6 ms·

This is such a great move! Let me explain. What you care about is not EVs. It is carbon neutrality. You actions should be geared towards that. Not EVs. They are

This is such a great move! Let me explain. What you care about is not EVs. It is carbon neutrality. You actions should be geared towards that. Not EVs. They are just one way of getting there. Having commercially viable e-Fuels would have a few advantages. You can keep your old car and be net-zero, sport cars would be a thing, you can decarbonize other types of transport which are more complicated to decarbonize than personal vehicles. Like maritime, airplanes, long haul tracking and so on. Its like killing many many birds with one stone. At the momeny, the fact that ICE cars would be banned could be a red flag for new projects trying to push for e-Fuels as it limits their customer base. This is important because at the beginning they will be more expensive that crude-based products so you need to find a niche market where poeple are willing to pay premium for net-zero. I think that companies like Google, Apple and so on would be willing to pay maybe even 2x or 3x for the fuel if it guarantees true net zero (no offsets). As for the efficiency. It is true that the e-Fuel based chain would be less efficient than all-electric but there is a way around it. Efficiency is mostly important to keep the costs low. If you need 1kWh on the output and the efficiency is 20% instead of 90%, you will need 5 kWh instead of 1.11 kWh on the input. But what if the input is next to free? Two ways of getting that. One is by having a surplus electricity which we will have a lot as we inevitably have much more installed capacity in solar than peak load. The other one is to build renewables where they work very well (like Mauritania for solar), produce e-Fuels on-site and than ship them globally. Economy of scale will allow you to decrease cost of e-Fuels dramatically. It might seem like a long shot for you at the moment but I gave it a lot of thought and discussions and research and I think that this very realistic and very likely scenario. PS: If you want to start a business in this area, let me know. I'd be very interested!

BowBun 4y ago
A dutch lawmaker in the article said that e-fuels still release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the EU were to accept Germany's loophole, then there would be a known avenue for vehicle fuel pollutants to continue to damage our environment. Given companies will always prioritize profits, if that loophole exists and they can re-use their infrastructure, naturally they will heavily invest in this area and continue polluting the world. What's the point to all these changes if we just shift from one mode of pollution to another? Maybe the loophole should be to allow fuels that generate 0 carbon emissions (+ other rules) when combusted.
- tomas789 4y ago
  Yes, they emit CO2 when burned. The goal is not no-emissions but net-zero. Question is where does the carbon in the e-Fuel come from?
- wskinner 4y ago
  Are vehicles that use electric batteries instead of gasoline entirely pollution-free? Every such change is about shifting from one form of pollution to another. If your standard is zero pollution of any kind, the only solution is elimination of all humans.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Aside from pure hydrogen, aren't all non-carbon combustion fuels strictly worse polluters?
- whatever1 4y ago
  E fuels can be 0 carbon. But they are still bad for air quality because of oxidizing Nitrogen during combustion. These Nitrous oxides then react in the atmosphere with other compounds (even terpenes from forests) then form the small particles (PM2.5) that we now know are deadly because they pass though all of our body barriers. The way I see it is that efuels will eventually be there to satisfy the demand of legacy hardware in the transition period, and maybe a bit later for recreational purposes (aka for car collectors, racing etc). They are not a permanent solution for our transportation energy needs.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Transforming electricity in fuel (e-fuel) is like using EV but with extra steps and massive efficiency loss
prmoustache 4y ago
The only way to get to carbon neutrality is to stop moving by anything but muscular or wind power. And by wind I mean sails, not wind turbine provided electricity. We've got way enough need of electrical power for everything else, personal transportation should be done by muscle and sails assistance. But this won't ever happen so goodbye carbon neutrality, climate is doomed and there is no way we can reverse what we have already done. The only question mark is how fast will we reach extinction of most animal species (including human) we currently know and how fast our quality of life and expectancy will degrade. Anyone still operating a powered vehicle for personnal transportation, or considering purchasing one, be it EV or ICE, is commiting a crime against humanity and against his/her own children.
- thatwasunusual 4y ago
  > and there is no way we can reverse what we have already done What about carbon capture?
- MrZander 4y ago
  Good luck having any form of modern agriculture if you can't get the produce to the destination before it rots.
  - Paianni 4y ago
    A lot of it would have to be localised.
    - prmoustache 4y ago
      A lot of things would have to change yes. But saying I need a car because ... shouldn't be fixed by buying said car but by fixing the reasons we say we need it.
  - dopidopHN 4y ago
    What about growing stuff closer to where they are going to be eaten. Yeah, it’s not great for economy of scale, but let’s tap into the 30% of food we do produce and go to waste directly. It seems like theirs is both low hanging fruits and actual mileniums of experience we can leverage in terms of growing food and feeding people without flying the output across the globe. Edit : I missed you mention modern agriculture. That might be the issue here, those post WW2 technics are terrible for the mid-term quality of our soils. ( we see large % decline roughly 60 years after already ) While more work intensive methods using less intrants seems to be able to produce the same amount of food. ( cf : French research on permaculture, INRA and such ) The issue with those is that you need way, way more farmers. I see that as a opportunity to address un-employment and vocational crisis. Nothing is bullshit about a job where you grown food. It’s foundation to everything.
marcosdumay 4y ago
Well, it's presented as a reasonable package. You will know if the presentation is honest if it comes bundled with a reasonably sized carbon tax. If it doesn't then the presentation is just weaseling people into supporting fossil fuels for the next decades. (The article "smartly" doesn't go into that, what leads to the conclusion that it's a propaganda piece and the entire reasoning is a lie. But well, it's not very strong evidence.)
schiffern 4y ago
>But what if the input is next to free? This is the fundamental thermodynamic-economic showstopper for e-fuel: it falls apart unless we assume a "free lunch" somewhere. >Two ways of getting that. One is by having a surplus electricity which we will have a lot That's not "free," it's just coming out of the pocket of the solar panel operator, in the form of lower utilization. But they wouldn't build those solar panels in the first place if the utilization is too low. If you come up with a way to utilize that energy, then guess what? The operators of the solar panels are going to make you pay for it. And why shouldn't they? They put up the investment, why should others make the money while they get completely cut out? >The other one is to build renewables where they work very well (like Mauritania for solar) Solar isn't free on Mauritania either. At best you're looking at, what, 30%? With some of that eaten up in shipping costs? This can't achieve "next to free." >and than ship them globally. Global shipping is definitely not free. Boats are reasonably efficient, but as a shipper you have to eat the inventory cost during transit. Unless you break either the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of economics, e-fuel is (inevitably!) woefully uncompetitive compared to electrification. Unfortunately knowledge silos mean that few people notice this: the economists assume the 'magic' is somehow in the technology, and the science/technology people assume the 'magic' is in the economics! Poor energy efficiency = high cost. There's no 'clever' way around it, sorry.

BowBun 4y ago

A dutch lawmaker in the article said that e-fuels still release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the EU were to accept Germany's loophole, then there would be a known avenue for vehicle fuel pollutants to continue to damage our environment. Given companies will always prioritize profits, if that loophole exists and they can re-use their infrastructure, naturally they will heavily invest in this area and continue polluting the world. What's the point to all these changes if we just shift from one mode of pollution to another? Maybe the loophole should be to allow fuels that generate 0 carbon emissions (+ other rules) when combusted.

tomas789 4y ago
Yes, they emit CO2 when burned. The goal is not no-emissions but net-zero. Question is where does the carbon in the e-Fuel come from?
wskinner 4y ago
Are vehicles that use electric batteries instead of gasoline entirely pollution-free? Every such change is about shifting from one form of pollution to another. If your standard is zero pollution of any kind, the only solution is elimination of all humans.
zdragnar 4y ago
Aside from pure hydrogen, aren't all non-carbon combustion fuels strictly worse polluters?
whatever1 4y ago
E fuels can be 0 carbon. But they are still bad for air quality because of oxidizing Nitrogen during combustion. These Nitrous oxides then react in the atmosphere with other compounds (even terpenes from forests) then form the small particles (PM2.5) that we now know are deadly because they pass though all of our body barriers. The way I see it is that efuels will eventually be there to satisfy the demand of legacy hardware in the transition period, and maybe a bit later for recreational purposes (aka for car collectors, racing etc). They are not a permanent solution for our transportation energy needs.
lm28469 4y ago
Transforming electricity in fuel (e-fuel) is like using EV but with extra steps and massive efficiency loss

prmoustache 4y ago

The only way to get to carbon neutrality is to stop moving by anything but muscular or wind power. And by wind I mean sails, not wind turbine provided electricity. We've got way enough need of electrical power for everything else, personal transportation should be done by muscle and sails assistance. But this won't ever happen so goodbye carbon neutrality, climate is doomed and there is no way we can reverse what we have already done. The only question mark is how fast will we reach extinction of most animal species (including human) we currently know and how fast our quality of life and expectancy will degrade. Anyone still operating a powered vehicle for personnal transportation, or considering purchasing one, be it EV or ICE, is commiting a crime against humanity and against his/her own children.

thatwasunusual 4y ago
> and there is no way we can reverse what we have already done What about carbon capture?
MrZander 4y ago
Good luck having any form of modern agriculture if you can't get the produce to the destination before it rots.
- Paianni 4y ago
  A lot of it would have to be localised.
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    A lot of things would have to change yes. But saying I need a car because ... shouldn't be fixed by buying said car but by fixing the reasons we say we need it.
- dopidopHN 4y ago
  What about growing stuff closer to where they are going to be eaten. Yeah, it’s not great for economy of scale, but let’s tap into the 30% of food we do produce and go to waste directly. It seems like theirs is both low hanging fruits and actual mileniums of experience we can leverage in terms of growing food and feeding people without flying the output across the globe. Edit : I missed you mention modern agriculture. That might be the issue here, those post WW2 technics are terrible for the mid-term quality of our soils. ( we see large % decline roughly 60 years after already ) While more work intensive methods using less intrants seems to be able to produce the same amount of food. ( cf : French research on permaculture, INRA and such ) The issue with those is that you need way, way more farmers. I see that as a opportunity to address un-employment and vocational crisis. Nothing is bullshit about a job where you grown food. It’s foundation to everything.

marcosdumay 4y ago

Well, it's presented as a reasonable package. You will know if the presentation is honest if it comes bundled with a reasonably sized carbon tax. If it doesn't then the presentation is just weaseling people into supporting fossil fuels for the next decades. (The article "smartly" doesn't go into that, what leads to the conclusion that it's a propaganda piece and the entire reasoning is a lie. But well, it's not very strong evidence.)

schiffern 4y ago

>But what if the input is next to free? This is the fundamental thermodynamic-economic showstopper for e-fuel: it falls apart unless we assume a "free lunch" somewhere. >Two ways of getting that. One is by having a surplus electricity which we will have a lot That's not "free," it's just coming out of the pocket of the solar panel operator, in the form of lower utilization. But they wouldn't build those solar panels in the first place if the utilization is too low. If you come up with a way to utilize that energy, then guess what? The operators of the solar panels are going to make you pay for it. And why shouldn't they? They put up the investment, why should others make the money while they get completely cut out? >The other one is to build renewables where they work very well (like Mauritania for solar) Solar isn't free on Mauritania either. At best you're looking at, what, 30%? With some of that eaten up in shipping costs? This can't achieve "next to free." >and than ship them globally. Global shipping is definitely not free. Boats are reasonably efficient, but as a shipper you have to eat the inventory cost during transit. Unless you break either the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of economics, e-fuel is (inevitably!) woefully uncompetitive compared to electrification. Unfortunately knowledge silos mean that few people notice this: the economists assume the 'magic' is somehow in the technology, and the science/technology people assume the 'magic' is in the economics! Poor energy efficiency = high cost. There's no 'clever' way around it, sorry.