# Audi have successfully made diesel fuel from carbon dioxide and water



## entropy13 (Apr 27, 2015)

German car manufacturer Audi has reportedly invented a carbon-neutral diesel fuel, made solely from water, carbon dioxide and renewable energy sources. And the crystal clear 'e-diesel' is already being used to power the Audi A8 owned by the country’s Federal Minister of Education and Research, Johanna Wanka.

The creation of the fuel is a huge step forward for sustainable transport, but the fact that it’s being backed by an automotive giant is even more exciting. Audi has now set up a pilot plant in Dresden, Germany, operated by clean tech company Sunfire, which will pump out 160 litres of the synthetic diesel every day in the coming months.

Their base product, which they’re calling 'blue crude' is created using a three-step process. The first step involves harvesting renewable energy from sources such as wind, solar and hydropower. They then use this energy to split water into oxygen and pure hydrogen, using a process known as reversible electrolysis.

This hydrogen is then mixed with carbon monoxide (CO), which is created from carbon dioxide (CO2) that’s been harvested from the atmosphere. The two react at high temperatures and under pressure, resulting in the production of the long-chain hydrocarbon compounds that make up the blue crude.

Once it's been refined, the resulting e-diesel can be mixed in with our current diesel fuel, or used on its own to power cars in a more sustainable way.



http://www.sciencealert.com/audi-have-successfully-made-diesel-fuel-from-air-and-water


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 27, 2015)

Sorry read as far as


entropy13 said:


> Johanna Wanka.



and i Sniggered
will read on

Edit

having read on and sniggered at "Blue Crude" 
I have to wonder how green and cost effective this is


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 27, 2015)

Although I welcome the news, 160 liters/day is pathetic.  That's 42 gallons.  Your average barrel of crude turns into 12 gallons of diesel which translates to displacing 3.5 barrels of anthropomorphic crude.  The United States, alone, consumes 19 *million* barrels of crude per day or 0.000018%.  Unless they fix the obvious production problem, this translates to little more than a novelty.  Not to mention, it has to be done more cheaply than fracking and shale oils to be economically competitive.

I think there is potential though if this technology were coupled with fusion power.  The hydrogen from the electrolysis could also fuel the reactor generating the power needed to keep the operation going.  It could potentially answer the environmental dilemma of how transportable energy without the burden of batteries.

Theoretically, I don't see why they couldn't produce gasoline using the same process.  Gasoline is just shorter hydrocarbon chains.


----------



## Exceededgoku (Apr 27, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Although I welcome the news, 160 liters/day is pathetic.  That's 42 gallons.  Your average barrel of crude turns into 12 gallons of diesel which translates to 3.5 barrels.  The United States, alone, consumes 19 *million* barrels of crude per day or 0.000018%.  Unless they fix the obvious production problem, this translates to little more than a novelty.  Not to mention, it has to be done more cheaply than fracking and shale oils.


You do realise that it's a pilot concept, which means the process could be refined (or indeed increased).

At the moment it's utilising renewable energy, but if instead it was using nuclear generated power and a much larger input the output could be greater... This isn't production ready at all!


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 27, 2015)

there seem to basic errors in the text above


entropy13 said:


> Their base product, which they’re calling 'blue crude' is created using a three-step process. The first step involves harvesting renewable energy from sources such as wind, solar and hydropower. They then use this energy to split water into oxygen and pure hydrogen, using a process known as reversible electrolysis.



""to split water into oxygen and pure hydrogen, using a process known as  electrolysis""

There Corrected that for you

Further thought

This seems like it is a waste of Time why pursue this (Patent and patent ip Royalties)
when by The first step involves harvesting renewable energy from sources such as wind, solar and hydropower. They then use this energy to split water into oxygen and pure hydrogen

"""Stop there """  that is a clean eco source of Fuel  why waste time and energy going further

develop proper Hydrogen Powered /fueled Vehicles


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 27, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Sorry read as far as
> 
> 
> and i Sniggered
> ...




almost word for word what i was going to say......... more "wind" power from Audi.

I think the real story here is the surname.


----------



## mstenholm (Apr 27, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> there seem to basic errors in the text above
> 
> 
> ""to split water into oxygen and pure hydrogen, using a process known as  electrolysis""
> ...


