9 ms·

We're in 2023 so my question is : what happened to this since then ? It should be mainstream by now.

alex_duf 4y ago
Here's a wild guess: it probably makes no economical sense in the current context
jorge-d 4y ago
The reason it's not mainstream is most probably that the energy ratio between production and the output is terrible. Also, technically, all hydrocarbons are made from Carbon sucked from the air.
- edhelas 4y ago
  This
- narrator 4y ago
  There are other ways besides biology that hydrocarbons can be produced. Pure water placed between diamond anvils at high temperature and enormous pressure will spontaneously produce hydrocarbons. Titan's atmosphere is mostly hydrocarbons that didn't come from living things. "Diamond dissolution and the production of methane and other carbon-bearing species in hydrothermal diamond-anvil cells" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016703709004785 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167...
- londons_explore 4y ago
  The energy ratio and cost being terrible doesn't matter for some PR usecases. Imagine being able to sell Formula 1 this fuel so the whole industry can claim to be green and try and try to re-attract young crowds who are turned away by un-greenness? The fuel could cost 100x as much, and it still wouldn't be a big issue.
  - williamscales 4y ago
    Formula 1 is going to move to “sustainable fuel” in 2026, so you’re exactly right
  - shanebellone 4y ago
    "Imagine being able to sell Formula 1 this fuel so the whole industry can claim to be green and try and try to re-attract young crowds who are turned away by un-greenness?" I loled. They could use ground unicorn for fuel, and I still wouldn't be interested.
    - prewett 4y ago
      I'm thinking that the demographic allegedly being turned away for "un-greenness" would be downright appalled at using ground up unicorn for fuel...
wongarsu 4y ago
They state "It costs more than a barrel of oil right now, but in places with a price on carbon of $200 a ton, like what’s enabled through California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, we’re competitive". Today, the carbon price in the European cap-and-trade scheme is $81 per ton, and in California it's $29 per ton. So unless they've greatly improved efficiency, they don't have a profitable market. The EU price is also only that high since about a year ago, two years ago it was about $23 per ton. Even if they were profitable at about $80 per ton, there was little time to scale up production.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  "like what’s enabled through California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, we’re competitive" That is not competitive, that is using government moopoly on violence to artificially raise the price of alternative product... Competition would be done with out government force
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    From a theoretical standpoint you can argue that the "fair" price of fuel would include the costs of any environmental and economical damage done by burning that fuel: the cost of health issues from particulates, the infrastructure costs to deal with sea level rise, the costs from droughts that are worse because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, etc. Just because those happen to somebody else than the person burning the fuel doesn't mean that the costs don't happen. And the best way we currently have to price in those externalities is artificially rising the price of the offending product, to give alternatives a better chance to compete.
  - orra 4y ago
    > that is using government [monopoly] on violence to artificially raise the price of alternative product A less dramatic summary is the government is partially factoring in the negative externalities of carbon, through taxation or minimum pricing. You call that violence, whilst downplaying the very real harm (actual death and destruction) caused by excess carbon in the atmosphere.

Here's a wild guess: it probably makes no economical sense in the current context

The reason it's not mainstream is most probably that the energy ratio between production and the output is terrible. Also, technically, all hydrocarbons are made from Carbon sucked from the air.

edhelas 4y ago
This
narrator 4y ago
There are other ways besides biology that hydrocarbons can be produced. Pure water placed between diamond anvils at high temperature and enormous pressure will spontaneously produce hydrocarbons. Titan's atmosphere is mostly hydrocarbons that didn't come from living things. "Diamond dissolution and the production of methane and other carbon-bearing species in hydrothermal diamond-anvil cells" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016703709004785 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167...
londons_explore 4y ago
The energy ratio and cost being terrible doesn't matter for some PR usecases. Imagine being able to sell Formula 1 this fuel so the whole industry can claim to be green and try and try to re-attract young crowds who are turned away by un-greenness? The fuel could cost 100x as much, and it still wouldn't be a big issue.
- williamscales 4y ago
  Formula 1 is going to move to “sustainable fuel” in 2026, so you’re exactly right
- shanebellone 4y ago
  "Imagine being able to sell Formula 1 this fuel so the whole industry can claim to be green and try and try to re-attract young crowds who are turned away by un-greenness?" I loled. They could use ground unicorn for fuel, and I still wouldn't be interested.
  - prewett 4y ago
    I'm thinking that the demographic allegedly being turned away for "un-greenness" would be downright appalled at using ground up unicorn for fuel...

wongarsu 4y ago

They state "It costs more than a barrel of oil right now, but in places with a price on carbon of $200 a ton, like what’s enabled through California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, we’re competitive". Today, the carbon price in the European cap-and-trade scheme is $81 per ton, and in California it's $29 per ton. So unless they've greatly improved efficiency, they don't have a profitable market. The EU price is also only that high since about a year ago, two years ago it was about $23 per ton. Even if they were profitable at about $80 per ton, there was little time to scale up production.

phpisthebest 4y ago
"like what’s enabled through California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, we’re competitive" That is not competitive, that is using government moopoly on violence to artificially raise the price of alternative product... Competition would be done with out government force
- wongarsu 4y ago
  From a theoretical standpoint you can argue that the "fair" price of fuel would include the costs of any environmental and economical damage done by burning that fuel: the cost of health issues from particulates, the infrastructure costs to deal with sea level rise, the costs from droughts that are worse because of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, etc. Just because those happen to somebody else than the person burning the fuel doesn't mean that the costs don't happen. And the best way we currently have to price in those externalities is artificially rising the price of the offending product, to give alternatives a better chance to compete.
- orra 4y ago
  > that is using government [monopoly] on violence to artificially raise the price of alternative product A less dramatic summary is the government is partially factoring in the negative externalities of carbon, through taxation or minimum pricing. You call that violence, whilst downplaying the very real harm (actual death and destruction) caused by excess carbon in the atmosphere.