**Addressing Frequent Comments!** 1). *“I’m already paying $2/L.”* Porsche is at $10/L, and hoping to get it down to $2/L. That’s cost. Add in your local tax, and that number goes up. A big part of why fuel is more expensive in Europe vs the US is that it is taxed significantly higher in Europe. Additional edit: EV owners pay road taxes as well - it's incorporated into higher registration fees (you're not tax exempt simply because your transportation could be carbon neutral). 2). *“I’m an EV shill.”* Haha okay. I still love my supercharged Miata, and despite how slow it is, my Crosstrek as well. It’s possible to like both combustion cars and EVs, and also acknowledge the shortcomings of each. I like burnouts. I fly frequently for work. The Jaguar F-Type SVR’s exhaust is a sound worth hearing. I’m not good for the planet. None of this changes the information presented in this video. 3). Not one compliment on those tree drawings?! C'mon. Those are some nice trees.
I see no reason to excessively tax this fuel source if it captures its carbon from the atmosphere and gets its energy from atmospherically cleaner sources like nuclear or renewables. People are already paying the energy premium to create it.
@@justinlynch6691 it's not taxed because of co2, but to earn money. So why should it be less taxed? For me, we will shift from a energy taxation, to a kilometric taxation, maybe via assurance fee. So in that case maybe clean fuel will be less taxed.
A major factor regarding energy cost could be timing though in the future. One issue of renewable energies is that it is far less controllable when/how much is produced on a short time-scale. For example, solar power is only generated during the day, whereas a lot of EV charging is happening at night, so the consumption and production of power doesn't line up. With 100% renewable energy, there needs to be a capacity a lot higher than the actual use to compensate for these fluctuations, which means that there will be overproduction at times (too much power produced, potentially overloading the power grid). In that situation, the "cost" of energy could go down significantly when excess power can be burned through production of synthetic fuels. Currently, as far as I'm aware, this modulation is done through coal plants primarily (in germany at least), which are no longer going to be an option in the future, obviously. Assuming potentially negligible costs for the electric power itself, couldn't the cost for synthetic fuels become very competitive in thsi scenario (and a realistic way of eliminating emissions for the billion+ combustion engines still in use)?
I wasn't thinking that synthetic fuel will replace electric cars- I was hoping that it will be an affordable fuel for classic cars in the future when normal everyday transportation is based on electric engines and batteries.
The way I see it, the best way to preserve classic cars is as their engines finally kick the bucket, replace the power train with electric motors. I dislike it as much as the next guy, but to preserve history as best as possible, and to recycle efficiently, this is the best option I can see. But as long as privately made fuel like Ignite exsists, combustion engines will live on.
No portable energy store is cheaper to produce than poking a hole in the ground and heating the goo with taps on the evaporator column for diesel, kero, gasoline and nat gas. That's why there is so much PR, hysteria and government spin to make you switch to a harder to produce and more expensive portable energy store.
You had me until the end, at $2 a litre that would be literally better than a lot of fuel prices in the UK and these are diesel numbers. I imagine similar in Europe. $2 = £1.42 and current UK average per litre for petrol is £1.29 diesel £1.31. £1.70 being highest as of current costs which is no higher than average right now. But in general the argument in the UK is that most people live in 'town houses' with no owned parking or driveway, it's illegal to run a cable across a footpath. Others in apartments which will inflate flat prices so much to install electric chargers which it's already a good £300k for a London flat with no parking as is. Synthetic fuel is likely to have a place here.
Nobody cares about the problems that you Brits have created for yourselves through ridiculous over-regulation. You put onerous taxes on your fuel, refuse to build refineries and then cry about the cost of “petrol”.
Agree, most homes don't have the ability to charge a vehicle. People need to come to terms with both ICE and EV existing in the long term. The synthetic prices are cheaper than some places I've seen, especially motorway services. A good amount of people don't care what fuels their transportation, so there's certainly space for EVs to increase in their presence but a complete switch is unwise. There's also the issue around people having freedom of choice etc.
That $2/L is before any costs are added on though such as vat, profit for the company producing it/station profit per litre, fuel tax etc. Probably heading towards $3-$3.50 easily before you actually get to purchase a litre making it roughly £2.50 per litre.
@@oldcountryman2795 The issue is nothing to do with lack of supply. I think over 80% of the cost of diesel and petrol is fuel duties, which you do start your arguement with. However, our road system is free to use and the cost is born out of those fuel duties, plus some car ownership duty.
Porsche respects the community so much, they NEVER want to make the 911 electric. I have faith in Porsche, the guys working there are 10 times smarter than this guy in the video, no offense. And they work as a team
@@EngineeringExplained Those who only focus on climate change would have us place our attention solely on carbon emissions. But even if synthetic fuels were cheaper and more energy efficient, why would we want to burn them, resulting in putting tons of other pollutants into the air?
@@familyriess4184 You mean like oxides of nitrogen etc.? Good point, though I imagine ozone emitted from high voltage power lines and other sources of pollutants from renewable sources, grid and usage will also become a problem when the scale of electricity use increases to replace fossil fuels. Also, one would hope that synthetic fuels will be engineered to reduce/eliminate such pollutants, by reducing/controlling combustion temperatures (if this is at all possible).
Many publications aka reviews of studies or studies or comprehensive publications are behind a paywall. Maybe it was just for school and not a public paper.
For car enthusiasts who still love their ICE sports cars, eFuel is still the best option to stay carbon neutral. I’m sure if the price of eFuel can be brought down to 2x the cost of fossil fuels, many car enthusiasts would buy eFuel over fossil fuel. I would. Cool thing about eFuel is that it doesn’t contain those nasty chemicals like benzene and toluene that are known carcinogens.
That may be a solution for a small number of specialty cars owned by rich people who want to keep their rare historic cars alive and take it for a rare and expensive trip in the weekend. But that is of no practical importance for 99.9% of dailty drives of people who use a car to get to their work or do practical things in an economic way.
@@rientsdijkstra4266Cars in general will become much more cost prohibitive in the future so why worry to that degree about expense if you can already afford owning one?
@@EngineeringExplained I think you made a mistake in your assumptions. I am pretty sure synfuel companies will locate in regions of Earth with the absolute lowest cost of renewable energy. That cost is going to be much lower than what we pay to charge at home (and especially what we pay at rapid chargers). The average cost per kWh in the USA is about $0.13. Hydroelectricity in certain parts of the world is less than $0.05 per kWh. Wind is lower than $0.02/kWh in some places. That cost is going to go down even more, since it is controlled by flexible companies that can locate anywhere in the world and wind + solar is only going to become cheaper from here on. I doubt household electricity prices in the USA are going to match that price drop. Bottom line: Synfuel is going to be much cheaper than you expect, when it is scaled up. The low efficiency matters less than total cost and convenience. Battery prices will probably fall slower than we think from here. Because the higher demand for the materials to build these batteries will drive up prices.
Nobody is talking about e-fuel being introduced in F1 next year, it could make things better for e-fuel because in F1 technologies are developed waaaaay faster than anywhere else.
But so is the case with electric vehicles, just look at the amount of development in the last 5 years.. at some point (maybe in 20years, maybe in 100years) F1 will adopt fully electric vehicles to be relevant to road vehicles
An F1 team cannot use more than 100m a year on research. Meanwhile car companies are burning billions on battery research every year. I guess many problems described in this video would not be problems if we pour the same amount of money as we did on battery cars.
@@Sidowse I get that Simon, but that is true for every profession or trade. No one appreciates what goes on in the background to fix your plumbing, to repair your computer or to service the car.
e-fuels are just being invented. So most likely we will see a reduction in price. On the other hand, the infrastructure for those fuels is up and running. Calculate the expenses for hydro and the gap will be different. And efuels (even in a mix with traditional fuels) could help make the transition smoother for those who are not able to buy a new car right now - or live somewhere where they need better infrastructure for charging (public charging stations and/ or cables to their neighborhood / house to charge there).
According to the information in the video, unless the efficency of producing e-fuels changes by more than an order of magnitude, the cost of efuels stays much higher than for battery ev's..
@@JakobusVdL Or, if more companies jump in to the eFuel game. And once we get more of our power from nuclear energy. Those will help the costs go down imnensely as well.
@@electric7487Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but I think the point of the video is that the amount of energy in producing e-fuel is many tiimes higher than using it to charge ev batteries. So if the price of the input energy goes down, the price of both will reduce proportionately to the energy price.
Makes no sense, BEVs will still be cheaper because they can use that energy to drive instead if using it to make a fuel and burn it. Way less efficient.
@@Glenhh At this point, practicality completely annihilates the efficiency argument because the infrastructure for liquid fuels is already in place whereas for EV's it's tiny in comparison.
It seems like electric cars are almost effortlessly faster than similar ICE vehicles though, and can be made even faster with advancements in battery tech coming down the pipeline allowing for lighter packs.
Despite the energy efficiency disadvantage of synthetic fuels, the global distribution network for liquid fuel is already in place. The infrastructure needed to match current ICE vehicle use with electric or hydrogen power blows the efficiency equation out of the water from a practical standpoint. It would take decades and trillions of dollars to get even close.
Came here to say the same thing, while it is interesting to see the pure stats, it disregards real world factors. It's much more environmentally friendly to use an alternative fuel in existing vehicles instead of scrapping billions of cars to start all over again. Synthetic fuels are the most logical progression from where we are now.
@@CourtneyCoulson Statistics and real-world factors also completely disregard politicians', tree huggers', and EV fanboiis' agendas. These gas and Diesel car bans that are being pushed all over the world are nothing but empty virtue signalling, as they are designed to look "green" but cause a lot more problems than they solve.
They're also forgetting the fact that some of the richest people in the world are in the oil industry and would not like to see their market share being threatened by electric cars and buses and planes. If e fuels can become viable enough, which I think they will, you can bet your ass that every oil company would jump on it and market and sell it to the world, making it a hell of a lot cheaper than possibly even conventional fuel. Imagine a person living in the third world seeing this option of buying a cheaper fuel for their car that doesn't require them to buy an electric vehicle and can simply just use their regular car AND the added benefit of the fuel being green. Instant sell.
infrastructure will change pretty quick when politics gets into this mix. we built the petrol stations over time, and i guarantee we will build electric stations too overtime. it is just a matter of adoption. and when there is mandates in place, the adoption will be very quick.
The reason i like the idea of syntetic fuels, is that you can use, most of the same infrastructure. And when i comes to costs and not building more on behalf of nature itself. I vote for this!.
Exactly. It scales much better. And it has an intrinsic advantage. Hydrogen and carbon dioxide will always be available. The core ressources required for it are basically infinite.
And therein lies the problem. We like to believe that that infrastructure is already in place and paid for. But the reality is that that infrastructure requires continuous maintenance, adaptation and renewal and therefore has to be paid over and over again. So the question is, would you be willing to pay to maintain an infrastructure for a fuel that is only marginally better but ten times more expensive? Or would you rather spend that money on a new infrastructure for a fuel that is ten times more efficient at a fraction of the cost?
@@MightyJabroni Plus, e-fuel can be used on older existing ICE cars when battery or solid-state electric becomes the norm in the future. E-kerosene can be used to power long range airplanes, while e-fuel could power ships. General aviation would benefit from synthetic avgas.
13:25 “the cost is absolutely insane” I use to say that about LED light bulbs, they were $30-$40 each when they entered the market, but through volume, evolution in the technology and manufacturing efficiency you can now buy the same bulb for $1.65. Is it conceivable that fuel costs will find a similar path in the market? I also remember computer memory chips in the 90’s was $50 per megabyte.
You're comparing different technologies. Again, I'd reference the conclusion of this video. Has energy gotten cheaper and cheaper and cheaper? And even if it does, using double the energy will always cost more than using half the energy. It's not a matter of tech advances, it's an energy problem. Whichever path uses the least energy will make the most financial sense.
@@EngineeringExplained When you pluck semiconductors in form of solar panels in to the equation - electricity is still getting cheaper - especially kind which doesn't create co2.
@@rkan2 You can pick up an LG NeON 2 panel for a couple hundred quid. 330w per panel. Throw in a powerwall for energy storage and it starts looking appealing.
Not sure if it's been mentioned in the comments already, but the synth-fuel ICE scenario still results in NOx and (I guess) particulates emissions that require scrubbing and filtering if we're to keep to the clean air targets, too.
NOx and PM emissions from modern engines is incredibly low. In most areas it's a non-issue. In non-attainment areas like LA etc. it's obviously still an issue though, which is why CARB is still working hard to lower it further.
@@geomtol The problem with California is that their draconian emissions regulations ARE NOT WORKING. They have the strictest environmental regulations in the US yet they have some of the most polluted cities in the US and those cities' pollution problems are only getting WORSE.
huh, I had no idea synthetic fuels were so cool. I have my doubts that we'll reach Porsche $2/l goal, but that would change everything. that's less than 30% more expensive than the current petrol price in Germany. I would gladly pay much more than that to keep driving ICE cars.
The fuel will be produced in regions with the absolute cheapest renewable energy in the world. That energy is much cheaper than what we pay to charge our electric vehicles at home. On a large scale synthetic fuels will become much cheaper than what people expect.
More to the point, it would allow you to keep flying on 787s and A350s. (Though it's possible those engines can be converted to use either H₂ or NH₃, which are probably easier/cheaper to produce than a full synthetic jet fuel.)
38 bucks yikes. I hear they are still working on it. Its not perfect. Thankfully none of this is on the immediate horizon meaning i dont have to worry about any of this as ill be in old folks home riding an autonomous pod around. I guess you really do not want to live forever.
People still ride horses today, and there's also steam engine trains around. So I'm sure there'll be niches kept alive for those with persistence, knowledge and wallets for it.
@@Hadhoudtn That makes no sense. Obviously they'll be affordable, otherwise it'll never make the masses. All low-end cars aren't fancy looking though, so that's probably gonna stay the same. And they'll certainly be heavier - although less heavy over time. Underpowered is a given, although they should be more powerful than the ICEV equivalent.
@@Hadhoudtn "underpowered EVs" ... you cleary never have driven an EV. And since when does the vehicle weight repell people from buying cars (nowadays more useless SUVs and Pickups are bought than ever before) or hinder performance? Cars are getting heavier for over 30 years (at least outside of US) and nevertheless they constantly gain performance, measured in boring stuff like acceleration times, lap times, towing capacity and so on. The "ugly" part is your personal preference. The affordability will fix itself with scale. Already there are cutting edge 800V EVs from Korea in the 40.000$ bracket. People buy cars in that price bracket all the time. As soon as these hit the second market there is no discussion about affordability any more. And the truly affordable bang-for-buck EVs aren't even sold in the US ... like the 50kWh small cars from Stellantis (Peugeot, Citroen, Opel, Fiat), Renault with their Zoe or the really decent EVs from China (Aiways, X-Peng, MG).
Doesn't mean it won't exist! But I think the shift to EV/FC for the majority of passenger cars is inevitable at this point. Carbon neutral fuel is neat, it's just gonna be pricey.
2:16 when we run out of crude oil how are we supposed to keep creating and building all of these new EV vehicles? How are you tyres going to be made? Any plastic components in the car including the interior?? Rubber door seals etc etc. A huge contributing factor to the running out of raw materials is the sheer volume of NEW vehicles being produced full stop whether they be EV or ICE or any combination in between. My 30 year old BMW E30 could run on synthetic fuel and requires very little raw materials to be maintained and be fuelled using existing infrastructure within the UK without needing anything new built. I don't get the sustainability movement when it's based around new new new. It all seems to be missing the point imo. It really irritates me when you see hundreds of brand new cars at ports waiting to be shipped or sitting outside dealerships when I think of how much raw material must have been used in their manufacture.
A lot of claims, assumptions and questions here. I am very skeptical that you read up on any papers or even talked to veteran experts, even though I'm not one myself. If you feel invalidated by "the sustainability movement" then that's probably something you should work on with yourself and those people. Don't let the facts suffer. We are all mortal, fallible creatures with different interests and qualities, and that's okay. Repairability and modularity are definitely popular sustainability topics and part of the "circular economy" discussion. Look it up if you're interested. Do what you gotta do. Take care.
@@Muskar2 I'm actually a graduating motorsport engineering so am quite clued up about alternate powertrain solutions lectured by some true experts so thank you for the assumption! I also have no idea where feeling invalidated comes from lol.
@@ronaldlenz5745 That is interesting to know!! I had no idea about that sort of technology. Is there some basis then to be worried how we would continue to produce tyres or not?