Well Sunfire (the company doing the work) call it reversible electrolysis (rSOC). I don't know the difference but is more interested to know if the "about 70 % efficiency" include the extraction of CO2 from whatever source they used/plan to use. The mayor advantage I see in this technology is that you end up with a transportable fuel that can use the existing infrastructure (gasoline trucks). The alternative, H2 production via electrolysis, can't be set up wherever the wind blows. Best of luck with decent size pilot plant.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 27, 2015)

THIS Story is not Science but it is Corporate Bullshit/publicity


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 27, 2015)

mstenholm said:


> Well Sunfire (the company doing the work) call it reversible electrolysis (rSOC). I don't know the difference but is more interested to know if the "about 70 % efficiency" include the extraction of CO2 from whatever source they used/plan to use. The mayor advantage I see in this technology is that you end up with a transportable fuel that can use the existing infrastructure (gasoline trucks). The alternative, H2 production via electrolysis, can't be set up wherever the wind blows. Best of luck with decent size pilot plant.




Suggest you Read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis#Electrolysis_of_water

If you Don;t trust Wilki  information  google it elswhere


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 27, 2015)

I wonder how much Mrs Wanka paid Audi



entropy13 said:


> Audi A8 owned by the country’s Federal Minister of Education and Research



for this "research" vehicle


----------



## mstenholm (Apr 27, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> THIS Story is not Science but it is Corporate Bullshit/publicity


Sure it is not new science but if Audi wants to push it into a commercial plant it is good corporate bullshit. I doubt since Sunfire is fishing for new clients. I guess that Audi just did some engine tests to verify that the fuel is good enough for an R8 .


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 27, 2015)

I wonder how much Mrs Wanka paid Audi

Probably Nothing   its Probably a tax dectudable contribution kickback payola
Advertisement publicity write off

My Opinion

Edit 
OH My God   
Spouse: Gert Wanka


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 27, 2015)

What is it really, chemical synthesis of complex carbohydrates by using heat and pressure in order to extract energy from it by burning it and using resulting pressure from combustion to create kinetic energy.
Wow, how do they even dare to mention efficiency in this context?
This would be the least efficient way of storing energy chemically in order to use existing technology, but hey - car industry wouldn't have to change a thing.
And what's worse, tax payers are going to have to subsidize all these inefficient practices because they use renewable sources, all just to get a super expensive fuel in small quantities.

The same happened to bio diesel, they surprisingly realized they need to produce vast quantities of sugar plants constantly without pause and the land simply becomes infertile after that much abuse. They would rotate the production and let the land recuperate if they had enough land to take from food production. Even if it were so, it would still be very expensively produced fuel.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 27, 2015)

Biodiesel in the USA is predominantly made with soybeans.  Sugar plants would be made into ethanol.  Biodiesel is not viable in the USA right now because it costs 31% more than diesel from crude.  If you look on the graph there, biodiesel has never been competitive with diesel.  B20 (20% biodiesel, 80% diesel) only beat diesel once or twice and for a very brief time.

But this method...maybe.  Look at what is constantly cheap: electricity.  I assume pretty much this entire diesel production concept relies heavily on electricity.  It stands to reason that perhaps it could end up cheaper per gallon than biodiesel.  In which case, it has a bright future, but not when it is tethered to ridiculously expensive wind/solar power generation.  The reason why they only put out 150 liters per day may easily be linked to their choice of power to operate it.

As much as I hate to say it, I think this concept needs to go to the big oil industry and see if they think there is a path to this technology being more profitable than crude.  Someone needs to look at the mass production costs and market for this stuff to see if it is really worth investing in.  If this synthesized diesel can't run in unmodified diesel engines, that puts a huge damper on its ability to penetrate the market.  If the modifications are cheap and still allows the vehicle to run off of diesel, it would take off pretty quick.


----------



## rruff (Apr 27, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In which case, it has a bright future, but not when it is tethered to ridiculously expensive wind/solar power generation.



Solar and wind are not expensive, at least not in the US where there are good sites. The issue is variability and lack of storage. Having energy intensive industrial processes that can use the excess is one way to minimize that variability. But there is a cost to not running that industrial process at max efficiency as well. 

The question I have is, exactly what is the energy input needed per energy output for this process?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 27, 2015)

If a production facility was built today to mass scale produce synthetic diesel from carbon dioxide, it would likely be built in conjunction with several natural gas turbines for power (a little cheaper than wind, a lot cheaper than solar).  The diesel produced is effectively a battery in itself (more potential energy than any batteries currently in existence by a huge margin).



rruff said:


> The question I have is, exactly what is the energy input needed per energy output for this process?


Me too.  I want to know the specifics for what it takes to produce that measly 150 l/day.


