Smells like bull to me. In theory it may release less CO2, but in practical terms there is much more coming out of a tail pipe when burning fuel in an internal combustion engine.
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
2 points (75.0% liked)
Mining
168 readers
4 users here now
For all things related to real world mining and resources, including jobs, equipment, announcements, stock market, humblebrags, memes, etc. See also: Geology and Geology Careers
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, it will certainly release the same amount of carbon dioxide while being burned as regular diesel -- no getting around that.
But the idea is that you extract the carbon dioxide from the air (which costs electricity), then split it into carbon and oxygen (which costs electricity), then also split some water (which costs electricity), then combine the carbon and hydrogen to make fuel (which also costs electricity). The efficiency of the whole process is terrible, but if electricity is so cheap that it is almost free, then you can start to entertain the idea.
There's a lot of assumptions there about electricity being super cheap, and nuclear being so abundant. Nuclear plants aren't free to build or operate either.
That said, this same technology can make methane, and methane powered rockets are likely the future. So for a limited consumer of fossil fuels (like rockets), maybe it makes sense. For things that cannot be made to run on batteries, regardless of how efficient the batteries become.
Personally not a fan of the idea -- but it could be an interesting transitional strategy that could boost nuclear in the longer term. Thoughts?