Yes, it looks as though Audi can produce a sort of diesel fuel from CO2, water and some renewable energy to power the production process.
I don't know whether it has any adverse effects on fuel tanks or anything but the article is an interesting read ..... if only to discover the name of Germany's
Federal Minister of Education and Research ...
http://www.sciencealert.com/audi-have-s ... -and-water
Audi has made Fuel from CO2 and Water
Moderators: Aladinsaneuk, MartDude, D-Rider, Moderators
Audi has made Fuel from CO2 and Water
“Scientists investigate that which already is. Engineers create that which has never been.”
-- Albert Einstein
-- Albert Einstein
All they are doing in principle, is reversing the combustion process ie taking the output from your exhaust pipe, adding back the energy you have used to propel your bike and combining them to make the fuel you have just used. The practical advantage is that the diesel fuel manufactured has a much higher energy density that the alternative most talked about - hydrogen - and a bit better than alcohol. And of course its useable in existing vehicles and in existing fuel transport systems
But nothing is for free. Will the cost of this route ( ie cost of windmill, then of chemical process) be greater or lesser than the alternatives ( free sunlight onto crops, then oil recovery from crops and processing).
I dont know. But one technology will win out in the end. As petroleum products did in the beginning - the very first cars ran on alcohol but petrol replaced it.
But nothing is for free. Will the cost of this route ( ie cost of windmill, then of chemical process) be greater or lesser than the alternatives ( free sunlight onto crops, then oil recovery from crops and processing).
I dont know. But one technology will win out in the end. As petroleum products did in the beginning - the very first cars ran on alcohol but petrol replaced it.
hasn't this process been around for a while now?
To me, this seems a bit pointless, why convert a dirty substance into a clean substance, use it as a fuel and then turn it into a dirty substance again?
Would it not make more sense to desalinate sea water, split it into hydrogen and oxygen and then use the hydrogen as a fuel to mix with oxygen from the atmosphere and produce water?
To me, this seems a bit pointless, why convert a dirty substance into a clean substance, use it as a fuel and then turn it into a dirty substance again?
Would it not make more sense to desalinate sea water, split it into hydrogen and oxygen and then use the hydrogen as a fuel to mix with oxygen from the atmosphere and produce water?
No. Thats just the point I was making about energy density. One reason that petrol is so widely used is that its a very efficient way to transport energy from one place to another. Hydrogen is far less efficient, requires a completely new distribution system, new engines to use it, and is exp[losive
P.S. You dont need to desalinate salt water to electrolyse it into hydrogen and oxygen.
P.S. You dont need to desalinate salt water to electrolyse it into hydrogen and oxygen.
I know one thing is for sure - Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Once they are gone, they are gone. Could be 50 years could be 1000. I don't see the problem with changing our production, transport and combustion systems now - in fact as the world gets more populated and more congested the harder it is to change the architecture.
It would have been easier to change yesterday, it will be harder to change tomorrow, etc etc.
I guess we are waiting for that eureka moment to occur that provides us with a clean burning, renewable fuel that is cheaply....hopefully it will happen before it is too late.
It would have been easier to change yesterday, it will be harder to change tomorrow, etc etc.
I guess we are waiting for that eureka moment to occur that provides us with a clean burning, renewable fuel that is cheaply....hopefully it will happen before it is too late.
You can have that right now Dalemac. Its easy to produce sugars by growing plants, effectively capturing part of the energy radiated by the sun. Ferment these sugars into alcohol which was the first fuel that cars used before gasoline became easily available. The alcohol burns into water and CO2 in your engine. The plants when they produce sugars absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. As to cost, well its more expensive than petrol but the major part of the fuel cost is tax anyway. The problem is that we are using ground that could grow food to produce fuel.
Similar sort of route with oil produced from seeds and similar issues.
In the end there are no free rides using chemical fuels. The only time you get near what is a practically limitless source is nuclear fusion which will never be a small package you can fit into a bike and is a science we have been trying to solve for 50 years at least.
Similar sort of route with oil produced from seeds and similar issues.
In the end there are no free rides using chemical fuels. The only time you get near what is a practically limitless source is nuclear fusion which will never be a small package you can fit into a bike and is a science we have been trying to solve for 50 years at least.
Not entirely convinced of their green credentials TBH.BikerGran wrote:We can always go back to single horsepower - still beautiful, not very fast, but they are pretty green as they produce fertiliser that helps produce their food and what's more - they can also reproduce themselves!
Methane producers ..... the impact of the production and transportation of their feedstuff - and the thing that the motor car was praised for when it was introduced - saving capital cities from drowning under piles of horse poo.
“Scientists investigate that which already is. Engineers create that which has never been.”
-- Albert Einstein
-- Albert Einstein