[johngalt]

Prometheus should be laser focused on being first to market in commercial quantities. There are people who want carbon neutral fuels today even if they are more expensive than fossil fuels. Capture that entire market with v1 of the process even if it's $10/gallon. Take everything learned to make v2 at $7/gallon and v3 at $5/gallon etc...

The goal of $3/gallon is pushing Prometheus down the rabbit hole. Waiting for the perfect factory, with the manufacturing methods, to produce the perfect machine that will immediately go into large scale production, and operate on an automated basis. I expect the company aiming at 10-7-5-3 will reach 3 there faster than the company aiming at 3 to start out with.

[toast0]

Burried in the long post (as copied in the thread), it sounds like they are starting to move something to production, which they say will enable enough fuel to do demos and what not. Depending on what exactly that means when it happens, maybe they can start selling $10/gallon gasoline somewhere.

If it's a turnkey fuel production device, I'm sure there's a market for hook up electricity in remote location and get a tank of fuel over time.

[ncmncm]

Tractor fuel produced at the foot of a wind turbine in the middle of a farmer's field, that doesn't need to be transported from a refinery, would have immediate value.

Fences made of double-sided solar panels mounted a bit more than tractor-width apart, running N-S, coexist nicely with row crops, and cut water loss, improve conversion efficiency (via evaporative cooling), and often increase yield besides (via reduced heat stress). Producing fuel locally is better than selling the power and buying fuel.

                HH XX HH
                HH=XX=HH <--tractor
                HH XX HH
       crop        XX
       |           XX    | <-panel/fence
       v           HH    |
  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x
  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x
  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x
  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x 
  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x
  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x  x  x  x|x

[alex_young]

Why not just make electric tractors? The energy efficiency of converting wind -> electricity -> fuel -> mechanical power has to be less efficient than wind -> electricity -> mechanical power right?

[ncmncm]

Tractors are very expensive. Farmers will not replace them just for this. And, they need to operate all day long, which would take a hell of a lot of battery.

Retrofitting with ammonia tankage and plumbing (making them cheaper to run) is an expense they might prefer to avoid until they have a reliable secondary supply of ammonia.

[throwaway894345]

They need to run all day and all night for ~2 weeks straight twice a year and then they can sit idle most of the rest of the time. But during those 4 weeks charging for one out of every three hours (I’m assuming that a big tractor pulling a big implement is going to deplete even a really big battery fast and charging a battery that large is probably going to take a long time) isn’t going to be tolerable.

[tastyfreeze]

It is easier and cheaper to store liquid fuel. Making liquid fuel would allow fuel to be made and stored in the off season in a greater quantity than could be reasonable be stored in batteries.

[nyokodo]

> The energy efficiency of converting wind -> electricity -> fuel -> mechanical power has to be less efficient than wind -> electricity -> mechanical power

It depends on how efficient it is to use existing ICE tractors vs creating new electric tractors. If tractors are like other ICE vehicles then something like half the energy they take over their lifetime is used in their production so if you want to get to Net-0 sooner generating carbon neutral fuel might be the way to go.

[ncmncm]

Efficiency is secondary. Cost is primary. As the cost of generator capacity continues on down, people worry less about efficiency. The top-line input, sunshine, is free. So it is a question of capital cost amortized over energy produced.

[nyokodo]

> Efficiency is secondary. Cost is primary.

While the question I was responding to was explicitly about efficiency, you might be right about cost. However, ICE tractors that are already owned along with the capital required for their use and maintenance are potentially a lot more attractive to keep vs new electric tractors. Sunshine might be free but it’s not available in sufficient quantities everywhere with current technology, and all technologies will require ongoing maintenance. With China becoming an untrustworthy trade partner the cost of solar panels will likely rise. If they do I hope they can make affordable efuel so that we make progress either way.

[seltzered_]

You have to look at gravimetric and volumetric energy density, the book 'the future is rural' has a nice chart on this:

https://twitter.com/vivekgani/status/1426017955398176770?t=0...

[ncmncm]

Chart omits liquified anhydrous ammonia. Its volumetric energy density is about half of diesel's, with a somewhat better mass energy density. You need bigger tanks that can hold back a bit of pressure, and new plumbing disinclined to corrosion.

It also omits liquified hydrogen, which is inconvenient to handle, but not much moreso than liquified methane.

[LgWoodenBadger]

With the amounts of extra weight farmers often add to their tractors, and their general hatred of DEF and regen cycles, electric tractors seem like a billion dollar idea just waiting for someone to pick it up and run with it.

[throwaway894345]

I doubt batteries are up to the task. Tractors and implements are big, so the battery is going to have to be huge, which is going to further increase the weight of the tractor and so on. Plus if you’re in the middle of harvest season (you have a narrow window to get crops out of the ground and you work around the clock for a week or so), you can’t afford to wait an hour to charge your tractor after driving it for an hour or two. Anyway, you would have to have electricity in ample supply on site or else you’re taking your tractor offline for even longer while you drive it to and from your field for a charge.

[coderintherye]

Solectrac is making electric tractors in production. They are available today (though waiting period between deposit and delivery).

[ncmncm]

Boutique item, maybe unless the batteries can be replaced while it operates. They would need a hell of a lot of spare batteries, and somebody running around replacing them. Presumably today people are driving out to fill up fuel in existing tractors after some number of rows.

[coderintherye]

Yes and no. It's not targeted at massive monoculture farms such as corn farms in the Midwest. Rather it is targeted at operations where a smaller tractor with a few hours runtime is useful. That includes not only hobby farmers but also vineyards, etc.

[pjc50]

> doesn't need to be transported from a refinery

Given how much cutting edge process chemistry is involved in this fuel manufacture, it will be a long time before it's available in small units, which will of course be more capital-intensive and less efficient than large units because that's how scaling works.

It's far more likely this fuel will end up simply co-mingled with the global market and shipped all over the world from a few sites which are good for generation but not for direct consumption.

[DennisP]

According to their "need for speed" page, their plan is to build factories producing units the size of shipping containers. They think they can have three of them by 2030, each churning out a quarter million units annually.

[pjc50]

... I'll file that under "believe it when I see it". It would be genuinely transformative of the world economy if it happened.

[DennisP]

Indeed it would. It certainly wouldn't be possible if they needed heat and pressure. See this part of the article:

> Our Fuel Forges are similar in many ways to hydrogen electrolyzers, in that they consist of many layers of cells, each consisting of a cathode, an anode, and a separator. In an H2 Electrolyzer, the anode is where electrons are stripped from water, producing oxygen, and the cathode is where electrons are added to protons, producing hydrogen gas. In our system, the anode works the same way, but our cathode, in addition to making H2, also makes liquid fuels. Both systems have capital costs dominated by the costs of the electrochemical stacks.

> This brings us to the issue of economies of scale. For high temperature / high pressure systems like Fischer Tropsch or e-methanol to gasoline (MTG), economies of scale mean large refinery installations that cost billions of dollars and years to build (and still don’t get to cost-competitive fuels). For modular, mobile systems like our Titan Fuel Forges, however, economies of scale mean mass manufacturing.

[jabl]

> Fences made of double-sided solar panels mounted a bit more than tractor-width apart

Er, tractors often tow implements that are significantly wider than the tractor itself.

[ncmncm]

They can but are not obliged to.

[universa1]

While a nice theory, this is not competitive in practice... The capital costs and loss in productivity result in about a 2 to 3 times lower profit per unit of land compared to full solar. Just put solar on the non-ideal fields (iirc about 4% of German AG area would be needed to cover electricity demand with solar)

[ncmncm]

You miss the point that identically the same land is now producing two revenue streams, one year-round. And, that ag yield is increased. Fortunately, they don't need your approval. It is being done now. Japanese are leading.

[ehnto]

It might not need to be 100% of fuel used, subsidizing the fuel supply would be enough I think. It would also allow those farms to claim some of that as carbon credits and other green certificates.

[nyokodo]

> Capture that entire market with v1 of the process even if it's $10/gallon. Take everything learned to make v2 at $7/gallon and v3 at $5/gallon etc...

Due to Russian oil drying up volatile high prices globally will be the norm until technology like this comes into play and at least puts a ceiling on the price. So, the real question is how quickly and how cheaply can they reach 4 million barrels per day of production?

[DennisP]

And if Peter Zeihan is right, the loss of Russian exports is just the beginning of oil supply disruption over the next decade.

[Iwan-Zotow]

India and China are not losing any Russian imports

[nyokodo]

> India and China are not losing any Russian imports

Russia cannot keep up production without the involvement of the likes of BP etc, so while China and India haven't boycotted Russia it won't matter before very long.

[Iwan-Zotow]

You know that e.g. BP production had fallen for last few years, right?

[leobg]

If I read just one book of this author, which should I read? Or if not a book, which podcast/video? Thank you.

[DennisP]

Geopop videos on youtube were my introduction, and are definitely the quickest way to get the gist. Then I started reading his books.

Accidental Superpower is his first, from 2014, and is the best overall introduction. It doesn't just look at current events; he applies his approach to pretty much all the great civilizations of world history, starting with ancient Egypt. Well worth reading for that alone, it's amazing. Also covers modern day, and while it's a bit out of date now, the broad strokes haven't changed. This book includes a prediction that Russia would invade the rest of Ukraine right about now. If you read just one, make it this one.

The next two books are entirely focused on present day.

Absent Superpower from 2016 has two parts. The first is probably more information than you want about the shale revolution in the US, but he keeps it interesting. Then he writes about individual countries, with more of an energy focus. This one's obviously most relevant to the tech we're discussing here, which could change everything if it scales up soon enough.

Now I'm partway through Disunited Nations, from 2020. This also goes country by country, and of course is the most up-to-date so far. He starts out with several chapters on China, and goes into more detail than the previous book on their situation, which is incredibly grim. Now I'm starting the next chapter, on Japan.

His next book comes out in June. I think he mentioned in a video that he focuses more on the outlook for various industries.

[leobg]

Thank you. Very helpful. Reading it now!

[kreeben]

This one hour podcast really got me interested in Peter Zeihan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdP01go8wdQ&t=258s

His latest book is "The end of the world is only the beginning".

I follow him through the YT channnel "GEOPOP".

[leobg]

Thank you!

[rmcginnis]

$3.00 / gallon is our v 1.0 (before taxes)

[sien]

Wow.

If you hit that you're sorted in Europe.

https://www.tolls.eu/fuel-prices

European prices seem to average about ~ EU 1.8 / litre or ~7.2 EU / Gallon or $US 7.6 / gallon.

For C02 neutral fuel it would just work at that price.

[Auracle]

A very large portion of what Europeans pay for gas is tax.

[sien]

Yes. Definitely. In most (all?) developed countries except the US fuel tax easily covers the costs of roads and subsidizes everything else.

The EU is determined to reduce C02 emissions rapidly. If they want to do that they could cut their fuel taxes and use C02 neutral fuel and meet their targets much more easily. Not to mention cutting dependence on authoritarian states.

[PeterisP]

Looking at local (EU) gas price structure, ~50% is the actual cost of fuel and the rest is excise tax, VAT, and expenses/profit. So $3/gal bulk cost would fit a $6/gal = 1.6 eur/litre retail price including all taxes, which would be competitive even without any subsidies that a CO2-neutral fuel might justify.

[ncmncm]

Presumably this stuff won't be taxed the same way. Taxes will need to be restructured so roads are paid for, maybe by vehicle licensing.

[HyprMusic]

I'm not sure about the rest of Europe, but in the UK neither vehicle duty nor fuel duty are used specifically for anything road related so theoretically they shouldn't need to tax it at all (beyond the standard VAT).

[namecheapTA]

This isn't what fuel costs in Europe. It's what it is retailed for after taxes to the government.

[jabl]

It is mentioned in the blog post that the basic reaction is for producing ethanol. Are you then upgrading this ethanol to other fuels like gasoline, kerosene, diesel with traditional processes (e.g. something MTG, MTO-like), and how much cost does that add?

[ncmncm]

If it did nothing but put Archer Daniels Midland's corn->ethanol scam out of business, it would be a wonder.

ADM consumes a third of the US corn crop and billions of dollars of tax money, year in and year out.

[jabl]

Haha, absolutely.

A lot of EU countries also mandate E10 gasoline in a misguided effort to reduce GHG emissions. I'm not sure where they get all that ethanol from, but I'm sure it's a similar agribusiness scam as US corn ethanol.

[moistly]

Prometheus addresses this:

> The thing is one cell doesn’t make that much fuel. What it does do is make enough to tell us what to do to iterate to the next cell design, which is exactly what we need to be doing to improve our performance and costs as quickly and inexpensively as possible. If we stopped this process to replicate one of the iterations of the cell to many cells, we could make more fuel, but we wouldn’t learn any more, we’d use up a lot of time and materials, and it wouldn’t prove that we can compete with fossil fuels on cost - the thing that matters.

[mmazing]

They should release it under some sort of fair use model where they receive 10% of the profits of anyone using their technology.

Then, there doesn't need to be any marketing and limiting of availability by only having one source of product.

Product manufacturers would probably be ecstatic to generate products that have great use and public appeal, where all you need to do is be the first to be able to manufacture it.

[db65edfc7996]

One thing that is unclear to me - are there items that need to be replaced/regenerated? The article says the costs are mostly capital. If true, on a long enough timeline, are you not just looking at entirely operational costs (sourcing water + electricity)?

[rmcginnis]

Yes, only inputs are air and electricity. If you have an equipment payback of only a few years, then after that all fuel is close to opex only. Similar to solar itself.

[ncmncm]

The chemical reagents are not consumed in operation, but they could be subject to contamination over time, and need to be replaced periodically.

[_hypx]

The idea of synfuels, which is what this is, is not new. Many companies are pursuing this idea. Including Porsche: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/06/porsche-taking-stake-in-e-fu...

There are two challenges to tackle here: First is to make it work at all, and second is to do it cheaper than what the competition can muster.

[nyokodo]

> There are two challenges to tackle

Both of which are covered in the article.