EPIC Breakthrough Can SAVE the Internal Combustion Engine!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 พ.ค. 2024
- E-Fuels: Check out the SPAN Smart Panel & EV Charger - MUST Have Smart Sustainable Home Tech: geni.us/SPAN
I've been covering electric vehicles for years now, which has given me the opportunity to sit back 5 years later and see just how far we've come. EVs are on everyone's mind, but every company is struggling to make batteries fast enough to ship as many EVs as they'd like. Plus we have like a billion gas cars, that we're just supposed to scrap? What if we could find a way, like batteries and electricity, to reverse the process and find a circular economy for gasoline? What if we could continue to use gasoline, guilt-free by producing it from the carbon already in the air? What would that look like, is it possible, and what might it cost? Perhaps your beloved ICE car isn't ready to go quietly into the good night just yet, this is e-fuels and some breakthroughs happening might make them closer to primetime than you think. EPIC Breakthrough Can SAVE the Internal Combustion Engine!
》》》SUPPORT THE SHOW!《《《
In-Depth Content @ www.twobitdavinci.com
Become a Patron! twobit.link/Patreon
Become a TH-cam Member! geni.us/TwoBitMember
One Time Donation: geni.us/PaypalMe
》》》GOING SOLAR?《《《
Save 50% on Solar Inverters ⟫ geni.us/Inverters
Drone Quotes for Solar ⟫ geni.us/DroneQuote
》》》TWO BIT DA VINCI《《《
I'm Ricky, This is Two Bit da Vinci, and if you're interested in learning about the future of Technology, Energy & Transportation, subscribe & Join us for the ride!
》》》COMPANY OUTREACH 《《《
Sponsor A Video! sponsors@twobit.media
》》》CONNECT WITH US 《《《
Twitter 》 / twobitdavinci
Facebook 》 / twobitdavinci
Instagram 》 / twobitdavinci
Chapters
00:00 Introduction
01:32 Problem with Gasoline
04:17 Not Easy to Replace
05:01 E-Fuels!
05:54 The Benefits
07:16 How it works
09:32 Breakthrough
11:27 Challenges
12:54 Efficiency
14:01 Conclusions
what we'll cover
two bit da vinci,e-fuels,efuels,synthetic fuel porsche,synthetic fuel production,synthetic fuel from co2,synthetic fuel how its made,e-fuels vs biofuels,e fuels today,future of the internal combustion engine,gasoline cars vs electric cars,future of gasoline cars,prometheus engineer,prometheus fuels how does it work,renewable gasoline,renewable fossil fuels,renewable petrol,future of petrol cars,This Breakthrough JUST Might Save the Internal Combustion Engine! EPIC Breakthrough Can SAVE the Internal Combustion Engine! - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA W3D4 | Summer | ฮึดเข้าไว้ ถ้าอยากไปรอบไฟนอล](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/W0eoG-wrVVU/mqdefault.jpg)
Check out the SPAN smart Panel & EV Charger TODAY! geni.us/SPAN
Scaling limitation opportunity cost for this to be used for airlines first makes ICE car use unlikely. Also the low efficiency and low price seems like an unlikely combination. Lastly the oil industry will lower the price to kill this. Instead of the current passive climate management, the climate crisis will definitely need active climate restoration efforts unfortunately. I would like to see more thorough and open presentation of numbers and assumptions like is done on excellent analysis on the limiting factor channel.
Your argument that efuels have a window of opportunity is not valid
The fact that their inefficiency kills them isn't just about how much extra low carbon energy would be needed to replace fossil fuels by efuels (with the associated environmental and geopolitical impacts).
It is also about how this low carbon energy could have been used otherwise to switch off coal, fossil gas in other applications.
why not use the e-fuel to fuel an electric engine.. That way you get a much better return in the energy output efficiency that you would normally lose in the combustion engine.!
@@randymurray934 Right on the money. eMethanol or eAmmonia (hydrogen carriers) to power fuel cells to power motors FCEV. Japan and Korea are betting on this.
@@randymurray934 Because if you are fueling an electric motor you may as well use a battery as it will take a fraction of the energy to build and charge the battery as it takes to make the fuel ship it to where the car is and then convert it back in to electricity in the car. Using Efuel to power cars is just a way to assuage the congnitive dissonance of people who know we need to stop burning fossil fuels but don't want to.
I know it works, but your titles become too click baity… starts to be a deterrent
It's only click bait if the title doesn't relate to the content or if it gives a misleading idea, which isn't the case.
@@ipp_tutor is it an EPIC breakthrough?
Words that shouldn’t be used in the titles of energy-related stories… “game-changer”, “epic”…
It’s been a turn off for a long time. How many epic breakthroughs we won’t believe can we have every week??? 😵💫
@@davestagner
…and *SHOCKED.*
I’m for electric vehicles, but the carbon footprint for the battery car has a huge footprint.
That has been debunked a hundred times over. Go away troll
In the 1980s, the mother earth news research team was successfully using sunshine to distill alcohol fuel. Maybe that could help eleviate some of the energy input needs. Then we have to remember that a 1990s Honda crx was capable of 48 mpg and it wasn't a hybrid. Also, gasification of waste can supply a feedstock for making fuel. That's helping two problems.
I believe that the vehicle most friendly to our environment is one that is ALREADY built..
I avoided this channel for ages because of how click bait the titles were...
I am impressed with your open mindedness toward energy solutions. Most innovations come from outside of the box, and people driven by a narrow and static ideology usually cannot recognize great discoveries.
That would be super cool. I really have trouble wrapping my head around the issue of having to "throw out" billions of current ICE vehicles to replace with electric. Being able to convert them would solve not all but some of the issues.
Worth mentioning e-fuels are cleaner burning, no NOx, so no smog
I didn’t mention it but yes!
1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate.
2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant.
3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.)
4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice.
5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas.
6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal,
🔌🔌Last month before I retired from Cummins we were allowing the use of Renewable diesel in generators and our truck engines. Many Data Centers and California fleet truck operators west of the Rockies are now using this fuel. Renewable Diesel performs like fossil diesel, with superior performance over biodiesel. It meets ASTM D975 and EN 15490 specifications in compliance with Cummins Diesel engines and most other OEMs. No, it is not 100% CO2 reduction like e-fuels but is 85% which is a step in the right direction until the H2 infrastructure and renewable energy power stations are built.🔌🔌
EV is a joke. The environmental impact between the batteries themselves & the amount of CO2 it takes to produce the batteries and most electricity is produced with Coal. The absolute worst fossil fuel. The best alternative today is hybrid vehicles.
One thing I have noticed, people are looking a hybrids, but most do not know there is a good alternative to those 20 to 30 miles per gallon cars, I average 42 to 52 town and highway in a mid sized car. With only 13 gallons of gas mine averages 500+ miles per tank, add that up with the new fuel source that should really help with the fossil fuel use and the environment. By the way, Good vid.
Why settle there? A properly tuned diesel can double that. I average 55/85. My best tank averaged 89 mpg. (I think I'm still running a little rich)
Nice Report. Efuel is a real good solution. not only co2 from air can be use, but also biomass material, or a combination of different sources and still produce reliable liquid fuel.
What about good old LPG ( Liquid Peteolium Gas) ? Nobody talks about it. Here in Australia both petrol & diesel have gone up dramatically in price BUT LPG has remained the cheapest at only $1 and diesel at $2.30..... LPG is an e-fuel as it is a cleaner burn and better for the engine. I have a duel LPG/Petrol engine so never get stuck if l run out of LPG.
This span panel is the type of ad promotion we actually value that is related to your content. Bravo
It costs so much they won't even advertise the price. $4,000 compared to $1,300 for others.
A few years there was all this hype about producing fuels from algae, and that algae farms would operate like oil refineries to produce fuel, can't help feel this idea will just wither away like that one!
A few years ago, I learned how to make diesel fuel from oil. So I made it to run it in my truck until I couldn't get the cooking oil that I needed because everyone at that time was competing for what little cooking oil was available from restaurants. So then I started researching other ways to make it. I discovered that high quality biodiesel could be made from algae. I researched that method and found that it is actually easier to make it with algae than with cooking oil, because the algae could be grown in plastic raceways using just water and sunlight with a little CO2 supplementing. I would think that that could be the fuel of the future. I can build pulse jet engines that will burn biodiesel very well, and it also can run my diesel truck. Just a thought. I'll be moving soon to a location where I can set up my first algae farm. Maybe something that you might want to look into.
Nuclear powering Efuel plants seems like the obvious bridge to the future for me.
1,000%
Like your videos! They are so good thank you
🙏
16% efficiency sounds like a production over time problem that is insurmountable. In the end, that number will need to come up significantly or it will be relegated to a very niche market.
Direct methanol fuel cells..up to 97% efficient.
Great video i didn't know about this process
Hopefully you’re onto something real here!!! LOVE it!!
In your description of the downsides of electric cars, you certainly brushed over the environmental issues with getting the materials to make the batteries in the first place, let alone recycle them later!! I’m a fan, but all these arbitrary deadlines that have no technology to back them up are ridiculous!!
I agree. The scare tactic of "we only have X number of years" while pushing the goalpost for the past few decades, has gotten old.
There's definitely a great sales pitch for EV's as most people can't physically see the environmental damage since mining is done in other countries; unlike dirty exhaust & oil spills.
@@joep9617 it may be getting old from an emotional standpoint but that is not reflective of the science.
I am quite sure that there are a lot of Americans like me who could NEVER afford an EV and all of the shackles that come with it. Home charging abilities. Re-cyling the batteries. I wonder how much the insurance cost is, on an EV? These devices are NOT the magical solution that everyone thinks that they are. It seems, in a lot of conversations, that AMERICA is to do and PAY the lion's share while nations like the PRC and others do NOTHING! I wonder how many people know that the PRC builds COAL FIRED plants at an enormous rate? While claiming that THEIR carbon foot-print is going down?
@@jtc1947 The price is not going to be much different going forward. Leaving the house with a full charge everyday and never going for oil changes are not really shackles. Used batteries are already worth good money for stationary use as a second life and recyclers are bidding against each other for them after that.
One downside of EVs is their dependence on the electrical grid, and given the march toward fascism in Canada, New Zealand, Brazil, Australia, the EU, and the US, it's better to keep the things we depend on as decentralized as possible. Censorship in the media, social media, and scientific journals has been going on for years, especially regarding climate and covid. Aside from being one of the hallmarks of fascism and Stalinism, it also affects the credibility of the standard climate narrative that is pushed by the World Economic Forum, the foremost international institution that actively promotes global fascism.
Always excited for your videos. 🙃
I think we WILL see Green H2/Fuel Cell combination for Aircrafts/ Ships/ Heavy Vehicles. Because dragging the weight of empty batteries does not make any sense here.
Maybe the heavier vehicles, but not aircraft (at least not long haul)
Good News for fans of electric vehicles. Electric Military Vehicles Are Part of Biden Climate Agenda
(What? This news of Joe Biden wanting to replace US military vehicles powered by fossil fuels with electric vehicles is being censored by TH-cam!!! How come? It should be good news to be promoted by you guys instead of being censored. Why are you guys censoring the decision of your "supreme leader"?)
Come on, TH-cam "moderators"! Why are you censoring the news of Joe Biden wanting to replace the US military vehicles run on fossil fuels with electric military vehicles? It should be good news to you guys on the radical left who are supposed to believe that electric vehicles will save the planet, shouldn't it?
I'm sure you guys are able to understand that if implemented, the US military will certainly have great problem finding suitable and working charging stations on enemy soil when a war breaks out, not to mention that even if they are able to find suitable and working charging stations on enemy soil, the electric US military vehicles will be like sitting ducks at specific target areas for a long time while charging.
You guys understand that Joe Biden's decision to replace fossil fuel military vehicles with electric ones is a very stupid decision that will have severe adverse and fatal consequence to the US military, yet you lapdogs of the radical left politicians don't want the Americans to understand the danger or even just be informed that Joe Biden has made such a stupid decision because you guys want to see the US military to be damaged and destroyed from within by the radical left politicians who are traitors to this country and the American people. Shame on you, lapdogs of the radial left politicians.
