4 ms·

Growing crops for biofuel is more land intensive, and thus involves cutting down more forest and removing carbon sinks, than the equivalent solar power. Yes, b

by lambda 3y ago

Growing crops for biofuel is more land intensive, and thus involves cutting down more forest and removing carbon sinks, than the equivalent solar power. Yes, bioruels are better than fossil fuels, but worse than clean electricity. Anyhow, it's not an either/or. ICE vehicles will be with us for a while, so it's better to use more efficient ones, but we also need to be replacing as many as possible with electric. Biofuels are better than fossil fuels, but most ICE engines run on gasoline, and can't run on 100% biofuels efficiently and cleanly.

capitainenemo 3y ago
I wasn't referring to biofuels. I was referring to pure synthetics like in the HN link I provided. Those require no crop land. Essentially conversion of solar energy into chemical batteries. ICE is treated as equivalent to fossil fuel because that's our main current method of producing the fuel, but it's just a really reliable, high energy density, chemical "battery". What matters is finding clean ways to replace that. Or other options. Aluminium/Air say... Also, if it turns out biofuels is the answer (and IMO synthetic fuel production seems way more efficient in the long run), there are ways to reduce the externalities. Using land that wouldn't be used for crops, growing the plants or algae without use of fossil fuels. And of course if you're going for externalities, most forms of green energy have them too...
- lambda 3y ago
  Ah, sorry, I'd missed that you were discussing completely synthetic fuels. Yeah, those are a possibility, but a lot further out; those are not going to be showing up in production quantities in the next 5-10 years. And an ICE engine is already way less energy efficient than an electric motor, it's hard to imagine that the entire cycle of synthetic fuel production to useful energy at the vehicle could ever compete on efficiency with current green energy production and battery electric vehicles. These kinds of solutions are useful to do research and development on for cases where we're not sure if battery electric vehicles will ever have a path to replace, like long haul aviation. But for surface transport, it's really hard to see much being competitive with battery electric vehicles; they are already commercially viable, and can be powered with 100% green energy, and green energy prices are already lower than fossil fuel. My EV is charged with 100% carbon neutral power when I charge at home or work. Sure, the mix of sources varies across the grid, but given how cost effective renewable energy is, and incentives, the share of renewables is growing fast. The infrastructure and production capacity are rapidly developing. And while energy density and specific energy of batteries are a bit limiting now, there are a lot of developments that are nearly ready for mass production that will get rid of many of the remaining limitations of battery electric vehicles for all but the most demanding of applications (like long haul air transport). I think you might be surprised by how fast ICE vehicles become obsolete for all but niche use cases. As infrastructure develops, production ramps up, and battery technology improves, it won't be long before EVs start to outsell ICE vehicles. EVs already outsell ICE vehicles in Norway, in China they're at about 25% of new car sales, and worldwide they're at about 12% of new car sales; and these numbers are growing rapidly, they may already be out of date by now. Once they are outselling ICE vehicles, it will only be about a decade before EVs are the majority on the road. I would find it hard to imagine a way in which synthetic fuel would ramp up to production readiness and be cost-effective in the same kind of time scale.
  - capitainenemo 3y ago
    You could be right. Right now we're having still a hard time with the densities. Which is why I brought up aluminium/air. You did bring up air as a situation where ICE would still be needed. In any case none of what you brought up above contradicts my general point that ICE does not automatically mean evil.

by lambda 3y ago

capitainenemo 3y ago

I wasn't referring to biofuels. I was referring to pure synthetics like in the HN link I provided. Those require no crop land. Essentially conversion of solar energy into chemical batteries. ICE is treated as equivalent to fossil fuel because that's our main current method of producing the fuel, but it's just a really reliable, high energy density, chemical "battery". What matters is finding clean ways to replace that. Or other options. Aluminium/Air say... Also, if it turns out biofuels is the answer (and IMO synthetic fuel production seems way more efficient in the long run), there are ways to reduce the externalities. Using land that wouldn't be used for crops, growing the plants or algae without use of fossil fuels. And of course if you're going for externalities, most forms of green energy have them too...

lambda 3y ago
Ah, sorry, I'd missed that you were discussing completely synthetic fuels. Yeah, those are a possibility, but a lot further out; those are not going to be showing up in production quantities in the next 5-10 years. And an ICE engine is already way less energy efficient than an electric motor, it's hard to imagine that the entire cycle of synthetic fuel production to useful energy at the vehicle could ever compete on efficiency with current green energy production and battery electric vehicles. These kinds of solutions are useful to do research and development on for cases where we're not sure if battery electric vehicles will ever have a path to replace, like long haul aviation. But for surface transport, it's really hard to see much being competitive with battery electric vehicles; they are already commercially viable, and can be powered with 100% green energy, and green energy prices are already lower than fossil fuel. My EV is charged with 100% carbon neutral power when I charge at home or work. Sure, the mix of sources varies across the grid, but given how cost effective renewable energy is, and incentives, the share of renewables is growing fast. The infrastructure and production capacity are rapidly developing. And while energy density and specific energy of batteries are a bit limiting now, there are a lot of developments that are nearly ready for mass production that will get rid of many of the remaining limitations of battery electric vehicles for all but the most demanding of applications (like long haul air transport). I think you might be surprised by how fast ICE vehicles become obsolete for all but niche use cases. As infrastructure develops, production ramps up, and battery technology improves, it won't be long before EVs start to outsell ICE vehicles. EVs already outsell ICE vehicles in Norway, in China they're at about 25% of new car sales, and worldwide they're at about 12% of new car sales; and these numbers are growing rapidly, they may already be out of date by now. Once they are outselling ICE vehicles, it will only be about a decade before EVs are the majority on the road. I would find it hard to imagine a way in which synthetic fuel would ramp up to production readiness and be cost-effective in the same kind of time scale.
- capitainenemo 3y ago
  You could be right. Right now we're having still a hard time with the densities. Which is why I brought up aluminium/air. You did bring up air as a situation where ICE would still be needed. In any case none of what you brought up above contradicts my general point that ICE does not automatically mean evil.