Dan Frederiksen says: this is one of the really good things that we need to do on a massive scale (except the captured CO2 shouldn't be burned but put back into the ground)
but the real question is, can you do it? what specific cost effective technology would you use?

David McNeight says: The current ongoing problem is that we keep digging up carbon fuels, burning them, and putting CO2 into the atmosphere. This global project limits the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to what it is now, because we simply recycle the CO2 that is already present in the atmosphere. We only put back what we take out. When we've stopped adding to CO2 in the atmosphere, by ceasing to dig up fossil fuels, then, if we need to, we can capture more CO2 than we need for fuel, and bury it. Not much point in burying it if we keep digging up more.

And, yes, we can do it. The reaction that makes hydrocarbon fuels from carbon monoxide was devised in 1926 and is used every day by oil companies to convert natural gas to liquid fuels. Turning dioxide to monoxide is a simple matter.

The cost of saving the earth over the next twenty years would be less than 1% global domestic product per year - far short of what Sir Nicholas Stern forecasts is the cost of dealing with the climate change-induced disasters predicted for that period.

Dan Frederiksen says: I know what the idea is and my comment was correct. Of course fossil fuel shouldn't be continually pulled out. Try to understand that we have to both stop using fossil fuels and reclaim the co2. just recycling the co2 already in the atmosphere is not good enough. but that's a 'minor' adjustment to the idea.
but you didn't answer how. I doubt the oil industry uses solar power to do their conversion and I was also asking for specifics. do you have a working prototype? does anybody? and what's the budget for starting to make it happen. are we talking a couple of billion euro or can you make them in your garage and are ready to go right now.

since this is an entrepreneurial competition and if the judges have any sense (would be a first) the idea should have some way to be realized by what you bring to the table. will you run a company that by this time next year is producing fuel from solar and atmospheric co2? can you actually make it happen?

David McNeight says: OK, specifics:

1

David McNeight says: OK - specifics:

1 CO2 can be recovered in different ways: Lackner (Columbia University, USA) absorbs it into, and then recovers it from, plastic sheet; Keith (Calgary University, Canada) does it by papemaking chemistry; can be done cryogenically, which can also get you all the water you need if you're in the desert.. Energy cost of recovery, about, 500kWhrs/tonne

2 Hydrogen is generated by electrolysis of water - energy cost about 4,400 kWhrs/tonne

3 CO2 is reacted with hydrogen to make syngas, which is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen - no energy input, this is an exothermic reaction

4 Syngas is subjected to the Fischer Tropfsch reaction to make hydrocarbons - a light crude that can be refined into diesel, aviation fuels, anything

This involves no new technology. The whole thing can be powered from solar energy, wind energy, whatever. If we use solar energy exclusively, we need about 150,000 square kilometres.of solar collector to supply all the world's needs of fuel. That's a fraction of a percent of the world's desert area. The total cost over the next twenty years, which is really all the time we have left, will amount to little more than the cost of the Iraq war.

Once the equipment is in place, fuel production runs on free electricity, free carbon dioxide and free water.

But we have a few things up our sleeve. We can already produce 2 litres of fuel using 1kWhr of electricity, starting from CO2 and water. We can, if we add in the cost of getting CO2 from the atmosphere, create diesel at £42/barrel, which is the current price of Brent crude.

And recycling CO2 is good - we need some CO2 in the atmosphere, or we'd freeze to death. We can cope with the current level of 387ppm, but we can't let it get to 450ppm, which it would by 2050. Rolling Stratos out over the next twenty years with matching reduction in fossil fuel usage limits CO2 to about 325ppm in 2030. If we want to try then to get it back to pre-Industrial Revolution levels of 180ppm, we can do so without having to fignt a losing battle against fossils.

Roman Gur`evskiy says: If I understand you have the technology to produce diesel fuel, and you have received 2 liters of diesel fuel from the co2 (air) and (or) water, electricity cost 1KW. Is it right?

Dan Frederiksen says: David, I understand perfectly that it can be done. convert co2 to fuel using solar or wind power. but you didn't answer if you could actually do it and what it would cost to get you going on a small scale. not some abstract possibility for a nation but you. and I think it's fairly clear that you haven't given thought to how to actually get a business going with this idea in the near term in reality. I think that's part of the premise of this competition. That you have to be able to pull it off.

But as a general point I agree entirely that every gov on this planet are very remiss of their duty when they don't do this and other projects as a national security issue with top priority and near unlimited funding. It is a testiment to gargantuan human stupidity that this hasn't been done decades ago.
While we're at talking about what should be done (and not within the scope of this competition) every gov should similarly put unlimited funds behind developing a compact fusion technology. the more I think about such matters the more bitter I get because the world is so full of morons in power and idiots who vote for them. This global warming problem is very easy to fix for even small countries if not for the moronic humans who obstruct easy solutions. And unfortunately my now growing experience trying to reason with people in charge tells me there is very little chance that the judges in this competition will be any different.

David McNeight says: Actually, we've done it.

We know the Fischer Tropfsch reaction works, because it works every day on a large scale. As I mentioned, we have a somewhat better approach, which can be done on a smaller, demo, scale, that we've tested, and we have a programme in place, funded, to get it fine tuned over the few months. Then we'll demonstrate using solar power to generate diesel from CO2 and water.

We have a costed approach to getting the show on the road inittially, and that will be the time to bring in the big investors, under licence, to make the thousand megawatt solar installations.

I don't share your pessimism about the judges, but I do appreciate that it's difficult for people with a mindset on the impossibility of a solution, which is what all our politicans have, internationally - look at Kyoto and Bali. That's why we've gone to a small-scale demo - once it's realised we can make diesel for the barrel price of crude, the thing will take off. Winning this competition might bring that forward a bit.

I'm very grateful for your continued interest.

Dan Frederiksen says: do you have a website?

David McNeight says: Website under construction

David McNeight says: Reply to Roman - yes, it's correct we can produce 2 litres of diesel from CO2 and water, total power input is 1kWhr. We think we can improve on that.

There is an additional cost of 50kWhr/tonne for carbon dioxide recovery from the atmosphere, which brings cost of our diesel to about £42/barrel, or about 9p/litre.

Tony Rhoades says: For the benefit of everyone else reading, I've been working with David for the past 3 years, and this makes perfect sense to me. I'm confident that the academic / research colleagues (also my previous colleagues) will be able to fine tune the curent process on a scale that's market ready in the not too distant future.

This moves us all sensibly nearer to where we want to be (cleaner and greener); without claiming to be saving the world in a single technological leap.

As with all disruptive technologies David, I'm sure you'll be expecting the challengers and non-believers; but as you've said to me on many occasions, its in addressing the challengers where the real breakthroughs occur. T

steve clemens says: I would soooooo like to believe this but there's a part that seems to go against laws of thermodynamics:
you add 1kWh of energy and get 2 liters of diesel fuel each containing many kWh's...

It's probably a problem of understanding, so in this case: why are you competing in such an insignificant little contest (sorry guys) and not making the fuel at competitive prices right now, today, even if only 100L/day, any investor seeing this proof would put up tons of money and you'll be billionaires before you can say "let's fill in another form"

If your claims are true you will also solve the Carbon Capture & Sequestration problem, right?

Anyway, recycling fuel is a good idea, at competitive prices even better so hope you make it!

David McNeight says: Steve

You're correct, of course - the 1kWhr isn't the whole deal - you have to collect your CO2 and there are other costs. That's just the final reactor phase. Overall, though, we can achieve the 20cents/litre as claimed.

And, yes, when we're up and running, making fuel, or actually, for the most part, licensing the manufacture of fuel, is what we'll be doing, We have up to a year's work fine tuing the process so we can produce exactly what's wanted, viz. diesel, avtur, etc, wikthout having to refine it, which is where the bigger savings kick in,

And what's wrong with entering a competition for a bit of publicity?

Nick White says: This has more to it than meets the eye. We need hydrocarbons and derivatives for more than just burning as fuel.

The big problem, which is lost in the chatter about global warming and fossil fuels, is that we need oil and methane to power our chemicals/pharmaceuticals industry. The reason we can’t keep burning oil and gas is not because of global warming it’s because we are going to run out of feedstock for these industries .... this century.

This technology has a very major benefit. It can capture CO2 and convert it to something that is not just useful as a fuel but can also be useful as a displacement feedstock. Any hydrocarbon fuel will produce CO2 no matter what its source and most that are being considered are very inefficient users of CO2.

The fact is that alternatives to hydrocardons and nuclear are just never going to fill the gap. Dumping CO2 into the ground is a short term fix and I suppose the only good thing about that is that there will be a good source of tapped CO2 when it is needed for technology such as this....assuming it stays where we put it.

So in my view the focus on fuel issues is too narrow a view and we should look at more holistic approaches to solving global warming and other problems.

This is groundbreaking disruptive stuff and just so elegant. You should have the oil barons quaking in their boots.