----------



## rruff (Apr 27, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If a production facility was built today to mass scale produce synthetic diesel from carbon dioxide, it would likely be built in conjunction with several natural gas turbines for power (a little cheaper than wind, a lot cheaper than solar).



Clicked on the pdf but didn't see what assumptions they made. PV keeps getting cheaper. NG prices are low now, but that isn't normal.


----------



## BiggieShady (Apr 27, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Sugar plants would be made into ethanol.


Quite right, and I believe both productions came to similar set of problems


FordGT90Concept said:


> The diesel produced is effectively a battery in itself (more potential energy than any batteries currently in existence by a huge margin).


Yeah, it's a fine battery, but you spend much more energy than what is stored, and you get much less energy out of it than what is stored. That's what makes this kind of diesel inefficient, losing energy at all stages of the production process. I'm not counting renewable energy for the electrolysis process, I'm thinking about the energy for heat and pressure used in synthesis. That would be the biggest energy drain. 
In the best case scenario without much losses this kind of energy shuffling would be a zero sum game useful for offseting CO2 concentrations in atmosphere.
Natural gas? As the fossil fuel with least impact on atmosphere, you might have something there. If NG would power heat&pressure stage, you might be able to net a total positive amount of CO2 removed from atmosphere. We need some numbers


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 27, 2015)

Ask Audi 
that is Sales numbers are probably all your going to get


----------



## rruff (Apr 27, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Natural gas? As the fossil fuel with least impact on atmosphere, you might have something there. If NG would power heat&pressure stage, you might be able to net a total positive amount of CO2 removed from atmosphere. We need some numbers



Actually you can run cars off NG directly. Surely less waste that using it in this inefficient process. Plus I hate to see NG wasted like this since it is the best fuel for leveling wind and solar.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 27, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Edit
> OH My God
> Spouse: Gert Wanka


 
I'm confused about what you mean by this?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 27, 2015)

BiggieShady said:


> Yeah, it's a fine battery, but you spend much more energy than what is stored, and you get much less energy out of it than what is stored. That's what makes this kind of diesel inefficient, losing energy at all stages of the production process. I'm not counting renewable energy for the electrolysis process, I'm thinking about the energy for heat and pressure used in synthesis. That would be the biggest energy drain.
> In the best case scenario without much losses this kind of energy shuffling would be a zero sum game useful for offseting CO2 concentrations in atmosphere.
> Natural gas? As the fossil fuel with least impact on atmosphere, you might have something there. If NG would power heat&pressure stage, you might be able to net a total positive amount of CO2 removed from atmosphere. We need some numbers


That's why the cost is so important.  If the process of producing synthetic diesel through electricity costs less than diesel refined from crude per volume, the energy cost is worth it.  Diesel is extremely valuable because it is stable and very energy dense.  It is, in terms of BTUs, the best portable and relatively safe energy source available.

The only way we see any loss in terms of atmospheric CO2 is if we take this synthetic diesel and bury it.  Fat chance on that happening.  Plants do the same given enough time but they can only make gains when there's no more carbon being taken out of the ground and incinerated.

Fusion would be the best complement to synthetic diesel.  Some hydrogen produced from electrolysis could be syphoned off to be fused producing power to run all of the processes.  So long as it doesn't run out of basic materials, it should never have to stop except for maintenance.



rruff said:


> Actually you can run cars off NG directly. Surely less waste that using it in this inefficient process. Plus I hate to see NG wasted like this since it is the best fuel for leveling wind and solar.


Methane (natural gas) has very low energy potential compared to hydrocarbons (diesel).  A tank of diesel can get you over 1000 miles reasonably.  A tank of natural gas would be doing excellent to get you half that far; moreover, most CH4 is from anthropomorphic sources which means it contributes to atmospheric CO2 levels.  Synthetic diesel, when powered by fission or fusion would recycle CO2 meaning it offsets the need for tapping into more anthropomorphic sources of carbon.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 27, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> I'm confused about what you mean by this?



there was this Moderator called Ivor Biggun who took offense at people smirking when ever his name was mentioned
His main Culprits were Patrick fitzmichael    and Michael fitzpatrick   who forever claimed that they were not Gay.


Are You ANY good at Lateral thinking ?

May be its an English thing


----------



## erocker (Apr 27, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Biodiesel in the USA is predominantly made with soybeans.  Sugar plants would be made into ethanol.


Don't forget waste oil.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 27, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> there was this Moderator called Ivor Biggun who took offense at people smirking when ever his name was mentioned
> His main Culprits were Patrick fitzmichael    and Michael fitzpatrick   who forever claimed that they were not Gay.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Actually, Gert is a predominately male German name, slang for Gerhard.  In German it means "brave spear",  Perhaps you're thinking Gerta?


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 27, 2015)

Also your McDonalds  french fries Deep Fat fryer  Oil


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 27, 2015)

@rtwjunkie 

NO i was thinking Colloquial English insult Slang

Name Association Lateral thinking



Spoiler:  you want to look 






Spoiler:  are you sure 



 Gert WANKER as in BIG/ large WANKER


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 27, 2015)

erocker said:


> Don't forget waste oil.


I don't think that finds its way to the market so EIA's prices reflect mostly what is made from soybeans.  I'm sure biodiesel made from waste vegetable oil is much cheaper per gallon to produce than the market value of biodiesel because waste oil can often be obtained for free or close to it.  When we look at the bigger energy picture, the amount of biodiesel produced from waste oil is very insignificant.  In terms of mass production, EIA's figure is far more telling.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 27, 2015)

Oh yes, I GOT it if I was speaking as colloquial English.   But being of German ancestry, as well as speaking German in addition to English, I immediately look at her name not as Wanker, but as Vonka (which is how it's pronounced).

So a name all depends on someone's background as to what they see (Cultural Relativism).


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 28, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> there was this Moderator called Ivor Biggun who took offense at people smirking when ever his name was mentioned
> His main Culprits were Patrick fitzmichael    and Michael fitzpatrick   who forever claimed that they were not Gay.
> 
> 
> ...


Apart from him being a Wanka too, I noticed he is a Professor at a University, I wonder if those kickbacks include him on Audi's payroll to assist in the research and development?


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 28, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Oh yes, I GOT it if I was speaking as colloquial English.   But being of German ancestry, as well as speaking German in addition to English, I immediately look at her name not as Wanker, but as Vonka (which is how it's pronounced).
> 
> So a name all depends on someone's background as to what they see (Cultural Relativism).


That's even worse, now that made me think of Willy Vonka


----------



## Steevo (Apr 28, 2015)

Great idea, use "renewable unreliable" energy to extract carbon from the air to make it go back into the air in a less efficient storage method than batteries!!!!!

On that note Germany has increased its emissions significantly since becoming "green" due to a massive coal use to make up for base load that the "renewable" is unable to produce reliably, and since everyone wants their lights to turn on, and hospitals to run, and food to not spoil.....


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Apr 28, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> there seem to basic errors in the text above
> 
> 
> ""to split water into oxygen and pure hydrogen, using a process known as  electrolysis""
> ...


STFU


----------



## xvi (Apr 28, 2015)

First thing I thought when I saw this was the efficiency. It takes energy to create the synth diesel. When all is said and done, how much energy is lost? Audi is obviously trying to shoot down that argument by saying they're using renewable energy, sources, but I doubt they'd be able to scale it up much higher than their current lab experiment. As Steevo hinted at, if they ramp up production, the only feasible way to provide the energy needed to create the diesel in the first place would be with something environmentally unfriendly.

In the end, the pollution to get the energy to create the diesel would likely be more than the pollution from running standard diesel in the first place.


----------



## DinaAngel (Apr 28, 2015)

this isnt anything new, the only thing they changed was adding more production delay with h20 instead of oxygen.
it isnt allowed to produce fuel from oxygen in the air, but oxygen in water is fine law wise.

using co2 and oxygen to make fuel is old but illegal.

the best option is hydro carbonate
when hydrogen gas comes up from deep ocean bed it gets compressed due to the pressure and it becomes this goo slimy substance. it burns just as good as normal hydrogen


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 28, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> he best option is hydro carbonate
> when hydrogen gas comes up from deep ocean bed it gets compressed due to the pressure and it becomes this goo slimy substance. it burns just as good as normal hydrogen



think your confusing hydrogen with Methane   and Gas expands as pressure Decrease's  

That is Basic junior high school Science

*What is Methane Hydrate?*


Methane hydrate is a crystalline solid that consists of a methane molecule surrounded by a cage of interlocking water molecules . Methane hydrate is an "ice" that only occurs naturally in subsurface deposits where temperature and pressure conditions are favorable for its formation.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 28, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> That's even worse, now that made me think of Willy Vonka



Shit   Now I;m thinking  'Allo 'Allo!


Spoiler: Warning Funny Video   may offend some people


----------



## DinaAngel (Apr 28, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> think your confusing hydrogen with Methane   and Gas expands as pressure Decrease's
> 
> That is Basic junior high school Science
> 
> ...


no i meant hydro carbonate, its gray and its very gel like. at around 1000 meters or lower u find that it forms at gas outlets, iv considered doing a fab for it as the tech is there but nah its too early


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 28, 2015)

Interesting. With respect to the energy cost problem, I would suggest a modern high temperature nuclear reactor using a thermochemical cycle to produce free hydrogen and oxygen which in theory has efficiencies as high as 50%. The issue with electrolysis is that it consumes a lot of electricity to produce a relatively small amount of hydrogen where a properly designed nuclear power plant could not only produce the gasses you need in sizable quantities but, could also produce electricity at the same time. Also the argument for solar is two sided. If a panel lasts you for a decade, then you really need to consider the cost of the panel versus the total output over the course of the panel's life. It's not that solar is expensive, it takes a long time to pay off, so the up front cost after 2 years is a lot greater than after 5 years. This isn't to say solar shouldn't be cheaper, but that for a long term project, it may be a reasonable investment. Also we're using the term "solar" very badly, when I say solar I mean photovoltaic cells. Thermal solar power is a different story because it can produce temperatures high enough where a thermochemical cycle could be considered to produce hydrogen and oxygen, but once again, there is nothing that can provide the kind of thermal output like a nuclear reaction can.

Either way, this all sounds neat, but I would prefer efficient methods of producing the gasses required.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 28, 2015)

let us know when you start
So we can Run for the hills
your concept of Science is still inadequate

as in



DinaAngel said:


> gas comes up from deep ocean bed it gets compressed due to the pressure



In this Universe and reality you compress /chill /pressurize gas to turn it into a Liquid /solid.
  To return  Liquid / solid  to Gas  you Heat /depressurize /decompress

Substances being brought up From deep Ocean  go through a state of De pressurization and therfore degass


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 28, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Substances being brought up From deep Ocean  go through a state of De pressurization and therfore degass


This^
Compressed gas is generally a liquid, unless compressed in to a solid.
Once pressure decreases, it liquifies before returning to its gaseous state.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 28, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> Compressed gas is generally a liquid, unless compressed in to a solid.
> Once pressure decreases, it liquifies before returning to its gaseous state




Thanks for the Scientific peer review


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 28, 2015)

Doffs cap


----------



## Aquinus (Apr 28, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> This^
> Compressed gas is generally a liquid, unless compressed in to a solid.
> Once pressure decreases, it liquifies before returning to its gaseous state.


Yes but, gases at the bottom of the ocean aren't liquid, it may be dissolved, which is a very different thing than liquid oxygen, nitrogen, or solid CO2.

Lets say for the sake of argument that oxygen did in fact under some radical thermodynamic process in which you had free liquid oxygen. First problem is that liquid STP (standard temperature and pressure) gases evaporate at very low temperatures which the ocean floor doesn't offer. If liquid oxygen was every in contact with liquid water, regardless of temperature, it would freeze instantly while some of the oxygen is converted (depending on quantity, violently due to the expansion ratio of more STP gases) into a gas. The second problem is that liquid oxygen has a higher density than water, so even if you ignore thermodynamics, oxygen would sink to the bottom of the ocean, not float to the top, which we know doesn't happen.

I just wanted to be 100% clear on this because you can't compare two different branches of physics where two very different things are happening. The ocean doesn't work like an air conditioner. 
Simple fact is that dissolved gases are not the same as liquid gases (O, N, CO2, etc).

The reason gas may be released is because of fluctuations in water temperature, pressure, and salinity. The ocean is simply a solvent for oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, and other STP gases. For those of you who have forgotten their chemistry, water is polar molecule. It does some weird things with... well, just about everything.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 28, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> no i meant hydro carbonate, its gray and its very gel like. at around 1000 meters or lower u find that it forms at gas outlets, iv considered doing a fab for it as the tech is there but nah its too early




http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hydrocarbonate

What sort of quackery are you on about?

very gel like and its grey...... I think you are confusing whale ejaculate with something that is not real.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 28, 2015)

@Steevo


dorsetknob said:


> Thanks for the Second Scientific peer review



re


Steevo said:


> very gel like and its grey...... I think you are confusing whale ejaculate with something that is not real.



who's been Skinny Dipping at the beach with porno mags @DinaAngel


----------

