The end of fracking and energy storage all in one...

[Horatio Parker]

http://www.viralspell.com/in-a-bid-...audi-has-made-diesel-only-from-air-and-water/

Luxury car maker Audi has announced that it is making synthetic diesel fuel from just water and carbon dioxide.

Audi’s pilot plant, which is operated in Dresden by German start-up Sunfire, has produced its first batches of the “e-diesel” fuel earlier this month.

...

Sunfire expects that the market price for their e-diesel could be between 1 and 1.5 euros ($1.1 – $1.6) per liter, which would be slightly more expensive than current diesel prices in Europe. However, the actual figure will be largely dependent on the price of electricity.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Meh. Until they make a fuel out of rainbows and unicorn farts, I'm sticking with oil.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That sweet, sweet crude.

 

[Earl IV]

Meh. Until they make a fuel out of rainbows and unicorn farts, I'm sticking with oil.

"Rainbows and Unicorn farts" is redundant.

In case you were curious what was at the other end of the rainbow.

 

[Horatio Parker]

One comment said that windy locations, such as Newfoundland, could end up becoming the new petro states.

There's a pretty topsy-turvy, eh?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

One comment said that windy locations, such as Newfoundland, could end up becoming the new petro states.

There's a pretty topsy-turvy, eh?

Not really. Newfoundland has a massive oil field, so they're kind of a petro state right now.

 

[dismal]

One comment said that windy locations, such as Newfoundland, could end up becoming the new petro states.

There's a pretty topsy-turvy, eh?

Is the premise of the comment that windy states have more air?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But that means nuke plants!

<Runs off doing a Chicken Little impression.>

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One comment said that windy locations, such as Newfoundland, could end up becoming the new petro states.

There's a pretty topsy-turvy, eh?

Is the premise of the comment that windy states have more air?

Wind power is generating the electricity used in the production of the e-diesel.

 

[dismal]

Is the premise of the comment that windy states have more air?

Wind power is generating the electricity used in the production of the e-diesel.

As an engineer you do realize this will not happen?

Nothing sets off your alarm bells even a little?

We're going to use air as a source of carbon and water as a source of hydrogen and apply large amounts of energy and capital to make hydrocarbons and then convert the hydrocarbons to diesel by applying energy and capital?

In a world where we have abundant hydrocarbons like methane readily and cheaply available do we convert them to diesel? And when we need large amounts of hydrogen do we get it from water? And when we need large amounts of carbon do we get it from air?

 

[Horatio Parker]

One comment said that windy locations, such as Newfoundland, could end up becoming the new petro states.

There's a pretty topsy-turvy, eh?

Is the premise of the comment that windy states have more air?

Assuming that you're not joking, the premise is that windy states can produce more electricity. Areas with greater renewable potential can produce more fuel.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wind power is generating the electricity used in the production of the e-diesel.

As an engineer you do realize this will not happen?

You asked a question, I answered it.

Nothing sets off your alarm bells even a little?

Of course alarm bells are going off. It seems way too good to be true. Which is why you didn't notice a post of mine saying "THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING!!!"

 

[dismal]

As an engineer you do realize this will not happen?

You asked a question, I answered it.

If wind was going to make windy places Saudi Arabia due to wind generated electricity it does not require this.

We already have many uses of electricity. It has not made windy places into Saudi Arabia.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You asked a question, I answered it.

If wind was going to make windy places Saudi Arabia due to wind generated electricity it does not require this.

We already have many uses of electricity. It has not made windy places into Saudi Arabia.

Petulant much? You misunderstood what someone originally said and now for some unknown reason, you won't let it go.

 

[lpetrich]

Most interesting. That's great. They claim that they can get fuel prices of EUR 1.00 - 1.50 per liter, or roughly $4.00 - $5.50 per gallon. That's close to competing with fossil fuels right there.

The process is straightforward chemistry.

Electrolysis: H2O -> H2 + (1/2) * O2
Carbon capture and Fischer-Tropsch: CO2 + 3H2 -> [CH2] (liquid hydrocarbons)

This is a nice fuel in some respects, and relatively clean-burning. It's low on aromatic hydrocarbons, those with lots of benzene rings and multi-benzene ones, and it has zero sulfur.

A problem with this process is what electrolytic-cell electrodes need: some electrically-conductive material that will not be chemically altered by the cell's operation. To date, the most suitable electrode material has been platinum, a very rare and expensive metal, but there has recently been some progress in liberation from that metal and other noble metals.

Green Car Congress: Rutgers chemists develop new high-performance, platinum-free electrocatalyst for electrolysis; licensing available
Rutgers Chemists Develop Technology to Produce Clean-Burning Hydrogen Fuel | Media Relations
Hydrogen Economy: Boom or Bust? | CleanTechnica about more research into platinum-free electrodes

Going in the opposite direction,
The Inevitable March Of The Fuel Cell | CleanTechnica
Development of Next-Generation Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Stack for Residential Fuel Cell Systems in Existing Apartments - FCO Power Inc. : Sustainable Energy with “Printed Fuel Cell™”
New Low Cost Hydrogen Fuel Cell Eschews Platinum Catalyst
CellEra | Platinum-Free Membrane Fuel Cell technology
Some success in developing platinum-free electrodes for room-temperature fuel cells.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most interesting. That's great. They claim that they can get fuel prices of EUR 1.00 - 1.50 per liter, or roughly $4.00 - $5.50 per gallon. That's close to competing with fossil fuels right there.

The process is straightforward chemistry.

Electrolysis: H2O -> H2 + (1/2) * O2
Carbon capture and Fischer-Tropsch: CO2 + 3H2 -> [CH2] (liquid hydrocarbons)

This is a nice fuel in some respects, and relatively clean-burning. It's low on aromatic hydrocarbons, those with lots of benzene rings and multi-benzene ones, and it has zero sulfur.

