The truth about carbon neutral fuels
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июн 2024
- The car industry is trying to save the combustion engine. Their best bet: synthetic fuels. They're hailed as being carbon neutral and the quickest way to get old cars off fossil fuels. Sounds great? Well, if you look closer, synthetic fuels are the worst way to decarbonize individual transport.
Reporter: Kai Steinecke
Video Editor: Nils Reinecke
Supervising Editor: Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our channel explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
#PlanetA #eFuel #ClimateChange
Read More:
Overall assessment of eFuels: www.agora-energiewende.de/fil...
Efficiency of eFuels: www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Potential risks of hydrogen-based e-fuels in climate change mititgation www.nature.com/articles/s4155...
Costs of eFuels: theicct.org/sites/default/fil...
The energy density advantage: royalsociety.org/-/media/poli...
Special Thanks to Severin Hänggi and Roland Dittmeyer for their valuable insight to eFuel production and efficiency.
Chapters:
0:00 The Promise
0:39 Producing eFuels
1:59 Cost Problem
2:55 Competition for Renewable Energy
4:43 eFuel’s Inefficiency
6:42 Little Availability
7:17 Application Areas
8:48 Conclusion
What do you think, what fuel will your car run on in future?
Potentially methane.
If not then electric but I see bolth hydrogen methane and electric being the future for a little while.
Nuclear batteries, the most energy dense method to power vehicles once we successfully achieve direct thermo-electric conversion in a plausible efficiency ratio.
Elon Musk's hair gel
You said e fuel is a bridge, but a bridge to what??
Flintstone-power or no private car, maybe rental if needed and other wise walking bike and public transport.
As a car enthusiast, I want to see Efuels become successful and come into the market to keep my passion alive. I want to be able to take EV truck and tow my race car to the track and fill it up with Efuel and go racing on the weekends. I want to commute with my EV to work then take my classic car out for a cruise. I can see Efuel and EV tech working as a partnership not as a one or the other option.
Efuels already exist, their biggest barrier is making them cheaper and produce them in a large scale. So if what you want is being able to use them in your expensive Ferrari on a racing track, then we are already there. The mony that's being spent to scale their production and make them cheaper should be spent in better places.
Yea, combustion engines and electric motors should live integrated with each other because of this
Yes I agree with it so we still have Internal combustion Engine because of this synthetic ⛽️
Yes, please try and convince other car lovers that nice cars and a sustainable future can indeed live in unison
Exactly
I work on a farm, and synthetic fuel represents the only feasible way that our equipment could be carbon neutral. Batteries are too heavy and expensive, and hydrogen power undeveloped both in technology and infrastructure. Meanwhile, Carbon Engineering has been producing carbon neutral diesel since 2017. This technology could be gradually integrated into existing fuel systems, eventually reducing pollution from our equipment to zero in a manner that wouldn’t completely bankrupt our farm. So, a yay from me for synthetic fuels in regards to heavy equipment.
Bless you bless the farmers ✊🏻
Listen to the whole video. Synthetic fuel still requires hydrogen combined with CO2 from gas or biomass which sounds a lot like brown hydrogen, a product of coal gasification. The electrolysis of blue hydrogen from water is too energy intensive to be profitable. Green hydrogen is produced from methane. I still have high hopes for ammonia as fuel even though SpaceX uses methane
At $10 a liter it will still bankrupt your farm.
@@luislongoria6621 hydrogen can be produced cheaply depending in where you are a solar farm in north africa to power a hydrogen plant would be ideal
Video or it didn't happen
I get sick of having to repeat this - we need ALL of it! All the battery tech, wind, solar of various kinds, compressed air, pumped hydro, all the biofuels that don't compete for food production or forests, and even the controversial one - nuclear. People don't seem to be able to process the magnitude of what we need to do, and the fact that it really doesn't matter how much we spend, anything is worth it!
I think we should not regard the demand as a given, and then try to meet the demand it at all costs. The demand is huge, and ever growing, even the most sustainable technology becomes unsustainable if you scale it up far enough, and I think we may already be beyond the point at which any achievable technology can meet our massive demand in a sustainable way before all goes to shit.
Thank you! i keep thinking that as well, it puzzles me that still people make ideological and political choices to impose "the one and only solution" when research in both battery, hydrogen and e-fuels (and even more, who knows!) can be optimal for cars, and both renewables and nuclear (even hydrogen for energy storage and heating instead of methane!) can help for decarbonizing energy production?
Exactly, all of these need to be implemented on a large scale (although some more than others), and as you said nuclear is controversial but fission and fusion if we can soon manage it have such a large potential to reduce carbon emissions. The positives outweigh the negatives hugely, and they will only get safer and more efficient.
Saying we need all of the solutions skips over the fact that there are plenty off plain bad solutions being proposed.
With finite resources, and each government subsidy only spendable once. We will need to make choices.
Here there's a proposal to make green electricity. Then turn that into hydrogen (at a great loss) because it can't get hooked up to a grid.
That grid inability should be reviewed carefully before deeming the next step viable.
Then this hydrogen gets turned into hydrocarbons (at another great loss). This might make sense, but only if that hydrogen can't be used directly. Is this so? Or does it merely serve the interest of the car manufacturers?
@@sigi9669 we need to spend money researching and developing, to make sure that we have potential solutions for all the uses we currently have for fossil fuels. The massive deployment of some of these might indeed not make sense. Sure. But there are breakthroughs in areas we weren't expecting, so some of these solutions that didn't look like they they made sense suddenly make huge sense.
And the idea that we don't have enough money to do this kind of research is deeply disingenuous. We can spray helicopter money on the masses to stimulate the economy, we can pump hundreds of billions of additional money into the military (like Germany has just done) and we can spray TRILLIONS onto the financial markets to keep the bubble going for just a few more years. And we don't have single digit billions for government research labs? Pah-lease!
Oh yes, creating synthetic fuels with 100% renewables makes absolutely perfect sense for ships and large planes! Those will still take a long time to electrify. Although we've almost cracked the "excellent electric passenger car", there's still a huge demand for cheap used cars, and the EV's just aren't there yet. Not to mention commercial large vehicles. We need a plethora of parallel solutions to sustainability, so this could indeed be a important piece of that puzzle.
Agreed. I’ve actually been surprised by some articles about electric planes recently so I’m wondering if we’re headed towards having electric planes for
You understand we need much more renewables to Power all that when Theres Not at all Sure we will have the renewables For every sector of the Economy?
planes yes, using it with ships does not make sense. They dont really need the density, they just need the cheapest option
Just use the hydrogen in the plane directly, at an efficiency of 30%+ instead of 8-18%. Or wait 5 years for insanely better batteries (due to all the funding and R&D now going into them) which will make all these questions redundant, by running the electric motor directly at an efficiency of 94-96%.
Cheap and used electric cars will come automatically when the new ones are used
e-fuels are the only viable solution for long haul aviation. That in itself is reason enough to develop the technology.
Or green crude. Algal crude oil. Much cheaper, more scaleable, uses similar refinement process to black crude, and almost carbon neutral. *Almost* just because of thermodynamics.
Even the E-fuel seen in the video suffers at the hands of thermodynamics.
They're equivalent in their emissions and potential uses, but algal crude oil is more scalable.
And sports cars, they shouldn't die :)
Amen brother. E-kerosene would work well for long haul jet planes. Maybe, e-kerosene could be run in a kerosene fuel cell (kerosene based fuel cells were developed in the mid-2010s), which could power propellers, if one wants a quieter plane that runs off of clean synthetic kerosene.
V12 Murcie bby!
I say "yay" to eFuels. For aviation, there is really no eco alternative. Basically all energy comes from the sun, and "fuels" are really just batteries to store it.
I am fairly sceptical. Seems like a massive waste of resources. Although more or less carbon neutral, there is still the combustion process which pollutes at least a little. Without rethinking our consumption habits, non of these new technologies will really be viable
The nice thing is, that efuels are completely chemically homogeneous. Theres no sulfur etc in there which means that there will be only CO2 and NOx emissions. We are able to reufe the CO2, so its not big deal.
What if we just overproduce alot of nuclear energy and just absorb the energy spikes with carbon capture and the production of e-fuels. Then we also don't need lithium ion energy storage.
@@durschfalltv7505 This would be hugely expensive, and wouldn't solve the problems of air pollution from combustion engines and noise pollution.
@@incognitotorpedo42 well it would. since e-fuels burn cleanly
@@incognitotorpedo42 Well you can use e-fuels in a fuel cell.
When we talk about synthetic you also have to think about the environmental impact other energy sources have. The destruction we cause while mining for lithium is a serious problem that doesn't exist with synthetic fuel.
What about brine from desalination
Do you even know what other uses for lithium their are in our society? Hint we use a lot of it for things outside of battery production.
And we can already source it from sea water desalinisation plants. And geo thermal brine like the salton sea bill gates backed project. 👍🏻
Same as cobalt, nobody gave a crap when the ice industry until late 2019 used the most cobalt overall.
Just like nobody seems to care that the fossil fuel industry is still the #2 consumer of cobalt in the world.
Or that the metallurgy industry is the #3 consumer of cobalt with stainless steel using a lot of it per ton.
Or how Apple actually in an average year consumes more cobalt than tesla has in its entire existence so far.
Funny how big money funded fud causes people to exclaim they care about issues they've been scared into caring about. 🤔
Compared to the worldwide damage caused by greenhouse gases, any local damage from lithium mining is a trivial drop in the bucket. The creation of synthetic fuels is a complex chemical process, and will have its own environmental costs, such as the massive consumption of energy they require, or the NOx and particulate emissions and noise pollution that result from their use.
Yeah and Disposable process.... There are no effect way to recycle Lithium effectively
@@incognitotorpedo42 Classic western thinking, exploit poor nations for west's profit 😑 would you like to sacrifice your life for lithium extraction ?
It's easy to say that those people should sacrifice them than doing it with you..... 😑
Glad that you came back to the efficiency of the electrolysis process since that was my first thought when you mentioned it in the beginning of the video.
Sounds like these fuels might end up useful in some niche uses, but us normal citizens should still expect public transportation, bicycling, walking, and EVs to make up the majority of our transportation.
Realistically EV's seem to be the best path forward. I think public transportation is great but you need to have such an interconnected network of travel options to make people even consider it.
There is nowhere near enough infrastructure to support EVs as a solution.
Very much like there no evidence to support the gas that plants breathe is somehow bad and has been at far higher levels in the past.
@@398paul There's not enough infrastructure yet, just as there wasn't enough infrastructure for gas at one point.
@@GoGreenPost That evolved naturally as it was a better solution which people wanted. This is being forced upon us with no benefits at all for anyone other than the people receiving the massive subsidies in support to support models which have been wrong for at least 50 years.
@@398paul There are many people that want electric vehicles and there are tons of benefits of them. Electric cars are an important part of driverless cars, although not required. Electric cars also drive different than gas cars, which many prefer. This is all without mentioning the fact that ICE cars do produce emissions with known human and environmental health issues. Plus, look at whats happening with gas prices right now. You can be much more energy independent as a nation and as an individual with electric cars.
Excelent vídeo! I would give a nay. I’d rather go for making biomethane from human poop. It’s easy to convert gasoline combustion engines into gas and we solve the sewage problem and at the same time we can make fertilizers.
Oh please don't :D
I agree and human waste is already used as fertiliser.
Absolutely! Not only from human poop, but from livestock poop and all other compost. Compared to aerobic (normal) composting, anaerobic composting yields a more nitrogen-rich fertilizer as well as producing methane.
I'd go with yay, but not as a bridge technology for cars. Rather, only for applications such as ships and planes like what has been said in the video
There isn't enough human poop to power all the cars
Let's not forget about mining raw materials needed to make batteries for EVs on a colossal scale. Also, do the power grid networks really have the capability to handle the load when billions of people are charging their cars?
Here in Sweden we have HVO100 or XLT, which is a renewable diesel made of rest products from crop and animal fats. It’s made from 99,2% renewable resources. It’s more expensive then regular diesel by about 0,5$ per liter. Which seemes to be the price constant weirdly enough. 3 dollars per liter for HVO100 and 2,67$ per liter for regular diesel.
The processing technic is called ”NEXBTL“
Edit: For every 1,000,000L of HVO100 you make 10% of tCO₂eq
For instance 1,000,000 L regular diesel makes ≈ 3000 tCO₂eq
HVO100 makes 300 tCO₂eq.
Don’t know how energy efficient it is as you put in 100% how many % you get out.
We also have this fuel in the United States only we call it biodiesel and it is primarily used cooking oil. However, the pilot program is facing serious issues with the theft of used cooking oils near the refinery
In India the biomass is used for making fuel gas (Indian cities have natural gas based buses and cooking gas for home)
The residual matter is sold as manure.
There's a project at a farmer market which collects waste from the market and uses the gas to cook food at the cafeteria, they make money from the cafeteria and manure sale
Renewables are produced when the sun shines and when theres wind. To use 100% renewables we need massive amounts of energy storage. e-fuels can enable the use of renewables by providing part of the energy storage needed.
You did not mention the massive amount of CO2 needed to make vehicle batteries, and the electricity to fuel them. This offsets almost all gains overs ICEs
It doesn't offset the gains of EVs completely. It's true, that it takes awhile for EVs to actually be more co2 friendly, than combustion engines with regular fuel, because of the production of the batterie. But over the whole lifecycle of a car they are better for the environment.
@@Franko384 Depends, if the power plant is fueled by coal or natural gas, EVs never catch up. Just power the car on compressed natural gas or compressed methane made from the coal.
I don't think we can afford a "one solution for all applications" approach anymore, as we had with fosil fuels for so long.
We need to do everything possible.
Some cars will be electric, but we don't know yet the batery tech capacity we have. How many can we sustain on current battery tech before we run out of materials. And many industrial as well military gear will not be able to go full battery.
Same with planes and ships. We need diverse solutions for everything. And yes the costs that will come with it.
Please note, we do not use fosil fuels because of the greatnes of its smell or enviroment, but because they are STILL so dirt cheap, compared to anything.
Also the really big key word is energy storage. We can store synthetic fuels easily and in existing fuel storage. Stop looking at fuel as fuel. but Energy. Bateries are a fast storage, great for parts of our solution, but low density and expencive to isntall and maintain. A huge fuel depo can have cheap storage for years in case of global fluctuations and other crisis. All is energy, the de facto currency of the world. Everything else is paper to help trade energy.
This synthetic tech will need to be funded and further developed, even if most car owners wont afford the fuel cost. But other applications will need it. Out storage will need it. Hopefully we will find a more efficient process than than decomposition and resynthesis.
It's not a "bridge-technology", but part of the diverse long term solution.
To be honest, the point being made about cost is quite misleading. The main contributor to the cost of e-fuels is electrolyzed hydrogen -- and we already know we will need hydrogen for seasonal buffering in a wind- and solar-heavy power grid. So even if ICEs went away (which is a big if at a global level, considering the cost and material requirements of Li-ion batteries when multiplied by hundreds of millions of automobiles), it stands to reason that the energy density and stability of synthetic fuels will make us pay the cost, whatever it ends up being, as there's really no alternative. BEVs won't cut it.
Yea, I do get annoyed every time I see someone compare the cost of an R&D product against the cost of a product which already has a built out infrastructure and has been refined for 100+ years.
Here in Denmark we have the project Power to X. It takes excess green energy from when it's a very windy day for example, and all the power needs have been met, it takes that excess energy and makes it into e-fuel, so you can store that excess energy that would othervise have been lost.
That is great. What are they doing with the e-fuel? It would be good if a company like Maersk could use e-fuels in their ships. Maersk is one of the biggest polluters in Denmark.
@@DanielBrklyn Maersk will indeed be one of the consumers - they are co-investors in the project.
@@DanielBrklyn Maersk is moving towards NH3 (a different efuel) container ships. IIRC they no longer buy fossile fuel ships, but obviously you have countless of older ships that are still on fossile fuels.
Best option is to reduce consumption- improve public transport instead
This is the only solution but places like u.s is ran by people with brains smoother than windshield
@@ricechido1089 Only people with brains smoother than a windshield think producing effective public transportation for a country double the size of Europe (Not counting Russia) is an easy task. Especially for more rural and spread out parts of the country, where public transportation options would be very limited.
Agreed. I’m really happy that my city has some massive investments in the public transportation currently in the works. Looking forward to the day that we’re able to downgrade to a single car family.
We are going to have to face the reality that de-groth of our energy usage is inevitable. The capitalist will never allow that, so it will be forced upon us by cataclysm. I'm not being hopeless or pessimistic, I am simply accepting the grief.
Agreed. The human enterprise has grown far to big for this planet. We have to look at the demand, which is simply too big. Too many people consuming too much. An economy that has to grow indefinitely to sustain itself, which is impossible on a finite planet. Technology is not the solution to keep up with an ever growing demand in a sustainable way. We should embrace degrowth right now, but we will not, because the cost is unacceptable at this point. Nature will do it for us at even greater cost, but then will have no choice but to accept it.
@@cmonc1984 Extremely well said!
Exactly, we had decades to do something And for decades capitalist knew about climate change and refuse to do anything. Especially climate change benefits them significantly which is a bigger issue for us.
Plus in order to combat climate change you have to destroy capitalism
@@ricechido1089 I guess we must forgive ourselves because the instinct of the hive mind upon finding abundant resource is to propagate. In less than 200 years we went from one billion to eight billion humans worldwide. Finding hydrocarbons was a similar equivalent of ants finding a big bag of sugar outside their hill. We made the mistake of thinking we were something more than ants and the sugar is waning.
@@TennesseeJed Yes, I totally agree. We have long thought of ourselves of being above other animal species, but in many ways we are no different, and our fate will be no different from other plague animals. So I think it is and always has been inevitable. It's quite amazing some individuals can actually more or less understand what is happening, which may distinguish is from other species, but to prevent it from happening is simply a bridge too far. I hope some day a wiser species evolves, perhaps from us, that is also capable of regulating itself.
It is actually easy to deploy into market. Government just needs to regulate incremental mix of e-fuel into regular fuels. It wouldn’t harm current cars and opens a development window for perfection in 10-20 years.
The fastest way to ramp up the production of renewable energy from intermittent sources is probably by pairing those energy-capture facilities directly with fuel production or other chemical synthesis facilities on a micro-grid. That way you don't need to worry about grid upgrades or energy generation contracts, and the fuel production facilities can be designed with an accurate estimate of the amount and costs of the energy they are getting.
By not depending on regulated energy from a grid they can take advantage of the cheapness of the mostly unregulated energy being produced by these intermittent sources by ramping production to match their energy supply.
Efficiency is the key to CO2 reduction, no matter which energy consumer we're using.
Exactly, and electric vehicles aren’t really climate friendly…
Yes but as the siemens guy pointed out, if you wouldn't use the wind in chile anyways, the efficiency is neglectable as no use is like 0% efficiency.
Pretty simple math here. Say a Model 3 consumes 18Wh/km
0.18kWh/km x 200'000 km = 36000 kWh
Diesel Engine the most efficient form of ICE
1 Liter Diesel = 10.56 kWh
Modern Diesel Engine avg. 5.5 L/100km
5.5 x 10.56 / 100 = 0.5808 kWh/km
0.5808 kWh x 200'000km = 116'160 kWh
In no scenario is an electric vehicle not more efficient. Diesel uses 80'000 kWh more than an EV.
In Liters of Diesel that is 27'272 Liters more than an EV.
Which is roughly at a 50 Liter Tank, 545 Full tanks!
In no logic or statistic does it require that much energy to produce a 600kg Battery.
Also let's consider Diesel not just coming out of the Fuel pump, but actually having to be pumped out of the ground, transported refined and pumped again. In no way is that not costing 0 Energy to do that. So might aswell add some more diesel to that 27'272 liters diffrence already at hand.
Agreed and lugging a metric ton of batteries around is not very efficient.
Actually reduction of consumption is the key to CO2 reduction, but it seems that we aren't willing to go there yet
I am interested in building cars and when I heard of the phase out of combustion engines I felt like my dreams were being crashed I don’t care whether combustion engines are slower than EVs I just love combustion engines the sounds they make and the great way it brings people together during builds. I really hope synthetic fuels become a thing I don’t mind driving an EV but I deffo wanna rock a combustion engine
While the video gives good insight into the topic, I think a large chunk of the answer was left out: the demand for vehicle miles driven goes up, as sprawling and suburbanization continues. Look to the Netherlands to see how every day transport can be made non car dependent. Look to Atlanta to see how it should not be done. We also need to make sure trains outcompete planes for most medium and long distance travel. We basically have all the tech we need already, we only need to prioritize and make sure the places we find ourselves living our lives in does not induce the need to fly halfway around the globe once a year, just to get a brake from it all.
It’s a great point I live in NZ which, like other new world countries is designed on a sprawling urban model of detached houses connected by roads that need cars and are not conducive to public transport, it’s almost like our towns were planned by the oil and automobile industry to build oil burning into the way we live, as I have understood politics better and the influence lobbyists have on our government it seems as though that’s exactly what has happened. I keep coming back to the realisation that we will not fix any of our big problems until we fix our democracy
Agreed. A key cornerstone to all future solutions will be densification of our housing along with a strong public transportation backbone.
Even so, there will still be SOME cars in that future so it does make sense to discuss what they’ll run on.
Good luck selling this here in the USA.
This synthetic fuel will be great for clasic and vintage vehicles people like me will still ride clasic bikes and synthetic is a great substitute to oil based fuel 👍
Yes I think its good idea so we still have ICE and We don't polluted the environment.
The low-hanging fruit for e-fuels is ammonia as it allows you to skip the carbon capture step, as such is pretty much the most efficient to produce. As for using it or synthetic hydrocarbons, they will probably make a bigger impact with powering industrial equipment or as a supplemental fuel, rather than the primary energy carrier for personal vehicles.
I am looking forward for the ‘use case’ of efuels for the classic car market. I see this as the potential way forward for this unique piece of automotive history.
Do you agree?
I want to see ICE performance vehicles available long into the future along with the millions we already have. They are a different beast to EVs entirely.
I'm confused... why make hydrogen, and then make fuel out of it? I thought that hydrogen was the energy dense solution. Or is the point that existing vehicles could use this stuff?
I was thinking the same, why add all the extra processes when the efficiency of synthetic fuels are not better
E-fuels are actually a lot more dense than hydrogen gas. In fact, it being a liquid rather than a gas makes it a _lot_ easier to work with.
I think E-fuels are the only real alternative to kerosene in airplanes for example. Hydrogen might work, but it might be too heavy to be practical.
And yes, cars can run efuels.
Porsche actually tested it in their GT3 performance car, and surprisingly performed really well. It will be usable on gasoline powered ICE's.
Not only this, but also think about the transportation. Hydrogen needs to be stored under insane pressure which brings not only the costs up but also the points of failure. E-Fuels can be stored and shipped just like normal fuels.
@@AykevanLaethem While true, I also think that's pretty much where the benefits stop. The siemens guy was just straight up lying when he said it's the only viable solution for planes AND shipping. Planes? Maybe. Shipping? Literally the one mode of transport where energy density brings the smallest benefit. Ships are 100% going to run on hydrogen.
I can not wait for this to power my V8!!! Sign me up!! You only touched on it but the speed of adoption that will be the advantage here not to mention the commonality with fuel for airplanes and ships. A fuel that can green the existing rolling stock of vehicles is what we really need.
There is not "one size fits all" for decarbonizing the grid... In the future there will be several alternative fuels, each targeting a specific application. So it's a YaY for me.
I think synthetic fuels will still have their place as a bridge. I'm still running my first car and have been for 7 years now. I don't expect to change car until it truly dies. I think it's important to note the carbon emissions used to create new EVs to replace current cars. Personally, I think it's better to run our old ICE cars until they truly die using eFuel rather than rushing to buy EVs which currently produce alot of carbon in their production, lifetime (assuming a large proportion of their energy comes from fossil fuel power plants) and their disposal (what are we going to do with all the dead batteries and their chemicals etc.?). I think the average consumer is going to be using ICE cars for the next 20 years at least.
It's nice that you covered synthetic e-fuels; however, why not discuss synthetic biofuels?
At less than half the cost of e-fuels, a great way to solve biomass disposal problems, plentiful and safe in intermediate forms like urea, as well as useful for other applications besides fuel, and much, much more energy efficient to produce, it seems a natural solution.
E-Fuel and/or methane conversion is the answer to the energy storage/battery problem.
Green energy such as solar and wind is unpredictable so a storage method is needed to store energy during high output or else the energy will go to waste, the trend is to use battery such as Lithium battery.
Compared to fuel, Battery has lower energy density, is bigger and more complicated than a simple fuel tank, it's performance also degrades over time, and to make the battery it requires rare earth metals which comes from mining the earth which produces a lot of waste and recycling will never recover 100% of the metal so additional mining is inevitable.
E-Fuel is basically just fuel so existing facility can be used with little modification, despite the loss from multiple conversion stages : Green energy>Hydrolysis+Carbon capture>H2+O2+CO2>Methanation/E-Fuel. The extra energy itself is still stored instead of being wasted, with carbon capture being powered by green energy it also offsets the fuel combustion and drives demand for more carbon capture which makes it profitable, it'll probably even drive people to burn coal just for more carbon ironically.
Sorry, but no.
