A hot take that’s more like just room temperature. Really sensible and smart to be utilising synthetic fuels. I wonder where the money leads us and why it might not be a preferred option right now?
At least theoretically it is an extremely smart option. The practical side seems to find trouble when scaling and making it available to the masses. Then the question would be how costly it would be to produce versus what we have now.
There's a really simple answer: Carbon neutral fuels aren't real. Every bit of carbon neutral or carbon negative energy that goes into producing fuels rather than offsetting the enormous carbon footprint of global scale energy usage means that there's just more carbon emissions elsewhere. It's a true zero sum game. Anything that doesn't /directly/ contribute to reduction of fossil fuels is harmful. If we already had electrical power completely green, than using synthetic fuels like this might actually be better than using battery electric vehicles in some cases (due to weight considerations and how destructive mining for battery materials can be), but until that's the case, the power could've been used for other things more effectively. Remember that every time power is transformed into something else, there is an efficiency loss. One of the reasons batteries aren't good is because you have to create electricity, convert it to chemical energy in the battery, then convert it back to electricity. In the same way, synthetic fuels are converting electrical power into chemical energy that is then released through burning. If that electrical energy was instead directly used for something we need electricity for, you skip an energy loss step of converting it to a chemical fuel. Similarly, converting a synthetic fuel into driving involves an energy conversion that is always less efficient than electrical. Anything powered by combustion can only reach around 50% efficiency, whereas motors are already much higher. Now, I'm not an expert either, so details I may have got slightly off or missed can change how this works out, but I do know at a minimum anything producing electricity without carbon emissions must be used directly to be helpful in combating emissions problems, because anything else it goes into will invoke an energy loss. We can't afford these energy losses. --- Of course, all of that is ignoring the single biggest problem related to vehicles: We shouldn't be driving our own vehicles as much as possible. There should be free access to public transit for most needs, and on-demand access to individual vehicles for trips that public transit can't service. The entire infrastructure being based on personal vehicles is fundamentally inefficient and flawed. It's so incredibly bad that something like 2% more use of public transit would reduce emissions by like 7%, because that's how few cars need to be taken off the road to decrease traffic enough to make all vehicles more efficient because they spend less time idling while stopped, and are out on the roads for less time. Again, not an expert, so the numbers aren't exactly right, but the POINT is. Personal vehicles cause much more destruction than publicly shared vehicles. Even simple changes like grouping the reasons you take a trip together to reduce the number of trips you take make a significant difference. For example, only getting groceries when you are on your way home from work, and making big purchases on those same trips. Or just getting more groceries in one trip to take fewer trips. Even if the total distance driven is the same, fewer trips means less time the vehicle spends warming up, which is when they are most polluting. (Catalytic converters need significant heat before they can reduce emissions.)
Thanks for detailed reply. I think you’re spot when you break it down to the real cost on the environment of each of the transport choices. Limiting how and when we use transport options is a great way to take personal responsibility. The more global and community transportation requirements are a larger issue/challenge to tackle. Also, I want to be able to enjoy the happiness of enjoying a drive in a car that I love, that’s why I think synthetic fuels are a way to be better in the short to medium term. Thanks again for your insights!
Not everyone has the same needs. I own a dino burner and an EV. EVs are great for families with 2 vehicles. The dino burner is great for long trips and towing. The EV is more convenient as you plug it in to charge rather than faffing around at the gas station. Electricity is the only fuel you can produce yourself emission free and once we have enough batteries when their life ends in 30-50 years we can recycle then reducing the need to mine as much. Yes.. 50 years, new batteries are being produced called single crystal lithium batteries that last much longer. ICE cars are great when I think of 40years of evolution. EV batteries have evolved a lot in the last 5 years.
Thanks for the comment here. We agree that these cars all have different usage outcomes and to use an electric vehicle for local city driving is its perfect sweet spot!
CO2 isn't harming anything, it is good for plants and thus us. Anyone that has finished gradeschool should know this, and the ones that don't should go stand in a corner and be ashamed of themselves.
I think that as basic knowledge is true. The issue currently is are we producing more than the planet can manage. We don’t really want to get into that debate. What we can discuss is based on the social commentary, how much better or worse are the different categories of automobiles we have on the market. Which is what we touched on here
@@thevalvebounce The planet can handle as much as we can give it, most plants today especially C3 plants, which is most trees and nearly all crops would prefer 2000ppm at least. They are per definition stressed. Professional greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities, up to 1200ppm seems to be economically viable for most, while some stop at 800pp, as it is a deminishing return deal, and the gas escapes. CO2 is a fertilizer and useless as a greenhouse gas.
