This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 28/04/2015 16:46, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524


Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')


That's certainly a spin that has been put on the news, that it will be
the end of the electric car.

Tim w

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.

--
*I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/04/2015 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.


Does the NOx come from burning the fuel with air (that is mostly
Nitrogen, of course) or is there Nitrogen in the fuel? I assume it's
from the air, in which case this artificial fuel will produce NOx emissions.

On 28/04/15 21:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in
use.


Does the NOx come from burning the fuel with air (that is mostly
Nitrogen, of course) ...

Yes.

or is there Nitrogen in the fuel?

No.

Can be, Tim. AS a performance or other additive.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.


Unless you can stop the engine breathing air, high combustion temperatures
will produce nox irrespective of fuel surely?

Tim

On 28/04/15 19:35, Tim+ wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.


Unless you can stop the engine breathing air, high combustion temperatures
will produce nox irrespective of fuel surely?


Mmm. You can do combustion without using air.

The classic is heating coal and metal oxide. What you get is pure CO2
and metal.

Then you can burn the metal in air back to oxide and feed it back in

Tim



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.

Drivel.
The pollution depends on the type of engine, not the fuel, which must fall
within certain specifications for the engine to work at all.

The advantages of this fuel is that
It can be made from surplus renewable energy.
It is carbon neutral. (Up to a point)
There is no sulphur in the fuel so no SO2 is generated.

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in
use.

Drivel.

Sigh. Try doing some basic research, Harry. Even you should be able to do
that.

--
*See no evil, Hear no evil, Date no evil.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/04/15 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Unfortunately it wont change the law of energy conservation.

So it wont change anything much.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Unfortunately it wont change the law of energy conservation.


The only benefit is that it could "use up" surplus renewable energy.

On 28/04/2015 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Since it requires a process temperature of 800 deg C it would be an
ideal partner for a LFTR reactor, since they can achieve the high
process temperatures directly.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2015 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Since it requires a process temperature of 800 deg C it would be an ideal
partner for a LFTR reactor, since they can achieve the high process
temperatures directly.


Pointless.

On 28/04/2015 20:59, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524


Since it requires a process temperature of 800 deg C it would be an
ideal partner for a LFTR reactor, since they can achieve the high
process temperatures directly.


Not green enough! Surely needs one of those Spanish / California type
focussed solar arrays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

On 30/04/2015 12:18, newshound wrote:
On 28/04/2015 20:59, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524



Since it requires a process temperature of 800 deg C it would be an
ideal partner for a LFTR reactor, since they can achieve the high
process temperatures directly.


Not green enough! Surely needs one of those Spanish / California type
focussed solar arrays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

Yup, that would work... so long as you don;t mind popping over to spain
for for your next fill up ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 16:38:17 UTC+1, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

What a ****ing awful web****e.
I clicked off out of there pronto.

On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?


That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?


That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

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

On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?


That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

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

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Tim W

On 28/04/2015 17:31, Tim w wrote:

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Even if it's 100% efficient, it only makes sense in certain specific
ways. The process takes electrical energy, that can be used direct for
traction and turns it into chemical energy that needs to be burnt to
extract the energy again. That burning is far from efficient, as even
the most efficient engine will produce much waste heat. (It needs to, so
as to obey the laws of thermodynamics.)

The specific reasons it may make sense a
It may use electrical energy that would otherwise go to waste.
We have an enormous infrastructure to use the oil produced, so it may be
better to use that, rather than go over to an electric car infrastructure.
The oil is easy to transport and store.

On 28/04/2015 18:41, GB wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:31, Tim w wrote:

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Even if it's 100% efficient, it only makes sense in certain specific
ways. The process takes electrical energy, that can be used direct for
traction and turns it into chemical energy that needs to be burnt to
extract the energy again. That burning is far from efficient, as even
the most efficient engine will produce much waste heat. (It needs to, so
as to obey the laws of thermodynamics.)

The specific reasons it may make sense a
It may use electrical energy that would otherwise go to waste.
We have an enormous infrastructure to use the oil produced, so it may be
better to use that, rather than go over to an electric car infrastructure.
The oil is easy to transport and store.


If you use the electricity from variable and unreliable sources, like
wind farms, the fuel is, effectively, a way to store that energy for
later use. Perhaps not the most efficient way to do it, but possibly the
most useful.

--
Colin Bignell

On 28/04/2015 18:41, GB wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:31, Tim w wrote:

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Even if it's 100% efficient, it only makes sense in certain specific
ways. The process takes electrical energy, that can be used direct for
traction and turns it into chemical energy that needs to be burnt to
extract the energy again. That burning is far from efficient, as even
the most efficient engine will produce much waste heat. (It needs to, so
as to obey the laws of thermodynamics.)

The main attraction is the energy density of a hydrocarbon fuel over any
available battery technology. The best efforts of 500kg+ of batteries
can be reduced to a few litres of fuel.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 28/04/2015 17:31, Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?

That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

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

Almost certainly pathetic unless you start with refined pure materials
and then you have to include the cost of refining them.

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

The unstated assumptions going into that so called 70% including having
a convenient cylinder of pure 2000psi CO2 as a feedstock rather than
taking it out of the air as a real greenwash project would have to.

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Tim W

Basically it is Audi marketing bull**** wearing a green vest.

When they publish in Nature or with patents I will take it seriously.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 29/04/15 08:32, Martin Brown wrote:
When they publish in Nature or with patents I will take it seriously.

Not even then sadly.

The track record of Nature in publishing ******** is all to evident, and
the amount of junk that's been patented over the years..

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2015 17:31, Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?

That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

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

Almost certainly pathetic unless you start with refined pure materials and
then you have to include the cost of refining them.

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

The unstated assumptions going into that so called 70% including having a
convenient cylinder of pure 2000psi CO2 as a feedstock rather than taking
it out of the air as a real greenwash project would have to.

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Tim W

Basically it is Audi marketing bull**** wearing a green vest.

They would gather CO2 from fossil/bio fuel burning plants or breweries etc.
Gathering from the air would be difficult. And pointless.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

Quite. Perhaps a bit like hydrogen.

Why not use the renewable energy to cut down on gas used for electricity
generation or house heating, and use liquefied gas for road transport?

Makes sense to me to use any energy as efficiently as possible.

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Why not use the renewable energy to cut down on
gas used for electricity generation or house heating,

Because nukes work MUCH better for that, essentially
because they work most of the time and renewables don’t.

and use liquefied gas for road transport?

We do already. Virtually all of our taxi fleet use that.

Diesel has some advantages for heavy vehicles tho,
but its better to grow that than to make it that way.

Makes sense to me to use any energy as efficiently as possible.

Makes sense to use nukes where ever they are viable.

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.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

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.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

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.


People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future are
living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put socks
in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the constant,
dismal, negative, droning.

Tim W

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 20:52:17 UTC+1, 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.

It took how many posts before someone said this?


NT

On Tuesday, 28 April 2015 20:52:17 UTC+1, 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.

and in reality is directly in opposition to the green agenda of reducing energy consumption


NT

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.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 28/04/15 17:24, Capitol wrote:
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?


That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

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

Probably £10-£12


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

Capitol wrote:
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?


That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

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

Did you see the name of the spokesperson?

On 28/04/15 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?

Sure, if you don't mind paying £12 a litre for diesel


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

In article , Jethro_uk
writes
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?
Well it's no damned use for anything else.
--
bert

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-using-just-ca
rbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Why do you need to heat water to 800C to electrolyse it? Electrolysis
of water takes place very well at 20C, to give oxygen and hydrogen.
Maybe it's an efficiency thing*. And I would have thought it better to
capture the CO2 from coal- or gas-burning power stations than from
ambient air, which would surely be very inefficient given the amount
of air you'd have to process.

Unfortunate name for the German federal minister of education and
research, Dr Johanna Wanka!

*yes it is. Just looked it up. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-te...e_electrolysis

Steam at those sorts of temps is quite corrosive of e.g. stainless
steel. What is being proposed for transporting the steam?

Drivel.