Follow this blog:
RSS

Air power: UK company pulls gasoline from the ether

By | October 19, 2012, 4:26 AM PDT

There's a touch of mad scientist about Air Fuel's plan. But there's nothing crazy about wanting to solve the energy and global warming crises.

There is definitely something in the air in Britain.

Earlier this month, I told you about a UK technology that would turn air into electricity.

Now from the same country comes a company that says it has pulled 5 liters (1.3 U.S. gallons) of gasoline from the ether over the last 3 months, the Daily Telegraph reports. And get this: Air Fuel Synthesis says its process also removes CO2.

So there you go, an all-in-one solution to the world’s energy and CO2-induced global warming crises. Today’s Friday. Let’s all knock off early and celebrate.

Whoa. Wait a minute. Last time I clutched at the openness around me, I came up with a fistful of, well, air. Not even a scent of gasoline. So how does Teeside, England-based Air Fuel do it?

Basically, it isn’t easy. And when they say “air”, what they really seem to mean is carbon dioxide. Let’s see if I can distill the process for you, so to speak, as described by the Telegraph:

    • First, you take some sodium hydroxide.
    • Now, mix it with carbon dioxide (there’s your air, I think).
    • Okay. Now watch your solution turn to sodium carbonate. Take a little break, because there’s more to come.
    • Are we all back? Got your sodium carbonate? Good, because now I want you to electrolyze it. You’ll notice that it all turns to carbon dioxide. Boooo, CO2! But we’re going to get rid of it.
    • Oh, I forgot to mention: Keep a dehumidifier around, because you’re going to want it in oder to capture water vapor.  The Telegraph is a bit fuzzy on where the vapor comes from. Maybe from the sodium carbonate creation?
    • Anyway, I hope you’re not squeamish about electrolyzing, because you’re going to have to do it again, this time to the water vapor. And guess what that gives you? Right! Hydrogen!
    • We’re almost there. The next step is key: Mix the CO2 and the hydrogen, and voila, you’ve got methanol. The Telegraph says that the methanol “is passed through a gasoline fuel reactor, creating petrol” (petrol is the British word for gasoline).

Along the way, the CO2 vanishes, the article implies (reminds me of what’s going on in Iceland at Carbon Recycling International). For more, you could check out the Air Fuel Synthesis website. I intend to look at it later.

At the moment, I’m scratching my head. I’m looking at the hydrogen and thinking “why not stop there and put the hydrogen to use as an energy source?”

Then again, the “energy in” up to that point probably pummels the “energy out.” In fact, I would think the same unbalanced equation plagues the entire end-to-end air-to-fuel process. All that electrolysis sounds like a lot of electricity. (As a suggestion, maybe a small nuclear reactor could help provide heat to assist the process).

But you have to start somewhere. Or is this story just a bunch of hot air?

Image: J.J. via Wikimedia

More airy stories on SmartPlanet:

Another drop of methanol:
A CO2 cleaner:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
27
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Energy requirements
If all the electricity for this process comes from solar cells, it becomes energetically and environmentally feasible. It's still a loooooong way from being economically feasible, though. Never the less, it's interesting as a proof of concept.
Posted by dkerber@...
19th Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
Isn't it funny how -
The grant based scientist always do the mass balance analysis and the economic feasibility analysis - after they spend the grant money for their research?
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
19th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Sounds like someone pitching another perpetual motion machine...
...for the anti-carbon age.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
19th Oct
+4 Votes
+ -
COST?
well, of course you can make methane from carbon dioxide and hydrogen, liberating oxygen in the process. Burn petrol and you get energy (heat) and carbon dioxide and water (among other things). To get the reaction to go in the reverse direction, you have to add the same amount of energy, and replace the hydrogen (probably getting it from water, which costs even more energy). What's the use if the stuff ends up costing 1000s of pounds per gallon? Ok, let's say all the energy for this process comes from, say, solar cells, and is 'free'. First point: nothing is free. You have to build that large solar energy facility first. Second point: Wouldn't it be better (more efficient, that is), just to use the electricity you produced directly in a vehicle? It's true that you wouldn't remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere doing this, but the earth's systems do this nicely, if we leave them alone to get on with it (tho' it does happen quite slowly, and takes a while) and stop adding more than the earth can cope with. Which is precisely what happens if we used that electricity from solar instead of 'petrol'.
Posted by RHambeau
19th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
So it cost a little
Still is something to think about and as said above proof of concept. Don't think anyone ever imagined having a gas station and pumps on every corner when someone saw crude bubbling up. Probally took at least one, maybe two days before they had that idea...
Posted by pduffy211
19th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Whered the Na go?
Poof?
Posted by wizoddg
19th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Last time I tried....
.....the sodium goes more like BANG!
Posted by klassman6
19th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Water
Considering that fresh water is a scarce resource in many places, I think the best use for captured water vapor would be to increase that supply.

I think of all of the clean water that comes from the air conditioners in homes and office buildings, which goes into the sewer system where it's mixed with sewage, then cleaned up at a water treatment plant, then released, and where I live it goes very quickly into a large body of salt water.

Maybe the amount of water reclaimed from the atmosphere is insignificant, but on a hot, humid summer day in Houston, I would think we'd be pulling lakes full of water out of the air.
Posted by AlanLaRue
19th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Polishing the brass on the titanic
This is just hopium for preserving our unsustainable way of living. It's all going to end sooner rather than later unless cold fusion somehow poofs into existence.
Posted by hemophilic
19th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
On massive scale: via MSRs and old coal facilities.
http://www.thoriumapplications.com/Air%20Capture%20-%20Eliminating%20Global%20Warming%20Handout.pdf

coal2nuclear.com has an extremely ambitious, yet practical-seeming, plan using MSRs to replace the largest 1200 coal generating plants worldwide, that are responsible for 30% of coal emissions; and while doing so, to purposefully build them to provide a 'new' baseload power output that is equivalent to peak output (thus also eliminating peaking natural gas plants, etc.); and use the extra power and heat generated (at night) to pull CO2 from the atmosphere using concrete-lined water canals at the former coal storage areas; pumps to bubble the water + sodium hydroxide NaOH to produce sodium carbonate NaCO3 ; to then produce calcium carbonate by adding calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 in a caustizer (and also producing NaOH to be reused in the first stage); which is dried and heated in a kiln to produce CO2 gas (for sequestration, or for synfuel production, or to make ultramafic rock). The quicklime (CaO) also produced here has water then added to it to make more Ca(OH)2 for a previous stage. He states that this process is commonly known, but not under much consideration due to the high heat and electrical energy requirements--which slack-time MSRs (especially LFTRs) can provide cheaply and in abundance. He states that this could make a huge dent in atmospheric CO2, both by eliminating the largest, biggest offending coal facilities' CO2 output (and peaking gas plants), and by pulling really large, really significant quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere.
This deserves comment from some of the professionals on this site, in my amateur opinion. If plausible technically, the questions remain on the economics and politics. In so far as China is choking on coal to the point of severe societal illness and IQ impairment; and is also spearheading world MSR prototyping; it seems plausible that such a scheme is possible; and that the Chinese would find it in their interests to push such a large build-out of MSRs on the world market for compelling capitalist profit considerations, besides the minor point (from the perspective of capitalist considerations) of saving the earth's human-favorable ecosystem.
If plausible technically, economically and so forth, it should be hailed as a major part of the solution to global warming and used to make inroads among the environmentalists who are biased against nuclear energy.
Posted by Paul Wick
19th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Should be titled, "How To Cause Cancer With Fresh Air"
Making gas out of air and electricity, and then burning it, producing carcinogens, is about the stupidest thing I've heard of in my life!! haha, thanks for a good laugh!

If scientists want to make things from air, try making food and water from it, like the Keshe Foundation is.
Posted by mrfixitrick
19th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
But what if they're just recycling the carcinogens that are already there?
Besides, the enemy today, so we are told is CO2. Caring about other pollutants is totally passe'.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
19th Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
Hyperbole much?
Besides, the enemy today, so we are told is CO2. Caring about other pollutants is totally passe'.

What kind of idiotic statement is that? You just choose to focus on what people say about CO2 and ignore what's said about other pollutants.
Posted by riverat1
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Not hyperbole.
Sarcasm.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
24th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
A small step in the right direction
Solar or wind could do the cracking of CO2, and maybe this could serve as means for energy storage instead of batteries. But that's not new. What is new is the complication of the preliminary calcium carbonate process (cf. Calera) and the methanol product. I share mrfixitrick's view that the juice is hardly worth the squeeze. Better than this complicated process would be a way to couple this surplus renewable energy directly into the CO2 by shear electrolysis to produce elemental carbon of high value. See http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090200176.pdf
Posted by Wilmot McCutchen
19th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
High Temperature fission + hydrogen
Well said, Mark Halper! You are right of course that (1) it is more energy efficient to use the hydrogen directly as fuel rather than as a feedstock for gasoline ("petrol") or methanol [although most cars today run on gasoline, not hydrogen, but if price-competitive hydrogen were available this problem is solvable with existing and cost-effective technology]; and (2) doing the electrolysis to produce hydrogen can be MUCH more energy-efficient at high temperature. The experts at US national labs (such as Argonne and Idaho National Lab) have demonstrated that at 800 to 900 Celsius, you end up putting not only the electrical energy but also some of the thermal energy directly into the bond-splitting process that produces hydrogen + oxygen from water. So, yeah: a high-temperature helium-cooled fission reactor COULD make fuels from water cost-effectively. One guy at Idaho National Labs has even written papers showing how to do it with reactor temperatures as low as 600 Celsius (still too hot for a water-cooled reactor, but easily within reach of the historically-operated gas cooled reactor temperatures in Germany and Colorado.) Yes, if we were serious about getting the USA off of our petroleum dependence, we could have begun making very serious, cost-effective strides in that direction about 15 years ago. But we haven't yet, because we are currently more afraid of nuclear power than we are of Middle Eastern Wars or Climate Change... China and India will probably have to lead the way for us.
Posted by kricci
19th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Gasoline from Air
Somewhere, I hear the sound of Rube Goldberg chortling! All this fuss, bother, and energy expended to gain less than two gallons of gas in several days! Obviously, I'm missing something. Why did we do this?
Posted by mogul264
19th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Plant Life and fixing carbon
A farm can fix atmospheric carbon much more effeciently than the process mentioned in the article. It also uses CO2, water vapor, and sunlight. Even better, ocean based algae does this. And most important of all, a tropical rainforest does it. We can get products better than petrol from any of these.
Posted by Arctic Char
19th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Ya beat me to it
Got to be many times more efficient to use plants to do create fuel - photosynthesis turns CO2, water vapor, and sunlight into carbohydrate in a single step, no elaborate equipment required. The process described in this article involves so many inefficient reactions that it will never be more than a stunt.
Posted by Greenknight_z
20th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Not exactly a single step
The plant makes carbohydrates in (what appears to us) a single step, but there is still a fair amount of work to do to get the carbohydrates in a form that can be used as fuel.
Posted by dkerber@...
24th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Carbon capture and recycling
The carbon in your gasoline was probably in the ancient air millions of years ago, before it was absorbed by plants and myriads of creatures and was then synthesized by nature. The advantage of the process developed by scientists is that it is much quicker! In the simplest method, carbon combines with hydrogen to form methane, CH4. Depending upon the circumstances, this may be easy to transport through the existing gas network, allowing time for the hydrogen infrastructure to be built up on a more local basis. The UK does have a hydrogen programme for refuelling vehicles, which is a good start, although we would like to have investment in stationary hydrogen fuel cell systems as well. Many scientists believe that we should be extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere , not adding to it, and they are finding innovative ways to utilize the carbon. Carbon capture and recycling (CCR) could be a safer and more cost effective way of doing this than carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Posted by fuelcellpower
20th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
storage
People seem to be forgetting the advantage of storing a high energy fuel that is liquid at room temperature. Hydrogen and electricity are difficult to store, and next to impossible to use in some applications like aviation. If you could produce a liquid fuel directly from water, carbon dioxide, and some form of renewable energy, you could also save a lot of the transportation and refining costs, with the added side benefit of CO2 capture. Instead of pumping a gazillion dollars and military into countries that hate us so that we can secure an oil supply, if we produce our own they can go back to wandering in the desert on their camels and leave us alone. Regarding farms, they are very inefficient, requiring vast quantities of energy input, usually in the form of petroleum, to plant, fertilize, harvest, transport and process and store, and the energy product in the form of biomass is difficult to use as an energy source. Only a small portion would be in the form of convenient oil or alcohols, and then there is the moral and practical hurdles on whether food should be used as fuel.
Posted by orillia3
20th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Hot Air (well, you asked...)
"Got your sodium carbonate? Good, because now I want you to electrolyze it. Youll notice that it all turns to carbon dioxide."

So how does a compound containing NA "all" convert to CO2? What happens to the NA?

Is this REALLY a laboratory process, or is it all done in the open air? Are we in the realm of alchemy, here?
Posted by Lightning Joe
20th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
old news
about 4 years ago US energy research lab in NM published paper on $4 gal gas from C02 in air. Methane to gasoline has been done in past, Exxon had plant in Phillipines.
Catch was that to get enough energy to make gas w/o co2 emmissions, you are talking nuke plant or huge solar. Co2 to gas would be carbon neutral - think about it. By the was, gas is a really great, portable, high energy fuel: safer than a high pressure hydrogen "bomb" in yout trunk/boot.
Posted by johnk@...
21st Oct
0 Votes
+ -
What did I just read?
"I intend to read it later."

Not gonna lie, that was the most childish article I've read today. It was a tad amusing, but,choosing to acknowledge some facts while guessing others is not how to criticize an idea.

Type responsibly.
Posted by MaliciousTurkey
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
5 liters in one month
That's not even enough to fuel my lawn mower. This article didn't mention the cost, what its it, $1.5 Million per liter?
Posted by bb_apptix
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Another great tech will be buried.
At least with this process you are not "adding" to pollution, unlike gasoline created with oil which is effectively taking carbon (oil) from the ground and adding it to our eco system. This carbon from the ground has accumulated over millions of years and we are letting it all out in one big go. Gasoline from the air is about taking carbon out and then returning the same amount. This solves so many problems and it is a terrible shame that the technology is not priority.

It's all about big oil and a small few's strangle hold over the world's energy resources. This control of energy means control over us as a society - this is why you never see these alternate energy solutions come to pass. Our overlords just don't care to relinquish their control.
Posted by adoc80
7th Nov
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!