If you ask me, this is the future: ruclips.net/video/Miysn2-fae4/видео.html
I agree. even if it´s less efficient it still solves the energy storage problem, you can use the surplus of power from solar panels during the day to produce it. At last, it doesn´t have to be efficient, it just has to be profitable. in Norway where wind energy costs 3 cents/kwh it can already be profitable, they said they can produce it for 2,30€ per litre, which is similar to what diesel costs in Germany right now
Small electric airplanes already exist and medium size ones are being designed. Short haul flights will be electric. And then there are also aluminum batteries, which have 10x the energy density of lithium ion batteries, but cannot be recharged so they have to be recycled once they're used, so longer haul flights could easily go electric as well.
Also, a power line is easier, cheaper, and more efficient to build, especially through rough terrain, than a road. The claim that they cannot use the wind power in Chile is a marketing technique for their technology.
Never heard of this Battery technology. The word recycling hurt though. Recycling also uses energy. I assume the aluminum would have to be melted and reassemled, in order to regain its properties. How much energy would that consume to recharging a lithium battery 10x?
Or easy way Plane and Trucks use efuls, Ships, Steel Production Hydrogen and everything else Electric
still all those aircrafts will be significantly slower than anything jet powered!
eFuels will be most likely a solution for a niche market. Ever thought how old (especially classic) cars with combustion engines will be moved once our emissions of carbon dioxide are that strict that you are not allowed to run those with regular fuel? Exactly like this. Planes and ships will profit from that as well, that's right. About the batteries in EVs: the production of them needs ressources like cobalt or lithium and the process to create the battery needs a lot of energy as well. On average a current EV needs around 8 to 8.5 years to be better for the climate than one with a combustion engine. I don't think our technology for batteries is quite good yet. The difference? Combustion engines are researched better and movement with electricity just started to be popular. Recycling of batteries might be a good idea, still needs research.
I believe there are some other issues as well: company cars are often replaced about every five years (and even less) - sure those cars are sold to others as well, but how about we stick to cars instead of replacing them every 5 years? This is an issue I see with the car industry in general: you don't want to have high milage due to the costs of repairs. Currently those are actually getting higher and higher (and that's not even the fault of the complexity or only partially).
I don't think we will rely only on ONE form of energy in the future. eFuels, electricity, hydrogen - these are options and we shouldn't just say that ONLY ONE of them is right. eFuels are expensive, no doubt and they "waste" energy. Actually you can use that wasted energy as well. Ever heard of the energy conservation law? Energy just changes into another form, in most cases thermal energy. Use this energy to heat up something and you won't "waste" that much energy anymore. That's how it is done with combustion engines in cars and that's how it can be done in general without "wasting" that much energy. We're still on a long road to real effinciency and just using different ressources our earth provides, doesn't make things that much better (in terms of batteries). Recycling is and will be a big topic in terms of ressources.
I know that it currently sounds like EVs are solving all of our problems regarding the emissions, but that won't happen all that fast. There's the factor mentioned with 29 % being regenerative energies, which isn't even one third, but the other is the production of the batteries. There is the need of more research in the topics of regenerative energies as well - with the current efficiency we won't be able to provide the energy we need to sustain ourselves in a "green way" (at least without using every inch available). Using wind has about 50 % efficiency, using sun currently 30 % (experimental ones have reached more than 40 though), run-of-the-river power plants up to 94 % (highly dependent on flow) and pumped-storage power plants have around 75 - 85 % of efficiency. These technologies can't be used just anywhere without losing much efficiency.
e-fuels may be carbon-neutral but still produce significant particulate and air pollution. They will always be super expensive due to the inherent overall low efficiency but will likely be used for planes and keeping classic vehicles on the road. Hydrogen fuel cells for shipping and maybe remote trains and some larger trucks. Batteries for everything else from Trucks down.
Good points, but where do we get the rare earth metals from? The UK alone would need over 40% of the worlds lithium to electrify out car 'fleet'
@@andygreen2765 How about using less cars (i.e. making changes that will enable that)?
@@dondoron5377 i don't think you can get rid of cars completely. although public transportation for high volume area is good but for low volume rural area is not that great as it usually carrying less passenger or possibly none. running a public transportation just for couple of people is generally more expensive than paving the road once. also you don't want to walk many kilometres after getting off the train when you're going to your destination right?
@@adiseagledostuff Yes, so we have to 1) stop allowing to build low volume rural areas and instead build old-style villages with a village center where the basic needs can be done by foot (side effect: less covering of soil) and b) stop incentivizing the use of cars in rural areas which makes public transport or car pools more attractive (e.g. in my country people get paid if they have to commute, making it attractive to move to rural areas where property prices are low). We live in a system that basically rewards egoistic people, this needs to stop.
@@andygreen2765 First I am am pretty sure your number is vastly incorrect. Lithium is not a rare earth element and is actually pretty common in the earth crust. Unfortunately is does not deposit in easy to use minerals like iron, so extraction is expensive. But there is definitely enough Lithium out there.
The obvious answer is that we have to reduce the number of cars dramatically which is easily possible if we wanted to (cars are mostly just parking). Then we can save us very expensive infrastructure to get all the lithium.
For current lithium ion technology cobalt is the bigger problem. But is also more easily replaceable.
If we were 100% renewable and have excess then I'd be all for it
What about Hydrogen or Ammonia Combustion engines?
Electric Public transportation >> Electric cars
It’s nice to see my masters thesis topic on display 😀
It's mentioned a bit, but this video almost misses perhaps the main place where e-fuels are useful: aviation. Batteries are not usable for airplanes except for very short distances (certainly not transatlantic). Hydrogen might work, but it's still a lot heavier than kerosene. And weight matters a lot in airplanes. The only real possibility of sustainable flying IMHO is e-fuels.
That said, I agree that e-fuels don't make a lot of sense for cars.
Also, adding lots of renewable energy to the grid and only producing e-fuels when energy is cheap (aka when there is more than necessary) might actually be a good way to stabilize the grid.
If a long winter blackout occurs in a land of electric cars most of the population will
perish in the freezing cold. The gas powered car that would provide cabin heat for
many days will not be there. The electric car could only supply heat for a short time
and would quickly discharge its battery making a trip to a shelter impossible.
Very interesting. I think the shipping/ air travel markets might see some use for this product. They’d have to work real hard to find new renewable energy sources tho!
Australia is an untapped resource for renewable energy atm, maybe we could see that market open up and provide more energy resources.
It frustrates me sometimes tha that Australia and the south western US both have massive potential for renewables…but both countries are so entrenched in their fossil fuel production that they’re not chasing renewables with as much vigor as they could.
