Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Germany Unveils World's First Commercial Plant For Making Synthetic Kerosene (apnews.com) 263

Posted by BeauHD from the fuel-of-the-future dept.
German officials on Monday unveiled what they said is the world's first commercial plant for making synthetic kerosene, touted as a climate-friendly fuel of the future. The Associated Press reports: The facility in Werlte, near Germany's northwestern border with the Netherlands, will use water and electricity from four nearby wind farms to produce hydrogen. In a century-old process, the hydrogen is combined with carbon dioxide to make crude oil, which can then be refined into jet fuel. Burning that synthetic kerosene releases only as much CO2 into the atmosphere as was previously removed to produce the fuel, making it "carbon neutral."

The amount of fuel that the plant can produce beginning early next year is modest: just eight barrels a day, or about 336 gallons of jet fuel. That would be enough to fill up one small passenger plane every three weeks. By comparison, total fuel consumption of commercial airlines worldwide reached 95 billion gallons in 2019, before the pandemic hit the travel industry, according to the International Air Transport Association, or IATA. But Atmosfair, a German non-profit group behind the project, says its purpose is to show that the process is technologically feasible and -- once it is scaled up and with sufficient demand -- economically viable.

Initially the price of synthetic kerosene produced in Werlte will be far higher than that of regular jet fuel, though Atmosfair won't divulge how much it will be charging its first customer, the German airline Lufthansa. However Atmosfair's chief executive, Dietrich Brockhagen, says a price of 5 euros ($5.80) per liter (0.26 gallons) is possible. That's still several times what kerosene currently costs, but Atsmofair is banking on carbon taxes driving up the price of fossil fuels, making his product more competitive. Additionally, authorities at the national and European level are putting in place quotas for the amount of e-fuel that airlines will have to use in future. That will create demand, making it more attractive to invest in bigger and better plants. Ueckerdt said 5 euros per liter is feasible by 2030, when the European Union's executive may require airlines to meet 0.7% of their kerosene needs with e-fuels. Under current plans, that would rise to 28% by 2050.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Germany Unveils World's First Commercial Plant For Making Synthetic Kerosene More

Germany Unveils World's First Commercial Plant For Making Synthetic Kerosene

Comments Filter:
  • Nothing except nuclear power has the energy density of petroleum hydrocarbons. Ten times better then the best battery tech so far and better then hydrogen. You cant fly a 737 on batteries. Carbon neutral is good and the price may come down with scalability.
    • Nuclear fuel has about 90,000 times the energy density of oil, and batteries are even worse

      Yet, no one is going fly a nuclear plane. :)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

        > Yet, no one is going fly a nuclear plane. :)

        Does this count? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )

        Yet, no one is going fly a nuclear plane.

        Nobody said you had to have 7 years' worth of nuclear fuel on the plane. One cartridge at a time that would cover a day's operation would require minimal amounts of nuclear materials "in case shit". Or am I underthinking this?

        • If it's producing enough power today, it'll still be doing so 7 years later, unless they go for something insane like Polonium-210 [wikipedia.org]. The problem is more the amount of shielding to make the reactor safe to be around, both in the air, and after rapid unplanned disassembly manoeuvres.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

            If it's producing enough power today, it'll still be doing so 7 years later, unless they go for something insane like Polonium-210 [wikipedia.org]

            The official fuel of Aeroflot! :)

        • Re:Good Start (Score:5, Informative)

          by careysub ( 976506 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @10:46PM (#61861895)

          Way under.

          You have to have a critical system, and a way to transfer heat to a working fluid. This means a substantial nuclear reactor no matter what. And you to get a critical mass, even with good moderation, you need at least a years worth of fuel on board just to takeoff. You can only use the amount of material that is present in addition to amount required to reach criticality.

