Audi makes diesel fuel from Co2 and Water

[Beazy]

http://www.sciencealert.com/audi-hav...-air-and-water

This is pretty damn sweet.

[Cracked]

You do realise that the process of creation is inevitably using more energy than we can use from the fuel right.. We can only harvest so much renewable energy and that building renewable energy plants is incredibly taxing for the environment..

It's just another feel-good marketing for rich country citizens.

[dextersmith]

Evil! The extent people go to, to deny plants!

jk

[Deleted]

You do realise that the process of creation is inevitably using more energy than we can use from the fuel right.. We can only harvest so much renewable energy and that building renewable energy plants is incredibly taxing for the environment..

It's just another feel-good marketing for rich country citizens.

So we should just keep on polluting the oceans and poisening our atmosphere? Because doing something about it costs energy and resources? Also source for your claims plz.

[Kalis]

I'll wait to hear what Johanna Wanka says about it.

[Cracked]

So we should just keep on polluting the oceans and poisening our atmosphere? Because doing something about it costs energy and resources? Also source for your claims plz.

Laws of physics? Common sense?

[Afrospinach]

I seem to recall the US navy doing something like this a year or two ago also.

The most exciting thing about synthetic fuels is the consistency. You never really know exactly what is going in your gas tank these days, worse in some countries than others.

You do realise that the process of creation is inevitably using more energy than we can use from the fuel right.. We can only harvest so much renewable energy and that building renewable energy plants is incredibly taxing for the environment..

It's just another feel-good marketing for rich country citizens.

Like it or not batteries are kind of shit, these kinds of fuels are going to be needed for long time, especially for the transport industry(as opposed to personal vehicles). You will need TONNES of batteries to power a truck, and every tonne of battery is a tonne of cargo you cannot haul as there are weight limits.

You are weighing up renewable energy plants VS digging stuff out the ground and releasing it into the atmosphere. In terms of long term environmental impact this isn't really a discussion.

[Vermicious]

You do realise that the process of creation is inevitably using more energy than we can use from the fuel right.. We can only harvest so much renewable energy and that building renewable energy plants is incredibly taxing for the environment.

Yeah we gotta be careful we don't use up the Sun too soon, that would be horrific.

[Deleted]

Laws of physics? Common sense?

You don't have any credibility in either of those.

[Kaganfindel]

So we should just keep on polluting the oceans and poisening our atmosphere? Because doing something about it costs energy and resources? Also source for your claims plz.

Holy False Choice, Batman. This isn't a binary choice between using the new fuel and polluting the planet's surface. Using the new fuel will cause more pollution than using existing fuel sources.

For support for this assertion, refer to the laws of thermodynamics, paying note specifically to the bit about conservation of matter and energy.

[Deleted]

Holy False Choice, Batman. This isn't a binary choice between using the new fuel and polluting the planet's surface. Using the new fuel will cause more pollution than using existing fuel sources.

For support for this assertion, refer to the laws of thermodynamics, paying note specifically to the bit about conservation of matter and energy.

As far as I'm aware I'm neither batman nor was I supporting having all cars fueled by this new stuff. I said that we shouldn't stop researching alternative ways of getting energy because it costs energy and resources.

This new technology could prove to be useful in further research and maybe even in industry, most useful inventions have been made by accident while researching something completly different.

Add to this that while I am very aware of the laws of thermodynamics, I am also able to perform the ancient magic of reading

German car manufacturer Audi has reportedly invented a carbon-neutral diesel fuel, made solely from water, carbon dioxide and renewable energy sources.

Sunfire analyses have shown that the synthetic fuel is not only more environmentally friendly, but also has superior combustion when compared to fossil fuels. The overall energy efficiency of the e-diesel is 70 percent, they report.

"The engine runs quieter and fewer pollutants are being created," said Sunfire Chief Technology Officer Christian von Olshausen in a press release.

Even when we cast aside the "e-" part of the new diesel few, it still has other advantages:

The engine runs quieter

superior combustion when compared to fossil fuels

[Nadiru]

http://www.sciencealert.com/audi-hav...-air-and-water

This is pretty damn sweet.

