The first law of thermodynamics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Pretty straightforward. No loopholes.<\/p>\n
So why does a press release from Los Alamos<\/a> sound like it’s ignoring the first law of thermodynamics after painting the room green?<\/p>\n Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a low-risk, transformational concept, called Green Freedom\u2122, for large-scale production of carbon-neutral, sulfur-free fuels and organic chemicals from air and water.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sounds great, doesn’t it? Carbon-neutral fuel. Wow, just what the doctor ordered.<\/p>\n By integrating this electrochemical process with existing technology, researchers have developed a new, practical approach to producing fuels and organic chemicals that permits continued use of existing industrial and transportation infrastructure. Fuel production is driven by carbon-neutral power.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n OK, no actual mention of the electrochemical process in the PR, but elsewhere it’s given as methanol production from water and carbon dioxide.<\/p>\n So it must be the reverse of 2 CH3OH + 3 O2 \u2192 2 CO2 + 4 H2O<\/p>\n Which is going to require energy input, because the combustion of methanol is exothermic. Ah, hence the mention of the fuel production being driven by a carbon-neutral source. Recognize that? It’s the same handwave that was happening with hydrogen a few years back. It’s not an energy source<\/em>, but at least it’s green … as long as you use a green source of energy.<\/p>\n If we had some cake we could have cake and ice cream. If we had some ice cream. Now, I think it’s great that they have developed a process for doing this, but a press release that is as content-free as this, from a scientific institution? Just as with hydrogen, when you consider this technology, you have to think “battery.” It’s a storage medium for the energy. Now, that’s important, because any technology that fits in with the existing infrastructure is more likely to be adopted than something new, like hydrogen- or electric-powered cars. But for this to work, you need to add green power capacity, and that’s completely glossed over. By the time this hits the press, that will probably be forgotten.<\/p>\n Like with the New York Times<\/a><\/p>\n Roger A. Pielke Jr., a political scientist and blogger at the University of Colorado, has written for several years about the air-capture idea (and about why it hasn\u2019t gotten equal billing with options like biofuels)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Biofuels have a net energy to offer, that’s why. This is a net energy sink. And that message has gotten lost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The first law of thermodynamics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Pretty straightforward. No loopholes. So why does a press release from Los Alamos sound like it’s ignoring the first law of thermodynamics after painting the room green? Los … Continue reading
\n<\/p>\n