this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
214 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

79576 readers
4017 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Kind of pretty important and relevant:

The main reason why this process isn't "something for nothing" is that it takes twice as much electrical energy to produce energy in the form of gasoline. As Aircela told The Autopian:

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.

So basically juat imagine a gas powered generator hooked up to this to power the process of pulling gasoline out of the air.

Ok, see how that's silly?

Right, now, if you do run it off solar power, then sure! That makes more sense.

Hate hyrdocarbon fuels all you want, they are very good at being dense, portable, and exist in the vast majority of pre-existing logistics infrastructure.

But the thing isn't magic, it takes energy to convert air into basically a form of liquid energy.

And... you'd probably have to refine it or chemically treat it at least somewhat.

I'm not a chemist, but I am guessing this is the case, if you want gasoline that is just equivalent to what your car would expect.

[–] Lexam@lemmy.world 85 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] tyler@programming.dev 72 points 3 days ago (22 children)

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%.

[–] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 27 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (12 children)

Except it won’t be.

None of the things you've described increase the carbon output.

What chemical reaction gets more carbon out than it puts in?
(Where do these new carbon atoms come from, fusion?)

If anything, those other products include non-gaseous compounds which sequester the carbon from the fuel into a solid resulting in a net-negative amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere.

Those side-products are not good, I'm not saying otherwise, but they are not additional carbon.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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).

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Come run it in Finland during the summer months, we have too much solar and wind generation then and electricity is often free or even goes negative every once in a while.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

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.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 61 points 3 days ago

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

[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 51 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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!

[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 3 days ago (5 children)

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 8 points 3 days ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] potatogamer@ttrpg.network 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The machine also traps water vapor, and uses electrolysis to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen instead of destroying your car's cooling system.

what the fuck does this even mean

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 days ago

There is a lot of water (H2O) in the air too. This is bad for the car.

The machine uses electricity to force the H2O molecule to break down into H2 and O2, common gases. This does not hurt the car.

I imagine this as a system that uses spare renewable energy like solar to generate gas that can be used to smooth the curve that is a renewable power source. It's real value is that it reduces infrastructure needs, allowing its use in remote environments. But it does add a lot of additional failure points.

[–] BurgerBaron@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

I swear Porche was already doing something similar...years ago.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 days ago

Plastic is already made from the residues of gasoline production.

Sure we can extract a bit more gasoline from it but it's not going to replace drilling oil.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 29 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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 27 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (5 children)

First Magic: The Gathering, and now this. Have Republicans no shame?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

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

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 13 points 3 days ago (5 children)

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

[–] THX1138@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 days ago

Thunderf00t

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

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›