          But the radiation. That is what kills this concept dead, and fast. No radiation escaping due to an accident, though there is that, but the ionizing radiation emitted by normal operation, which creates a Zone Of Death* around the airplane. Simply to protect the cockpit crew requires massive shielding between them and the engine. No way can you provide shielding all around the reactor on airplane. Well not if you want carry any payload, that is.

          • Re:Good Start (Score:5, Interesting)

            by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @08:35AM (#61862837)

            For the record this has been tried: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by tragedy ( 27079 )

            It seems like maybe it could be managed by replacing a lot of the shielding requirement with distance from the reactor by doing something like making a nuclear-powered drone plane with nothing living on board, just the reactor/engine, light shielding and a nuclear-hardened control system. The aircraft carrying passengers would need to be a towed glider. Potentially it could be launched from the runway with a system like on an aircraft carrier and carry a battery to keep it airborne for a short time and to m

        • Maybe fusion could do it, whenever that technology arrives. But for fission you're going to be putting a fair amount of fissile material together to go critical. Either a tiny bit of something really hot and a lot of mass on a neutron absorber to control it, and a bit of a knife's edge sort of reaction. Or something moderately radioactive and a lot of it so fission can occur. You'd want to make such a vessel capable of crashing to the ground at terminal velocity without breaking open, not practical for an a

        • Yeah... still, you need the whole shielding because even a fun sized cartridge of radioactive material is enough to not make me want to fly without.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by stooo ( 2202012 )

          >> One cartridge at a time
          You have no idea of the concept of critical mass.
          Also, you have no idea about nuclear safety.

    • the price may come down with scalability.

      I can't see how this will scale though. It's like saying that getting humans to Mars is a simple problem, we can already get them to 30,000ft and beyond that it's just a case of scaling it up.

      • I can't see how this will scale though. It's like saying that getting humans to Mars is a simple problem, we can already get them to 30,000ft and beyond that it's just a case of scaling it up.

        It's a mechanical/chemical system. You mostly scale it up by making it bigger. As things get bigger, unwanted heat losses get relatively smaller so you increase efficiency. Wanted heat losses are improved by adding heat exchangers and heat sinks. You also learn, from running it, what are the best parameters for efficiency and it gradually gets better the more experience you have running it.

        Another thing is that, once you have a credible commercial process, plants that are producing CO2, for example during f

  • but Atsmofair is banking on carbon taxes driving up the price of fossil fuels

    Those taxes need to be at least 200% of the cost of the fuel in order for them to offset the price they're asking.

    • We already pay that much in tax for gasoline here in Denmark: 1 liter costs 12DKK. That is around 6-7USD per gallon. Isn't that roughly 3 times the price in the US? The difference is mostly taxes.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lsllll ( 830002 )
        91 octane, which is what I use, is about $4.25/gallon. I've driven many times in EU and as far as I remember, it's always been about $6/gallon over there. I guess we're about 1/2 the price. But to pay $20/gallon (as the article suggested) would be like paying $6/gallon without tax and then pay another 250% on top for tax.

  • efficiency? (Score:3)

    by algaeman ( 600564 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @09:37PM (#61861781)
    How many watt-hours are needed per liter?

    • Re:efficiency? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WierdUncle ( 6807634 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @06:02AM (#61862543)

      It is a pity they don't at least summarise the chemistry to react hydrogen with CO2. Does it have to run at high temperature and pressure? This would mean even more energy input than for the electrolysis. Also, are they intending to extract CO2 from the atmosphere? This takes more power input, because of the low concentration of CO2. That input would be saved if the synthesis plant were located near a large source of CO2, such as cement manufacturing.

  • Inevitable. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @09:38PM (#61861783)

    Expect to read more news articles like this, the synthesis of hydrocarbons to replace petroleum is inevitable. When it comes to getting aircraft to fly there really is no substitute. Battery powered airplanes are hard, but producing hydrocarbons is easy. Producing hydrocarbons is so easy that we should see this go beyond just airplanes.

