• 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

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.
We've been improving energy conservation for decades. Not sure what you're talking about, here.

As for being wasteful in general, I definitely agree with that. But all the climate change folks ever want to talk about is fossil fuel consumption. As they toss their cigarette butt on the ground. As they drink water out of their plastic bottle. As they print memos on bleached white paper.
 
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 are still not understanding the concept of carbon neutrality!
If the CO2 level is at 415 ppm, and CO2 capture picks up 1ppm and uses it to create fuel, when that fuel is burned, you have not increased the CO2 level!
Now does the CO2 level need to be reduced?
That is a more complicated and dangerous question. While there does not appear to be a tipping point for warming, there is almost certainly a tipping point for cooling, and cooling by 5C would truly be catastrophic for we Humans!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
You are still not understanding the concept of carbon neutrality!

You like to make claims but you don't back them up!

Why? Probably because you like to push your bogus narratives:

While there does not appear to be a tipping point for warming, there is almost certainly a tipping point for cooling, and cooling by 5C would truly be catastrophic for we Humans!

Part of the following agrees with me, part is more of your bogus narratives, and the first part could be an interesting discussion, if you were actually into interesting discussions. The interesting part, that I might or might not look into, is the first sentence. Why? Because is that true for all 'carbon neutral' hydrocarbons? Why? Because hydrocarbons have different amounts of carbon, and the amount of carbon is crucial to the amount of CO2 emitted during combustion. Why else? Because: How much carbon dioxide do various raw materials (I believe we're talking about plants) sequester from the atmosphere? I wouldn't be surprised if you and Porsche are making vague and/or fallacious claims. Note: None of this is personal.

If the CO2 level is at 415 ppm, and CO2 capture picks up 1ppm and uses it to create fuel, when that fuel is burned, you have not increased the CO2 level!
Now does the CO2 level need to be reduced?
That is a more complicated and dangerous question.
 
We've been improving energy conservation for decades. Not sure what you're talking about, here.

Energy conservation isn't the crucial issue; trying to avoid the worse parts of climate change due to global warming, which is mostly due to burning fossil fuels like crazy, is the crucial issue.

As for being wasteful in general, I definitely agree with that. But all the climate change folks ever want to talk about is fossil fuel consumption. As they toss their cigarette butt on the ground. As they drink water out of their plastic bottle. As they print memos on bleached white paper.

Pretty much everything industrialized humans do has and continues to degrade and destroy Earth's fragile ecosystems that we depend on for our survival. We need to address all of it, but the highest priority is to stop adding fossil fuels to the fire.
 
You like to make claims but you don't back them up!

Why? Probably because you like to push your bogus narratives:



Part of the following agrees with me, part is more of your bogus narratives, and the first part could be an interesting discussion, if you were actually into interesting discussions. The interesting part, that I might or might not look into, is the first sentence. Why? Because is that true for all 'carbon neutral' hydrocarbons? Why? Because hydrocarbons have different amounts of carbon, and the amount of carbon is crucial to the amount of CO2 emitted during combustion. Why else? Because: How much carbon dioxide do various raw materials (I believe we're talking about plants) sequester from the atmosphere? I wouldn't be surprised if you and Porsche are making vague and/or fallacious claims. Note: None of this is personal.
Chemical construction of carbon neutral fuels do not get the hydrocarbon from plants, they use carbon free electricity to separate hydrogen from water, and carbon from atmospheric CO2 directly.
The technology is called power to liquid, and the first facility is being built in Norway for making carbon neutral jet fuel.
The often heard statement that a 6lb gallon of gasoline produces 20 lbs of CO2 is correct, but so is the reverse, it takes 20 lbs of CO2 to create a gallon of gasoline!
Porsche is new to the game, Audi started about 2011, and spun off Sunfire energy, who’s technology is going into the Norway plant under construction.
 
Here's what I see Porsche, Americans, and 'hot rodders' wanting and saying in this thread. And I learned a new term for it, this past week:

Quoting Wikipedia >>> A cornucopian is a futurist who believes that continued progress and provision of material items for mankind can be met by similarly continued advances in technology. Fundamentally they believe that there are enough matter and energy on the Earth to provide for the population of the world. <<< End quoting

They want to keep living the high life when over half of the people on the planet aren't and can't, and the high life is degrading and destroying the planet.


