• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

E-fuels becoming a reality

Checkerboard Strangler said:
We're getting there right now.
Click to expand...
True, but we have to remember that century plus companies know to wait to see where oil stabilizes at before playing their hand.
At least Exxon is already setting up a Unit to make synthetic fuel, albeit from captured CO2 and hydrogen from Natural gas.
It's emissions will be much lower, and the process is the same as using carbon neutral hydrogen.
 
PoS said:
If they can mass produce it cheaply then Im all for it.
Click to expand...
Cheaply is a matter of compared to other options.
I think the fuel will be about equal to $96 a barrel oil , or in the high $3 a gallon range.
if it is cheaper than fuel made from oil, that is when people will use it in mass.
 
PoS said:
If they can mass produce it cheaply then Im all for it.
Click to expand...
They can't. Neither cheaply or in any kind of mass amounts. And it will be decades before they can.
 
Buzz said:
They can't. Neither cheaply or in any kind of mass amounts. And it will be decades before they can.
Click to expand...
Just your opinion, or do you have a supporting citation?
 
PoS said:
If they can mass produce it cheaply then Im all for it.
Click to expand...
That would certainly be a big deal, but so far that scale seems out of reach. I think a bottleneck may end up being just the size and scope of the facilities necessary for processing. Atmospheric carbon is, obviously, a very low concentration so you will necessarily need a very large volume of air processed to produce any significant quantities. Even if the process itself achieves the necessary energy efficiency to be cost-effective on a per-gallon basis, the size and expense of the facilities needed will probably keep this out of mass market adoption for quite a while.

But hey, production of just about everything gets better over time so maybe we'll get a real breakthrough some day.
 
Antiwar said:
Climate science says that greenhouse gases are a problem, with carbon dioxide being a very significant one because of the burning of fossil fuels. Burning carbon-based fuels produces carbon dioxide. Why would supposedly carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels be a good way to use energy?
Click to expand...
Because it would recycle the Carbon, so you could use the fuel, and not increase the CO2 level.
The CO2 emitted in combustion, would be CO2 harvested from the atmosphere shortly before.
 
longview said:
Because it would recycle the Carbon, so you could use the fuel, and not increase the CO2 level.
The CO2 emitted in combustion, would be CO2 harvested from the atmosphere shortly before.
Click to expand...

We need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore, burning hydrocarbon fuels is not the best option.
 
Antiwar said:
We need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore, burning hydrocarbon fuels is not the best option.
Click to expand...
But burning hydrocarbon fuel the does not add additional CO2, solves several of the major problems of energy sustainability.
Making all transport fuels carbon neutral, would cut about 1/3 from global emissions, slowing the growth from 2 to 3 ppm/yr to 1 to 2 ppm per yr.
Combined with other ongoing energy savings projects we could decrease emissions to the point of zero growth( roughly half of current emissions).
We do not want to lower the CO2 level, as that has more risks than warming!
 
Antiwar said:
We need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore, burning hydrocarbon fuels is not the best option.
Click to expand...

You just proved that you don't even understand the concept of e-fuels.
 
longview said:
But burning hydrocarbon fuel the does not add additional CO2, solves several of the major problems of energy sustainability.
Making all transport fuels carbon neutral, would cut about 1/3 from global emissions, slowing the growth from 2 to 3 ppm/yr to 1 to 2 ppm per yr.
Combined with other ongoing energy savings projects we could decrease emissions to the point of zero growth( roughly half of current emissions).
We do not want to lower the CO2 level, as that has more risks than warming!
Click to expand...

I know that you disagree with the consensus on climate science, but reducing greenhouse gases is needed.
 
Antiwar said:
I know that you disagree with the consensus on climate science, but reducing greenhouse gases is needed.
Click to expand...
And switching to carbon neutral fuels would radically cut greenhouse gas emissions, but in a way that does not require changing all the transport infrastructure.
 
longview said:
Yea, you did! e-fuels can be 100% carbon neutral, and so would not emit any new CO2 when burned.
Click to expand...