    The main reason to use BEVs is to avoid petroleum, but we can get hydrocarbons without petroleum. It's because of technology like this that ICEV bans are so stupid. We can use fuels other than petroleum in ICEVs. We can even use fuels other than hydrocarbons but given how awesome hydrocarbons are as fuels there's little reason to use anything other than hydrocarbons.

    I expect to see more news like this, and this will likely make the BEV obsolete. We will likely see more electric propulsion but the energy storage medium will be hydrocarbons, not batteries.

    • Re:Inevitable. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @09:42PM (#61861797)

      Expect to read more news articles like this, the synthesis of hydrocarbons to replace petroleum is inevitable.

      Can we take baby steps? How about we get enough renewable energy in use to replace using oil and gas for electricity before we resort to reversing the process and generating fuel?

      • Well, I think we can work on everything at the same time. In order to salvage transportation (ships and planes) we are going to need this. There are enough people on earth so that some of them can work on fuel synthesis while others work on the renewable grid.

      • As the other person outlines we can explore all options at once. The reality is this is what we have to do. If we accept their is no choice but to reverse atmospheric carbon, then we have to build up and scale out all these technologies unless we want to radically handicap our economies.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Can we take baby steps? How about we get enough renewable energy in use to replace using oil and gas for electricity before we resort to reversing the process and generating fuel?

        Hydrocarbons are a great storage medium. If you can create them in a carbon neutral or even carbon negative way using only electricity that's a great way to get benefit from the spare energy that solar and wind farms have by their very nature. A requirement for this is that the plant is able to start or stop within about an hour, but that's not impossible. If we can find a safe way to develop nuclear power, especially if someone can come up with an economic, reasonable and safe fusion reactor then this can

      • Can we take baby steps?

        We are taking baby steps. Now's not the time to focus only one thing only for the next problem to arise and no-one having done the pre-read.

        Decarbonising the grid over the next 20-30 years means we need to investigate and trial in pilot plant capacity decarboninising the aviation industry *now* if we have any hope in hell of hitting the ground running in 30 years to replace that.

        Otherwise we'll be here in 2050 having solved electric power sitting around with our thumbs up our asses complaining about how lon

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      How much energy input does it take to produce enough of these hydrocarbons to drive x distance and how much energy input does it take to charge a BEV such that you can drive that same distance?

      • Re:Inevitable. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mamba-mamba ( 445365 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @10:28PM (#61861857)

        I think the imagined use is for aviation. It would not make sense, financially or thermodynamicly, to use this fuel in an ICE automobile. But there are actually a lot of use cases for hydrocarbon fuels. Aviation is probably the most compelling. But there are others. Backup generators in places where the grid is unreliable, or prime power in remote locations. I am not clear on whether cargo ships could be run on battery power. I am thinking probably not. So that could be another use case. Maybe cargo ships could use some kind of high tech sails, though.

        Solar panels are about 22 percent efficient. Grid tie inverters are > 95 percent efficient. Batteries used in EV's are in the 90's also. So everything except the panels is pretty efficient.

        Meanwhile, ICE is about 40 percent efficient (state of the art), but this fuel synthesis process is pretty low efficiency. For one thing, it has to create H2 from water. That process is not efficient at all. So I am pretty sure this process cannot come close to making ICE comparable to EV.

        • Aviation and shipping were what I always envisioned transitioning to synthetic carbon-neutral hydrocarbons.
          Though we've got a bit of experience with nuclear powered vessels, I think most humans would agree that the fewer targets of pirates containing reactors, the better.

          • Since they manage to get nuclear powered aircraft carriers in excess of 30 knots, I would imagine cargo vessels would be doing at least as well.

            I think the piracy equation changes when you have a giant vessel doing 30+ knots. The pirates would need vessels capable of probably 40+ knots to intercept them, but large enough to be able to deal with the wake of a 30+ knot cargo vessel.

            40+ knots in the open ocean is no joke to achieve in a small vessel. In center console sport fishers, these are often 40' and p

      • How much energy input does it take to produce enough of these hydrocarbons to drive x distance and how much energy input does it take to charge a BEV such that you can drive that same distance?

        Nobody cares. Really, nobody cares about the difference in thermodynamic efficiency. What they will care about is how much money that they have to hand over to make it work. Energy efficiency will have some correlation to the dollars and euros but that is not the only thing that contributes to the end use costs.

        If you want to argue that the BEV will be cheaper to operate then you may have a point but given the volume and weight penalties for batteries that can make a big contribution to the total cost of

    • Re:Inevitable. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @10:36PM (#61861873) Journal

      It's because of technology like this that ICEV bans are so stupid. We can use fuels other than petroleum in ICEVs.

      You are ignoring the simple fact that ICE vehicles are far less efficient than BEVs. ICE vehicles are only viable commercially because we ignore the external cost of all the CO2 that they pump into the atmosphere.

      • You are ignoring the simple fact that ICE vehicles are far less efficient than BEVs. ICE vehicles are only viable commercially because we ignore the external cost of all the CO2 that they pump into the atmosphere.

        Either you had a stroke, or you were born this way.

        ICE vehicles operating on synthetic hydrocarbons generated via carbon-neutral power sources have no external cost of all the CO2 that they pump into the atmosphere.
        All they're doing is putting it back where they got it.

        The problem is when they're pumping carbon that was pulled out of long term storage (deep the fuck underground from previous geological epochs) into the air.

        The efficiency argument is real, however.
        Since it would require power to crea

        • * which burning is then on top of itself inefficient

        • ICE vehicles operating on synthetic hydrocarbons generated via carbon-neutral power sources have no external cost of all the CO2 that they pump into the atmosphere. All they're doing is putting it back where they got it.

          You're assuming that this process will be completely neutral. That is unlikely at least in the beginning; the energy sources required will ensure it will be somewhat net-positive, although much less than the fossil fuel alternative. BEVs will also be somewhat net positive, but they'll be much closer to zero than synthetic hydrocarbons -- given the (in)efficiencies involved, probably by a factor of several.

          • You're assuming that this process will be completely neutral.

            I'm not. They stated it was.

            That is unlikely at least in the beginning; the energy sources required will ensure it will be somewhat net-positive, although much less than the fossil fuel alternative.

            It's 100% powered by wind.

            BEVs will also be somewhat net positive, but they'll be much closer to zero than synthetic hydrocarbons -- given the (in)efficiencies involved, probably by a factor of several.

            When BEVs are 100% powered by wind, they too will have the same carbon footprint as the plant the article is talking about.

            Note that I'm not in any way extolling some kind of virtue from the technology as a whole, I'm merely pointing out that synthetic hydrocarbons generated from carbon neutral energy are carbon neutral. Period.

            Creating synthetic hydrocarbons from hydrocarbon combustion? Now that's just fucking stupid. In another post, I pointed out

        • The efficiency argument is real, however.

          Since it would require power to create the hydrocarbons (at an efficiency less than 1) which is then on top of itself inefficient, we would have to have quite a surplus of power to justify such a move.

          The importance of efficiency depends very much on how flexible the plants are. We do have a surplus of power generation and we have to have because our demand is very peaky and variable whilst production from thermal plants (e.g. nuclear) is very inflexible and production from wind and solar is somewhat variable, even if less variable on a large scale than people say.

          If you can switch the energy input into this type of plant on and off easily then you would just stop it every day at peak power output. If

        • > All they're doing is putting it back where they got it.

          Considered globally, sure, assuming everything is ideal. Not considered in this argument is the local pollution ICE vehicle emissions cause - engine exhaust is never just CO2 and water vapor

          Also not considered is auxiliary pollution from the fuel itself; spills, runoffs, fumes. A hundred thousand gallons of synfuel filled into the local waterways does just as much damage as a hundred thousand gallons of fossil petroleum distillates.

          At the end of th

          • Considered globally, sure, assuming everything is ideal. Not considered in this argument is the local pollution ICE vehicle emissions cause - engine exhaust is never just CO2 and water vapor

            Agreed. But that's not what they said.

            Also not considered is auxiliary pollution from the fuel itself; spills, runoffs, fumes. A hundred thousand gallons of synfuel filled into the local waterways does just as much damage as a hundred thousand gallons of fossil petroleum distillates.

            Also agreed.

            At the end of the day this is more about maintaining the status quot for the petroleum industry's influence and profits than it is about sustainability.

            You're obviously a smart person, which is why I'm so dumbstuck by this comment.
            The benefit they stand to have in the synthesis of a replacement fuel that competes with theirs, powered by replacement power that competes with theirs, are marginal at best.

            There are very big benefits to internal combustion vs. electrical power.
            Right now, the cons outweigh those benefits by an amount that should scare the shit out of every person alive.
            If you get rid of the

    • Re:Inevitable. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by careysub ( 976506 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @10:37PM (#61861879)

      The main reason to use BEVs is to avoid petroleum

      False. EVs have considerable advantages over ICEVs and are going to largely replace them even without any bans, or other special efforts. EVs are much simpler and have much lower maintenance costs, and also have superior performance - better acceleration, more torque. They can be refueled at home. EVs are selling now, without any bans, and will sell better as range continues to improve.

      And synthetic fuels may remain sufficiently costly to make them noncompetitive to electricity on a mileage cost basis.

      Yeah, higher costs, typically less convenient fueling, less reliability, poorer performance. ICEVs have it all over the BEVs (/s).

      The only thing they have going for them is long trips requiring refuelings in a single day. But that is a niche that will not drive the whole market, as EV opponents fantasize. EV owners may just prefer to rent if they need a vehicle for a long trip like that. Petrol stations will be much scarcer, but as long as they are around navigation apps will keep you fueled (no longer on every busy street corner).

      • False. EVs have considerable advantages over ICEVs and are going to largely replace them even without any bans, or other special efforts.

        I'm not arguing against electric vehicles, I'm arguing against battery-electric vehicles. I even pointed out that we will likely see more electric propulsion, it's the batteries that are the problem. I expect the ICEV as we know it to disappear and be replaced with what we call a hybrid today. In the future we won't call them hybrids because they will be the norm.

        And synthetic fuels may remain sufficiently costly to make them noncompetitive to electricity on a mileage cost basis.

        Synthetic fuels could remain costly. Batteries are likely to remain costly. The solution is the plug-in electric hybrid. They need only enou

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 )

          Synthetic fuels could remain costly. Batteries are likely to remain costly.

          Batteries are closing on the $100 per kWhr mark right now, and this is in complete assemblies, not as individual cells. So a 100kWhr vehicle (~300 mile range) will have $10k battery.

          This is already cheaper than a gasoline engine. Future improvements will bring cost down even more.

        • The solution is the plug-in electric hybrid. They need only enough battery range to cover the daily commute to keep operating costs low, while also keeping production costs low with the small battery. There would be an ICE for long trips, forgetting to plug-in, weather extremes that affect range (such as high winds, cabin heating, etc.), and keep "range anxiety" to a minimum.

          I used to think that, too. Studies have shown that people don't really use PHEVs that way. [iop.org] And unless you compel people to behave differently by force, for example by effective levels of carbon taxation, they'll probably keep behaving this way.

      • and also have superior performance - better acceleration, more torque.

        Weren't paying attention in the part of your primary education where they taught you about levers and pulleys, I see.

        An electric engine operates at a (near) fixed amount of power, thus torque falls off as the RPM increases.
        An internal combustion engine on the other hand creates torque with each explosion, and thus creates more of it as the RPM increases.
        The fall-off of a traditional torque curve is just the point where the engine can't breathe anymore, and is really only a function of how well designed

        • An internal combustion engine on the other hand creates torque with each explosion, and thus creates more of it as the RPM increases.

          On the other hand, ICE vehicles keep the RPM limited from above by means of variable transmission, and are really trying to keep the RPM in some kind of optimal range.

          • It's a bit more complicated than that.

            The primary limiter on RPM on an internal combustion engine, is just how fast it can actually spin before it A) isn't actually making any power anymore, because either fuel and/or oxygen cannot be delivered fast enough, or B) is at risk of flat out fucking exploding.
            That range can be quite large, depending on many factors of motor development. Between 5k for shit motors, up to 15k for precision built motors.
            Usually, A is what you start to run into. Diminishing retur
    • There is no realistic transition to a carbon-neutral chemical power regime.
      You're looking at BEVs until carbon-neutral energy is so fucking prolific that we've grown bored of building tesla coils to battle our neighbors' drones in combat.

      While I agree 100% that a future where we produce the chemical fuels we need without altering the Earth's carbon cycle sounds fucking awesome, there's just no easy way to get there until we've got fusion reactors in our garage.

    • Producing hydrocarbons is so easy that we should see this go beyond just airplanes.

      So easy that it takes four wind farms and a factory 3 weeks to fuel one small passenger jet. Unless there are some hideous inefficiencies in their system that can be fixed with time this does not seem like a viable method that can scale enough to have a real impact.

      • This is becase even a small passenger jet engine is very powerful - over 10 MW. This is on par with the largest offshore wind turbines currently installed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by teg ( 97890 )

      Expect to read more news articles like this, the synthesis of hydrocarbons to replace petroleum is inevitable. When it comes to getting aircraft to fly there really is no substitute. Battery powered airplanes are hard, but producing hydrocarbons is easy. Producing hydrocarbons is so easy that we should see this go beyond just airplanes.

      The main reason to use BEVs is to avoid petroleum, but we can get hydrocarbons without petroleum. It's because of technology like this that ICEV bans are so stupid. We can use fuels other than petroleum in ICEVs. We can even use fuels other than hydrocarbons but given how awesome hydrocarbons are as fuels there's little reason to use anything other than hydrocarbons.

      I expect to see more news like this, and this will likely make the BEV obsolete. We will likely see more electric propulsion but the energy storage medium will be hydrocarbons, not batteries.

      EVs are also orders of magnitude better for local pollution, smog etc than older, fossil based cars. There's still some pollution - tire particles, asphalt dust etc - but most of it is gone. In cities, that's a major improvement.

      Also, EVs are just more fun to drive. Instant reaction, low center of gravity.

    • This makes more sense, a redeisgn of planes to suit hydrogen [youtube.com]

    • make the BEV obsolete

      Not a chance. While hydrocarbon fuel prices are on a steeply rising trajectory, especially if they're being replaced by synthetic fuels, batteries and all the other technology used in BEVs are getting cheaper and better. BEVs aren't winning because the treehuggers like them. They're winning because they are cheaper to own and operate, and they will soon be cheaper to buy too. Anyone still betting on the long term success of ICE vehicles is confused and sadly doomed.

    • It's because of technology like this that ICEV bans are so stupid. We can use fuels other than petroleum in ICEVs.

      Even if you could run your car's ICE on unicorn piss, it would still pollute air in the cities. So those bans are not quite that stupid as you might think.

    • The main reason to use BEVs is to avoid petroleum, but we can get hydrocarbons without petroleum. It's because of technology like this that ICEV bans are so stupid. We can use fuels other than petroleum in ICEVs. We can even use fuels other than hydrocarbons but given how awesome hydrocarbons are as fuels there's little reason to use anything other than hydrocarbons.

      Synthesized hydrocarbons solve the climate change issue, but they don't solve the health issues caused by urban air pollution [nih.gov] which likely have a greater impact on human well-being than climate change. For this reason, ICEs still need to be eliminated wherever possible (i.e. nearly all ground-based vehicles).

    • The main reason to use BEVs is to avoid petroleum, but we can get hydrocarbons without petroleum.

      Also it avoids spewing combustion products in high population density areas.

      It's because of technology like this that ICEV bans are so stupid.

      Except it isn't. You want to avoid solving a problem now just in case tech which only solves half the problem becomes available. That's stupid, not the ban.

    • Liquid hydrogen can in theory work for new airplanes, but it seems unlikely.

  • Old News? (Score:5, Informative)

    by methano ( 519830 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @09:39PM (#61861787)
    Isn't that kind of what the Nazi's did during WWII?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    I know, Godwin's law.

    • It was indeed invented by Germans - but 1925 was still the Weimar Republic. However the Nazis did use the process during WWII.

      • Mod up. But the energy cost inputs are fantastically high, as is the paw out for a subsidy. What will happen is global inefficiency. Iran or North Korea will use nuclear energy inputs and export 'clean green jet fuel' . Maybe Russia will fire up nuclear just to harvest juicy subsidies.Maybe Brazil will convert ethanol up to Kero. But if you look at global consumption has a whole, all retired nuclear plants have been replaced with gas (just another hydrocarbon). This is no solution.

    • Re:Old News? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @10:04PM (#61861835)

      Yeah but they tried to seize the USSR's oil before resorting to making synthetic fuel. What's new here is they plan on doing it without invading anyone first.

    • Sure, but the synfuel plants used gassified coal as the input fuel. There are several coal (and bitumen) to liquids plants in the world in operation today: In Germany, USA, Canada and South Africa.

    • It isn't even the first synthetic jet fuel plant, there has been one in Qatar for quite a while.
      The main difference is that the plant in Germany uses carbon neutral hydrogen instead of natural gas.

  • Probable Chemistry (Score:5, Informative)

    by careysub ( 976506 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @09:40PM (#61861791)

    TFA of course avoids giving any hint about the actual chemical process being used but it is undoubtedly a variant of Fischer-Tropsch, probably with a modified water gas shift reaction step on the front end, using a modern (and possibly recently discovered) metal catalyst.

    Classic Fischer-Tropsch reacts CO and H2 over a catalyst that usually contains cobalt to create alkane chain molecules. Since the starting carbon source here is CO2 one must first convert that to CO. In the past the water gas shift equilibrium reaction CO2 + H2 CO + H2O has been used to make hydrogen for this reaction, but since the hydrogen is being supplied by electrolysis they may be running this in reverse with part of the hydrogen to make CO before feeding the mixture to the catalyst reactor. At high temperatures Fischer-Tropsch runs faster but produces methane as one of its products, but if they include a steam reforming reaction step -- H2O + CH4 CO + 3 H2 -- for that byproduct they can convert it back into feedstock for the catalyst reactor. Recent catalyst advances have allowed cheap iron catalysts to replace ones the contain cobalt.

    It is easier to make methane (CH4) and of course H2 than these synthetic alkane mixtures and that may be more competitive in the future after a new generation of airliners designed to use them are made. These require cryogenic tanks, but cryogenic insulation is mostly vacuum and thus light, but would probably located mostly in the fuselage instead of wing tanks due to the greater volume. Hydrogen is dramatically lighter than hydrocarbon fuels, even methane, but is also much less dense, but the 787 already has a stretch version that could hold enough LH2 in the extra stretch section, and still end up 25 tonnes lighter than a JP-1 fueled regular 787.

    • Re:Probable Chemistry (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @10:51PM (#61861899)

      Hydrogen is dramatically lighter than hydrocarbon fuels, even methane, but is also much less dense, but the 787 already has a stretch version that could hold enough LH2 in the extra stretch section, and still end up 25 tonnes lighter than a JP-1 fueled regular 787.

      Even with aircraft designed for LH2 there is a big problem with LH2. So big that even rocket scientists think kerosene is a better fuel when people are on the rocket. LH2 doesn't like to stay a liquid. If there is a crash then you have liquid hydrogen splashing all over the place, freezing everything it touches, then flash boiling into a gas that will ignite very easily.

      This is not the kind of aircraft that will carry passengers, and likely not even a crew. Would anyone allow an airplane that is like 100 Hindenburgs fly overhead? Or take off from their airport? This is an airplane that would not carry people, and could not get permission to fly anywhere. So the only uses would be where asking permission to enter airspace is moot, like a cruise missile.

      Saving 25 tons on a 250 ton aircraft is a neat trick that LH2 fuel could pull out of a hat but is it worth the tradeoff?

      • The tradeoff is really how often do the rapid disassembles happen. Also for 225 tons of space, you might be able to envision a safe way to eject the fuel.

        • The tradeoff is really how often do the rapid disassembles happen. Also for 225 tons of space, you might be able to envision a safe way to eject the fuel.

          Now I understand Blade Runner. That sounds fun.

    • The SASOL plants actually produce mostly Methanol as liquid fuel. It is lower cost than making Kero or Benzine.

  • there were some high-power, high-density, high-availability source of electricity to run this thing at scale...

  • a business model completely dependent on what it is trying to replace rising in cost at least 500% IF they can reach their price goal. Does not sound like a good recipe for success.

    • Didn't they say the same thing about shale oil too?

      • Shall oil has a threshold price it requires to be viable as well. below that price they shutdown the shale oil mining which has happened many times in previous years, however shale oil didn't require a 5 fold increase in prices to be viable and the extraction cost is only a part of the overall cost. here we are talking about the end product being 5 times more expensive at a minimum.

  • Most of the things you can do with kerosene, you can do with electricity. Solar efficiency is far more than plant efficiency. So I am not sure how will this compete? What application do you see that requires kerosene and can't be easily replaced with electricity?

    • Re:How will this compete with Solar (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Monday October 04, 2021 @11:53PM (#61861993)

      What application do you see that requires kerosene and can't be easily replaced with electricity?

      Keeping an airplane in the air.

      I could come up with more but that's the most obvious since it is discussed in the fine article.

  • Congrats to the scientists involved, and let's hope that this "box of chocolates" doesn't end up in a Swiss vault. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • It doesn't say anything here about scrubbing it from the atmosphere. Is it sourced from fossil fuels?

    • The actual article says some of the CO2 is coming from a nearby biogas facility, and some is being scrubbed from the atmosphere. There is no mention of fossil fuel inputs. The Fischer Tropsch process, that people think is being used here, was originally a way to convert coal into useful liquid fuel, but in this case, the carbon comes from unwanted CO2. Presumably, the electricity for electrolysis comes from renewable resources. I don't think Germany has any nuclear plants these days.

  • I'm not generally a fan of biofuel due to water and soil requirements (unless someone discovers a way to produce it microbially with the microbes eating electricity directly) but just for jet fuel I think it's currently the best option. Plants are better at extracting CO2 from the air than humans currently.

  • "Carbon Neutral" (Score:3)

    by suss ( 158993 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @06:30AM (#61862583)

    Burning that synthetic kerosene releases only as much CO2 into the atmosphere as was previously removed to produce the fuel, making it "carbon neutral."

    By that logic, coal and petrol are "carbon neutral" too.
    It's about not releasing too much at once.

  • Several? (Score:3)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2021 @08:58AM (#61862891) Journal
    "Dietrich Brockhagen, says a price of 5 euros ($5.80) per liter (0.26 gallons) is possible. That's still several times what kerosene currently costs,"

    Several could technically be any number but is suggestive of a single digit value probably no more than six.

    That works out to $22.307/gallon. Kerosene Jet fuel costs $1.817/gallon. So to clarify that is more than a dozen times more expensive.

    https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=eer_epjk_pf4_rgc_dpg&f=m

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close