Artificial petrol? Why not?
Discussion
Not sure if this belongs here or in General Gassing, you decide Mr Mods.
A serious question;
I'm mostly definetly not a chemist and have no idea about these things but why can't we make artificial petrol?
I mean, we put a man on the moon 42 years ago with the computing power of probably what we now all carry around in our mobile phones. So, given the huge amount of money it would make whoever did it, why is it not possible for us to manufacture basically artifical petrol?
I'm guessing the development costs would be horrific but any company who managed to do it would become overnight the most powerful organisation in the world, so is someone even trying? Is it impossible no matter how much cash you have? Or(hedders hat on) has it already been done and buried by 'them'?...(hedders hat off)
Even if it is the last one surely now is the time to release the technology and become very rich?
I have no idea on this, one so I through it open to people who know a lot more about it than me. Thoughts?
A serious question;
I'm mostly definetly not a chemist and have no idea about these things but why can't we make artificial petrol?
I mean, we put a man on the moon 42 years ago with the computing power of probably what we now all carry around in our mobile phones. So, given the huge amount of money it would make whoever did it, why is it not possible for us to manufacture basically artifical petrol?
I'm guessing the development costs would be horrific but any company who managed to do it would become overnight the most powerful organisation in the world, so is someone even trying? Is it impossible no matter how much cash you have? Or(hedders hat on) has it already been done and buried by 'them'?...(hedders hat off)
Even if it is the last one surely now is the time to release the technology and become very rich?
I have no idea on this, one so I through it open to people who know a lot more about it than me. Thoughts?
Fossil fuels hold energy, when you burn it that energy is released. This energy is released in different forms such as heat, light, and chemical reactions that produce the exhaust gases.
So to take those exhaust gases and convert them back into fuel would theoretically cost more in energy that you would get out.
You start with 100%, burn it and get about 35% efficiency the rest is lost as waste heat and light. You then need to get that extra 65% of the energy back from somewhere to get back to 100% but again you would only get 35% energy back etc... etc... and since you cannot create energy only change it from form to form you would just be using other another resource.
This also assumes that the process is 100% efficient to change then exhaust gases back which is impossible.
Note: This is just my memory of GCSE chemistry which was a while ago now. I expect someone will come and shoot it down as timecubeesk nonsense shortly.
So to take those exhaust gases and convert them back into fuel would theoretically cost more in energy that you would get out.
You start with 100%, burn it and get about 35% efficiency the rest is lost as waste heat and light. You then need to get that extra 65% of the energy back from somewhere to get back to 100% but again you would only get 35% energy back etc... etc... and since you cannot create energy only change it from form to form you would just be using other another resource.
This also assumes that the process is 100% efficient to change then exhaust gases back which is impossible.
Note: This is just my memory of GCSE chemistry which was a while ago now. I expect someone will come and shoot it down as timecubeesk nonsense shortly.
Carfiend said:
You start with 100%, burn it and get about 35% efficiency the rest is lost as waste heat and light. You then need to get that extra 65% of the energy back from somewhere to get back to 100% but again you would only get 35% energy back etc... etc... and since you cannot create energy only change it from form to form you would just be using other another resource.
You get the extra back from sunlight, used to grow stuff, to turn said stuff into fuel.Petrol is just stored solar energy.
The first person to become rich (apart from all of the rich bio fuel guys already) will be the first person to turn seaweed into car go juice, on a large scale.
E=mc2
Essentially you cannot create or destroy energy, only shift it between different states.
In order to create a machine that has a tap on the end gushing synthetic petrol it would have to be connected to a bigger machine that consumed HUUGE amounts of power.
This HUUGGE amount of power would be more difficult to generate that it currently is to drill a hole in the ground and pump out the stuff that's been formed over millenia by the power of the sun, gravity and $hit.
What you need to do is invent a way of exploiting the E=mc2 malarky to extract the energy from mass. In theory there would be enough energy in one of your pubic hairs to provide power enough to fly you to the moon and back....probably.
Yes...I've just read "Why does E=mc2".....It's fascinating, but mind blowing stuff.
Essentially you cannot create or destroy energy, only shift it between different states.
In order to create a machine that has a tap on the end gushing synthetic petrol it would have to be connected to a bigger machine that consumed HUUGE amounts of power.
This HUUGGE amount of power would be more difficult to generate that it currently is to drill a hole in the ground and pump out the stuff that's been formed over millenia by the power of the sun, gravity and $hit.
What you need to do is invent a way of exploiting the E=mc2 malarky to extract the energy from mass. In theory there would be enough energy in one of your pubic hairs to provide power enough to fly you to the moon and back....probably.
Yes...I've just read "Why does E=mc2".....It's fascinating, but mind blowing stuff.
dave_s13 said:
E=mc2
Essentially you cannot create or destroy energy, only shift it between different states.
In order to create a machine that has a tap on the end gushing synthetic petrol it would have to be connected to a bigger machine that consumed HUUGE amounts of power.
This HUUGGE amount of power would be more difficult to generate that it currently is to drill a hole in the ground and pump out the stuff that's been formed over millenia by the power of the sun, gravity and $hit.
What you need to do is invent a way of exploiting the E=mc2 malarky to extract the energy from mass. In theory there would be enough energy in one of your pubic hairs to provide energy enough to power you to the moon and back....probably.
Yes...I've just read "Why does E=mc2".....It's fascinating, but mind blowing stuff.
You mean like, I dunno, a nuclear reactor? Someone should invent that. :-)Essentially you cannot create or destroy energy, only shift it between different states.
In order to create a machine that has a tap on the end gushing synthetic petrol it would have to be connected to a bigger machine that consumed HUUGE amounts of power.
This HUUGGE amount of power would be more difficult to generate that it currently is to drill a hole in the ground and pump out the stuff that's been formed over millenia by the power of the sun, gravity and $hit.
What you need to do is invent a way of exploiting the E=mc2 malarky to extract the energy from mass. In theory there would be enough energy in one of your pubic hairs to provide energy enough to power you to the moon and back....probably.
Yes...I've just read "Why does E=mc2".....It's fascinating, but mind blowing stuff.
James May did a program which featured somebody doing this by using solar power.
"And finally, James heads off into the deserts of New Mexico to seek out some modern-day alchemists. This group of scientists are hoping to conjure petrol out of thin air, with the help of only a few mirrors."
"And finally, James heads off into the deserts of New Mexico to seek out some modern-day alchemists. This group of scientists are hoping to conjure petrol out of thin air, with the help of only a few mirrors."
HD Adam said:
So, a few years ago we were using leaded petrol quite happily.That was deemed 'bad' so everyone had to fit catalysts and switch to unleaded.
This got rid of the lead and converted all that nasty CO into 'harmless' CO2.
Now CO2 is the Devil's gas.
Along comes Hydrogen - suddenly everyone is only emitting 'harmless' water vapour.
You can see where this is going...
JagLover said:
This already exists in the shape of synthetic oil which can be generated from coal, natural gas or biomass.
The issue (as with all types of 'alternative' energy sources) is the cost versus the existing fuel.
Yep, spot on. The technology to produce "artificial oil" already exists. The problem is that even with fuel prices as high as they are, it is not yet economically worthwhile to invest in it, especially given the vast reserves of conventional oil and the relative inefficiency of the current techniques. (Remember that most of what you pay for petrol is tax, not raw material cost.)The issue (as with all types of 'alternative' energy sources) is the cost versus the existing fuel.
I have no doubt that the equation will change over time. One promising avenue is that of genetically engineering bacteria that can "sweat" crude oil when exposed to sunlight. This already exists, but isn't ready for prime time yet. There's an article here - it's old and slightly overhyped but you'll get the idea:
http://www.gizmag.com/go/7723/
Personally I think this is going to be the way forward. Electric cars are great, but the battery technology will hit limits, and the amount of exotic materials needed for the batteries will make us a hostage to China, who have been busy buying up many of the sources of these materials.
nelly1 said:
So, a few years ago we were using leaded petrol quite happily.
That was deemed 'bad' so everyone had to fit catalysts and switch to unleaded.
This got rid of the lead and converted all that nasty CO into 'harmless' CO2.
Now CO2 is the Devil's gas.
Along comes Hydrogen - suddenly everyone is only emitting 'harmless' water vapour.
You can see where this is going...
Not to worry. Water vapour is a significantly 'better' greenhouse gas than CO2 - as in, it holds more heat in.That was deemed 'bad' so everyone had to fit catalysts and switch to unleaded.
This got rid of the lead and converted all that nasty CO into 'harmless' CO2.
Now CO2 is the Devil's gas.
Along comes Hydrogen - suddenly everyone is only emitting 'harmless' water vapour.
You can see where this is going...
HD Adam said:
Over the years there have been many alternative fuels that been invented that have promise to replace fossil based petrol.If it does turn out to be a real alternative, I sadly fear that one of the major petroleum corporations will buy the patents and it will just be moth balled, his lab will be burnt down, or this guy will just mysteriously go missing.
Pretty neat news though.
Edited by zooooom on Friday 28th January 15:54
zooooom said:
Over the years there have been many alternative fuels that been invented that have promise to replace fossil based petrol.
If it does turn out to be a real alternative, I sadly fear that one of the major petroleum corporations will buy the patents and it will just be moth balled, his lab will be burnt down, or this guy will just mysteriously go missing.
Pretty neat news though.
Unlikely this time - the oil companies can see the end of cheap oil. To protect themselves they need to keep hydrocarbon-based (i.e. can work in their infrastructure) fuels the main way of moving cars. If it works, they'll exploit it rather than hide it.If it does turn out to be a real alternative, I sadly fear that one of the major petroleum corporations will buy the patents and it will just be moth balled, his lab will be burnt down, or this guy will just mysteriously go missing.
Pretty neat news though.
Edited by zooooom on Friday 28th January 15:54
dave_s13 said:
E=mc2
Essentially you cannot create or destroy energy, only shift it between different states.
In order to create a machine that has a tap on the end gushing synthetic petrol it would have to be connected to a bigger machine that consumed HUUGE amounts of power.
This HUUGGE amount of power would be more difficult to generate that it currently is to drill a hole in the ground and pump out the stuff that's been formed over millenia by the power of the sun, gravity and $hit.
Wouldn't it be easy enough to use all the synthetic fuel to power the bigger machine? I thought it was obvious.Essentially you cannot create or destroy energy, only shift it between different states.
In order to create a machine that has a tap on the end gushing synthetic petrol it would have to be connected to a bigger machine that consumed HUUGE amounts of power.
This HUUGGE amount of power would be more difficult to generate that it currently is to drill a hole in the ground and pump out the stuff that's been formed over millenia by the power of the sun, gravity and $hit.
If E is the problem, couldn't we make a car that runs on MC x MC?
Alcohol is a good substitute for petrol, lots used in Brazil.
To make alcohol you need to grow things, this takes a lot of land - which then means there would be a food shortage.
Best system I've heard about is algae as the base biomass is grown vertically, so production per land area is vastly increased - just like a high rise building.
To make alcohol you need to grow things, this takes a lot of land - which then means there would be a food shortage.
Best system I've heard about is algae as the base biomass is grown vertically, so production per land area is vastly increased - just like a high rise building.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff