You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Someone should really make a spoof of this that starts with "All you do is fill a rocket with __ and position it such that it has a __ meter orbit around the sun for 10 years and then ___ and then ___ and then you put the liquid in your car."Creation of the fuel ... first requires heating water to 800C (1,472F) ....
... synthesis reactors, again under pressure and at a high temperature. The reaction product is a liquid ....
This synthetic fuel, which is free from sulphur and aromatic hydrocarbons, is suitable for mixing with fossil diesel or being used as a fuel in its own right.
I don't know about Audi, but when NRL did a press release about this around a year ago I came away with the impression it could be done competitively with petrol. If that's true, it's genuinely interesting, given that it can be used with existing infrastructure unlike H2. Big "if" though. If I come across a reference to the NRL story I'll post it.
In many ways, including cost of fuel, yes. But I think most of us would grant there are still some advantages to petrol, including energy density and fueling time. The neat thing about the NRL process (that it sounds like Audi has adopted) is that it's potentially carbon-neutral (depending on the energy source), presumably works out of the box with existing ICE vehicles, or close, and presumably could work with existing liquid fuel distribution infrastructure. This makes it at least interesting, for the same reasons H2 is not interesting."Competitive with petrol" means far inferior to EVs.
I agree with that part, unfortunately. And in any case, unless someone ramps the process to commercial production very quickly, it'll be irrelevant or at least niche, as EVs become more dominant.I would say that Audi is wasting their time but this is probably just another vaporware press release to distract from their EV incompetence.
Using one incompetence to distract from another?"Competitive with petrol" means far inferior to EVs. I would say that Audi is wasting their time but this is probably just another vaporware press release to distract from their EV incompetence.
We have a winner. I'd love to see a "wild" supercharger (no grid available) powered by renewables.How about a non grid connected Supercharger that could burn a liquid renewable to cover peak demand?
Looks fantastically energy intensive to create this stuff.
Trivial amounts of CO2 used up, so meaningless for climate change.
What happens when you burn it?
Still get soot particles + NOx?
ie not Zero emissions.
Diesel engines are losing their popularity with EU regulators especially in cities due to soot problems, and a little talked about issue is that petrol engine emission regulations are now forcing these to emit increasing soot too.
Zero Emissions is one of the biggest plus points of BEVs
The biggest -ves of BEVS is energy density and charge times, both of which are improving steadily
e-Diesel looks irrelevant to me on most every count
The article above cites 92% efficiency for the NRL process.Looks fantastically energy intensive to create this stuff.
I don't understand this point at all. Since the process is carbon neutral (if fueled by a carbon neutral power source) it's potentially quite meaningful.Trivial amounts of CO2 used up, so meaningless for climate change.
Unsaid is what emissions this fuel produces. I could care less about carbon neutral, does it pollute city air? Can you breathe the emissions?
Unsaid is what emissions this fuel produces. I could care less about carbon neutral, does it pollute city air? Can you breathe the emissions?
I imagine it's mostly CO2 and H20 with few pollutants.
The idea might be worth looking into, and it's unclear to me that it's any worse than Hydrogen. I've always wondered why we're so focused on Hydrogen, since Hydrogen is generally a difficult molecule to store and transport. If your inputs are air, water, and energy, why not look at other possible molecules for energy storage... Methane, Ethane, Propane, Gasoline, Methanol, Ethanol, etc.... You can make any of those you want with just air, water, and energy. Sure there are efficiency concerns, but at least you don't have as many concerns about how to get all of the fuel into your car.
Of course, it doesn't make sense to burn dinosaur fuels to assemble molecules that look somewhat like the fuel you just burned, only with 30% less of it. but it doesn't make sense to burn dinosaur fuels to assemble H2, either. None of these technologies are going to make sense until renewable energy costs less than fossil fuel energy.
I imagine it's mostly CO2 and H20 with few pollutants.
The idea might be worth looking into, and it's unclear to me that it's any worse than Hydrogen. I've always wondered why we're so focused on Hydrogen, since Hydrogen is generally a difficult molecule to store and transport. If your inputs are air, water, and energy, why not look at other possible molecules for energy storage... Methane, Ethane, Propane, Gasoline, Methanol, Ethanol, etc.... You can make any of those you want with just air, water, and energy. Sure there are efficiency concerns, but at least you don't have as many concerns about how to get all of the fuel into your car.
Of course, it doesn't make sense to burn dinosaur fuels to assemble molecules that look somewhat like the fuel you just burned, only with 30% less of it. but it doesn't make sense to burn dinosaur fuels to assemble H2, either. None of these technologies are going to make sense until renewable energy costs less than fossil fuel energy.