As a total non-expert, I like the idea of e-fuels and I think they'll have their place in our future. People will keep being attracted to antiques. It's also much easier to store e-fuels than hydrogen, so I can see it being used in remote places or quick response. However, I think most things will run on batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Of course, I wish we will return to walkable and cyclable developments and use buses and trains as our primary transportation.
Not just planes and ships, but also trucks. Vehicles that need long travel at relatively low efficiency with lots of power have a hard time with batteries. They’re just not dense enough. That’s definitely trucks, at least long-haul trucks.
I think we should invest more on e-fuel
I fault the oil companies for not developing synthetic fuels. They have known the problems and have had the technology for almost 50 years.
@@stuarthirsch yeah it’s quite sad, but all they want is profit
the science and application of it is marvelous. . . but why does it feels like it is just a strategy of oil companies so that they won't be phased out.
I hope there will be some e-fuels for our oldtimers though.
They can't just end up gathering dust in some museum.
Absolutely true
Why not of course they can be museum pieces
The ultracompact Range Extender Engine combined with biofuels and e-fuels will be what saves the ICE. EV owners will realize that being able to use liquid fuels has many fringe benefits. Reducing gasoline use by 90% will be good enough for the environment and having a residual network of petroleum stations will make the transition easier for legacy vehicle owners.
That's a good plan in principle, but the vast majority of cars on the road have large engines and no battery. Range extenders, while they bring a lot of benefits, also bring a lot of costs, like complexity, maintenance burden, mass and volume consumption. The market seems to be voting for pure BEV over range extenders, at any rate.
This video didn’t talk about the cost and efficiency loss of transporting E-Fuels from these remote locations.
Best case scenario with E-Fuels is that you get a tiny fraction of a percent of the initial energy that went into the process at an astronomical cost. They aren’t even viable for aircraft or boats. Honestly, nuclear is more likely to be an option for boat transports and that isn’t remotely close to being a reality in the commercial world.
We will never have only one method of energy production.
Hydro and geothermal are pretty much maxed out with current technology; hydrogen is extremely energy intensive to produce and the problems with storage and transportation have not been effectively addressed yet, some W&S make sense, but it's too resource intensive and chaotic to ever be capable of doing the heavy lifting. FF has a lot of advantages, and that's why approximately 80% of our energy needs are currently met with this method. It's energy dense, high capacity factors, it's stable and easy to store where we want it until use. It's also dirty, and we should replace burning it for fuel as much as we can.
Nuclear power, however, requires a fraction of the resources of any alternative as well as being the safest and lowest environmental impact method available. We should be using it as much as possible.
Adding more Nuclear power plants would mean far less environmental impact than attempting replacing FF burning with other methods of energy production.
Without even factoring in the required backup, wind and solar use 100's of times more resources per unit of power production than NP does. That's 100's of times more mining, pollution, and waste, including toxic substances like mercury and cadmium that have half lives of forever and unlike used nuclear fuel are not safely contained. 100's of times more manufacturing and transportation that's done with FF, 100's of times more land and habitat loss.
Nuclear power is the safest method capable of meeting our energy needs
ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
And the fastest way to decarbonize.
How fast can we build clean energy per capita?
From @jmkorhonen & @Kaikenhuippu Climate Gamble: t.co/Z4bKDoy2AV
twitter.com/CC_NoThanks/status/1358287438091804673?s=19
How fast can we build clean energy per capita?
From @GrantChalmers t.co/J0Abtov19Q
scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/How_quickly_can_we_build_clean_energy%3F
Using NP, a reliable clean power source, negates any need for massive overbuild and backup. Which means way less resources are needed, which means it is a greener solution.
A huge problem with dilute intermittent power sources like Wind and Solar is the ridiculous amount of resources needed to produce such massive power generation and storage units. No matter how problematic one may think nuclear power may be (its not its been producing clean reliable power for more than six decades without effecting the climate or human health), the environmental devastation caused by attempting to replace FF at scale with any other available alternative far exceeds that.
m.ruclips.net/video/zc7rRPrA7rg/видео.html#dialog
When looked at in perspective, it's very clear that NP is the cleanest, safest, lowest environmental impact method of energy production available that is capable of meeting our energy needs.
We have to meet our energy needs regardless; I vote for doing so with the least harm possible.
www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Why-nuclear-is-an-environmentalists-story
What are your thoughts of meltdowns and getting rid of nuclear waste which can have a negative impact on the environment and our lives? There has a be a way to recycle that waste to produce batteries and consumer products. Plus, a smaller and very compact power plants instead of relying on dangerous big nuclear plants.
I knew nothing about this, now I feel I know quite a bit. Very comprehensive vid. Thank you
Agree, probably not a viable solution for the ICU mass market but I’m sure there are some car enthusiasts out there who will be happy to pay a premium to keep their petrol cars running when they’d otherwise be banned. And then there is aviation of course so I think developing efuels is well worth a shot.
NOx emissions were not mentioned in the video, but I assume that burning these fuels still emit them. They are not as significant when it comes to greenhouse effect (AFAIK), but they reduce the air quality, especially in cities.
Presumably well off enthusiasts while the unwashed masses wait for their EVs to charge
It's not like everyone will be driving evs by 2050. I'm not switching to evs until we get 50miles to the kw and least 500 miles in real life driving range. If that's not possible oh well, than I won't make the switch
Solar cells in the early 90s was also very expensive, almost the same price as gold back then
In 2035 a car from to day is 12 years old so when e fuel is at a low price almost all non electric cars are gone
01:47 my Chemistry teacher would have gone ballistic if we ever shoved our nose into a container with chemicals like that
I glad this video discusses needing to decarbonize the grids. My question though is why does everyone talk about renewable energies as if they themselves are sustainable and not carbon intensive to produce. Everyone loves to point out that solar panels and wind turbines are great sources which I also believe, but everyone ignores all of the nasty issues with sourcing their materials and the amounts of carbon emitted in their production. It's always end use numbers not overall net numbers in a life cycle given. Valid question would be how long would it take at the normal 18% efficiency of a solar panel before it negated the co2 used to produce it?
Between 1-3 years depending on location. Lifetime > 25 years.
More of these please.
IC engines are tried and tested technology that needs to be improved further and further
E-fuels or algae based fuels are really the only viable energy, reasonably environmentally friendly substitute for natural gas, propane, gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel. Hydrogen is very difficult and expensive to deal with.
Usually these solutions looks like puzzling to be implemented, but it's more about good will and market change than it looks like. So, there is a lot of economic interest involved, where no one wants to lose money, even if it causes damage to the environment.
eFuel does imply energy storage.
So if we think of it a a battery and energy.
They could also be the buffer for the intermittent nature of wind and solar, like natural gas power plants are now.
The ultimate bridge immediately needed is EV retrofit kits for existing ICE vehicles. Batteries that aren’t as destructive as Lithium based ones
So essentially the problem is how much renewable electricity we have. I like how we don’t talk about zero point energy. That is just in the air.
Battery powered vehicles use a huge amount of energy in their production, so much do that you need to drive over 100000kmd to break even with petrol powered cars.
On top of that, battery powered cars have low range, are heavy and take a very long time to refuel.
Efuels definitely have a future but it has to be a globally mandated solution backed by governments around the world that would boost the economies of some of the poorest countries in the world on the Sunbelt. (Except Australia).
Batteries and electricity are the solution for daily driven passenger cars, but for everything else (buses, trucks, ships, planes, agricultural equipment, construction equipment, military equipment) batteries don’t have the energy density required to move those things.
I like the breakdown of efficiency of efuel, with these sorts of efficiencies it's a non starter. What I would like to see is a breakdown of EV efficiency, from construction of the batteries to the construction of the vehicle.
I’m not exactly sure how you would include manufacturing efficiency in efficiency of energy transportation/driving…
…but if you’re looking for emissions of construction vs emissions over the life of a car I’ve seen that! Basically, EVs generate far more emissions than ICE cars during the manufacturing process. But, with the emissions of the current EU electrical grid, this extra emissions is offset by the time the car has been driven ~40k miles. If the car is driven 200k+ miles then it ends up having FAR less emissions than the ICE car.
And these numbers continue to get better as the electrical grid brings more renewable generation online.
efuel can be an alternative to store energy excess of renewable instead of battery: we should treat efuel like energy storage and not a product to make.
10$ per liter was in the test reactor, with current wind and solar costs, 0.80-2€ per liter are possible by 2030.
All things that help to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere is worth using. If the e fuel can power the generators that provide power to our electrical grid it decreases the need to mine for the things needed for the batteries and oil products. The large wind and solar fields to provide power to make the e fuel will help bring down the cost so the average home owner can have a wind mill and or solar panels. This will reduce the strain on the electrical grid. The cleaner burning fuel allows us to drive our classic vehicles. Destruction or permanent storage of the classic vehicles is like destroying art and history. Neither shall be taken lightly.
efuel might become cheaper then oil with how oil and gas prices are going...
We're nearing €2/liter in the Netherlands
what about how much energy is needed to break down the CO2 molecule and then to combine it with hydrogen? energy balance - that's the important part
Obviously there are massively losses thats thermodynamics in a nutshell. In the vide it said 8-15% of the energy actually makes it to the wheel, so thats losses from fuel production and engine.
So basically the battle is already lost. Speaking of wasted energy, what about the vast energy consumption used for crypto mining? What about the pointless daily work commute to the office when companies could allow staff to work from home? The car is the least of our worries when in fact it’s our life styles that are the true problem.
Why don't we ban regular fossil fuels for aviation and shipping gradually, forcing industry to build renewables to switch to e-fuels? People who can afford flights can pay 5 or 10 times the price for fuel - I can easily get a flight for £10 or £20 to across europe. Let's get on with it!
Good video, again. But eFuels are a waste of...well, everything. If the only problem with the switch to EVs is cost, just MAKE IT CHEAPER. Perhaps tax the hell out of the combustion engine, since it's one of the most damaging machines on --- and to -- the planet. Polluter pays principle? We can argue about public transit, bikes (my favorite when it's not raining), and suburbia later.
Thank you for being honest (somewhat) about the numbers involved.
It would be nice if this could be a solution but it is nowhere near the yields needed to be efficient with about 8% making it to the car.
You are right prices for this won't drop until 2050 because that's around the time they'll perfect it if not longer.
it doesn´t really matter if it´s efficient , it just has to be profitable. Think about it like that, it´s nice if the electricity is in Chile or Norway, but if you can´t get it to where it´s needed there is no point to it, so it is 0% efficient. you just have to make the electricity where it´s cheap, e.g. in Norway wind power costs 3 cents per kWh. With prices like that, it doesn´t matter how much you lose in the conversion process.
@@faxxzc if it's still expensive then yes it does matter as no one will buy it, governments would sooner subsidize electric car purchases than pay out the ass for inefficient fuel.
Yes but only for little domain usage, we need to first work on a renewable electric energy transfer system, power cables for transferring electricity from one point in the world to other points. Right now only one such project is in implementation, that is Australia to Singapore power line, for transferring solar energy from Australia to Singapore.
Its only expensive as its new , petrol , diesel , lpg were expensive once until mass production methods were refined and it was used as mainstream fuels.
Why not use alternate steps? Electrolysis, carbon capture and part of the synthesis can be replaced by creating wood gas in a renewable energy kiln (either electric or by stored thermal energy). This also produces biochar which multiplies the carbon negative effect of the process and can run as a side business for soil enhancement.
It is likely to be an exotic choice for old cars in the future. People who own vintage Ferraris would be happy to pay 30-50usd per gallon to make their cars usable, occationally.
From working in the carbon footprint world, I think carbon offsets have a much better chance than biofuels. They are both a bridge to a cleaner energy future, but carbon offset projects use the exact same technology we are already use in regular projects. There is no advanced research needed. The difference is really if the project qualifies to be a carbon offset project, which is a whole other story.
Fuel cells and engines are dead. 6,500,000 EVs were sold in 2021 compared to 15,000 fuel cell vehicles. And right now there are only 2 models on the market, it used to be three but Honda pulled out as they could clearly see the future of fuel cell vehicles. And E fuels produce tail pipe emissions. Which would still be killing millions per year from air pollution on the ground. Just stop with this nonsense, battery electric vehicles are the way to go.
There is a lot of fraud in carbon offsets. I think DW made a great video about that.
@@DanielBrklyn I actually have worked in the carbon offset field and yes for sure there is. I’m currently researching the exact extent of it. However, if you find the right offset programs they are highly impactful.
@@HarrisonAdAstra I completely agree!
I think carbon offsets should be totally eliminated. They are nothing but a fraud.
This may be the future of trucks because of the energy density. That's a big deal in the USA.
The truck industry is all about price, so the main goal is efficiency, so *batteries* not e-fuel nor hydrogen. The energy density of a battery is already quite enough, because we do not need huge batteries, but a dense and reliable charging network. Making a 15 minutes stop every 2 hours of driving is not an issue at all, in many countries it is even the law. And yes, 15 minutes is enough because the goal is just to charge enough to go to the next fast charger station (or at destination).
