The figure in my head is $5/G for mid-high grade. There's the corn free benefit, the higher octane premium, and a bit of money for being "eco". Details matter though, and I have no idea what this machine costs, and what the fuel's like. If it's especially pure like alkylate fuel, I'd pay significantly more.I think it would be hard to get gasoline under $4/gallon; I seem to recall an estimate of $10/gallon.
Most likely, yes. As something totally off topic, I have seen the outside of this plant in person. And I have acquaintances who have worked there converting coal into diesel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer–Tropsch_process#/media/File:Sasol_Secunda_19.jpgFinally, I expect they'd use the Fischer-Tropsch process to turn it into gasoline.
Hydrogen, however, requires compression and refrigeration to store whereas gasoline doesnt. Even then, hydrogen is still difficult to store , because it tends to more readily leak from hoses, pipe fittings, due to its small molecular size. It seems theres always tradeoffs.Most of this is well-understood. It appears to start with a dehumidifier to get water out of the air. (There are a few methods, thermal or chemical; I'm not sure which they use.) Then I expect they'd use electrolysis to extract hydrogen from the water. Finally, I expect they'd use the Fischer-Tropsch process to turn it into gasoline.
The missing part of this is extracting the other ingredient in Fischer-Tropsch, CO2, from air. How it works, I don't know. Does it integrate with the dehumidifier?
You're right about energy storage, wrong about the method. Hydrogen is easier to make than methane, and a fuel cell is more efficient than burning. Other common storage methods are batteries and pumping a working fluid, usually water or air.
But this tech might allow large solar installations away from the grid to make fuel instead of grid electricity. Cost would be key. I think it would be hard to get gasoline under $4/gallon; I seem to recall an estimate of $10/gallon.
It would become even more interesting if it is possible to also make ammonia instead of gasoline. Ammonia used as hydrogen carrier .Hydrogen, however, requires compression and refrigeration to store whereas gasoline doesnt. Even then, hydrogen is still difficult to store , because it tends to more readily leak from hoses, pipe fittings, due to its small molecular size. It seems theres always tradeoffs.
Barring some unexpected efficiencies or novel uses of gasoline beyond burning it, I really only see this as useful in extremely isolated environments that really need gasoline rather than electricity (isolated groups living in middle eastern mountains that drive Toyotas come to mind...). Otherwise you'd be better off just putting the power into batteries, unless I'm missing something.
Good way to get more gasoline after we empty all the oil fields, I guess.
(227.25 mol * 393.5 KJ/mol) = 24.8396875 kilowatt hours(255.66 mol * 44 KJ/mol) = 3.12473333 kilowatt hours(255.66 mol * 285.3 KJ/mol) = 20.261055 kilowatt hours(28.4 moles * -258 KJ/mol) = -2.03533333 kilowatt hours24.8396875 + 3.12473333 + 20.261055 = 48.22547583 kWH*flywheels*I agree with you and dullard.
The basic issue is that combustion converts only about a third of the energy stored in the fuel into usable work. And this is true regardless of the fuel used. On the other hand, conversion of battery-stored electricity into usable work is upwards of 95% efficient. This means that an ICE car using so-called renewable fuels will only travel a third as far as an electric car can by more directly using the same amount of renewably produced electricity. And that's using the overly generous assumption that the process for producing the renewable fuel is 100% efficient. With the limited exception of hydro reservoirs, batteries are far and away the best method available today for storing renewable energy for use later. Right now renewable fuels only make sense from an energy efficiency standpoint is in applications where battery weight is an overriding factor (e.g. airplanes).
My two cents...
Modern flywheel energy storage is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_storage_power_system*flywheels*
Am I a joke to you?
I know! I'm surprised he ignored it as a potential high efficiency storage tool.Modern flywheel energy storage is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_storage_power_system
Good post. It's no surprise why they dont give the power and dimensions of the solar array needed to power their pilot unit. That said, using a wind turbine, or even better, hydro-electric power generation, is much more viable.A gallon of gas contains 33.7kwh of energy so even with 100% efficiency you need at least that much sunlight.
Most solar panels around 20-25% efficient at maximums so you really need 4-5 times as much sunlight.
Then you’ve got whatever efficiency this process has for converting CO2 back to a hydrocarbon fuel. So assuming ~30% efficient conversion process,( but who knows - the link doesn’t have any info), and 25% efficient solar array you need about 250kwh of solar energy/ gallon.
If you don’t need the storage of a hydrocarbon fuel directly charging a battery would be much more efficient.
The difference in EVs vs ICE is fascinating from an energy standpoint.
You are correct. EVs are just more efficient. Mine averages 4miles / kWh while my sons Corolla averages ~ 34 mpg or 1mile / kWh. Pretty much any EV is going to be 4 times or more efficient than its ICE counterpart for a given body style. (Sedan vs sedan pick up vs pickup etc)
My battery which holds 82kwh is equivalent to the energy in 2.4 gallons of gas while my sons tank holds 13 gallons. So he can go well over 400 miles on a tank and I struggle to get much over 300 on a battery.
