Is there an alternate fuel that de-emphasizes carbon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DEvens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Carbon Fuel
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exploration of potential alternative fuels that do not contain carbon, focusing on the feasibility of producing such fuels from water and air without the need to concentrate carbon dioxide. Participants consider various chemical possibilities and the implications of using these fuels in different types of engines, including those not resembling traditional car or diesel engines.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes the idea of a fuel that can be generated from water and air, emphasizing the need for it to be liquid at normal temperatures and pressures.
  • Another participant questions the feasibility of such a fuel, suggesting that if it existed, it would already be in use, and highlights hydrogen as a potential candidate from the available elements.
  • A participant mentions the Birkeland-Eyde process for producing nitric oxide from oxygen and nitrogen, noting its inefficiency and the challenges of handling the resulting compounds.
  • Concerns are raised about the practicality of capturing carbon from the atmosphere, with one participant explaining the energy-intensive nature of the process and the challenges associated with low atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
  • Some participants discuss the safety and handling issues related to hydrogen as a fuel, particularly in comparison to carbon-based fuels, and express skepticism about the public's ability to manage such fuels safely.
  • There is mention of hydrazine as a potential nitrogen and hydrogen-based fuel, but participants acknowledge the dangers and complexities involved in handling it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility and safety of alternative fuels, with no consensus reached on the viability of a carbon-free fuel produced from water and air. Multiple competing ideas and concerns remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various constraints, including the need for the fuel to be inexpensive, safe to handle, and efficient to produce. The discussion also reflects on the challenges of capturing carbon from the atmosphere and the stability of alternative fuels compared to carbon-based options.

  • #31
If climate change is the goal, then the energy/pollution caused by production of the fuel is just as important than the burning of the fuel.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and Dale
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #32
Two quick comments:

Hydrogen is commercially produced from methane, with CO2 as a byproduct. It would be better to use the methane directly: less energy loss for the same emission. Only a small amount is produced through water electrolysis.

Ammonia is nasty stuff. It's one of the most dangerous chemicals today - probably just under carbon monoxide. The reasons CFCs were introduced as refrigerants in around the 1920's is because people were dropping like flies from ammonia accidents.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ygggdrasil and Dale
  • #33
I was going to go on a long screed about ammonia releases, but then I realized I would just be...venting.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rive, diogenesNY, Ygggdrasil and 4 others

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
9K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
23K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
972
Replies
9
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K