This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,255 Members


Are British Engineers Really Producing Petrol from Air Technology?


The UK press has gone mad over a new energy technology in recent days. I’ve been asked whether it is really as exciting as it seems?

“Exclusive: Pioneering scientists turn fresh air into petrol in massive boost in fight against energy crisis” ran the headline in the Independent on 19th October, and the story was picked up by the BBC on various channels. “we have been inundated here at AFS with requests for media interviews and comments from social media forums” says the home page of the company’s website – Air Fuel Synthesis.

So is it real? Well it certainly has a highly credible and solid technology foundation – the company was founded by Professor Tony Marmont, who has worked on aspects of renewable energy for many years.

Is it highly novel? Not really. The basic idea is that petrol, like all fossil fuels, is made of hydrocarbons – that is, long chains of hydrogen and carbon atoms. So if you use the right catalysts and processes, you can combine hydrogen and carbon to make fuel, which is what they do. 

The hydrogen comes from the electrolysis of water and the carbon can come from the air – though the company speak about highly concentrated sources of CO2 like breweries, distilleries or aerobic digesters.

The problem is of course the question of how much energy is needed to run the whole process. The energy can come from renewable sources – and needs to, in order to keep it carbon-neutral – but the question is whether that energy is better used elsewhere, and more to the point, how much it costs to use it here.

I have seen statements for similar technology that it would require about 20 kWh to produce a litre of fuel. I very much doubt that this includes the energy which would be required if the carbon dioxide were to come from the air (concentrated sources are not that widespread). But even assuming that it does include this and is therefore extendable on a large scale,  the problem is that that 20 kWh from a wind turbine or other clean energy source would power an electric car to travel about 60 km, whereas that litre of fuel (which will contain about 10 kWh) would power an internal combustion engined car only 15 km.

Let’s recap those numbers – they are surprisingly stark: we would get four times more mobility out of the primary energy if we used it in electric cars, than if we produced air fuel – at least four times, given the CO2 extraction energy issue and given the fact electric cars are still early stage technology. The difference expands to seven times if you take the efficiency of a Tesla Roadster.

About 13% of our transport fuel is used in applications which require liquid fuel – aviation and shipping – and this innovation has a great and potentially lucrative market there. But for the largest share of the transport market – private cars – the weight of the numbers strongly suggests that EVs are likely to be more successful.

I hate to splash even a few drops of cold water on new innovators’ work, as I’ve spent many years innovating myself – however I’ve also come to the conclusion that our media’s slightly hysterical obsession with the “new new thing” is destructive to the progress of clean energy. The fact is that the physics is quite simple, we have almost the technology we need already, and the main issue is not innovation, but deployment  (and the incremental innovations and cost reductions that will follow from large scale deployment). 

* The Numbers
Energy consumption of petrol car: 70 kWh/100 passenger-km (typical family car)
For electric car: 34 kWh/100p-km – Nissan Leaf, according to the US EPA.
For Tesla Roadster (2-seater sports car): 21 kWh/100p-km – EPA.

Image:Scientist via Shutterstock

Robert Webb's picture

Thank Robert for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.


John Miller's picture
John Miller on Oct 23, 2012 4:47 am GMT

Robert, who funds such research?  All they are trying to do is reverse the methane reforming and water shift reactions used to produce hydrogen from methane.  And then finish the process with the gas-to-liquids technology commercialized some years ago.  The net energy value could not be too much greater than say a negative 200%.  Oh, by the way, they may want to use neat hydrogen and carbon dioxide.  Using air with oxygen present may interfere with the reaction a bit.  A more efficient option might be something more natural such as photosynthesis.

John Miller, Chem/ChemE professional

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Oct 23, 2012 7:05 am GMT

Robert, in regards to your reluctance to splash a few drops of cold water, I will humbly suggest that a bucket of the icy variety would be more apropos.

I've run out of fingers counting the number of times some flavor of Fischer-Tropsch has appeared in popular press masquerading as a technical breakthrough. As you most aptly point out: we would get four times more mobility out of the primary energy if we used it in electric cars, than if we produced air fuel. Yet the popular science press gobbles it up and spits it out, furthering the widely-held belief there might yet be an environmentally-sound future for the automotive internal combustion engine.

There isn't.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »