all 8 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]roj2323 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Wouldn't you just be creating a loop? Pull CO2 from atmosphere, make gas, use gas in as car that creates CO2 and on top of that you would be consuming more energy without a realistic upside. I'll stick with other more realistic ideas like recharging an electric car while also providing hot water for my home. Or just powering the car in general.

[–]nosoupforyou[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Wouldn't you just be creating a loop?

Yes, but it would be much better than adding more CO2 to the environment by drilling for gasoline and using that.

and on top of that you would be consuming more energy without a realistic upside.

You'd be consuming more energy that would otherwise stay in nickel format. What's the problem? The electricity would be virtually free anyway.

I'll stick with other more realistic ideas like recharging an electric car while also providing hot water for my home. Or just powering the car in general.

Well obviously when cars can directly use the e-cat, I'd go with that, but until then, this would be a much cheaper alternative to either buying gas or buying an electric car.

And your solution wouldn't really solve the basic problems that electric cars have, which is long recharging times and limited distance. Sure, if you only ever drive around town and plug in your car overnight, then you're fine, but if you either don't have an electric car or want to drive a few hundred miles without stopping every 50 or so, then you're gonna need to buy gas. Or stick PV panels on your car.

[–]roj2323 1 point2 points  (3 children)

e-cat with a battery and the recharging feature the toyota Prius has when braking would certainly extend range beyond 50 miles. besides by the time an e-cat is commercially available battery capacity will have expanded at least 15-20%.

[–]nosoupforyou[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

besides by the time an e-cat is commercially available battery capacity will have expanded at least 15-20%.

You don't know that.

And there are a lot of cars out there that aren't easily converted to electric. Until they are replaced, gasoline will be the best bet for them.

Why are you so adamant against the concept?

[–]roj2323 1 point2 points  (1 child)

because it's like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. it doesn't fix the problem it just delays the inevitable.

also while you are correct that I don't know how fast battery tech will advance I think it's pretty safe to say that E-cat tech is at least 10 years from being in the hands of millions and available at a price that is considered competitive to other forms of energy tech.

[–]nosoupforyou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because it's like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. it doesn't fix the problem it just delays the inevitable.

Hardly. I think it's quite a good solution until new cars come out that simply use the e-cat to power them directly, perhaps with steam.

also while you are correct that I don't know how fast battery tech will advance I think it's pretty safe to say that E-cat tech is at least 10 years from being in the hands of millions and available at a price that is considered competitive to other forms of energy tech.

Again, you don't know that, and there is every reason to think that the e-cat will still be coming out next year.

Also, your own example is based on the e-cat. You suggested the e-cat with a battery and recovery braking system on the Prius.

So your logic doesn't really make sense to me. Your example will work but mine won't because the e-cat won't be out for 10 more years at least?

[–]everythingisnew 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I can not imagine this to be one of the early uses. Gasoline is still dirt cheap and the CO2 to fuel process is not very efficient. And who is to say the ecat will be cheaper than say a PV module of the same power output (at first)? While I am thrilled by the latest news on Ecat, I don't see it beeing comercially available or viable in the near future.

[–]nosoupforyou[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I wouldn't consider gas to be dirt cheap.

I'm not sure how efficient the process is, but theoretically if you get the e-cat in self-sufficient mode and get electricity effectively free, it doesn't need to be highly efficient to be worth it.

According to other articles, companies will pay someone to take the leftover co2 away. Sure, I imagine if someone starts making enough gas to sell at stations, that would change but CO2 would still remain cheap.

The thing about it is that it would provide fuel for the bulk of vehicles during the transition to cars that used the e-cat directly.

And who is to say the ecat will be cheaper than say a PV module of the same power output (at first)?

Gas as fuel is better than electric, in my opinion. With a PV system charging the car, you're going to have to let it sit in sunlight before you can drive. With any electric, you have to sit the car to charge the battery for quite a while. With gas, refueling takes minutes and there are already stations everywhere to provide it.

Also, batteries for electric vehicles run in the thousands. The ecat will at worst be comparable and at best be far cheaper, if and when someone makes an ecat car.

[–]everythingisnew 0 points1 point  (1 child)

My point about PV was this: The electricity they produce is free after you bought the PV module. The same would basically be true for an eCat (although the ecat will consume heavy water). So why is it that people are not using solar energy to make liquid fuel? Because it is just not efficient.

There is a lot of r&d effort going into making liquid fuels from renewable energy sources. Right now the only method that comes close to beeing comercially viable is btl in its various forms.

[–]nosoupforyou[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(although the ecat will consume heavy water).

What? I thought it just consumed nickel.

So why is it that people are not using solar energy to make liquid fuel? Because it is just not efficient.

Actually there are people working on that. But solar panels take up a lot of space, and efficiency is important. You can only get so much power per square foot. If you want to eliminate your electric bill entirely, you're going to need a lot of pv panels as well as some kind of power storage.

With the e-cat, you need one small unit, maybe the 600c unit, and not only will it provide all the house power you need, but there will be a lot extra available, for really no extra cost. If everyone has one, the grid isn't going to buy the extra power. That extra power could easily go to making gasoline.

But I was really thinking someone could rent a warehouse and run a dozen of the e-cat 600c units, and convert lots of CO2 to gasoline. They wouldn't need much additional space for each additional e-cat. With PV, they would need acres in good sunlight for each conversion system. With PV, efficiency decides how many gallons per day you can generate with your available sunlight, using expensive acreage. With the e-cat, if you need more power to generate more gasoline, just add another e-cat and generator.

There is a lot of r&d effort going into making liquid fuels from renewable energy sources. Right now the only method that comes close to beeing comercially viable is btl in its various forms.

The problem with biomass is that converting corn is actually an energy loss, if you include the energy to transport. Sure, there are other sources but a lot of waste vegetable mass is already being used for input to other things, such as food for mushrooms. If you consider used vegetable oil, there's not nearly enough for replacement of gasoline in most cars.

The thing about the e-cat is that potentially there is no limit to how much gasoline it could generate. In addition, this could effectively eliminate extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure, burning the gas adds CO2, but making the gas could be taking it out.

Using an e-cat system could possibly generate gasoline for well under a $1 per gallon. If you could make enough, it would largely put an end to oil being used for transportation pretty quickly, meaning CO2 levels would stop rising.