• Womble@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    38 minutes ago

    I wonder is a scaled up version of this could work for grid-scale medium length storage. Smoothing out weeks of dunkleflaute is the main blocker to going to a primarily renewable grid. Gasoline is a lot easier to store than hydrogen and large scale gasoline generators should get close to the efficiency of natural gas peaker plants.

  • fubarx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It takes twice as much electrical energy to produce energy in the form of gasoline.

    We lose money on every sale, but make it up on volume!

    • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Sustainable energy is the key to making the Aircela machine practical and cost-effective. Running it on the grid from coal or natural gas power plants defeats the purpose of removing carbon from the air, and the electricity will cost more, too.

      The company themselves even state that this is supposed to be driven by solar/wind, otherwise it makes no sense. This is regular PtX but in SFF for modular small scale deployment.

      • rmuk@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Yeah, put these in Iceland, Scotland or the Sahara where there’s virtually unlimited zero-carbon power available and they make a world of sense.

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      It’s not worse. It’s carbon neutral (as long as the energy source is renewable like the sun). Any carbon it takes in will be released exactly back to where it was. It’s a much much better option than digging up oil.

      On top of that, there are currently no likely possibilities of replacing gasoline for things like planes. So replacing their gas with carbon neutral gas will improve the situation by 100%.

      • B-TR3E@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        34 minutes ago

        There is no such thing as “carbon neutral”. Nor is there a problem with carbon. You’re talking about carbon dioxide which is as close to carbon as table salt is to chlorine.

      • Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Any carbon it takes in will be released exactly back to where it was.

        Except it won’t be. Combustion is not a perfect CxHy O2 > CO2 + H2O reaction. Theres a bunch of other side reactions happening, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, particulate matter, carbon monoxide. There are lots of challenges to continuing to utilize hydrocarbon fuels, especially in mobile/small scale applications where you can’t clean the exhaust stream.

        • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Except it won’t be.

          None of the things you’ve described increase the carbon output.

          What chemical reaction gets more carbon out than it puts in?
          (Where do these new carbon atoms come from, fusion?)

          If anything, those other products include non-gaseous compounds which sequester the carbon from the fuel into a solid resulting in a net-negative amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.

          Those side-products are not good, I’m not saying otherwise, but they are not additional carbon.

          • B-TR3E@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            32 minutes ago

            None of the things you’ve described increase the carbon output.

            Right. Because none of it is a fucking coal mine. Which is the only thing that can provide “carbon output”. Except a diamond mine, of course.

  • subignition@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Aircela is targeting >50% end to end power efficiency. Since there is about 37kWh of energy in a gallon of gasoline we will require about 75kWh to make it. When we power our machines with standalone, off-grid, photovoltaic panels this will correspond to less than $1.50/gallon in energy cost.

    Meanwhile, an electric vehicle could go hundreds of miles on the same amount of energy input…

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The “Why ‘Feminism’ is poisoning atheism”, “Feminism Vs FACTS” chud?

      I’m surprised he still has an audience tbh. Well, sadly not that surprised.

    • THX-1138@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Thunderf00t

      Love his YT channel… he destroys Elon reputation (if he ever had one…) and calls his 90% BS . lol

    • acchariya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      40 minutes ago

      Hmm, 75kwh to make a gallon of gasoline at even a low estimate of 15 cents per kWh is $11.25/gallon. That’s if they meet their full efficiency targets. I’m sure there will be a few who are willing to pay but it’s pretty expensive fun.

    • DekkiaA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      No it’s not a good idea.

      It’s extremely inefficent compared to just using elecricity directly for whatever you’re planning to do with it.

      • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Still a good idea for specific cases though. An example from current news close to me: We have line ships on lake Zürich that can’t be electrified because either they are too old to sustain a major internal rework or, for some, they can’t carry the battery weight.

        For a case like that I’d prefer if they put some CO2 capture stations up to keep running the ships rather than scrapping them prematurely.

        … if the capture stations work, that is. Can’t trust the word of a startup too much.