3 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoWe 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 agoTerraform industries
- realusername 3y agoI'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 agoCO2 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 agoYes that's basically it, it's a last resort option because the production uses way too much energy.