4 ms·

All of the synthetic light hydrocarbons (e-fuels) involve extra energy on top of the hydrogen production. Its pretty much right there in the name (hydro carbon

All of the synthetic light hydrocarbons (e-fuels) involve extra energy on top of the hydrogen production. Its pretty much right there in the name (hydro carbon). So for instance, we could make a ton of hydrogen and then burn it for energy, or we could make a ton of hydrogen, add in a few hundred kilos of carbon and more energy to produce e-fuels that we then burn for energy. For logistics reasons it will almost certainly have its place, but because by definition it takes a greater energy investment than just the hydrogen, it will economically come after hydrogen production has been scaled to solve the cases where it is not logistically constrained.

oh_sigh 4y ago
Right, but the problem is really with hydrogen handling, and all the complexities that would be pushed onto, say, every vehicle. Keeping a hydrocarbon in a container is much, much easier than keeping a single hydrogen atom in a container.
- cagenut 4y ago
  once again we are not talking about cars
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    Who isn't? I'm talking about cars(among other things). I know the article discounts cars as being solved by lithium ion batteries, but there is still a huge group pushing for hydrogen vehicles.
worik 4y ago
Energy is plentiful, but it is not in the right places. So surely the economics of transporting energy are going to count transmission/transport costs/efficiency not production efficiency? Some form of synthetic fuel made from Hydrogen plus CO2 has a very good chance of being a winner here, given the extensive infrastructure we have for liquid (and gaseous) fuels. I am no expert but this seems very clear to me. What do I have wrong?