Could Carbon Dioxide Be Turned into Jet Fuel?

Of course it can.<p>If we have a large supply of very cheap energy, say from fusion or feeding a black hole, then a CO2 to jet fuel to CO2 cycle can be considered the same kind of thing as charging and discharging a battery. And it would be similarly &quot;net zero&quot; for CO2.

The advance described in the paper in question could turn out to have a fairly significant impact on the economics of an air-to-fuels process that includes it.<p>For context: the paper describes an air-to-fuels system requires carbon dioxide as a carbon source as well as some source of hydrogen gas. Given these two feedstocks there are then two main routes to fuel production: reduction of carbon dioxide to methanol or ethanol, which can then be &quot;upgraded&quot; to heavier fuels, or reduction of carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide, which is used along with the hydrogen to feed a Fischer-Tropsch reaction producing a variety of fuels directly. My understanding is that in either case production costs are dominated by the cost of acquiring the feedstocks, which are in turn mainly driven by the cost of energy.<p>What the article describes is a technique that modifies the Fischer-Tropsch step of the process that uses it, which would perhaps bring costs down somewhat for that step. Additionally, and more importantly, carbon monoxide is not needed as a separate feedstock as CO2 is apparently directly reduced by this new catalyst - this is where significant cost savings could potentially realized.<p>I&#x27;m no expert in any of this but for what it&#x27;s worth I did go through a process of estimating what &quot;air-to-fuels&quot; fuel might cost to produce and came up with a cost of about $1300 per metric ton. If the technique described in the paper were applied to the process I investigated, the $1300&#x2F;mt price could potentially decrease to around $1000&#x2F;mt. For comparison, Brent crude oil is currently about $380&#x2F;mt and aviation fuel is about $430&#x2F;mt.<p>[EDIT] Forgot to include a link to my analysis: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bit.ly&#x2F;34JTCFm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;bit.ly&#x2F;34JTCFm</a>

I think Carbon Engineering already has a pilot plant making gasoline: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;carbonengineering.com&#x2F;our-technology&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;carbonengineering.com&#x2F;our-technology&#x2F;</a><p>The example in the article of colocating with a coal plant is bonkers. Seems like coal gasification would be more efficient than turning coal into electricity and carbon and then trying to turn the carbon into liquid fuels.<p>This is a valuable technique but only if we have a lot of spare clean electrical power to do it with.

I&#x27;d rather CO2 be turned into a building material... like wood or bricks. That way it&#x27;s fixated. Sorta defeats the purpose to put it back out into the atmosphere, and why I don&#x27;t really see today&#x27;s &quot;carbon capture&quot; stuff going anywhere unless we find a source of &quot;free&quot; energy.

Actual nature article linked within wired post: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41467-020-20214-z" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41467-020-20214-z</a><p>Last one in the e-fuel space I was staring at was: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1016&#x2F;j.joule.2020.01.002" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1016&#x2F;j.joule.2020.01.002</a> from Rob McGinnis of a startup called Prometheus.<p>airminers.org lists other startups in this space. I&#x27;m still skeptical of it but curious to see what&#x27;s out there.

Simple question: will it take less energy to do the conversion than you get out the other end? Will the process itself generate less carbon than the existing process? All these “net zero” claims never mention how the rest of the system is affected. Eg, zero emission electric cars: where I live, our electricity comes from coal power plants.

Alternatively, methane is easier to create from Carbon Dioxide. Burning methane in an engine is practical. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;climate.miami.edu&#x2F;renewable-energy&#x2F;methane-as-a-fuel-source&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;climate.miami.edu&#x2F;renewable-energy&#x2F;methane-as-a-fuel...</a>

If you want to work on how to do this rather than &quot;could&quot;, come join AirMiners...kind of like HN for carbon removal. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;airminers.org" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;airminers.org</a>

Where does wired think regular jet fuel came from in the first place?

How do you capture CO2 from a jet? Do you store it onboard? Direct air capture seems incredibly inefficient.

The article says that by adding heat to raw materials such as carbon dioxide and some catalyst they can produce jet fuel. Which can be burned to produce carbon dioxide and more heat.<p>I&#x27;m glad to know that according to this article&#x27;s author they have invented a perpetual motion machine that generates free energy.<p>I would however, prefer to read an article by someone who understands basic thermodynamics and feels like explaining this to an audience who is assumed to also understand basic thermodynamics. Presumably there is an input of energy (other than heat) which is the most significant part of generating jet fuel -- but unless I overlooked something, the article doesn&#x27;t mention it.