Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

How China’s thirst for oil can save the planet

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Here is a WSJ opinion piece with a similar theme as the article above:

High Energy Prices Drive Innovation - WSJ.com

As prices have risen, worries about energy security and long-term climate effects have reached a fever pitch.

History teaches that innovation directed by markets can solve problems such as these...

Recent cost comparisons by Deutsche Bank's auto analysts suggest electric cars will be cheaper to operate than conventional vehicles. Fuel costs per mile for gasoline-fueled cars are $0.27 in Germany, $0.24 in Britain, $0.17 in Brazil and $0.11 in the U.S., with differences driven by local fuel taxes. For electric vehicles, the cost per mile is a mere $0.02. If one adds in the cost of a battery amortized over the life of the car, the cost is still only $0.10. Batteries will be expensive, at least in early years, but electric cars won't need costly engines or complex transmissions like today's autos. With few moving parts, reliability will increase.

Cost differentials like those could drive a quick transition to energy-efficient forms of transportation...

... incremental effects on oil demand could be powerful. Developed countries would grow less dependent on oil producers, and transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions could ease (even coal-fired power plants are better than millions of gasoline-powered autos). As costs fall, electric vehicles could be adopted in developing countries, amplifying energy security and climate benefits.
Such a transition would reduce the world's dependence on regimes run by thugs and theocrats...
 
From the Times Online article. . .

At the Lotus engineering works in Norfolk, researchers are working on an idea that seems almost too good to be true: a car that runs on CO2. The very gas that comes out of exhausts and poses the threat of climate change could, they believe, be extracted from the atmosphere and used as a source of synthetic fuel.

That would be called biofuels, right? Plants draw carbon from the atmosphere in order to produce the sugars and cellulose which we turn into fuel.

They call it "synthetic" which implies they may be looking at some industrial process rather than an agricultural one, which could be interesting. But CO2 is barely more than a trace gas in the atmosphere, and it's quite a challenge to create some machine to extract it efficiently.
 
From the Times Online article. . .



That would be called biofuels, right? Plants draw carbon from the atmosphere in order to produce the sugars and cellulose which we turn into fuel.

They call it "synthetic" which implies they may be looking at some industrial process rather than an agricultural one, which could be interesting. But CO2 is barely more than a trace gas in the atmosphere, and it's quite a challenge to create some machine to extract it efficiently.

This is what happens when a reporter just reads a company's spin without much understanding. What Lotus is working on is a car that runs on synthetic methanol, which can be "made" from CO2 and hydrogen. It's not clear to me how much energy that synthetic process takes, but I wish they would calculate that in when they try to claim it's carbon neutral.

There are a couple ways to get CO2 from the atmosphere. The most direct way I'm familiar with is to do it cryogenically (which I've done by accident in the past). There are also some multi-step chemical processes (besides using plants). All these things can require quite a bit of energy.

Given that CO2 is a small fraction of the atmosphere (less than 0.04% volumetrically), and how energy intensive it is to extract, it makes more sense to grab anthropogenic CO2 before it goes into the air.

methanol-cycle.jpg