Reply #8

In the discussion thread: The big question mark over gasoline from air [View all]

Mon Oct 29, 2012, 12:40 AM

caraher (3,566 posts)

8. Nope

Sucking CO2 out of the air. Burning hydrocarbons (i.e. compounds containing hydrogen AND carbon atoms) produces the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. This would use energy to suck CO2 out of the air and produce hydrocarbons. The energy stored in those hydrocarbons could then potentially be released again by burning them (which would again produce CO2).

Contrary to the suggestion of the article, they will NOT be able to store more energy for potential release by burning the fuel than they put into creating the fuel from the CO2 in the air. If that were possible, then they have created a perpetual motion machine. I see no reason to believe they can do this.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

25 replies	Author	Time	Post
The big question mark over gasoline from air [View all]	ROBROX	Oct 2012	OP
could coal plants use this process??	Angry Dragon	Oct 2012	#1
There wouldn't be much point ...	VMA131Marine	Oct 2012	#3
What I meant to capture the Co2 that coal plants spew out	Angry Dragon	Oct 2012	#4
Co2 is fungible	ToxMarz	Oct 2012	#5
You could. Some algae-to-biodiesel proposals suggest coal plants as a CO2 source	NickB79	Oct 2012	#14
That would be as silly as diluting gasoline with alcohol.	sofa king	Oct 2012	#16
Suck the hydrocarbons out of the air.	liberal N proud	Oct 2012	#2
Nope	caraher	Oct 2012	#8
That's one thing they did point out, that it's not economically feasible	Warpy	Oct 2012	#6
Problems	krispos42	Oct 2012	#9
Don't need tanker trucks	jeff47	Oct 2012	#12
Yeah,but they have to be close by the plants...	krispos42	Oct 2012	#15
One can extend the pipelines as needed	jeff47	Oct 2012	#17
My concept is that each plant starts out small...	krispos42	Nov 2012	#21
Hydrogen is a problem	jeff47	Oct 2012	#13
No question mark	caraher	Oct 2012	#7
The author should have said something else	Confusious	Oct 2012	#10
They're wrong.	jeff47	Oct 2012	#11
But here is the rub	NoOneMan	Nov 2012	#23
So since it won't pay of instantly, we should just keep burning stuff like always?	jeff47	Nov 2012	#24
Keep burning stuff like always opposed to burning more stuff like always?	NoOneMan	Nov 2012	#25
Alternatively (and probably more efficiently)	Bosonic	Nov 2012	#18
Interesting idea...	caraher	Nov 2012	#19
Don't know the energy requirements of the air technique either	Bosonic	Nov 2012	#20
More of an E&E post ...	eppur_se_muova	Nov 2012	#22

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.