Audi Creates "Fuel of the Future" Using Carbon Dioxide & H2O

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

TomT

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
10,656
Location
California, now Georgia
German car manufacturer Audi says it has created the "fuel of the future" made solely from water, carbon dioxide and renewable sources. The synthetic "e-diesel" was made following a commissioning phase of just four months at a plant in Dresden, Germany.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-creates-green-e-diesel-fuel-future-using-just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Creation of the fuel, which Audi and Sunfire are calling blue crude, first requires heating water to 800C (1,472F) to trigger a high temperature electrolysis to break down the steam to hydrogen and oxygen.
Sounds pretty costly in terms of energy needed to create this stuff. Also, 160L/day... that might cover the diesel needs of a whole semi truck for a day.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm always happy to hear about something new being done, but I don't see this changing the world any time soon -- certainly no "fuel of the future" being made here.
On the other hand... if this could be made by passing water through the waste fuel ponds of nuclear plants, that might be a cheap way to make lemonade from lemons...
 
The actual technical paper indicates that the "plant" was in a room about 10' by 15' so obviously a larger commercial version would produce exponentially much more... They also mention that power required would drop with a commercial version, and that a combination of solar and wind could reduce the power footprint to near zero... It continues that the temperature necessary for the process is expected to drop as it is refined... All other considerations aside, it IS very interesting science...

ishiyakazuo said:
Sounds pretty costly in terms of energy needed to create this stuff. Also, 160L/day... that might cover the diesel needs of a whole semi truck for a day.
 
That's often the case (that once it's commercialized, it becomes cheaper and easier to produce more), but I wouldn't exactly call 160L/day a "factory" (and it sounded like 160L was optimistic). I had to wonder if the minister who used it in her Audi A8 used the entirety of the manufactured fuel for the one car.
Still, super-heating water to 800C is gonna use an insane amount of energy relative to the output. I'm also wondering if there would be requirements on the water's purity that might make this something where we need to decide between vehicle fuel and clean water supply in places.
 
DNAinaGoodWay said:
Not to mention that burning the stuff releases CO2 back into the atmosphere?

If they capture the CO2 to create it, it at least has the chance of being carbon neutral. I actually have more of a problem with them using water, unless they can use grey or waste water.
 
I wonder if this is similar to the process the US Navy is using to create fuel "from sea water" (http://www.voanews.com/content/us-navy-lab-turns-seawater-into-fuel/1919512.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Note that in this case the electrical energy to 'fuel' the process is suggested to be a nuclear power plan on board the ship.

But I see that in essence the real fuel process in the OP link is H2 + CO2, so getting the hydrogen from water (seawater or otherwise) is one process, then creating the long-chain hydrocarbons (and some water to boot) is a second process. This implies to me that they could get the H2 from whatever sources they want.
 
Slow1 said:
I wonder if this is similar to the process the US Navy is using to create fuel "from sea water" (http://www.voanews.com/content/us-navy-lab-turns-seawater-into-fuel/1919512.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Note that in this case the electrical energy to 'fuel' the process is suggested to be a nuclear power plan on board the ship.

But I see that in essence the real fuel process in the OP link is H2 + CO2, so getting the hydrogen from water (seawater or otherwise) is one process, then creating the long-chain hydrocarbons (and some water to boot) is a second process. This implies to me that they could get the H2 from whatever sources they want.
Check the video above. Herman Peng is part of the Audi team. The entire point of the project is to store renewable energy in ways that are more easily used in the current economy, while being able to easily evolve into a post-fossil fuel world without change. This is a part of the EU's transition to the Third Industrial Revolution that they began about 2004.
 
mwalsh said:
If they capture the CO2 to create it, it at least has the chance of being carbon neutral. I actually have more of a problem with them using water, unless they can use grey or waste water.

True, and I suppose it would be better than drilling in the Gulf, or the Arctic, or anywhere else.
 
mwalsh said:
If they capture the CO2 to create it, it at least has the chance of being carbon neutral. I actually have more of a problem with them using water, unless they can use grey or waste water.

Only if the energy source used to create this is in itself carbon neutral.

In the end you aren't going to get more energy out of this process than you put into it. Basically it is stable energy storage, but much like a battery in that you have to 'put' the energy into the system and will have losses in the conversion processes (both in and out). The challenge going forward I'm sure is minimizing that cost - i.e. getting as close to 1:1 ratio of energy in to energy out.

Mind you - I expect this would be very energy dense storage which has it's place and as such may be worth whatever 'premium' it takes to create it. I believe this is why the US Navy is interested in the tech - when you are guzzling liquid hydrocarbons thousands of miles from the closest friendly fueling station the ability to synthesize fuel from available resources (plenty of water and C02 out there in the ocean, and an on board nuclear power plant for energy) could be quite an advantage.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not putting down the tech and am sure the research is well worth it. I just am not sure I buy the marketing "Fuel of the Future" label as I suspect there are likely to be better options out there for many applications.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
smkettner said:
Did not read the details but this sounds far better than hydrogen storage.
Exactly. A better title for this thread would be "Carbon neutral diesel taking over as H2 fails" :lol:

Not really - more like "Converting H2 to diesel substitute" - note that the process first pulls H2 from the water (established process really and one of the sources of H2 for HFCs), then it uses another process to combine this H2 with C02 to make hydrocarbon chains and water....
 
Nubo said:
Just what the world needs. More diesel engines.
As a former (recovering?) biodieseler, I must take exception to this! If a carbon-neutral diesel alternative can be created*, I'm all for it. Diesels are far superior to gassers**, and even though I'm 'against' ICE in general, there is a TON (many millions of tons, actually) of embedded energy, ingrained knowledge and ready infrastructure in place for that industry.


* IMO, almost all current biodiesel is NOT carbon- or food-vs-fuel neutral, even though the WVO folk might like to imagine and preach that it is.

** Thank you (in large part) to GM for giving them such a bad name here. And newer diesel engines are much quieter and cleaner than those of yestercentury.
 
AndyH said:
The entire point of the project is to store renewable energy in ways that are more easily used in the current economy, while being able to easily evolve into a post-fossil fuel world without change. This is a part of the EU's transition to the Third Industrial Revolution that they began about 2004.
There are some applications of hydrocarbon energy that are going to be hard to do any other way. Jet aircraft for example. As others mention, the energy source to do such must be renewable for any sense to be made of it. For that matter, the process could be used to sequester carbon by putting the liquid back into old oil wells... Humm, maybe we should leave it in the ground in the first place...?
 
Slow1 said:
Don't misunderstand - I'm not putting down the tech and am sure the research is well worth it. I just am not sure I buy the marketing "Fuel of the Future" label as I suspect there are likely to be better options out there for many applications.
Yep, that was the point I was trying to make in the earlier posts I made too. It's probably got its place (I could see it being very efficient on the nuclear subs you mentioned, or even a side project for the wasted heat in nuclear power plants), but at this point, we don't even have many diesel cars here in the USA, because of various perceived problems with them (most of which are no longer even valid). I hate it when cool new tech gets overblown before it's even had a chance to be tried, because it sets the expectations WAY too high.
 
ishiyakazuo said:
I hate it when cool new tech gets overblown before it's even had a chance to be tried, because it sets the expectations WAY too high.
You mean something like saying the LEAF had a 100-mile range? :-\ The names 'Solazyme' and 'Envia' also come to mind for some reason, and no doubt there are dozens of others.

Far better to do it like Tesla. I think people were expecting a nice vehicle before the S came out, but Tesla was not promoting it a best-in-class, multiple award-winning game-changer, as far as I know. I think that made the awards and praise stand out all the more when they came.
 
Back
Top