Account Information

  • My Account

    Manage all your subscriptions, update your address, email preferences and change your password.

  • Help Center

    Get answers to common service questions, ask the analyst or contact our customer service department.

  • My Stock Talk Profile

    Update your stock talk name and/or picture.


Get rich from the world’s most BORING stocks

Get rich from the world's most BORING stocksWhen you buy these dependable Steady Eddies, you’ll see why “boring is beautiful.” You’ll fall in love with the 39 “stodgy” stocks currently in my portfolio… because they’ve racked up an average gain of 455%. That’s enough to turn $10,000 into a staggering $55,500! These “yawners” can slam the door on your money worries. Click here to get started now.


Investors Beware of Fuel from Thin Air

By Robert Rapier on October 31, 2012

Last week a British company called Air Fuel Synthesis (AFS) made a startling announcement: They were producing gasoline from thin air. The media predictably lapped up this story, with one media outlet proclaiming it “the holy grail of the emerging green economy” and another (falsely) claiming that burning the fuel produces “no emissions whatsoever.”

AFS CEO Peter Harrison stated that the process could be commercialized by 2014, “provided we can get the funding going.” Since the company is actively seeking investors, it is important that potential investors understand certain caveats associated with this technology.

Many companies have made these sorts of extraordinary claims in the past only to fall short, consuming taxpayer dollars and private investments in the process. Thus, it is always important to be skeptical. The most basic due diligence starts with the simple adage: If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

This technology certainly looks too good to be true, so what is the real story?

A company spokesman explained: “We haven’t broken the Second Law of Thermodynamics or anything. We take carbon, we combine it with hydrogen, put it in a reactor to make methanol, and then we take the methanol and put that in another reactor to make petrol. The processes of making synthetic petrol from carbon are well known and have been around for many, many years. The Germans were doing it during the Second World War. The South Africans were doing it during the apartheid years. But they were taking their carbon source from coal. We’re taking our carbon source from the atmosphere.”

Is such a process technically viable? Yes, the process is indeed technically viable. In fact, one could take the same ingredients of air and water and make an incredible variety of things. Air and water could be used to make acetaminophen, insulin, clothing, carpet, or plastics — because all of the required atoms for these materials are contained in air and water.

But none of the media stories I saw highlighted a very basic problem. As the AFS spokesman indicated, the Germans used — and Sasol (NYSE: SSL) continues to use — coal as a source of carbon for production of liquid fuels via a process called Fischer-Tropsch. AFS is using carbon dioxide as their source of carbon to produce liquid fuels, albeit by a very different process.

Consider the difference between coal and carbon dioxide. Coal is an energy-rich fuel, and carbon dioxide is the product of combusting a fuel. A consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics mentioned by the AFS spokesman is that it will always require more energy to convert carbon dioxide (or water) into a fuel than you can obtain by burning that fuel. In other words, this process necessarily consumes more energy than it creates. This is the same sort of reason that it is technically feasible to fuel a car with water, but you will always require external energy inputs to do so.

To illustrate the problem, imagine for a moment that the output of their process is connected to the input. They could burn the gasoline to produce carbon dioxide that is fed back into the process to produce more gasoline. But the only way such a process can run is to input large sums of external energy into the process. To produce 1 BTU of gasoline from carbon dioxide will always require the input of more than 1 BTU of external energy, and quite possibly far more than 1 BTU.

On the other hand, there are some circumstances in which a process that is essentially an “energy sink” could be attractive. After all, photosynthesis is an extremely inefficient process, but it is driven by abundant and free solar energy. Thus, one might envision using excess solar power at the peak of the day as a process input if the solar power can’t otherwise be used.

As the process is currently configured, it uses electricity from the grid (which means it is primarily enabled by fossil fuels). Renewable electricity is generally not cheap, so coupling the process to renewable inputs will likely make the process more expensive. Add in the energy sink aspect, and the cost of the fuel produced by this process will almost certainly be several multiples of current petroleum-derived fuels.

What about the claim that burning the fuel produces no emissions? That claim results from a misunderstanding of what it means to be a carbon-neutral fuel. Extracting carbon dioxide from the air to produce fuel could be carbon neutral — if the power inputs were renewable. In that case, the carbon still produces emissions when it is combusted, but they are equivalent to the carbon that was removed from the atmosphere. That is what it means to be carbon neutral, but it does not mean the fuel produces no emissions.

So, while this process does not appear to be a scam, it is unlikely to be economical any time soon. It is of major scientific interest, to be certain. But it is more of a science project at this point. And it is probably many years away from being a suitable investment.

You might also enjoy…


12 Stocks Virtually Guaranteed to Go Up in 2018

You may not believe it, but I have a calendar in my hands right now that tells me the exact date and time when a few stock are practically guaranteed to go up. 

Twelve of them, in fact.

And if you were to invest in them following the simple buy and sell instructions found in this calendar…

You could be making $1,181… $11,814…. and as much as $190,916 more than by using a “buy-and-hold” strategy.

And here’s the best part…

I’m giving away a few copies of this calendar to interested investors (First come, first served).

With this calendar, you could get higher profits with less risk.

Click here to get the full story, and to claim your copy.

Stock Talk — Post a comment Comment Guidelines

Our Stock Talk section is reserved for productive dialogue pertaining to the content and portfolio recommendations of this service. We reserve the right to remove any comments we feel do not benefit other readers. If you have a general investment comment not related to this article, please post to our Stock Talk page. If you have a personal question about your subscription or need technical help, please contact our customer service team. And if you have any success stories to share with our analysts, they’re always happy to hear them. Note that we may use your kind words in our promotional materials. Thank you.

You must be logged in to post to Stock Talk OR create an account.

Create a new Investing Daily account

  • - OR -

* Investing Daily will use any information you provide in a manner consistent with our Privacy Policy. Your email address is used for account verification and will remain private.

Stock Talk

  1. avatar
    Randall Reply November 7, 2012 at 2:34 PM EDT

    The fact that more energy had to be put in than you’d get out is extremely irrelevant. Any process tht converts one form of energy to another is always associated with some kind of loss.

    • avatar
      Robert Rapier Reply November 16, 2012 at 11:41 PM EDT

      Randall, this is not accurate. You are confusing a process efficiency with an energy return. It is true that the efficiency of a process that converts energy will be less than 100%. However, the amount of energy that is actually consumed needs to be either much less or of an inferior quality in order to make a process viable. That is not the case here. You will necessarily CONSUME more energy in this process than you will produce. That is an important distinction.

  2. avatar
    Sarah Hodges Reply November 3, 2012 at 9:20 PM EDT

    Thank you for this explanation. I too felt that these claims going around the net this past week were too good to be true. You have helped me sort through elements which are not easy to understand. 🙂

    Sarah Hodges