New York Startup Builds Fridge-Sized Machine That Can Turn Air Into Gasoline - Jalopnik
www.jalopnik.com
While it's not quite the free energy it sounds like at first, Aircela's technology in its current state has some practical, small-scale applications.

The main reason why this process isn’t “something for nothing” is that it takes twice as much electrical energy to produce energy in the form of gasoline. As Aircela told The Autopian:

Aircela is targeting >50% end to end power efficiency. Since there is about 37kWh of energy in a gallon of gasoline we will require about 75kWh to make it. When we power our machines with standalone, off-grid, photovoltaic panels this will correspond to less than $1.50/gallon in energy cost.

Doesn’t it sort of defeat the purpose of gasoline being used because it’s so energy dense? Like, this seems to suggest little more than the benefits of electrification in transport.

  • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
    4·
    3 days ago

    In addition to the other comments about how it’s still not bad for efficiency, I’d like to point out the potential political and environmental benefits if we’re still using oil anyway. Oil drilling has a huge negative impact on the environment. Oil spills, pipeline leaks, and the extraction itself can devastate ecosystems. I understand that electronic components in general are bad to produce, but this may allow for minimizing at least one avenue of environmental damage and exploitation. Additionally, oil is a huge part of international politics. Not needing to rely on oil rich nations would relieve some complications regarding international affairs. I don’t know what scaling this looks like, but even if it had a worse conversion rate, it’s still of interest for those reasons. Of course, all of that supposing we cannot switch to an entirely oil free society in the interim.

    I do wonder how the removal of water and carbon dioxide from the air will affect local areas though. I imagine more research needs to be done on that.

    • MotoAsh@piefed.socialEnglish
      3·
      3 days ago

      I mean, removing CO2 from the air is not a bad thing at this stage of global warming. It shouldn’t harm any ecosystem short of like… somehow building gigawatt factories in the middle of the jungle, which would be its own environmental disaster. Removing water … ehh, would just have to locate a big plant somewhere that isn’t struggling for moisture.

      • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
        3·
        3 days ago

        Yeah, I was figuring similarly, but still. I’ve seen enough “harmless” “local” environmental changes spiral to know that at least some thought is warranted about it. I absolutely did not mean to suggest it would be harmful, just that I don’t know enough about it and would hope that somebody knowledgeable looks into it before they recommend scaling.

        • MotoAsh@piefed.socialEnglish
          1·
          3 days ago

          Oh absolutely. I would never feel comfortable about any such projects unless several and different scientific institutions signed off on it being low to zero (or hopefully positive) impact.

    • Powderhorn@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
      3·
      3 days ago

      You’re not generally going to have a problem with CO2 removal locally. We’re making enough of it that the trees won’t die.

      Water vapour, on the other hand … that could be an environmental stressor depending on siting. Still, unless installing at scale, output of a gallon a day doesn’t seem like it’s going to do much to the local environment.

      • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
        1·
        3 days ago

        Yeah, I was figuring similarly, but still. I’ve seen enough “harmless” “local” environmental changes spiral to know that at least some thought is warranted about it. I absolutely did not mean to suggest it would be harmful, just that I don’t know enough about it and would hope that somebody knowledgeable looks into it before they recommend scaling.