 
Last edited:
Chemical construction of carbon neutral fuels do not get the hydrocarbon from plants, they use carbon free electricity to separate hydrogen from water, and carbon from atmospheric CO2 directly.
The technology is called power to liquid, and the first facility is being built in Norway for making carbon neutral jet fuel.
The often heard statement that a 6lb gallon of gasoline produces 20 lbs of CO2 is correct, but so is the reverse, it takes 20 lbs of CO2 to create a gallon of gasoline!
Porsche is new to the game, Audi started about 2011, and spun off Sunfire energy, who’s technology is going into the Norway plant under construction.

That's all fine and dandy, BUT: Surely there are several efficiencies that need to be taken into account, especially the inefficiency of internal combustion.

AND, where energy is invested matters. Humanity needs to be able to eat good food and survive, not drive their Teslas and Porsches at 140 mph, for examples.
 

Quoting >>>​

HIF is taking what it learns in Chile and applying it globally, starting with areas in the United States with high quality renewable energy resources.​


Headquartered in Houston, HIF USA will begin on the Gulf Coast, where wind resources and CO2 are both abundant.


HIF USA will use renewable energy from the wind and a process called electrolysis to produce green hydrogen. The project will also capture CO2 and use a process of synthesis to combine the CO2 and Hydrogen to produce eFuels. The eFuel will create a way for existing infrastructure to become carbon neutral by continuously reusing and recycling the CO2.


The scheme known as Project Helix aims include:


  • Add 15 GW of renewable electricity to Texas capacity
  • Produce 900 million kilograms per year of Green Hydrogen
  • Capture CO2 of approximately 6 million tonnes per year
  • Produce 600 million gallons per year of eFuels
  • Convert 1 million vehicles to carbon neutral

 
That's all fine and dandy, BUT: Surely there are several efficiencies that need to be taken into account, especially the inefficiency of internal combustion.

AND, where energy is invested matters. Humanity needs to be able to eat good food and survive, not drive their Teslas and Porsches at 140 mph, for examples.
Humanity has an energy problem, but it is not so much a supply problem as a distribution problem.
Solar can provide all the energy we need, but it is not in a form that we need. Hydrocarbon energy storage allows the accumulation of solar electricity in a form that is compatible with existing demand. Yes there are always losses with energy storage, and heat engines will always have Carnot losses, but having the energy stored as high density liquid fuel will solve a lot of the problems going forward. It is at least a viable path, until the next best thing is invented!
 
Humanity has an energy problem, but it is not so much a supply problem as a distribution problem.
Solar can provide all the energy we need, but it is not in a form that we need. Hydrocarbon energy storage allows the accumulation of solar electricity in a form that is compatible with existing demand. Yes there are always losses with energy storage, and heat engines will always have Carnot losses, but having the energy stored as high density liquid fuel will solve a lot of the problems going forward. It is at least a viable path, until the next best thing is invented!

Yeah, wrong. Humanity has all kinds of energy, environmental, and other problems and you probably want to cash in on bitcoin speculation and/or stocks and continue to drive your ICE vehicles too much. 'You want your cake and to eat it too' while more than half of humanity struggles to survive on crumbs.
 
Yeah, wrong. Humanity has all kinds of energy, environmental, and other problems and you probably want to cash in on bitcoin speculation and/or stocks and continue to drive your ICE vehicles too much. 'You want your cake and to eat it too' while more than half of humanity struggles to survive on crumbs.
If you do not believe that solar power has the capacity to fill our energy demands, then we really do not have much of a future. Wind has some potential but is confined to limited locations,
Solar is the only universal energy that can be utilized by most countries.
Please consider that solar energy stored as transport fuels, and man made CH4, could make almost any nation energy independent.
True energy storage is what allows poor duty cycle solar power to become a global game changer!
 
If you do not believe that solar power has the capacity to fill our energy demands, then we really do not have much of a future. Wind has some potential but is confined to limited locations,
Solar is the only universal energy that can be utilized by most countries.
Please consider that solar energy stored as transport fuels, and man made CH4, could make almost any nation energy independent.
True energy storage is what allows poor duty cycle solar power to become a global game changer!
He's not gonna be happy until everyone is wearing hemp jeans and riding bicycles.
 
Yeah, wrong. Humanity has all kinds of energy, environmental, and other problems and you probably want to cash in on bitcoin speculation and/or stocks and continue to drive your ICE vehicles too much. 'You want your cake and to eat it too' while more than half of humanity struggles to survive on crumbs.
Well, if you want to go that rout...the best thing you could do is stop being anti war.

War is an excellent means of population control, and ultimately, even if we're all living stone age lifestyles, population...and the need to feed such populations, are the true issue.
 
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.
OK, stop exhaling then.
 
This would be great news.
 
Back
Top Bottom