The fastest chargers top out at 350KW which is 5.8kwh / minute while a fast gas pump can do 10 gallons / minute or the equivalent of 337 kWh / minute almost 60 times faster but the EV tank is 5-6 times smaller.
I wonder if there ever have been developed, double piston ICE generators running at peak efficiency. It seems to be, Innengine has done so, according to their site.Flywheels are more for short term energy storage, I can see this machine being viable for long term, ex: seasonal. You generate a bunch of excess energy on a day where there's lot of sun or wind, then can dip into that stored energy weeks or even months later when needed. Would be cool if such machine ever became available to consumers as it would be a great way to have a bit more self reliance to have fuel for the generator in winter. Ideally you'd have an EV and everything is electric, you would only use fuel as a form of energy storage when solar/wind is over producing, and use it when it's not producing enough. Run a generator for a few hours to top up the battery. The round trip efficiency of it is not all that great but it's "free" energy.
*flywheels*
Am I a joke to you?
Modern flywheel energy storage is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_storage_power_system
I know! I'm surprised he ignored it as a potential high efficiency storage tool.
What's also missing is that burning gasoline is still throwing pollutants into the air. It isn't just about climate change.Solar can be stored in numerous ways. The most common options are:
The real question is can this do it any more efficiently than the options above.
- Batteries which are self-explanatory. Pretty simple to use. Infinitely and cheaply recyclable when they reach their lifespan after 10+ years. But, quite expensive to build that first battery.
- Heat: use solar to heat an object then use the heat to produce energy whenever you want. There is hot sand, hot salt, or just store the extra energy in your water heater (which is actually how much of the world uses solar).
- Potential energy. Often you can move something high and then let gravity lower it producing energy whenever you want. Or there is the age-old flywheel method. Use the solar to spin a flywheel and then slow the flywheel down when you want to use more energy.
The average family in the US uses about 2 gallons of gasoline per day. Thus, on ideal days, they'd need 2 of these machines. But, solar isn't flawless. You get days without much solar production. They average about half power over the whole lifespan vs their best days. So, double that and the average family needs 4 of these machines. It is hard to tell from that image in the OP, but it looks like it needs at least four 22 ft^2 solar panels for one machine. Possibly more since the image cuts off. Now we are talking 16+ solar panels for the average family.
Just messing with you, flywheels don't get the attention they deserve imo. They'd work great at a small scale as a brownout gap.I wouldn't want you to think that you are a joke to me, but I have yet to see any mechanical energy storage schemes that have proved workable for sizeable amounts of power (> 1000 MW-hr) over extended periods of time (days or weeks). I will think of these as something like a bad joke until I see a mechanical storage scheme demonstrate this level of performance.
I guess the rest of us don't need a personal 1000 MWhr energy storage system. Remember this discussion is about a personal-use device for up to 1 gallon of gas per day. Which is why my examples were of things like dumping the extra solar power into your water heater.I wouldn't want you to think that you are a joke to me, but I have yet to see any mechanical energy storage schemes that have proved workable for sizeable amounts of power (> 1000 MW-hr) over extended periods of time (days or weeks). I will think of these as something like a bad joke until I see a mechanical storage scheme demonstrate this level of performance.
You ever heard of the "hot pile of sand / sandbed" method of storing energy? One of the more simple yet pretty intuitive ideas out there. There is also the idea of adding carbon black to home/building foundation concrete slabs to make "supercapacitors" to store a lot of energy.I wouldn't want you to think that you are a joke to me, but I have yet to see any mechanical energy storage schemes that have proved workable for sizeable amounts of power (> 1000 MW-hr) over extended periods of time (days or weeks). I will think of these as something like a bad joke until I see a mechanical storage scheme demonstrate this level of performance.
Yes, flywheel energy storage is a "thing". And it has been touted as a "thing" for a very long time. There are lots of these kinds of "things" that have been touted as being on the verge of widespread practical application for literally decades (like fusion power). Right now these are only used in special circumstances and only store small amounts of energy for short periods of time. However, I would certainly be happy to be surprised by flywheels actually becoming a meaningful "thing" on the power system.
Again, there is no shortage of ideas out there for storing energy. And I'll grant you that they all might have some non-zero "potential" to become the best practicable method for efficiently storing renewable energy. Compressed air and superconducting coils are two other methods often mentioned (along with all sorts of different battery technologies). I have no idea which (if any) of these might change today's status quo, but I'm not ready to include these speculative technologies into my thinking until they are demonstrated to work on the kind of scale needed.
Another two cents...
I guess the rest of us don't need a personal 1000 MWhr energy storage system. Remember this discussion is about a personal-use device for up to 1 gallon of gas per day. Which is why my examples were of things like dumping the extra solar power into your water heater.
My solar panels only average 0.79 MWhr per month. So, I guess in >105 years I'll fill your 1000 MWhr personal energy storage once.
You are right in saying that individual households do not need storage on the scale that I am talking about, but we certainly do if we as a society want to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar energy. I plead guilty to thinking about the problem of energy storage at this societal level. (And I am making the assumption that large-scale approaches will prove to be more efficient than widespread application of small-scale approaches.) FWIW I also harbor (perhaps unfounded) concerns over the possible abrupt release of energy from malfunctioning storage devices in home settings.