I understand the theory of carbon neutrality. Either you didn't understand what I said or something else.
 
Antiwar said:
I understand the theory of carbon neutrality. Either you didn't understand what I said or something else.
Click to expand...
You're one of those all or nothing kinda guys?

No progress if its not perfection?

Finding ways to sustain our way of life and NOT ADDING to our environmental problems is progress, no matter how you slice it.
 
KevinKohler said:
You're one of those all or nothing kinda guys?

No progress if its not perfection?

Finding ways to sustain our way of life and NOT ADDING to our environmental problems is progress, no matter how you slice it.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I'm all for improvements. But we should've started improvements several decades ago. The proverbial Titanic is sinking and people want to talk about water neutrality, if you will.

And I strongly suspect that most people want to believe that we can keep being very wasteful, when I don't think we can. I half-listened to a good radio show on these topics, this morning. I kind of wish I would've listened more closely.
 
Antiwar said:
I understand the theory of carbon neutrality. Either you didn't understand what I said or something else.
Click to expand...
In post #36 you said,
We need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore, burning hydrocarbon fuels is not the best option.
Click to expand...
Your statement is incorrect because there is a difference between any hydrocarbon fuel, and a hydrocarbon fuel made from oil.
By pooling the two together you demonize all hydrocarbon fuels, but short of some major technological advances in batteries,
man made carbon neutral fuels, are the only viable path forward for energy sustainability.
This is important because without the high energy density storage made possible by hydrocarbons, our planet
could not support our current population.
I know Ammonia also has some possibilities, but our infrastructure is not set up for such a caustic gas.
 
Antiwar said:
No, I'm not. I'm all for improvements. But we should've started improvements several decades ago. The proverbial Titanic is sinking and people want to talk about water neutrality, if you will.

And I strongly suspect that most people want to believe that we can keep being very wasteful, when I don't think we can. I half-listened to a good radio show on these topics, this morning. I kind of wish I would've listened more closely.
Click to expand...
It is not a question of waste, but sustainability. no energy storage is perfect, but a storage methodology that does not harm the environment,
and is compatible with our existing infrastructure and demand.
 
longview said:
In post #36 you said,

Your statement is incorrect because there is a difference between any hydrocarbon fuel, and a hydrocarbon fuel made from oil.
By pooling the two together you demonize all hydrocarbon fuels, but short of some major technological advances in batteries,
man made carbon neutral fuels, are the only viable path forward for energy sustainability.
This is important because without the high energy density storage made possible by hydrocarbons, our planet
could not support our current population.
I know Ammonia also has some possibilities, but our infrastructure is not set up for such a caustic gas.
Click to expand...

My statements are not incorrect. We need to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Burning hydrocarbons increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
 
Antiwar said:
My statements are not incorrect. We need to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Burning hydrocarbons increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
Your statement is incorrect because a hydrocarbon fuel made from atmospheric CO2 would not increase the CO2 level when burned,
It would simply return the CO2 that had already been removed.
 
longview said:
Your statement is incorrect because a hydrocarbon fuel made from atmospheric CO2 would not increase the CO2 level when burned,
It would simply return the CO2 that had already been removed.
Click to expand...

Burning hydrocarbons produces CO2.

Burning hydrocarbons produces CO2.

Burning hydrocarbons produces CO2.

You can say that CO2 HAD BEEN sequestered from the atmosphere by producing the raw material(s) that hydrocarbon fuel was made from, but burning that fuel will always release CO2. That is, unless someone figured out how to manipulate the chemistry of combusting hydrocarbons in air.

It's similar to catch and release fishing, except for CO2. If the CO2 was caught but NOT released, it'd reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

Remember, before you repeat yourself again, I said that CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be reduced.

CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be reduced.

CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be reduced.

CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be reduced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom