How Bill Gates Aims to Clean Up the Planet

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Bill Gates has teamed up with a physicist and oil sands magnate for a project in which CO2 is extracted from the air and converted to clean diesel and petrol. In what is being described as “mechanizing photosynthesis,” arrays of giant fans are used to extract pure CO2, which can then be synthesized into a usable mixture through a process called Air to Fuels (A2F).

The hope is that the combination of direct air capture (DAC), water electrolysis and fuels synthesis used to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuels can be made to work at a global scale, for little more than it costs to extract and sell fossil fuel today. This would revolutionize the world’s transport industry, which emits nearly one-third of total climate-changing emissions.
 
Interesting but I'll believe it when I see it in practical use. Also doesn't help with smog problems. And they are generating Hydrogen from water, too bad we can't just use it to power our cars etc. that would be more efficient than using it in another process that in turn goes into the cars and keeps encouraging the use of ICEs.
 
Nanogrip said:
Seems like a lot of work and engineering. It's better to plant more grass, have more cows to eat the grass, something to connect to cow's ass, get gas. Grass, Ass, Gas: GAG
Click to expand...

Then your going to need a lot of ass to extract that much gas...
 
Seems to me it would be smarter to just do this at the source: the coal plants and industries that generate the most CO2
 
jtmcclain said:
Seems to me it would be smarter to just do this at the source: the coal plants and industries that generate the most CO2
Click to expand...

I like that idea, really. But it still adds to the total amount of carbon in the cycle. If you did it with a wood fired plant, than it would be semi neutral.

But gasoline from thin air? That's a hell of a dense energy storage.
 
jtmcclain said:
Seems to me it would be smarter to just do this at the source: the coal plants and industries that generate the most CO2
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you end up with radioactive gas then? I seem to remember that coal has a lot of impurities and just isn't spewing out CO2
 
I'm still not sure why bio-char has not caught on for soil enrichment.
Takes CO2 out of the air virtually forever and enriches soil while the process gives off a ton of heat that can be harnessed too.
 
The good thing about people like Gates is they can attempt the longest of long plays with private financing. So even if they fail, society and investors don't lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rahh
like this
Gigus Fire said:
Wouldn't you end up with radioactive gas then? I seem to remember that coal has a lot of impurities and just isn't spewing out CO2
Click to expand...

Not a coal guy, but my understanding with coal ash is mostly heavy metals - mercury the biggest concern, and the heavy pollutants (apart from NOX/SOX/CO/PM/VOC, which are the major air pollutants of concern) are mostly contained in the ash. I'm sure those heavy metals entails some radioactivity just naturally, but coal processing doesn't amplify or augment that, and the net is probably not much more radioactivity than you find in your average banana, and only a very small fraction of that (via PM emissions) would enter the exhaust gas.
 
WRT the OP, I think it's interesting tech, and I agree with WhoMe - I'll believe it when I see it, but if we do see it, it would be nice.

It would affect smog somewhat... with fossil fuels, we are introducing a long-dormant source of CO2 back into the atmosphere. So that makes overall CO2 levels rise. IF you believe that additional CO2 is doing anything once it's released into the atmosphere is a different discussion.

With tech such as this, the CO2 isn't getting sequestered or removed - that much is true, but your also not re-introducing additional CO2. So CO2 levels don't go down, but they also don't go up.

That isn't as good as elimination or sequestration, certainly, but it's a big step on the way toward that. Net Zero carbon is a big deal in environmental circles.
 
Brian_B said:
WRT the OP, I think it's interesting tech, and I agree with WhoMe - I'll believe it when I see it, but if we do see it, it would be nice.

It would affect smog somewhat... with fossil fuels, we are introducing a long-dormant source of CO2 back into the atmosphere. So that makes overall CO2 levels rise. IF you believe that additional CO2 is doing anything once it's released into the atmosphere is a different discussion.

With tech such as this, the CO2 isn't getting sequestered or removed - that much is true, but your also not re-introducing additional CO2. So CO2 levels don't go down, but they also don't go up.

That isn't as good as elimination or sequestration, certainly, but it's a big step on the way toward that. Net Zero carbon is a big deal in environmental circles.
Click to expand...

Smog is not caused by CO2. It is mostly from NOx emisisons and unburnt hydrocarbons.
 
I have a strong feeling that it may need to be nuclear powered to avoid creating more carbon (via burning coal/gas for electricity) than it scrubs unless you happen to be near a waterfall or in an area able to support an absolutely massive solar/wind array. If not though that would be awesome.
 
Why is this not gaining more traction as a battery!?

Excess wind and solar production generates petrol/diesel. Bam! No chemical batteries to deal with.

Wind and solar already meeting all your needs? Add even more and produce petrol/diesel for sale. Enough scale can make this work. Deploy arrays in the middle if the desert or in so e other super remote place to avoid having to truck in fuel.
 
This process takes a lot of power; so where do you think that comes from? Unless we convert all our power production to non-CO2 emitting forms, this will likely put more CO2 into the air than it removes. Plus, CO2 does not make the air "dirty". It is a colorless, odorless gas that plants are completely dependent on.
 
WhoMe said:
Interesting but I'll believe it when I see it in practical use. Also doesn't help with smog problems. And they are generating Hydrogen from water, too bad we can't just use it to power our cars etc. that would be more efficient than using it in another process that in turn goes into the cars and keeps encouraging the use of ICEs.
Click to expand...

The use of ICEs doesn't matter if you make balanced participation in the carbon cycle feasible. If non-fossil fuel technology + carbon scrubbing helps us eliminate the issue of portable energy for lots of things, that's a win, not a loss. EVs seem nice, but there's not enough raw materials to go round for everyone, and they fail to address heavy machinery, construction equipment, etc.
 
If these actually work , they should build thousands of them all over the planet as well as planting trees and all the other things that reduce CO2 from the atmosphere ........
 
Chebsy said:
If these actually work , they should build thousands of them all over the planet as well as planting trees and all the other things that reduce CO2 from the atmosphere ........
Click to expand...


but what is an "acceptable" level of CO2?? the planet very much needs CO2 for all the plants to grow and such.
 
katanaD said:
but what is an "acceptable" level of CO2?? the planet very much needs CO2 for all the plants to grow and such.
Click to expand...
Acceptable levels would be what they were pre industrialisation, which would be the natural levels set by the planet without us pumping billions of tons of the gas into our atmosphere.
 
raz-0 said:
The use of ICEs doesn't matter if you make balanced participation in the carbon cycle feasible. If non-fossil fuel technology + carbon scrubbing helps us eliminate the issue of portable energy for lots of things, that's a win, not a loss. EVs seem nice, but there's not enough raw materials to go round for everyone, and they fail to address heavy machinery, construction equipment, etc.
Click to expand...
That's a big IF. That's really what I was trying to say, at best it is carbon neutral and you still have local pollution to deal with. The economics of this don't make sense to me (at a glance) but we shall see. Let's say I have grave doubts. Now in 100 years when pulling oil for the ground is getting scares it might make sense for a few use cases, or maybe some improved something will come along. Hydrogen e.g. has a lot of energy and could fit well with that heavy equipment you mention.
 
The BEST way to clean this planet? Lower the population.

I know, it's evil and humans are too important to cull the population, so we just find ways to artificially help the planet.

Though, if we don't stop reproducing at our current rate, Wall-E will definitely be our future.
 
So.

It costs money to run fans. Hey, I -work- and my -labor- is converted to -money-. If someone TAKES my -money- they are forcing me to -labor- for their ends. That's called slavery. Gotta keep that in mind.

So.

Rich Billy Gates wants to remove CO2 and turn it into diesel fuel? I'm all on board. Really. I'll let him do this without ANY pushback. As long as I'm not being tapped. You know...forced to labor for a rich man's idealized vision of the world.

First, he's got to build the fans.
Next, he's got to install the fans.
Next, he's got to run the fans.
Next, he's got to build the reclamation plants. (Or whatever he'll call the "making fuel out of thin air" place.)
Next, he's got to run the reclamation plants.

All this before the first red cent of profitable product even drips out of the tap.

I'm not on board with paying for this. Not at all.

Let's assume all this works, and various rich kids decide to pay for their version of the world. (Hey, I've got a version of the world =I'd= like to see. How many of you guys will send me money? You know, without my using the police the force you to give me your money.)

So.

Finally, some diesel fuel drips out. Bully for everyone! The market will rejoice! Because, you know, when you produce more product, THE PRICE DROPS. Diesel fuel will be EVEN CHEAPER. What does that mean? That means MORE WILL BE USED. Because, you know, fuel is good. It saves on labor and makes people more efficient.

So.

Do you think they did a profit/loss analysis for this which INCLUDES the bottom dropping out of the diesel market? Or, are the "little people" supposed to rejoice and be glad that we can -labor- for a rich man's dream? (You know, when my tax rates skyrocket so he can do...whatever.)

Or we can just grow more trees and grass.
 
scojer said:
The BEST way to clean this planet? Lower the population.

I know, it's evil and humans are too important to cull the population, so we just find ways to artificially help the planet.

Though, if we don't stop reproducing at our current rate, Wall-E will definitely be our future.
Click to expand...

Wall E is definitely the nice version, I tend to believe a bit more in the Elysium, Blade Runner, Alternate Carbon trends. I don't like it, but not seeing much happening to deter those paths.
 
First and foremost, you can't create more energy than you use in a process. If you make enough hydrocarbon fuel to generate a 1 KW of power(used as fuel for vehicles or any other purpose) it will take at least 1KW of power to make that fuel, and that is at 100% efficiency. Friction in the fan bearings and air friction at the blades will rob you of that efficiency so you have to come up with more energy to create the energy you produce than the total energy produced. It might halt the increase of carbon dioxide increase but the energy it consumes will have to come from nuclear, hydroelectric or solar to do it without still generating excess CO2. Of course it could be more efficient to just use that energy to power the vehicles themselves instead of making fuel for them.

Chebsy said:
Acceptable levels would be what they were pre industrialisation, which would be the natural levels set by the planet without us pumping billions of tons of the gas into our atmosphere.
Click to expand...

How far before industrialization do you have to go to be acceptable? If you go all the way back to the Carbonaceous period then we have to more than double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now to be "Normal". It is arrogant to believe that the perfect conditions for Earth are what are most beneficial to human existence. It can be shown that in the past CO2 levels were both much higher and much lower than they are now, so what is the correct level? We could sequester all of the CO2 in the atmosphere but then the plants would die and soon we would too. We can release all of the CO2 that has been sequestered over time and the plants will take over and we will die out. Earth is a self regulating system and I'm sorry to say, humans are more at the whims of the planet than we want to admit. We may influence it slightly but I highly doubt we are the most important factor in how it changes. If we are that important to what happens, then what people were around that caused the past warming to the point that even the north shore of Alaska was warm enough to have a thriving dinosaur population?
 
jedijeb13 said:
First and foremost, you can't create more energy than you use in a process. If you make enough hydrocarbon fuel to generate a 1 KW of power(used as fuel for vehicles or any other purpose) it will take at least 1KW of power to make that fuel, and that is at 100% efficiency. Friction in the fan bearings and air friction at the blades will rob you of that efficiency so you have to come up with more energy to create the energy you produce than the total energy produced.
Click to expand...

I dunno... a heat pump can move more heat than the energy consumed to do it. It's not creating or destroying energy. It's changing the molecular structure through some chemistry wizardry, likely with catalysts and who knows what - I don't.
 
jedijeb13 said:
How far before industrialization do you have to go to be acceptable? If you go all the way back to the Carbonaceous period then we have to more than double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now to be "Normal".
Click to expand...

also, if you look back over the history of the planet, for most of its time, the planet has not had polar ice caps, thats only relatively recent. During what are called climate optimums, the planet is warmer, higher levels of CO2 and is considered a garden of eden, rich with life. Right before our industrialization, the planet was leaving a little ice age, and it can very much be debated, it was a poor time for the planets plant life as it was CO2 starved.
 
The issue needs to be addressed at both ends. This topic is about the collection end. I agree that it also needs to be addressed at the generation end, but that won't solve the whole situation.

jtmcclain said:
Seems to me it would be smarter to just do this at the source: the coal plants and industries that generate the most CO2
Click to expand...
 
CombatChrisNC said:
I dunno... a heat pump can move more heat than the energy consumed to do it. It's not creating or destroying energy. It's changing the molecular structure through some chemistry wizardry, likely with catalysts and who knows what - I don't.
Click to expand...
No, that's not how heat pumps work. They create phase changes in a working fluid by changing the pressure, which causes heat to be absorbed from or dumped into the surrounding environment. Modern heat pumps can be very efficient, but still less than 100%. There is no free lunch in thermodynamics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
PaulP said:
No, that's not how heat pumps work. They create phase changes in a working fluid by changing the pressure, which causes heat to be absorbed from or dumped into the surrounding environment. Modern heat pumps can be very efficient, but still less than 100%. There is no free lunch in thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I just...couldn't. ;)

Brayton, Carnot, even my physics 101 teacher, were rolling in their graves. :)
 
PaulP said:
No, that's not how heat pumps work. They create phase changes in a working fluid by changing the pressure, which causes heat to be absorbed from or dumped into the surrounding environment. Modern heat pumps can be very efficient, but still less than 100%. There is no free lunch in thermodynamics.
Click to expand...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance#Example

EDIT: For people who don't want to click the link: I can spend 1kw on my heat pump and ideally deposit 3kw of heat into my house.

EDIT #2: When I was speaking of chemical wizardry, I was speaking about this new process, not a heat pump. I understand refrigeration. Sorry if that was unclear, I can see how it would be confusing.

200-300% efficient is common. Because like I said, it's not creating the energy, it's just moving existing energy from one place to another.

Still, more research needs to be done before we can call this anything - got to know how much power it's going to pull to produce X amount of fuel.
 
Or. Ya know. Move away from burning shit like it's the 19th century.

Typical BillG. LOL.
 
CombatChrisNC said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance#Example

EDIT: For people who don't want to click the link: I can spend 1kw on my heat pump and ideally deposit 3kw of heat into my house.

EDIT #2: When I was speaking of chemical wizardry, I was speaking about this new process, not a heat pump. I understand refrigeration. Sorry if that was unclear, I can see how it would be confusing.

200-300% efficient is common. Because like I said, it's not creating the energy, it's just moving existing energy from one place to another.

Still, more research needs to be done before we can call this anything - got to know how much power it's going to pull to produce X amount of fuel.
Click to expand...
You are conflating terms here, but it's not really your fault. A Watt of electricity is not the same as a Watt of heat. I know it seems like they should be the same, like a gram of wood is the same weight as a gram of iron. But heat is an intensive measurement, not a direct one like electricity. Also Watts are a measure of work, and the base there matters. You have to convert them to joules, a true unit of energy, to compare them directly. Think of pumping water, for example; you must use a certain amount of energy to pump a given volume of water. Basically the same with heat. The high efficiencies you quote are compared to simple electrical resistive heating, which is not very efficient. The fact of the matter is, if you put X amount of joules into your heat pump, you will only raise the heat in your house by X/Y joules where Y is always greater than 1. That's the law (of thermodynamics).
 
PaulP said:
The high efficiencies you quote are compared to simple electrical resistive heating, which is not very efficient. The fact of the matter is, if you put X amount of joules into your heat pump, you will only raise the heat in your house by X/Y joules where Y is always greater than 1. That's the law (of thermodynamics).
Click to expand...

Well that makes much more sense. Forgive all, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top