Gasoline From Thin Air 283
disco_tracy writes "An enzyme found in the roots of soybeans could be the key to cars that run on air. If perfected, the tech could lead to cars partially powered on their own fumes. Even further into the future, vehicles could draw fuel from the air itself. Quoting: 'The new enzyme can only make two and three carbon chains, not the longer strands that make up liquid gasoline. However, Ribbe thinks he can modify the enzyme so it could produce gasoline. ... [Perfecting this process] won't happen anytime soon... "It's very, very difficult," to extract the vanadium nitrogenase, said Ribbe.'
Re:Call me when it's in production (Score:3, Informative)
It converts carbon monoxide, which is even less abundant.
Re:this will be revolutionnary... (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, just like they've used their secret fleet of black helicopters (which they lease from the Trilateral Commission) to fly around the country to squash all of the Free Energy inventions, especially the water powered car, and that one that gets double the mileage if you just use a different air filter.
What are you, twelve years old?
Re:This cocking around is stupid... (Score:5, Informative)
200W? The flow through a gasoline fuel hose can be expressed in watts if you care to. Gasoline has about 32 megajoules per liter. Maximum gas pump in the US is 10 gallons per minute, or 0.63 liters per second. Thus the energy flow rate is 20 megajoules per second -- that is, 20 megawatts. If a gasoline engine is only 1/4 as efficient as an electric engine and there are no charging losses, you can derate that to 5 MW to get the equivalent electric power needed. So, you can keep that 20 amps... provided you're willing to charge at 250,000V. Good luck with that.
Re:This cocking around is stupid... (Score:2, Informative)
This eliminates the slow-charge problem. You can swap out a battery probably just as fast as you can pump gas. (Assuming the battery packs and the loading systems are properly designed.) In principle the cars could still have the ability to charge, so that regenerative braking can be used while driving, and the cars can slowly charge when at home or at parking lots with the right equipment.
The main complaints about such a system are:
1. It would be very difficult to agree on a standard and have the infrastructure put in place. This is true for any proposal for vehicles using new fuel sources. At least the transition: "gas -> hybrid -> plug-in hybrid -> electric vehicles you charge at home -> electric vehicles with power-swap stations" is not impossibly abrupt.
2. "Bad batteries". People worry about the idea of swapping out their good/brand-new (but drained) battery and getting a crappy used one in return. But this is because people are thinking in terms of owning the battery-packs. What would probably instead happen is that you buy a car and then sign up with some provider of battery-packs. You basically lease a battery from their pool, and can swap it at any participating station. You don't own any of the batteries but pay for the cost of the electricity and the battery packs together, and over time, either paying each time you get a new fully-charged battery, or having some kind of account/membership/bill that you pay monthly. The "bad battery" problem then amounts to a corporate reputation issue. Presumably there will be different suppliers/companies, some with better quality control (retiring old batteries) than others...
This makes the up-front costs for electric cars cheaper, since you don't have to pay for the (expensive) battery pack up front if you're instead paying for it over time through your membership. It also out-sources the issue of battery degradation and battery recycling, so that the end-user doesn't have to worry about those issues.
Obviously this won't happen tomorrow, but the point is that the gasoline infrastructure has a huge head-start, and there are possible solutions to making electric vehicles just as convenient as gas-powered vehicles, if we push in that direction.
Re:Misleading Summary (Score:4, Informative)
The higher compression means that the they must be built stronger. AKA more expensive.
Also they use a high pressure fuel injection system which is also more expensive and complex than a simple spark plug and carb.
So yes they tend to be more expensive to build and more complex.
But they do not need to have their spark plugs replaced or have your typical tune up.
Thing is that modern electronic ignition and spark plugs have made gas engines also about as user low maintenance as a diesel.
Ludicrous let me count the ways (Score:1, Informative)
The actual article is worse than the summary and if completely implausible is ludicrous than ludicrous is more than appropriate.
1) Carbon MONOXIDE is also called "syn gas". And CO is called "syn gas" because you can make anything from it. No kidding. No enzyme needed. That this enzyme does it at RT is interesting but not remotely useful because:
2) These nitrogenases are really fragile proteins. Look at them wrong (or even expose them to air) and they are rendered inactive. They will not survive the conditions of the catalytic converter of your car. Ludicrous.
3) The article says "run on thin air" -- as if air contained much carbon monoxide --um we'd be dead. It's a very poorly tuned car indeed that emits much CO. Ludicrous. Carbon DIOXIDE is a different thing entirely. Confounding the two, ludicrous.
4) The study of nitrogenases is an active field because it would be really useful to be able to replace the Haber Bosch Process (100 million metric tones of the stuff a year and
a major consumer of energy ). What we need is a relatively simple robust catalyst> Study of nitrogenase may lead us there, but using notrogenase itself as a replacement is frankly just ludicrous.
Mod the parent up.
Re:Misleading Summary (Score:3, Informative)
they're electricaly simpler, but their fuel injection is enormously more complicated than a carburator. a diesel requires one really strong fuel pump to bring the pressure to above 10 atm, then it takes one individual small pump per cylinder, synced to respective engine piston, to inject the fuel at pressures higher than the air pressure inside the combustion chamber. that's one of the reasons diesels were always a hulluva more expensive than gasoline engines.
electronic fuel injection on both gasoline and diesel levels the playing field somewhat, but diesels are still more expensive to build because of the higher compression. this requires much stronger blocks, heads, seams, moving parts, fuel pump and really strong pipes between the pump and the injectors.
Re:Misleading Summary (Score:5, Informative)
Modern diesel engines are exactly as complex as modern petrol engines. No mainstream petrol engines now use carboretters (that I know of). The only big disadvantage with diesel engines is that they are heavier - they require a little more ironmongery.
Diesel engines are generally simpler to run and way less sensitive to water. There's a reason all commercial vehicles are diesels. The weight is also a reason why we haven't seen diesel bikes hitting the mainstream yet either.
Essentially, with current engine design, the _only_ disadvantage to diesels is their weight. That and their performance characteristics - you don't get high reving fun diesels.
Re:Misleading Summary (Score:3, Informative)
there is also the issue of cold climates, as under those conditions the piston needs to be heated (usually electrically) so to get the diesel mix to ignite at all. Luckily, modern engines do so automatically as part of the ignition sequence, tho earlier one had to turn it on manually (and if forgotten, i suspect it could drain the battery).
who posted this?... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This cocking around is stupid... (Score:3, Informative)
Split a pack up into, say, 10 separate packs which can go into arbitrary locations, and you 10x the connection problem, double the combined cost of the battery packs for the vehicle (because of the overhead on packs as small as you'll end up with), increase its weight, and increase the cost of the pack swapper several times over.
No, there can't. Here, let's list the first EVs that come to my mind and then look at their pack needs:
Nissan Leaf: As a five-seater sedan, the pack exists between the belly pan and the floor near the center of the vehicle, which is a very efficient use of space (and is the sort of thing that Better Place is trying to do for swapping). Since it's a pure EV, it needs a high energy, low power battery. Since it's a low-end EV, the pack is short-range (a nominal 100 miles)
Chevy Volt: As a narrow four-seater designed for a lot of internal room without a high profile, the pack can't fit under the floor. So the pack is T-shaped, running down the center tunnel and under the back seats. Since it's a plug-in hybrid, it needs a high power, low energy battery (these cells are typically more expensive).
Aptera 2e: As an unusual shaped composite two seat three wheeler (to get aerodynamics far superior to conventional cars, albeit with less mainstream looks), the CG must be kept very low and fit within the contours. The pack goes under and behind the two seats of the vehicle, next to the rear taper of the underbelly.
Toyota RAV4: No details announced yet, but as an electric SUV, its pack will need to be larger and deliver more power than sedans need, but as a mass-market vehicle, it will still need to be made from an affordable chemistry.
Tesla Roadster: Since it's rear-wheel drive, you need the weight over the rear wheels. As a consequence, the battery pack is located in the rear and takes up part of the trunk space. As a high-end vehicle, the nominal ~250 miles range requires a pack more expensive than most people in lower-end cars could afford. Since the market is high end consumers, a shorter lifespan chemistry is acceptable so long as the vehicle delivers on its range and power needs (and hence, that's what's used).
Tesla Model S: Rear-wheel drive, but an entirely different shape and weight distribution profile, which the battery must be matched for. Three pack size options are available depending on how much the consumer wants to pay (160 to 300 miles range).
Lightning GT: Since this car is all about high performance and extremely short charge times, they need to use a chemistry like the titanates. These are very low energy density, extremely high power output, and very expensive -- not a general purpose battery pack.
I can keep going if you'd like. The simple facts are that even if you freeze battery tech in time, you can't come close to starting to standardize. Let alone what happens as battery tech continues to advance.
And the main issue is that it's Totally Unnecessary. The concept has been effectively supplanted by rapid charging, which has no inventory or standardization problems. There are some companies with money invested into the notion that are holding out, but it's a tech proposal with no impetus behind it any more.