A problem with this process is what electrolytic-cell electrodes need: some electrically-conductive material that will not be chemically altered by the cell's operation. To date, the most suitable electrode material has been platinum, a very rare and expensive metal, but there has recently been some progress in liberation from that metal and other noble metals.

Ouch! Any large scale system based on platinum catalysts is pretty much doomed, there simply isn't enough platinum around. (Which is also why hydrogen fuel cell cars aren't an option: The world's supply of platinum will provide enough fuel cells to equip the US fleet. Once.)

 

[Jayjay]

 

[lpetrich]

"Synthetic Liquid Hydrocarbons" would be a better name. It's hard to compete with hydrocarbons in:

1. Usable energy density
2. Component-element abundance
3. Relatively low toxicity of some of them
4. Range of melting and boiling points

 

[dismal]

If wind was going to make windy places Saudi Arabia due to wind generated electricity it does not require this.

We already have many uses of electricity. It has not made windy places into Saudi Arabia.

Petulant much? You misunderstood what someone originally said and now for some unknown reason, you won't let it go.

Sorry Jimmy, the comment was indeed stupid as hell. Not sure why you felt such a great need to defend such stupidity. It looks like we have hit the point where you have stopped attempting actual defenses and you have decided to go after me personally. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[lpetrich]

Here are some recent numbers for fossil-fuel prices and electricity-generation efficiencies.

I'll use these recent US numbers:
Coal Prices and Coal Price Charts - InvestmentMine
Petroleum -- 60.49 $/bbl
Natural Gas -- 2.93 $/mmBTU
Thermal Coal CAPP -- 51.25 $/st
CAPP = Central Appalachian

How much coal, natural gas, or petroleum is used to generate a kilowatthour of electricity? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
1,842 kWh per ton of Coal
127 kWh per Mcf (1,000 cubic feet) of Natural gas
533 kWh per barrel of Petroleum

Assumptions:

Power plant heat rate -> energy efficiency
Coal = 10,498 Btu/kWh -- 33% (steam engine)
Natural gas = 8,039 Btu/kWh -- 42% (combined cycle: combustion turbine + steam engine)
Petroleum = 10,991 Btu/kWh -- 31% (steam engine)

Fuel heat contents
Coal = 19,336,000 Btu per short ton (2,000 lbs) Note: heat contents of coal vary widely by types of coal.
Natural gas = 1,023,000 Btu per 1,000 Cubic Feet (Mcf)
Petroleum = 5,861,814 Btu per Barrel (42 gallons) Note: Heat contents vary by type of petroleum product.

So I find ($/kWh):
Oil: 0.113
NatGas: 0.024
Coal: 0.028

That makes crude oil about 4.3 times more expensive for generating electricity than natgas or coal. That also makes the raw energy content of oil cost 0.035 $/kWh, about 1.35 the cost of electrical energy generated by natgas or coal.

Using a natgas-coal average, 0.026 $/kWh, if production of some synfuel is only 50% efficient in applied electrical energy, then that synfuel's energy content will cost 0.052 $/kWh. But if the price of oil goes up by a factor of 2, then its raw energy content will cost 0.070 $/kWh, and the synfuel will undersell oil.

Also, since wind and solar electricity generation are still-growing technologies, their price per unit electricity may drop further. If they drop by a factor of 2, then that will cancel out my assumed 50% synfuel efficiency factor.

Let us now turn from petroleum to refined products: various hydrocarbons extracted from it.

I checked on various petroleum-derived fuel products, and I found these numbers for the US as of today (Today in Energy - Daily Prices - Prices - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Feb 27, 2015):
Propane: $0.60 / gallon
Gasoline: $1.60 - $2.00 / gallon -- will use $1.80 / gallon
Diesel Fuel: $2.00 - $2.30 / gallon -- will use $2.15 / gallon
Heating Oil: $1.80 - $2.10 / gallon -- will use $1.95 / gallon

Densities from Liquids - Densities
Propane: 0.4935, Gasoline: 0.737, Diesel fuel: 0.885, Heating oil: 0.920 all g/cm^3

Marine-grade bunker fuel is a bottom-of-the-barrel petroleum product in a very literal sense: it's what's left over after the lighter hydrocarbons are distilled off. Source: Bunkerworld Prices, as of Feb 23, 2015, avg. of IFO380 prices available to unregistered users.

Cost per unit weight: Propane: 0.32, Gasoline: 0.65, Diesel fuel: 0.64, Heating oil: 0.56, Bunker fuel: 0.34 -- all $/kg

Energy content: Energy density - Wikipedia, Energy Content in Common Energy Sources

Working out the numbers, I find these energy-cost values:
Propane: 0.023, Gasoline: 0.050, Diesel Fuel: 0.050, Heating Oil: 0.043, Bunker Fuel: 0.026 -- all $/kWh

I'd earlier calculated that the comparable cost for petroleum is 0.035 $/kWh. Using the Engineering Toolbox's numbers and the current price of petroleum, it's 0.036 $/kWh.

To get an idea of how much gasoline and crude-oil prices are correlated, I checked Trends in Crude Oil and Gasoline Prices | farmdocdaily.illinois.edu. Their correlation is remarkably good. So one gets a gasoline-to-petroleum energy-price ratio of about 1.4.


My estimate of a natgas-coal avereage, 0.026 $/kWh, suggests that electricity-generated synfuels will almost be competitive with gasoline and diesel fuel for a production efficiency of 50%. However, it will need 100% efficiency to compete with bunker fuel, something unfeasible.