3 ms·
We don't need electro fuels because we want to keep existing ICE vehicles, but rather because energy density is hugely important for fuels -- especially for thi
by boplicity 4y ago
We don't need electro fuels because we want to keep existing ICE vehicles, but rather because energy density is hugely important for fuels -- especially for things like airplanes, which rely on high-density energy sources in order to function. The comparison to direct "solar" power isn't fair; rather, electro fuels should be compared to other energy storage solutions, such as batteries, which have a much lower energy density than fossil fuels.
- Kuinox 4y agoI don't think it's very smart to bet against technology that is currently at least 50% energy efficient - end to end -, because of density, that can be improved, with thermic engine, which reach less than 30% efficiency, in the engine alone, on best scenarios.
- boplicity 4y agoI really don't understand your comment -- can you clarify? Gasoline thus has about 100 times the energy density of a lithium-ion battery. [1] I'm not sure of the numbers, in terms of electrofuels, but I'm sure they're similarly skewed against battery storage. I'm not sure how 50% vs. 30% efficiency of an engine plays much of a role in this. 1. https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201208/backpage.cfm
- Kuinox 4y agoI'm not speaking about density but efficiency, billions in r&d has been poured into combustion engine r&d and no engine reach more than 30% efficiency on the car sold. It mean 70% of the energy spent to produce this fuel is going to be lost. Meanwhile batteries range is improving every year, and electric engine easily reach 90% efficiency.