4 ms·

Obviously they have to put in more energy than they get out as per the law of conservation of energy. This is really not likely to compete well with batteries a

by eloff 9y ago

Obviously they have to put in more energy than they get out as per the law of conservation of energy. This is really not likely to compete well with batteries and EVs in terms of efficiency. Its only useful if the government distorts the market with incentives or where the energy density of the produced fuel gives an advantage over batteries (maybe if they produce jet fuel for planes?) I'm dubious that this could ever work for vehicles more efficiently than batteries.

maxander 9y ago
One advantage would be if they can make fuel compatible with presently existing vehicles. Even twenty years from now, gas-powered cars are going to be common, just because gas-powered cars can last for twenty years and upgrading to electric faster than natural replacement is a financial and industrial burden. If you can make a car carbon-neutral while saving the [economic, industrial, environmental] cost of replacing it with an electric, that's a win. Even in the long run, though- gas currently has something like a 100-fold energy density advantage over most batteries. It will likely continue to have uses long into the future.
- oldcynic 9y ago
  To me that's a big loss. It seems pretty clear we're not fixing this quickly enough and need to go quicker. A2F fuel is still hydrocarbon so will still spit out similar pollutants along with contributing to the associated health impacts. As the second half of the article notes it's far better not to have the pollution in the air in the first place. What about the economic, industrial, and environmental cost of creating and running the A2F infrastructure and process? In 10 years, probably less, most vehicles will have been replaced. Keeping internal combustion viable for +20 years will just avoid the issue and help delay the inevitable switch to renewables; be that electric, fuel cell, or something more exotic. Worst case scenario - in 20 years internal combustion is still pervasive, in part thanks to the adoption of A2F, with both fuels at the pump: oil sourced £2, A2F £2.10. So in 20 years I sincerely hope gas powered cars are not common, and are fast becoming an occasional historic entertainment found in clubs, tracks and preservation societies. Rather like steam trains and horses have perhaps. It could perhaps be very useful for aviation where renewables seem unlikely to make much impact any time soon.
  - maxander 9y ago
    A2F is unlikely to incentivize staying on fossil fuels- people burn gas because it’s cheap, and A2F won’t make it much cheaper in either case. I would also note that for electric vehicles to be worth the bother at all, you also have to believe that the electric grid will be mostly renewable. And our current crop of coal plants will, sadly, last much longer than our cars, even if we stopped building them already (which we haven’t.)
smichel17 9y ago
I am also dubious. However, I could imagine this being useful as a way to balance out fluctuations in power supply from wind, solar, etc.
ams6110 9y ago
I think it could compete well, depending on the efficiency of the process. Advantages are that the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons is orders of magnitude greater than Li ion batteries, and likely always will be. So you can store a lot more energy in a smaller space. It's also easier to transport and distribute, since we have extensive infrastructure for transporting liquid fuels.
masklinn 9y ago
> This is really not likely to compete well with batteries and EVs in terms of efficiency. The problem of EV is not their efficiency though, it's that they are extremely heavy for the range they provide, due to batteries still having terrible specific energy and energy density. And they basically only work in temperate areas (good luck running EVs in winter in Yakutsk). ICE have much lower efficiency, but the sheer amount of energy in the fuel more than makes up for it. And electricity storage at scale is still a problem we're nowhere near solving. Carbon-based fuels are extremely stable, if the generation process is not too lossy, they make for a pretty good storage medium: light, easy to manipulate, shelf-stable, and usable as-is.

by eloff 9y ago

maxander 9y ago

One advantage would be if they can make fuel compatible with presently existing vehicles. Even twenty years from now, gas-powered cars are going to be common, just because gas-powered cars can last for twenty years and upgrading to electric faster than natural replacement is a financial and industrial burden. If you can make a car carbon-neutral while saving the [economic, industrial, environmental] cost of replacing it with an electric, that's a win. Even in the long run, though- gas currently has something like a 100-fold energy density advantage over most batteries. It will likely continue to have uses long into the future.

oldcynic 9y ago
To me that's a big loss. It seems pretty clear we're not fixing this quickly enough and need to go quicker. A2F fuel is still hydrocarbon so will still spit out similar pollutants along with contributing to the associated health impacts. As the second half of the article notes it's far better not to have the pollution in the air in the first place. What about the economic, industrial, and environmental cost of creating and running the A2F infrastructure and process? In 10 years, probably less, most vehicles will have been replaced. Keeping internal combustion viable for +20 years will just avoid the issue and help delay the inevitable switch to renewables; be that electric, fuel cell, or something more exotic. Worst case scenario - in 20 years internal combustion is still pervasive, in part thanks to the adoption of A2F, with both fuels at the pump: oil sourced £2, A2F £2.10. So in 20 years I sincerely hope gas powered cars are not common, and are fast becoming an occasional historic entertainment found in clubs, tracks and preservation societies. Rather like steam trains and horses have perhaps. It could perhaps be very useful for aviation where renewables seem unlikely to make much impact any time soon.
- maxander 9y ago
  A2F is unlikely to incentivize staying on fossil fuels- people burn gas because it’s cheap, and A2F won’t make it much cheaper in either case. I would also note that for electric vehicles to be worth the bother at all, you also have to believe that the electric grid will be mostly renewable. And our current crop of coal plants will, sadly, last much longer than our cars, even if we stopped building them already (which we haven’t.)

smichel17 9y ago

I am also dubious. However, I could imagine this being useful as a way to balance out fluctuations in power supply from wind, solar, etc.

ams6110 9y ago

I think it could compete well, depending on the efficiency of the process. Advantages are that the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons is orders of magnitude greater than Li ion batteries, and likely always will be. So you can store a lot more energy in a smaller space. It's also easier to transport and distribute, since we have extensive infrastructure for transporting liquid fuels.

masklinn 9y ago

> This is really not likely to compete well with batteries and EVs in terms of efficiency. The problem of EV is not their efficiency though, it's that they are extremely heavy for the range they provide, due to batteries still having terrible specific energy and energy density. And they basically only work in temperate areas (good luck running EVs in winter in Yakutsk). ICE have much lower efficiency, but the sheer amount of energy in the fuel more than makes up for it. And electricity storage at scale is still a problem we're nowhere near solving. Carbon-based fuels are extremely stable, if the generation process is not too lossy, they make for a pretty good storage medium: light, easy to manipulate, shelf-stable, and usable as-is.