218
New York Startup Builds Fridge-Sized Machine That Can Turn Air Into Gasoline (www.jalopnik.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
89 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Yes it is. And nowhere is stayed how efficient it is (only their "target" which is worth less than toilet paper because it isn't true).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    The efficiency doesn’t matter (to a point of manufacturing solar cells, or wind turbines, or whatever your equipment is for your renewable energy source). If all of the gasoline is generated from the air using renewable energy, it could take 100x the energy and still be completely carbon neutral. Carbon neutrality is based on the amount of excess carbon added to the air. If no carbon is added then by definition it’s carbon neutral.

    Porsche already has a factory in Chile that is doing this exact same thing at a much larger scale.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    This is just wrong, except if you live in some theory reality. It's like saying if a car can go a hundred miles in a hundred years it'll get there.

    There's a reason why people don't build small dinky toys like this and efficiency is why, anong other things like that pesky "cost".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (5 children)

    Please do explain how it’s wrong. Go on, I’ll wait.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    The cost of that thingy outweights the benefits. It misses out economy of scale that you get in big plants. Even with "free" electricity, It's probably making both more expensive gas and is worse for the climate when you throw it away after it breaks down for the twelfth time in a year and you wonder why it cost so much initially.

    But you think it's kind of neat I guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    No I’m asking you to explain how it’s not carbon neutral. I do not give one shit about the cost, I do not give one shit about how much the gas it produces costs (for reference the Porsche plant is at over $40 a LITER). You have stated it’s not carbon neutral. Explain how. If the machine does what it says then it is carbon neutral.

    I have an electric car, I do not care about this machine. But I do care when people claim something and have zero evidence to back it up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Dude, it's su fucking non carbon neutral you must be trolling.

    First of all it's a prototype, all the building cost, materials etc all have a carbon cost. The free electricity too has a carbon cost. All the money you want to theow at it, guess what? It has a carbon footprint.

    You're just angry it's not a miracle machine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    So, once again you are incapable of explaining how it’s not carbon neutral, though you think you are. Carbon neutrality has nothing to do with development costs and construction costs are almost always dwarfed by running costs (which I literally mentioned if you would bother reading).

    You're just angry it's not a miracle machine.

    I’m not the one getting angry. You are making a bunch of bullshit claims and then getting mad that people don’t believe your lies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •