5 ms·

Seems like a bit of a reductionistic bait/soundbite. Obviously the tech isn't there yet, but when we find a (fast) way turn CO2 back into gasoline that will bo

Seems like a bit of a reductionistic bait/soundbite. Obviously the tech isn't there yet, but when we find a (fast) way turn CO2 back into gasoline that will both allow all existing technologies to go green and also give us a good recapture path (pump it back down into the wells).

eindiran 3y ago
> [W]hen we find a (fast) way turn CO2 back into gasoline The more salient point than fast is cheap, preferably something with a net profit, which seems... unlikely.
AlexandrB 3y ago
Even in the best case, doing this requires at least as much energy as was released by burning the gasoline. But more likely 2-3x as much energy. It's far more energy efficient to prevent the emissions in the first place. Burning the captured gasoline again would be extremely foolish.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dageshi 3y ago
  We might well reach a point with solar + wind where we have massive gluts of power we can't do anything with and can't store. Even energy inefficient processes like the one you describe might become viable especially if it effectively creates a storable energy source.
- travisporter 3y ago
  Terraform industries
- realusername 3y ago
  I'm also sceptic of CO2 to gasoline for this reason. The only reason why petrol engine work at all is because gasoline contains a tremendous amount of energy, otherwise their efficiency sucks and the vast majority of this energy is wasted. If we want to do the reverse operation, we don't have the luxury of just spending the wasted part though, we have to spend all of this energy.
  - Tagbert 3y ago
    CO2 to fuel only works for special cases where batteries are infeasible due to weight of the batteries like a plane or weight of a vehicle like large industrial equipment, trains, and ships.
    - realusername 3y ago
      Yes that's basically it, it's a last resort option because the production uses way too much energy.
breather 3y ago
> when Whether it actually will is still a question of hope. Pretty damned far-fetched hope in terms of net-negative CO2 production from my admittedly limited understanding, especially if we cannot find a way to agree collectively to reduce carbon emissions.
blueflow 3y ago
This is not a matter of technology, this is the first law of thermodynamics. CO2 to gasoline will be a very energy intensive process and more expensive than preventing the CO2 in the first place.
- m0llusk 3y ago
  But that goes back to technology and systems again. It is possible that this could be done efficiently during the day using solar, thus minimizing the impact of the energy requirement. It is also important to be careful about framing the intent. Carbon capture does not make continued emissions okay, but might conceivably help to minimize emissions that occur during transition.
  - blueflow 3y ago
    > It is possible that this could be done efficiently during the day using solar, thus minimizing the impact of the energy requirement. No! It is not possible. It will always be more efficient to use the solar power directly to reduce CO2 emitters (like coal plants), because that skips the losses the CO2-emitting and CO2-capturing mechanisms will have.
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      Sure, but we've reached the limit of arguing in absolutes once we're there. Due to the enormity of the physical work involved, we don't expect to have solar/wind/nuclear/hydrogen/whatever at 100% of the energy grid for many years to come. In the meantime, cracking open limestone to make it absorb carbon is a good idea.* We cannot redeploy literally everyone into making solar panels and building nuclear plants, therefore there is a relative gain to be made by switching at least some people from $UNRELATED_JOB_X to carbon capture. * Worth mentioning: carbon capture doesn't require enormous amounts of electricity or really any significant amount of energy at all AFAIK - crack rocks, when rocks full, put somewhere.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
geon 3y ago
Capturing carbon is super easy, barely an inconvenience. Just partially burn wood to make charcoal. Done. The difficult part is to convince people not to use the charcoal as fuel.
londons_explore 3y ago
> allow all existing technologies to go green and also give us a good recapture path Problem is that even if you could do carbon capture for zero energy cost and convert it back to gasoline at 100% efficiency (hint: neither of these things are remotely likely), you still will use more energy to power your ship/plane/miner/truck than an electric version of the same. It therefore only makes sense for use cases where the energy cost is negligible.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Gasoline (or more likely diesel) is so much more energy dense than a battery that is makes sense to do this even with low efficiency just so that we can operate things distance from a grid connection. Ocean shipping for example (though nuclear would work if we could convince the world to allow it). It is questionable if farming can even be done via batteries. Long distance semi shipping also is questionable (though putting them on a train powered by overhead wires is technology that was mature over 100 years ago and should be preferred - how to get the freight railroads to do their jobs better though I don't know)
bluGill 3y ago
We already know how to turn CO2 back into Gasoline. The Germans were doing doing this at scale in WWII since they couldn't get oil. (they were using Coal as a carbon source, but CO2 instead is trivial). South Africa has also done this at scale in the past to get around embargo (again I think they used Coal for carbon). The process is also a minor variation on synthetic motor oil which the US produces it quanity (using natural gas to supply the carbon). The problem is cost - oil from the ground is a lot cheaper than trying to manufacture it from other sources, and while there is some room for improvement smart engineers have been working on the problem for decades. If they haven't found a solution yet it seems unlikely it can be solved.

eindiran 3y ago

> [W]hen we find a (fast) way turn CO2 back into gasoline The more salient point than fast is cheap, preferably something with a net profit, which seems... unlikely.

AlexandrB 3y ago

Even in the best case, doing this requires at least as much energy as was released by burning the gasoline. But more likely 2-3x as much energy. It's far more energy efficient to prevent the emissions in the first place. Burning the captured gasoline again would be extremely foolish.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dageshi 3y ago
We might well reach a point with solar + wind where we have massive gluts of power we can't do anything with and can't store. Even energy inefficient processes like the one you describe might become viable especially if it effectively creates a storable energy source.
travisporter 3y ago
Terraform industries
realusername 3y ago
I'm also sceptic of CO2 to gasoline for this reason. The only reason why petrol engine work at all is because gasoline contains a tremendous amount of energy, otherwise their efficiency sucks and the vast majority of this energy is wasted. If we want to do the reverse operation, we don't have the luxury of just spending the wasted part though, we have to spend all of this energy.
- Tagbert 3y ago
  CO2 to fuel only works for special cases where batteries are infeasible due to weight of the batteries like a plane or weight of a vehicle like large industrial equipment, trains, and ships.
  - realusername 3y ago
    Yes that's basically it, it's a last resort option because the production uses way too much energy.

breather 3y ago

> when Whether it actually will is still a question of hope. Pretty damned far-fetched hope in terms of net-negative CO2 production from my admittedly limited understanding, especially if we cannot find a way to agree collectively to reduce carbon emissions.

blueflow 3y ago

This is not a matter of technology, this is the first law of thermodynamics. CO2 to gasoline will be a very energy intensive process and more expensive than preventing the CO2 in the first place.

m0llusk 3y ago
But that goes back to technology and systems again. It is possible that this could be done efficiently during the day using solar, thus minimizing the impact of the energy requirement. It is also important to be careful about framing the intent. Carbon capture does not make continued emissions okay, but might conceivably help to minimize emissions that occur during transition.
- blueflow 3y ago
  > It is possible that this could be done efficiently during the day using solar, thus minimizing the impact of the energy requirement. No! It is not possible. It will always be more efficient to use the solar power directly to reduce CO2 emitters (like coal plants), because that skips the losses the CO2-emitting and CO2-capturing mechanisms will have.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    Sure, but we've reached the limit of arguing in absolutes once we're there. Due to the enormity of the physical work involved, we don't expect to have solar/wind/nuclear/hydrogen/whatever at 100% of the energy grid for many years to come. In the meantime, cracking open limestone to make it absorb carbon is a good idea.* We cannot redeploy literally everyone into making solar panels and building nuclear plants, therefore there is a relative gain to be made by switching at least some people from $UNRELATED_JOB_X to carbon capture. * Worth mentioning: carbon capture doesn't require enormous amounts of electricity or really any significant amount of energy at all AFAIK - crack rocks, when rocks full, put somewhere.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

geon 3y ago

Capturing carbon is super easy, barely an inconvenience. Just partially burn wood to make charcoal. Done. The difficult part is to convince people not to use the charcoal as fuel.

londons_explore 3y ago

> allow all existing technologies to go green and also give us a good recapture path Problem is that even if you could do carbon capture for zero energy cost and convert it back to gasoline at 100% efficiency (hint: neither of these things are remotely likely), you still will use more energy to power your ship/plane/miner/truck than an electric version of the same. It therefore only makes sense for use cases where the energy cost is negligible.

bluGill 3y ago
Gasoline (or more likely diesel) is so much more energy dense than a battery that is makes sense to do this even with low efficiency just so that we can operate things distance from a grid connection. Ocean shipping for example (though nuclear would work if we could convince the world to allow it). It is questionable if farming can even be done via batteries. Long distance semi shipping also is questionable (though putting them on a train powered by overhead wires is technology that was mature over 100 years ago and should be preferred - how to get the freight railroads to do their jobs better though I don't know)

bluGill 3y ago

We already know how to turn CO2 back into Gasoline. The Germans were doing doing this at scale in WWII since they couldn't get oil. (they were using Coal as a carbon source, but CO2 instead is trivial). South Africa has also done this at scale in the past to get around embargo (again I think they used Coal for carbon). The process is also a minor variation on synthetic motor oil which the US produces it quanity (using natural gas to supply the carbon). The problem is cost - oil from the ground is a lot cheaper than trying to manufacture it from other sources, and while there is some room for improvement smart engineers have been working on the problem for decades. If they haven't found a solution yet it seems unlikely it can be solved.