Interesting , Thank You . I hope they work
There is a new exhaust purification system being developed that takes the exhaust of a fossil fuel vehicle and runs the exhaust carbon and other expulsions and purifies the carbon coming out of the exhaust into water using a complex condensation system located just behind the back seats. As the exhaust enters the chamber it pressurizes and an amount of water is produced then the water produced by the system is sent through a complex filter that removes other expulsions contained in the water and what comes out the tail pipe is cleaned air. It brand new and experiments are being done to improve the system.
That’s so excited, I hope it works and that it becomes standard in the future, maybe then some cities built around a bowl depression like Toronto will be able to have better air quality?
You may be on the mark if Prometheus turns out to be as cost effective as they say. In other words, IF they're as efficient as they indicate, E fuels can be an effective stop-gap until fully electric aircraft, shipping and other diesel transport can be shifted to EV. Other issues may be scarce materials needed for the Prometheus method, etc...
well its better than mining all minerals for the EV cars
I think nuclear is the way to go for generating e-fuel. It solves a lot of the geographical problems.
There wouldn't be a need to switch anything.
1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate.
2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant.
3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.)
4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice.
5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas.
6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal,
you did touch on this but you can make e-fuels with molten salt reactors, since they have much higher temps then old school water based reactors they are more efficient at it and can actually do it, also you just run the reactor at max capacity and make the fuels in low electricity demand times which makes it even cheaper to produce.
Getting good at plucking Carbon Dioxide from the air and making carbon-nano-tube type things with it is the key to human civilization becoming awesome.
Good points made. On a similar point ICE engine are more efficient in cold climates, where I live, as the waste heat is not wasted but used as it’s required in the passenger cabin and engine components. So there will be a blend as no one tools fits all situations.
Excellent video. You covered powering the conversion using wind and solar. I would like to know more about the economics of doing this conversion using forth generation nuclear plants or even the older nuclear plants Germany closed.
Or even mirrors.
It seems to me that efuels would be better suited to gas/electric hybrids. Not sure why everyone fell out of love with them.
Nissan Qashqai
Won't go anywhere Ricky. The cost of the fuel plus the engine maintenance will kill it in the cradle.
As a technical detail, the Wright Brothers did not invent powered flight. The first motorized airplane was invented and flown by Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the Maxim machine gun. He has not worked out all of the controls, yet, so the Wright Brothers can be credited with the invention of controlled flight.
I find your videos to be very informative! Please keep up the good work!
This idea has seen the end of many companies for decades. I remember telling my chemistry professor about this 7 years ago and he said this had been done many times. What is different now?
What happens if the concentration of co2 goes down so far that the processes increase the price of the production 🤔
as layman here and i had to guess the scarcity of crude oil and or fossil fuel in general with political landscape changing and the limited amount of them overall
It’s amazing how everything is a double edge, sword, pros and cons
Actually, e-fuels can be purer than the distillates (even with additives) to produce convenient and less damaging fuels overall.
Big elephant in the room. Getting the renewable electricity in the first place. An absolutely astonishing build out of solar infrastructure and localized _energy storage_ is required.
This is by far the highest hurdle for any "green" plans and without a megaton of more investment into both sectors of a green energy cycle, all the thought experiments in the world won't change anything.
Hi I just subscribed because you have interesting content. I say let's keep testing and trying every new thing and don't give up. Efuel sounds awesome especially here in Australia large expansions of land where evs aren't practical and the cost to buy for most people is beyond us including me
This is so true. This is exactly why we need these types of solutions to help us during the transition and why I think eFuels are awesome. Untill we fix EVs range problem and untill they become as cheap or cheaper than ICEs so that EVERYONE, not just people in California or Germany, can afford them, most of the world will keep using ICEs. What's awesome about eFuels is that they decouple ICEs from fossil fuels, which in the past were unavoidably linked.
The amount of fuel a fighter jet burns is insane. I was a crew cheif on a10 warthogs and it took over 10k pounds of JP8. This is just one aircraft out of thousands that are constantly flying too. A single C5 Galaxy holds 49,000 gallons. I can't even imagine what something like a cruise ship holds and burns...
A10 crew chief! that's amazing! wow i'd love to hear about what that was like... we did a video on the A10 on our aviation channel: th-cam.com/video/2XlvJ_L4_UQ/w-d-xo.html cheers!
ships go by ft of fuel if that helps and and depending where they are have diffrent tanks for diffrent fuels. but 1.5 to 2million gallons of fuel oil. for sea freighters.
Now picture doing that with batteries!
Maybe we don't need thousands of military aircraft constantly flying 🤔
@@rustyshackle917 We sort of do. Like all ICE, running them keeps them healthier. Also the pilots need to stay sharp, recertify on new equipment, and of course do their primary jobs.
Epic breakthrough .... another epic breakthrough tomorrow.. Epic
I've been saying this for years ... synth fuels are even better, they are pure, no contaminants like sulfur or particles that end up in the atmosphere.
But, another alternative is the fuel cells that run in ethanol or methanol.
Love it! Where ever you have solar panels producing power, and a grid not able to fully utilize it.... make some e-fuel untill demand spikes again
Ditto with wind power. Wind turbines often sit idle at night due to lack of demand.
wibd hyder ñukale hybder
Nice to see you thinking about legacy and alternative fuels rather than just complete energy transitions … the Smart governments among us will do the math and realise many have screwed up. They then will consider the other options that they seem to be ignoring now … I’m hoping cleaner alternative fuels will rank high on their priorities as I like driving my Classics …
Driving classics was never a problem or a consideration to solve the problem, it might get a little more expensive when gas stations disappear though.
I have to ask the not so obvious question, Isn't all of the oil in the ground from plants that used to be on the Earth? So all of the CO2 (oil) in the ground used to be on the Earth. Life thrived and the Earth didn't burn up. I'm not against "cleaner" burning fuels but, could we be wrong about C02? The Earth does seem to be greener with the rise in C02 levels. Not to be controversial but...
@@dannyp9537 Short answer is no. It isn't greener in the slightest. Frankly we are facing the largest amount of dying off species in the history of our recording and a good part of it is due to climate change. Yes, the Life can spread in a warmer world when it has had the usual time to adapt to it (which is usually 10s of thousands of years). Life however cant adapt fast enough with the speed of the climate transtion.
@@brynphillips9957 I agree. Although Danny makes a good point, taking the concept of time out of the equation can easily lead one to wrong conclusions. Take sunbathing as an example. If you lie in the sun for a couple of hours a day, you'll probably get a nice tan, since the cells in your body have time to create the melanine needed to protect the cell's nucleous from radiation damage, and your circulatory system has time to safely dissipate the excess heat on your skin through the different temperature regulation mechanisms.
But if you a week's worth of sunlight onto your skin in an hour or two, there simply won't be enough time for your body to adapt. It's the same with the planet, only on a much larger physical and temporal scale.
@Danny P Well some of that carbon is likely from a time before the world was what we now consider habitable. But on the other hand, I reckon most of the CO2 that was one in the atmosphere is now literally the dirt under our feet. Some of the more reasonable climate-conscious concerns are that the climate change brought about by humans is many orders of magnitude faster than the natural change in carbon content, and that many species won't have time to adapt. On the other hand, I am coming to believe there is no "best case scenario." With high CO2, there will be no more ice ages, which is probably good, but... a lot of rivers have been diminishing over recorded history because they are fed by glaciers that been been slowly melting since the last ice age. So no more ice ages means less available fresh water. But if we hadn't burned fossil fuels, it is likely that in a few hundred million years, CO2 levels would have been too low to support photosynthesis, and life on Earth would have ended. And before that, slowly dropping CO2 levels would have caused ice ages to be longer and more severe. Sooooo... *shrug*
Nice presentation, have you looked at the use of Ammonia at all... Years ago one of the fastest flights just under the space environment, was carried out by a modified jet plane... Nowadays the process of manufacturing Green Ammonia is using a renewable source of electricity and simply water and air.... A business called FEUL POSITIVE ticker NHHHF, has machinery that can be site based and it requires far less energy than the traditional construction using Faber Bosch....
Would be nice to hear from you about this option, it is a very easy process to modify ICE to run on this feul too...
So again we get to keep the main infrastructure and it saves a lot of carbon footprint as the vehicles used now... Won't need to be scrapped and then huge environmental costs for remanufacture.....
Ammonia has far greater in transit stability and already its being adopted in the Marine sectors... Plus it is very good for the production of fertiliser, indeed tractor and pick up trucks have already been converted....
If you have featured this already, please provide us with the link.... Look forward to your response and content... The EV is not necessarily the only way forward, although the push is undeniable..
What i need is a home unit to make my own fuel.
If only we could perfect Star Trek's transporter technology, all this would be a moot point (no cynical comments, plz... it was a joke). I really do enjoy these videos; the future will be a fascinating prospect to watch unfold.
Aren’t the transporters suicide though…?
I’d certainly think about a hybrid vehicle using e fuel as long as it has an efficient regenerative braking system
This is fantastic news. It's good for the short term, we can blend this efuel with regular fuel to mitigate the emissions. It should be used in the most polluting applications at first like flying. The downside as you mentioned is it's inefficiency and resource intensive, uses lots of land. In the long term we can use this to get co2 out of the air and put the oil back in the ground.
The downside is burning efuels still emits pollution, but ZERO CO2 (since the CO2 you emit is recaptured and made into hydrocarbon fuels.). And modern cars do not emit much NO and CO, as well as soot.
This channel is really nice from my perspective and Ricky's voice is very easy to listen to, but I was shocked when I heard that it was sponsored by SPAM. ;-) I backed it up and replayed that intro to verify what I thought I had heard. YIKES - what a name :) SPAN looks very interesting.
System efficiency (the ENTIRE system) for eFuels sounds very iffy. It sounds like something Bernie Madoff or Sam Bankman-Fried would be selling. Just WONDERFUL on the outside, but the inside is a little more odorous.
I still question the efficiency claims for EVs. Does that 90% actually include the complete system efficiency, or just the consumption vs transportation portion of it? If it includes everything, even the raw materials for manufacturing of the vehicles AND the windmills, solar farms and such, then it's pretty nice. I've never seen those claims tho'.
There is also the point of energy being consumed to turn into the currency that is used to purchase the vehicles.
The whole of each system would make a really good comparison.
I too would love an end-to-end comparison, the best I’ve seen so far is one Volvo did, which included factoring in the method of producing the electricity for the EV. It demonstrated that with current-for-the-time production methods, ICE vehicles were less CO2 to produce, which I believe included the mining of the minerals for the batteries as well. Over the average lifespan of the vehicle however, in all situations the EV emitted fewer pounds of CO2, and I strongly suspect that only factored in the gasoline consumed by the vehicle, not the CO2 generated by production of the gasoline for the ICE vehicle. You REALLY wouldn’t want to see the end-to end efficiency of gasoline production, the refining process alone requires an incredible amount of energy. If someone comes up with a method of efficiently extracting the lithium from seawater, it’ll be completely game over for the ICE vehicles. Efficiency of electricity production is very high, as it doesn’t require transport from source (oil well) to refinery, and then on to the end consumer. It’s simply produced and fed into the grid, which then distributes it right to the end consumption point.
I will gladly drive an electric vehicle when the power comes from a NUCLEAR powerplant. @@sjsomething4936
I also question his acceptance of the degree of the severity of the climate crisis put forth by the heavily-censored, heavily-hyped "science." Censored science is corrupted science, as we learned with covid.
@@grizzlygrizzle People need to recognize the difference between science and $cience.
I ended up buying a new ICE car cuz cant afford an EV. And I am trying to think of any advantages as I plan to keep this car for as long as possible. One thought is if I am traveling the country with an ebike I should be able to keep the ebike battery charged while driving by plugging into an inverter. Most ebikes should take about 6 hours of driving for a full charge, or say you may get 5 miles of ebike range for every hour of charging while driving. Or you could also charge a portable power bank like a Yeti or Jackery. But If I were to do so in an EV I imagine this would drain the ev battery and reduce the range. With the gas car the range will be uneffected and extra energy will be produced by charging the battery without using extra fuel. Is it not so ? This has me wondering about how much extra energy could be produced if every ICE out there were charging batteries all the time while driving. Am I mistaken or is this right that gas cars can produce additional energy this way whereas ev’s do not ?
@@real_mikkim Have you actually shopped for a car lately ? If you have then you’d find that msrp means nothing anymore because new cars sell for way above msrp and the tax credit no longer applies. I checked out bolts and even with the $5900 price drop Chevy applied after tax credit expired, a Bolt still would would have cost me 5k more out the door than the 27k I got a Corolla gas car for. MSRP is nothing anymore but a catch to get customers to the dealership so they can upsell you.
You can't produce "extra energy". All energy produced by an ICE, whereas mechanical, thermal or electric energy, comes from the fuel. To charge your e-bike with electricity produced by the gas engine means a portion of fuel is spent into that task only. Now whether that's more or less economical than plugging the bike to the grid comes down to how efficient is your engine in relation to a power plant.
I imagine the battery capacity of a ebike is miniscule compares to the ev battery, so the battery drain from charging the ebike will be negligible.
Thanks for informing all of us. This is how we solve the issues that humanity faces, with information. It might not look good to everyone, but someone will see it and come up with a better idea.
I worked in a bus depot for 42years some days I couldn't see the buses for the exhaust smoke I had no health problems my friend worked there for 25years he is now 90 years old
The key is to not NEED everything to be purely electrified. HHO and Methane are highly efficient combustion fuels.
CNG engines are becoming popular in various developing companies
HHO? Is that any different from H20, or is it just hydrogen?
Tell me how will the poor afford these cars. They have to get to work to survive. You plan to to kill them all off? Or do we sieze all your wealth to provide them with an electric car??
@@RandyTWester shhh; big companies will hunt you
@@RandyTWester H2O would be water; hydrogen gas is just H. HHO is a 2:1 mixture of hydrogen to oxygen and is what you get if you split water molecules. It's a very explosive mix
Standing still is an improvement over running backwards. It is not a replacement for moving forward.
The concept of using e-fuels to minimize damage while we move forward with more sustainable solutions is great... Except for one little problem. If you give politicians an easy way out, a 'have your cake and eat it too' solution, guess what they are going to jump on, fund, promote, and divert previous resources and public opinion towards... Yeah, whatever gets them the most votes. The easy way.
well thats a rather dystopian and pessimistic way to look at things. the ball is already rolling on both electric vehicles and an electric power grid. widescale adoption of efuels wouldnt stop that. theres money to be made in both of them and where there's money there's progress.
it's not really a step forward or step back, it's more like growing a third leg and walking in whichever direction has more muscles. though it's definitely harder to walk when you cut two of your three legs off when your third leg is an atrophied little infant peg.
building EVs at scale without wrecking the environment and causing all manner of raw materials scarcities (especially copper) is not at all a solved problem - as things stand now, EVs are not even a viable option. Which really just leaves ICE vehicles using synthetic fuels
Education and knowledge wins out, even over politicians.
John Kanzius developed a way to divide the water molecule using radio waves!
What about pollution such as NOX and carbon particulates that cause a lot of health problems? Also the efficiency bit killed it for me.
Hey Ricky thanks for this interesting video! Of course going deep into this subject would take more than 15 minutes but this is a good overview of the market and technologies, so thank you. Btw you definitely have to check Synhelion, a Swiss company that makes jet fuel out of solar energy (with mirrors, not PV panels).
Cheers from Switzerland!
i'll check them out!
This may be Professor Steinfeld's process, producing fuel stocks for aviation using sunlight and CO2 from the air. ETH institute in Zurich, Switzerland.
How about a video on the mining of lithium and other minerals needed for ev batteries.
Exactly!!!
Awesome!
On the Right Track
Wait Till I Release
MY DESIGN
Your Mind Will Love It
So Will The Environment
A Complimentary Disruptive Design
For All ICE Designs
A Fundamental
Positve Interaction
When New Meets Old
A SYNTHESIS
I think E-Fuels might be the solution for slow solar or wind powered fuel generation in distributed locations. Sounds exciting.
Cheaper to go to local electric generation via wind and solar PV.
Hydrogen fuel cells are a promising way of storing energy from solar cells.
Great video and way to think out of the box.
One question: Are there other processes for converting Hydrocarbons into energy that are more efficient than ICEs?
Gas turbine I think...
Fuel cells. Direct methanol fuel cells are up to 97% efficient.
@@scottslotterbeck3796 Interesting, I wonder if it is possible that transmitting energy using methanol in pipelines might be more efficient and electricity through wires.
There was something called the Wave Disc engine a decade ago that looked promising.
Basically a hi efficiency hybrid concept where you just use the engine as a purely petrol -> electric generator with everything else being the same as an EV, so inverters, electric motors etc.
I suspect the aggressive ramping of battery production may have killed it in its infancy.
The last news was a study paper released in 2017 by Columbia University titled:
"Two-Stage Wave Disk Engine Concept and Performance Prediction"
Whether it's synthetic fuel, regular gas, or BEV's, I think we're all at the point of agreement that there is--and HAS to be--room for all of these technologies to keep the world moving forward.
Exactly!!!
I think this is serious good news! The only fight left would be to decide if we need to run 2 separate Indianapolis 500's one for e cars and one for ICE!
So the fuel is gonna be half as effective but you can put it in a car and a plane. In an aircraft, weight is a lot more of an issue. For cars though, it sounds like using e fuels might require you to fuel up twice as much in the future. It might become one of those ethanol things where they start cutting pure gasoline like we do now.
that's not how i saw it. the fuel will be the same in your car . the process to create the fuel ends up with 15 % efficiency overall not your car gets half the mileage.
Look into M85. 85% methanol (used in drag racing) and 15% gasoline. Wxisting engines can run on it with modification.
You misunderstood OP. The end product of Petrol E-Fuel is the same as Petrol Fossil fuel. It's just to get there, it's even more energy inefficient than normal petrol dug up from the ground.
I like the logic:
- Problem: we took too much carbon from the ground and put it in the atmosphere.
- Solution: let's make a technology that allows us to take the carbon out of the atmosphere.
- But instead of putting it back in the earth to repair the damage we have done, lets use that technology to sale more fuel and put it back in the atmosphere solving the problem once and for all.
That doesn't mean the overall burden of carbon in the atmosphere can't be reduced while using e-fuels. You can still put the majority of the carbon you scrub from the air back into the ground.
Great crazy subject worth visiting just to acquaint non-techies with entropy.
Having said that innovation starts by taking improbable routes
Well the problem is the alcohol is to hot and burn out the piston or can we fine a better material that can handle the heat. Any may be they already found away HOPE
could be a good combination of both if you have hybrids running on e-fuels.
This is probably the best solution I've heard yet. At 13:38 you mention this is the best stop gap for our transition to sustainable technologies is absolutely correct.
Finally, someone who gets it! It's nice to think about how awesome it'll be to replace every car on Earth with EVs, but it's not a practical short-term solution.
#1 We need to do something about carbon emissions coming from the billions of cars on the streets today. We can't just CTRL+A CRTL+X all those vehicles, and we can't realistically convert them all to hydrogen to make them greener, so if we can keep using them as they are without adding more carbon into the atmosphere, that's awesome.
#2 Regardless of round-trip conversion efficiency, solutions like efuels can help us take the available renewable energy in far-away places like Southern Chile and Australia to literally anywhere in the world. Try doing that with power lines! Or do the math and figure out how many batteries you'd need to store that energy and transport it somewhere else. That said, green hydrogen would be a much better alternative, but it doesn't solve the problem with all the cars currently on the roads today.
So, the whole point is to find an acceptable, cost-effective way to use surplus renewable energy to indirectly power billions of gas-hungry vehicles, while we gradually phase them out. I think it's brilliant.
Sadly, anyone who suggests anything but EV’s will be canceled in a heartbeat, all while California endures rolling blackouts due to grid insufficiency and the governor asks people not to charge their cars on hot days.
@@ipp_tutor some of today's industries rely on combustion engines and dense fuels. Cars aren't one of them, most people don't need cars.
So instead of trying to "solve" the problem, by using cars we're just beating around the bush.
Of course i'm not saying cars shouldn't exist, but the ideal number of course would be somewhere around 1% of today's number of cars
It could also be argued that this will be an excuse and will stop/slow the transition to "sustainable technologies", as is often the case with humanity.
@@YounesLayachi most people don’t need cars? Really? Spoken like someone who probably lives in a country where mass public transportation actually works. Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people around the world who don’t and rely on their (NOT)EVs and (NOT)e-motorcycles to get to work or school every day. I’ll bet there are thousands of them who would just love to do their part for the planet and replace their Polluting, ICE-powered cars for an EV but can’t. Give them an option that can make them feel better about their situation while they make enough to make the transition, and they’ll love you for it.
F- on empathy toward humanity.
The problem is not the internal combustion engine. It is the fuel the engine uses and the efficiency of burning the fuel. Ammonia can be used as a fuel that produces no carbon emissions. Green Ammonia stores hydrogen for use as a fuel eliminating the carbon footprint. Hydrogen from electrolysis can improve fossil fuel or refuel combustion efficiency by 20 to 100 percent depending on the application and system design. There are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuel use in ICE's that are carbon neutral or zero carbon.
How did I not see that coming all the alternatives to go green are more expensive
Not to mention if everyone goes to EV’s they will raise our taxes to pay for the roads. It’s a lose lose situation in the end. We’ll all be paying even MORE to the government.
Every nuclear reactor produces a lot of heat besides electricity. It's a billion dollar job to catch this heat and convert it into something useful. Example: russian VVR-1200 produces 1,2 GWatt of electricity and over 3 GWatt of heat dissipating into atmosphere.
The evolution of fuels is starting now! Yiu have made a very interesting content. Thank you :) P.S.: Subtitles are missleading - something is wrong with subtitles...
i'll check it out, thanks!
I KNEW this was going down a fairy tale rabbit hole!!
It always comes back to how efficient an electric drive train is. Use a system like our diesel electric train, ICE generator powering the electric motors. Instead of diesel use green fuel. Use a lot less fuel this way too.
Your researchers should watch Peak Prosperity. They had a recent episode In which they displayed a paper from a prominent researcher who detailed how long it would take just to mine the necessary minerals to replace all the cars with EV’s. I believe the most abundant mineral would take 250 years at today’s mining rates and the more rare minerals would need several thousand years. John Stossel just released a two-part series on EV’s as well that would have also been an excellent source for this video. Replacing ICE with EV’s is 100% pie in the sky, unless we find a way to make batteries from sand and double our electric grid overnight. Great video!
Exactly. But Greenies just stick their fingers in their ears and say, Nah Nah Nah!!!
Also be useful as a generator for ev’s (because a small engine could be a generator it could be much more efficient running at constant speeds to provide electricity to the motors or small battery pack), . Additionally could also be used to run a fuel cell and provide electricity. As the main motors are electric, benefits of low maintenance is retained. A Company called Twelve has been chosen by military to supply e-gas from small semi trailer sized portable generating plants. The world is really changing! Thanks for the great vids!
The reason to supply the military is not because it is a good idea for everyone, it is just to solve a military problem.
as someone who loves an EV, it would be sad to see the internal combustion engine go! This is why I'm so excited to see carbon-neutral fuels like synthetic fuels and stuff that will prevent the use of fossil fuels and be carbon neutral one of the solutions that can save the combustion engine!
Efficiency is secondary to survival, getting half the ice engines not adding to co2 would be great, jetfighters will always be ice but they are a minor cost/blip, only the ultra rich will be able to run petrol engines i expect.
hyybred ice eltrruc baateery
This is in Kepler Carbon ReCapture's roadmap, in their stage 2 platforms. They are using a process that takes CO2 straight from the water and renewable energy from the ocean. They will use the carbon to make many durable goods and materials as well as fuels! A complete win/win!
Much better than de-sequestering the carbon!
Sequestration is idiotic. Modern catalytic processes can make either solid carbon or hydrocarbon fuels efficiently.
Technology to the rescue. THIS is the answer!
@@scottslotterbeck3796 thank you for explaining in one simple TH-cam comment, without any supporting documentation, what the hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers who are working on CCS obviously know nothing about. You must be the smartest man alive!
yeeß
Light and thick synth fuels might have a niche. Light for jets in the air and thick for ships in the ocean. Fuels coming from the middle of the rectification column hopefully will be replaced by batteries.
Nope. Because Lilium.
@@EarthCreature. ? So I googled Lilium: Nice!, really beautyfull! But I think if you'd scale that up to to the size of a big long distance commercial airplane you would transport more batteries then passengers.
No batteries!!!
