Isn’t burning fuel still going to create green house gasses?
Not more than this process took out of the atmosphere before, so they are at least carbon neutral.
And by world’s first they mean copying what China’s been doing at scale for years now.
https://www.solarpaces.org/rediscovering-concentrated-solar-power-story-from-china/
As usual you show a complete lack of reading comprehension as this is about making synthetic fuels with concentrated solar power.
The key chemistry bit:
The receiver heats a gaseous heat transfer fluid which circulates in a closed loop, delivering the high-temperate process heat to the thermochemical reactor and the thermal energy store. In the reactor, CO2, water vapour, and methane sourced from biowaste are heated with the solar energy over a catalyst which produces a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen known as syngas. This is then piped down the tower to a Fischer-Tropsch unit which converts it into a synthetic crude which a refinery would then process into kerosene for planes, diesel or methanol for ships and trucks, and petrol for cars.
Super cool. Chemical fuels (hydrocarbons or even plant oils) have ridiculous energy density, which is nice for e.g. cars but absolutely crucial for fast, long-range air travel. I don’t think we’ll be saying goodbye to jet engines for a long time, and it’s awesome that we have ways of making fuel in a somewhat sustainable fashion.
The US Navy has experimented with this, but I think the idea is to use nuclear power instead of solar energy. Makes sense for an aircraft carrier with a big reactor and thirsty jets.
I‘m not particularly hyped about synthetic fuels, but the application to low-carbon cement seems important to me, if this is possible at the scale required
There are plenty of applications where batteries simply won’t be sufficient, so synthetic fuels do have a place. Just not in land based transport.
I’d really be interested to see a comparison between the costs of electrifying the rail network vs using synthetic diesel for freight throughout the US.
Unlike cars or semi trucks, diesel-electric locomotives are extremely efficient. On the other hand, electrifying the many thousands of miles of track that run through large, unpopulated areas of the US seems like a monumental challenge that would yield far fewer benefits over electrifying cars.
It worked on every other continent. Of course it would be harder to do in the US because they’ve neglected building out their railways for so long. But the Chinese built a high speed rail network in a few years. There’s no practical reason why the US wouldn’t be able to do it.
The U.S. can’t build like China does. Too many stakeholders to satisfy. Labour too expensive. Too many regulations. The high-speed rail line from San Francisco to LA is going to cost more than all of China’s high-speed rail projects combined!
trains are actually one of the examples where you can get away with lower energy dense fuels, like methanol, ammonia or even compressed hydrogen. sure the range will go down, but for many connections this will not matter that much because it will still be possible to go 1000km with one tank if needed.
Agreed. Or the heating of buildings and warm water.
Maybe in some remote, off-grid cabins, otherwise heating with synthetic fuels would be hugely inefficient.
Yes. That is how I meant the comment. I see now, it could be read both ways.