@@Throku"The planet can handle as much as we can give it". Well this is true. In the sense of global warming is not going to destroy the earth. And it's not going to destroy all ecosystems. There have been periods in Earth's history where you as a human being could never exist. There was a period in Earth's history when the organisms that existed could not utilize oxygen at all. In fact when the oxygen was released from the oceans and other oxygen emitting bacteria that life form nearly went totally extinct. The only place it exists now is down by thermal vents in the ocean where you could not exist nor can any fish that requires a certain mix of mostly nitrogen and oxygen and a trace of argon to exist. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere is going to make human life and most surface life untenable. Let me ask you this question. Exactly how long do you think you could go outside and mow lawn when the temperature outside is 140° Fahrenheit? Not very long. And not very long before you actually die or are irreparably damaged. Global warming as it stands now is caused by human beings. We are the largest biomass on this planet exceeding all the other biomasses like elephants whales wolves trees and such. And as you can tell not every part of this planet is habitable. At least not in the quantities of people that you see in the more habitable parts of the planet. For example. You can live in the Arctic but only a few people can actually survive there and it's tough going. And before there is anything modern like fossil fuel burning engines living in the Arctic was really tough. Same thing with living in the jungle. The jungle is probably one of the most hostile places to human beings on this planet. Cuz everything in that jungle, if it had agency, is out to kill you. So what global warming is causing now is our species to become stressed to the point that all of this civilization that you're used to and the antibiotics and the medication and the fixing of your broken limbs so they're not crooked, or not having 40% of your children die before the age of 10 etc will go bye-bye. And we will be back to a population on the planet of maybe a couple million and that's it. Cuz that's all there was back in the old pre-agricultural days of our existence on this planet which has been roughly 3 to 4 million years. And I wager damn good money that neither you nor I would survive in that world that our ancestors lived in when every single predator on the planet looked at us as a meal or as annoying. In fact now, if I was to strip you butt naked and drop your butt in the middle of the Serengeti plain where there are lions and leopards and hyenas and not a lot of water and watering holes with big ass crocodiles and wildebeest in the millions you would not fare well at all. You would probably die within about a week or two. Because you'd have a hard time trying to get food you'd have a hard time not being eaten when you go to get water, And you would have a hard time not having dysentery from that basically unclean water because you can't make a fire and boil it in a metal pan because none of that's going with you in this little scenario, you would have a hard time competing for any kind of resource with any kind of animal because they have the upper hand over and you don't have guns you don't have bows and arrows you don't even have shoes on your feet. So running is a problem and your little bare baby soft butt feet are not going to do well in that environment at all. So it's likely you will die within a week or two and I'm being generous.
Ev and Ice cars vs Tesla. This is the real fight today. Model Y is the best selling vehicle Ev or Ice today. Other Evs are made to fail and make people give up on them. But there is Tesla made to work with its fast chargers. All brands were left behind a lot. No point of return now.
Tesla definitely lead the pack. I believe they make up at least 50% of ALL EV sales with existing manufacturers sharing the remaining EV sales. I doubt that Tesla lead on technology and battery efficiency but their car manufacturing is way behind the quality of the existing car makers.
@@thevalvebounce Tesla are now looking at hydrogen options so does even Tesla now realise that EV's aren't the future as everyone is trying to convince us right now?
I think the answer is that one solution isn't the way forward. We need to be looking at all possibilities including technology we aren't aware of yet. Rimac is currently looking into nanotube technology in what is believed to power electric motors via fuel sources. What would seem to be a backward step, might actually be a way forward, so we are keen to see how that works in the real world. One things for sure, we should be excited, we are in a huge growth period that will define what we know the car to be moving forward.
Whilst we acknowledge TH-cam titles are always a bit click bait triggering we know that EV’s are apart of the new world of automotive industry but their issues with resale values, mostly expensive entry costs and their challenges with recharging infrastructure they need help if they are going to continue to be a worthwhile replacement to ICE engines
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](/img/n.gif)
A hot take that’s more like just room temperature. Really sensible and smart to be utilising synthetic fuels. I wonder where the money leads us and why it might not be a preferred option right now?
At least theoretically it is an extremely smart option. The practical side seems to find trouble when scaling and making it available to the masses. Then the question would be how costly it would be to produce versus what we have now.
There's a really simple answer: Carbon neutral fuels aren't real.
Every bit of carbon neutral or carbon negative energy that goes into producing fuels rather than offsetting the enormous carbon footprint of global scale energy usage means that there's just more carbon emissions elsewhere. It's a true zero sum game. Anything that doesn't /directly/ contribute to reduction of fossil fuels is harmful.
If we already had electrical power completely green, than using synthetic fuels like this might actually be better than using battery electric vehicles in some cases (due to weight considerations and how destructive mining for battery materials can be), but until that's the case, the power could've been used for other things more effectively. Remember that every time power is transformed into something else, there is an efficiency loss. One of the reasons batteries aren't good is because you have to create electricity, convert it to chemical energy in the battery, then convert it back to electricity. In the same way, synthetic fuels are converting electrical power into chemical energy that is then released through burning. If that electrical energy was instead directly used for something we need electricity for, you skip an energy loss step of converting it to a chemical fuel.
Similarly, converting a synthetic fuel into driving involves an energy conversion that is always less efficient than electrical. Anything powered by combustion can only reach around 50% efficiency, whereas motors are already much higher.
Now, I'm not an expert either, so details I may have got slightly off or missed can change how this works out, but I do know at a minimum anything producing electricity without carbon emissions must be used directly to be helpful in combating emissions problems, because anything else it goes into will invoke an energy loss. We can't afford these energy losses.
---
Of course, all of that is ignoring the single biggest problem related to vehicles: We shouldn't be driving our own vehicles as much as possible. There should be free access to public transit for most needs, and on-demand access to individual vehicles for trips that public transit can't service. The entire infrastructure being based on personal vehicles is fundamentally inefficient and flawed. It's so incredibly bad that something like 2% more use of public transit would reduce emissions by like 7%, because that's how few cars need to be taken off the road to decrease traffic enough to make all vehicles more efficient because they spend less time idling while stopped, and are out on the roads for less time.
Again, not an expert, so the numbers aren't exactly right, but the POINT is. Personal vehicles cause much more destruction than publicly shared vehicles. Even simple changes like grouping the reasons you take a trip together to reduce the number of trips you take make a significant difference. For example, only getting groceries when you are on your way home from work, and making big purchases on those same trips. Or just getting more groceries in one trip to take fewer trips. Even if the total distance driven is the same, fewer trips means less time the vehicle spends warming up, which is when they are most polluting. (Catalytic converters need significant heat before they can reduce emissions.)
Thanks for detailed reply. I think you’re spot when you break it down to the real cost on the environment of each of the transport choices. Limiting how and when we use transport options is a great way to take personal responsibility. The more global and community transportation requirements are a larger issue/challenge to tackle. Also, I want to be able to enjoy the happiness of enjoying a drive in a car that I love, that’s why I think synthetic fuels are a way to be better in the short to medium term. Thanks again for your insights!
Not everyone has the same needs. I own a dino burner and an EV. EVs are great for families with 2 vehicles. The dino burner is great for long trips and towing. The EV is more convenient as you plug it in to charge rather than faffing around at the gas station. Electricity is the only fuel you can produce yourself emission free and once we have enough batteries when their life ends in 30-50 years we can recycle then reducing the need to mine as much. Yes.. 50 years, new batteries are being produced called single crystal lithium batteries that last much longer. ICE cars are great when I think of 40years of evolution. EV batteries have evolved a lot in the last 5 years.
Thanks for the comment here. We agree that these cars all have different usage outcomes and to use an electric vehicle for local city driving is its perfect sweet spot!
CO2 isn't harming anything, it is good for plants and thus us. Anyone that has finished gradeschool should know this, and the ones that don't should go stand in a corner and be ashamed of themselves.
I think that as basic knowledge is true. The issue currently is are we producing more than the planet can manage. We don’t really want to get into that debate. What we can discuss is based on the social commentary, how much better or worse are the different categories of automobiles we have on the market. Which is what we touched on here
@@thevalvebounce The planet can handle as much as we can give it, most plants today especially C3 plants, which is most trees and nearly all crops would prefer 2000ppm at least. They are per definition stressed. Professional greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities, up to 1200ppm seems to be economically viable for most, while some stop at 800pp, as it is a deminishing return deal, and the gas escapes. CO2 is a fertilizer and useless as a greenhouse gas.
Rhetorical question, can you, as a human being, drink too much water in a 24-hour period? Now review your post.
@@Throku"The planet can handle as much as we can give it". Well this is true. In the sense of global warming is not going to destroy the earth. And it's not going to destroy all ecosystems. There have been periods in Earth's history where you as a human being could never exist. There was a period in Earth's history when the organisms that existed could not utilize oxygen at all. In fact when the oxygen was released from the oceans and other oxygen emitting bacteria that life form nearly went totally extinct. The only place it exists now is down by thermal vents in the ocean where you could not exist nor can any fish that requires a certain mix of mostly nitrogen and oxygen and a trace of argon to exist.
Too much CO2 in the atmosphere is going to make human life and most surface life untenable. Let me ask you this question. Exactly how long do you think you could go outside and mow lawn when the temperature outside is 140° Fahrenheit? Not very long. And not very long before you actually die or are irreparably damaged.
Global warming as it stands now is caused by human beings. We are the largest biomass on this planet exceeding all the other biomasses like elephants whales wolves trees and such. And as you can tell not every part of this planet is habitable. At least not in the quantities of people that you see in the more habitable parts of the planet. For example. You can live in the Arctic but only a few people can actually survive there and it's tough going. And before there is anything modern like fossil fuel burning engines living in the Arctic was really tough. Same thing with living in the jungle. The jungle is probably one of the most hostile places to human beings on this planet. Cuz everything in that jungle, if it had agency, is out to kill you.
So what global warming is causing now is our species to become stressed to the point that all of this civilization that you're used to and the antibiotics and the medication and the fixing of your broken limbs so they're not crooked, or not having 40% of your children die before the age of 10 etc will go bye-bye. And we will be back to a population on the planet of maybe a couple million and that's it. Cuz that's all there was back in the old pre-agricultural days of our existence on this planet which has been roughly 3 to 4 million years. And I wager damn good money that neither you nor I would survive in that world that our ancestors lived in when every single predator on the planet looked at us as a meal or as annoying. In fact now, if I was to strip you butt naked and drop your butt in the middle of the Serengeti plain where there are lions and leopards and hyenas and not a lot of water and watering holes with big ass crocodiles and wildebeest in the millions you would not fare well at all. You would probably die within about a week or two. Because you'd have a hard time trying to get food you'd have a hard time not being eaten when you go to get water, And you would have a hard time not having dysentery from that basically unclean water because you can't make a fire and boil it in a metal pan because none of that's going with you in this little scenario, you would have a hard time competing for any kind of resource with any kind of animal because they have the upper hand over and you don't have guns you don't have bows and arrows you don't even have shoes on your feet. So running is a problem and your little bare baby soft butt feet are not going to do well in that environment at all. So it's likely you will die within a week or two and I'm being generous.
@@NinkSink Considering they are pumping it into the greenhouses, your analogy makes you look... well, I'd make an edit if I were you.
Ev and Ice cars vs Tesla. This is the real fight today. Model Y is the best selling vehicle Ev or Ice today. Other Evs are made to fail and make people give up on them. But there is Tesla made to work with its fast chargers. All brands were left behind a lot. No point of return now.
Tesla definitely lead the pack. I believe they make up at least 50% of ALL EV sales with existing manufacturers sharing the remaining EV sales. I doubt that Tesla lead on technology and battery efficiency but their car manufacturing is way behind the quality of the existing car makers.
@@thevalvebounce Tesla are now looking at hydrogen options so does even Tesla now realise that EV's aren't the future as everyone is trying to convince us right now?
I think the answer is that one solution isn't the way forward. We need to be looking at all possibilities including technology we aren't aware of yet.
Rimac is currently looking into nanotube technology in what is believed to power electric motors via fuel sources. What would seem to be a backward step, might actually be a way forward, so we are keen to see how that works in the real world.
One things for sure, we should be excited, we are in a huge growth period that will define what we know the car to be moving forward.
nope theyre not.
Whilst we acknowledge TH-cam titles are always a bit click bait triggering we know that EV’s are apart of the new world of automotive industry but their issues with resale values, mostly expensive entry costs and their challenges with recharging infrastructure they need help if they are going to continue to be a worthwhile replacement to ICE engines