On 05/05/2015 01:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/05/15 20:11, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

If you ignore the "green" aspect, then its a technology that may at some
point be useful. In a world with abundant nuclear power, there will
still be a demand for the energy density carbon fuels can deliver. So
additional techniques to synthesise them from existing environmental
carbon may become mainstream.

No need to ignore a technology, just because the spin someone sticks
on it.


Sigh. I really get fed up with people who think they are a step ahead
when they are three steps behidn..

and yet you then demonstrate the same problem a few lines later.

Of COURSE if we MUST have hydrocarbon fuel, and its probably the only
realistic way to fly across the atlantic for a long time yet, and the

keep in mind the original purpose of the Oak Ridge project...

cost of extracting it out of the ground exceeds the cost of making it
with nuclear power (that being the cheapest non fossil source of power)
then we might synthesise it and sell it at - say £5 a litre or something.

Considering that avjet is about 50p a litre or less, and that fuel is
almost the dominant cost of flying, thats a ten time increase in fares.

You seem to be making the assumption that the cost of synthesis will
remain the same, and that avjet will not get more expensive. Last time I
checked avjet counted as a fossil fuel.

In a situation where synthesis becomes more commonly used, it will be
set against a backdrop or rising fossil fuel costs anyway. Diminishing
the gap.

What is the major component cost of synthesis likely to be?

Energy.

If you have a solution to the energy problem, then that reduces the cost
of synthesis. All you need synthisis for is solving an energy packaging
and storage problem in limited applications.

Its like arguing that desalination is not a cost effective way of
producing drinking water. While true, it does not stop the Saudi's
actually doing it since they are energy rich, and have limited other
options.

£3000 quid to fly to new york is not going to make it something anyone
does on a whim. Not when a nuclear ocean liner can do it in 2 days for
£500 or something.

As I said, technically possible but commercially catastrophic.

People adapt to change. If it becomes the case that air travel starts
looking substantially more expensive, then fewer people will fly, and
alternative modes of transport will see higher demand.

What people don't understand is that in the real world cost rules the
solution matrix. Otherwise we would all drive jaguars. Or porsches or
Ferraris or Humvees or whatever. As it is we all drive ford ****uses.
Because they are all we can afford.

And the green party doesn't even understand the term 'cost benefit
analysis'

Not that they have any relevance...

And if the Labia party does, its doesn't let it hold them back.

Well dogma trumps logic every time!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/