As a nuclear engineer, I get really offended to not see any mention to the advantages of using nuclear energy for synthetic fuels production. In this video, they only cover conventional electrolysis, but if you use High Temperature Electrolysis getting both the heat and electricity from a High Temperature Reactor, then the efficiency goes actually much higher.
You also excluded uranium from the energy density chart, which is kinda weird, considering it is by far the most energy dense source of electricity humanity has successfully deployed.
You should have also mentioned that e-fuels are at best an alternative to reach net zero, since you continue to release carbon dioxide and other harmful gases during combustion in the ICE. So, for me, it's not really about adopting one option over the other, it's actually always about finding the right balance in terms of energy mix that is capable of keeping emissions as low as possible and at the same time ensuring we recycle as much natural resource as viable.
This last topic is very important and I often see people forgetting to take into account the Lifecycle emissions of solar panels and wind turbines. Plus, you have the use of critical minerals that are not renewable and are already used in many other industries. So, we really have to be careful not to let people think the solution to our climate crisis is as simple as deploying solar panels and wind turbines as if we didn't need to care for their respective use of finite natural resources.
Sorry, but no.
If you ask me, this is the future: ruclips.net/video/Miysn2-fae4/видео.html
uranium is also fossil, and non renewable. What most pro-nuclear fission enthusiasts forget is that in 80 years of using nuclear energy, there is still no long term storage solution available anywhere in the world. Also, when nuclear powerplants are decommissioned, there are huge costs associated with "recycling" it, and usually the company just declares bankruptcy and leaves the costs to the government aka the taxpayer, which is usually multiple billion dollars, which is not factored into the Life cycle costs of nuclear power. IF you would factor that in plus the storage cost over the next hundred thousand years, nuclear would be nowhere near financially feasible.
Solar doesnt use a whole lot of rare earth metals, the problem lies usually with the electric vehicles which require a whole lot of lithium for batteries and neodymium for the motors.
Best advantage for e-fuels is imho that you can continue to use the fuel infrastructure such as oil tankers. gas stations and ICE cars and trucks, also planes. This is , at last, the biggest saving factor, that you don´t have to build so much new shit. Because after all, if you don´t build new stuff, you don´t use any new resources and cause any new C02 emissions.
Good luck. I’m with you and a proponent of natural gas to displace coal for electricity production. However it’s been demonized to the point where people will literally stop at nothing to block pipelines. Wind and solar are the only options people want to discuss. Then there is carbon sequestration that is being part of the solution that will also require many more pipelines operating at much higher pressures than our current network of natural gas lines. I’m all for looking for alternatives but it seems many think this has to be done now as if we are all going to die in 10 years.
Most energy produced during lunch hours gets lost. This is the time in the day to transform solar into e fuels.
‘eCO’ can virtually supply all organic chemical industry that currently runs on fossil fuels. It’s much more than turning into fuels.
Yay! As the comment below indicated we need all the energy sources, even controversial nuclear, for this system in the world to work. Also, although cost may deter efuels from being a bridge “too late” it’s never too late! We can modernize the grid in spots throughout the world, balance the load where the grid is not as modern, and continue to analyze the practicality of renewables in different countries and adapt them where they are not totally practical or efficient, it’s all possible 👍
I was left wondering, wouldn't it be more effective to use the hidrogen after the hydrolysis and not continue the complicated process?
ruclips.net/video/Miysn2-fae4/видео.html i agree. This is our future.
you would need new infrastructure for transporting hydrogen (read as: pipelines) and new cars. hydrogen is also a hassle to store as you need very low temperatures or high pressures
@@faxxzc These e-fuels won't be that usefull for cars as the video explained, so really they'll mostly be usefull for aiplanes and maybe rockets. Yes, you will need new planes for that. but planes generally aren't that old really (most airlines will replace them before they are 20, budget airlines even sooner), so that transition could actually happen fairly quickly. And i dont think that the oil they plan on producing now will be transported by pipelines anyways since they couldn't even run a electrical cable, pipelines seem even trickier than that to me. So really the idea is to use boats to transport that fuel anyway. And guess what, we could also use boats to transport that hydrogen.
Its funny that if you go a step backwards and don't do hydrolysis and connect wires directly to a motor, you already have more efficient vehicle...
And then expand the vehicle so more people could be carried... and if the vehicle has to have a connection to electric wires, then put it on less friction producing material (that is steel to steel)... Oh... Its a train... nevermind.
@@PurpleDuneEfa good luck using cheap electricity from Chile if you‘re in germany
The big problems of e-fuels are the costs and the big numbers of wind blades or solar panels that it needs to produce energy. But if that energy is produced by nuclear power plants the cost/liter can be little I think. Also, we don’t need to occupy large portion of land because the specific nuclear power plants occupation (par m^2) is little. It’s true?
I see the value of efuel in national security area, if the someone blockade your country's trade route, you could switch to efuel, and cost of production won't be an issue in these situation.
What do you mean by saving the internal combustion engine?if you mean making the BEVs obsolete then you are right EVs are definitely the future but synthetic fuels help existing combustion engines to coexist with the electric vehicles
If there are eFuels for ships and combustion engines, there will also be eFuels for cars. When manufacturing eFuels, you can't just decide that you only want kerosene. All derivatives are always created at the same time. So also diesel. Therefore there will be eFuels for cars. Nobody can prohibit the sale. Why? In addition, the companies will offer eFuels for cars because higher margins can be achieved there than in industry.
The demand is there. The infrastructure is there. With more development and cost reduction definitely a ya. We need a diverse set of options. We also need to remain starkly aware of national security and the need to secure our own natural resources, food and supply chain. Intelligent compromise is important.
A video on the 1st of April that isn't a joke 😤
E-fuels are a joke.
7:09 Keep in mind that's only "1" refinery.
One of the biggest problems frok renewables are the large variations. I wonder if it would make sense to produce only efuel when there is to much energy im the grid.
That's the idea. Its basically a way to cheaply store energy(but inefficienctly)
I dont care what fuel i use... weather be methane or hydrogen or synthetics ....As long as i can have my combustion engine 😁 best of luck to the scientist/developer. 👍🏻
it's just 10-15 years away (and ALWAYS will be) ... I wrote my dissertation for Diploma about 'e' or 'bio' fuel... 15 years ago
we literally already use efuels buddy
Im getting pretty sick of mentioning only renewables when discussing decarbonised electricity....
There will always be use cases for e-fuels. We should definitely get this cranking.