Skip to main content

Today versus clean energy

Rather worryingly I have just heard the Today programme make a total hash out of explaining a new and clean way to produce petrol. Frankly, they were very close to just laughing at what, to me sounds an excellent idea.

You might say that petrol (gasoline) is yesterday's fuel - but you'd be wrong. It's today's fuel and we are a good way - 20, 30, maybe 40 years off it being seriously phased out. We neither have the infrastructure, cheap enough vehicles or good enough range on electrics to switch to hydrogen and/or electric cars. People who think it will be sooner live in cloud cuckoo land. And don't think the switch will be driven by us running out of oil. Apart from untapped oil reserves in harder-to-get-to places, many countries have coal reserves, and coal can be converted into oil. The US alone has enough coal to fulfil current oil usage for around 200 years at costs less than current oil prices. So we need ways to do petrol in a more environmentally friendly fashion, which this is.

The scheme is a clever one because it gets its carbon from carbon dioxide in the air, so when you use the petrol you aren't adding any CO2 to the atmosphere. It's a demonstrator at the moment, producing something like 5 litres a day, but in principle it can be scaled up. It uses carbon dioxide and water vapour to produce methanol, which is then converted to petrol, and the energy to do all this is renewable. Here's a quick video:

So let's see how Today got it wrong. First, Evan Davies, for whom I usually have quite a lot of respect was mocking the fact that it only produced 5 litres a day. 'That'll solve our problems,' he said (roughly). Come on, Evan. It's a demonstrator. The quantity is irrelevant.

Then their economics correspondent (or environment correspondent, this is from memory) waded in. He pointed out that you have to put the energy in to make the petrol here, where the energy came from the Sun in fossil fuel, so it will take a lot more energy in compared with the energy you get out. This is true to a point - but bear in mind petrol doesn't jump out of the ground into your car's fuel tank. We have to have extremely expensive (both financially and in energy terms) discovery and drilling operations, not forgetting the cost of cleaning up nasty oil spills. And it's not petrol that comes out of the ground, it's crude oil. So then you have the energy intensive operation of cracking and extracting the petrol from this.

Finally, there was no mention of the most significant point. That pretty well all the energy expended in the extraction, preparation and use of petrol today involves burning fossil fuels and adding to the CO2 load of the atmosphere. By comparison, in this method the energy used in producing the petrol is renewable and the petrol itself came out of the atmosphere so doesn't add to the CO2 load when its burned.

Realistically there are problems. The process might not scale up well. It could be expensive both financially and in energy terms (I don't know how much energy goes into the discovery, drilling, extraction and refining of petrol). But to effectively dismiss it out of hand the way the Today team did is appalling.


Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope