Audi Just Invented Fuel Made From CO₂ and Water

originally posted by: Gemwolf car companies have definitely changed their attitude towards the oil companies and environmentalists...

i disagree, i dont think their attitudes have changed at all, this is just a common sense next step, oil after all is limited, its eventual inevitable exhaustion of supply means car companies will have no market anymore if they dont prepare to switch into the next market, this is just business trying to get its foot in the door and set the cornerstone for the next market, all the better to begin monopolizing it too.


car companies will still try to milk the beast that is big oil until it runs bone dry, and then all these alternative concepts we've seen vanish will all suddenly flood the market with competition all from the same monopolies that exist now.


ETA: i personally think that time is upon us now, and things like the OP article are indicators of that very thing. a large portion of the motives for our wars are oil as we all know, which i also think is an indicator of them squeezing the last drops out of that big oil can.

a reply to: Gemwolf

Edit: According to the video the expected price will be around 1.00 and 1.50 Euros (current price in Germany for Diesel is 1.25 Euro).

That is actually more than competitive when you look at how things are currently subsidized.

Britain subsidizes its coal, oil and gas industries by $4.2bn (£2.6bn) a year. For every $1 spent to support renewable energy, another $6 were spent on fossil fuel subsidies.

If that were reversed then the carbon neutral fuel could be produced at a cheaper rate than regular diesel.

In the US if they coupled the technology to Geothermal the price would fall even further as they could preheat the water from thermal vents and produce the consistent electric needed to power the process.

We now have the technology to do away with fossil fuel at the pump at a competitive price maybe even cheaper than what we have now. Someone is going to have to fight the oil companies to have it implemented.

This isn't anything new. Aside from the obvious energy inefficiencies, it's really about getting the cost downtown to cheaper then just drilling oil out the ground.

Now, for an aircraft carrier with a nice nuclear reactor on board with all that surplus energy where strategic advantage trumps cost? Sure, this tech is ideal.

It probably only costs about six hundred bucks a gallon to produce. It will be in demand shortly or the government will subsidize it so it can be sold for two bucks a gallon and mixed in with our diesel fuel to lower the gas mileage of the trucks.

Oh, thinking outloud again. Please disregard the statement, the new carbon tax will pay for it.

a reply to: rickymouse

It probably only costs about six hundred bucks a gallon to produce.

The cost has been quoted a few times in the thread already.

So, what do you think about the process now that you have looked at the actual cost to produce it?

a reply to: Gemwolf

the " front loaded " ` carbon footprint ` of current wind farm technology is < cencored >

so claims of the carbon neutrality of fuels synthesised using wind generated electricity are utter bollox

a reply to: Grimpachi

I read the article and it said nothing about the cost in the article. All I get when I click on the video is advertisement that keeps cycling. Someone said in the thread that it should be about 1.5 Euros, I can't get that from the repeating commercial. I wonder if it is my computer or a problem with the link.

a reply to: rickymouse

The video says it would be from 1.00 to 1.50 Euros. There shouldn't be any commercials in this post.www.abovetopsecret.com...

Considering that fossil fuels are subsidised 7 to 1 over renewables like this I think the synth diesel is probably already cheaper than fossil fuel.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I would say that this is good technology and research. I do wonder if there are any byproducts of the chemicals they use that can have a negative effect on the environment. You can't blame me for being skeptical, after all I see corn gas destroying farmlands and wood biomass pellets pulling everything out of the areas where logging is done. The left over branches and leaves from logging should be left there, they are good for the land. But they now strip anything they can and cut down more and more forests here instead of selective harvesting.

originally posted by: rickymouse
... if there are any byproducts of the chemicals they use that can have a negative effect on the environment...

That's a pretty important question. They are messing with "our" water after all. It would be pointless or even deadly if they stopped using oil only to start using up our planet's water... Unlike popular believe we don't have an infinite amount of water either. And - this is just my opinion - water is slightly more important than oil (or anything else for that matter)...

We can all see how great fracking has been for the planet...

a reply to: rickymouse

I don't think so. The only byproduct of the process should be oxygen. They may use salt to facilitate electrolysis but that would mean they can use sea water.

I think they do need nickel to facilitate it all which would simply corrode away.

a reply to: Gemwolf

Burning something is combining a fuel with oxygen. If you burn a hydrocarbon, you get water (hydrogen and oxygen) and carbon dioxide (carbon and oxygen). If you burn hydrogen gas (H2) then you get 2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H20. H20 is ...water...and you have a balanced equation, so there are no other products. Since it is exothermic, and the output is water, you are likely to end up with hot...water...or steam.

There is no need to worry about depleting the world's water and even if it did our oceans are far vaster than what is buried as oil.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Very simple.

You use renewable energy sources to produce a carbon-neutral liquid fuel.

That is how it is green.


If the electric use to produce the fuel comes from wind, solar, geothermal it is a green technology.

The navy plans to use its nuclear reactors to generate the necessary electric.

Just to be clear, you aren't saying nuclear power is green I hope. The only thing green about it is the green toxix vapour left behind.

a reply to: Acidx

Nuclear isn't renewable but when operated safely it is a clean energy source with minimal risks.

If new one are to be operated they will need far better safety regulations, guidelines, and fail safes that will even take into account such things as Tsunami's and high magnitude earthquakes.

a reply to: Gemwolf

The usual reasoning is that oil companies buy the inventions/bio fuels to ensure that we have to rely on oil to keep moving...

Not trying to be snarky, but is that actually a thing? I see it said fairly often, and it certainly makes sense, but I've never actually seen anything to really back it up (haven't really looked either).

a reply to: Grimpachi

Possibly rocket fuel too!

The blue crude is neat stuff.

A carrier or sub with a nuke reactor/water boiler seems like a good setup to make this stuff. Making fuel onboard for operational purposes sounds like a enormous technological(and war game) break-thru.

a reply to: jrod

I never heard about the rocket fuel but I do know about the jet fuel.

From what I remember they plan to use aging nuclear-powered aircraft carriers as floating refineries. At the time they said it would cost about $6 a gallon to produce which seems like a lot until you figure in the savings from having tankers meet with fleets and downtime for ships to breakaway to refuel.

I read somewhere when those things are added in it really costs the Navy around $20 a gallon to keep supplied with fossil fuels.

Interesting development, but wonder if it is really cost effective and clean.
But Germany is known for burying technische innovationen.
Trust me

a reply to: Nochzwei


Its very! Just saying!

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Grimpachi

I read the article and it said nothing about the cost in the article. All I get when I click on the video is advertisement that keeps cycling. Someone said in the thread that it should be about 1.5 Euros, I can't get that from the repeating commercial. I wonder if it is my computer or a problem with the link.

1.5 euros a gallon?? Unlikely would be considerably higher now the question becomes if they geared up for mass production it be cheaper. But down to 1.59 euros unlikely. This process would indeed take more energy than regular diesel. Transportation costs about the same. Hydro carbons have been synthesized since the 40s. It's not new even germany developed diesel and synthetic oil in world War 2 they had to.

Unles this process is totally revolutionary a new way to make hydrocarbons isn't anything new.