Skip to content

So, we don’t have to stop flying then, right?

This Solar Tower Generates Jet Fuel From Water and Light

19 thoughts on “So, we don’t have to stop flying then, right?”

  1. Presumably, the important bit is the conversion technology, which can work with any “concentrated energy” input, not just solar power.

  2. “…Generates Jet Fuel From Water and Light”

    I have some of that in the kitchen, called Mazola. Yawn.

  3. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    We have to stop using the internet first, as it belches far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the entire global civil aviation industry.

    Green vegan teenage schoolgirls of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your smartphones!

  4. They claim that the CO2 emitted (when the fuel is used) equals the CO2 absorbed by the process (when the sun shines. OK, that’s stating the obvious.
    But this is, perhaps deliberately, obscuring the fact that huge amounts of energy, not just the sunshine, are required to run the processes (CO2 + H2O to CO + H2, then subsequent conversion to kerosene)!
    It might work where the sun shines a lot (in the Sahara perhaps), but then add the energy used in transporting products to conversion plants and the efficiency drops significantly.

  5. They’re using water, plus carbon dioxide as feedstocks, right? So, where do they get, what process produces, the CO2?

    Right at the end of the paper – “If CO2 is further captured from the air or derived from a biogenic source, the resulting drop-in hydrocarbon fuels, e.g., kerosene, can be considered carbon neutral.

    That IF seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting.

  6. We can do all sorts of interesting chemistry these days, and synfuels have been around for decades (at least the 30s, maybe earlier, can’t be bothered to look). The key point, and the one never talked about in articles like this, is how much does it cost? The problem is not a technical barrier, it’s an economic one.

  7. As T the C points out, we have a process now takes you from sunlight energy to a kerosene replacement. Remember kW/m² – I (inefficiencies) > kW usable energy. That’s all you need to know. The value of I relative to the cost of the system.

  8. Just look at the share price of Velocys if you want to see the predicted future of non oil based aviation fuel.

  9. Synthetic av gas from green energy is about 5x normal. It will be needed for international flights. This is why Rolls Royce are building small modular nuclear reactors.

  10. You use a biological sink to take up the CO2. Say a tree or a vegetable or a microorganism. Then you bury it underground where the process takes place. As it is low-intensity it takes a while. Say a few million years, although it might be less. Then you dig it up, or pump it, or it will come out if you drill a hole. You can use it as fuel, no effort at all required, or you can crack it into a variety of fuels and chemical rootstocks.

    Here’s a few billion tons I made earlier, all guaranteed to be part of a previous high-CO2 atmosphere.

  11. Arthur the cat,

    “The key point, and the one never talked about in articles like this, is how much does it cost? The problem is not a technical barrier, it’s an economic one.”

    There is one benefit which is that it will still be cheaper than choo-choos. And a lot of the public can’t seem to get their head around Pigou taxes, so “hey, it’s cheaper, and as green as the railways, so we don’t need to build HS3”.

  12. Otto, Nah… You could even do it in large steel vats at atmospheric pressure.

    Of course, that would require torturing some helpless and innocent bacteria/yeasts by giving them a handy extra skillset for the purpose to get the chain length you want..
    Something which the peeps that would have us shiver in cold, dark hovels, and the peeps that drill holes, and all the busybodies that “manage” and finance the two camps are dead set against, of course.

  13. Ed P
    July 21, 2022 at 12:16 pm
    . . . but then add the energy used in transporting products to conversion plants and the efficiency drops significantly.

    Not really – transport is incredibly cheap. Which also means its not using much energy.

    Hence why we grow sheep in New Zealand for export across the world – its cheaper in-toto to do that than grow sheep locally all over the world.

  14. Well, I’d run the things with nukes rather than solar power. After all Ed, the Frogs got their oil from the Sahara until the murderous Mahometans there slaughtered their way to liberty. And they then had to build all their nukes. Though of course they shut down Fessenheim just in time for the latest gas shortage.

    The process sounds much like the Green Freedom project that LANL was working on years ago. It used those huge cooling towers that the Greens insist power plants have these days to capture the CO2 from the air with potassium carbonate.

    Fortunately most of the technology seems to be simple off-the-shelf stuff. The problem, we all agree, is that CO2 is about 400 parts per million of the atmosphere, so it’d cost a lot to extract. Back in 2007, the Green Freedom mob estimated that the pump price of gasoline would be about US$4.60 per gal. So presumably jet fuel would have cost about $US3.70.

    There’s certainly no shortage of money to strangle any project to make the West independent of foreign oil, especially produced by nukes. You’ve only got to look at those anti-fracking fuckers. So I’ve no idea how much it’d cost these days.

  15. I was just listening on the wirelessthat Belgium is going to have to extend the life of its nukes another ten years, even the knackered ones with big cracks in the walls.

    Austria is trying to save gas by encoraging industries to switch to … oil.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *