Synthetic Fuels

Not fossil fuels, but rather hydrocarbon fuels. You can technically synthesize fuel for those use cases in a carbon-neutral manner.

It is possible, the search keywords are "synthetic fuels" or "e-fuels" ("electro-fuels). Currently it's a lot more expensive than fossil fuel, which is why it's mostly a research project and not a large-scale commercial business.One problem is that while you can get an unlimited amount of hydrogen via electrolysis of water, you have to get the carbon from somewhere to produce hydrocarbons. There is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it's still a pretty

Would not be easier to produce synthetic kerosene fuel from captured CO2 and hydrogen.The process is straightforward:1. A lot of cheap solar energy, from the best location.2. Electrolyse to produce hydrogen.3. Capture CO2. Either from air or from carbon intensive processes (e.g. producing cement).4. Use Sabatier reaction to bond CO2 and hydrogen to produce carbohydrate fuel.5. Since we use same amount of CO2 to produce as there will be burn this carbon neutral fuel.It's

ok. I see. Due to conservation of energy it takes energy to synthesize fuel hydrocarbons. So you might start with carbon dioxide, run it through some energy consuming process exposed to hydrogen and get hydrocarbons and water as the byproduct from the excess oxygen. I don't know enough chemistry to know what the exact synthesis method would be but I do know it would require substantial energy input. Thus the kerosene serves as a kind of battery. It is not a primary energy source any more. I

Chill, biofuels or gas synthesis will be fine and carbon neutral for big jets. Once solar or fusion produces the primary power cheaply the conversion loss isn't a huge deal.

You can synthesize jet fuel from CO2 and renewable energy. Or biologically derived products.These are all use cases where consumption won't outstrip capacity, because airline travel is much more efficient then car travel, which is your other alternative unless someone wants to actually build high-speed rail.

Yes, exactly. There are/have been various small scale projects along those lines. Hydrogen and CO2 to methane, to longer-chain hydrocarbons that can be put into existing engines. As you say, the synthetic fuel is just an energy (and carbon) carrier, you have to put all of that energy into the system somewhere — ideally from solar or wind or nukes or something.

Yes.Hydrogenate CO2 to methanol with electrolytic hydrogen produced from clean electricity [1]. Reform methanol to hydrocarbons [2] that can burn in existing engines. (Or burn methanol itself in slightly modified engines. This offers somewhat lower energy density per tankful of fuel, higher total efficiency from electricity-to-motion.)Synthetic fuel makes sense for fueling aircraft, rockets, long distance shipping, collectible historic cars, and other niches. It doesn't make sense for

We've been synthesizing one liquid hydrocarbon fuel for thousands of years; ethanol is pretty similar to jet fuel in energy density and combustion. I think the possibility that in the future we'll have cheap solar/wind grid power and use that to produce ethanol, rather than charge batteries, is more likely than people think. Ethanol production isn't terribly efficient, but if your input power is sustainable it doesn't really matter.

It takes a lot of energy to pull CO2 from the air since it is only 400ppm. It also takes energy to make hydrocarbons. This means they will be really expensive. They might be used for classic cars but can’t replace fossil fuels.Hydrogen or ammonia have advantages that can be made from water and nitrogen. Ammonia may be good for ships and planes since can be liquid at cold temps. But can’t substitute in cars.