Electric Cars May Not Be The Only Way For The Future.

[Brenbo]

Just seen this video on Youtube and it seems Electric cars may not be the only for the future of the automotive industry.  Check out the link below, apparently there is a way of producing carbon neutral fuel from carbon dioxide in the air, which could be used in any present day car on the road today.  This comes across as a more realistic approach for the future than eventually completely relying on electric cars and eventually outlawing petrol and diesel cars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_8DJF6Hp0

[BobbyT]

meh.... I'm sure they will be, won't be able to own or drive your own car either... 

[fredgroves]

Its an interesting concept, but the detail is lacking.

I wonder how much energy is required to do it? Its not a particularly efficient method.

You are effectively turning electric power into stored chemical power - ie making a chemical battery. You'd have to compare this to the overall complexity of electric vehicles (the cost of the manufacture vs the cost of combustion tech) and I'm not sure how that stacks up.

I would have thought that if this was viable then big oil would be all over this - they are already seeking their future (eg BP run the largest electric charging network in the UK...)

I was talking to someone about electric vehicles the other day and what I hadn't grasped is that a lot of the components that need maintenance on our current dinosaur burners are not in an electric car. They have a lower mechanical cost of ownership. Which is interesting.

Interesting post though - thank you!

[weytf]

Even if it is not a massively efficient process though, so long as the power is coming from renewables then this is an excellent way of tackling the issue of atmospheric CO2.

So long as it's not snake oil that is...

[Arnold_Lane]

Even if it is not a massively efficient process though, so long as the power is coming from renewables then this is an excellent way of tackling the issue of atmospheric CO2.

Nature has a way for coping with raised levels of CO₂: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

[fredgroves]

I found another article about this elsewhere and reading that, the technical problem they have is that currently it costs $600 per tonne to convert and they need that to be $100 per tonne to make it economically viable - which is why they haven't done it yet.

Solving the electrical power generation issue is the main challenge to just about everything. If we can ever get to endless cheap electricity then all sorts of things are possible.

Looking at my electricity bill that significantly rises every year, we aren't getting there any time soon.

Nuclear fusion is probably the answer, in theory....

[Talk-torque]

.........where we’re going, we don’t need wheels!

[2007GTI]

Regarding the comment that the energy it uses is from renewables so there’s no impact, this completely (and probably intentionally) ignores the fact that you would have to divert massive amounts of renewable electricity (which is not free) away from the grid to do an extremely inefficient process. The only way this could work is if you had stranded electricity production you couldn’t connect to a grid and then it still needs to compete with other solar fuels such as hydrogen production from water electrolysis. Go figure.

[mustard]

Of course one could argue that the current burning of fossil fuels is simple releasing the carbon dioxide absorbed by the plants when they were alive. so is the ultimate recycling.

[fredgroves]

The amount of CO2 on earth is actually a constant. Its the location of it that changes both naturally and man made:

https://www.undeerc.org/pcor/sequestration/co2onearth.aspx

That's not me denying the effect of man, just explaining that it is never created or destroyed, its just moved around.