As a chemical engineer doing research on e-fuel production at Bar Ilan University I would like to contribute these things: 1. We will figure out how to produce it on a large scale soon, it's a matter of discovering the right catalysts for the job (catalysts speed up reactions). How quickly we find these catalysts is related to research funding 2. e-fuels are very useful for aviation since we don't exactly know how long it'll be until we can run commercial flights entirely on electric 3. Yes the fossil fuel companies currently are not good institutions to work with but they have A LOT of capital. Which means that hypothetically if you got all the capital that a current fossil fuel company owns and channeled all of it into e-fuel production, you could product a lot more e-fuel and do it a lot cheaper/more efficiently than if you tried to just create a new e-fuel company from scratch
I totally agree with you. Im very disappointed with fully charged to just put an intire industry on the way side. They have tunnel vison and obviously they didnt do enough research. Imagine a future where we can make synthetic enzymes to for instance help break down and transform materials in to compounds that can be used for efuels?! In my opinion this would be one of the greatest breaktroughs for humankind.
Excellent points and like Gizzmo, I'm disappointed about this rather one-eyed viewpoint (as one may expect from a channel titled "Fully Charged Show"). At the end of the day, macro economics will rule the day as it always does, and replacing X-billion (X = ~1.4B according to some sources) ICE powered vehicles with E-powered vehicles by 20XX simply won't happen - not even by 2050, according to many experts. My betting is that there will be a huge growth in demand for e-Fuels in coming decades and as more $$ are channelled into R&D, the innovation curve will naturally steepen. Bit early to write it off I think. Meanwhile, the debate on the true environmental value of moving exclusively to E-vehicles will continue to rage on! Cheers - David
I totally agree. I lost interest in fully charged a long time ago when the show became essentially just a mouth piece for green lobbying groups rather than a fact driven tech channel. I just want non biased information but it's so hard to come by online.
Isn't one of the challenges that the most efficiënt Fischer-Tropsch process required to make e-fuels as efficiënt as possible simply cannot economically run on curtailable energy sources caused by inherent intermittency of solar/windenergy?
@@JihadJoe1984 Europe invested 20 billion to make solarfarms in the western Sahara. The sun always shines there. These solarpanels will profile a abundant source of energy to make hydrogen gas. Next the gas will be transported to Europe. The Netherlands is already building extra gas powerplants that are going to use that Sahara hydrogen
As a young car enthusiast who wants to enter the car manufacturing industry in the future, I do wish success in the E-Fuel industry. Personally I wish that commercial and economical vehicles likes buses, trucks, trains, vans, basic grocery getters, etc. Go EV or hybrid, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a bus spewing out Black tar like smoke out it's tailpipe while driving through a street. But one industry I wish doesn't get electrified is the sports/muscle performance car market. I grew up around sports/tuner/performance cars throughout my childhood, and now hearing that in the future it won't be possible to hear roaring sounds V6/8/10/12 or spitting flames from the back cars, terrifies me. So that's why I wish e-fuels become a stable alternative. The beginnings are always rough but with time, things can get more efficient and better. Just like computers and the internet.
i get the sentiment and there is definitely a way to enjoy the roar of an engine in a way that doesn't produce toxic fumes. but also in time all the people with fond memories of that will pass away and it wont matter. well there will probably be some people that still do that just like there are people who still ride a horse and buggy. hmm that sounded demeaning but i didn't mean it that way!
Me too, I can't agree more than what you are saying! I am quite a young car enthusiast who is interested in sports cars and it worries me how I won't be able to experience my dream car one day (a GTR R35)! Although I understand the potential benefits of EVs over gas-powered ones, such as the significantly higher efficiency of electric motors compared to ICE engines (30% vs 90% efficient), there is nothing in my opinion that has the charm like ICE engines: the exhaust noise, range, and fun you get out of the cars is otherworldly compared to their electric counterparts, which for me seem lifeless, boring, and artificial. Not only that, I prefer the design and looks of ICE cars compared to EVs inside and out; ICE cars look objectively good, unique, and interesting in terms of exterior design compared to the bland, boring, uniform, and boxy design of electric cars. I also really prefer the analog buttons/dials over touchscreens it adds an element of connection between the driver and car and seem more convenient. Lets not forget about how EVs with it's integration of everything with computers really discourage modding and changing your car to your heart's will; I also am interested in car audio and it is sad how we cannot change out our head units now because everything is integrated in the touchscreen, or tune a EV by modifying the code as it is closed source and impossible to modify, kinda like the slim laptops with the CPU and RAM soldered to the motherboard where it is difficult to upgrade components. Because of this, I hope that in the future E-fuels can become successful, allowing us car enthusiasts to enjoy ICE cars without hurting the environment. Or there is a drop in the price of EV conversion kits, allowing anyone to convert their ICE car to an EV. Hopefully ICE cars would never die, just somewhat evolve in a way like how digital cameras took over film; even though there are still people preferring film today in a digital world. Or even like how photographers still use SLRs/DSLRs over phone cameras despite phone cameras being widespread today.
It was really good to read calm, well thought out arguments from young engineers and I appreciate the points they are making and I hope they have the chance to enjoy what may become a fulfilling hobby. However for everyday needs the world has to solve it's climate crisis and protect the health of the vulnerable which means electrification for the human workload. It would be very wrong to impose an inefficient system just to appease the old fossil fuel industry. They have to adapt to reality.
@@ambassadorfromreality1125 At the same time, what would really convince me to like EVs is that it should have decent range comparable to ICE cars(at least on par with ICE sports cars) by utilizing solid state batteries with significant energy density compared to lithium ion, and combine this with a 4 motor AWD system with significant total output (like around 1000 to 2000 horsepower total). If they can make things open to enthusiasts (like open sourcing some of the code to control ESCs or processors so that we can modify to our hearts intent like changing values on the ECU on a ICE car), I would be more than willing to switch to EVs, especially if it rivals the performance of ICE engines and some iconic aspects of the ICE engines can be simulated (such as realistic engine noise).
@@thebiasbios5328 The range will be soon no longer be an issue. I would like to distinguish between the two user groups. Most people just need everyday transport and then there is the enthusiasts groups. I have friend who races Porsches and another who has some sort of Mustang which he lavishes time and affection. No authority however well meaning should interfere with their passions because the environmental damages to these groups is negligible. However the vast majority of people just need reliable transport and don't care what fuel is used. The benefits of EVs are real and substantial for the mass market. The needs of the car industry are complex and large scale and the needs of the fossil fuel industry are pretty obvious. However they shouldn't stand in the way of the absolutely necessary electrification. This is where the conflict arises.
What absolutely drives me up the wall with e-fuels - even if you can make them carbon-neutral, you're still burning them, which produces NOx emissions and hard particles, both of which are directly harmful.
Yep - greenhouse gases and air quality are two totally separate issues. Carbon capture or offsetting doesn't solve health-related emissions in urban areas
Do not forget all the lubricant oil, the extreme inefficiency, leaks and contamination of soil, air and water. E-fuels scientifically described in a single word: greenwashing.
@@monty6491 Offsetting doesnt solve ANYTHING. Its just a massive loophole that allows some companies to keep on keeping on and makes the whole process take longer. As if we have the time and resources to waste. Its infuriating.
It’s fine as a minority heritage thing. Whether that’s a industry the oil companies want to get into… I very much doubt that will satisfy their shareholders.
If you're building an exact refurbishment of a classic car, great. If you are adding custom options not available long ago, or rebuilding a car without sufficient parts, consider EV replacements of the drive trains. Get your classic muscle car, with more HP and torque than original, and no fussy engine and carburetor to deal with. Not to mention the abysmal fuel economy. There are some shops selling these beasts and they are amazing, though you better get a 2nd mortgage on your house to buy it. Years long waiting lists.
It may not be a high tech solution but to really reduce carbon emissions we just need to build more walkable, cycling neighborhood with better public transit. Not super high tech but it works!
it works in the mild climate of northwestern europe... in doesnt work in most of the rest of the world where you cant stand outside in the summer or winter
Cities are already more efficient in terms of emissions-per-person than less sparse neighborhoods. Improving inner city infrastructure has a lot of local benefits but won't actually make a meaningful difference globally, because food and goods still need to come into the city from outside and that's where the bulk of emissions are created.
Simply put: E-Fuels are probably not a solution for cars and light transport, but definitely for the heavy transport industries, mainly air and marine types but also trucks (even though there seems to be some progress with electric trucks). Also, do not just ignore the charging time and the range of battery vs (e-)fuel vehicles. Finally, any excess of renewable electricity which cannot be stored in batteries may well be stored in hydrogen, even though it results in greater losses, but at least we don't lose all the excess renewable electricity. E-fuels are needed for other industries than cars, that's for sure.
I suppose E-Fuels could be a step in the right direction for airplanes. Since the issue for energy density/weight make battery powered planes too heavy for commercial applications (with current battery tech) hydrogen powered planes could be an improvment over jet fuel planes?
"Energy density" on the aircraft.... But 5 times the energy used to produce the fuel. Who do you think will pay that price? (It won't be the energy producers..... Or the airlines! Expect higher fares!)
E-fuels could also find a niche in cargo shipping. Both batteries and hydrogen have a volumetric efficiency problem, and commercial maritime nuclear vessels are not logistically or politically viable (we've tried...). We also tried going back to sails and other wind power gimmicks but nothing's really panned out, plus you'd still need actual engines. So e-fuels could potentially be a workable alternative to supplement or replace the awful, awful low quality petroleum fuels they use now.
@@rogerstarkey5390 if the energy is low cost, and renewable t's largely irrelevant how much you use becasue the point of net 0 is reduced co2 . And I still can't tow my boat any distance with an EV and the charging network is non existent, as it the energy supply and security.
Actually there was an article on the BBC recently about rendering down animal fats into jet fuel for aircraft. Because the animal fats are considered "waste" this makes them technically "green". Evidently the plan is to start by using 5% of an airliners fuel-load with this stuff - on this basis it's estimated to take 400 dead pigs to fly an airliner from Paris to New York (8,800 dead pigs if the plane was entirely fuelled by rendered animal fat). The article mentioned that environmentalists were pointing out that there's already an established market for animal fats and that having fuel companies muscling in would likely lead to increased use of palm oil (which isn't environmentally friendly). The UK is "consulting" about the idea to see if there are ways to do it without this happening while Europe just wants to crack on. Of course, Spain (which has more pigs than people) could become the Saudi Arabia of "green" fuels ☺☺☺
I worked as a Chemical Engineer on an oil refinery for 36 years and enjoyed owning and driving several exotic and exciting sports cars during that time. However, I've recently purchased a Tesla Model 3 performance which is fuelled by solar panels on the roof of my house. Having had the EV experience, I doubt I'll ever own an ICE powered car again.
In the UK you can get a used Nissan Leaf for under £5000 - limited range, admittedly, but 😢enough for many people. Battery life for EVs is generally turning out to be much longer than anticipated, and when a replacement is needed, it's generally only a few cells, not the whole thing. If you're buying an 8 year old ICE, you'll be concerned about the gearbox, clutch, exhaust... With an ICE it's the battery. No different
@Philip Hookham. How do you feel about all the data gathering that Tesla do? I wouldn't buy one for that reason, but then again, they're probably all at it.
@@mc1nash : lol, too - yes... though those few cells may not be "equally" replacable" - with uniformly worn, matched cells ?? time will tell.. - clutch, small change, exhaust - part of the game... (EVs too, have gear trains... and coollant systems - good on the 2%.. making the change for all of us)...
EVs are so much better, you can't even compare..... I have never had a car that's so powerful, economic, clean, easy to drive, fun to drive, reliable, cheap to own/to service/to insure, so smooth&quick even with the trailer (750 kg) attached.... and my previous ice car didn't have a higher range (Peugeot 208 GTI)
She explaining that "making EVs more exciting" is the same as your mom telling you that there is already "X" thing at home. Is not the same, there is the roar, the vibrations, the reactions, and the power delivery, these are things that normal people like you don't understand. Is like saying that your rings are not needed; they don't help you to be more healthy, they are just a waste of money and time, a waste of important minerals, etc..... but you still wear them because you like them. So please don't go saying "make EVs" more exciting because they are not the same. There are some good EVs like the Ioniq 5 N from Hyundai that try to simulate internal combustion but there is no better than actually having an engine roaring with amazing power delivery.
EVs have to confront the fact that we're socialised to associate noise with power, but it's only the noise that's missing - EVs have more power and better performance, they just don't shout about it.
I do love cars myself, but I couldn't care less about road cars, I would prefer investments in public transport so that cars are not needed, at least in more urban areas. But I do wish that we push for synthetic fuels for enthusiasts and that we will be able to take our race cars to the tracks and keep motorsport alive. The emissions there are already a small, small fraction of what road cars produce, and if we switch to synthetic fuels, it will potentially be sustainable. I would give away my right to have a road car in order to still enjoy motorsport. A road car is a tool after all and I just want the most efficient tool for the job. If a train or a bus can help me commute more efficiently than a car, I would use those. The fun is on the track, not on the road.
it is completely baffling to me how this even got so big.... i first heard of them many years ago, did a bit of highschool level math in my head, had a good chuckle and thought i would never hear of em again... boy was i wrong! never underestimate the power of a dieing behemoth ready to throw billions at any straw he can grasp.
It is existential for the legacy car makers. Some of them will go to the wall. I’ve seen other tech businesses unable to pivot when a new epoch arrives. Becoming a software company (that’s what I’d argue evs are all about) instead of a combustion engine company is an *extremely* hard thing to do. Software is easy. Robust, scalable, efficient software that users like is very hard.
E-fuels will be needed to keep classic cars on the road. So get used to it. BEV will be cheaper so it will be 99% eventually but you can't ignore the 1%
@@richardschofield2201 I have no problem with keeping 1% of old classic cars alive for shows, just like the occasional steam train. We ought to be able to accommodate that in a functional world. But somehow I don’t think that’s the market the oil companies are aiming at. Their shareholders would kick the CEO out immediately if that was the plan. Companies are duty bound to maximise their shareholder’s value. Providing heritage services ain’t that.
I think one point is being overlooked. E-fuels are not going to be, never intended to be and will never be, as prolific as EVs or hydrogen fuel cell. I can see e-fuels playing a role in the decarbonised future, mainly for lorries and buses that travel long distances on a tight schedule. I’m from the “petrolhead” community and I’ll be the first to say, the engine is important in our space. So while our daily drivers go electric, there will be enough e-fuel demand to satisfy our desire to keep the engine going. We are such a tiny proportion of drivers, we don’t need enough e-fuel for every car on the road immediately.
And what about localised polution? As I walk down the street, I don't want to have to breath in polution that can give me cancer, or all sorts of other health problems.
Everything around you causes cancer. You can't even walk outside without the sun increasing your chances of cancer. You're acting like cars are coming up to you and blowing their exhaust in your face like a rude cigarette smoker
There one single E-fuel that actually makes sense: Biogas. It made from biological waste so additional land area is NOT needed, and since trash needs to be collected anyway no additional transports are necessary. It's also a drop in replacement for natural gas, since it's also methane so it can be used in a gas peaker plants directly. It's renewable and all that methane would have been released into the atmosphere anyway so it actually a temporary carbon caption method that actually reduces CO2 in the atmosphere. Biogas would be a great complement to wind, water and solar and much better than hydrogen actually, since making hydrogen wastes a LOT of energy while bacteria does most of the work when making biogas. Biogas is also much easier, and safer to store than hydrogen. Most efficient use of biogas would actually be using it for electricity generation and at the same use the waste heat for heating homes in the winter. Our local buses here actually runs on biogas made from the trash we recycled ourselves.
Actually - biofuels made from waste are not as clean as you may hope - the waste would go to landfill (yes - I know that's less than ideal) where the carbon would be trapped. Turning it into fuel releases that carbon.
@@LetterBoxGifts I got bad news for you: Landfills have vents because that carbon does not stay trapped. It would do less environmental harm to intentionally generate and burn the biogas than to let material fester in a landfill, generate the gas anyway, and simply vent it to atmosphere like we currently do. Besides, biogas would at least be non-fossil carbon and not create a net increase in emissions...
@@LetterBoxGifts in Denmark around 30% of our biogas production comes from slurry and another 30% comes from straw - those are two sources that would never go to a landfill anyway. Turning slurry into biogas will release the carbon, but also reduce the amount of methane released into the atmosphere.
@@Watch-0w1 it's better use biogas in a power plant than in an engine, because they are more effient and you can use the waste heat for heating up households.
There's an important aspect being overlooked here. E-fuels are just fuel. Meaning all those nice e-fuel cars can burn good old fossil fuel as well while e-fuels are more expensive (i.e. forever) and companies are "figuring things out" (with some nice subsidies of course). E-fuel cars have combustion engines and they aren't very picky about their fuel. That's the real reason big car manufacturers are in favor of e-fuels. It's a bait and switch. They know full well it's not an economically viable alternative but while it is not, they get to sell cars with combustion engines. And the owners of those cars get to go to the petrol station and choose between really expensive e-fuels that you can't find anywhere that makes you feel good and .... regular dead dinosaur juice. In the same way, oil companies love this because it allows them to keep on selling fossil fuels for a bit longer just by having some minimal token supply of e-fuels produced at a spectacular loss. This is just postponing the inevitable of course but there's good money to be made doing so. But as long as there are lots of combustion engines on the road, cutting off the cheap oil is economic suicide. There won't ever be more than a token amount of e-fuel. Basically, car manufacturers were being confronted with very real cut off dates where they had to stop selling combustion engines. So, they leaned a bit on the German government and now e-fuels are the best thing ever and they have a stay of execution. It's that simple. The cutoff date is off the table completely. Because of e-fuels. Of course there is no intention whatsoever to actually make any of this work other than a bit of hand wavy lip service to get away with all this. Any year extended is a year where they don't have to divest their existing factories and oil production capacity. That's the real goal with this. The only goal. For the same reason they've were pimping hydrogen for decades. Hydrogen based transportation is perpetually not happening either of course and nobody in the industry really expects that to change any time soon. But while that is not happening, nothing else was happening either. Until EVs spoiled that party a few years of course. Now even Toyota is shutting up about the topic. And with electrical trucks on the road, things are looking pretty bleak for hyrdogen trucks too. You could buy one and then pay 3x for the hydrogen. At fuel stations that don't exist. Or .. you buy a nice electrical truck and charge it with cheap renewable energy. One of those things is happening. The goal in both cases is not to transition to cleaner energy but to actively delay that. It's super cynical. Keep on burning fossil fuels while we figure it out. Any day now. Maybe next decade? It's a lie. A scam. A bait and switch.
I can only hope that shortly before the ban on selling fossil fuel cars, there are laws against using regular fuel in e-fuel vehicles, much like their are against using tax-free agricultural fuel in road vehicles.
As an car enthusiast, EV’s will never beat a good old combustion engine for me, no matter how powerful or torquey it is. The pure adrenaline, excitement you get from them, the vibrations, the pure driving experience, it will not be replaced. I hope with all my hart that we will be able to drive the combustion cars in the future. 🤞
You will. I’ll start a car company that makes them. You could argue that they would also be more environmentally friendly than EVs because they won’t be designed to be obsolete after a certain period of time.
Hey man, I respect your choice but to say that an EV can't replace an ice car is kind of stupid. It's different for sure but I personally get more excited by the coil whine of an electric motor passing what is basically the consumption of an entire apparent complex worth of electricity through its coils to propel me forward. It is so powerful yet in comparison so quiet. By the way don't get me wrong. I enjoy a loud v12 too but an ev just hits better imho.
Almost all of what you describe is learned behaviour. You can unlearn it........ No doubt 130 years ago, some people loved the way their horse reacted and felt as they rode it...
@@Brian-om2hh although maybe true, it doesn’t take away the fact that there are still people out there loving the way their horse rides, it is a matter of taste and preference. And taste and preference are not necessarily “learned” behavior. Just like food, an individual doesn’t “learn” to like certain foods, one just does. It is a matter of preference, taste and this same concept applies to people choosing ICE cars over EVs or the other way around.
@@Luka_3D It’s just my opinion, I totally respect yours, I am definitely willing to daily an EV if it’s better for the planet, I just hope there will still be room for a cool ice car, as in my opinion that mechanical, analog experience by far beats that of an EV
There is a valid reason to preserve the internal combustion engine in the sparingly driven enthusiast/classic car market. Fortunately the small size of this market means that it has next to no impact on the environment nor energy conservation to begin with. Let's focus our attention on the pollution/waste generated by the general population. People such as yourselves and your audience. Buses, commuter vehicles, shipping, tourism, construction, etc - focus on these markets as they are the biggest contributors to our dying planet.
The other thing to bear in mind is that even if you ran a car on eFuel you wouldn't be able to drive it in the increasingly large number of zero emissions zones. So not only would it be more expensive it would be impractical too.
You're showing a fundamental lack of understanding for what makes a sports car fun, that is having the lowest weight possible. There is no battery available with the energy density required to produce a fully electric car with the same power and weight (not just power to weight ratio) as a contemporary McLaren or Ferrari. Those customers are not simply wanting luxury, they want performance too and crucially that is not just torque. Performance is about dynamics, weight, steering, power etc. You cannot achieve the performance of an ICE car in a BEV. Some day this will be possible but not now and not soon
You're right about e-fuels being pointless for personal vehicles, but for industrial machinery (eg. mining) it's the only functional replacement for diesel.
I think that mining equipment in particular could be easily electrified. Excavators mostly stay in one area for a long time so why not just run it off grid power?
@@Luka_3D Excavators may be electrifiable depending on the use case. But for remote areas it may be hard to have a reliable power grid nearby. Also heavy duty tractors, long distance trains and trucks, airplanes, boats, intercontinental ships, etc... all could easily transition from fossil fuels to e-fuels, and most are not easily electrifiable unless revolutionary battery improvements are made.
Unfortunately, I can see no tangible evidence to say renewables will provide cheaper energy or competitively priced cars. There will always be the excuse of spending any actual cost savings on more renewables or on replacing the warn out stuff.
This video is a joke. I’m sure her video is sponsored by Tesla. E-Fuels are a perfect alternative to lithium battery creation. If you’re worried about NOx, then Ethanol is the answer because it is carbon free, with hardly any NOx levels. Let the investors make their money first with lithium, then E-Fuels, Hydrogen, Ethanol, and Ammonia will make a surprising comeback when their done. You’ll see.
efuels might as well become a thing. but only for applications like keeping classic cars running, racing and extreme offroad where being able to bring extra fuel is necessary. it won't, however, be used to drive to work and do grocery runs. for those kinds of applications, EVs are simply more practical. but some still insist that their one long drive per year requires for them to use an ICE car all 365 days a year.
All the oil sponsored media keep on making these articles and videos on how this new fuel or new engine is going to destroy EV's. Years have passed and nothing happened 😂😂
most of the modern car companies already use electric components like electric motors supplied for instant torque. with or without an ICE, it won't change the fact that the minerals will be mined the same. not to mention, every car has a battery already, small as it is, so yes, they already use lithium even as a ICE vehicle.
This video is so timely coming just as Rowan Atkinson mentions them in his Guardian/Daily Mail articles as a possible better alternative to EVs. Thank you.
I totally agree with the vast majority of this. But I do feel that there is a place for e-fuels in very high performance cars such as your Mclarens and Ferraris. As it does retain some of the visceral experience of these rare and special sports cars. The numbers of these cars sold are minimal, so although there is gross inefficient in their production and use the people who use them I am sure can afford the massive price tag that would come along with them and while wasteful it will be a tiny fraction of road vehicles using these fuels. However I do wonder if e fuels are then viable (just thinking about having a supply network for them alone) if it is only hypercars that use them.
No, for those cars, and things like classics and muscle cars, vehicles that have collectable value and preservation value, the small number of them compared to the main automotive fleet, could not justify the e-Fuel production. It will actually be easier to carefully convert them to run on alcohol based biofuels, which could be manufactured in small plants from the waste material of sawmills and the like processing plantation grown and harvested plants - Pine, Hemp, Bamboo, along with the grasses that are left over from the harvesting of barley, corn, wheat and more.
these could (and will) be relegated as museum pieces. i do not belive for a second society will allow rich people toys to run free. look, i used to think like this too as a gearhead. i LOVE those cars. but i am not blind to the harsh reality that they won't run anywhere. Ethanol even if it is a bio-fuel from sugarcane, like it is here in Brazil, still comes from a source of food, not to mention, it burns the same, and even more dirtier than E-fuels (not that they are any better, but Ethanol burns worse in comparsion). the climate was very clear with us: Stop burning. it didn't say "stop burning some and burn others", it is stop burning ALL for EVERYTHING. there is NO alternative. motorsports is another species in extinction the way things are going. if FIA don't jump head first into full electric powertrains, especially in Flagship cathegories like F1, they will have big problems on their hands in short ammount of time. and i don't care (nor the climate for that matter) for their agreements with F-E. they know ICE time is running out, but they are stubborn.
EVs obviously make more sense for most conventional road applications, but for unusual cases (remote locations) and for aviation, these types of fuels are among the most promising sustainable options.
@@raghuveer4552 Electricity can be produced locally (solar cells / wind-/water-power etc). If you look at the cost development of solar panels for example it becomes very interesting for poorer countries (especially if they have a lot of sun, like most of Africa). While EVs are still expensive, they will drop in cost eventually (better batteries). So, while you are right. I think the future will bring a shift towards EVs, even for poor countries.
I don't want a car that "makes sense" while my blood still runs warm in my veins i want a big, brash, melodious V8, I'll get an ev when I'm a pensioner!
@@Markcain268 Daddy, why is the world burning? Well, I don't want a car that "makes sense"! Hope you don't have kids, because the world we are leaving them is going to shit.
@@etherealicer already is shit, i was watching a documentary on landfill in the uk the other night, very unpleasant for the people living next to them, and those whose houses are built on top of them, then theres raw sewage being pumped into our rivers by the water board, apparently, theres 100s of unregulated outlets pumping crap into our rivers, not only that but the authorities that are supposed to regulate this take all their pollution readings directly from the appropriate water board for that area, there's also a council approved incinerator near to me thay actually makes you feel physically sick when its burning rubbish, but its ok because they pay the council for a licence to pollute the atmosphere, so, there you go, evs will most definitely not rid the world of pollution, in fact, humans becoming extinct would be the best thing that happened to this planet
@@j0nny93rs Yeah man great argument, because launch sites contribute the same amount of air pollution as ICEs and are placed near homes contributing to respiratory related diseases..oh no they aren't and don't. No wouldn't buy a Tesla as not impressed with their QA/QC and can't stand OEMs heavy use of screen/haptic buttons over physical buttons. Not really a fan of Elon but I have to acknowledge he has given the rest of the sector a well overdue kick up the ass.
hurts to say this as a gearhead but it is true: *we shouldn't be buying any private cars at all* . we don't have the materials for any of this nonsense. the future of transportation is public, wheter we like it or not. and it must apply to all, rich guys in tuxedos to poorer guys in offices. transportation is an urban problem that can only be solved by public policies.
She totally ignores the environmental impact of mining, creation of infrastructure + maintenance and average extreme energy loss from the powerplant to the wheels. Efuels might not be so bad, but 'fossil' still is the most efficient. And the world keeps producing the so called 'fossils' for free, every day.
The answer to the first question is: it depends. It depends on how the electricity is being generated. As to the second question, one of the former executives from Tesla has started a company - Redwood Materials - that focuses on battery recycling, and recapturing as much of the component materials as possible. I imagine other companies are beginning to do the same. Yes, there are challenges with both generation and battery recycling, but there will be solutions, and these challenges should not stop us from electrifying as many things as possible.
Really good video but I think the main benefit of hydrogen and e fuel is not the process efficiency. It is instead the ability for the fuel to be made in seasonal surpluses and then stored until required with no appreciable loss of energy, An example would be as solar installation increases we will have a problem of curtailment in summer and not enough energy in the winter. In these seasonal and daily production variations e fuels would become cheaper. Not only this but traditional combustion vehicles have almost twice the lifespan of EVs and can be left on a normal driveway without insurance companies being concerned, I've linked the guidance from Zurich Insurance file:///C:/Users/ruper/Downloads/ZRS%20EV%20charging.pdf
Hydrogen storage, for hydrogen to really power your car, has to be compressed to 10,000 lbs / sq inch (see Mirai by Toyota). What is not revealed is that H2 , being the smallest atom of all, is a mischievous escape artist. So, your fully loaded H2 tank, to be swapped for a new, or just sitting in your H2 car, waiting for your next trip, will lose its pressure within 1-2 weeks. Will you run 450 miles in your H2/hybrid car in two weeks? Sorry but in fact, H2 incurs a lot of losses. Also, go visit several reviews of long-term use and resale value of a Tesla. After 40 years and hundreds of charging cycles, the battery pack is said to maintain at least 80% of the state of charge it had when brand new. My watch is solar and it has exactly the same performance stats. Most ICE cars last 8-12 years only. Owning the big Model S will cost you about $USD 14-15 for a full charge and a range of 407 miles. A full tank of gas in California will cost you around 65-72 dollars for similar range. How much money will you save by going EV? You do the math. I don't work for Tesla, and you owe it to yourself to have the full, truthful info. Cheers!
What has been mentioned: we won't have enough E-fuels by 2035. What hasn't: their simple solution is "temporarily" diluting it. With oil. Like, y'know, Petrol, with a mix of 9 parts oil to 1 part e-fuel.
Or even just putting the blame on the customer. After all, the company sold an e-fuel car and complied with the ban 2035 on petrol cars. It's not their fault if their customers fill up with petrol instead of rare, expensive, e-fuel. And petrol has to be available for many years for people with old cars.
Yeah so batteries will power basically everything by 2035 right! Batteries will power aircrafts! Ships! Helicopters! Agriculture machines..... Well done good thinking!
@@robinbennett5994 e fuels are not just for cars!!! Use your brain! No one os forcing you to by anything! Batteries are not and are not ever going to be perfect for everything ICE has been doing for decades!
Man, this anti-ice movement is going to make the world more boring than it ever has been. And, yes! People who enjoy driving and enjoy sports cars and performance cars want to hear their cars. The sonorous scream of a Lambo V12, the silky smooth growl of a BMW I6, the roar of a small block Chevy V8, that's all music to our ears. Getting rid of the ICE would be like getting rid of musical instruments. Imagine going to a symphony in which the only instrument is a triangle that can play only one note. That's what the world will be like if you don't save the ICE. EV's are necessary, yes. But, let's stop pretending they are the answer to global warming and every other problem in our lives. Diversity in the automotive industry is at stake here. Remember? That word all you "progressives" love to throw around? "Diversity". Now, all of a sudden, they don't like it when it means keeping something from the past.
Whats even worse is that a lot of rich people virtue signal about how much better EVs are but they will have a huge combustion car collection themselves. So that leaves car enthusiasts on their own.
I have heard great and logical arguments proving E-fuels can't work.... Yet time and time again companies and media are lobbying for them... It annoys and sickens me to keep listening to the same stupid arguments. The sooner a big manufacturer collapses, taking their e-fuels with them... The better!!
@Philip Woodford Unfortunately true.... they have been around so long, making small fortunes... That they have plenty of cash to cause trouble. I can never understand the levels of debt that the big companies carry....and still survive.
Not only Oil companies. Also politicians bought by oil companies. And whole political parties bought by oil companies. And then there is Porsche. They are all of the above.
Yes, that's pretty much it. They're hoping and praying that hydrogen takes off big time, then they can once again monopolise the production, pricing and distribution....just like they did with petrol in the good old days.
Granted the point about oil companies losing their share of pie is why they are investing in it. But I think half of the reason why they are being introduced is that the whole of the car fleet in western Europe won't be able to go fully electric in the short to medium term, given the various constraints to supply, funding, competition. This also applies to all other industries such as shipping, airlines, manufacturing, agriculture, which need to decarbonise but can't on batteries. Synthetics, hydrogen and other fuels, definately have their caviets, but the scatter gun approach is better than putting all your eggs in one basket and failing. Not only are there scale and industry spillovers to investing in synthetics for passenger cars but there technology spillovers for Hydrogen and other fuels, where there are rewards likely rewards for doing so. While EVs are the best technology out there for passenger cars, it's still not going to cover bill, unless people make serious changes to their lifestyle and consumption, there has to be something else.
we should: - favour much smaller and lighter, more efficient cars - hire a big car on the one time a year we need to take 5 people somewhere - keep the car for 15 years - drop the 'new car every 3 years' leasing model - government to invest in battery R&D
How does keeping a car for 15 years or leasing a new one every 3 years make a difference? Those cars don't disappear, they just get sold to people who don't want to spend the money to get a brand new car.
@@drunkenhobo8020 Cars are designed to last until the warranty expires. Cars expected to last 15 years will have some components strengthened, and some fluid replacement intervals adjusted.
@@jamesphillips2285 no they last after 3 years. You don’t know how massive second hand market is? This will also be problematic for people that can only afford old second hand cars…
FINALLY THIS IS BEING DISCUSSED AND DEBUNKED!!!! Thank you Imogen. I literally commented this exact point on an earlier video from Fully Charged. Every time you transform energy you lose efficiency. As you said - cut out the middleman. Bravo!
Finally? Plenty of people, including the mag I work for, have been running articles on this for months. Maybe look outside of youtube for info, just a thought...
Whatever said and done we cannot let BEV be the ONLY choice. ICE basically monopolised the last 100+ years and i don't want another dominant form. Whether it's E-fuel or some other fledgling tech, people should be given choices.
E-fuels have a bright future ahead. The logistics industry(trucks, planes, ships) cannot rely on battery power bcz of its inferior capabilities to fossil fuel engines. Mining of Lithium & Cobalt for EV battery production has a huge carbon footprint and also affects the water supply of the surrounding region. We can't blindly rely on Li-ion batteries forever as they aren't easy to recycle & pose explosive threats. We may have to opt for alternative battery technologies in the future. E-fuels when at its peak will be cleaner than EVs when the energy source used for hydrolysis of water(for Hydrogen production) is sustainable. Porsche built an e-fuel factory at Chile dues its abundance of wind energy. Currently 1 gallon of e-fuel costs $40, but I see a great future ahead with more widespread production and subsequent reduction in costs.
I love the comments about how"not everyone can afford an expensive new EV". Sure maybe right now, but EVs are at price parity soon, and in 2035 there will be lots of cheap used EVs on top of smaller cheaper new EVs.
Do you think id get a good, usable ev with full range for less than £1k like i can, and have with ice? I doubt that will ever happen, maybe get one with a dead battery for thay price but it would be worse than useless
It was only a few years ago that people were saying that EVs wouldn't work. We should explore every avenue to hopefully reduce our reliance on crude oil.
Nonsense!!! No one ever said that crap! Also tell me why electric cars still are garbage for towing!? Not even capable I'm agriculture!? Let's not forget equipments to construction of roads! Bridges......
Global transportation requirements are more than just family cars in a suburban driveway and white vans delivering food from supermarkets, which is where battery electric power excels. Vehicles that need to be lighter (aircraft), larger, travel further into remote places, work in the cold or store power to be used intermittently and then refuel quickly all need higher energy densities than electric power can provide. So having renewable hydrocarbon fuels available alongside electric cars is the rational strategy. E fuels also give the chance to sweat out the investments in ICE infrastructure and products, getting out of fossil carbon and into renewable carbon more quickly than by relying only upon complete replacement with electric batteries.
@@rogerstarkey5390 yes, whilst notions like the Swedish 'flygskam' (flight-shame) are in the popular political narrative, we should address it carefully and thoroughly.
don't count on it. Air travel will be done via Blimps, Land travel with Bullet trains, and when there is no alternative, Electric boats. future of transportation is public. society will not sit idly by seeing some enjoy benefits while others have to cut down. that's not how it will work at all.
@@marcossonicracer FIA just announced 2026 F1 rules, specify sustainable fuel and 50:50 split between electric and fuel power. Also reducing weight limits, so developing for more appropriate energy densities than electrical storage becomes a priority.
There is one thing worth rationalizing efuels. Imogen tells if we want to make it we will need 5x more wind and solar. Yeah, true, but partly. The clever use of power would be installing a lot of wind and solar generation, we all know we will need much more installed capacity than we have today because of intermittency. As of today we often experience overproduction and curtailing happens. We might use this excess energy to power the efuel producing plant, hence store the energy for later use. I'm not saying we should stick to ICE cars, we don't. This is an idea for energy storage only.
I’m not sure Efuels will ever be mainstream purely because of the amount that would need to be produced in order to fully supply the world’s ICEs. But… it may be a better option for motorsport, supercars, and most of all the myriad of classic cars, not all of which can be converted to EVs very easily/cheaply.
Well now, I am super critical of TH-cam output because there is so much junk out there. Gabbling presenters, zoom and pan shots, flash frames, illogical portrait framing and so on. It's a absolute delight to find a video of the quality seen here. Clear speech, no zooming. no visual distractions and an immediate start - as against the "Firstly, let me tell you about what I am about to tell you." An brilliant bit of work, thank you for the pure pleasure of watching it. Almost as an aside, I fully agree with the point being made.
I don't know about E-Fuels but bio-fuels are definitely a lost cause. You can not make them in enough quantity without harming food production. It has happened, many US farmers planted more profitable corn one summer for ethanol production. The following winter there was a shortage of flour for bread products etc. This caused a spike in prices.
@@drunkenhobo8020 Nuclear energy is about a million times more energy dense than chemical energy. This greatly reduces mining impact, land use, and material handling. Most plants currently in operation only "burn" about 1% of the fuel. The is due to the Nuclear weapon nonproliferation treaty. Civilian power plants are allowed: but they must find a away to prevent state actors from diverting material. This has the net effect of essentially banning waste reprocessing. France is able to use waste reprocessing because it is a nuclear power.
@@drunkenhobo8020 4th generation nuclear with reprocessing can reduce the cost 90%. Most of the expense is in building the massive pressure vessel for light water reactors. [That and compliance costs.] Molten salt reactors don't need to be under high pressure. [Molten salt reactors would initially have higher compliance costs due to being "new"].
After running an old Citroen AX on waste veg-oil till the injectors clogged open, that was the best economics I used. Oddly, it ran cleaner and faster.That effort diverted cooking oil used ONCE being sent to a land fill.
Pretty much all this organic waste we produce as a society can be sent to anaerobic digesters to produce RNG or to central collection facilities to make biofuels available for all. We will need these carbon neutral and negative forms of hydrocarbons to ween the heavy transport industries off of using fossil fuels. Like you said we should use them instead of letting them decompose into unutilized methane in a land fill.
I’m all for EV development, but im against people taking the moral high ground telling other people they should not be driving ICE automobile. I’ve owned a Tesla, it brought me no emotional connection, hence i went back to ICE performance brands, as a result im happier during my daily commute.
Excellent video with crystal clear audio. Thanks. I live in Minnesota, and I have not heard any talk here about e-fuels. What we do have, however, is a different approach by the fossil fuel companies. Minnesota has joined the Upper Midwest Hydrogen hub organization which is spearheaded by, you guessed it, fossil fuel companies in the Dakotas. They plan to produce "clean hydrogen" from fossil fuels using carbon capture. Since the state has already signed onto the program, I have contacted my state representative and urged her to "follow the carbon" when debating and approving any specific actions by this hydrogen hub. There is a very large amount of federal money available for the development of regional hydrogen hubs, however, so I expect there will be a lot of misinformation spread by the fossil fuel companies and their allies to justify getting their share of the money.
The only clean method of H2 production from natural gas is turquoise H2 production which produces various grades of solid carbon black which can be used for everything from battery anodes and cheap graphene (finally making it viable at scale) to road asphalt additive and tire production. Anything that "stores" carbon as CO2 gas is just a band aid solution.
There is no doubt that simple economics will mean that BEVs will be the choice for people who need a car or HGV to do less than 300km a day and 500km a day if you have access to rapid charging. However for applications over that distance then the battle is between hydrogen fuel cells and efuel, hydrogen fuel cell is marginally more efficient than a modern ice engine, but it is also more fragile and you have the issue of transporting, storing and handling hydrogen. The complexity of handling liquid hydrogen makes efuels the best route for aviation and so with it, it seems more than likely will see efuels as the solution for applications where BEV can not be made viable rather than the fuel cell. As for Supercars and Superbikes, well they are by their nature products of the ICE, as its very nature is part of their theatre, but they are not transport and will become even more of an expensive luxury.
I don't even know why Germany fought so hard for a synthetic fuel clause. The number of petrol stations will collapse as ICE vehicles are taken off the road and replaced by EVs. Any stations remaining will focus on heavy vehicles and specialist cases. Who do they think they're going to sell this fuel to and who is going to want to buy something which probably costs a multiple of what petrol / diesel costs?
If you know anything about cars it should be pretty obvious. Almost everything about engine technology, gearboxes, and cars themselves, were invented in Germany, and their car brands are very heavily invested the industry. On top of that, the autobahn has "no speed limit", and electric cars cannot carry enough energy to go at 250 or 300 km/h for any distance whatsoever, assuming they can even reach that speed due to their doubled weight. They are trying to defend the reality, not a hypothetical future where you think "the number of petrol stations will collapse". Spoilers, that future does not exist.
@@YounesLayachi Given that BMW (i7), Mercedes (EQS) and Porsche (Taycan) already have high performance E cars (all sedans) I reckon they know a bit more about cars than you do. The concerns the manufacturers have seems to be about their sports cars such as the 911 and AMG GT. Same for Ferrari. A segment that has great appeal to enthusiasts, but is a tiny proportion of the market.
@@waynemapp6333 if anyone can make great electric cars it's the same people who make great cars in general. They are not happy but complying just in case. Wake me up when they stop making petrol cars completely. They invest now a little bit in electric technology just to not be left behind "just in case", but they know the future will never be 100% electric.
Not to forget how the e-fuel actually gets from the plant to the car. Porsche wants to make them in Chile, so how do they get them carbon neutral to Europe? Do they fill the tanker ship with e-fuels as well or is that ignored in their carbon neutral claim or “offset”. We also have to start taking carbon out of the atmosphere to reach climate target, so neutral isn’t good enough.
I had this conversation with the lads the other day, it really sucks to always have to refute everything they say. The lobbying definitely works, and I work with engineers. You'd think they'd know better.
Same with my coworkers, both sides of the political fence seem to ignore a lot of practicalities and truths. I'm one of those "filthy" PHEV drivers who uses hybrid mode maybe 5% of the time over the coarse of a year, usually on a road trip. Cheap on the used market compared to a new BEV, no waiting list, and uses < 1/4 of the resources of a full BEV. And I live further away from the office than the others and have plenty of battery at the end of the day when I plug in, yet the pure ICE and BEV folks just want to point out the negatives and ignore the many positives.
@@anydaynow01 I'm against a complete ban on ICE but I would limit them to use in PHEVs or range-extended BEVs and legislate that they can exceed a minimum battery range of something like 100km to cover most people's commutes. I think there'll be niches for PHEVs that are hard for BEVs to fill, like emergency vehicles where they're in use 24/7 and need to be available at any moment. Hopefully fuel cells will advance to the point that they can replace ICE without the hassle of dealing with hydrogen.
E-fuels are definitely going to have their place in aviation, with the EU even mandating increasing proportions of E-Fuels and HVO to be mixed in with regular kerosene in coming years.
@@grahamstevenson1740batteries can play a small role I think. 50 mile island flight is pretty easy for an electric plane but yeah you aren't going to Sydney from Heathrow with a battery plane lol
@@FrozenDung That's around the limit for small light plans with no cabin heating or pressurisation. As they get larger and heavier, forget battery electrification for now.
@@grahamstevenson1740Gaseous compressed hydrogen doesn’t have great energy density because of the reinforced tanks needed, on the other hand liquid hydrogen needs refrigeration. I think e-fuels are the only viable option for long-haul flights for the foreseeable future.
@@tzeimet There are plenty of instances of compressed hydrogen being used in vehicles such as cars, buses, trucks and trains mostly at pressures of between 400-800 bar typically. The tanks used are usually of carbon fibre construction with steel reinforcement. It's a well recognised technology and offers perfectly acceptable energy density (although lower than hydrocarbon fuels of course). I suggest you acquaint yourself with some relevant knowledge.
Great report! Two questions - What about emissions? - If E- Diesel (e.g. veg oil) is used, the NOx emissions are still present. What about the additives in the fuel sold now? These are derived from fossil hydro carbons and its unlikely that an E- alternative will be created. It seems as though E- fuels are the 'Bargaining' stage for the oil co.s in Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief (we've had 'Denial' and 'Anger'. Hopefully we'll get to 'Acceptance' ASAP!).
Can you do a thorough investigation into power to x fuels for the marine industry (methanol, ammonia and hydrogen)? E-fuels are the only way we can fully decarbonise the shipping industry (mixed with other energy saving techniques).
Insightful question. but "thorough investigations" is not what this channel is about. The most logical choice would be "methanol". Since it's currently cheaply produced from natural gas, and in the future it can be transitioned over to net zero carbon production of it. By placing a carbon tax on the natural gas form of methanol. But hydrogen gets far more researches money and government incentives. So methanol seems like the long shot in this race (They correctly state that E-fuels will be expensive and inefficient. So why even waste the time to post about it, if it's never going to be competitive? Just to create a fossil fuel conspiracy narrative, that's only going to be for billionaires that can afford exotic vehicles? The invention of the car did not mean that horses should be outlawed did it? So what was the value of the post?? that's my rant for the day)
@@nc3826 Gotta do it for the clicks I guess? Anyone with half a brain realizes only a very small niche market will be available for these very expensive fuels so this video was kind of a waste of an opportunity to talk about something that actually matters, like a replacement for bunker fuel for ocean shipping and keeping it cost competitive. Methanol and RNG (from all the waste streams) are the two technologies that should definitely be looked at for long distance heavy transport.
@@anydaynow01 I do not see a role for RNG. Since it's still a gas and costly and inefficient. So choosing between hydrogen or methanol, seems more logical. At least for the applications in the post. (Plus methanol is also called wood (IE cellulose) alcohol. So it can be produced from waste streams too, but scaling it up is a question mark?) Social media is about emotional easy answers. And we are both being hypocritical Because if you wanted all the complex details, we just be reading scientific papers. But thank you for your salient input.
I feel like you left out the most important part. A Car that can run on e-fuels can also run on regular old fossil fuel. So unless you ban fossil fuels, they will never go away if you allow combustion cars to still be made if they can use e-fuels. Because otherwise, the longer there are no new combustion cars, the less cars on the road will use fossil fuels, the less cars use fossil fuels the more filling stations vanish making it harder to own a fossil car, making more people switch over eventually until there's almost no one left. With e-fuels you can pretend to do something whilst doing nothing, you don't need to have e-fuel infrastructure to build e-fuel cars because they don't care what fuel they are running on, thus significantly delaying the death of fossil fuel cars.
A lot of truth and high details in this short video. Not a week ago a friend of mine was thinking of buying a hybrid car, cause electricity would not have a good range... And he is in the tech world. I was astonished to hear him, and right then and there we made the calculations to show him how much more cheap it would be to have an electric, fuel and maintenance wise. Maybe I convinced him... Anyway, thanks for sharing!
At 6:24 all I can see is "Jack is ace", which is very true... More seriously, e-fuels won't solve the pollution problem, and as long as it continues to kill kids and other vulnerable people, it should be going back in the ground, with the other dinosaurs.
Have fully charged addressed the cobalt issue in battery production? Curious to learn more, tends to be the strongest argument from anti-ev lobbyists, and seems like a serious issue. At least efuels (maybe not so efficient at producing) can still be done in a clean way, whilst also not generating a huge demand for more and more materials?
for anyone interested, I did a bit of digging.. Cobalt usage in EV's is actually 95-99% recyclable when a battery is at end of life, whereas desulphurisation processes used for oil, accounts for about 5% but is one time use!! Battery developers are also working towards minimising the use of cobalt. It seems as though legislation is the best step forward to diminishing the awful stuff happening in the DRC. But a counter-argument to the congo mines, is that the oil industry has been exploiting the poor ten fold.
@@TheEryk03There are several lithium battery chemistries in production, including those that don't use any cobalt such as LFPs. Then there's all the non-lithium chemistries that are being developed like sodium-ion.
I've been saying this for yonks. Why use more electricity to produce E Fuel rather than just using less to power BEVs instead. Just doesn't make sense..
I can't believe I'm watching this on TH-cam. I commented on other hyped videos on other channels that the Carbon capture is a mirage. And finally, here you are explaining it properly, not blindfolded, absolutely open-minded! Thank you! Subscribed for life :)
❤ the sarcasm, yet this video is low hanging fruit. It's true, e-fuel is only viable for millionaires. Funny Porsche is the main driver as an average Porsche owner won't be able to afford it. Porsche knows this though, as they are saving e-fuel for 911's only. The rest of the lineup will be electric. Porsche CEO Oliver Blume in March '22: "In 2030, the share of all new vehicles with an all-electric drive should be more than 80 percent."
I really don't understand the preference of car dependence infrastructure. Bikes, buses, trams, underground railways and trains should be 90% of our commute. Also, I really believe big battery packs on public transport are dumb AF. We have had overhead cable buses on the roads for decades. Bus routes don't get re-routed very often, the buses will do with a 30 miles range as backup. If a bus route has a good volume of passengers, it should become a tram line (not directly, the general area should have tram service planned). Tyres are a big waste source. Car parks disrupt our urbanscape, roads are detrimental to communities. Why bring along tons of metals and take up massive land to store them when cycling can do the job (or an e-bike)?
Interesting comment re: Mclaren and Ferrari (and Porsche to a slightly lesser extent). In truth, if I were in the market for a brand new Mclaren or Fezza, I'd want a screaming petrol engine in them. It's such a huge part of their DNA (Ferraris in particular, are basically just a means of getting the engine from A to B). So having "e-fuel" as an option, to me, makes sense. I'd accept it's huge price tag (because if I can afford a Ferrari, I can afford the e-Fuel to go in it), and the fact it's either going to cost £££ to drive into a city (but why would you take a Mclaren or a Ferrari to the city? They belong on racing circuits, or open country roads at the very least). The key thing, though, I'd still have a BEV for daily driving. You're not going to take a highly strung Ferrari to the shops - you'd take your battery powered (whisper it) SUV. So... whilst I welcome the fact that e-fuel exists - I doubt very much it'll ever be mainstream, just like Hydrogen is too late to the party for passenger car transport.
@@st-ex8506 Some European countries like Iceland already pay about 10 USD/gallon. If you get clean fuel for that price it would be worth it. Hydrogen fuel also costs about double now, plus you need a lot more expensive car.
@@petrhajduk9955 yeah, maybe… but there is a lot of tax in the Icelandic price. The price range I mentioned was without tax. I mentioned it, didn’t I?!
We are only a few years away from fully autonomous driving. When using robotaxis daily becomes cheaper than owning your own car, many people will stop buying cars. The auto industry is going to go through a huge shakeup. It wouldn't surprise me if half of the car brands around today completely disappear in the next 15 years. Especially if they don't make fully-autonomous EVs for fleets.
@@richie4830 I suppose they will have to decide if it's worth the extra expense. If the cost of robotaxis becomes 1/10th of the price of owning a car (a prediction of Tony Seba), then a lot of people will see owning a car as a bit of a luxury expense.
It comes to around 20g/co2 per mile amortised over the lifetime of the car according to KIAs latest independently audited life cycle analysis. Worth knowing but it doesn’t change the conclusion that EVs are massively cleaner than ICE
Actual industrial production of hydrogen is made from fossil methane, because making it from water is already too inefficient. So how they think they will combine four processes which are each too inefficient to work even individually for their current industries, escapes me.
for day to day use e-fuel should not be a thing but for classic cars and cars that run very limited mileage could work but you still looking at €20 to €50 a litre
For classic cars it makes sense, especially if they are not used much, but otherwise it’s another con. It’s a way to use natural gas to provide those hydrogen atoms.
efuel and hydrogen production inefficiency consume excessive power prolonging dependence on fossil fuels. Fossil fuel companies want this tech because it means they make more money precisely because it's less efficient. Although there are some niche small volume applications where they are required for refuelling time or specific energy density that BEV cannot currently achieve.
Still better trying to invest in hydrogen than all electric. All electric is not the way forward unless they can manufacture batteries from less terribly sourced materials. The really need to invest in hydrogen research like the are doing with terrible all electric.
Have a look at Hugo Spears and Riversimple. He has a hydrogen fuel cell car about to go to production. His balanced approach to sustainability is refreshing and makes some sense. Hydrogen can be sustainably cracked with hydro power and there is a case for cracking methane locally from biogas where wind power would overload the grid.
@@srinathshettigar379 what an absolutely general statement (Insert technology) also uses lots of energy and toxic chemicals That technology can be your phone, your catalytic converters, your fuel refinery or anything else in the world.
It seems this video is not accounting for all the inefficiencies/impact on mining and producing the EV batteries. As well as the impact on building and upgrading the necessary infrastructure to support EVs. I don’t think e fuels are the future but it seems worth exploring them to see if there are efficiencies to be had in producing them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the best option is to make cars more reliable. If manufacturers would build fewer cars by making cars last longer and if people didn’t buy a new car every three years, that might have a bigger impact reducing the carbon footprint. That and if people would choose to get around by walking, riding bicycles, and using public transportation as much as possible. There isn’t an easy one solution to this issue. There needs be a holistic approach.
E-fuels for aviation & shipping, definitely for the current fleet (30 years?). E-fuels for automotive, there are an awful lot of ice cars still with potentially long life, so, despite the high electrical cost (renewable energy is free after all) why not. Phase out ICE to EV, yes, no new ICE, ok, but let the current fleet die in a more ecological way.
So use 5 times the energy to produce E fuels which move a vehicle the same distance and say it's "green"? By using (I assume) green grid energy at a high rate to produce the fuel all you do is replace that with an equivalent amount of DIRTY energy. The equation doesn't work.
@@rogerstarkey5390 how much energy and waste would it take to replace all the ICE vehicles currently running? Yes, producing eFuels is electrically expensive, but replacing ICE is going to take time, during that time would it not be better, environmentally, to burn eFuels apposed to DinoFuels? Currently, due to lack of electrical storage, wind farms are turned off during low demand, turn this wasted energy into hydrogen & efuels. All equations are not equal….
Propaganda video on EV cars. You forget to look at the complete chain of manufacturing of an EV car, you only focus on what powers the EV. Shortsightedness, and therefore this video is irrelevant, misleading and propagandist !
@@Simon-dm8zv I’m not arguing whether they pollute more or not, I’m arguing that this video is propagandist since not presenting the full picture… which is not surprising from an EV channel 🤷♂️
@@carltonlee5445 Why is he clueless ?? You spend more cash and a little less time. You can't be doing many miles so would be a lot better off with an EV. Also they are so much better to drive, super car performance and very well specced.
EV owner here, so not arguing with the case for EVs. You make a lot of valid points indeed. But your title is wrong. e-Fuels do obviously work! They just don't make sense for most, but probably not all, use cases. There are people who will argue that you should be allowed to put back into the environment anything as long as you have previously removed at least the same quantity of that anything. No matter at what cost. There will probably be a niche market for e-fuels, no matter what you or me think about them. They do work, but don't make sense for most of us.
The Mercedes EQXX can go twice as far as a Model S with the same size batteries. So as EV's get more efficient, and newer, cheaoer, more easily manufactured (and environmentally friendly) batteries like Prussian blue sodium ion take hold, it won't be 5 to one in favour of EV's, it'll be more like 8-1 or even 10-1.
I don't think e fuels are a usable solution for the masses. However in the future, once sustainable transportation is realised, it would be nice for classic cars to have a way of running as intended in a more environmentally friendly way. As much as I love EV's, it would be a sad day if Spitfires and the Flying Scotsman can no longer run in the name of emissions.
E-fuels is such a bad idea, there's really no reason to be concerned with it. It's not new technology - everything required for production have been around for many decades. We've never produced them because their production cost is astronomical.
While both electric and e-fuel cars are sus environmentally, I'm not trusting a single word from this girl until the ecological effect of producing and recycling batteries or the cost of replacing all of the existing vehicles as electric, instead of reusing them, is addressed.
ICE cars last an average of nine years, so replacement will just happen with time. And yes, there’s a cost to producing and recycling batteries - but an honest discussion of that needs to be compared to the alternative, which is gasoline. A car that gets 30mpg, driven for 150,000 miles, uses 5000 gallons of gasoline, which weighs 30,000 pounds, and which in turn produces 100,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, which goes directly into the atmosphere. The gasoline CANNOT be recycled, and the CO2 will be in the atmosphere for thousands of years. If you saw someone throw twenty pounds of garbage out the window of a car every thirty miles or so, you’d probably be offended and disgusted. But that’s exactly what we’re doing with gasoline. So yeah, let’s talk about the ecological impact of battery production and recycling - compared to gasoline.
@@davestagner "ICE cars last an average of nine years". Yeah you can't be older than 9 years either. Plenty of 20+ year-old cars running around, without engine swap or rebuilds. Fixing an engine is simple, a couple parts replaced and voila. Batteries can't be fixed or replaced (too expensive) and they die inevitably much sooner.
Electric cars compared to combustion engine cars are like smartphones compared to PCs. A ridiculously short lifespan, very expensive, very low usefulness, impossible to fix, and impossible to truly own. Electric cars are just another example of the consumerism plague of the western world.
There is tons of losses in every single vehicle technology before the kinetic energy touches the road. The best bang for buck is to develope synthetic fuels and battery technology together. Batteries are needed for storage and ignition. Thermal and gravity batteries are way more simpler than electrochemical batteries and they have been used long already (gravity = hydro power plants). Problem with chemical batteries are simply their short longevity and extremely high expenses and complex infrastructure. Good thing about synthetic fuel is you can produce in every country. It is easy to transport, and stores well. Also gasoline has lots of power, good mileage, and in cold climate it warms up the cabin also. Gasoline works well up to -50 celsius. Basicly almost any battery will die in those temps or atleast loose majority of its capacity..
It's worth noting that at Porsche's pilot e-fuel plant they haven't actually got the CO2-from-air thing working yet (because it's a near-impossible task) so they're using CO2 from breweries... which is the standard place to get CO2.
@@aesma2522 Yeast metabolising sugars into alcohol is what creates CO2. That naturally carbonates the beer, but also produces an excess of CO2 which breweries then sell on to the food industry. Technically it's not adding CO2 to the atmosphere as the source of the sugar is from plants, but it's not the carbon-negative solution they've been promising.
I did a little googling and a simple calculation. We could absolutely make enough E-fuels to drive all our cars and do it using only green energy. We'd just need to install enough green energy equivalent to 9 times our current electrical consumption. It's pretty ironic that some of the same people who tell us "You could never replace all our electricity with green energy," are now pushing something that would make the challenge almost 10x worse. It's almost like they're trying to set us up for failure.
there is one new EV "liquid" fuel that can be used. a very old type of battery that stores the electrolyte from the battery in a separate reservoir. i know EV makers are taking a second look at them because of this as well.
Truthfully, much more effort should be put in to trains and trolley buses. EV are crazy expensive and just shift the problem. ICE is dirty. Boot cars off the roads and put on more busses. Won't happen cuz it's not really about the environment is it?!
The amazing part is the 5 times more energy to create. So therefore at least 5 times the price, just for the production, so only makes any sense if it will give over 200 miles per gallon due to enefficiencies and the fuel will cost a massive amount. If the oil companies and oil producing countries took a look at what is going to happen they would realise they need other means to go green and keep profit. Many of the oil producing countries could use Solar PV as near the equator and export the energy. Also the carbon being released is not reducing the problem, adding to it. Forecourts should be converted to EV charging and open as a small coffee shop and make more selling coffee and cake!
Much of what you said made sense, especially the energy efficiency arguments, but the 80s brick phone comment isn't a good analogy. A 4G phone vs a 5G phone, or a cut-throat razor vs a safety razor would be closer, if still not perfect. I drive 2 cars - an electric and a basic petrol car. The petrol is more difficult to drive, but it is also much more engaging. If I'm driving around town, I much prefer electric, but if I'm on the open road or a long journey I take the petrol. Different strengths and weaknesses, both good for different uses. For those who enjoy driving, an electric car is like riding a placid gentle horse. There is no drama and little skill involved, for good and for bad.
As a chemical engineer doing research on e-fuel production at Bar Ilan University I would like to contribute these things:
1. We will figure out how to produce it on a large scale soon, it's a matter of discovering the right catalysts for the job (catalysts speed up reactions). How quickly we find these catalysts is related to research funding
2. e-fuels are very useful for aviation since we don't exactly know how long it'll be until we can run commercial flights entirely on electric
3. Yes the fossil fuel companies currently are not good institutions to work with but they have A LOT of capital. Which means that hypothetically if you got all the capital that a current fossil fuel company owns and channeled all of it into e-fuel production, you could product a lot more e-fuel and do it a lot cheaper/more efficiently than if you tried to just create a new e-fuel company from scratch
I totally agree with you. Im very disappointed with fully charged to just put an intire industry on the way side. They have tunnel vison and obviously they didnt do enough research. Imagine a future where we can make synthetic enzymes to for instance help break down and transform materials in to compounds that can be used for efuels?! In my opinion this would be one of the greatest breaktroughs for humankind.
Excellent points and like Gizzmo, I'm disappointed about this rather one-eyed viewpoint (as one may expect from a channel titled "Fully Charged Show"). At the end of the day, macro economics will rule the day as it always does, and replacing X-billion (X = ~1.4B according to some sources) ICE powered vehicles with E-powered vehicles by 20XX simply won't happen - not even by 2050, according to many experts. My betting is that there will be a huge growth in demand for e-Fuels in coming decades and as more $$ are channelled into R&D, the innovation curve will naturally steepen. Bit early to write it off I think. Meanwhile, the debate on the true environmental value of moving exclusively to E-vehicles will continue to rage on! Cheers - David
I totally agree. I lost interest in fully charged a long time ago when the show became essentially just a mouth piece for green lobbying groups rather than a fact driven tech channel. I just want non biased information but it's so hard to come by online.
Isn't one of the challenges that the most efficiënt Fischer-Tropsch process required to make e-fuels as efficiënt as possible simply cannot economically run on curtailable energy sources caused by inherent intermittency of solar/windenergy?
@@JihadJoe1984 Europe invested 20 billion to make solarfarms in the western Sahara. The sun always shines there. These solarpanels will profile a abundant source of energy to make hydrogen gas. Next the gas will be transported to Europe. The Netherlands is already building extra gas powerplants that are going to use that Sahara hydrogen
Title : this is why e-fuels wont work
Channel : Fully charged show
OKAY
As a young car enthusiast who wants to enter the car manufacturing industry in the future, I do wish success in the E-Fuel industry. Personally I wish that commercial and economical vehicles likes buses, trucks, trains, vans, basic grocery getters, etc. Go EV or hybrid, nothing pisses me off more than seeing a bus spewing out Black tar like smoke out it's tailpipe while driving through a street. But one industry I wish doesn't get electrified is the sports/muscle performance car market. I grew up around sports/tuner/performance cars throughout my childhood, and now hearing that in the future it won't be possible to hear roaring sounds V6/8/10/12 or spitting flames from the back cars, terrifies me. So that's why I wish e-fuels become a stable alternative. The beginnings are always rough but with time, things can get more efficient and better. Just like computers and the internet.
i get the sentiment and there is definitely a way to enjoy the roar of an engine in a way that doesn't produce toxic fumes. but also in time all the people with fond memories of that will pass away and it wont matter. well there will probably be some people that still do that just like there are people who still ride a horse and buggy. hmm that sounded demeaning but i didn't mean it that way!
Me too, I can't agree more than what you are saying! I am quite a young car enthusiast who is interested in sports cars and it worries me how I won't be able to experience my dream car one day (a GTR R35)!
Although I understand the potential benefits of EVs over gas-powered ones, such as the significantly higher efficiency of electric motors compared to ICE engines (30% vs 90% efficient), there is nothing in my opinion that has the charm like ICE engines: the exhaust noise, range, and fun you get out of the cars is otherworldly compared to their electric counterparts, which for me seem lifeless, boring, and artificial.
Not only that, I prefer the design and looks of ICE cars compared to EVs inside and out; ICE cars look objectively good, unique, and interesting in terms of exterior design compared to the bland, boring, uniform, and boxy design of electric cars. I also really prefer the analog buttons/dials over touchscreens it adds an element of connection between the driver and car and seem more convenient. Lets not forget about how EVs with it's integration of everything with computers really discourage modding and changing your car to your heart's will; I also am interested in car audio and it is sad how we cannot change out our head units now because everything is integrated in the touchscreen, or tune a EV by modifying the code as it is closed source and impossible to modify, kinda like the slim laptops with the CPU and RAM soldered to the motherboard where it is difficult to upgrade components.
Because of this, I hope that in the future E-fuels can become successful, allowing us car enthusiasts to enjoy ICE cars without hurting the environment. Or there is a drop in the price of EV conversion kits, allowing anyone to convert their ICE car to an EV. Hopefully ICE cars would never die, just somewhat evolve in a way like how digital cameras took over film; even though there are still people preferring film today in a digital world. Or even like how photographers still use SLRs/DSLRs over phone cameras despite phone cameras being widespread today.
It was really good to read calm, well thought out arguments from young engineers and I appreciate the points they are making and I hope they have the chance to enjoy what may become a fulfilling hobby.
However for everyday needs the world has to solve it's climate crisis and protect the health of the vulnerable which means electrification for the human workload. It would be very wrong to impose an inefficient system just to appease the old fossil fuel industry. They have to adapt to reality.
@@ambassadorfromreality1125 At the same time, what would really convince me to like EVs is that it should have decent range comparable to ICE cars(at least on par with ICE sports cars) by utilizing solid state batteries with significant energy density compared to lithium ion, and combine this with a 4 motor AWD system with significant total output (like around 1000 to 2000 horsepower total). If they can make things open to enthusiasts (like open sourcing some of the code to control ESCs or processors so that we can modify to our hearts intent like changing values on the ECU on a ICE car), I would be more than willing to switch to EVs, especially if it rivals the performance of ICE engines and some iconic aspects of the ICE engines can be simulated (such as realistic engine noise).
@@thebiasbios5328 The range will be soon no longer be an issue. I would like to distinguish between the two user groups. Most people just need everyday transport and then there is the enthusiasts groups. I have friend who races Porsches and another who has some sort of Mustang which he lavishes time and affection. No authority however well meaning should interfere with their passions because the environmental damages to these groups is negligible. However the vast majority of people just need reliable transport and don't care what fuel is used. The benefits of EVs are real and substantial for the mass market. The needs of the car industry are complex and large scale and the needs of the fossil fuel industry are pretty obvious. However they shouldn't stand in the way of the absolutely necessary electrification. This is where the conflict arises.
What absolutely drives me up the wall with e-fuels - even if you can make them carbon-neutral, you're still burning them, which produces NOx emissions and hard particles, both of which are directly harmful.
Yep - greenhouse gases and air quality are two totally separate issues. Carbon capture or offsetting doesn't solve health-related emissions in urban areas
Also it's less efficient
Then there is the greater level of noise. BEVs are not silent, but they are relatively quieter.
Do not forget all the lubricant oil, the extreme inefficiency, leaks and contamination of soil, air and water. E-fuels scientifically described in a single word: greenwashing.
@@monty6491 Offsetting doesnt solve ANYTHING. Its just a massive loophole that allows some companies to keep on keeping on and makes the whole process take longer. As if we have the time and resources to waste. Its infuriating.
This is correct but as a Petrolhead I do think E fuels have a place in the classic car segment going forward
It’s fine as a minority heritage thing. Whether that’s a industry the oil companies want to get into… I very much doubt that will satisfy their shareholders.
@@ianlighting100 yeah agreed - I think it will be a niche thing like Coryton fuels as opposed to shell etc
Yes, Petrols and Diesels will be like Steam Engines are today, a fantastic passion that people drive for miles to see in their EV's ...
If you're building an exact refurbishment of a classic car, great. If you are adding custom options not available long ago, or rebuilding a car without sufficient parts, consider EV replacements of the drive trains. Get your classic muscle car, with more HP and torque than original, and no fussy engine and carburetor to deal with. Not to mention the abysmal fuel economy. There are some shops selling these beasts and they are amazing, though you better get a 2nd mortgage on your house to buy it. Years long waiting lists.
@@ianlighting100not just heritage. Supercars will always have combustion engines, unless they stop selling fuel altogether
It may not be a high tech solution but to really reduce carbon emissions we just need to build more walkable, cycling neighborhood with better public transit. Not super high tech but it works!
Please tell me how that will help the entire shipping industry? You like stuff like your phone, car, building materials for your house, etc, etc, etc?
it works in the mild climate of northwestern europe... in doesnt work in most of the rest of the world where you cant stand outside in the summer or winter
Cities are already more efficient in terms of emissions-per-person than less sparse neighborhoods. Improving inner city infrastructure has a lot of local benefits but won't actually make a meaningful difference globally, because food and goods still need to come into the city from outside and that's where the bulk of emissions are created.
@LGB-FJB less car traffic means less congestion on highways. if you really want efficient shipping, freight trains are the answer.
I live in a hilly part of Scotland. The shops are 8 miles away with no buses. Bikes are dangerous. Electric cars are the answer.
Simply put: E-Fuels are probably not a solution for cars and light transport, but definitely for the heavy transport industries, mainly air and marine types but also trucks (even though there seems to be some progress with electric trucks). Also, do not just ignore the charging time and the range of battery vs (e-)fuel vehicles. Finally, any excess of renewable electricity which cannot be stored in batteries may well be stored in hydrogen, even though it results in greater losses, but at least we don't lose all the excess renewable electricity.
E-fuels are needed for other industries than cars, that's for sure.
I suppose E-Fuels could be a step in the right direction for airplanes. Since the issue for energy density/weight make battery powered planes too heavy for commercial applications (with current battery tech) hydrogen powered planes could be an improvment over jet fuel planes?
"Energy density" on the aircraft.... But 5 times the energy used to produce the fuel.
Who do you think will pay that price?
(It won't be the energy producers..... Or the airlines! Expect higher fares!)
E-fuels could also find a niche in cargo shipping. Both batteries and hydrogen have a volumetric efficiency problem, and commercial maritime nuclear vessels are not logistically or politically viable (we've tried...). We also tried going back to sails and other wind power gimmicks but nothing's really panned out, plus you'd still need actual engines.
So e-fuels could potentially be a workable alternative to supplement or replace the awful, awful low quality petroleum fuels they use now.
@@rogerstarkey5390 if the energy is low cost, and renewable t's largely irrelevant how much you use becasue the point of net 0 is reduced co2 . And I still can't tow my boat any distance with an EV and the charging network is non existent, as it the energy supply and security.
Which is all the more reason not to burn them in a sector where there is existing technology that is way more efficient
Actually there was an article on the BBC recently about rendering down animal fats into jet fuel for aircraft. Because the animal fats are considered "waste" this makes them technically "green". Evidently the plan is to start by using 5% of an airliners fuel-load with this stuff - on this basis it's estimated to take 400 dead pigs to fly an airliner from Paris to New York (8,800 dead pigs if the plane was entirely fuelled by rendered animal fat). The article mentioned that environmentalists were pointing out that there's already an established market for animal fats and that having fuel companies muscling in would likely lead to increased use of palm oil (which isn't environmentally friendly). The UK is "consulting" about the idea to see if there are ways to do it without this happening while Europe just wants to crack on. Of course, Spain (which has more pigs than people) could become the Saudi Arabia of "green" fuels ☺☺☺
I worked as a Chemical Engineer on an oil refinery for 36 years and enjoyed owning and driving several exotic and exciting sports cars during that time. However, I've recently purchased a Tesla Model 3 performance which is fuelled by solar panels on the roof of my house. Having had the EV experience, I doubt I'll ever own an ICE powered car again.
In the UK you can get a used Nissan Leaf for under £5000 - limited range, admittedly, but 😢enough for many people.
Battery life for EVs is generally turning out to be much longer than anticipated, and when a replacement is needed, it's generally only a few cells, not the whole thing.
If you're buying an 8 year old ICE, you'll be concerned about the gearbox, clutch, exhaust... With an ICE it's the battery. No different
@Philip Hookham. How do you feel about all the data gathering that Tesla do? I wouldn't buy one for that reason, but then again, they're probably all at it.
@@mc1nash : lol, too - yes... though those few cells may not be "equally" replacable" - with uniformly worn, matched cells ?? time will tell.. - clutch, small change, exhaust - part of the game... (EVs too, have gear trains... and coollant systems - good on the 2%.. making the change for all of us)...
EVs are just superior inside cities.
EVs are so much better, you can't even compare..... I have never had a car that's so powerful, economic, clean, easy to drive, fun to drive, reliable, cheap to own/to service/to insure, so smooth&quick even with the trailer (750 kg) attached....
and my previous ice car didn't have a higher range (Peugeot 208 GTI)
She explaining that "making EVs more exciting" is the same as your mom telling you that there is already "X" thing at home. Is not the same, there is the roar, the vibrations, the reactions, and the power delivery, these are things that normal people like you don't understand. Is like saying that your rings are not needed; they don't help you to be more healthy, they are just a waste of money and time, a waste of important minerals, etc..... but you still wear them because you like them. So please don't go saying "make EVs" more exciting because they are not the same. There are some good EVs like the Ioniq 5 N from Hyundai that try to simulate internal combustion but there is no better than actually having an engine roaring with amazing power delivery.
Clearly this is the wrong channel for you.
@@fullychargedshow So you only want like minded people on your channel? Your little echo chamber?
EVs have to confront the fact that we're socialised to associate noise with power, but it's only the noise that's missing - EVs have more power and better performance, they just don't shout about it.
I do love cars myself, but I couldn't care less about road cars, I would prefer investments in public transport so that cars are not needed, at least in more urban areas. But I do wish that we push for synthetic fuels for enthusiasts and that we will be able to take our race cars to the tracks and keep motorsport alive. The emissions there are already a small, small fraction of what road cars produce, and if we switch to synthetic fuels, it will potentially be sustainable. I would give away my right to have a road car in order to still enjoy motorsport. A road car is a tool after all and I just want the most efficient tool for the job. If a train or a bus can help me commute more efficiently than a car, I would use those.
The fun is on the track, not on the road.
it is completely baffling to me how this even got so big.... i first heard of them many years ago, did a bit of highschool level math in my head, had a good chuckle and thought i would never hear of em again... boy was i wrong! never underestimate the power of a dieing behemoth ready to throw billions at any straw he can grasp.
Car companies. Big corporate money. Very big component of any country's economy. That's European car companies. China will bury them all.
It is existential for the legacy car makers. Some of them will go to the wall. I’ve seen other tech businesses unable to pivot when a new epoch arrives. Becoming a software company (that’s what I’d argue evs are all about) instead of a combustion engine company is an *extremely* hard thing to do.
Software is easy. Robust, scalable, efficient software that users like is very hard.
E-fuels will be needed to keep classic cars on the road. So get used to it. BEV will be cheaper so it will be 99% eventually but you can't ignore the 1%
why cant we have both?
@@richardschofield2201 I have no problem with keeping 1% of old classic cars alive for shows, just like the occasional steam train. We ought to be able to accommodate that in a functional world. But somehow I don’t think that’s the market the oil companies are aiming at. Their shareholders would kick the CEO out immediately if that was the plan. Companies are duty bound to maximise their shareholder’s value. Providing heritage services ain’t that.
I think one point is being overlooked. E-fuels are not going to be, never intended to be and will never be, as prolific as EVs or hydrogen fuel cell. I can see e-fuels playing a role in the decarbonised future, mainly for lorries and buses that travel long distances on a tight schedule. I’m from the “petrolhead” community and I’ll be the first to say, the engine is important in our space. So while our daily drivers go electric, there will be enough e-fuel demand to satisfy our desire to keep the engine going. We are such a tiny proportion of drivers, we don’t need enough e-fuel for every car on the road immediately.
And what about localised polution? As I walk down the street, I don't want to have to breath in polution that can give me cancer, or all sorts of other health problems.
Wear a mask, that should help apparently
Everything around you causes cancer. You can't even walk outside without the sun increasing your chances of cancer. You're acting like cars are coming up to you and blowing their exhaust in your face like a rude cigarette smoker
There one single E-fuel that actually makes sense: Biogas. It made from biological waste so additional land area is NOT needed, and since trash needs to be collected anyway no additional transports are necessary.
It's also a drop in replacement for natural gas, since it's also methane so it can be used in a gas peaker plants directly.
It's renewable and all that methane would have been released into the atmosphere anyway so it actually a temporary carbon caption method that actually reduces CO2 in the atmosphere.
Biogas would be a great complement to wind, water and solar and much better than hydrogen actually, since making hydrogen wastes a LOT of energy while bacteria does most of the work when making biogas. Biogas is also much easier, and safer to store than hydrogen.
Most efficient use of biogas would actually be using it for electricity generation and at the same use the waste heat for heating homes in the winter. Our local buses here actually runs on biogas made from the trash we recycled ourselves.
Actually - biofuels made from waste are not as clean as you may hope - the waste would go to landfill (yes - I know that's less than ideal) where the carbon would be trapped. Turning it into fuel releases that carbon.
I hear we were burning it for electricity
@@LetterBoxGifts I got bad news for you: Landfills have vents because that carbon does not stay trapped. It would do less environmental harm to intentionally generate and burn the biogas than to let material fester in a landfill, generate the gas anyway, and simply vent it to atmosphere like we currently do.
Besides, biogas would at least be non-fossil carbon and not create a net increase in emissions...
@@LetterBoxGifts in Denmark around 30% of our biogas production comes from slurry and another 30% comes from straw - those are two sources that would never go to a landfill anyway. Turning slurry into biogas will release the carbon, but also reduce the amount of methane released into the atmosphere.
@@Watch-0w1 it's better use biogas in a power plant than in an engine, because they are more effient and you can use the waste heat for heating up households.
There's an important aspect being overlooked here. E-fuels are just fuel. Meaning all those nice e-fuel cars can burn good old fossil fuel as well while e-fuels are more expensive (i.e. forever) and companies are "figuring things out" (with some nice subsidies of course). E-fuel cars have combustion engines and they aren't very picky about their fuel.
That's the real reason big car manufacturers are in favor of e-fuels. It's a bait and switch. They know full well it's not an economically viable alternative but while it is not, they get to sell cars with combustion engines. And the owners of those cars get to go to the petrol station and choose between really expensive e-fuels that you can't find anywhere that makes you feel good and .... regular dead dinosaur juice. In the same way, oil companies love this because it allows them to keep on selling fossil fuels for a bit longer just by having some minimal token supply of e-fuels produced at a spectacular loss. This is just postponing the inevitable of course but there's good money to be made doing so. But as long as there are lots of combustion engines on the road, cutting off the cheap oil is economic suicide. There won't ever be more than a token amount of e-fuel.
Basically, car manufacturers were being confronted with very real cut off dates where they had to stop selling combustion engines. So, they leaned a bit on the German government and now e-fuels are the best thing ever and they have a stay of execution. It's that simple. The cutoff date is off the table completely. Because of e-fuels. Of course there is no intention whatsoever to actually make any of this work other than a bit of hand wavy lip service to get away with all this. Any year extended is a year where they don't have to divest their existing factories and oil production capacity. That's the real goal with this. The only goal.
For the same reason they've were pimping hydrogen for decades. Hydrogen based transportation is perpetually not happening either of course and nobody in the industry really expects that to change any time soon. But while that is not happening, nothing else was happening either. Until EVs spoiled that party a few years of course. Now even Toyota is shutting up about the topic. And with electrical trucks on the road, things are looking pretty bleak for hyrdogen trucks too. You could buy one and then pay 3x for the hydrogen. At fuel stations that don't exist. Or .. you buy a nice electrical truck and charge it with cheap renewable energy. One of those things is happening.
The goal in both cases is not to transition to cleaner energy but to actively delay that. It's super cynical. Keep on burning fossil fuels while we figure it out. Any day now. Maybe next decade? It's a lie. A scam. A bait and switch.
Amazing comment, and unfortunately for most people, I think you are exactly bang on.
I can only hope that shortly before the ban on selling fossil fuel cars, there are laws against using regular fuel in e-fuel vehicles, much like their are against using tax-free agricultural fuel in road vehicles.
If efuel can work, happy days. I hope you are wrong but I think you are correct.
And burning oil is nothing wrong. That oil was in the air earlier so it return to nature.
@@TheEryk03 Not good at the rate we are burning it
As an car enthusiast, EV’s will never beat a good old combustion engine for me, no matter how powerful or torquey it is. The pure adrenaline, excitement you get from them, the vibrations, the pure driving experience, it will not be replaced. I hope with all my hart that we will be able to drive the combustion cars in the future. 🤞
You will. I’ll start a car company that makes them. You could argue that they would also be more environmentally friendly than EVs because they won’t be designed to be obsolete after a certain period of time.
Hey man, I respect your choice but to say that an EV can't replace an ice car is kind of stupid.
It's different for sure but I personally get more excited by the coil whine of an electric motor passing what is basically the consumption of an entire apparent complex worth of electricity through its coils to propel me forward.
It is so powerful yet in comparison so quiet.
By the way don't get me wrong. I enjoy a loud v12 too but an ev just hits better imho.
Almost all of what you describe is learned behaviour. You can unlearn it........ No doubt 130 years ago, some people loved the way their horse reacted and felt as they rode it...
@@Brian-om2hh although maybe true, it doesn’t take away the fact that there are still people out there loving the way their horse rides, it is a matter of taste and preference. And taste and preference are not necessarily “learned” behavior. Just like food, an individual doesn’t “learn” to like certain foods, one just does. It is a matter of preference, taste and this same concept applies to people choosing ICE cars over EVs or the other way around.
@@Luka_3D It’s just my opinion, I totally respect yours, I am definitely willing to daily an EV if it’s better for the planet, I just hope there will still be room for a cool ice car, as in my opinion that mechanical, analog experience by far beats that of an EV
There is a valid reason to preserve the internal combustion engine in the sparingly driven enthusiast/classic car market. Fortunately the small size of this market means that it has next to no impact on the environment nor energy conservation to begin with. Let's focus our attention on the pollution/waste generated by the general population. People such as yourselves and your audience.
Buses, commuter vehicles, shipping, tourism, construction, etc - focus on these markets as they are the biggest contributors to our dying planet.
The other thing to bear in mind is that even if you ran a car on eFuel you wouldn't be able to drive it in the increasingly large number of zero emissions zones. So not only would it be more expensive it would be impractical too.
You're showing a fundamental lack of understanding for what makes a sports car fun, that is having the lowest weight possible. There is no battery available with the energy density required to produce a fully electric car with the same power and weight (not just power to weight ratio) as a contemporary McLaren or Ferrari. Those customers are not simply wanting luxury, they want performance too and crucially that is not just torque. Performance is about dynamics, weight, steering, power etc. You cannot achieve the performance of an ICE car in a BEV. Some day this will be possible but not now and not soon
Tbh I saw them as supplier for classic car crew and not much else
It’s likely to be cheaper to bring in oil based fuels from another markets for classic owners.
The only problem is the pollution to the world once these EV batteries are scrapped or catch fire. Not so green and " Carbon Neutral" then are they?
You're right about e-fuels being pointless for personal vehicles, but for industrial machinery (eg. mining) it's the only functional replacement for diesel.
I think that mining equipment in particular could be easily electrified. Excavators mostly stay in one area for a long time so why not just run it off grid power?
Nah, they are going electric.
@@Luka_3D Excavators may be electrifiable depending on the use case. But for remote areas it may be hard to have a reliable power grid nearby.
Also heavy duty tractors, long distance trains and trucks, airplanes, boats, intercontinental ships, etc... all could easily transition from fossil fuels to e-fuels, and most are not easily electrifiable unless revolutionary battery improvements are made.
Unfortunately, I can see no tangible evidence to say renewables will provide cheaper energy or competitively priced cars. There will always be the excuse of spending any actual cost savings on more renewables or on replacing the warn out stuff.
This video is a joke. I’m sure her video is sponsored by Tesla. E-Fuels are a perfect alternative to lithium battery creation. If you’re worried about NOx, then Ethanol is the answer because it is carbon free, with hardly any NOx levels. Let the investors make their money first with lithium, then E-Fuels, Hydrogen, Ethanol, and Ammonia will make a surprising comeback when their done. You’ll see.
How is ethanol carbon free🤔
You lost me at Ethanol is carbon free.
Not Hydrogen. Not nearly sufficiently energy dense, even apart form the cost of making it.
efuels might as well become a thing. but only for applications like keeping classic cars running, racing and extreme offroad where being able to bring extra fuel is necessary. it won't, however, be used to drive to work and do grocery runs. for those kinds of applications, EVs are simply more practical. but some still insist that their one long drive per year requires for them to use an ICE car all 365 days a year.
Applications what you mentioned should ALL be banned immediately
@@dot7107 why exactly is that?
@@dot7107 is the way forward to treat emissions like it's drug trafficking? Seems like a dystopian movie to me
@@yvs6663 just look around and see what is happening in nature.
@@dot7107 hm we got a fascist here, not surprised though
All the oil sponsored media keep on making these articles and videos on how this new fuel or new engine is going to destroy EV's. Years have passed and nothing happened 😂😂
In comparison to lithium mining I think it's a far better option because it'd at the very least push for green energy.
I'm sure they're using EV heavy machinery and not diesel at the site. 😂
most of the modern car companies already use electric components like electric motors supplied for instant torque. with or without an ICE, it won't change the fact that the minerals will be mined the same. not to mention, every car has a battery already, small as it is, so yes, they already use lithium even as a ICE vehicle.
This video is so timely coming just as Rowan Atkinson mentions them in his Guardian/Daily Mail articles as a possible better alternative to EVs. Thank you.
I totally agree with the vast majority of this. But I do feel that there is a place for e-fuels in very high performance cars such as your Mclarens and Ferraris. As it does retain some of the visceral experience of these rare and special sports cars. The numbers of these cars sold are minimal, so although there is gross inefficient in their production and use the people who use them I am sure can afford the massive price tag that would come along with them and while wasteful it will be a tiny fraction of road vehicles using these fuels. However I do wonder if e fuels are then viable (just thinking about having a supply network for them alone) if it is only hypercars that use them.
No, for those cars, and things like classics and muscle cars, vehicles that have collectable value and preservation value, the small number of them compared to the main automotive fleet, could not justify the e-Fuel production.
It will actually be easier to carefully convert them to run on alcohol based biofuels, which could be manufactured in small plants from the waste material of sawmills and the like processing plantation grown and harvested plants - Pine, Hemp, Bamboo, along with the grasses that are left over from the harvesting of barley, corn, wheat and more.
these could (and will) be relegated as museum pieces. i do not belive for a second society will allow rich people toys to run free.
look, i used to think like this too as a gearhead. i LOVE those cars. but i am not blind to the harsh reality that they won't run anywhere. Ethanol even if it is a bio-fuel from sugarcane, like it is here in Brazil, still comes from a source of food, not to mention, it burns the same, and even more dirtier than E-fuels (not that they are any better, but Ethanol burns worse in comparsion).
the climate was very clear with us: Stop burning. it didn't say "stop burning some and burn others", it is stop burning ALL for EVERYTHING. there is NO alternative.
motorsports is another species in extinction the way things are going. if FIA don't jump head first into full electric powertrains, especially in Flagship cathegories like F1, they will have big problems on their hands in short ammount of time. and i don't care (nor the climate for that matter) for their agreements with F-E. they know ICE time is running out, but they are stubborn.
EVs obviously make more sense for most conventional road applications, but for unusual cases (remote locations) and for aviation, these types of fuels are among the most promising sustainable options.
EVs make sense only for rich countries
The rest can’t even afford the grid, forget about generating enough electricity
@@raghuveer4552 Electricity can be produced locally (solar cells / wind-/water-power etc). If you look at the cost development of solar panels for example it becomes very interesting for poorer countries (especially if they have a lot of sun, like most of Africa). While EVs are still expensive, they will drop in cost eventually (better batteries).
So, while you are right. I think the future will bring a shift towards EVs, even for poor countries.
I don't want a car that "makes sense" while my blood still runs warm in my veins i want a big, brash, melodious V8, I'll get an ev when I'm a pensioner!
@@Markcain268 Daddy, why is the world burning? Well, I don't want a car that "makes sense"!
Hope you don't have kids, because the world we are leaving them is going to shit.
@@etherealicer already is shit, i was watching a documentary on landfill in the uk the other night, very unpleasant for the people living next to them, and those whose houses are built on top of them, then theres raw sewage being pumped into our rivers by the water board, apparently, theres 100s of unregulated outlets pumping crap into our rivers, not only that but the authorities that are supposed to regulate this take all their pollution readings directly from the appropriate water board for that area, there's also a council approved incinerator near to me thay actually makes you feel physically sick when its burning rubbish, but its ok because they pay the council for a licence to pollute the atmosphere, so, there you go, evs will most definitely not rid the world of pollution, in fact, humans becoming extinct would be the best thing that happened to this planet
Always wanted a Porsche Taycan - not buying into a company that hasn't seen the light mind.
That seems a little backward. We want Porsche to have as much demand for their EVs as possible so they invest in EVs rather than e-fuels.
What are you buying? TESLA? Run by the same guy throwing rockets into the sky by burning huge amounts of fuel 😅
@@j0nny93rs Yeah man great argument, because launch sites contribute the same amount of air pollution as ICEs and are placed near homes contributing to respiratory related diseases..oh no they aren't and don't.
No wouldn't buy a Tesla as not impressed with their QA/QC and can't stand OEMs heavy use of screen/haptic buttons over physical buttons. Not really a fan of Elon but I have to acknowledge he has given the rest of the sector a well overdue kick up the ass.
hurts to say this as a gearhead but it is true: *we shouldn't be buying any private cars at all* .
we don't have the materials for any of this nonsense. the future of transportation is public, wheter we like it or not. and it must apply to all, rich guys in tuxedos to poorer guys in offices. transportation is an urban problem that can only be solved by public policies.
She totally ignores the environmental impact of mining, creation of infrastructure + maintenance and average extreme energy loss from the powerplant to the wheels. Efuels might not be so bad, but 'fossil' still is the most efficient. And the world keeps producing the so called 'fossils' for free, every day.
Two questions: How much pollution are you generating when you create electricity? What becomes of the dead ev batteries?
The answer to the first question is: it depends. It depends on how the electricity is being generated. As to the second question, one of the former executives from Tesla has started a company - Redwood Materials - that focuses on battery recycling, and recapturing as much of the component materials as possible. I imagine other companies are beginning to do the same. Yes, there are challenges with both generation and battery recycling, but there will be solutions, and these challenges should not stop us from electrifying as many things as possible.
Really good video but I think the main benefit of hydrogen and e fuel is not the process efficiency. It is instead the ability for the fuel to be made in seasonal surpluses and then stored until required with no appreciable loss of energy, An example would be as solar installation increases we will have a problem of curtailment in summer and not enough energy in the winter. In these seasonal and daily production variations e fuels would become cheaper. Not only this but traditional combustion vehicles have almost twice the lifespan of EVs and can be left on a normal driveway without insurance companies being concerned, I've linked the guidance from Zurich Insurance file:///C:/Users/ruper/Downloads/ZRS%20EV%20charging.pdf
Hydrogen storage, for hydrogen to really power your car, has to be compressed to 10,000 lbs / sq inch (see Mirai by Toyota). What is not revealed is that H2 , being the smallest atom of all, is a mischievous escape artist. So, your fully loaded H2 tank, to be swapped for a new, or just sitting in your H2 car, waiting for your next trip, will lose its pressure within 1-2 weeks. Will you run 450 miles in your H2/hybrid car in two weeks? Sorry but in fact, H2 incurs a lot of losses. Also, go visit several reviews of long-term use and resale value of a Tesla. After 40 years and hundreds of charging cycles, the battery pack is said to maintain at least 80% of the state of charge it had when brand new. My watch is solar and it has exactly the same performance stats. Most ICE cars last 8-12 years only. Owning the big Model S will cost you about $USD 14-15 for a full charge and a range of 407 miles. A full tank of gas in California will cost you around 65-72 dollars for similar range. How much money will you save by going EV? You do the math. I don't work for Tesla, and you owe it to yourself to have the full, truthful info. Cheers!
Hello, sorry for taking so long to reply to this but the leakage of any hydrogen tank has to by international convention be
What has been mentioned: we won't have enough E-fuels by 2035. What hasn't: their simple solution is "temporarily" diluting it. With oil. Like, y'know, Petrol, with a mix of 9 parts oil to 1 part e-fuel.
Or even just putting the blame on the customer. After all, the company sold an e-fuel car and complied with the ban 2035 on petrol cars. It's not their fault if their customers fill up with petrol instead of rare, expensive, e-fuel. And petrol has to be available for many years for people with old cars.
Yeah so batteries will power basically everything by 2035 right! Batteries will power aircrafts! Ships! Helicopters! Agriculture machines..... Well done good thinking!
@@robinbennett5994 e fuels are not just for cars!!! Use your brain! No one os forcing you to by anything! Batteries are not and are not ever going to be perfect for everything ICE has been doing for decades!
Man, this anti-ice movement is going to make the world more boring than it ever has been. And, yes! People who enjoy driving and enjoy sports cars and performance cars want to hear their cars. The sonorous scream of a Lambo V12, the silky smooth growl of a BMW I6, the roar of a small block Chevy V8, that's all music to our ears. Getting rid of the ICE would be like getting rid of musical instruments. Imagine going to a symphony in which the only instrument is a triangle that can play only one note. That's what the world will be like if you don't save the ICE. EV's are necessary, yes. But, let's stop pretending they are the answer to global warming and every other problem in our lives. Diversity in the automotive industry is at stake here. Remember? That word all you "progressives" love to throw around? "Diversity". Now, all of a sudden, they don't like it when it means keeping something from the past.
Whats even worse is that a lot of rich people virtue signal about how much better EVs are but they will have a huge combustion car collection themselves. So that leaves car enthusiasts on their own.
Oil companies clutching at straws, bit like the dinosaurs, they've had their day.
I have heard great and logical arguments proving E-fuels can't work.... Yet time and time again companies and media are lobbying for them... It annoys and sickens me to keep listening to the same stupid arguments. The sooner a big manufacturer collapses, taking their e-fuels with them... The better!!
@@mikadavies660 They won't sadly die off without a fight, I'm sure there's more to come yet, the Hydrogen myths will surface again too,
@Philip Woodford Unfortunately true.... they have been around so long, making small fortunes... That they have plenty of cash to cause trouble. I can never understand the levels of debt that the big companies carry....and still survive.
Not only Oil companies. Also politicians bought by oil companies. And whole political parties bought by oil companies. And then there is Porsche. They are all of the above.
Yes, that's pretty much it. They're hoping and praying that hydrogen takes off big time, then they can once again monopolise the production, pricing and distribution....just like they did with petrol in the good old days.
Granted the point about oil companies losing their share of pie is why they are investing in it. But I think half of the reason why they are being introduced is that the whole of the car fleet in western Europe won't be able to go fully electric in the short to medium term, given the various constraints to supply, funding, competition. This also applies to all other industries such as shipping, airlines, manufacturing, agriculture, which need to decarbonise but can't on batteries. Synthetics, hydrogen and other fuels, definately have their caviets, but the scatter gun approach is better than putting all your eggs in one basket and failing. Not only are there scale and industry spillovers to investing in synthetics for passenger cars but there technology spillovers for Hydrogen and other fuels, where there are rewards likely rewards for doing so. While EVs are the best technology out there for passenger cars, it's still not going to cover bill, unless people make serious changes to their lifestyle and consumption, there has to be something else.
we should:
- favour much smaller and lighter, more efficient cars
- hire a big car on the one time a year we need to take 5 people somewhere
- keep the car for 15 years
- drop the 'new car every 3 years' leasing model
- government to invest in battery R&D
-invest in public transit and cycling and walking/rolling infrastructure to reduce the need for cars.
- buy electric cars
How does keeping a car for 15 years or leasing a new one every 3 years make a difference? Those cars don't disappear, they just get sold to people who don't want to spend the money to get a brand new car.
@@drunkenhobo8020 Cars are designed to last until the warranty expires. Cars expected to last 15 years will have some components strengthened, and some fluid replacement intervals adjusted.
@@jamesphillips2285 no they last after 3 years. You don’t know how massive second hand market is? This will also be problematic for people that can only afford old second hand cars…
You have conveniently missed any mention of the carbon footprint of replacing 1.5 billion ICE cars with BEV cars though. You do need to report fairly.
FINALLY THIS IS BEING DISCUSSED AND DEBUNKED!!!! Thank you Imogen. I literally commented this exact point on an earlier video from Fully Charged.
Every time you transform energy you lose efficiency. As you said - cut out the middleman. Bravo!
Finally? Plenty of people, including the mag I work for, have been running articles on this for months. Maybe look outside of youtube for info, just a thought...
@@ledsalesoz can you a link to your magazine article?
@@CurtisTarwater Sorry, can't, YT keeps deleting my posts, frigging censoring a-holes.
@@CurtisTarwater But, search for Renew magazine, issue 163.
Whatever said and done we cannot let BEV be the ONLY choice. ICE basically monopolised the last 100+ years and i don't want another dominant form. Whether it's E-fuel or some other fledgling tech, people should be given choices.
Electric Classic Cars converted a Ferrari Testarossa to electric. It’s faster, lighter and has more range.
E-fuels have a bright future ahead.
The logistics industry(trucks, planes, ships) cannot rely on battery power bcz of its inferior capabilities to fossil fuel engines.
Mining of Lithium & Cobalt for EV battery production has a huge carbon footprint and also affects the water supply of the surrounding region.
We can't blindly rely on Li-ion batteries forever as they aren't easy to recycle & pose explosive threats. We may have to opt for alternative battery technologies in the future.
E-fuels when at its peak will be cleaner than EVs when the energy source used for hydrolysis of water(for Hydrogen production) is sustainable.
Porsche built an e-fuel factory at Chile dues its abundance of wind energy. Currently 1 gallon of e-fuel costs $40, but I see a great future ahead with more widespread production and subsequent reduction in costs.
I love the comments about how"not everyone can afford an expensive new EV". Sure maybe right now, but EVs are at price parity soon, and in 2035 there will be lots of cheap used EVs on top of smaller cheaper new EVs.
Do you think id get a good, usable ev with full range for less than £1k like i can, and have with ice? I doubt that will ever happen, maybe get one with a dead battery for thay price but it would be worse than useless
It was only a few years ago that people were saying that EVs wouldn't work.
We should explore every avenue to hopefully reduce our reliance on crude oil.
EV fanatics don’t care about environment and alternatives. They just want EV supremacy
Nonsense!!! No one ever said that crap! Also tell me why electric cars still are garbage for towing!? Not even capable I'm agriculture!? Let's not forget equipments to construction of roads! Bridges......
Global transportation requirements are more than just family cars in a suburban driveway and white vans delivering food from supermarkets, which is where battery electric power excels.
Vehicles that need to be lighter (aircraft), larger, travel further into remote places, work in the cold or store power to be used intermittently and then refuel quickly all need higher energy densities than electric power can provide. So having renewable hydrocarbon fuels available alongside electric cars is the rational strategy.
E fuels also give the chance to sweat out the investments in ICE infrastructure and products, getting out of fossil carbon and into renewable carbon more quickly than by relying only upon complete replacement with electric batteries.
Do you know that Aviation accounts or only about 2-3% of the global CO2 debt?
Check the Tesla impact report, 2023, fascinating.
@@rogerstarkey5390 yes, whilst notions like the Swedish 'flygskam' (flight-shame) are in the popular political narrative, we should address it carefully and thoroughly.
don't count on it.
Air travel will be done via Blimps, Land travel with Bullet trains, and when there is no alternative, Electric boats. future of transportation is public. society will not sit idly by seeing some enjoy benefits while others have to cut down. that's not how it will work at all.
@@marcossonicracer FIA just announced 2026 F1 rules, specify sustainable fuel and 50:50 split between electric and fuel power.
Also reducing weight limits, so developing for more appropriate energy densities than electrical storage becomes a priority.
@@chrishb7074 it's too slow imo. they could and should be doing much more with the power they have in their hands.
There is one thing worth rationalizing efuels. Imogen tells if we want to make it we will need 5x more wind and solar. Yeah, true, but partly. The clever use of power would be installing a lot of wind and solar generation, we all know we will need much more installed capacity than we have today because of intermittency. As of today we often experience overproduction and curtailing happens. We might use this excess energy to power the efuel producing plant, hence store the energy for later use.
I'm not saying we should stick to ICE cars, we don't. This is an idea for energy storage only.
I’m not sure Efuels will ever be mainstream purely because of the amount that would need to be produced in order to fully supply the world’s ICEs.
But… it may be a better option for motorsport, supercars, and most of all the myriad of classic cars, not all of which can be converted to EVs very easily/cheaply.
Well now, I am super critical of TH-cam output because there is so much junk out there. Gabbling presenters, zoom and pan shots, flash frames, illogical portrait framing and so on. It's a absolute delight to find a video of the quality seen here. Clear speech, no zooming. no visual distractions and an immediate start - as against the "Firstly, let me tell you about what I am about to tell you." An brilliant bit of work, thank you for the pure pleasure of watching it. Almost as an aside, I fully agree with the point being made.
I don't know about E-Fuels but bio-fuels are definitely a lost cause. You can not make them in enough quantity without harming food production. It has happened, many US farmers planted more profitable corn one summer for ethanol production. The following winter there was a shortage of flour for bread products etc. This caused a spike in prices.
Nuclear power makes e-fuels a lot more reasonable. Still more efficient to just use a battery or catenary if you can though.
@@jamesphillips2285 Wait until you hear about the cost of nuclear...
@@drunkenhobo8020 Nuclear energy is about a million times more energy dense than chemical energy.
This greatly reduces mining impact, land use, and material handling.
Most plants currently in operation only "burn" about 1% of the fuel. The is due to the Nuclear weapon nonproliferation treaty. Civilian power plants are allowed: but they must find a away to prevent state actors from diverting material.
This has the net effect of essentially banning waste reprocessing. France is able to use waste reprocessing because it is a nuclear power.
@@jamesphillips2285 Right but none of that has anything to do with how insanely expensive it is.
@@drunkenhobo8020 4th generation nuclear with reprocessing can reduce the cost 90%.
Most of the expense is in building the massive pressure vessel for light water reactors. [That and compliance costs.] Molten salt reactors don't need to be under high pressure. [Molten salt reactors would initially have higher compliance costs due to being "new"].
The cleanest electric vehicles are those that don’t use batteries at all … Batteries are ecologically filthy …
After running an old Citroen AX on waste veg-oil till the injectors clogged open, that was the best economics I used. Oddly, it ran cleaner and faster.That effort diverted cooking oil used ONCE being sent to a land fill.
Pretty much all this organic waste we produce as a society can be sent to anaerobic digesters to produce RNG or to central collection facilities to make biofuels available for all. We will need these carbon neutral and negative forms of hydrocarbons to ween the heavy transport industries off of using fossil fuels. Like you said we should use them instead of letting them decompose into unutilized methane in a land fill.
Every time i see a mcdonalds truck, i say "You do realise that fuel still pollutes?"
Summary: it's a scam.
Yep!
I’m all for EV development, but im against people taking the moral high ground telling other people they should not be driving ICE automobile. I’ve owned a Tesla, it brought me no emotional connection, hence i went back to ICE performance brands, as a result im happier during my daily commute.
Excellent video with crystal clear audio. Thanks.
I live in Minnesota, and I have not heard any talk here about e-fuels. What we do have, however, is a different approach by the fossil fuel companies. Minnesota has joined the Upper Midwest Hydrogen hub organization which is spearheaded by, you guessed it, fossil fuel companies in the Dakotas. They plan to produce "clean hydrogen" from fossil fuels using carbon capture. Since the state has already signed onto the program, I have contacted my state representative and urged her to "follow the carbon" when debating and approving any specific actions by this hydrogen hub. There is a very large amount of federal money available for the development of regional hydrogen hubs, however, so I expect there will be a lot of misinformation spread by the fossil fuel companies and their allies to justify getting their share of the money.
The only clean method of H2 production from natural gas is turquoise H2 production which produces various grades of solid carbon black which can be used for everything from battery anodes and cheap graphene (finally making it viable at scale) to road asphalt additive and tire production. Anything that "stores" carbon as CO2 gas is just a band aid solution.
There is no doubt that simple economics will mean that BEVs will be the choice for people who need a car or HGV to do less than 300km a day and 500km a day if you have access to rapid charging. However for applications over that distance then the battle is between hydrogen fuel cells and efuel, hydrogen fuel cell is marginally more efficient than a modern ice engine, but it is also more fragile and you have the issue of transporting, storing and handling hydrogen. The complexity of handling liquid hydrogen makes efuels the best route for aviation and so with it, it seems more than likely will see efuels as the solution for applications where BEV can not be made viable rather than the fuel cell. As for Supercars and Superbikes, well they are by their nature products of the ICE, as its very nature is part of their theatre, but they are not transport and will become even more of an expensive luxury.
Facepalm required.
@Roger Starkey OK, your are so smart what is your solution for heavy duty trucking operations 300km+ distances with no rapid charging network?
I don't even know why Germany fought so hard for a synthetic fuel clause. The number of petrol stations will collapse as ICE vehicles are taken off the road and replaced by EVs. Any stations remaining will focus on heavy vehicles and specialist cases. Who do they think they're going to sell this fuel to and who is going to want to buy something which probably costs a multiple of what petrol / diesel costs?
Maybe some guys driving old porsches on sundays will buy it as well.
Porsche 911. In Italy, the Ferrari. Plus as a number have noted, classic cars. All up it would way less than 0.1% of driving.
If you know anything about cars it should be pretty obvious. Almost everything about engine technology, gearboxes, and cars themselves, were invented in Germany, and their car brands are very heavily invested the industry.
On top of that, the autobahn has "no speed limit", and electric cars cannot carry enough energy to go at 250 or 300 km/h for any distance whatsoever, assuming they can even reach that speed due to their doubled weight.
They are trying to defend the reality, not a hypothetical future where you think "the number of petrol stations will collapse".
Spoilers, that future does not exist.
@@YounesLayachi Given that BMW (i7), Mercedes (EQS) and Porsche (Taycan) already have high performance E cars (all sedans) I reckon they know a bit more about cars than you do. The concerns the manufacturers have seems to be about their sports cars such as the 911 and AMG GT. Same for Ferrari. A segment that has great appeal to enthusiasts, but is a tiny proportion of the market.
@@waynemapp6333 if anyone can make great electric cars it's the same people who make great cars in general. They are not happy but complying just in case. Wake me up when they stop making petrol cars completely.
They invest now a little bit in electric technology just to not be left behind "just in case", but they know the future will never be 100% electric.
Not to forget how the e-fuel actually gets from the plant to the car. Porsche wants to make them in Chile, so how do they get them carbon neutral to Europe? Do they fill the tanker ship with e-fuels as well or is that ignored in their carbon neutral claim or “offset”. We also have to start taking carbon out of the atmosphere to reach climate target, so neutral isn’t good enough.
I had this conversation with the lads the other day, it really sucks to always have to refute everything they say. The lobbying definitely works, and I work with engineers. You'd think they'd know better.
Same with my coworkers, both sides of the political fence seem to ignore a lot of practicalities and truths. I'm one of those "filthy" PHEV drivers who uses hybrid mode maybe 5% of the time over the coarse of a year, usually on a road trip. Cheap on the used market compared to a new BEV, no waiting list, and uses < 1/4 of the resources of a full BEV. And I live further away from the office than the others and have plenty of battery at the end of the day when I plug in, yet the pure ICE and BEV folks just want to point out the negatives and ignore the many positives.
@@anydaynow01 I'm against a complete ban on ICE but I would limit them to use in PHEVs or range-extended BEVs and legislate that they can exceed a minimum battery range of something like 100km to cover most people's commutes. I think there'll be niches for PHEVs that are hard for BEVs to fill, like emergency vehicles where they're in use 24/7 and need to be available at any moment. Hopefully fuel cells will advance to the point that they can replace ICE without the hassle of dealing with hydrogen.
Hello Rowen. This is for you.
E-fuels are definitely going to have their place in aviation, with the EU even mandating increasing proportions of E-Fuels and HVO to be mixed in with regular kerosene in coming years.
With aviation there are few credible alternatives. Batteries simply (massively) fail the test of energy density, leaving just e-fuels or hydrogen.
@@grahamstevenson1740batteries can play a small role I think.
50 mile island flight is pretty easy for an electric plane but yeah you aren't going to Sydney from Heathrow with a battery plane lol
@@FrozenDung That's around the limit for small light plans with no cabin heating or pressurisation. As they get larger and heavier, forget battery electrification for now.
@@grahamstevenson1740Gaseous compressed hydrogen doesn’t have great energy density because of the reinforced tanks needed, on the other hand liquid hydrogen needs refrigeration. I think e-fuels are the only viable option for long-haul flights for the foreseeable future.
@@tzeimet There are plenty of instances of compressed hydrogen being used in vehicles such as cars, buses, trucks and trains mostly at pressures of between 400-800 bar typically.
The tanks used are usually of carbon fibre construction with steel reinforcement.
It's a well recognised technology and offers perfectly acceptable energy density (although lower than hydrocarbon fuels of course).
I suggest you acquaint yourself with some relevant knowledge.
Great report! Two questions - What about emissions? - If E- Diesel (e.g. veg oil) is used, the NOx emissions are still present. What about the additives in the fuel sold now? These are derived from fossil hydro carbons and its unlikely that an E- alternative will be created. It seems as though E- fuels are the 'Bargaining' stage for the oil co.s in Elizabeth Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief (we've had 'Denial' and 'Anger'. Hopefully we'll get to 'Acceptance' ASAP!).
Can you do a thorough investigation into power to x fuels for the marine industry (methanol, ammonia and hydrogen)? E-fuels are the only way we can fully decarbonise the shipping industry (mixed with other energy saving techniques).
Insightful question. but "thorough investigations" is not what this channel is about. The most logical choice would be "methanol". Since it's currently cheaply produced from natural gas, and in the future it can be transitioned over to net zero carbon production of it. By placing a carbon tax on the natural gas form of methanol. But hydrogen gets far more researches money and government incentives. So methanol seems like the long shot in this race
(They correctly state that E-fuels will be expensive and inefficient. So why even waste the time to post about it, if it's never going to be competitive? Just to create a fossil fuel conspiracy narrative, that's only going to be for billionaires that can afford exotic vehicles? The invention of the car did not mean that horses should be outlawed did it? So what was the value of the post?? that's my rant for the day)
@@nc3826 Gotta do it for the clicks I guess? Anyone with half a brain realizes only a very small niche market will be available for these very expensive fuels so this video was kind of a waste of an opportunity to talk about something that actually matters, like a replacement for bunker fuel for ocean shipping and keeping it cost competitive. Methanol and RNG (from all the waste streams) are the two technologies that should definitely be looked at for long distance heavy transport.
@@anydaynow01 I do not see a role for RNG. Since it's still a gas and costly and inefficient. So choosing between hydrogen or methanol, seems more logical. At least for the applications in the post. (Plus methanol is also called wood (IE cellulose) alcohol. So it can be produced from waste streams too, but scaling it up is a question mark?)
Social media is about emotional easy answers. And we are both being hypocritical Because if you wanted all the complex details, we just be reading scientific papers.
But thank you for your salient input.
I feel like you left out the most important part. A Car that can run on e-fuels can also run on regular old fossil fuel. So unless you ban fossil fuels, they will never go away if you allow combustion cars to still be made if they can use e-fuels.
Because otherwise, the longer there are no new combustion cars, the less cars on the road will use fossil fuels, the less cars use fossil fuels the more filling stations vanish making it harder to own a fossil car, making more people switch over eventually until there's almost no one left.
With e-fuels you can pretend to do something whilst doing nothing, you don't need to have e-fuel infrastructure to build e-fuel cars because they don't care what fuel they are running on, thus significantly delaying the death of fossil fuel cars.
A lot of truth and high details in this short video. Not a week ago a friend of mine was thinking of buying a hybrid car, cause electricity would not have a good range... And he is in the tech world. I was astonished to hear him, and right then and there we made the calculations to show him how much more cheap it would be to have an electric, fuel and maintenance wise. Maybe I convinced him... Anyway, thanks for sharing!
At 6:24 all I can see is "Jack is ace", which is very true...
More seriously, e-fuels won't solve the pollution problem, and as long as it continues to kill kids and other vulnerable people, it should be going back in the ground, with the other dinosaurs.
the most obvious one: it still pollutes
Have fully charged addressed the cobalt issue in battery production?
Curious to learn more, tends to be the strongest argument from anti-ev lobbyists, and seems like a serious issue. At least efuels (maybe not so efficient at producing) can still be done in a clean way, whilst also not generating a huge demand for more and more materials?
for anyone interested, I did a bit of digging..
Cobalt usage in EV's is actually 95-99% recyclable when a battery is at end of life, whereas desulphurisation processes used for oil, accounts for about 5% but is one time use!!
Battery developers are also working towards minimising the use of cobalt. It seems as though legislation is the best step forward to diminishing the awful stuff happening in the DRC.
But a counter-argument to the congo mines, is that the oil industry has been exploiting the poor ten fold.
@@iammatthewbirchThere is no that much cobalt in the world to produce electric car for everyone.
@@TheEryk03There are several lithium battery chemistries in production, including those that don't use any cobalt such as LFPs. Then there's all the non-lithium chemistries that are being developed like sodium-ion.
@@spankeyfish The electric cars would have some sense if the battery would 1. cheaper 2. smaller 3. lighter 4. faster to charge.
I've been saying this for yonks. Why use more electricity to produce E Fuel rather than just using less to power BEVs instead. Just doesn't make sense..
Neither does all the transportation e fuels would need. Electricity needs no transportation.....
I can't believe I'm watching this on TH-cam. I commented on other hyped videos on other channels that the Carbon capture is a mirage. And finally, here you are explaining it properly, not blindfolded, absolutely open-minded! Thank you! Subscribed for life :)
Lol!!!!!
❤ the sarcasm, yet this video is low hanging fruit. It's true, e-fuel is only viable for millionaires. Funny Porsche is the main driver as an average Porsche owner won't be able to afford it. Porsche knows this though, as they are saving e-fuel for 911's only. The rest of the lineup will be electric. Porsche CEO Oliver Blume in March '22: "In 2030, the share of all new vehicles with an all-electric drive should be more than 80 percent."
I really don't understand the preference of car dependence infrastructure. Bikes, buses, trams, underground railways and trains should be 90% of our commute. Also, I really believe big battery packs on public transport are dumb AF. We have had overhead cable buses on the roads for decades. Bus routes don't get re-routed very often, the buses will do with a 30 miles range as backup. If a bus route has a good volume of passengers, it should become a tram line (not directly, the general area should have tram service planned).
Tyres are a big waste source. Car parks disrupt our urbanscape, roads are detrimental to communities. Why bring along tons of metals and take up massive land to store them when cycling can do the job (or an e-bike)?
Interesting comment re: Mclaren and Ferrari (and Porsche to a slightly lesser extent). In truth, if I were in the market for a brand new Mclaren or Fezza, I'd want a screaming petrol engine in them. It's such a huge part of their DNA (Ferraris in particular, are basically just a means of getting the engine from A to B). So having "e-fuel" as an option, to me, makes sense. I'd accept it's huge price tag (because if I can afford a Ferrari, I can afford the e-Fuel to go in it), and the fact it's either going to cost £££ to drive into a city (but why would you take a Mclaren or a Ferrari to the city? They belong on racing circuits, or open country roads at the very least). The key thing, though, I'd still have a BEV for daily driving. You're not going to take a highly strung Ferrari to the shops - you'd take your battery powered (whisper it) SUV. So... whilst I welcome the fact that e-fuel exists - I doubt very much it'll ever be mainstream, just like Hydrogen is too late to the party for passenger car transport.
I note that Shell has been prevented from showing more of its greenwash adverts in the UK. How surprising.
If e-fuels use so much energy to produce then the customers buying them will pay the price and hopefully the market will decide.
but you know that they'll use drug pusher economics on them ... start cheap, get dear, but you're booked now.
@@carshomediy Well... e-fuels will cost $10-20/USG, not including taxes... it will need A LOT of pushing!
Or they'll just put petrol in the e-fuel car.
@@st-ex8506 Some European countries like Iceland already pay about 10 USD/gallon. If you get clean fuel for that price it would be worth it. Hydrogen fuel also costs about double now, plus you need a lot more expensive car.
@@petrhajduk9955 yeah, maybe… but there is a lot of tax in the Icelandic price. The price range I mentioned was without tax. I mentioned it, didn’t I?!
We are only a few years away from fully autonomous driving. When using robotaxis daily becomes cheaper than owning your own car, many people will stop buying cars. The auto industry is going to go through a huge shakeup. It wouldn't surprise me if half of the car brands around today completely disappear in the next 15 years. Especially if they don't make fully-autonomous EVs for fleets.
What about people who actually enjoy driving ?
@@richie4830 I suppose they will have to decide if it's worth the extra expense. If the cost of robotaxis becomes 1/10th of the price of owning a car (a prediction of Tony Seba), then a lot of people will see owning a car as a bit of a luxury expense.
have you calculated the cost in terms of co2 emissions for making the EV batteries ?
It comes to around 20g/co2 per mile amortised over the lifetime of the car according to KIAs latest independently audited life cycle analysis.
Worth knowing but it doesn’t change the conclusion that EVs are massively cleaner than ICE
Actual industrial production of hydrogen is made from fossil methane, because making it from water is already too inefficient. So how they think they will combine four processes which are each too inefficient to work even individually for their current industries, escapes me.
for day to day use e-fuel should not be a thing but for classic cars and cars that run very limited mileage could work but you still looking at €20 to €50 a litre
For classic cars it makes sense, especially if they are not used much, but otherwise it’s another con. It’s a way to use natural gas to provide those hydrogen atoms.
No thanks i still prefer combustion engine cars instead of electric cars
efuel and hydrogen production inefficiency consume excessive power prolonging dependence on fossil fuels. Fossil fuel companies want this tech because it means they make more money precisely because it's less efficient. Although there are some niche small volume applications where they are required for refuelling time or specific energy density that BEV cannot currently achieve.
manufacturing and recycling batteries and EV and super fast chargers also consume lots of energy and many different types of toxic chemicals.
Still better trying to invest in hydrogen than all electric. All electric is not the way forward unless they can manufacture batteries from less terribly sourced materials. The really need to invest in hydrogen research like the are doing with terrible all electric.
Have a look at Hugo Spears and Riversimple. He has a hydrogen fuel cell car about to go to production. His balanced approach to sustainability is refreshing and makes some sense. Hydrogen can be sustainably cracked with hydro power and there is a case for cracking methane locally from biogas where wind power would overload the grid.
@@srinathshettigar379 what an absolutely general statement
(Insert technology) also uses lots of energy and toxic chemicals
That technology can be your phone, your catalytic converters, your fuel refinery or anything else in the world.
@@shresthsonkar9207 toxic waste is more harmful to earth. how will you fix that?
It seems this video is not accounting for all the inefficiencies/impact on mining and producing the EV batteries. As well as the impact on building and upgrading the necessary infrastructure to support EVs. I don’t think e fuels are the future but it seems worth exploring them to see if there are efficiencies to be had in producing them. I wouldn’t be surprised if the best option is to make cars more reliable. If manufacturers would build fewer cars by making cars last longer and if people didn’t buy a new car every three years, that might have a bigger impact reducing the carbon footprint. That and if people would choose to get around by walking, riding bicycles, and using public transportation as much as possible. There isn’t an easy one solution to this issue. There needs be a holistic approach.
E-fuels for aviation & shipping, definitely for the current fleet (30 years?). E-fuels for automotive, there are an awful lot of ice cars still with potentially long life, so, despite the high electrical cost (renewable energy is free after all) why not. Phase out ICE to EV, yes, no new ICE, ok, but let the current fleet die in a more ecological way.
So use 5 times the energy to produce E fuels which move a vehicle the same distance and say it's "green"?
By using (I assume) green grid energy at a high rate to produce the fuel all you do is replace that with an equivalent amount of DIRTY energy.
The equation doesn't work.
@@rogerstarkey5390 how much energy and waste would it take to replace all the ICE vehicles currently running? Yes, producing eFuels is electrically expensive, but replacing ICE is going to take time, during that time would it not be better, environmentally, to burn eFuels apposed to DinoFuels? Currently, due to lack of electrical storage, wind farms are turned off during low demand, turn this wasted energy into hydrogen & efuels. All equations are not equal….
Propaganda video on EV cars. You forget to look at the complete chain of manufacturing of an EV car, you only focus on what powers the EV. Shortsightedness, and therefore this video is irrelevant, misleading and propagandist !
No they don’t. Just watch their other videos. EVs are always less polluting.
@@Simon-dm8zv I’m not arguing whether they pollute more or not, I’m arguing that this video is propagandist since not presenting the full picture… which is not surprising from an EV channel 🤷♂️
@@phil8830 their statements still stand
@@Simon-dm8zv on their own, they do. But omitting the big picture is misleading, and therefore not trustworthy !
I love how much time i save with my ev by not going to gas station. I plug it in at night and its ready to go the next day.
I go to a gas station every three weeks or so, and it takes me all of 5 minutes. Are you really that clueless?
@@carltonlee5445 I live in a rural area. So miles add up a bit more than people in cities. Having a full "tank" of gas everyday is a great feeling.
@@carltonlee5445 Why is he clueless ?? You spend more cash and a little less time.
You can't be doing many miles so would be a lot better off with an EV. Also they are so much better to drive, super car performance and very well specced.
That's great but what if you live in a block of flats and you're on the 12th floor, you'll need a mighty long extension lead to charge your EV.
@@biggobmalc8118 by way of comparison a gas car driver where the closest station is. 15 miles away is certainly no better off.
EV owner here, so not arguing with the case for EVs. You make a lot of valid points indeed. But your title is wrong. e-Fuels do obviously work! They just don't make sense for most, but probably not all, use cases. There are people who will argue that you should be allowed to put back into the environment anything as long as you have previously removed at least the same quantity of that anything. No matter at what cost. There will probably be a niche market for e-fuels, no matter what you or me think about them. They do work, but don't make sense for most of us.
The Mercedes EQXX can go twice as far as a Model S with the same size batteries.
So as EV's get more efficient, and newer, cheaoer, more easily manufactured (and environmentally friendly) batteries like Prussian blue sodium ion take hold, it won't be 5 to one in favour of EV's, it'll be more like 8-1 or even 10-1.
Poorly researched. It is an enormous subject with many possibilities.
I don't think e fuels are a usable solution for the masses. However in the future, once sustainable transportation is realised, it would be nice for classic cars to have a way of running as intended in a more environmentally friendly way. As much as I love EV's, it would be a sad day if Spitfires and the Flying Scotsman can no longer run in the name of emissions.
E-fuels is such a bad idea, there's really no reason to be concerned with it. It's not new technology - everything required for production have been around for many decades. We've never produced them because their production cost is astronomical.
While both electric and e-fuel cars are sus environmentally, I'm not trusting a single word from this girl until the ecological effect of producing and recycling batteries or the cost of replacing all of the existing vehicles as electric, instead of reusing them, is addressed.
ICE cars last an average of nine years, so replacement will just happen with time. And yes, there’s a cost to producing and recycling batteries - but an honest discussion of that needs to be compared to the alternative, which is gasoline. A car that gets 30mpg, driven for 150,000 miles, uses 5000 gallons of gasoline, which weighs 30,000 pounds, and which in turn produces 100,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, which goes directly into the atmosphere. The gasoline CANNOT be recycled, and the CO2 will be in the atmosphere for thousands of years. If you saw someone throw twenty pounds of garbage out the window of a car every thirty miles or so, you’d probably be offended and disgusted. But that’s exactly what we’re doing with gasoline.
So yeah, let’s talk about the ecological impact of battery production and recycling - compared to gasoline.
You're basically Peter Griffin and Porche is Joe workingman
@@davestagner "ICE cars last an average of nine years".
Yeah you can't be older than 9 years either.
Plenty of 20+ year-old cars running around, without engine swap or rebuilds.
Fixing an engine is simple, a couple parts replaced and voila.
Batteries can't be fixed or replaced (too expensive) and they die inevitably much sooner.
Electric cars compared to combustion engine cars are like smartphones compared to PCs.
A ridiculously short lifespan, very expensive, very low usefulness, impossible to fix, and impossible to truly own.
Electric cars are just another example of the consumerism plague of the western world.
EVs rarely need servicing or repairs. that’s a huge saving across the lifetime if an EV.
There is tons of losses in every single vehicle technology before the kinetic energy touches the road. The best bang for buck is to develope synthetic fuels and battery technology together. Batteries are needed for storage and ignition. Thermal and gravity batteries are way more simpler than electrochemical batteries and they have been used long already (gravity = hydro power plants). Problem with chemical batteries are simply their short longevity and extremely high expenses and complex infrastructure. Good thing about synthetic fuel is you can produce in every country. It is easy to transport, and stores well. Also gasoline has lots of power, good mileage, and in cold climate it warms up the cabin also. Gasoline works well up to -50 celsius. Basicly almost any battery will die in those temps or atleast loose majority of its capacity..
It's worth noting that at Porsche's pilot e-fuel plant they haven't actually got the CO2-from-air thing working yet (because it's a near-impossible task) so they're using CO2 from breweries... which is the standard place to get CO2.
In fairness the plant is actually built, just not working. Interesting the the scrubber cleans the air as it captures co2 as well.
The plant is... Quite operational
Unlimited Power!!!!
I thought breweries were consuming CO2 not producing it.
@@aesma2522 Yeast metabolising sugars into alcohol is what creates CO2. That naturally carbonates the beer, but also produces an excess of CO2 which breweries then sell on to the food industry.
Technically it's not adding CO2 to the atmosphere as the source of the sugar is from plants, but it's not the carbon-negative solution they've been promising.
@@aesma2522 correct. Basically you pull it out of fresh air. It's free, and rumour has it there's a lot that needs to be removed!!!!
I did a little googling and a simple calculation. We could absolutely make enough E-fuels to drive all our cars and do it using only green energy. We'd just need to install enough green energy equivalent to 9 times our current electrical consumption. It's pretty ironic that some of the same people who tell us "You could never replace all our electricity with green energy," are now pushing something that would make the challenge almost 10x worse. It's almost like they're trying to set us up for failure.
there is one new EV "liquid" fuel that can be used. a very old type of battery that stores the electrolyte from the battery in a separate reservoir. i know EV makers are taking a second look at them because of this as well.
Flow Batteries - there's been stories on them by Fully Charged.
Truthfully, much more effort should be put in to trains and trolley buses. EV are crazy expensive and just shift the problem. ICE is dirty. Boot cars off the roads and put on more busses.
Won't happen cuz it's not really about the environment is it?!
The amazing part is the 5 times more energy to create. So therefore at least 5 times the price, just for the production, so only makes any sense if it will give over 200 miles per gallon due to enefficiencies and the fuel will cost a massive amount. If the oil companies and oil producing countries took a look at what is going to happen they would realise they need other means to go green and keep profit. Many of the oil producing countries could use Solar PV as near the equator and export the energy.
Also the carbon being released is not reducing the problem, adding to it.
Forecourts should be converted to EV charging and open as a small coffee shop and make more selling coffee and cake!
Don’t forget that standard petrol uses huge amounts of electricity during cracking which has been classified as a commercial secret for years.
@@davidlazarus67 I did not know that, so thanks. It makes it even more important to get away from petrol!
@@Jaw0lf Yes it hides how much energy is used to make petrol. So it distorts the whole cycle energy costs of internal combustion engines.
Silly people. Go look at true unbiased findings before jumping on the ev wagon.
EV is not the long term solution to the problem
Much of what you said made sense, especially the energy efficiency arguments, but the 80s brick phone comment isn't a good analogy. A 4G phone vs a 5G phone, or a cut-throat razor vs a safety razor would be closer, if still not perfect. I drive 2 cars - an electric and a basic petrol car. The petrol is more difficult to drive, but it is also much more engaging. If I'm driving around town, I much prefer electric, but if I'm on the open road or a long journey I take the petrol. Different strengths and weaknesses, both good for different uses. For those who enjoy driving, an electric car is like riding a placid gentle horse. There is no drama and little skill involved, for good and for bad.
You've not seen the Ioniq 5N yet? It's like driving Need for Speed in real life.
Lobbyists hate this video. Good work 👍