@@foodonfilm5935 Sorry, maybe my phrasing was out of line? I apologize if that was so. I have ASD so it can be hard for me to tell sometimes. Congratulations. I'm glad you're about to get real experience, I'm sure you'll quickly get answers to a lot of these questions. I come from a family of engineers, a few of whom work a lot on sustainability in big international companies, so I know it can take a long time to get your head around how deep the rabbithole goes. And when you're young it can sometimes be hard to keep an open mind. There's a lot of ambivalent studies with different strengths and weaknesses in methodology and data. I'm just a CS who likes natural sciences as a hobby. Take care!
I can see the price of synthetic fuel being driven down similar to how the price of batteries has been driven down. And that cost could be offset by blending with ethanol or petrol based fuels while tech advances.
Yep. Gas at the pump will eventually be mixtures of something like B20 (20% biogasoline or e-Gasoline with 80% petroleum gasoline), then as more efficient and scalable eFuel production techniques are discovered, it will rise to B50, B75, and then B100.
You are not getting the main point here which is that to produce synthetic fuels you need energy and you go through multiple steps. Every step is an energy penalty. Because electric vehicles get the electricity directly from the grid they involve the least number of steps and therefore they are the most efficient. There is go way to go around that.
@@damartimantilla You are using Jason's simplification as a doctrine. Just because there is more steps does not mean it is more energy efficient. If each step in synthetic path was 99% efficient and charging of battery was 5% efficient, would the battery be more efficient just because it has more steps with it's 5% vs 90+% efficiency?
@@damartimantilla also what about the cost that batteries will have on environment and the ecosystems it mined at? EVs will just cause demand to skyrocket. So i guess so long as people wont see it since it will be confined to destroying the places its mined at itll be ok? And what about the cost of doing away old infrastructure? we all know the US current infrastructure has trouble keeping up with demand without the massive strain EVs will bring. Im not against EVs i just think everyone is expecting the change to come way too soon.
My little Bolt takes about $4 to 'fill' at home. Compared to my old Subaru's $30+. If you can charge at home a used EV is great, just stay away from old Leafs.
So I just found this company called Prometheus Fuels. They are creating carbon neutral fuels from the air at the price of normal gasoline. You should look them up, it’s very cool technology and it completely makes sense! They are going to be the near future with BEVs and FCEVs being a later future once everything becomes more efficient with time.
I love your videos. Very good explanation. I just bought a used 2013 focus electric. Everyone keeps telling me that the 50 miles real range isn’t worth the car. But my excursion v10 costs me $5,000 a year in fuel for my work commute and going out a few times on the weekend. Currently electric is costing me $.04 per mile charging at home and quick charger where I live is free. So far I’ve done 500 miles and paid $10 mainly from the chargers in jersey where I bought the car to drive it home.
14:00: Ah, the 10$/gallon gasoline. Me as an European: I already pay almost 9$/gallon for gas - that's not that bad. (let's just omit the fact that most of the cost is taxes :P )
@@EngineeringExplained I'm not sure I share the same concerns about taxes. As EVs become more prevalent, we're starting to see governments shift taxation onto the vehicles themselves. My guess is that enthusiast eFuels will be too small a proportion of the market to justify their own tax. Thus preserving an elevated, but still attainable cost. As well, there is some further hope in Europe (see: classic car emissions exemptions) that so-called 'vehicles of historic import' will be protected by governments in the EV transition.
@@Trig. Synthetic fuels, as Porsche mentioned, are viewed as unviable. Porsche is only developing that for motorsports. So the world is going full electric regardless of some personal preferences.
@@Trig. Not almost, just impossible. Manufacturers are going full electric since they know synthetic fuels arent viable. Synthetic fuels are for motorsports where energy density matters and price is itrelevant, but other than that, its full EVs.
The area required for these is huuge. Interesting for making use of some spare land and mixing few percent into normal fuel. But impossible to replace all fuel with that.
@@daniel_960_ Yeah I remember the backlash from environmentalists when they started clear cutting forests in certain countries for this and palm oil. Then there's also the issue with biomass farming but that's another topic!
My only concerns with electric cars is the batteries used, the charging network and how that works for people who don't own/rent a house, the range and the overall cost of the vehicle. Get those things figured out and I'm fully on board. Mainly, I would like something that can go much further than what we have now.
We are getting better with the range but the issue is that many that have the best range currently are ultra luxury models not meant for the masses. It’s getting closer but we aren’t quiet there yet, at least 3 more years and hopefully the batteries needed for the range will be lighter and smaller as it’s proven smaller lighter batteries are better for range for smaller cars
Govts are falling into the trap of requiring L2 charging in new condos / apartments etc. Thing is L1 slow charging covers most average daily driving needs, given cars are parked for ~12 hours on average. L1 does not require higher electrical service to the building and is a fraction of the L2 costs. If govts had the autonomy to pull back the $1.3 trillion of explicit fossil fuel subsidies, that could help a bit on the transition costs.
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 yeah. Most EV's have started out being "affordable" but then the industry realized these are a really hot topic. Plus, there are stats that have shown that people with a higher income are more likely to care about the planet. put two and two together, and you have what we see now. Price jacked EV's with leather plastered interiors to justify the price because let's be honest, the main demographic that was going to buy these was people with deeper pockets.
@@C_R_O_M________ It's really not that bad for wind. Wind is very cheap and pumped water can take care of the biggest downside (it's intermittent). I haven't looked into it, but nuclear is probably quite good, but the payoff time is quite long. Nuclear isn't currently renewable so not everyone counts it.
Yes, but then so will battery electric. The issue is the efficiency. If you can find a cheaper source of power, then the price goes down. But so does the cost of electricity to charge your car, or to produce hydrogen for your fuel cell, so it's still uncompetitive. The efficiency is unlikely to improve much, since that is determined by the thermodynamics of the process, rather than any particular technology.
Sounds like a cope. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Gas cars drive just fine and allow people to be lifted out of poverty. It’s only the privileged rich that are thinking up projects to burden everyone else
@@TKUA11 If left alone long enough, our gas supply will be broken. Because everything pretty much runs on fossil fuels, the whole world would grind to a halt once fuel runs out. And don't say that there's an endless amount of fossil fuels to burn. There isn't. The goal is to find another sustainable energy source before our primary fossil fuel runs out. So...not a conspiracy.
Porsche has already outlined the ways to make mass production a lot cheaper along with Siemens energy and it looks viable, effective, and possible. It also looks to be in a very near future timeline as opposed to the ever slow growing battery technology, which is one of the oldest technologies mankind has and yet hasn't progressed nearly as much as some technologies in the past few decades. Assuming more support would get behind this carbon neutral alternative fuel (looking at you Toyota with your opposition towards going electric...) then there's a good chance combustion engined will not disappear
@@timex987987_jj3_studios fossil fuels are a myth the earth naturally produces this substance thru its life cycle dead plant and animal life is NOT the basis for gasoline as the powers to be want you to think cuz youre a dummy 😊
Actual education will do that. Stick with the hard sciences and you'll have life skills of being able to understand or call BS on media articles produced by social "scientists".
@@STho205 For any of the (very legitimate) social scientists out there that read this, just worth mentioning social science most definitely exists, and those pursuing it shouldn't be discouraged. Regardless, yes, you'll find media manipulating information to align with their agendas. Not exactly black and white!
@@EngineeringExplained it is not a hard science or solely empirical one, but it is an honorable discipline of mostly philosophy and political study. ...But you have done your feelings policing of the comments so good and proper.
@@STho205 Haha, I bring it up because my wife, who has a degree and masters degree in biology, is currently pursuing a PhD, also in the same realm, but with a heavy social focus.
Synthetic fuel isn’t mass produced, so a cost comparison now isn’t fair. A big benefit will be that ICE-powered vehicles will continue to roam the Earth, long after all new car sales are electric. While we’re still consuming crude, at least it’s carbon neutral. Another thing is, while H2 isn’t without its issues (for now), everyone ignores the obscene weight of batteries in BEVs. A Tesla Model S weighs almost as much as a Ford Expedition. At least FCEVs don’t need as large of a battery pack v. BEV. 2:44 “create energy”? I thought you were a law-abiding citizen?
$40 a gallon is fine for a weekend gasoline car, not a daily. I’d definitely pay that to keep driving my RX-7 on the weekends, but I’ll definitely have an electric daily in the future.
That's $800 a fill up. If you have 2 solid days of weekend ridding then that's $1,600 a week. Or $3,200-$6,400 a month I really really hope you're not married cause your wife is going to castrate you if she ever finds out how much money you're planning on spending for a hobby 😂 Burn all those receipts 😆
For me, they needs to make bldc based electric motors. They are not that soulless as ACs, better performance, but break down a lot. I will drive anything as long as it's fun to drive.
Wow, I had just been wondering, actually, while watching one of your battery tech breakdowns, and some talk about different fuel energy densities, if something like an e-fuel could be made. I'm so glad to see this is something that's being worked on, I'm sure there is a future in this tech.
i dont think private companies can be trusted with nuclear boats. just imagine they neglect the upkeep and now you have hundreds if not thousands little fukushimas running around. Then when end of life is reached the ships conveniently just happen to sink in the middle of international waters because dismantling nuclear boats is a nightmare. No thanks.
@@faxxzc That’s exactly how it would go down! Here in Australia Woodside Petroleum had an oil rig that was past its use by date so they just “sold” it to two dollar front company and that company goes broke so bingo now the taxpayer is on the hook to decommission it and clean it up!
hmmm... seeing that diagram is very useful! But one thing it shows is that a good way to improve system efficiency for FCEV and ICE vehicles, why have that electrolysis step occur after the transmission? Even if it's less efficient, I would think that a hydrolysis system could be a good way to store excess energy on-site of the generator.
Transmission losses are smaller when that electricity is reinjected near the point of use. Not to say it's as good as on-site storage at either the use site or production site but it's not 100% worse either.
The difference is using surplus renewable energy and seawater where the purification of the water is just another efficiency loss. Performing that hydrolysis inland means that you are using freshwater as your source and competing against drinking water resources. The people who screamed about food vs fuel are going to melt when they see the math for drinking water vs fuel.
@@mark_5588 it takes 2.5 gal / 10L of water to make 1kg of hydrogen. A typical hydrogen car goes 60mi on that 1kg. It takes at the very least 3 gallons of fresh water to make 1 gallon of gasoline. Usually around 5. And let's not talk about ethanol. So hydrogen fuels slightly decrease demand for freshwater as long as the power used during electrolysis comes from a non-thermal source of energy. I still don't believe in H2 but it wouldn't make the water problem worse. Maybe we should start by stopping grass gardens in the middle of the desert instead.
As far as I know the point of the synthetic fuel isn't to replace EVs, but to give sport car enthusiasts and owners of oldtimers a possibility to drive their car without fossil fuel (CO2 neutral). Also there is maybe a hope of it being used for all the cars which are out there today, because the existing combustion engine cars will stay on the road for some time. It would be wasteful to just destroy them and also not everybody is able to just buy a new EV, so maybe it is possible to use it for a transition phase for regular cars too. But probably it's just too expensive too replace fossil fuel in the transition phase.
Someone needs to make a playlist of Engineering explained, organized so that each video builds on the last in terms of concepts... These videos are an amazing resource for introducing STEM concepts to young automotive enthusiasts:)
Another idea is to run a combustion engine with the oil of plants. I'm from Germany and I know some people who took sunflower oil for their Diesel engines because it was less expensive and it could be CO2 neutral.
@@Rcck.7282 I dont know if it would work in a diesel engine and you must warm the sunflower oil up because it is too viscous, so I dont know if its with palm oil also possible. In addition to this rain forests get cleared to plant palms and thats not good for our climate
@@nicolasjules579 yes its also interesting and not so expensive to equip on "normal" cars but you can't buy E85 at gas stations in Germany since 2016 anymore because the taxes rose up for E85 and the gas stations would not get enough money for this.
Point is why i think Fuel Cell or synth fuel will play a bigger role in the future is the infrastructure we have right now. inventing and optimizing the complex processes of the "energy production" seems way more reasonable than every person relying on a constant charging mechanism and the evolution in battery efficiency.
For anyone wondering, the hydrogen energy density (kWh/l) is for hydrogen in a liquified state. Thought it should be mentioned. Keep doing good work EE!
@@Rcck.7282I am by no means an expert but for liquid H2 to exist it must be cooled below its critical point of 33 K and pressurized above its critical pressure of 13 bar. If these conditions are not met then the hydrogen atoms have too much kinetic energy for the intermolecular forces of attraction to bind them together in the liquid phase.
I think it only makes sence as a legacy fuel for classic cars and stuff, so perhaps there will be a market for synthetic fuels, as small as it might be.
Personally, I think the main market for synthetic fuels will be large-scale aviation. I think I recall the viable range for electric aircraft is something like 400km, and carrying a couple of dozen passengers. Basically, what's currently serviced by propeller aircraft. Large-capacity aircraft that use jet engines can't be converted to battery power. Those need synthetic fuel to make them carbon-neutral. Perhaps you might be able to build the atmospheric capture and synthesis equipment on-site at major airports and run them off solar panels on the roofs of the many airport buildings? Or, if not all, then at least a decent chunk of their power requirements.
I was thinking about bio diesel. If you can design an engine from the start to run it, you could run the thing on cooking oil. From a survivalist point of view, thats extremely useful.
Not too many diesel aircraft out there at the moment. But pretty sure the engines are very similar to what is used today. Wonder why it hasn't been adopted for aircraft and shipping as of yet. Cost possibly?
@@TDubya811 A gas turbine engine can run on anything in theory. Reason why kerosene (Jet A) is used is that it's cheaper to produce than diesel. Reciprocating aircraft engines that run on diesel are extremely rare... I've only seen one which was an experimental biplane.
@@armadillito As long as you are only talking about normal passenger cars, then sure. BEVs will not work for anything larger for a long time - the battery tech isn't there yet.
@@Milan_Openfeint that would work great in California - where they already have rolling blackouts. The grid can't support this amount of load, and won't for a very long time. Plus all the EM fields that will cause who knows what kinds of side effects lol
I would like to see some numbers based on the life cycle of LI batteries. I've heard they last a maximum of 10 years. If everyone is buying a brand new car every ten years rather than keeping a traditonal car running, potentially for decades, aren't we just creating more manufacturing/recycling waste? Granted you can replace the battery, but we don't even do that with our mobile phones, we just sling it in a drawer and buy the latest model.
@@felixbeutin8105My brother has a 1982 Diesel Mercedes that still runs and drives after 41 years. There are many cars out there that probably won't last that long but are maybe closer to 20-30 years, but that's still a very long time.
People need to start looking at long term instead of short term. When narrowed down to post production, EV's look great. It's only once you take into account what it takes to produce them that you find they never become a carbon neutral vehicle. Within 10yrs you have to replace either the whole battery or cells in the battery at which point you "carbon footprint" rises substantially.
@@CTSimRacingTesla model 3 long range battery has a replacement lifespan of 500 000 miles. Average American drives 13 500 miles per year. That's 37 years until you need to replace it. The expected life expectancy of a Toyota Carolla is 300 000 miles.
1. Should nuclear also be considered on par with renewable energy? 2. Even if lion batteries are improving, I don't think there is much more room to pack more energy in there, it will never get close to anything traditional fuel has unfortunately.
I'd say that nukes should count, yes. They're not *renewable*, but given that there's about 10,000x as much fission fuel in the ground as there is carbon, I think that counts. Plus, for lack of a better term, "we know how to do it." Meaning "we haven't really figured out fusion, but we have figured out fission, and it's not dependent on 20 more years of invention."
There are still many opportunities to increase the energy density of the battery. Lithium Ion has an energy density of 250 watts/kg, solid state batteries 600 watts/kg, diamond batteries 1000 watts/kg. If using 75 kWh battery pack Lithium Ion = 300 kg with a range of 350 miles Solid state = 125 kg with a range of 400 miles Diamond battery = 75 kg with range above 500 miles With the same battery pack they have a big difference in range, that's because of the weigh reduction.
You are missing a couple key points. First if we want a green and non nuclear grid, photovoltaic and wind must produce excess energy, that energy needs to be stored in some way, to use at night and for no sun/wind conditions. Part of that surplus can be used to manufacture fuels without the efficiency mattering too much because otherwise it would be wasted by curtailment. Second we are talking about a undeveloped technology, some of the first photovoltaics were made with gold and selenium and were 1-2% efficient, should we have ignored the principle forever because the early ones were not good enough?
