51
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Lexam@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago
[-] tyler@programming.dev 20 points 1 week ago

It’s not worse. It’s carbon neutral (as long as the energy source is renewable like the sun). Any carbon it takes in will be released exactly back to where it was. It’s a much much better option than digging up oil.

On top of that, there are currently no likely possibilities of replacing gasoline for things like planes. So replacing their gas with carbon neutral gas will improve the situation by 100%.

[-] village604@adultswim.fan 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

For planes there's a catalytic process that can turn ethanol into jet fuel.

[-] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Any carbon it takes in will be released exactly back to where it was.

Except it won't be. Combustion is not a perfect CxHy O2 > CO2 + H2O reaction. Theres a bunch of other side reactions happening, NOx, unburned hydrocarbons, particulate matter, carbon monoxide. There are lots of challenges to continuing to utilize hydrocarbon fuels, especially in mobile/small scale applications where you can't clean the exhaust stream.

[-] tyler@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago

The particulate matter won’t occur in a hydrocarbon that is generated, that comes from imperfect processing of crude. If you pull the carbon directly out of the air there are no particulates.

But yes it will still be carbon neutral. No additional carbon will be released back into the atmosphere.

[-] yakko@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago

Battery electric aeroplanes aren't as far off as you might think, but you're technically correct that they don't currently exist.

[-] tyler@programming.dev 0 points 1 week ago

No they do exist! But most scientists agree that we are unlikely to ever see commercial airliners using it, nor will freight liners use it. We would have to see ENORMOUS scientific improvements and many many many things that seem incredibly far fetched invented to get to that point.

[-] yakko@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago

You overstate your case, several firms are already at various stages. Wright Electric is working on a >500km range passenger craft for easyJet right now. That won't be able to fill every role, but a worthwhile number of them to be sure.

[-] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

If you could link that it would be great. As far as I understand it, a commercial passenger plane (which holds several hundred people) is no where close to being possible. If you are talking about small planes that hold maximum ten-15 people then sure.

[-] b_tr3e@feddit.org -1 points 1 week ago

There is no such thing as "carbon neutral". Nor is there a problem with carbon. You're talking about carbon dioxide which is as close to carbon as table salt is to chlorine.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 week ago

Yes it is. And nowhere is stayed how efficient it is (only their "target" which is worth less than toilet paper because it isn't true).

[-] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

The efficiency doesn’t matter (to a point of manufacturing solar cells, or wind turbines, or whatever your equipment is for your renewable energy source). If all of the gasoline is generated from the air using renewable energy, it could take 100x the energy and still be completely carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality is based on the amount of excess carbon added to the air. If no carbon is added then by definition it’s carbon neutral.

Porsche already has a factory in Chile that is doing this exact same thing at a much larger scale.

[-] subignition@fedia.io 13 points 1 week ago

Aircela is targeting >50% end to end power efficiency. Since there is about 37kWh of energy in a gallon of gasoline we will require about 75kWh to make it. When we power our machines with standalone, off-grid, photovoltaic panels this will correspond to less than $1.50/gallon in energy cost.

Meanwhile, an electric vehicle could go hundreds of miles on the same amount of energy input...

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

Gasoline is a very high energy material. You can put it into anything (that works with gas) in seconds and store it for months.

Is this a perfect solution? No. But it’s technically possible to achieve carbon neutrality on an ICE vehicle with zero modification, you’ve just got ~50% loss on the solar you collected.

[-] ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Triggered by “ICE” rn

[-] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 9 points 1 week ago

Another device of the type that Thunderf00t used to 'bust.'

[-] THX1138@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

Thunderf00t

Love his YT channel... he destroys Elon reputation (if he ever had one...) and calls his 90% BS . lol

[-] pulsewidth@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

The "Why 'Feminism' is poisoning atheism", "Feminism Vs FACTS" chud?

I'm surprised he still has an audience tbh. Well, sadly not that surprised.

[-] MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 0 points 1 week ago

“Why ‘Feminism’ is poisoning atheism”

What? How are these two topics related at all?

[-] pulsewidth@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

Oh, they're not but I guess you'd have to ask him for the answer. Those videos are both still up if you want to watch a long stream of misogyny and logical fallacies dressed up as an 'owning'.

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Finally a way to turn clean solar into something I can burn.

[-] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 1 week ago

This machine uses 75kWh per day to make 1 gallon of gasoline. Using the cheapest electricity in the country, that's $9.29 per gallon (+ the machine itself is $20k).

[-] Etterra@discuss.online 3 points 1 week ago

It's useful if you can rig it to solar or wind, but that's about it. Hydrocarbon fuel is convenient because it's compact and energy dense compared to must other fuel sources. If the world ran on nuclear and renewable energy entirely, it would be extremely useful to create a circular carbon economy without digging up new fossil fuels. In our shitty reality though, it's only marginally useful.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Could also be useful for logistics reasons, say remote communities capable of making electricity but fuel may be a bit of an issue. Plus if these catch on at any capacity it could eventually lead to smaller cheaper models popping up which do have a tonne of uses.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

All the catches

[-] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

So power to x, basically

But smaller

Reusing the co2 in the air. Its a good idea.

[-] Dekkia@this.doesnotcut.it 1 points 1 week ago

No it's not a good idea.

It's extremely inefficent compared to just using elecricity directly for whatever you're planning to do with it.

[-] FauxLiving@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

The extension cord won't reach my Airbus

[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 1 week ago

Still a good idea for specific cases though. An example from current news close to me: We have line ships on lake Zürich that can't be electrified because either they are too old to sustain a major internal rework or, for some, they can't carry the battery weight.

For a case like that I'd prefer if they put some CO2 capture stations up to keep running the ships rather than scrapping them prematurely.

... if the capture stations work, that is. Can't trust the word of a startup too much.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

insert Adam Something's "shitting in the living room" metaphor here

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

remember plastoline? that method of relatively easily transforming plastic waste into gasoline.

good or not, worthwhile or not, i don't think tech like this will take off when the oil industry makes so much money from drilling and fracking for that same gas.

[-] fubarx@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

It takes twice as much electrical energy to produce energy in the form of gasoline.

We lose money on every sale, but make it up on volume!

[-] potatogamer@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 week ago

Eh, not quite.

Sometimes electricity is so cheap that we could be giving it away for free. This and other techniques could be used to store excess energy for when we need it later.

[-] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 week ago

Sustainable energy is the key to making the Aircela machine practical and cost-effective. Running it on the grid from coal or natural gas power plants defeats the purpose of removing carbon from the air, and the electricity will cost more, too.

The company themselves even state that this is supposed to be driven by solar/wind, otherwise it makes no sense. This is regular PtX but in SFF for modular small scale deployment.

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago

Yeah, put these in Iceland, Scotland or the Sahara where there's virtually unlimited zero-carbon power available and they make a world of sense.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 week ago

I didn't know the machine needed no maintenance and that its own life cycle was carbon neutral. TIL/s

[-] Womble@piefed.world -1 points 1 week ago

I wonder is a scaled up version of this could work for grid-scale medium length storage. Smoothing out weeks of dunkleflaute is the main blocker to going to a primarily renewable grid. Gasoline is a lot easier to store than hydrogen and large scale gasoline generators should get close to the efficiency of natural gas peaker plants.

this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
51 points (96.4% liked)

Technology

80624 readers
722 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS