Slashdot Mirror
Gasoline From Thin Air
disco_tracy writes "An enzyme found in the roots of soybeans could be the key to cars that run on air. If perfected, the tech could lead to cars partially powered on their own fumes. Even further into the future, vehicles could draw fuel from the air itself. Quoting: 'The new enzyme can only make two and three carbon chains, not the longer strands that make up liquid gasoline. However, Ribbe thinks he can modify the enzyme so it could produce gasoline. ... [Perfecting this process] won't happen anytime soon... "It's very, very difficult," to extract the vanadium nitrogenase, said Ribbe.'
The actual article is about an enzyme. The chemical transformation still requires energy, just as charging a battery does.
What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Turning carbon monoxide into hydrocarbon fuel is a trick that's been known for some time now. Presumably this enzyme does it at room temperature, which would be a useful trick, but it's not a new one. Show me the enzyme which can convert carbon dioxide and water to hydrocarbon fuel, instead... right now we need the whole organism to do it, it'd be a lot simpler if it was just one enzyme.
The analyses that claim a huge supply in the US are starting to come under criticism. Our supply may not actually be that huge.
There's also the fact that right now, we haven't figured out how to safely extract a large portion of it. Most of the deposits can't be accessed without hydraulic fracturing (hydrofracking) - The chemicals used for hydrofracking are toxic as hell, and wells that are hydrofracked seem to be prone to losing integrity and leaking gas into aquifers. That's why in Dimock, PA, you can't drink your well water, but you can console yourself with the fact that you can light your tap water with a match. That's why New York is in the process of passing a moratorium on hydrofracking until next year (It passed the state senate by a landslide this week).
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I'd be more interested in splitting the CO2 into carbon and oxygen, for breathing purposes rather than fuel. Spacecraft and submarines use lithium hydroxide "scrubbers" to remove carbon dioxide from the air. It has the side effect of keeping one of the oxygen atoms of the molecule as well as the carbon. The lithium hydroxide is also used up in this process, meaingin a limited supply of breatheable air. If the CO2 is can be cracked back into carbon and oxygen, then you could develop a continuously renewing cycle for the air. This means fewer supply runs for ISS and other outposts.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Wow, you could take the <1% of your exhaust that's carbon monoxide, convert it to fuel (losses), then burn it (average vehicle energy usage efficiency, after all losses: 20%). Yeah, that's really going to up your mpg. :P
And what's wrong with the Sabatier reaction? And talk about a lossy way to store energy. :P
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi
How about 800kW?
50kW barely even qualifies to be called rapid charging.
For those wondering what rapid chargers look like -- a couple hundred kW rapid charger is usually a box about the size of 1-2 small soda machines with a cable about the size of a gas hose (but heavier) coming off it. The aforementioned 800kW charger is the size of four large soda machines pushed back to back.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi
That's not it at all. The main problem with swapping battery packs is an infrastructure management problem.
First off, if there was only one type of battery pack, that would be rough enough. Stations would have to have large stores of surplus battery packs, which cost $10k or more each, take up a large amount of space, and weigh hundreds of pounds. But there's not ever going to be just one kind of battery pack, and it's not for a lack of interest. Different vehicles have different needs. Luxury car owners can afford better, longer-range battery packs than owners of economy cars. RWD cars need the weight in the rear, taking up part of the trunk area. Depending on the layout, a sedan either needs a pack under the floor or in a T-shape down the center tunnel. Pickups have different layout needs than SUVs than cars and so on. Want to try to fit an SUV pack into a motorcycle?
Now factor in that battery chemistry is a huge moving target right now. Even drivetrains and inverters are a moving target. You can't standardize on a single voltage charge/discharge profile in such circumstances. Really, you're talking about stocking dozens of each of dozens of different types of battery pack at every station, and having these stations dense enough to support long distance travel. It's just not going to happen. And as if that's not bad enough, there's also some real engineering challenges, like making such an integral part of the vehicle's structure readily removeable and reattachable over many cycles, and especially the removal and reattachment of the electrical hookups.
Battery swapping was an idea envisioned when rapid charging was much more difficult. It no longer is. So there's no need for it any more. Modern li-ion cells can charge in minutes without ruining the pack's lifespan if you can provide sufficient A) power and B) cooling.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi
Gasoline is a complex mixture of hydrocarbon chains of various lengths and shapes. Why the heck would you take something like this and try to modify it to create gasoline rather than approaching the task from the other point of view. Here in Australia we have cars that run on LPG and I believe our standard mixture is about 70% C4H10 and about 30% C3H8. Why not take one of these engines and modify it to run on just the C3H8 that this enzyme claims to create then focus on the important aspect of increasing the efficiency and speed of conversion.