FAQs | Commonly Asked Questions about AFS and the process

Some people may question AFS's assumptions and the validity of the business case. Of course we cannot predict the future, but our business plan is adaptable and will still be valid and profitable. AFS is developing 3 key areas of technology:

A. Capture of CO2 from the air and release as a concentrated gas

B. Hydrogen production by electrolysis of water using electricity

C. Improved synthesis of liquid fuels from mixtures of gases including carbon dioxide

These technologies will be valuable even if some of the assumptions turn out to be false. Below are some questions and answers related to all the above assumptions.

Question: What if there is no shortage of oil? The conversion of coal and gas to liquid fuels is well established. Peak coal and gas are decades away. Furthermore, lots of shale gas has been discovered recently. There is no shortage of fossil fuels.

Answer: Even if this is true, we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. The danger of runaway greenhouse effect is also a real one. The emission of carbon dioxide from transport on its own is enough to exceed the allowable emissions. Therefore the ability to capture CO2 from the air is a very useful and valuable technology.

Question: Surely it makes sense to use renewable energy for electricity generation, freeing up coal and gas for conversion to liquid fuels?

Answer: Yes, renewable energy should be used to displace fossil-fuelled generation wherever practical. However, the costs of grid reinforcement, for example from the North of Scotland to London, would be about £500/kW. In contrast, we believe that we can install electrolysers for much less than this. Some say that electrolysers can be manufactured for only £75/kW. Even if this number is over-ambitious, there is certainly scope to greatly reduce the cost of electrolysers by mass production. Furthermore, if the UK is to meet its promised reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 80%, all sectors of the economy must drastically cut emissions. This implies a much greater deployment of low-carbon energy supply. For the UK this means wind power and nuclear power. The low-carbon electricity supply will then exceed electricity demand alone, requiring transfer of energy from the electricity sector to the transport, heating and industrial sectors. This includes the production of hydrogen by electrolysis.

Question: Surely it is easier to develop novel biomass technologies like algae? Why can't the UK just import a lot of biomass?

Answer: Because dedicated biomass competes with food production and bio-diverse ecosystems for fertile land and fresh water. The extremely high growth rates claimed for algae are only achievable in special conditions of abundant fertiliser and concentrated CO2 supply. In order to supply this CO2 sustainably, air capture of CO2 will be required. Even the synthetic nitrogen-rich fertiliser requires hydrogen to fix the nitrogen via the Haber process, and the conversion of biomass to liquid fuels requires fuel synthesis technology. These are precisely compatible with technologies that AFS is developing!

In fact, the conversion of biomass to liquid fuels can also be done more effectively and efficiently with the help of added hydrogen. Much more fuel can be made from a given amount of biomass by adding hydrogen than by simple gasification. The added hydrogen gives a better ratio of hydrogen to carbon going into a Fischer-Tropsch or methanol reactor.

Question: Electrical and hydrogen technologies are improving all the time. Do we need synthetic hydrocarbon fuels?

Answer: Yes, it is very unlikely that there will ever be a long-haul electric or hydrogen-fuelled plane. That's why our primary technology focus is aviation. Electricity is also very difficult and expensive to store. In order to decarbonise the UK, we shall have to rely on lots of wind power but wind power varies from day to day, week to week and season to season. Even hydrogen is difficult to store in large amounts. If the hydrogen is stored by combining it with a source of carbon (CO2 from the air), it is much easier to store.

Question: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is already being done as part of enhanced oil recovery. All the experts say it is practical and safe. Some gas deposits contain large amounts of CO2 that has been trapped safely underground for millions of years. Why not just sequester the CO2?

Answer: Even if CCS is practical and affordable, it will take about a decade to do in useful amounts. In any case, the emissions from small and mobile sources such as transport cannot be captured. Our key technology of air capture of CO2 will be still be very valuable and needed in combination with CCS. It might be needed to avoid runaway climate change.

Question: What if wind power deployment stalls in the UK? Where does that leave AFS?

Answer: AFS works equally well on nuclear powered electricity or any other form of renewable energy. As for continued use of fossil fuels, the UK is fast running out of economically extractable coal, oil and gas. If it is to have secure and affordable supplies of energy, without risking a severe trade imbalance as the prices of imported fuels go up, the UK must turn to nuclear and/or renewable power for the majority of its energy.

Question: Why not just use CO2 captured from fossil fuel combustion?

Answer: Because this is not sustainable. As long as there is a net flow of carbon from the ground to the air, the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere and oceans will increase with all the climate change and ocean acidification problems that this would cause. There is little point in burning fossil for stationary energy uses (for example electricity generation) while also reducing that CO2 back to fuel; that would be very wasteful of energy. In the short term, as a stop gap, some companies and countries may choose to carry out air capture of CO2 for the purposes of CCS while also continuing to burn fossil fuels. This is a second-best, emergency option, but would nevertheless make our technology valuable.

Question: What happens if ROCs and RTFO incentives are disallowed for AFS fuel?

Answer: This might delay the deployment of AFS at large scale but will not stop it. When electrolysers have been made much cheaper, the major part of AFS's costs will be the cost of the electricity. Provided the carbon costs of fossil fuels are included somehow in their use (which Governments must do to meet their carbon reduction targets), AFS expects to be able to make fuel more cheaply than the fossil equivalent, especially on days and in seasons when electricity is relatively cheap and abundant.