Breakthrough promises $1.50 per gallon synthetic gasoline with no carbon emissions

the cow says moo

the cow says moo

Newbie
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
0
Article here

UK-based Cella Energy has developed a synthetic fuel that could lead to US$1.50 per gallon gasoline. Apart from promising a future transportation fuel with a stable price regardless of oil prices, the fuel is hydrogen based and produces no carbon emissions when burned. The technology is based on complex hydrides, and has been developed over a four year top secret program at the prestigious Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford. Early indications are that the fuel can be used in existing internal combustion engined vehicles without engine modification.
Click to expand...

Discuss.
 
How fast does it burn though? If you need to stop for gas twice as often then its not much of a gain.

Well, I guess it would be for the environment.
 
Won't work. Things usually don't when it comes to awesome science news.
 
DEATHMASTER said:
Won't work. Things usually don't when it comes to awesome science news.
Click to expand...

This. There is always, always a catch when it comes to these things. Byproducts of the manufacturing process, the amount they can actually manufacture is too small, the $1.50 price is an underestimate at best targeted 10-20 years into manufacturing, etc.
 
Avoidist said:
This. There is always, always a catch when it comes to these things. Byproducts of the manufacturing process, the amount they can actually manufacture is too small, the $1.50 price is an underestimate at best targeted 10-20 years into manufacturing, etc.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the oil companies paying governments to tear down these science projects and make oil a #1 priority and base your whole economy, war efforts, and snack foods off it.
 
Pesimism FTW?

How about we wait until we know more. Sounds promising though.
 
I for one welcome are new cheap-fuel overlords.
 
That would be excellent. But yeah, I'd be interested in knowing what it is/how it's made (obviously that's proprietary, but perhaps they could say what the other part of the hydride is -- is it a metal? what kind of metal? Hydride only tells us there's reduced hydrogen in it).

In any case, I find it problematic that everyone is going in different directions. You have these hydride people, and the hydrogen fuel cell people, and the electric car people. Obviously we want to find the best technology -- but eventually if we're going to switch, we need the infrastructure for it. Charging/refill stations, etc. And it's unlikely companies are going to invest in three, or even two, different ones. Electric cars are ahead of the game now -- but if these hydrides were really tested in normal vehicles and could be extensively manufactured and distributed to normal refill stations, it would be viable as there wouldn't be as significant of an infrastructure switchover. There'd be a fight in pushing out the oil companies though.

[edit] nvm their website says it's ammonia borane. And that it is a proof of concept, not a working product at this stage. Also, reading comments on the original article -- it appears this is just a storage technique (spraying out microbeads) rather than a production technology (producing the fuel, getting the hydrogen, etc).
 
I'm curious how this form of energy is created? How much carbon emissions appears WHILE creating this?

I'm so skeptical, I'll bet money this is going to fail as hard as Hydrogen will/has.
 
As a rule of thumb, anyone who claims to have a silver bullet solution to the energy crisis, is full of shit.
 
See, we have to take the carbon from the airs and use them as the fusion moleculisms. It's that simple, we just need a big cannon thingy for the fusions.
 
CyberPitz said:
I'm curious how this form of energy is created? How much carbon emissions appears WHILE creating this?

I'm so skeptical, I'll bet money this is going to fail as hard as Hydrogen will/has.
Click to expand...

This. I'm sick of people claiming "zero carbon emissions", while conveniently neglecting to mention the vast amounts of energy needed to create the product. What we need is a new energy source, not a new way of storing energy. Not that energy storage technology isn't important, but come to think of it, what exactly is it about this new fuel that makes it so good? It's no more renewable than oil if it requires electricity (mostly from fossil fuels) to produce it. Likewise, its price should therefore be no more stable than that of fossil fuels.

Having looked at the website, it does seem like they've found something interesting; a way to store hydrogen in a stable yet easily usable form. This is good because it could overcome one of the big obstacles in hydrogen fuel-cell technology - the problem of safely storing great amounts of an explosive gas in a volume small enough to fit in a machine (such as a car). It is really annoying how so many people seem to claim that fuel cells are carbon neutral, but I'm wary of calling bullshit on the whole field when so many academics who know far more than me are so excited about it.
 
Im glad that when i was 14 years old i decided to sign up on this forum and not some other. Its like im a clone from you guys, the same level of criticism, skepticism, rationalism and roughly intelligence when it comes to critical thinking and common sense. Every where else i go i am completely different from the norm and disagree with everything.

I feel safer here, but probably because im drinking the water, **** that paranoid guy at the train station who told me not to.
 
**** that guy. Throw a bottle at him for me if you see him again.
 
F*CK ME IN THE ASS WHY AREN'T YOU GUYS MORE F*CKING PUMPED
 
Your avatar just makes every post so much more special. I'm excited only because of it.
 
Ravioli said:
Im glad that when i was 14 years old i decided to sign up on this forum and not some other.
Click to expand...

I was 13!

And this forum dashed all my hopes, dreams, and beliefs!

On the plus side, it made my grammar betterer.
 
Why cant we start using crystals as our energy source like in the fortress of solitude and the crystals in star craft?

The crystals would need to be mined from the moon and mars and other planets which would also create a revolution in space travel.

I think crystals are the way of the future.
 
Mr-Fusion said:
The crystals would need to be mined from the moon and mars and other planets which would also create a revolution in space travel.

I think crystals are the way of the future.
Click to expand...

Quartz keeps damn good time. But I don't know about time travel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top