The US Navy had a working proof of concept for this years ago, except it was jet fuel.

[Independent voter]

Didn't Germany during WWII make synthetic fuel?

[Deleted]

Didn't Germany during WWII make synthetic fuel?

Not synthetic, they made biofuel out of plants.

- - - Updated - - -

The US Navy had a working proof of concept for this years ago, except it was jet fuel.

Wasn't it supposed to be installed on aircraftcarriers? Heard about this aswell.

[Kalis]

Not synthetic, they made biofuel out of plants.

They made motor fuel from coal as well, though obviously that is not really doing much to cut down on use of fossil fuels.

[Kaganfindel]

As far as I'm aware I'm neither batman nor was I supporting having all cars fueled by this new stuff. I said that we shouldn't stop researching alternative ways of getting energy because it costs energy and resources.

This new technology could prove to be useful in further research and maybe even in industry, most useful inventions have been made by accident while researching something completly different.

Add to this that while I am very aware of the laws of thermodynamics, I am also able to perform the ancient magic of reading




Even when we cast aside the "e-" part of the new diesel few, it still has other advantages:

You're still missing the point.

The fuel, once created, burns cleaner and quieter. I'll buy that.

Now tell us how much energy is used in its creation. I don't have to know the process, which I'm sure is proprietary and beyond my ability to understand, but I'm interested to know how much energy (and from what sources) must be exhausted to produce this fuel.

[Nadiru]

Wasn't it supposed to be installed on aircraftcarriers? Heard about this aswell.

Yes, it's designed to reduce maintenance costs because carriers would be able to make their own fuel. The problem the US Navy has is the problem alluded to in the Audi article: You need to catch a hell of a lot of CO2 to produce even a little fuel. The US Navy was filtering seawater, presumably using the carbonic acid in the water to provide the carbon while also cracking the water to produce hydrogen. The article makes it seem like Audi is filtering air for its carbon, which means they'll need to squeeze even more air through a filter.

[Deleted]

You're still missing the point.

The fuel, once created, burns cleaner and quieter. I'll buy that.

Now tell us how much energy is used in its creation. I don't have to know the process, which I'm sure is proprietary and beyond my ability to understand, but I'm interested to know how much energy (and from what sources) must be exhausted to produce this fuel.

If all the energy used comes from green energy sources, then it doesn't matter how much energy is used, the fuel is still carbon-neutral because they get their carbon out of the atmosphere, rather than from the ground. You're basicly asking something I've already clarified.

The point is that the fuel is carbon neutral, not energy efficient. So quoting the laws of thermodynamics isn't going to proof any points when speaking about supposedly clean-fuel, it doesn't have to be energy efficient, it only has to be less polluting than the alternatives.

If it was about creating a very economical way of transport, than the total amount of energy used would be relevant, but it isn't, because thats not what audi was going for.

Yes, it's designed to reduce maintenance costs because carriers would be able to make their own fuel. The problem the US Navy has is the problem alluded to in the Audi article: You need to catch a hell of a lot of CO2 to produce even a little fuel. The US Navy was filtering seawater, presumably using the carbonic acid in the water to provide the carbon while also cracking the water to produce hydrogen. The article makes it seem like Audi is filtering air for its carbon, which means they'll need to squeeze even more air through a filter.

Yes, I wonder how they manage doing that, maybe they install carbon filters on pollution heavy industries and get it that way?

[Symphonic]

I won't buy another gasoline powered vehicle. I'm a fan of diesel. Plus I love getting 45+ MPG and enjoy having a clean burning vehicle.

[Gheld]

You're still missing the point.

The fuel, once created, burns cleaner and quieter. I'll buy that.

Now tell us how much energy is used in its creation. I don't have to know the process, which I'm sure is proprietary and beyond my ability to understand, but I'm interested to know how much energy (and from what sources) must be exhausted to produce this fuel.

Don't worry, after using non carbon neutral diesel in construction and transportation equipment to build enough renewable energy output to switch all of the diesel in the world to carbon neutral diesel it will only take a few centuries of using only carbon neutral diesel to completely reverse the environmental impact of the massive construction boom.