>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" s

>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.