Hi Maersk and Orsted are at 54% conversion efficiency for green methanol now and the cost were briefly cheaper than Heavy Marine Oil last year. There is absolutely no doubt that renewable based fuels will outcompete fossil fuels on pure cost. MIT just published $56/ton carbon capture where about 60% of cost was the 770kWh per ton required and the rest CAPEX for a floating system. This suggest that they have modeled with offshore wind costing $0.044, which is definitively to the high side especially because there is no need for a substation, HVDC and landstation that at least cost 30% of the energy generation. To produce a ton of Heavy Marine Oil you need 3.1ton CO2 and about 0.1ton H2 plus electricity.
This is a perfect and well thought out fit for nuclear as you can make hydrogen directly at high efficiencies from the heat of the reactor. You can also drive processes to make ammonia or synthetic fuels using the heat directly without having to convert it to electricity.
E-fuels also makes a really good battery when combined with generators. You could even use the most efficient fuel type, still a loss of efficiency, but it sure uses less area.
Conclusion, we need ICEs, EVs and hybrids together, including fuel cells and H2-ICEs for a balance and energy efficiency. ♻️
@@playgt326Well said. What's the key to risk reduction? DIVERSIFICATION
@@Israel_Two_Bit Exactly, using bioelectricity, biofuels, hydrogen and e fuels, clean and renewable souces. ♻️
From a strict driving enjoyment perspective, ICE doesn't hold a candle to EV. The power, torque and efficiency turns the vehicle into something that basically responds to your thoughts immediately, without having to be in the appropriate power band to do so. The lower center of gravity makes for handling like it's on a rail. I REALLY want that.
19th Century ICE tech Vs 21st Century BEV tech. I know which one I would choose every single time. (I know that the first cars were battery powered using lead-acid batteries).
BEV is where the money is at. If you like being on the losing side of history then continue to support fossil fuels.
I hate sounding like a fan boy, but out of every single car I've ever been in, my model S Is my favorite. Nothing beats the instant acceleration.
While enjoyment is a subjective statement. You're objectively incorrect on the handling argument. The majority of EVs are currently BEVs, they weigh too much. With the current weight issues they'll never handle as well as a lightweight ICE vehicle(when comparing similar ranges). Grip isn't linear, it's heavily affected by vehicle mass(change of direction is fighting momentum[m*v]). As for enjoyment, I'd personally argue being able to shift gears and hear an ICE engine tuned to make a pleasing exhaust note adds two more senses to the driving experience which personally gives me way more enjoyment and immersion.
I agree with you; however, if we're unable to overcome the battery capacity issues we currently face, this would be a good alternative. I think we're where we need to be with cars, but not larger vehicles like trucks and tractor trailers.
For an everyday driver commuting appliance perspective I'll take my EV any day, never going back to pure ICE for that. For my fun track day car nothing beats the fun and reward of clipping off lap after lap in a manual ICE car, I didn't even like driving a DCT car, it's just too much like a video game and gets boring after the sense of speed becomes numb.
Yes, the bottom line of efuels costs $$. If it is too expensive to fill up a tank of efuel in the future it is probably cheaper to convert a gas-powered vehicle to fully electric. Or is it?
Meanwille Brasil is using ethanol since the 70’s as suggar cane is using Carbon from the air and using solar energy to create glicose. It coasts cents per gallon. Why it’s not worldwide used?
We are in a bad place, all reasonable solutions need to be tried at the same time.
is it not? doesn't see any other research get axed when there is new "breakthrough" in the market...
Good comments. Will watch the vidio.
Interesting. Thanks for good stuff.
Its all good. We need to get heavily into SMRs (small modular reactors) that run on Thorium and or nuclear waste.
Great balanced and informative video. Trade offs are at the heart of every decision. Sometimes the trade offs are a win win, but most of the time not so much.
What about all the other (non CO2) particulates that are cast into the air while burning fuels? Does this new re-burning process remove them as well, or does it introduce more or worst particulates?
Good point, since water and nitrous oxide tend to form into nitric acid - a highly corrosive compound
eFuel would not have any sulfur. So you would eliminate sulfur dioxide emission. Particulate emissions are generally associated with diesels. By carefully controlling the makeup of the fuel, you can reduce them, but not eliminate them.
It doesn’t fix shit on this problem. This is where the argument to even bother researching e fuels falls apart. It STILL leaves us with some of the biggest problem of ICEs. I guarantee you, if you were to sit in a closed room with a ICE burning Efuels.. you’ll wind up unconscious and dead long before you run out of oxygen. I don’t need any scientist or study to explain, that this is not the answer to moving forward intelligently
@@douglee2438 Very true, and catalytic converters take care of a lot of the other particulates and pollutants like NOx. Trust me despite there being more cars on the road driving into NYC is a completely different experience from what it was just thirty years ago, there was a literal brown dome of smog over the city, these days it is barely noticeable and only if you look really hard on a day where there isn't any wind. About the only really bad thing of quantity coming out of a modern ICE is CO2, lots of it.
@@airheart1 Hey there, I agree with you, that this won't solve all problems. But for now, we need all th innovation we can to solve the disastrous consequences we are facing. ICE running on efuels can be part of the solution, but we should then ban diesel cars, that produce the nefarious chemicals too many of us still breath. Gasoline cars don't have that problem, if their tanks are filled with efuels (you basically end up with something pure, without the sulfur found in oil). But of course, EVs are and will only keep getting superior ; we only need to find how to produce enough batteries, and also discover other chemistries (with sodium, aluminium, etc.).
The exhaust from e-fuels are still bad for your health, that doesn't change. Also the only e-fuel that actually makes sense is "biogas" (renewable methane) since it's a natural waste product anyway making it the most environmentally friendly fuel right after green electricity. Biogas is also a drop in replacement for natural.gas, meaning all existing gas pipes can be used for distribution.
Gasoline cars can be converted to run on methane no need to trash them and they can still run on gasoline in emergencies since they have two "tanks" for each fuel. The best thing to do to plug-in hybrids would be to convert the gas engine to run on methane, so you can drive on battery most trips and use methane for long trips only.
Opposed piston 2 stroke engines are 48% (with forced induction) to 55% (naturally aspirated) efficient. Farebanks & Morris engines. Used in power generation. 4 stroke diesels are up to 45% efficient. Cummins Diesel. 13:41
I’ve been really excited about Prometheus Fuels for a couple of years now, but the secretive nature of the company is unnerving. Better, more public demonstrations rather than flashy graphics would go a long way toward convincing people. A low temp/pressure, distillation-free process has tremendous advantages, and producing gasoline/kerosene/diesel that can run in existing vehicles is also a huge advantage. But I want to see them in real production, or at least making highly public demos.
In the end, e-fuel success is simply a function of the conversion efficiency and the cost of electricity. As solar/wind costs keep dropping, one side is fixed. What about the other? Best-price solar/wind is under 2c/kWh now. There are about 35kWh in a gallon of gasoline. So theoretical best case is only 70c to make a gallon. Reduce efficiency to 50%, and it’s $1.40. Reduce to 10%, and it’s $7 in energy cost to make a gallon of synthetic gasoline. But if you could get that energy cost down into the sub-$3 range (25%), it becomes cost-competitive with fossil fuel - certainly, within range of subsidy and carbon taxes.
This is fascinating just reading this comment, never mind the vid not pressed play yet. Now taking this shameless opportunity to plug Ecotricity's Gas From Grass which they themselves rate at 13% the emissions of fossil gas, and could be rolled out immediately, whilst slowly putting in heat pumps and such. Perfect for very short term heating / cooking needs.
1. Grass grows, sucks up CO2. 2. Anaerobic digest to methane. 3. used to cook / heat 4. produces CO2 5. back to 1. Synergies: Requires people eating less livestock, lowering emissions from meat. Also a wild idea I heard to feed cattle certain types of seaweed. Better for their guts, health, less gas emitted. Probably more synergies than I've seen yet.
Nobody wants noisy, poorly performing smoke boxes any longer. They want high performance iPhones on wheels.
Sounds too good to be true like Nikola . The Nikola trucks are 100% green... they just roll down the hill!
@@spicychad55 “Sounds too good to be true” was my first reaction to Prometheus Fuels too, but it only took me a couple of hours to believe they have at least nailed the concept, if not the execution. It helps that I found them through a source I truly trust, and at that point they already had backing from BMW and American Airlines… a couple of relatively conservative companies who would expect to see proof of viability before investing.
The beauty is that it makes sense. They use a catalyst with tech leased from Oak Ridge National Labs to turn carbonic acid (carbonated water) into ethanol. This means they don’t need pure CO2 gas, and carbonated water is very easy and low-energy to make - basically just a waterfall and a fan. The next step is their secret sauce, but it is totally logical. They created a nanotube-based filter to separate ethanol from water, basically purifying the ethanol with a form of reverse osmosis. This gets rid of the expensive, energy-intensive distillation step! And it seems completely plausible. After that, it’s just straight into zeolite catalysts to wring extra H2O out of the alcohol, turning it into shorter hydrocarbons that can be combined to make gasoline, kerosene (jet fuel), and diesel. And because no distillation is involved, the whole process runs at room temperature/pressure. That means plumbing with cheap plastic pipe and rubber grommets, not expensive titanium. And it can be powered up and shut down easily, so they can use dirt cheap solar electricity and simply not run it at night - not an option for distillation-based systems with long power up/down cycles.
So at least in theory, Prometheus is definitely on the right track, with a totally plausible technology and the financial backing of major transportation companies, and over a billion in Series B funding. And they’re at least promising 50% thermal efficiency for conversion at scale. If they can actually do that, they could be making carbon neutral synthetic gasoline that costs LESS than fossil fuel. That’s wild.
Out of the options shown I like their concept the best, using alcohols as the intermediate fuel, but it seems really inefficient to "synthesize" the alcohol. Let nature take that huge energy sink and use traditional fermentation to generate the alcohol. Then do the final step and convert the alcohols to hydrocarbons.
EVs are a boom for the tire companies! Tires wear out faster!
Yes, and those tires are the biggest micro plastic polluter.
Great video. I have a lot of questions. I’d love to see your research and we know there are trillions of barrels still in the ground.
That was a good subject. On ICE cars this technology really be improved. High heat exhaust followed by a little can that wastes about 20% of viable energy.
I would like to hear how efficiently an EV with a range extender would use energy from renewable e-fuels.
This would be a good solution, since instead of just one person (who was most probably on a year plus long wait list), three or four home owners can decarbonize their daily commutes using the same amount of batteries in a BEV and only use the ICE when going on longer journeys so they don't need an enormous battery pack all to themselves for those infrequent longer trips. Of course folks who live in apartments or have really long daily commutes should go full BEV. Maybe in five to ten years when all the mines and battery factories are in full operation, and recycling is a thing, everyone can go full BEV without hording supply, but now there is just to big of a bottle neck for full BEVs to be a solution for everyone.
It is being done. Nissan has the weirdly-named Qashqai car that used a gasoline engine to run a pure electric motor drive train. E-power they call it.
The problem with efuels is that you loss a lot of energy in the generation of efuels and that the combustion engine is very inefficient, just like mention in the video. Therefore efuels should only be used where electrification isn't easily possible, like airplanes, big trucks ect.
If battery technology doesn't make a quantum leap then electrification won't be possible anyways. Lithium batteries are very costly, their environmental impact is substantial in the form of open pit mines, and they have to constantly recharge from the grid. Our power grid is a far cry from being ready for full EV adoption, and it'll be many decades before it's ready. Unless we explore an alternative means of energy storage such as hydrogen fuel cells, or some other means that doesn't simply shift more burden to the power grid, then EVs have a snowball's chance in hell of taking over.
@@knote4958 there are many battery breakthroughs- sodium ion being just one. Electrification is not only doable with current technology, it is essential to us having any hope in mitigating the climate emergency.
@calvinclimie no there aren't many battery breakthroughs. Sodium batteries are the first out of about 100+ "breakthroughs" I have seen to actually go into production. They aren't as energy dense as lithium and won't be better for vehicles. Ya it's great they are using common plentiful elements but we need energy density for vehicles.
@@randybobandy9828 There are many news about 'breakthroughs', but we easily forget the long way from a new discovery to development into a final product ready for mass-production. There can be many obstacles along the way.
I don't think high capacity, low density batteries are a must.
If we can get very fast-charging and plenty of charging-spots (perhaps even wireless charging), a smaller capacity battery will do just fine.
For a home system with a back up type generator, and on location a small scale biofuel generator might be worth it.