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).
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2026
142 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
79301 readers
3346 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
remember plastoline? that method of 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.
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.
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!
And that's just their target, not actual.
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.
Even then, the value prop is questionable.
It treats sustainable energy dedicated to this purpose as "free", ignoring the opportunity cost of using that energy directly.
For example, let's say I dedicated my solar exclusively to making gasoline. I could get about 14 gallons a month of "free" gasoline... Except my home power bill would go up about 150 dollars a month.. opportunity cost would be over 10 dollars a gallon...
Sure, for a homeowner it doesn't make sense. But what about at grid scale when there isn't enough demand for that electricity?
What opportunity cost is there to NOT do it when the power would otherwise be wasted or generation capacity reduced? If anything, I'd say the opportunity cost is of not doing this with over generation on the grid/plant
How much do we have an over generation problem in general though? I suppose the argument would be that solar is curtailed because they don't want to deal with the potential for overgeneration, but we already have a number of approaches for energy storage. Their pricing for generating at most a gallon a day is a price exceeding a battery system of LFP that could do a lot more than a gallon of gas. This is ignoring the rather significant potential of Sodium batteries.
So this doesn't look to be cheaper than battery systems, it looks to be way less efficient than battery systems. The biggest use case as energy storage in general seems to be if you want it to spend a few months (but not too many months, fuel degrades in the tank after all). The more narrow use case is to cater to scenarios where you absolutely need the energy density of gasoline, so boats and airplanes critically so, maybe some heavy equipment. I'll grant that, but if particularly sodium batteries will be an acceptable approach, it'll be better than this solution in that very wide variety of circumstances.
Over generation is very big. I agree batteries are better, though.
We need to be able to support peak winter heating and peak summer cooling and we need to do that with excess margin.
Everything in between we have excess power, unless it's something like hydro dams which are easy to control and aren't a big extra cost and part of how the naturally operate.
We generally use gas peaker plants to help which we can turn off or on, but it's more efficient to not do that, and those are expensive.
It would also make it easier to build big nuclear plants if we could manage the off peak load into batteries for the day.
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.
I didn't know the machine needed no maintenance and that its own life cycle was carbon neutral. TIL/s
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
Also it's a carbon sink if you barrel it up and bury it
load more comments
(1 replies)
This would actually provide me enough gas each week with my hybrid in office schedule.
that'd get my small cc bike filled up for my use.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
It’s not worse. It’s carbon neutral
So replacing their gas with carbon neutral gas will improve the situation by 100%.
Referring to things as carbon neutral is typically shorthand for net neutral CO₂e (or net-zero) CO₂e.
You're pedantically right that the machine is not creating or destroying carbon atoms, but the things it does create have massive "carbon dioxide equivalence". Or, phrased differently: the emissions of this equipment are equivalent to emitting significant amounts of carbon dioxide.
They also reek havoc on people's lungs.
This is worse than air, but better than doing nothing I suppose. The situation is not "improved by 100%". It's marginally better, but definitely not 100%.
Eh?
You take excess green power and use it to generate gasoline. You use that gasoline in a combustion engine. Where is the extra carbon coming from which makes this non neutral?
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
Finally a way to turn clean solar into something I can burn.
insert Adam Something's "shitting in the living room" metaphor here
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.
Problem is that the efficiency is on the ground here.
The same energy that might get an EV 200 miles instead produces a single gallon of gasoline, to get a sense for the relative value of the efficiency.
Liquid fuels have a couple advantages in certain scenarios. Aircraft, for example. The energy density of liquid fuels is considerably higher than batteries. Aircraft only take on as much fuel as they need to safely reach their destination. They takeoff with more weight than they can safely land, burning off fuel weight throughout their flight until they are light enough to land. Dumping fuel overboard to get down to landing weight in an emergency.
Switch these aircraft over to batteries, and their landing weight is the same as their takeoff weight. They carry the same "fuel" weight for a regional flight as they do for a maxinum-range flight.
Well, I don't know if the reason given is that significant, they'd just plan around the fixed weight. The issue being the energy per unit volume/weight being so far behind hydrocarbons that some applications do demand it.
So while stationary/grid applications may lean battery since size/weight hardly matters, and EVs are debatable good enough for many scenarios, I will grant that for aircraft, boats, and some heavy equipment it's hard to beat hydrocarbons.
Unfortunately, on that front it has to compete with extracted hydrocarbons and doesn't seem like it can compete as yet. It however may give hope for a more resource constrained future that the battery-hostile scenarios may still be fulfilled in a sustainable way, just at higher relative expense than today. Or they iterate on their processes to have cheaper equipment and/or increased efficiency to come closer to competitive with extracted hydrocarbons. Or a viable thing to reference for some governments mandating sustainably sourced hydrocarbons when they are really needed.
There is another major advantage...
There is a major problem with solar and wind. Daily and seasonal variation in solar flux and wind speed forces us to size our renewable generators based on their minimum expected output. We have to install enough solar panels that we can supply our needs with only low-angle sunlight on short, winter days. But we won't do that, because that many solar panels are about four times what we need to supply our needs on long summer days. With that much oversupply on the grid, generators won't be able to command sufficient revenue to justify that number of panels. But we need that number of panels to supply our winter demands.
We can match a large percentage of daily variation with sufficient grid-scale storage. We fill up reservoirs with our excess mid-day production, and run that water through hydropower plants overnight. But it is simply not possible to expand storage sufficiently to match seasonal variation.
If we build out sufficient solar generation capacity to meet winter demand, we don't need seasonal storage. The problem we have becomes one of seasonal oversupply. The solution to that problem is an increase in demand. We need energy-intensive products that can be brought online in daylight hours from spring to autumn, then shut down for winter.
Producing net carbon-zero fuels could very well create part of the demand needed to justify massive expansion of our renewable power grid.
Sure, but you cant store that electricity as electricity. IMO this is most interesting as a energy storage technology, so the comparison isnt what that gasoline would do in an ICE car compared to an EV, its to what it would cost compared to battery storage (or compressed air or whatever other technology) to store a few weeks of output on the order of months. The big advantage I see here is that unlike those other technologies capacity is dirt cheap to build, its just a metal tank. So whenever a renewable plant would curtail its output it can instead redirect to creating gasoline to burn when the renewables arent producing much electricity.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Grid scale storage doesn't strike me as an area of application where high energy density is important, so wouldn't batteries with less conversion loss do an overall better job? I think grid scale Lithium-ion battery stores have become somewhat common.
I'd see gasoline from CO2 capture of interest more for airplanes, drones, ships, maybe even certain modes of long haul terrestrial transport where weight and volume is important.
I could see this being useful in places where day/night cycle is skewed to prolonged periods of each. Or perhaps holding excess power from summer into winter since days are so much shorter.
But yeah, this doesn’t really seem like the best way to store grid power.
view more: next ›