /? MOST Molecular Solar Thermal Energy Storage https://www.google.com/search?q=MOST%3A+Molecular+Solar+Thermal+Energy+Storage https://www.google.com/search?q=MOST%3A+Molecular+Solar+Ther... : > ... Molecular solar thermal energy storage systems (MOST) offer emission-free energy storage where solar power is stored via valence isomerization in molecular photoswitches. These photoswitchable molecules can later release the stored energy as heat on-demand. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=MOST%3A+Molecular+Solar+Thermal+Energy+Storage&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=MOS... > The technology is based on a specially designed molecule of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen that changes shape when it comes into contact with sunlight. > It shape-shifts into an ‘energy-rich isomer’ - a molecule made up of the same atoms but arranged together in a different way. The isomer can then be stored in liquid form for later use when needed, such as at night or in the depths of winter. > A catalyst releases the saved energy as heat while returning the molecule to its original shape, ready to be used again. > Over the years, researchers have refined the system to the point that it is now possible to store the energy for an incredible 18 years The Szilard-Chalmers MOST process. And then at what efficiency? "How the gas turbine conquered the electric power industry" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38307596#38314851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38307596#38314851
  - westurner 3y ago
    18 years of energy storage tops CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage, which is less lossy than batteries and ultracapacitors, and probably even molten salt, and maybe gravitational energy storage too? Though, you could do CAES with captured CO2 and it would be less of an accelerant than standard compressed air. How many CO2 fire extinguishers can be filled and shipped off-site per day? Can CO2 can be made into QA'd [graphene] air filters for [onsite] [flue] capture?
- pstuart 3y ago
  And for "carbon-free" air travel.
- kalessin 3y ago
  Seasonal storage for what kind of usage? FYI, we have clean, and proven, energy sources in our toolbox that are not intermittent.
photochemsyn 3y ago
Plausibly, you could set up huge arrays of solar panels in sun-drenched regions bordering oceans, and just steadily fill up oil tankers with fuel as the process ran. The only material inputs are atmospheric CO2 and water, (plus catalysts, maintenance, etc.) and any electricity source - sunlight, wind, nuclear - could drive the process.
GeoAtreides 3y ago
It's even worse, synthetic fuels (synthetic hydrocarbons, if using CO2) require a hydrogen input. So you need to factor in the energy needed to get that hydrogen. On related good news, 100*100 sq km of solar panels in a desert is a mindbogglingly amount of carbon-free energy, accessible now on our current technology levels [1] [1] https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/ https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon...
- adrian_b 3y ago
  Synthetic fuels are not an alternative to solar panels or wind turbines. Synthetic fuels are the best method for long-term storage of the energy produced by solar panels or wind turbines and they will also always remain the best form of energy storage for the applications where the mass and volume are important, i.e. aircraft and spacecraft (as long as those do not use nuclear reactors). The hydrogen for synthetic hydrocarbons will come from water, exactly like the hydrogen from all fossil fuels or from all living matter (even the hydrogen from volcanic gases or hydrothermal vents, which is used by bacteria, comes from water that has been reduced abiotically, mostly by the iron from magmatic rocks). Unlike any other form of energy storage, the use of hydrocarbons for the long-term storage of the captured solar energy has already been demonstrated successfully for billions of years. We can already have a better efficiency than the plants at the initial step of the capture of the solar energy. We must also attain an equal or better efficiency at carbon dioxide capture and at its conversion into hydrocarbons.

by f_devd 3y ago

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago

Creating synthetic fuels also seems like the only practical option in the table for seasonal storage. If solar energy is free in summer, even pathetic round trip efficiency could be worthwhile to provide winter reserves.

schiffern 3y ago
If you're already making an energy-intensive material anyway, you can avoid the round-trip loss on seasonal storage by just going 'one way.' https://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/factobattery/ https://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/factobattery/ The main downside to factobatteries is the same as for e-fuels: high capital cost due to low equipment utilization.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  As that article says, there aren't many factories for what this is cost effective. (If energy costs are too low for it to be effective for aluminum smelting, you won't find many alternatives.) What really means that it's a job for the government. Because overbuilding on solar is a social safety matter, and it will probably never be profitable. (As also is storage for long-tail events.)
  - schiffern 3y ago
    > As that article says, there aren't many factories for what this is cost effective. ... a problem that's even worse for e-fuels, because you have the same fundamental inefficiency plus round-trip losses. That's my point. >What really means that it's a job for the government. Subsidizing unnecessarily wasteful tech with taxpayer dollars isn't the answer, but of course you'll never hear that from the ones looking for a free handout... The real answer? "It's the Market, stupid." A carbon tax (or even better, cap-and-dividend) is consistently rated as the most efficient solution by economists. One-sided subsidies (or even worse, privatization as you propose) unavoidably causes false corrupted price signals, which leads to both economic and energy inefficiency. The government's proper role is to be the referee, not to pick winners and losers. The Invisible Hand Of The Market should decide which technology "wins," not some bureaucrat in Washington.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      > of course you'll never hear that from the ones looking for a free handout What government exactly? Because mine is a tropical country that won't need those things for decades. But yay! Free market! Let's just hope your free market cares about you not freezing up on a 1 in 10 years weather. Anyway, you do you.
      - schiffern 3y ago
        I think we may be arguing past each other. There's a difference between treating the market as an end and using one as a means. You (and yukkuri below) are criticizing the former, but I'm advocating the latter. When society sets the values ("reduce this harmful pollution below X please"), a market can be a very efficient means of accomplishing that. NOx trading is one example. The problems come when the market itself starts getting held up as the primary underlying value in-and-of-itself. Markets should be considered as powerful tools, not the main goal. Just my opinion. Anyway cheers.
        marcosdumay 3y ago
        No amount of taxing and mingling will make protection against long-tail events profitable. It's something that either the government does or it hires, the market will not provide. (But, well, it can order too, that works.) For seasonal balancing, nothing is certain. Maybe you luck-out and there's a profitable way to consume the summer overproduction. But I'd advise against betting your life on it. Anyway, carbon taxing does absolutely nothing to change the profitability of this one. The funny thing is that the US (I imagine this is your context, because most people thinking this way are there) is one of the democracies that most intervene on energy safety. It doesn't show on the final result, but the amount of reserves that government holds is so large that when it changes its mind on something it bankrupts people.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        schiffern 3y ago
  - numpad0 3y ago
    Am I being literacy handicapped or does this article read like the author have never seen a machine larger than a car? Turning on and off an industrial plant every days and nights? Surely that's like at least, during days and nights on the surface of the Moon?
- KaiserPro 3y ago
  > The main downside to factobatteries is the same as for e-fuels: high capital cost due to low equipment utilization. shorter equipment life, and significantly reduced efficiency for things that require heat. A lot of processes are continuous, where the cost of stop/starting is much greater than absorbing the energy price differential. aluminium, smelting is a prime example. Yes you need kiloamps to smelt, but you also have to keep the alumina molten.
westurner 3y ago
"Solar energy can now be stored for up to 18 years, say scientists" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34027647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34027647 : > /? MOST Molecular Solar Thermal Energy Storage https://www.google.com/search?q=MOST%3A+Molecular+Solar+Thermal+Energy+Storage https://www.google.com/search?q=MOST%3A+Molecular+Solar+Ther... : > ... Molecular solar thermal energy storage systems (MOST) offer emission-free energy storage where solar power is stored via valence isomerization in molecular photoswitches. These photoswitchable molecules can later release the stored energy as heat on-demand. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=MOST%3A+Molecular+Solar+Thermal+Energy+Storage&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=MOS... > The technology is based on a specially designed molecule of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen that changes shape when it comes into contact with sunlight. > It shape-shifts into an ‘energy-rich isomer’ - a molecule made up of the same atoms but arranged together in a different way. The isomer can then be stored in liquid form for later use when needed, such as at night or in the depths of winter. > A catalyst releases the saved energy as heat while returning the molecule to its original shape, ready to be used again. > Over the years, researchers have refined the system to the point that it is now possible to store the energy for an incredible 18 years The Szilard-Chalmers MOST process. And then at what efficiency? "How the gas turbine conquered the electric power industry" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38307596#38314851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38307596#38314851
- westurner 3y ago
  18 years of energy storage tops CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage, which is less lossy than batteries and ultracapacitors, and probably even molten salt, and maybe gravitational energy storage too? Though, you could do CAES with captured CO2 and it would be less of an accelerant than standard compressed air. How many CO2 fire extinguishers can be filled and shipped off-site per day? Can CO2 can be made into QA'd [graphene] air filters for [onsite] [flue] capture?
pstuart 3y ago
And for "carbon-free" air travel.
kalessin 3y ago
Seasonal storage for what kind of usage? FYI, we have clean, and proven, energy sources in our toolbox that are not intermittent.

photochemsyn 3y ago

Plausibly, you could set up huge arrays of solar panels in sun-drenched regions bordering oceans, and just steadily fill up oil tankers with fuel as the process ran. The only material inputs are atmospheric CO2 and water, (plus catalysts, maintenance, etc.) and any electricity source - sunlight, wind, nuclear - could drive the process.

GeoAtreides 3y ago

It's even worse, synthetic fuels (synthetic hydrocarbons, if using CO2) require a hydrogen input. So you need to factor in the energy needed to get that hydrogen. On related good news, 100*100 sq km of solar panels in a desert is a mindbogglingly amount of carbon-free energy, accessible now on our current technology levels [1] [1] https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/ https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon...

adrian_b 3y ago
Synthetic fuels are not an alternative to solar panels or wind turbines. Synthetic fuels are the best method for long-term storage of the energy produced by solar panels or wind turbines and they will also always remain the best form of energy storage for the applications where the mass and volume are important, i.e. aircraft and spacecraft (as long as those do not use nuclear reactors). The hydrogen for synthetic hydrocarbons will come from water, exactly like the hydrogen from all fossil fuels or from all living matter (even the hydrogen from volcanic gases or hydrothermal vents, which is used by bacteria, comes from water that has been reduced abiotically, mostly by the iron from magmatic rocks). Unlike any other form of energy storage, the use of hydrocarbons for the long-term storage of the captured solar energy has already been demonstrated successfully for billions of years. We can already have a better efficiency than the plants at the initial step of the capture of the solar energy. We must also attain an equal or better efficiency at carbon dioxide capture and at its conversion into hydrocarbons.