This is what I've been telling people for years, even before I'd heard of synthetic petrol (because of bio-ethanol). You'll never HAVE to get rid of your classic car, but it will get expensive.
Yeah, but keep in mind that renewables will only give a limited amount of energy. If you look at the studies they usually estimate that we'll already have to drive much less in order to achieve a carbon neutral energy grid fast enough for the paris agreement. So if the amount of energy we have is limited then the less efficiently we use that energy the more we'll have to sacrifice/the more we'll have to give up. In terms of the transport sector that means that if we all decided to use synthetic diesel in ICE's we'd only be able to travel 1/7 of the distance we'd be able to travel if we all drove EV's. So if you want sacrifice more, if you want to travel less, then you're going to chose something as inefficient as an ICE with synthetic fuels. This applies for everyhing we do. If we chose the most efficient methods then we'll barely have to make sacrifices compared to today. But if we chose overly inefficient uses of energy then we'll have to give up more. A notable technology are heat pumps in this regard and the cogeneratio of electricity and heat. It's far more efficient to use biomass in to cogenerate heat and electricity in a power plant and to heat your home with a heat pump (and the heat from the powerplant if available) then to just directly heat your home with the biomass. To make it short the dumber we use the available energy the more expensive it will be and the more we'll have to give up (for example we can drive less miles per year). A lot of people don't seem to get this. So question we need to ask ourselves is: "Are our sentimental attitudes towards ICE's worth being able to drive less miles and pay more?"
@@stauffap To your point about cogeneration of heat and electricity, I believe this is cost prohibitive on anything but an urban scale; this is the same reason why older American cities have steam networks to heat indoor radiators, whereas to my knowledge suburban and rural communities essentially never have steam networks. At most, perhaps larger buildings such as hospitals or universities might have their own steam network. In a great many respects, one of the main conclusions to be drawn is simply that suburban communities are largely unsustainable from an energy consumption standpoint. Instead of continuing to focus on individual personal transportation with EVs, hybrids, ICE with synthetic fuels, hydrogen and so on, it's far more prudent to encourage urbanization. People simply would not need a vehicle to travel to wherever they need to go if public transportation or walking can fulfill that need within an urban context.
@@pseudonymous1382 You know, you don't have to "believe" anything. There have been a ton of studies about how we can build an energy system without fossil fuels. So we know how it can be done and how it can't be done and we also have cost estimates (costs will roughly stay the same if we do it correctly).
Surely if the entire process runs on renewable energy, and if the transporting of the fuels is done via synthetic fuel (Once the first distribution cycle is done or whatever) These will actually be carbon negative and not just neutral. In addition, if the renewable energy sources are infinite*, why does the efficiency ratio matter since supply is bountiful? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just not 100% sure I understand. Also, Large oil companies own the majority of non-tesla charging stations, as soon as the petrol taps turn off the Electric quick charge price will go up 10 fold, they will not accept a cut to profits and home charging will be non viable for the majority of people in europe. * I know you are constrained by harvesting, space, cost, and actual availability, its hyperbole*
Efficiency doesn't really matter in the long run. Only cost and profitability matters. Covering only 1% of the Saharan desert in solar panels gives enough electricity to cover todays global usage. I think the economic case for E-fuels is really strong. And as you say, it will probably turn carbon negative, since a large proportion of the CO2 captured from the air will at all times be in the form of E-fuels. It will also speed up the cost lowering of carbon capture. That could then be used to essentially stop globabl warming/climate change all together. The only thing I am a little concerned about is about local emissions: NOx etc. Could that be eliminated with E-fuels?
What you didn't mention is that sometimes efficiency also doesn't matter. It's better to make efuel or hydrogen out of a windmill then having to stop that windmill cause no one is using that energy at that moment. Plus efuels are a lot easier to transport than electricity or even hydrogen. Also here in Germany those prices don't even seem that high in comparison to our fuel prices now so it might become an alternative for eg classic cars. Love your Videos!
It's a alternative and the cost will go down, the planet and the economy can't support a massive change to evs overnight, synthetic fuels won't replace evs but will give ice engines a longer lasting future
not just that but why can't we have EVs and Synthetic ICE cars sold simultaniously? If you want an EV go buy one, if you want an ICE car you can buy one too
Lithium is not the issue. We have enough supply for thousands of years. Nickel is much more scarce. Nickel mining needs to be scaled up to meet the future demand. Tesla already announced that they will be mining Lithium from Nevada completely Acid Free.
@@mathew936 the lithium only has to be mined once. Once an EV reaches the end of its lifecycle, the batteries can be recycled (though EV battery recycling isn't done by many companies at the moment, but there's money to be made in that industry, so someone will). The upfront environmental cost of lithium mining and battery production is still offset within the first 20,000 miles of the EV's life, even if fully powered by a coal plant.
That's a big problem no one wants to talk about, if all cars and other means of transport get totally electrified, how much lithium and other conductors will be left after idk, 100 years of massive extraction? Furthermore, these materials are also used for all kind of electronics which are not going to decline in the future but highly increase. We are already living a worldwide semiconductor shortage, so what will happen when the demand is very much higher than now? Also, as the guy above me commented, the extraction of these materials is nowhere near of being carbon neutral, and what happens with batteries and other electronic components after the car is scraped? They are highly toxic and you can't just leave them in a scrapyard since it will pollute the air or even the underground water, so yeah massive electrification will come with serious problems that for the moment nobody at the governments or the car companies like Tesla seems to care about.
However, Jason, you have to put the whole business case into perspective. Even if all of this is 100% correct, you still haven't considered the production process, for instance. What energy and resources does it take to produce a lithium-ion battery? What about investments in new infrastructure? Combustion engines are already there. What are the marginal costs of renewable electric energy, say, in the summer, when there is plenty of solar and wind? Does the fuel efficiency matter that much in such a scenario?
When you talk about investment of infrastructure to extract lithium and the rest, don't forget that oil isn't freely available, you also need to extract and transport it. Which is something you don't need for EVs because the electric grid is already in place. Research has been done on the full carbon cost of the whole chain, from production to usage. And yes EV emit more carbon when they're built than ICE cars, but this is offset really quickly after some years of use. Also they're constantly improving, and new battery tech is developed with cheaper and cleaner material all the time, there's lot of improvement potential in EV, where ICE engines are pretty much as optimised as they will ever get.
@gearhead_2.0 '' Most people on tube these days are paid reviewers including this bloke here, they will just say and spread what their benefactors favour and this keeps on changing from time to time. '' That's not even true. Actually, if he was paid, he'd have to disclose. '' It's wiser to ignore what these people preach and use our own heads to make the best way forward. Remember money flows only towards what the end user chooses and not what the government or others would like it too. '' He literally does the math in front of you and obviously your head isn't very good so it's not wiser for you to ignore him. Also, that last part is entirely false since the government has a heavy hand in the decision and can easily overthrow the money of the population in this debate. Which they did considering multiple countries are currently planing their date of ICE ban (Quebec, Europe, etc.). '' Make it a law and there's gonna be rebellion, it's inevitable. '' That's not true at all. Actually, where I live, the governement has called for a ban on ICE sells in 2035 and the population was very happy about it. See, it's better to use your head *when you're smart* but if you say stuff like that, it's better if you don't use yours.
It's weird how some people really love the sound of internal combustion engines, and some people really like the quiet of electric vehicles. A few people really like both, or don't care either way. I wonder if a study has ever been done on how it breaks down.
I switched from a Subaru to a Bolt. While I liked the sound that boxer engine made I also enjoy the singing that the motor in my Bolt makes. It's definitely not silent, though it is quieter. I haven't been in a Tesla to see just how quiet their motors are. I have test driven an eGolf and Fiat 500e, but the road noise was worse in them so I couldn't hear the motor much during those tests. I like videos of those super loud V8s and other gas guzzling engines, but IRL they're too loud for me. The boxer never got too loud. I really don't like Harley and other motorcycle engine noise. I like the 1/4 cost per mile a lot more than I miss the sound from the boxer. :)
people who really care about the sound... here's the catch... ic engines dont produce sound anymore... its engineered sound... which can be done for ev too...
Those are only numbers without context. There are many many benefits of efuel: faster refueling than charging, lower car weight, you don’t have a problem with very expensive and not ecological batteries, high efficiency with high speeds. And petrolheads will still have sound of exhausts + possibility to tune cars
Yeah I don't think there's much value in putting energy inputs into large scale chemistry to make synthetic fuels. It's just not an efficient use of that energy, which could instead power many things directly. However, if we are able to cheaply produce syn-diesel using biological processes with minimal inputs, then that's potentially a huge win. The most promising thing I've seen has been bioengineered algae in mechanically aerated vats, which can be refined very easily and cheaply to produce bio diesel. This nearly eliminates the energy inputs since the algae capture the energy from the sun, and also eliminates the carbon inputs since the algae capture that from the air. The issues are engineering/breeding the most productive algae, and establishing the processes for it. If we can do this with saltwater, that's even more useful since it makes production dramatically more geo-flexible without impacting local fresh water supplies. If this approach can be made commercially viable, then I think it's our best avenue for making existing fossil fuels infrastructure carbon neutral in the short term. ICE is mostly bad because of the fossil fuel carbon release: we know how to deal with the other pollutants well enough.
The stumbling block there becomes solar efficiency. Photosynthesis is not very efficient at converting sunlight into energy, and then there's still quite a lot of processing to do once the organism has created the fuel.
I worked for a year on an algae to diesel project. And it all comes back to the real golden rules: the 3 laws of thermodynamics. Running the algae in photosynthesis mode meant the surface area to get enough sunlight into them to produce a significant amount of C17 oils was about the surface area of the US (only a slight exaggeration). However, algae can run in fermentation mode so you could then get them to produce significant quantities in tanks but you have to feed them simple sugars produced in complex processes. Ultimately we scrapped the project to make fuel after we found that the oil was a fantastic fat for food use and the dried algae made a very good flour for baking. When I see one of Exxon's greenwash ads about algal fuels, I throw something at my TV. I've bought a lot of TVs.
It seems reasonable to imagine that the costs associated with producing these types of fuels will come down over time. Also, I sometimes wonder if things like carbon capture may save the ICE.
the problem is that, in the end, an ICE can never have a better efficiency than the carnot cycle, whitch is around 35% If I recall well. It will never be cheaper than EV. Plus, they are mechanically very complicated (way more than EV). If battery technology improve enough, there will be no advantage for ICE. Especially in cars. Edit: I got my numbers wrong, some engines are at 40%, best diesel (not applicable in a car) are around 50%.
@@ayoutubechannel921 Nah, you're mistaken. Opposed piston engines have high efficiency '' for ICE engines '', not high efficiency in general. No ICE has high efficiency due to its nature as an ICE.
The problem with you calculation is synthetic fuel is expensive because there is very low volume of production, if it was mass produced it would significantly reduce the cost. The other thing is how many millions of ICE vehicles are on the road how much energy and resources will it take to replace all of them with say electric vehicles and THEN how much energy will it take to scrap all those ICE vehicles. Then we have how Loooooooooong will that take yet if every ICE vehicle started using synthetic fuel now which they can without any modification how much fast could we at least stop the increase in co2. Giving us more time to develop or introduce better cleaner systems
My understanding of the porsche synthetic fuel was that it was molecularly identical to crude based fuel. Wouldn't that mean it's energy density is actually identical to normal gasoline? Or is that the difference from the ethanol being added to current fuel sources.
The biggest Advantage of syntethic fuels is that we already have produced the Cars that can run that fuel. For electric or hydrogen alternatives we have to Produce the Cars First. As we all know is the production process of a vehicle responsible for a significant amount of the carbon totally emmited during its lifetime. Internal combustion cars are clearly not the future, but they should maybe be used with synthetic fuels instead of replacing them with other vehicles. greetings from germany, really good video
A really big point you miss on the EV side of your equation is the massive fossil fuel footprint of an EV car's manufacturing process with the vast amount of mineral mining and transportation of those same minerals to battery manufacturing facilities around the world and then the transportation of the finished battery itself. Not to mention that most electricity (estimated 80% in the US) comes from fossil fueled generating stations. As far as I'm concerned EV cars are ANYTHING but green. They are far more damaging to the environment overall than ICE cars, the only distinction is the lack of a tailpipe. Just my humble opinion.
“As far as you are concerned”. Does this mean you will not change your opinion if you do some basic research? Or will you give it a humble try on the phone or laptop (100% mined materials by the way) you typed your message on and maybe change your mind? There’s a lot of nonsense out there on this topic so you might want to make sure you have not been misled before making a comment
The good thing is that when there is heaps of renewable energy infrastructure there will be extra supply so might as well us that excess for something. *Assumption is this excess in supply won't be better needed elsewhere.
0 CO2 🤣 our grits are far away from being 100% renewable. edit: and those 20% CO2 savings are over the life cycle, not just what comes out of the exhaust.
That's precisely the opposite of the aim. The nations and companies who have signed up to the Paris Climate Agrrement - which is a legally binding agrrement - have little hope of meeting their emissions/carbon footprint targets with too many combustion engines still being used. Therefore, you can probably expect to see ever increasing legislation, with the aim of reducing their usage.....
@@Brian-om2hh The increased legislation even already started. From 2035, Quebec bans ICE sells. From 2040, Europe does. Expect manufacturers to stop making them earlier (no ponit making them for a dead market).
@@R1___ Well, where I live, the ICE sells ban is in 2035. Thats in 14 years... We expect manufacturers to make electric cars only by then. So.. Id say less than that.
One of the biggest arguments against eFuels is the “poor thermal efficiency” of combustion engines. But in my opinion and experience, I am wondering if this even matters anymore. Case in point. I’m a freelance photographer and I drive a lot all over Germany meaning long Autobahn cruises. My car (2018 Mercedes A250 W177) is loaded with my heavy gear and I will often just cruise at 130 km/h with the occasional venture into the 200 km/h+ zones. On such trips, my gasoline car can get 6 L / 100 km - which is incredible. In cities, I combine Start-Stop with “aggressive driving” (quick acceleration from a standstill to get up to speed and then let the car coast) and in this fashion I can improve my fuel economy. When I am stuck behind people who can’t drive and need a minute (literally) to accelerate to 50 km/h, my fuel economy actually worsens. I learned in driving school to always accelerate quickly to 50-60 km/h in the city, then coast, to improve gas mileage. Bottom line: modern ICE are so efficient and there’s probably room for improvement. Of course they can’t touch the efficiency of an electric motor, but they are nonetheless efficient in this day and age for what they are. Also, I saw an interesting documentary on these new Dual-Fluid-Nuclear-Reactors which are being developed by German engineers in Canada and Rwanda (of all places). The head engineer said these reactors produce a lot of heat - and this heat could be used for electrolysis to create hydrogen and eFuels and thus would offer these fuels at competitive prices. What’s not to like about this???
Completely misses the point, Jason! There are millions of existing ICE cars which would be made carbon neutral at a stroke, if their fuel was made from atmospheric CO2, with no change to distribution networks and gas stations. The end user does nothing different. Your efficiency also neglects the weight of batteries, permanently added to the weight of a car. Liquid fuels fit any shape of tank, that can be thin and light, but gases, like LPG and hydrogen require strong, heavy, pressure-resistant cylindrical tanks that are hard to incorporate into vehicle structures. Ditto batteries. BEVs are much more expensive than ICE, and only a few people can afford a Tesla. BEVs will eventually get cheaper, batteries will get more energy-dense, and recharge much faster, without the fire risk of Li-ion, but not any time soon. That's why we need synthetic fuels, pronto!
There isn't going to be enough excess energy for that if we actually pursue something crazy like a fully renewable grid. The only way it would be cost effective is with nuclear power due to it's extra high capacity factor. With a renewable grid all excess energy will be extremely precious and be stored for dips in generation in grid storage, rather than used to produce synthetic fuels. Wind is especially unreliable as you can go from 95% capacity to 5% capacity for weeks on end. Only when your grid storage is completely full will you be able to produce synthetic fuels, which would mean an unreliable mode of production. On the other hand, nuclear power has a 90%+ capacity factor and is always producing at night, so you would have a very reliable source of excess energy that's always on, which could then be used to produce synthetic fuels. Unfortunately we're winding down nuclear and pursuing renewables or in many cases, switching back to fossil fuels (refer to Indian Point). Other countries aren't though, like China, which will have the largest nuclear infrastructure in the world very soon. This would put China in a very good position to produce synthetic fuels with their extremely reliable excess energy at night, more than likely making them the global leader in synthetic fuels, probably leading to enough production for major exports. Just another area where we're going to fall behind :)
Over several years of ownership many current EVs are on average slightly cheaper than ICE vehicles due to the lower "fuel" and maintenance costs. Also combustion fuel is a bigger fire risk than Li ion batteries, EVs catch fire at a lower than average rate.
@@VitalVampyr ...until you have to replace the batteries, or until road pricing arrives...as to fires, considering the much lower percentage of EVs, the fire risk is much greater, and battery fires are impossible to extinguish!
@@TKUA11 Issue is that Europe is just going green for decades. Most people here think it is fine. USA is on the opposed end so as a result you got cheap petrol.
@Ted G And you know what's cheaper? just shoving the energy in a BEV. Porsche is also investing in a 90% recyclable battery, and tons of other EV tech. Even them, the biggest proponents(Audi is not actually investing, they tried to make E-diesel earlier this decade and failed to get anywhere), realizes that they are never going to use it as a mass market solution. It's strictly to keep their legacy sports cars and future 911's and caymans on the road.
@@arjund.4817 Porsche themselves stated the 911 is never going electric. They said they are heavily investing to keep producing new ICE cars and putting them on the road
As a professional writer, I once asked a computer engineer if there would ever be such a thing as real time spell checking? he laughed, "of course not! There will never be enough speed in a computer to manage the checking the of spelling for every word as you type it!" You all know how wrong he was. Sometime later, a WordPerfect engineer asked me if I thought computers could ever write articles . . . I laughed, "Of course not, English mechanics are well beyond the comprehension of computers." I was wrong and I learned a lesson. When people say we will not be able to hard things in the future, they are using what we can do today to predict what we will be able to do in 20years . . . when technologies and public needs will be completely different. How many of your neighbors have run out to buy an EV? Two thirds of the population of the US (e.g., apartment, condo, dorm, duplex, trailer, dwellers, and the like) couldn't own one and reasonably charge it. Moreover, 40% the population doesn't believe in climate change (why would they buy an EV when they vandalize charging stations for sport). We will have E-fuels in the future, because if we don't, we are doomed.
Correct. Synthetic hydrocarbons make the most sense for large-scale/long-haul transportation (airplanes, trains, ships, semi trucks) where practicality and cost-effectiveness make up for the inefficiency. Once that's in place, synthetic petrol for performance cars, motorbikes, and powersports can be a convenient secondary source of revenue.
@@electric7487 the utter LACK of cost-effectiveness of a drop-in replacement fuel that costs 10x more than fossil fuel is why aviation and shipping are in no hurry to switch. Airlines occasionally do stunts where they'll have a single flight powered by renewable e-fuels, or one airport where 5% of the fuel is renewable e-fuel, but they're not interested in funding the transition to a far more expensive fuel until governments ban fossil fuel.
I think he is wrong to a certain degree. One production is ramped up and the production process further refined the costs will be reduced due to availability.
@@bennynortheast1328 He's not since even Porsche said it's only gonna be for motorosports. Also, even if price goes down, EV prices will go down far more making the outcome quite obvious.
What about that hydrogen combustion engine that Toyota put in their prototype Corolla? I didn't dive deeper into the topic but perhaps that could be an interesting alternative.
Converting Hydrogen into electricity via a fuel cell is far, far, more efficient than burning it in a piston engine. Efficiency would be worse than the examples given.
Hydrogen ICE works but it also sucks. It's less efficient and still makes NOx (which is bad for peoples' health) even though there is no carbon emissions.
The actual problem which is not getting discused very often is that the infrastructure of Ev‘s isnt good enough for everybody having an EV and not to mention what will happen to exsisting ICE cars ? By replacing every ICE car the CO2 emissions would skyrocket because the battery production emitts massive amounts of CO2. In fact altough the efficeny of e-fuels is not that good at the moment we should keep using ICE‘s because producing millions of new cars with batterys which are emitting a lot of CO2 in production is not helping to fight against the global warming.
@@theonlyonepaulo Ammonia is also a much superior storage medium to hydrogen, except for the being incredibly toxic, and boiling away at relatively low temperatures or spilling or leaking and needing to be held in containment that takes all of these into consideration. Ammonia stores more energy more densely and when needed hydrogen can be easily generated from ammonia, or ammonia can be put to countless uses. Urea, or carbamide, is an upgrade over ammonia, storing far more energy even more densely. Urea is solid at room temperature, non-toxic, can be liquified for easy pipeline transport then reconstituted for solid storage, doesn't burn or easily vaporize in normal conditions. Both ammonia and hydrogen can be got out of urea easily, and like ammonia, urea has countless other uses. Both ammonia and urea can be formed from waste biomass (or from purpose-grown biomass, but why divert cropland to fuel use until all waste materials are used up first?) using either 'waste' energy (peak production/low demand due time of day, solar or wind variability), in "Power-to-Fuel" chemical storage, and here is where urea really shines: decades after your Hydrogen has leaked through any container, or your ammonia has evaporated, urea will remain ready to convert back to energy.
Nice video. You note a very important subject. Also called EROEI = energy returned on energy invested. The thing to look for against (marketing) "Green washing". 2,5dollar a liter for synfuel isn't that expensive, in the Netherlands we pay €1.75/liter for E10 95octane. And €2.00/L for 100octane without ethanol, with today's exchange that is $2,5/L
Should have pointed out, $2/L is referencing cost. However much individual countries tax that cost is a different subject (big part of why fuel is much more expensive in Europe vs US).
Overall cost of running a car needs to be considered. We need to include the cost of wearables. Fuel might be expensive but how much is a new battery, or tyres or brakes? Are the insurance costs of an EV more? Are taxes more or less and how will they change, (because they WILL change - the govt ALWAYS move the goalposts)?
Renewable energies will provide a limited amount of energy. Already while assuming that we're going to electrify the transport sector researcher are telling us that we have to drive less in order to achieve a carbon neutral energy system. So if you think that it's a good idea to drive an ICE with e-fuels "for fun", then i hope you know what that would mean. It would mean that we all have to give up more things i.e. the more inefficiently we use our limited energy sources the more people will have to give up. That means that you'll be able to drive less miles per year etc. So lets just imagine that we all went with synthetic diesel vehicles instead of electric cars (the entire transport sector). That would mean that we could only drive 1/7 of the distance that we could drive if we all drove EV's. The way i see it you're really shooting yourself in your own foot by wasting energy like that. We have to be smart about how we use energy, if we don't want to make huge sacrifices. The same goes for other inefficient uses of energy. You could heat your home with biomass for example. That would be the most efficient use of biomass though. It would be more efficient to use the biomass to produce heat and electricty and to then use that electricity to heat your home with a heat pump. So generally it's a bad idea to heat directly with biomass. Instead use it in combined heat and power powerplant and heat your homes with heat pumps. That means we can do more with the same amount of energy, which again means that we have to sacrifice less. And i don't know about you. But i'd rather drive an EV and am able to drive 10'000 miles a year then to drive an EV and an ICE "for fun" and only drive 5000 miles a year.
How does ethanol production using fermentation stack up for efficiency I wonder. ICE engines can be made to run on ethanol blend in many cases. You could produce ethanol and synthetic fuel side by side even since fermentation produces co2 as a by product
I see your point. You certainly wouldn't want to starve people or clear forests to grow crops for fermentation. But the 2 need not be mutually exclusive. You don't need your grain/sugar/starch to be of food grade quality if it's being used for fuel. It can be spoiled grain, leftover bread, otherwise unsellable harvests. Maybe there are crops that can be grown alongside or inbetween others that can do the job. If we're going to keep driving vehicles around we need to pull the energy from somewhere. Electric cars are good for certain things but keeping an open mind to other clean alternatives can never be a bad thing
The fact of the matter is that it would be better to run on straight E100 ethanol produced from purpose grown crops with high sugar content like sugar beets (not corn) and not convert it to synfuel. The problem with ethanol is mixing it with conventional fuel. Henry Ford said ethanol was a much better fuel than gasoline because, even though it has lower energy density than gasoline, it can tolerate much higher compression ratios without detonation, and all his early vehicles were designed to run on both with a simple ignition timing adjustment on the steering column. Ricardo engineering in UK built a pure ethanol engine that delivered tremendous torque for its size, more than a much larger diesel engine. The seals in older cars can simply be replaced with modern ethanol compatible materials. There is enough idle farmland to grow fuel crops without competing with food crops. It's basically become a political issue.
The old batteries can be reused (e.g. as energy storage) and recycled and cars have been getting heavier constantly through car history so that not something new...
Average battery life is about 10 years or 200k. Maintenance on US infrastructure is poor anyway. Also since the best selling vehicle of all time is the Ford F series wieght isn't changing much. Cars been getting heavier and heavier for quite some time. A 1907 F100 weighted 3060 , a 2020 F150 weights up to 5600 lbs. The 2021 f150 lightning weights 6500.
Not real issues in your cases. How many miles does the average ICE last today? 200-250k??? We are seeing Tesla's with 400k on the original battery pack. And they will get recycled. The 800# difference between ICE and BEV is negligible. It is heavy trucks that do 90+% of the damage. And if you want goods on the shelves that isn't going to change whether the truck is diesel or electric. .
2021 the USA alone used 19.8 million barrels of oil PER DAY. Most of it used to make gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. There’s no way synthetic fuels can scale to those levels of production. The most we can hope for is that enough will be available to power collector cars so they can continue to be driven without environmental restrictions.
**Addressing Frequent Comments!**
1). *“I’m already paying $2/L.”* Porsche is at $10/L, and hoping to get it down to $2/L. That’s cost. Add in your local tax, and that number goes up. A big part of why fuel is more expensive in Europe vs the US is that it is taxed significantly higher in Europe. Additional edit: EV owners pay road taxes as well - it's incorporated into higher registration fees (you're not tax exempt simply because your transportation could be carbon neutral).
2). *“I’m an EV shill.”* Haha okay. I still love my supercharged Miata, and despite how slow it is, my Crosstrek as well. It’s possible to like both combustion cars and EVs, and also acknowledge the shortcomings of each. I like burnouts. I fly frequently for work. The Jaguar F-Type SVR’s exhaust is a sound worth hearing. I’m not good for the planet. None of this changes the information presented in this video.
3). Not one compliment on those tree drawings?! C'mon. Those are some nice trees.
I see no reason to excessively tax this fuel source if it captures its carbon from the atmosphere and gets its energy from atmospherically cleaner sources like nuclear or renewables. People are already paying the energy premium to create it.
@@justinlynch6691 it's not taxed because of co2, but to earn money. So why should it be less taxed?
For me, we will shift from a energy taxation, to a kilometric taxation, maybe via assurance fee. So in that case maybe clean fuel will be less taxed.
A major factor regarding energy cost could be timing though in the future. One issue of renewable energies is that it is far less controllable when/how much is produced on a short time-scale. For example, solar power is only generated during the day, whereas a lot of EV charging is happening at night, so the consumption and production of power doesn't line up. With 100% renewable energy, there needs to be a capacity a lot higher than the actual use to compensate for these fluctuations, which means that there will be overproduction at times (too much power produced, potentially overloading the power grid). In that situation, the "cost" of energy could go down significantly when excess power can be burned through production of synthetic fuels. Currently, as far as I'm aware, this modulation is done through coal plants primarily (in germany at least), which are no longer going to be an option in the future, obviously.
Assuming potentially negligible costs for the electric power itself, couldn't the cost for synthetic fuels become very competitive in thsi scenario (and a realistic way of eliminating emissions for the billion+ combustion engines still in use)?
@@justinlynch6691 exactly right
I'm just gonna miss the sound of my car, evs are nice, but its not the same feeling as a combustion engine.
I wasn't thinking that synthetic fuel will replace electric cars- I was hoping that it will be an affordable fuel for classic cars in the future when normal everyday transportation is based on electric engines and batteries.
IMO Not enough classic car enthusiasts to make it worthwhile from a saving the planet standpoint.
The way I see it, the best way to preserve classic cars is as their engines finally kick the bucket, replace the power train with electric motors. I dislike it as much as the next guy, but to preserve history as best as possible, and to recycle efficiently, this is the best option I can see. But as long as privately made fuel like Ignite exsists, combustion engines will live on.
@@andrewpaulhart I mean it already exists, they are just going to have to pay like $12/gallon to run those cars
No portable energy store is cheaper to produce than poking a hole in the ground and heating the goo with taps on the evaporator column for diesel, kero, gasoline and nat gas.
That's why there is so much PR, hysteria and government spin to make you switch to a harder to produce and more expensive portable energy store.
Electric cars are bad for the environment. It’s just a different way than gas engines.
You had me until the end, at $2 a litre that would be literally better than a lot of fuel prices in the UK and these are diesel numbers. I imagine similar in Europe. $2 = £1.42 and current UK average per litre for petrol is £1.29 diesel £1.31. £1.70 being highest as of current costs which is no higher than average right now.
But in general the argument in the UK is that most people live in 'town houses' with no owned parking or driveway, it's illegal to run a cable across a footpath. Others in apartments which will inflate flat prices so much to install electric chargers which it's already a good £300k for a London flat with no parking as is. Synthetic fuel is likely to have a place here.
Nobody cares about the problems that you Brits have created for yourselves through ridiculous over-regulation. You put onerous taxes on your fuel, refuse to build refineries and then cry about the cost of “petrol”.
@@oldcountryman2795 nah it's all of Europe and honestly the rest of the world that's similar. You guys are the odd ones out
Agree, most homes don't have the ability to charge a vehicle. People need to come to terms with both ICE and EV existing in the long term. The synthetic prices are cheaper than some places I've seen, especially motorway services.
A good amount of people don't care what fuels their transportation, so there's certainly space for EVs to increase in their presence but a complete switch is unwise. There's also the issue around people having freedom of choice etc.
That $2/L is before any costs are added on though such as vat, profit for the company producing it/station profit per litre, fuel tax etc. Probably heading towards $3-$3.50 easily before you actually get to purchase a litre making it roughly £2.50 per litre.
@@oldcountryman2795 The issue is nothing to do with lack of supply. I think over 80% of the cost of diesel and petrol is fuel duties, which you do start your arguement with. However, our road system is free to use and the cost is born out of those fuel duties, plus some car ownership duty.
Porsche is gonna make that synthetic fuel.
faith in porsche, fingers crossed
@@ZDY66666 same man, i want to have a v8 :(
Porsche respects the community so much, they NEVER want to make the 911 electric. I have faith in Porsche, the guys working there are 10 times smarter than this guy in the video, no offense. And they work as a team
@@magical5181 I noticed some missing pieces from his explanations. In Porsche we trust.
@@vladimirchervenkov6949 Porsche all the way
YOU HAVE SHATTERED MY DREAMS BUT YOU WILL NOT WEAKEN MY RESOLVE
Honestly the research had me pretty distraught. Time to get a couple redlines on the Miata!
@@EngineeringExplained 😂😂😂😕😕
@@EngineeringExplained Hope that Research makes them better
@@EngineeringExplained Those who only focus on climate change would have us place our attention solely on carbon emissions. But even if synthetic fuels were cheaper and more energy efficient, why would we want to burn them, resulting in putting tons of other pollutants into the air?
@@familyriess4184 You mean like oxides of nitrogen etc.? Good point, though I imagine ozone emitted from high voltage power lines and other sources of pollutants from renewable sources, grid and usage will also become a problem when the scale of electricity use increases to replace fossil fuels. Also, one would hope that synthetic fuels will be engineered to reduce/eliminate such pollutants, by reducing/controlling combustion temperatures (if this is at all possible).
Fifteen straight minutes of whiteboard: today was a good day!
I literally just wrote a 15 page paper on this 😂 you couldn't have made this video 3 weeks sooner
😅
What's my grade haha?
I feel your pain.
Out of curiosity, could we see it? Like is it public?
Many publications aka reviews of studies or studies or comprehensive publications are behind a paywall. Maybe it was just for school and not a public paper.
For car enthusiasts who still love their ICE sports cars, eFuel is still the best option to stay carbon neutral. I’m sure if the price of eFuel can be brought down to 2x the cost of fossil fuels, many car enthusiasts would buy eFuel over fossil fuel. I would. Cool thing about eFuel is that it doesn’t contain those nasty chemicals like benzene and toluene that are known carcinogens.
No its not😂. If its small enough to be part of the car, then yes. Never have to fillup.😅
That may be a solution for a small number of specialty cars owned by rich people who want to keep their rare historic cars alive and take it for a rare and expensive trip in the weekend. But that is of no practical importance for 99.9% of dailty drives of people who use a car to get to their work or do practical things in an economic way.
No one's buying essentially the same thing for twice the price lol
@@rientsdijkstra4266Cars in general will become much more cost prohibitive in the future so why worry to that degree about expense if you can already afford owning one?
@@coliimusic It is not practically feasible for the mass market.
EE videos are the only reason I know what day it is. Never change bro!
Haha I'm actually considering changing the post date. Oh, we'll all be off.
@@EngineeringExplained you're awesome! 🌈
@@EngineeringExplained what do you think of lithium and other battery materials running out by 2030?
@@EngineeringExplained I think you made a mistake in your assumptions. I am pretty sure synfuel companies will locate in regions of Earth with the absolute lowest cost of renewable energy. That cost is going to be much lower than what we pay to charge at home (and especially what we pay at rapid chargers). The average cost per kWh in the USA is about $0.13. Hydroelectricity in certain parts of the world is less than $0.05 per kWh. Wind is lower than $0.02/kWh in some places. That cost is going to go down even more, since it is controlled by flexible companies that can locate anywhere in the world and wind + solar is only going to become cheaper from here on. I doubt household electricity prices in the USA are going to match that price drop.
Bottom line: Synfuel is going to be much cheaper than you expect, when it is scaled up. The low efficiency matters less than total cost and convenience. Battery prices will probably fall slower than we think from here. Because the higher demand for the materials to build these batteries will drive up prices.
Nobody is talking about e-fuel being introduced in F1 next year, it could make things better for e-fuel because in F1 technologies are developed waaaaay faster than anywhere else.
But so is the case with electric vehicles, just look at the amount of development in the last 5 years.. at some point (maybe in 20years, maybe in 100years) F1 will adopt fully electric vehicles to be relevant to road vehicles
An F1 team cannot use more than 100m a year on research. Meanwhile car companies are burning billions on battery research every year. I guess many problems described in this video would not be problems if we pour the same amount of money as we did on battery cars.
That is the exciting part
Synthetic fuels, super fuels, and a more efficient means of producing hydrogen would all be great things in my eyes.
Yes I agree! They will make efuel affordable
I don't get how you can talk so fluently and coherently for 15mins straight without taking a breath! Excellent rundown
That’s what happens when you love to share knowledge on things! I’ve been told the same thing when explaining things to people!
@@sbeezynukka they are just being polite :)
Perhaps he is an android.
@@surferdude4487 Perhaps an android running on H2. It's only 15 mins, so he doesn't have to worry about storing it.
@@Sidowse I get that Simon, but that is true for every profession or trade. No one appreciates what goes on in the background to fix your plumbing, to repair your computer or to service the car.
e-fuels are just being invented. So most likely we will see a reduction in price. On the other hand, the infrastructure for those fuels is up and running. Calculate the expenses for hydro and the gap will be different.
And efuels (even in a mix with traditional fuels) could help make the transition smoother for those who are not able to buy a new car right now - or live somewhere where they need better infrastructure for charging (public charging stations and/ or cables to their neighborhood / house to charge there).
According to the information in the video, unless the efficency of producing e-fuels changes by more than an order of magnitude, the cost of efuels stays much higher than for battery ev's..
@@JakobusVdL Or, if more companies jump in to the eFuel game. And once we get more of our power from nuclear energy. Those will help the costs go down imnensely as well.
@@electric7487Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but I think the point of the video is that the amount of energy in producing e-fuel is many tiimes higher than using it to charge ev batteries. So if the price of the input energy goes down, the price of both will reduce proportionately to the energy price.
Makes no sense, BEVs will still be cheaper because they can use that energy to drive instead if using it to make a fuel and burn it. Way less efficient.
@@Glenhh At this point, practicality completely annihilates the efficiency argument because the infrastructure for liquid fuels is already in place whereas for EV's it's tiny in comparison.
Synthetic fuels won't replace electric cars but they can save expensive performance ice cars and racecars.
That’s all we care about anyway
It seems like electric cars are almost effortlessly faster than similar ICE vehicles though, and can be made even faster with advancements in battery tech coming down the pipeline allowing for lighter packs.
@@_topikk_ It's not about the speed. The noise is the reason to save ICEs
@@Dagreatdudeman same reason I dont want to see manuals die off,(maybe just an america problem idk) its just the fun nothing to do with speed
@@aaravs524
AGREED!
I love manual transmissions.
Despite the energy efficiency disadvantage of synthetic fuels, the global distribution network for liquid fuel is already in place. The infrastructure needed to match current ICE vehicle use with electric or hydrogen power blows the efficiency equation out of the water from a practical standpoint. It would take decades and trillions of dollars to get even close.
Well said.
Came here to say the same thing, while it is interesting to see the pure stats, it disregards real world factors. It's much more environmentally friendly to use an alternative fuel in existing vehicles instead of scrapping billions of cars to start all over again. Synthetic fuels are the most logical progression from where we are now.
@@CourtneyCoulson Statistics and real-world factors also completely disregard politicians', tree huggers', and EV fanboiis' agendas.
These gas and Diesel car bans that are being pushed all over the world are nothing but empty virtue signalling, as they are designed to look "green" but cause a lot more problems than they solve.
They're also forgetting the fact that some of the richest people in the world are in the oil industry and would not like to see their market share being threatened by electric cars and buses and planes.
If e fuels can become viable enough, which I think they will, you can bet your ass that every oil company would jump on it and market and sell it to the world, making it a hell of a lot cheaper than possibly even conventional fuel. Imagine a person living in the third world seeing this option of buying a cheaper fuel for their car that doesn't require them to buy an electric vehicle and can simply just use their regular car AND the added benefit of the fuel being green. Instant sell.
infrastructure will change pretty quick when politics gets into this mix. we built the petrol stations over time, and i guarantee we will build electric stations too overtime. it is just a matter of adoption. and when there is mandates in place, the adoption will be very quick.
"Hey bro, what fuel you runnin'?" "C whatever H whatever."
Actually it should be "C something H something", it's not that you can run on any CnHn
I’m runnin on C6H12O6.
It’s pretty sweet.
tell that to keto people haha
@@nasonguy Try C2H5OH, it's strong ;-)
@@maslak22 C2H5OH with no H2O buffer?
The reason i like the idea of syntetic fuels, is that you can use, most of the same infrastructure. And when i comes to costs and not building more on behalf of nature itself. I vote for this!.
Exactly. It scales much better. And it has an intrinsic advantage. Hydrogen and carbon dioxide will always be available. The core ressources required for it are basically infinite.
So true!
And therein lies the problem. We like to believe that that infrastructure is already in place and paid for. But the reality is that that infrastructure requires continuous maintenance, adaptation and renewal and therefore has to be paid over and over again. So the question is, would you be willing to pay to maintain an infrastructure for a fuel that is only marginally better but ten times more expensive? Or would you rather spend that money on a new infrastructure for a fuel that is ten times more efficient at a fraction of the cost?
@@MightyJabroni Plus, e-fuel can be used on older existing ICE cars when battery or solid-state electric becomes the norm in the future. E-kerosene can be used to power long range airplanes, while e-fuel could power ships. General aviation would benefit from synthetic avgas.
Yea, we're not gonna talk about that part, just about the nasty parts!
13:25 “the cost is absolutely insane” I use to say that about LED light bulbs, they were $30-$40 each when they entered the market, but through volume, evolution in the technology and manufacturing efficiency you can now buy the same bulb for $1.65. Is it conceivable that fuel costs will find a similar path in the market?
I also remember computer memory chips in the 90’s was $50 per megabyte.
If i were to guess, fuel production is as efficient as it's gonna get- they've been optimizing it for years and years. There's not much room to go
You're comparing different technologies. Again, I'd reference the conclusion of this video. Has energy gotten cheaper and cheaper and cheaper? And even if it does, using double the energy will always cost more than using half the energy. It's not a matter of tech advances, it's an energy problem. Whichever path uses the least energy will make the most financial sense.
@@EngineeringExplained When you pluck semiconductors in form of solar panels in to the equation - electricity is still getting cheaper - especially kind which doesn't create co2.
You've described what's happening to the battery market right now.
@@rkan2 You can pick up an LG NeON 2 panel for a couple hundred quid. 330w per panel. Throw in a powerwall for energy storage and it starts looking appealing.
It's better if Synthetic, Fossil, Hydrogen, PHEV, HEV, and EVs perform side by side rather than one replacing another
Thats what i was thinking🤔
Freedom of choice hurts some people's pockets and ideologies.
@@peekaboo1575 Bingo ^
Don’t forget the steam engines!
Totally agreed. Plus, hybrid vehicle and plug in hybrid are way to go until battery become really efficient.
Not sure if it's been mentioned in the comments already, but the synth-fuel ICE scenario still results in NOx and (I guess) particulates emissions that require scrubbing and filtering if we're to keep to the clean air targets, too.
It's a burning process after all so yes nox, noise, particulates are still a problem.
NOx and PM emissions from modern engines is incredibly low. In most areas it's a non-issue. In non-attainment areas like LA etc. it's obviously still an issue though, which is why CARB is still working hard to lower it further.
@@geomtol The problem with California is that their draconian emissions regulations ARE NOT WORKING. They have the strictest environmental regulations in the US yet they have some of the most polluted cities in the US and those cities' pollution problems are only getting WORSE.
huh, I had no idea synthetic fuels were so cool. I have my doubts that we'll reach Porsche $2/l goal, but that would change everything. that's less than 30% more expensive than the current petrol price in Germany. I would gladly pay much more than that to keep driving ICE cars.
The fuel will be produced in regions with the absolute cheapest renewable energy in the world. That energy is much cheaper than what we pay to charge our electric vehicles at home. On a large scale synthetic fuels will become much cheaper than what people expect.
More to the point, it would allow you to keep flying on 787s and A350s. (Though it's possible those engines can be converted to use either H₂ or NH₃, which are probably easier/cheaper to produce than a full synthetic jet fuel.)
I dont need this to save all ICEs. I just want a niche kept alive. Similar to how few of us ride motorcycles. Bless you Porsche.
38 bucks yikes. I hear they are still working on it. Its not perfect. Thankfully none of this is on the immediate horizon meaning i dont have to worry about any of this as ill be in old folks home riding an autonomous pod around. I guess you really do not want to live forever.
People still ride horses today, and there's also steam engine trains around. So I'm sure there'll be niches kept alive for those with persistence, knowledge and wallets for it.
I agree with you!
@@Hadhoudtn That makes no sense. Obviously they'll be affordable, otherwise it'll never make the masses. All low-end cars aren't fancy looking though, so that's probably gonna stay the same. And they'll certainly be heavier - although less heavy over time. Underpowered is a given, although they should be more powerful than the ICEV equivalent.
@@Hadhoudtn "underpowered EVs" ... you cleary never have driven an EV. And since when does the vehicle weight repell people from buying cars (nowadays more useless SUVs and Pickups are bought than ever before) or hinder performance? Cars are getting heavier for over 30 years (at least outside of US) and nevertheless they constantly gain performance, measured in boring stuff like acceleration times, lap times, towing capacity and so on. The "ugly" part is your personal preference. The affordability will fix itself with scale. Already there are cutting edge 800V EVs from Korea in the 40.000$ bracket. People buy cars in that price bracket all the time. As soon as these hit the second market there is no discussion about affordability any more. And the truly affordable bang-for-buck EVs aren't even sold in the US ... like the 50kWh small cars from Stellantis (Peugeot, Citroen, Opel, Fiat), Renault with their Zoe or the really decent EVs from China (Aiways, X-Peng, MG).
Looking at the title, I’m thinking this is a response to that Donut Media from a little while ago lol
That video was so bad.
They all follow each other and repost their take on the same subject. Like rival networks producing The Munsters and the Addams Family.
true
@@PringleSn1ffer Yeah. They were way too casual and took a billion years to get to the point.
Donut is more entertainment focused, EE more engineering focused.
Porsche really gave me hope😭
Same here
I feel you all. My LS3 swapped 350Z has its days numbered until I can turn it into an EV
2$ for 1L of fuel is a ok price, in my country the cost of 1L is around 1.5$ so it wouldn’t make a massive difference
Hope for what?
Doesn't mean it won't exist! But I think the shift to EV/FC for the majority of passenger cars is inevitable at this point. Carbon neutral fuel is neat, it's just gonna be pricey.
2:16 when we run out of crude oil how are we supposed to keep creating and building all of these new EV vehicles?
How are you tyres going to be made? Any plastic components in the car including the interior?? Rubber door seals etc etc.
A huge contributing factor to the running out of raw materials is the sheer volume of NEW vehicles being produced full stop whether they be EV or ICE or any combination in between.
My 30 year old BMW E30 could run on synthetic fuel and requires very little raw materials to be maintained and be fuelled using existing infrastructure within the UK without needing anything new built.
I don't get the sustainability movement when it's based around new new new. It all seems to be missing the point imo. It really irritates me when you see hundreds of brand new cars at ports waiting to be shipped or sitting outside dealerships when I think of how much raw material must have been used in their manufacture.
A lot of claims, assumptions and questions here. I am very skeptical that you read up on any papers or even talked to veteran experts, even though I'm not one myself. If you feel invalidated by "the sustainability movement" then that's probably something you should work on with yourself and those people. Don't let the facts suffer. We are all mortal, fallible creatures with different interests and qualities, and that's okay. Repairability and modularity are definitely popular sustainability topics and part of the "circular economy" discussion. Look it up if you're interested. Do what you gotta do. Take care.
@@Muskar2 I'm actually a graduating motorsport engineering so am quite clued up about alternate powertrain solutions lectured by some true experts so thank you for the assumption!
I also have no idea where feeling invalidated comes from lol.
You can make synthetic monomeric precursors for tires and other plastics. We Chemical Engineers know how to do it. It's just a matter of cost.
@@ronaldlenz5745 That is interesting to know!! I had no idea about that sort of technology.
Is there some basis then to be worried how we would continue to produce tyres or not?
@@foodonfilm5935 Sorry, maybe my phrasing was out of line? I apologize if that was so. I have ASD so it can be hard for me to tell sometimes. Congratulations. I'm glad you're about to get real experience, I'm sure you'll quickly get answers to a lot of these questions. I come from a family of engineers, a few of whom work a lot on sustainability in big international companies, so I know it can take a long time to get your head around how deep the rabbithole goes. And when you're young it can sometimes be hard to keep an open mind. There's a lot of ambivalent studies with different strengths and weaknesses in methodology and data. I'm just a CS who likes natural sciences as a hobby. Take care!
I can see the price of synthetic fuel being driven down similar to how the price of batteries has been driven down. And that cost could be offset by blending with ethanol or petrol based fuels while tech advances.
Yep. Gas at the pump will eventually be mixtures of something like B20 (20% biogasoline or e-Gasoline with 80% petroleum gasoline), then as more efficient and scalable eFuel production techniques are discovered, it will rise to B50, B75, and then B100.
You are not getting the main point here which is that to produce synthetic fuels you need energy and you go through multiple steps. Every step is an energy penalty. Because electric vehicles get the electricity directly from the grid they involve the least number of steps and therefore they are the most efficient. There is go way to go around that.
@@damartimantilla You are using Jason's simplification as a doctrine. Just because there is more steps does not mean it is more energy efficient. If each step in synthetic path was 99% efficient and charging of battery was 5% efficient, would the battery be more efficient just because it has more steps with it's 5% vs 90+% efficiency?
@@damartimantilla also what about the cost that batteries will have on environment and the ecosystems it mined at? EVs will just cause demand to skyrocket. So i guess so long as people wont see it since it will be confined to destroying the places its mined at itll be ok? And what about the cost of doing away old infrastructure? we all know the US current infrastructure has trouble keeping up with demand without the massive strain EVs will bring. Im not against EVs i just think everyone is expecting the change to come way too soon.
@@damartimantilla who cares if that power comes from a renewable source like solar,wind,hydro,nuclear.
At $38/gallon it would cost nearly $400 to fill the tank of my Miata. I love you, little car, but uhh no. Haha
Imagine how much itd take a v8 truck to fill 😂
My little Bolt takes about $4 to 'fill' at home. Compared to my old Subaru's $30+.
If you can charge at home a used EV is great, just stay away from old Leafs.
So I just found this company called Prometheus Fuels. They are creating carbon neutral fuels from the air at the price of normal gasoline. You should look them up, it’s very cool technology and it completely makes sense! They are going to be the near future with BEVs and FCEVs being a later future once everything becomes more efficient with time.
@@swankscabinet1625 same except I knew prometheus company for a year also america bmw made the company aswell.
I love your videos. Very good explanation. I just bought a used 2013 focus electric. Everyone keeps telling me that the 50 miles real range isn’t worth the car. But my excursion v10 costs me $5,000 a year in fuel for my work commute and going out a few times on the weekend. Currently electric is costing me $.04 per mile charging at home and quick charger where I live is free. So far I’ve done 500 miles and paid $10 mainly from the chargers in jersey where I bought the car to drive it home.
Really bro v10? You really expecting savings gas on a V10 excursion.
This dude is driving a viper as daily
Engineering Explained by Jason is one of my favorite channels. I love the videos. Pretty useful and informative.
14:00: Ah, the 10$/gallon gasoline. Me as an European: I already pay almost 9$/gallon for gas - that's not that bad. (let's just omit the fact that most of the cost is taxes :P )
Haha yes, once you add in taxes, you're well over $2/liter w/ synthetic.
But taxes for what, if it is Carbon neutral?
@@thegelik4967 I'm not sure what all of the taxes are allocated to but road maintenance must be a part of it.
Chris Eaton yeah, but in the end it will be considerably cheaper on taxes
@@EngineeringExplained I'm not sure I share the same concerns about taxes. As EVs become more prevalent, we're starting to see governments shift taxation onto the vehicles themselves. My guess is that enthusiast eFuels will be too small a proportion of the market to justify their own tax. Thus preserving an elevated, but still attainable cost.
As well, there is some further hope in Europe (see: classic car emissions exemptions) that so-called 'vehicles of historic import' will be protected by governments in the EV transition.
This should be viewed as an alternative, not a full on replacement
Gonna be hard to see that as an alternative considering Europe and some parts of Canada are starting to ban ICEs from 2035-2040.
@@dzello we have to somehow get their attention with these, but how?
@@Trig. Synthetic fuels, as Porsche mentioned, are viewed as unviable. Porsche is only developing that for motorsports.
So the world is going full electric regardless of some personal preferences.
@@dzello so what you’re saying is that it’s almost impossible to bring this to their attention?
@@Trig. Not almost, just impossible. Manufacturers are going full electric since they know synthetic fuels arent viable.
Synthetic fuels are for motorsports where energy density matters and price is itrelevant, but other than that, its full EVs.
How do these numbers compare to ethanol and bio-diesel?
Great question!
@@EngineeringExplained Will you make a video about that? Would be interesting.
Ethanol production consumes more fuel than it produces.
The area required for these is huuge.
Interesting for making use of some spare land and mixing few percent into normal fuel. But impossible to replace all fuel with that.
@@daniel_960_ Yeah I remember the backlash from environmentalists when they started clear cutting forests in certain countries for this and palm oil. Then there's also the issue with biomass farming but that's another topic!
My only concerns with electric cars is the batteries used, the charging network and how that works for people who don't own/rent a house, the range and the overall cost of the vehicle. Get those things figured out and I'm fully on board. Mainly, I would like something that can go much further than what we have now.
Thats the issue
We are getting better with the range but the issue is that many that have the best range currently are ultra luxury models not meant for the masses. It’s getting closer but we aren’t quiet there yet, at least 3 more years and hopefully the batteries needed for the range will be lighter and smaller as it’s proven smaller lighter batteries are better for range for smaller cars
Govts are falling into the trap of requiring L2 charging in new condos / apartments etc. Thing is L1 slow charging covers most average daily driving needs, given cars are parked for ~12 hours on average. L1 does not require higher electrical service to the building and is a fraction of the L2 costs. If govts had the autonomy to pull back the $1.3 trillion of explicit fossil fuel subsidies, that could help a bit on the transition costs.
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 yeah. Most EV's have started out being "affordable" but then the industry realized these are a really hot topic. Plus, there are stats that have shown that people with a higher income are more likely to care about the planet. put two and two together, and you have what we see now. Price jacked EV's with leather plastered interiors to justify the price because let's be honest, the main demographic that was going to buy these was people with deeper pockets.
You think $2 per litre is expensive 🤣🤣🤣 that's how much I've been paying for at least the last decade at the pump in the UK
Haha, that's the cost of the fuel. Add UK fuel taxes, and it'll go up.
@@EngineeringExplained Well, governments are pushing this energy deprivation agenda. It won't end well! Renewables EROEI is horrendous.
2?
Here it's 4,5 per liter.
@@EngineeringExplained i think they wont tax it.
@@C_R_O_M________ It's really not that bad for wind. Wind is very cheap and pumped water can take care of the biggest downside (it's intermittent). I haven't looked into it, but nuclear is probably quite good, but the payoff time is quite long. Nuclear isn't currently renewable so not everyone counts it.
Wont syntheyic fuel production would be cheaper when the technology improves overtime?
same as EV batteries
Yes, but then so will battery electric. The issue is the efficiency. If you can find a cheaper source of power, then the price goes down. But so does the cost of electricity to charge your car, or to produce hydrogen for your fuel cell, so it's still uncompetitive. The efficiency is unlikely to improve much, since that is determined by the thermodynamics of the process, rather than any particular technology.
Sounds like a cope. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Gas cars drive just fine and allow people to be lifted out of poverty. It’s only the privileged rich that are thinking up projects to burden everyone else
@@TKUA11 If left alone long enough, our gas supply will be broken. Because everything pretty much runs on fossil fuels, the whole world would grind to a halt once fuel runs out.
And don't say that there's an endless amount of fossil fuels to burn. There isn't.
The goal is to find another sustainable energy source before our primary fossil fuel runs out.
So...not a conspiracy.
Porsche has already outlined the ways to make mass production a lot cheaper along with Siemens energy and it looks viable, effective, and possible. It also looks to be in a very near future timeline as opposed to the ever slow growing battery technology, which is one of the oldest technologies mankind has and yet hasn't progressed nearly as much as some technologies in the past few decades.
Assuming more support would get behind this carbon neutral alternative fuel (looking at you Toyota with your opposition towards going electric...) then there's a good chance combustion engined will not disappear
@@timex987987_jj3_studios fossil fuels are a myth the earth naturally produces this substance thru its life cycle dead plant and animal life is NOT the basis for gasoline as the powers to be want you to think cuz youre a dummy 😊
I feel like I understand so much more of these videos after going through grade 11 math and chemistry.
Actual education will do that. Stick with the hard sciences and you'll have life skills of being able to understand or call BS on media articles produced by social "scientists".
@@STho205 For any of the (very legitimate) social scientists out there that read this, just worth mentioning social science most definitely exists, and those pursuing it shouldn't be discouraged. Regardless, yes, you'll find media manipulating information to align with their agendas. Not exactly black and white!
@@EngineeringExplained it is not a hard science or solely empirical one, but it is an honorable discipline of mostly philosophy and political study.
...But you have done your feelings policing of the comments so good and proper.
@@EngineeringExplained woah, you actually read my comment, I actually had a tiny impact on your life, can I be your apprentice?
@@STho205 Haha, I bring it up because my wife, who has a degree and masters degree in biology, is currently pursuing a PhD, also in the same realm, but with a heavy social focus.
Synthetic fuel isn’t mass produced, so a cost comparison now isn’t fair. A big benefit will be that ICE-powered vehicles will continue to roam the Earth, long after all new car sales are electric. While we’re still consuming crude, at least it’s carbon neutral. Another thing is, while H2 isn’t without its issues (for now), everyone ignores the obscene weight of batteries in BEVs. A Tesla Model S weighs almost as much as a Ford Expedition. At least FCEVs don’t need as large of a battery pack v. BEV.
2:44 “create energy”? I thought you were a law-abiding citizen?
$40 a gallon is fine for a weekend gasoline car, not a daily. I’d definitely pay that to keep driving my RX-7 on the weekends, but I’ll definitely have an electric daily in the future.
That's $800 a fill up.
If you have 2 solid days of weekend ridding then that's $1,600 a week.
Or $3,200-$6,400 a month
I really really hope you're not married cause your wife is going to castrate you if she ever finds out how much money you're planning on spending for a hobby 😂
Burn all those receipts 😆
For me, they needs to make bldc based electric motors. They are not that soulless as ACs, better performance, but break down a lot. I will drive anything as long as it's fun to drive.
@@electric7487 It's with extra step.
@@electric7487 Wasn't they built different and more effective than normal AC?
@@georgeb5262 There are basically two types of AC motors used today: Induction motors, and PMSM's. BLDC motors are PMSM's.
Wow, I had just been wondering, actually, while watching one of your battery tech breakdowns, and some talk about different fuel energy densities, if something like an e-fuel could be made. I'm so glad to see this is something that's being worked on, I'm sure there is a future in this tech.
Honestly for shipping, I think nuclear is probably the route to go. Much higher energy density than anything else and is reliable for long trips.
Lol, just in case you need to drive for 20 years without stopping at all.
i dont think private companies can be trusted with nuclear boats. just imagine they neglect the upkeep and now you have hundreds if not thousands little fukushimas running around. Then when end of life is reached the ships conveniently just happen to sink in the middle of international waters because dismantling nuclear boats is a nightmare. No thanks.
@@danieljensen2626 I'll jump off subject a bit: naval vessels
@@faxxzc That’s exactly how it would go down! Here in Australia Woodside Petroleum had an oil rig that was past its use by date so they just “sold” it to two dollar front company and that company goes broke so bingo now the taxpayer is on the hook to decommission it and clean it up!
Nuclear-electric does make sense, at least in theory, for large container ships and cruise ships.
you are missing hte steps untill the battery is able to store the energy vs. the tank is mainly just a box.
hmmm... seeing that diagram is very useful! But one thing it shows is that a good way to improve system efficiency for FCEV and ICE vehicles, why have that electrolysis step occur after the transmission? Even if it's less efficient, I would think that a hydrolysis system could be a good way to store excess energy on-site of the generator.
Transmission losses are smaller when that electricity is reinjected near the point of use. Not to say it's as good as on-site storage at either the use site or production site but it's not 100% worse either.
The difference is using surplus renewable energy and seawater where the purification of the water is just another efficiency loss. Performing that hydrolysis inland means that you are using freshwater as your source and competing against drinking water resources. The people who screamed about food vs fuel are going to melt when they see the math for drinking water vs fuel.
@@mark_5588 it takes 2.5 gal / 10L of water to make 1kg of hydrogen. A typical hydrogen car goes 60mi on that 1kg. It takes at the very least 3 gallons of fresh water to make 1 gallon of gasoline. Usually around 5. And let's not talk about ethanol. So hydrogen fuels slightly decrease demand for freshwater as long as the power used during electrolysis comes from a non-thermal source of energy.
I still don't believe in H2 but it wouldn't make the water problem worse.
Maybe we should start by stopping grass gardens in the middle of the desert instead.
As far as I know the point of the synthetic fuel isn't to replace EVs, but to give sport car enthusiasts and owners of oldtimers a possibility to drive their car without fossil fuel (CO2 neutral).
Also there is maybe a hope of it being used for all the cars which are out there today, because the existing combustion engine cars will stay on the road for some time. It would be wasteful to just destroy them and also not everybody is able to just buy a new EV, so maybe it is possible to use it for a transition phase for regular cars too. But probably it's just too expensive too replace fossil fuel in the transition phase.
Someone needs to make a playlist of Engineering explained, organized so that each video builds on the last in terms of concepts... These videos are an amazing resource for introducing STEM concepts to young automotive enthusiasts:)
if synthetic fuels are so inefficient...why are porsche and f1 racing still looking and investing into efuels?
Another idea is to run a combustion engine with the oil of plants. I'm from Germany and I know some people who took sunflower oil for their Diesel engines because it was less expensive and it could be CO2 neutral.
why not palm oil
@@Rcck.7282 I dont know if it would work in a diesel engine and you must warm the sunflower oil up because it is too viscous, so I dont know if its with palm oil also possible. In addition to this rain forests get cleared to plant palms and thats not good for our climate
@@Rcck.7282 I saw an engine concept of the year 1995 where you could use every plant oil
Or ethanol
@@nicolasjules579 yes its also interesting and not so expensive to equip on "normal" cars but you can't buy E85 at gas stations in Germany since 2016 anymore because the taxes rose up for E85 and the gas stations would not get enough money for this.
Point is why i think Fuel Cell or synth fuel will play a bigger role in the future is the infrastructure we have right now. inventing and optimizing the complex processes of the "energy production" seems way more reasonable than every person relying on a constant charging mechanism and the evolution in battery efficiency.
For anyone wondering, the hydrogen energy density (kWh/l) is for hydrogen in a liquified state. Thought it should be mentioned. Keep doing good work EE!
isnt hydrogen gas when pressurized enough, it turns into liquid?
@@Rcck.7282I am by no means an expert but for liquid H2 to exist it must be cooled below its critical point of 33 K and pressurized above its critical pressure of 13 bar. If these conditions are not met then the hydrogen atoms have too much kinetic energy for the intermolecular forces of attraction to bind them together in the liquid phase.
You can store it as lithium hydride.
The hydrogen tanks weigh a lot.
How does all this change if you consider Nuclear energy? Nobody ever wants to talk about it, but it's far better than any other "clean" energy.
I think it only makes sence as a legacy fuel for classic cars and stuff, so perhaps there will be a market for synthetic fuels, as small as it might be.
Personally, I think the main market for synthetic fuels will be large-scale aviation. I think I recall the viable range for electric aircraft is something like 400km, and carrying a couple of dozen passengers. Basically, what's currently serviced by propeller aircraft. Large-capacity aircraft that use jet engines can't be converted to battery power. Those need synthetic fuel to make them carbon-neutral. Perhaps you might be able to build the atmospheric capture and synthesis equipment on-site at major airports and run them off solar panels on the roofs of the many airport buildings? Or, if not all, then at least a decent chunk of their power requirements.
Bio-diesel has better energy density than even gasoline and works fine in ships and planes.
I was thinking about bio diesel. If you can design an engine from the start to run it, you could run the thing on cooking oil. From a survivalist point of view, thats extremely useful.
Not too many diesel aircraft out there at the moment. But pretty sure the engines are very similar to what is used today. Wonder why it hasn't been adopted for aircraft and shipping as of yet. Cost possibly?
@@TDubya811 jet fuel is very similar to diesel. More similar to diesel than gasoline anyway.
@@TDubya811 diesel is so close to jet fuel they can practically be considered interchangeable.
Yes, cost is the factor.
@@TDubya811 A gas turbine engine can run on anything in theory. Reason why kerosene (Jet A) is used is that it's cheaper to produce than diesel. Reciprocating aircraft engines that run on diesel are extremely rare... I've only seen one which was an experimental biplane.
If you like sitting in a parking lot while your car is charging go ahead, enjoy. I prefer spending 5 minutes to refuel.
I feel like for car guys a hybrid of ev and synthetic fuel is a perfect combo.
Eww, wrong. Make gasoline leaded again.
And hydrogen.
@@ikebvrner we're doing far better than we did without. Please don't advocate for creating more problems.
Hell yeah! Love that instant torque from Electric engines
@@ikebvrner you do know that lead is a poisonous metal right?
We need a mix of all fuel sources, BEVs for commuting, FCEV/PHEVs for longer distances and synthetic for fun/racing and industry.
Well, there is ethanol
Fast charging BEVs will go plenty far enough. If you're carrying humans, humans need to stop every few hours anyway.
@@armadillito As long as you are only talking about normal passenger cars, then sure. BEVs will not work for anything larger for a long time - the battery tech isn't there yet.
Three words: electrification of highways
@@Milan_Openfeint that would work great in California - where they already have rolling blackouts. The grid can't support this amount of load, and won't for a very long time. Plus all the EM fields that will cause who knows what kinds of side effects lol
I would like to see some numbers based on the life cycle of LI batteries. I've heard they last a maximum of 10 years. If everyone is buying a brand new car every ten years rather than keeping a traditonal car running, potentially for decades, aren't we just creating more manufacturing/recycling waste?
Granted you can replace the battery, but we don't even do that with our mobile phones, we just sling it in a drawer and buy the latest model.
people aren't running cars for decades though
You can always recycle lithium, and keep it's 90% of the quality
@@felixbeutin8105My brother has a 1982 Diesel Mercedes that still runs and drives after 41 years. There are many cars out there that probably won't last that long but are maybe closer to 20-30 years, but that's still a very long time.
People need to start looking at long term instead of short term. When narrowed down to post production, EV's look great. It's only once you take into account what it takes to produce them that you find they never become a carbon neutral vehicle. Within 10yrs you have to replace either the whole battery or cells in the battery at which point you "carbon footprint" rises substantially.
@@CTSimRacingTesla model 3 long range battery has a replacement lifespan of 500 000 miles. Average American drives 13 500 miles per year.
That's 37 years until you need to replace it.
The expected life expectancy of a Toyota Carolla is 300 000 miles.
1. Should nuclear also be considered on par with renewable energy?
2. Even if lion batteries are improving, I don't think there is much more room to pack more energy in there, it will never get close to anything traditional fuel has unfortunately.
I'd say that nukes should count, yes. They're not *renewable*, but given that there's about 10,000x as much fission fuel in the ground as there is carbon, I think that counts. Plus, for lack of a better term, "we know how to do it." Meaning "we haven't really figured out fusion, but we have figured out fission, and it's not dependent on 20 more years of invention."
There are still many opportunities to increase the energy density of the battery.
Lithium Ion has an energy density of 250 watts/kg, solid state batteries 600 watts/kg, diamond batteries 1000 watts/kg.
If using 75 kWh battery pack
Lithium Ion = 300 kg with a range of 350 miles
Solid state = 125 kg with a range of 400 miles
Diamond battery = 75 kg with range above 500 miles
With the same battery pack they have a big difference in range, that's because of the weigh reduction.
You are missing a couple key points. First if we want a green and non nuclear grid, photovoltaic and wind must produce excess energy, that energy needs to be stored in some way, to use at night and for no sun/wind conditions. Part of that surplus can be used to manufacture fuels without the efficiency mattering too much because otherwise it would be wasted by curtailment. Second we are talking about a undeveloped technology, some of the first photovoltaics were made with gold and selenium and were 1-2% efficient, should we have ignored the principle forever because the early ones were not good enough?
This is what I've been telling people for years, even before I'd heard of synthetic petrol (because of bio-ethanol). You'll never HAVE to get rid of your classic car, but it will get expensive.
Agreed, when the majority of cars are non-petrol it's going to be prohibitively expensive to run them.
Yeah, but keep in mind that renewables will only give a limited amount of energy. If you look at the studies they usually estimate that we'll already have to drive much less in order to achieve a carbon neutral energy grid fast enough for the paris agreement.
So if the amount of energy we have is limited then the less efficiently we use that energy the more we'll have to sacrifice/the more we'll have to give up.
In terms of the transport sector that means that if we all decided to use synthetic diesel in ICE's we'd only be able to travel 1/7 of the distance we'd be able to travel if we all drove EV's. So if you want sacrifice more, if you want to travel less, then you're going to chose something as inefficient as an ICE with synthetic fuels.
This applies for everyhing we do. If we chose the most efficient methods then we'll barely have to make sacrifices compared to today. But if we chose overly inefficient uses of energy then we'll have to give up more.
A notable technology are heat pumps in this regard and the cogeneratio of electricity and heat. It's far more efficient to use biomass in to cogenerate heat and electricity in a power plant and to heat your home with a heat pump (and the heat from the powerplant if available) then to just directly heat your home with the biomass.
To make it short the dumber we use the available energy the more expensive it will be and the more we'll have to give up (for example we can drive less miles per year). A lot of people don't seem to get this. So question we need to ask ourselves is: "Are our sentimental attitudes towards ICE's worth being able to drive less miles and pay more?"
@@stauffap To your point about cogeneration of heat and electricity, I believe this is cost prohibitive on anything but an urban scale; this is the same reason why older American cities have steam networks to heat indoor radiators, whereas to my knowledge suburban and rural communities essentially never have steam networks. At most, perhaps larger buildings such as hospitals or universities might have their own steam network.
In a great many respects, one of the main conclusions to be drawn is simply that suburban communities are largely unsustainable from an energy consumption standpoint. Instead of continuing to focus on individual personal transportation with EVs, hybrids, ICE with synthetic fuels, hydrogen and so on, it's far more prudent to encourage urbanization. People simply would not need a vehicle to travel to wherever they need to go if public transportation or walking can fulfill that need within an urban context.
@@pseudonymous1382
You know, you don't have to "believe" anything. There have been a ton of studies about how we can build an energy system without fossil fuels. So we know how it can be done and how it can't be done and we also have cost estimates (costs will roughly stay the same if we do it correctly).
@@stauffap You're right! Plenty of science fiction and ignorance of how 80% of the world population lives.
What is this, "We"-stuff, Kimosabe?
Surely if the entire process runs on renewable energy, and if the transporting of the fuels is done via synthetic fuel (Once the first distribution cycle is done or whatever) These will actually be carbon negative and not just neutral. In addition, if the renewable energy sources are infinite*, why does the efficiency ratio matter since supply is bountiful? I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just not 100% sure I understand. Also, Large oil companies own the majority of non-tesla charging stations, as soon as the petrol taps turn off the Electric quick charge price will go up 10 fold, they will not accept a cut to profits and home charging will be non viable for the majority of people in europe.
* I know you are constrained by harvesting, space, cost, and actual availability, its hyperbole*
Efficiency doesn't really matter in the long run. Only cost and profitability matters. Covering only 1% of the Saharan desert in solar panels gives enough electricity to cover todays global usage.
I think the economic case for E-fuels is really strong. And as you say, it will probably turn carbon negative, since a large proportion of the CO2 captured from the air will at all times be in the form of E-fuels.
It will also speed up the cost lowering of carbon capture. That could then be used to essentially stop globabl warming/climate change all together.
The only thing I am a little concerned about is about local emissions: NOx etc. Could that be eliminated with E-fuels?
@@jimj2683 Imagine what'll happen to plants once you reduce CO2 levels.
What you didn't mention is that sometimes efficiency also doesn't matter. It's better to make efuel or hydrogen out of a windmill then having to stop that windmill cause no one is using that energy at that moment. Plus efuels are a lot easier to transport than electricity or even hydrogen. Also here in Germany those prices don't even seem that high in comparison to our fuel prices now so it might become an alternative for eg classic cars. Love your Videos!
Genius, why Germany is f*cked 😂😂😂😂
It's a alternative and the cost will go down, the planet and the economy can't support a massive change to evs overnight, synthetic fuels won't replace evs but will give ice engines a longer lasting future
not just that but why can't we have EVs and Synthetic ICE cars sold simultaniously? If you want an EV go buy one, if you want an ICE car you can buy one too
But Jason won't we run out of lithium in the near future then we will have the same problem again.
Also how environmentally friendly is mining of lithium really?
Lithium is not the issue. We have enough supply for thousands of years. Nickel is much more scarce. Nickel mining needs to be scaled up to meet the future demand. Tesla already announced that they will be mining Lithium from Nevada completely Acid Free.
@@mathew936 the lithium only has to be mined once. Once an EV reaches the end of its lifecycle, the batteries can be recycled (though EV battery recycling isn't done by many companies at the moment, but there's money to be made in that industry, so someone will). The upfront environmental cost of lithium mining and battery production is still offset within the first 20,000 miles of the EV's life, even if fully powered by a coal plant.
cobalt ....even worse
That's a big problem no one wants to talk about, if all cars and other means of transport get totally electrified, how much lithium and other conductors will be left after idk, 100 years of massive extraction? Furthermore, these materials are also used for all kind of electronics which are not going to decline in the future but highly increase. We are already living a worldwide semiconductor shortage, so what will happen when the demand is very much higher than now?
Also, as the guy above me commented, the extraction of these materials is nowhere near of being carbon neutral, and what happens with batteries and other electronic components after the car is scraped? They are highly toxic and you can't just leave them in a scrapyard since it will pollute the air or even the underground water, so yeah massive electrification will come with serious problems that for the moment nobody at the governments or the car companies like Tesla seems to care about.
However, Jason, you have to put the whole business case into perspective. Even if all of this is 100% correct, you still haven't considered the production process, for instance. What energy and resources does it take to produce a lithium-ion battery? What about investments in new infrastructure? Combustion engines are already there. What are the marginal costs of renewable electric energy, say, in the summer, when there is plenty of solar and wind? Does the fuel efficiency matter that much in such a scenario?
When you talk about investment of infrastructure to extract lithium and the rest, don't forget that oil isn't freely available, you also need to extract and transport it. Which is something you don't need for EVs because the electric grid is already in place.
Research has been done on the full carbon cost of the whole chain, from production to usage. And yes EV emit more carbon when they're built than ICE cars, but this is offset really quickly after some years of use. Also they're constantly improving, and new battery tech is developed with cheaper and cleaner material all the time, there's lot of improvement potential in EV, where ICE engines are pretty much as optimised as they will ever get.
@gearhead_2.0 '' Most people on tube these days are paid reviewers including this bloke here, they will just say and spread what their benefactors favour and this keeps on changing from time to time. ''
That's not even true. Actually, if he was paid, he'd have to disclose.
'' It's wiser to ignore what these people preach and use our own heads to make the best way forward. Remember money flows only towards what the end user chooses and not what the government or others would like it too. ''
He literally does the math in front of you and obviously your head isn't very good so it's not wiser for you to ignore him. Also, that last part is entirely false since the government has a heavy hand in the decision and can easily overthrow the money of the population in this debate. Which they did considering multiple countries are currently planing their date of ICE ban (Quebec, Europe, etc.).
'' Make it a law and there's gonna be rebellion, it's inevitable. ''
That's not true at all. Actually, where I live, the governement has called for a ban on ICE sells in 2035 and the population was very happy about it.
See, it's better to use your head *when you're smart* but if you say stuff like that, it's better if you don't use yours.
@@dzello government ICE banning is an agenda that is going to hurt more people than it helps
@@enfynet Not really, no. Its just going to pressure manufacturers towards EVs to complete the transition.
@@dzello that money needs to come from consumers for new vehicles. Lots of people can’t afford new vehicles.
It's weird how some people really love the sound of internal combustion engines, and some people really like the quiet of electric vehicles. A few people really like both, or don't care either way. I wonder if a study has ever been done on how it breaks down.
I switched from a Subaru to a Bolt. While I liked the sound that boxer engine made I also enjoy the singing that the motor in my Bolt makes. It's definitely not silent, though it is quieter.
I haven't been in a Tesla to see just how quiet their motors are. I have test driven an eGolf and Fiat 500e, but the road noise was worse in them so I couldn't hear the motor much during those tests.
I like videos of those super loud V8s and other gas guzzling engines, but IRL they're too loud for me. The boxer never got too loud.
I really don't like Harley and other motorcycle engine noise.
I like the 1/4 cost per mile a lot more than I miss the sound from the boxer. :)
its like the left, right, and centrists in politics lol
people who really care about the sound... here's the catch... ic engines dont produce sound anymore... its engineered sound... which can be done for ev too...
@linuxbasic wrong
Those are only numbers without context. There are many many benefits of efuel: faster refueling than charging, lower car weight, you don’t have a problem with very expensive and not ecological batteries, high efficiency with high speeds. And petrolheads will still have sound of exhausts + possibility to tune cars
What about syn diesel made by bio organisms? Guess it's hard to put into a %
Yeah I don't think there's much value in putting energy inputs into large scale chemistry to make synthetic fuels. It's just not an efficient use of that energy, which could instead power many things directly.
However, if we are able to cheaply produce syn-diesel using biological processes with minimal inputs, then that's potentially a huge win. The most promising thing I've seen has been bioengineered algae in mechanically aerated vats, which can be refined very easily and cheaply to produce bio diesel. This nearly eliminates the energy inputs since the algae capture the energy from the sun, and also eliminates the carbon inputs since the algae capture that from the air. The issues are engineering/breeding the most productive algae, and establishing the processes for it. If we can do this with saltwater, that's even more useful since it makes production dramatically more geo-flexible without impacting local fresh water supplies.
If this approach can be made commercially viable, then I think it's our best avenue for making existing fossil fuels infrastructure carbon neutral in the short term. ICE is mostly bad because of the fossil fuel carbon release: we know how to deal with the other pollutants well enough.
The stumbling block there becomes solar efficiency. Photosynthesis is not very efficient at converting sunlight into energy, and then there's still quite a lot of processing to do once the organism has created the fuel.
I heard there's a HUGE problem with the amount of nitrogen needed to grow these organisms.
I worked for a year on an algae to diesel project. And it all comes back to the real golden rules: the 3 laws of thermodynamics. Running the algae in photosynthesis mode meant the surface area to get enough sunlight into them to produce a significant amount of C17 oils was about the surface area of the US (only a slight exaggeration). However, algae can run in fermentation mode so you could then get them to produce significant quantities in tanks but you have to feed them simple sugars produced in complex processes. Ultimately we scrapped the project to make fuel after we found that the oil was a fantastic fat for food use and the dried algae made a very good flour for baking. When I see one of Exxon's greenwash ads about algal fuels, I throw something at my TV. I've bought a lot of TVs.
It seems reasonable to imagine that the costs associated with producing these types of fuels will come down over time. Also, I sometimes wonder if things like carbon capture may save the ICE.
the problem is that, in the end, an ICE can never have a better efficiency than the carnot cycle, whitch is around 35% If I recall well.
It will never be cheaper than EV.
Plus, they are mechanically very complicated (way more than EV). If battery technology improve enough, there will be no advantage for ICE. Especially in cars.
Edit: I got my numbers wrong, some engines are at 40%, best diesel (not applicable in a car) are around 50%.
@@xmtxx search up opposed piston engines, they have really high efficiency
@@ayoutubechannel921 no one cares
@@Scumbagius and why is that?
@@ayoutubechannel921 Nah, you're mistaken. Opposed piston engines have high efficiency '' for ICE engines '', not high efficiency in general. No ICE has high efficiency due to its nature as an ICE.
Synthetic fuels have been around since WW2. That should clarify as to the future of synthetic fuels.
That synthetic fuel was made from Coal
Electric cars have been around before WW1. That also sould clarify the future of synthetic fuels.
electrics came before internal lol
@@GODAXEN Yep. ICE is on borrowed time.
Not carbon neutral ones tho, but yeh all the more reason they are not applicable to the mass market
The problem with you calculation is synthetic fuel is expensive because there is very low volume of production, if it was mass produced it would significantly reduce the cost. The other thing is how many millions of ICE vehicles are on the road how much energy and resources will it take to replace all of them with say electric vehicles and THEN how much energy will it take to scrap all those ICE vehicles. Then we have how Loooooooooong will that take yet if every ICE vehicle started using synthetic fuel now which they can without any modification how much fast could we at least stop the increase in co2. Giving us more time to develop or introduce better cleaner systems
My understanding of the porsche synthetic fuel was that it was molecularly identical to crude based fuel. Wouldn't that mean it's energy density is actually identical to normal gasoline? Or is that the difference from the ethanol being added to current fuel sources.
I mean they are releasing next year almost everything Porsche has done was a success,
All we have to do is wait for the results
The wait may be a very long one. The factory hasn't even started to be built yet.
The biggest Advantage of syntethic fuels is that we already have produced the Cars that can run that fuel. For electric or hydrogen alternatives we have to Produce the Cars First.
As we all know is the production process of a vehicle responsible for a significant amount of the carbon totally emmited during its lifetime.
Internal combustion cars are clearly not the future, but they should maybe be used with synthetic fuels instead of replacing them with other vehicles.
greetings from germany, really good video
Ehrenmann
@@starstencahl8985 lol
A really big point you miss on the EV side of your equation is the massive fossil fuel footprint of an EV car's manufacturing process with the vast amount of mineral mining and transportation of those same minerals to battery manufacturing facilities around the world and then the transportation of the finished battery itself. Not to mention that most electricity (estimated 80% in the US) comes from fossil fueled generating stations. As far as I'm concerned EV cars are ANYTHING but green. They are far more damaging to the environment overall than ICE cars, the only distinction is the lack of a tailpipe. Just my humble opinion.
“As far as you are concerned”. Does this mean you will not change your opinion if you do some basic research? Or will you give it a humble try on the phone or laptop (100% mined materials by the way) you typed your message on and maybe change your mind?
There’s a lot of nonsense out there on this topic so you might want to make sure you have not been misled before making a comment
The good thing is that when there is heaps of renewable energy infrastructure there will be extra supply so might as well us that excess for something. *Assumption is this excess in supply won't be better needed elsewhere.
shells blue gasoline emits ca 20% less CO2 overall compared to ICE fed by regular gas, which is the same as EVs save.
You didn't watch the video? Renewable powered EV emit 0 CO2 at 40-70% efficiency. PTL fuels at
0 CO2 🤣
our grits are far away from being 100% renewable.
edit: and those 20% CO2 savings are over the life cycle, not just what comes out of the exhaust.
I know that they won't replace them, I just hope that they can extend the life of the internal combustion engine.
That's precisely the opposite of the aim. The nations and companies who have signed up to the Paris Climate Agrrement - which is a legally binding agrrement - have little hope of meeting their emissions/carbon footprint targets with too many combustion engines still being used. Therefore, you can probably expect to see ever increasing legislation, with the aim of reducing their usage.....
@@Brian-om2hh That’s why he was hoping the synthetic fuel could save the ICE for a bit, so we can use it with those synthetic (green) fuels
@@Brian-om2hh The increased legislation even already started. From 2035, Quebec bans ICE sells. From 2040, Europe does. Expect manufacturers to stop making them earlier (no ponit making them for a dead market).
Ice cars are staying here for atleast another 20-30 years
@@R1___ Well, where I live, the ICE sells ban is in 2035. Thats in 14 years... We expect manufacturers to make electric cars only by then. So.. Id say less than that.
One of the biggest arguments against eFuels is the “poor thermal efficiency” of combustion engines. But in my opinion and experience, I am wondering if this even matters anymore. Case in point. I’m a freelance photographer and I drive a lot all over Germany meaning long Autobahn cruises. My car (2018 Mercedes A250 W177) is loaded with my heavy gear and I will often just cruise at 130 km/h with the occasional venture into the 200 km/h+ zones. On such trips, my gasoline car can get 6 L / 100 km - which is incredible.
In cities, I combine Start-Stop with “aggressive driving” (quick acceleration from a standstill to get up to speed and then let the car coast) and in this fashion I can improve my fuel economy. When I am stuck behind people who can’t drive and need a minute (literally) to accelerate to 50 km/h, my fuel economy actually worsens. I learned in driving school to always accelerate quickly to 50-60 km/h in the city, then coast, to improve gas mileage.
Bottom line: modern ICE are so efficient and there’s probably room for improvement. Of course they can’t touch the efficiency of an electric motor, but they are nonetheless efficient in this day and age for what they are.
Also, I saw an interesting documentary on these new Dual-Fluid-Nuclear-Reactors which are being developed by German engineers in Canada and Rwanda (of all places). The head engineer said these reactors produce a lot of heat - and this heat could be used for electrolysis to create hydrogen and eFuels and thus would offer these fuels at competitive prices. What’s not to like about this???
Completely misses the point, Jason! There are millions of existing ICE cars which would be made carbon neutral at a stroke, if their fuel was made from atmospheric CO2, with no change to distribution networks and gas stations. The end user does nothing different. Your efficiency also neglects the weight of batteries, permanently added to the weight of a car. Liquid fuels fit any shape of tank, that can be thin and light, but gases, like LPG and hydrogen require strong, heavy, pressure-resistant cylindrical tanks that are hard to incorporate into vehicle structures. Ditto batteries. BEVs are much more expensive than ICE, and only a few people can afford a Tesla. BEVs will eventually get cheaper, batteries will get more energy-dense, and recharge much faster, without the fire risk of Li-ion, but not any time soon. That's why we need synthetic fuels, pronto!
There isn't going to be enough excess energy for that if we actually pursue something crazy like a fully renewable grid. The only way it would be cost effective is with nuclear power due to it's extra high capacity factor. With a renewable grid all excess energy will be extremely precious and be stored for dips in generation in grid storage, rather than used to produce synthetic fuels. Wind is especially unreliable as you can go from 95% capacity to 5% capacity for weeks on end. Only when your grid storage is completely full will you be able to produce synthetic fuels, which would mean an unreliable mode of production. On the other hand, nuclear power has a 90%+ capacity factor and is always producing at night, so you would have a very reliable source of excess energy that's always on, which could then be used to produce synthetic fuels.
Unfortunately we're winding down nuclear and pursuing renewables or in many cases, switching back to fossil fuels (refer to Indian Point). Other countries aren't though, like China, which will have the largest nuclear infrastructure in the world very soon. This would put China in a very good position to produce synthetic fuels with their extremely reliable excess energy at night, more than likely making them the global leader in synthetic fuels, probably leading to enough production for major exports. Just another area where we're going to fall behind :)
Over several years of ownership many current EVs are on average slightly cheaper than ICE vehicles due to the lower "fuel" and maintenance costs. Also combustion fuel is a bigger fire risk than Li ion batteries, EVs catch fire at a lower than average rate.
@@VitalVampyr ...until you have to replace the batteries, or until road pricing arrives...as to fires, considering the much lower percentage of EVs, the fire risk is much greater, and battery fires are impossible to extinguish!
2$ per liter is what I'm paying now for regular fuel :(
Per gallon? Dang man, why don’t u elect some politicians that aren’t Gona bend you over and abuse you, when you’re at the pump?
$1.25 per LITER
@@TKUA11 7.64$ pr gallon here
@@TheExegetic you’re getting ripped off. Call your legislators and tell them that this is not ok
@@TKUA11 Issue is that Europe is just going green for decades. Most people here think it is fine. USA is on the opposed end so as a result you got cheap petrol.
Finally someone who has realistic expectations of efuel
@Ted G And you know what's cheaper? just shoving the energy in a BEV. Porsche is also investing in a 90% recyclable battery, and tons of other EV tech. Even them, the biggest proponents(Audi is not actually investing, they tried to make E-diesel earlier this decade and failed to get anywhere), realizes that they are never going to use it as a mass market solution. It's strictly to keep their legacy sports cars and future 911's and caymans on the road.
@@arjund.4817 Porsche themselves stated the 911 is never going electric. They said they are heavily investing to keep producing new ICE cars and putting them on the road
As a professional writer, I once asked a computer engineer if there would ever be such a thing as real time spell checking? he laughed, "of course not! There will never be enough speed in a computer to manage the checking the of spelling for every word as you type it!" You all know how wrong he was. Sometime later, a WordPerfect engineer asked me if I thought computers could ever write articles . . . I laughed, "Of course not, English mechanics are well beyond the comprehension of computers." I was wrong and I learned a lesson. When people say we will not be able to hard things in the future, they are using what we can do today to predict what we will be able to do in 20years . . . when technologies and public needs will be completely different. How many of your neighbors have run out to buy an EV? Two thirds of the population of the US (e.g., apartment, condo, dorm, duplex, trailer, dwellers, and the like) couldn't own one and reasonably charge it. Moreover, 40% the population doesn't believe in climate change (why would they buy an EV when they vandalize charging stations for sport). We will have E-fuels in the future, because if we don't, we are doomed.
Your efficiency breakdown was awesome, really puts it into perspective and I now begin to understand why the markets are shifting towards BEV.
Correct. Synthetic hydrocarbons make the most sense for large-scale/long-haul transportation (airplanes, trains, ships, semi trucks) where practicality and cost-effectiveness make up for the inefficiency. Once that's in place, synthetic petrol for performance cars, motorbikes, and powersports can be a convenient secondary source of revenue.
@@electric7487 the utter LACK of cost-effectiveness of a drop-in replacement fuel that costs 10x more than fossil fuel is why aviation and shipping are in no hurry to switch. Airlines occasionally do stunts where they'll have a single flight powered by renewable e-fuels, or one airport where 5% of the fuel is renewable e-fuel, but they're not interested in funding the transition to a far more expensive fuel until governments ban fossil fuel.
Youre just gonna crush our dreams like that huh
I think he is wrong to a certain degree. One production is ramped up and the production process further refined the costs will be reduced due to availability.
@@bennynortheast1328 He's not since even Porsche said it's only gonna be for motorosports. Also, even if price goes down, EV prices will go down far more making the outcome quite obvious.
What about that hydrogen combustion engine that Toyota put in their prototype Corolla? I didn't dive deeper into the topic but perhaps that could be an interesting alternative.
yes, its possible but check his figures on hydrogen efficiency
Converting Hydrogen into electricity via a fuel cell is far, far, more efficient than burning it in a piston engine. Efficiency would be worse than the examples given.
Here's my video on the subject: th-cam.com/video/1Ajq46qHp0c/w-d-xo.html
Hydrogen ICE works but it also sucks. It's less efficient and still makes NOx (which is bad for peoples' health) even though there is no carbon emissions.
The actual problem which is not getting discused very often is that the infrastructure of Ev‘s isnt good enough for everybody having an EV and not to mention what will happen to exsisting ICE cars ? By replacing every ICE car the CO2 emissions would skyrocket because the battery production emitts massive amounts of CO2.
In fact altough the efficeny of e-fuels is not that good at the moment we should keep using ICE‘s because producing millions of new cars with batterys which are emitting a lot of CO2 in production is not helping to fight against the global warming.
It's almost like any solution that involves individual car ownership is suboptimal 🤔
Freevalve technology on ICE's is pretty cool
Freevalve can run 100% ethanol
@@ayushk4099 cool - learning something new every day
Or hydrogen toyota ice engine 👍
@@erlanggaadhi3130 Even JCB and Airbus are doing the same H2 engine
Well you answered another question that I didn't even know I had, Jason. Good job!
All of VP Racing's racing fuels are synthetic, no crude is involved.
😳
The step-by-step process diagram is an awesome illustration.
2:18 "you'd have to find a new energy source for transportation" and... for some reason it cuts to a Tesla at a recharging station. Implying... ?
Urea is a superior storage medium to hydrogen. But great presentation, well done.
Ammonia?
@@theonlyonepaulo Ammonia is also a much superior storage medium to hydrogen, except for the being incredibly toxic, and boiling away at relatively low temperatures or spilling or leaking and needing to be held in containment that takes all of these into consideration. Ammonia stores more energy more densely and when needed hydrogen can be easily generated from ammonia, or ammonia can be put to countless uses.
Urea, or carbamide, is an upgrade over ammonia, storing far more energy even more densely. Urea is solid at room temperature, non-toxic, can be liquified for easy pipeline transport then reconstituted for solid storage, doesn't burn or easily vaporize in normal conditions. Both ammonia and hydrogen can be got out of urea easily, and like ammonia, urea has countless other uses.
Both ammonia and urea can be formed from waste biomass (or from purpose-grown biomass, but why divert cropland to fuel use until all waste materials are used up first?) using either 'waste' energy (peak production/low demand due time of day, solar or wind variability), in "Power-to-Fuel" chemical storage, and here is where urea really shines: decades after your Hydrogen has leaked through any container, or your ammonia has evaporated, urea will remain ready to convert back to energy.
Nice video. You note a very important subject.
Also called EROEI = energy returned on energy invested.
The thing to look for against (marketing) "Green washing".
2,5dollar a liter for synfuel isn't that expensive, in the Netherlands we pay €1.75/liter for E10 95octane.
And €2.00/L for 100octane without ethanol, with today's exchange that is $2,5/L
Should have pointed out, $2/L is referencing cost. However much individual countries tax that cost is a different subject (big part of why fuel is much more expensive in Europe vs US).
That's a valid point. 2 days ago, I was in Germany and paid €1,54/L for E5 95 (E10 was even cheaper). Pure tax difference.
@@fastnb You paid about 1€ in taxes and fees, the gasoline price is approx. 0,50€/l.
Overall cost of running a car needs to be considered.
We need to include the cost of wearables. Fuel might be expensive but how much is a new battery, or tyres or brakes?
Are the insurance costs of an EV more?
Are taxes more or less and how will they change, (because they WILL change - the govt ALWAYS move the goalposts)?
Drive an electric car daily, use a gas-powered car for fun? I can live with that
Renewable energies will provide a limited amount of energy. Already while assuming that we're going to electrify the transport sector researcher are telling us that we have to drive less in order to achieve a carbon neutral energy system.
So if you think that it's a good idea to drive an ICE with e-fuels "for fun", then i hope you know what that would mean. It would mean that we all have to give up more things i.e. the more inefficiently we use our limited energy sources the more people will have to give up. That means that you'll be able to drive less miles per year etc.
So lets just imagine that we all went with synthetic diesel vehicles instead of electric cars (the entire transport sector). That would mean that we could only drive 1/7 of the distance that we could drive if we all drove EV's. The way i see it you're really shooting yourself in your own foot by wasting energy like that. We have to be smart about how we use energy, if we don't want to make huge sacrifices.
The same goes for other inefficient uses of energy. You could heat your home with biomass for example. That would be the most efficient use of biomass though. It would be more efficient to use the biomass to produce heat and electricty and to then use that electricity to heat your home with a heat pump.
So generally it's a bad idea to heat directly with biomass. Instead use it in combined heat and power powerplant and heat your homes with heat pumps.
That means we can do more with the same amount of energy, which again means that we have to sacrifice less. And i don't know about you. But i'd rather drive an EV and am able to drive 10'000 miles a year then to drive an EV and an ICE "for fun" and only drive 5000 miles a year.
Nah, gas daily.
@@Irowned
I'm not sure if you're just not very intelligent or if you're just immoral. What do you think?
@@Irowned were you not listening to a word he said?
As Bernie Sanders would say: "Why do you have 2 vehicles when many people can't even afford one?!!!! That's not fair!"
I thought hydrogen gas is hard to store because of “brittleness” and it has to be stored at high pressure. Unless they use different storing methods.
@@Simoxs7 Burning magnesium rips the oxygen out of literally everything. It's terrifying.
I could be wrong but because the molecule is so small it can also leak really easily in whatever you use to store it.
How does ethanol production using fermentation stack up for efficiency I wonder. ICE engines can be made to run on ethanol blend in many cases. You could produce ethanol and synthetic fuel side by side even since fermentation produces co2 as a by product
The problem with biofuels is that in the end you are burning food, and cars eat a lot.
I see your point. You certainly wouldn't want to starve people or clear forests to grow crops for fermentation. But the 2 need not be mutually exclusive. You don't need your grain/sugar/starch to be of food grade quality if it's being used for fuel. It can be spoiled grain, leftover bread, otherwise unsellable harvests. Maybe there are crops that can be grown alongside or inbetween others that can do the job. If we're going to keep driving vehicles around we need to pull the energy from somewhere. Electric cars are good for certain things but keeping an open mind to other clean alternatives can never be a bad thing
The fact of the matter is that it would be better to run on straight E100 ethanol produced from purpose grown crops with high sugar content like sugar beets (not corn) and not convert it to synfuel. The problem with ethanol is mixing it with conventional fuel. Henry Ford said ethanol was a much better fuel than gasoline because, even though it has lower energy density than gasoline, it can tolerate much higher compression ratios without detonation, and all his early vehicles were designed to run on both with a simple ignition timing adjustment on the steering column. Ricardo engineering in UK built a pure ethanol engine that delivered tremendous torque for its size, more than a much larger diesel engine. The seals in older cars can simply be replaced with modern ethanol compatible materials. There is enough idle farmland to grow fuel crops without competing with food crops. It's basically become a political issue.
Great way to preserve ICE motorsport and classic cars through a future without gasoline
Energy efficiency is cool but what about the end life of each BEV and the amount of weight they have putting strain on the roads and bridges?
The old batteries can be reused (e.g. as energy storage) and recycled and cars have been getting heavier constantly through car history so that not something new...
Average battery life is about 10 years or 200k. Maintenance on US infrastructure is poor anyway. Also since the best selling vehicle of all time is the Ford F series wieght isn't changing much. Cars been getting heavier and heavier for quite some time. A 1907 F100 weighted 3060 , a 2020 F150 weights up to 5600 lbs. The 2021 f150 lightning weights 6500.
Not real issues in your cases.
How many miles does the average ICE last today? 200-250k???
We are seeing Tesla's with 400k on the original battery pack.
And they will get recycled.
The 800# difference between ICE and BEV is negligible. It is heavy trucks that do 90+% of the damage.
And if you want goods on the shelves that isn't going to change whether the truck is diesel or electric.
.
@@dreday2751 In Italy or anyway europe we don't drive such elephants and recently there are bridge issues. Not to talk about road conditions.
Weight is pretty much same as gassed up ICE vehicle.
costs will drop. it's natural
2021 the USA alone used 19.8 million barrels of oil PER DAY. Most of it used to make gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. There’s no way synthetic fuels can scale to those levels of production. The most we can hope for is that enough will be available to power collector cars so they can continue to be driven without environmental restrictions.