Energy: Right in front of us??

Recently the N.Y Times posted an article concerning a new way to get fuel. If two scientists are correct, we will still be driving gas powered cars 50 years from now. However, the difference between now and the the future, would be the source of the energy. Instead of getting energy of middle east oil barons, these scientists propose that we would simply suck the carbon dioxide from the sky and create oil.

The scientists even suggest the idea would be easy to implement. Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel.

The concept even resonated with me. After all, you learn in high school chemistry that mass cannot be created or destroyed. It simply changes shapes. Although, the idea is still yet to be tried, the scientists say it is all based on existing technology.

The Los Alamos proposal does not violate any laws of physics, and other scientists, like George A. Olah, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Southern California, and Klaus Lackner, a professor of geophysics at Columbia University, have independently suggested similar ideas. Dr. Martin said he and Dr. Kubic had worked out their concept in more detail than previous proposals.

Although the energy expediture to accomplish the reaction would be massive, scientists say a nuclear reactor dedicated to the project would produce the required amount of energy.

According to their analysis, their concept, which would cost about $5 billion to build, could produce gasoline at an operating cost of $1.40 a gallon and would turn economically viable when the price at the pump hits $4.60 a gallon, taking into account construction costs and other expenses in getting the gas to the consumer. With some additional technological advances, the break-even price would drop to $3.40 a gallon, they said.

Despite all the other critics advocating alternative energy, gasoline is an almost ideal fuel (except that it produces 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon). It is easily transported, and it generates more energy per volume than most alternatives. If it can be made out of carbon dioxide in the air, the Los Alamos concept may mean there is little reason to switch, after all.

Perhaps instead of advocating all the alternative energy proposals, we should give these scientists the chance to see if their theories hold up. As I wrote in an early post ethanol is not the answer to our problems, and growing plants takes up wide swaths of land. This proposal would not take nearly as much land.

Although the project is still about one year away from a test, most believe it is viable. I guess it remains to be seen whether this break through technology will end our dependance on foriegn oil, or will go the way of cold fusion.