4 ms·
Sorry, but I'm still not seeing how e-fuels are beneficial without violating the laws of thermodynamics. A plane is going to produce the same amount of CO2 whet
by sumy23 4y ago
Sorry, but I'm still not seeing how e-fuels are beneficial without violating the laws of thermodynamics. A plane is going to produce the same amount of CO2 whether kerosene or e-kerosene is used. The only way e-kerosene makes sense is if its production uses less CO2 than traditional oil extraction and refining. Given the relative simplicity of oil extraction, I find it hard to believe this will be the case. Maybe it makes sense in Europe where geopolitical considerations like energy independence outweigh strictly reducing CO2 emissions.
- mytwocentsworth 4y ago> The only way e-kerosene makes sense is if its production uses less CO2 than traditional oil extraction and refining. Yes -- hold that thought! As noted above, e-fuel is made from green energy and captured CO2. So, net zero, more or less, after the fuel is burned. But traditional oil extraction doesn't begin by capturing CO2. So, burning that fuel is carbon positive.
- sumy23 4y agoYes, but you're not answering why it's better to convert the captured CO2 into e-fuel rather than sequester it directly. My point is that converting to e-fuel instead of direct sequestration only makes sense if you can produce e-fuel from carbon more efficiently than you can extract and refine oil.