Richard Hammond on Synthetic Fuels vs Electric
Discussion
Hard to believe he can be so misinformed. Synth fuels need 4 unit of energy to create 1 unit of energy, and are burnt in an engine with 20% efficiency.
https://x.com/VanEmmerickKris/status/2115063509301...
A MKII Fiesta for a city car? Clearly he has not heard of CAZ and wants a fossil-fueled car that does 2 miles trips to schools and local shops.
£45K for a Kia? Try £22K for a city car, And you don't have to buy brand new.
He's a chap with very strong opinions, on a subject he has clearly made little effort to actually understand.
Ultimately he's a true car fan, or course. Like so many he accepts the odd pro-synthetic fuel story/headline at face value and repeats it in order to support the view (his view) that ICE cars should forever remain in production, alongside different power trains too.
But the science and maths simply doesn't support those views! It is greener to run an ICE car on petrol than synthetic fuel, once the alternative and far more efficient uses of the renewable energy used to make synthetic fuels is factored in. Even most legacy manufacturers that initially pushed the synthetic fuel agenda, for the sake of being permitted to continue to produce ICE cars, have now backed off. It's that hopeless.
Ultimately he's a true car fan, or course. Like so many he accepts the odd pro-synthetic fuel story/headline at face value and repeats it in order to support the view (his view) that ICE cars should forever remain in production, alongside different power trains too.
But the science and maths simply doesn't support those views! It is greener to run an ICE car on petrol than synthetic fuel, once the alternative and far more efficient uses of the renewable energy used to make synthetic fuels is factored in. Even most legacy manufacturers that initially pushed the synthetic fuel agenda, for the sake of being permitted to continue to produce ICE cars, have now backed off. It's that hopeless.
SteBrown91 said:
Synthetic fuels have their place keeping older cars bikes etc going in the future. They will never be a genuine alternative to fossil fuels en-mass.
Unfortunately he lives in a bubble like most famous/rich people.
What's the point if it's less environmentally friendly overall compared to petrol?Unfortunately he lives in a bubble like most famous/rich people.
gmaz said:
Hard to believe he can be so misinformed. Synth fuels need 4 unit of energy to create 1 unit of energy, and are burnt in an engine with 20% efficiency.
https://x.com/VanEmmerickKris/status/2115063509301...
A MKII Fiesta for a city car? Clearly he has not heard of CAZ and wants a fossil-fueled car that does 2 miles trips to schools and local shops.
£45K for a Kia? Try £22K for a city car, And you don't have to buy brand new.
Maybe walking or cycling are better options for a 2 mile trip. You could argue the spending 22k of a device that takes longer to charge than it does to walk to the destination is bonkers?https://x.com/VanEmmerickKris/status/2115063509301...
A MKII Fiesta for a city car? Clearly he has not heard of CAZ and wants a fossil-fueled car that does 2 miles trips to schools and local shops.
£45K for a Kia? Try £22K for a city car, And you don't have to buy brand new.
TheDeuce said:
SteBrown91 said:
Synthetic fuels have their place keeping older cars bikes etc going in the future. They will never be a genuine alternative to fossil fuels en-mass.
Unfortunately he lives in a bubble like most famous/rich people.
What's the point if it's less environmentally friendly overall compared to petrol?Unfortunately he lives in a bubble like most famous/rich people.
No, be fair, it could work.
generating the e fuel using waste CO2 from alcohol production, you could do it. There might be a small drink driving issue as you would need to be brewing the equivalent of 165 pints of beer per driver.
per day.
Or you could generate the CO2 from direct atmospheric capture as he says to be fair. You'd only need 10x the entire wind power capacity of the UK today
And it would only be 10x less efficient than using the same electricity to just power EV's but hey, it's an option.
But if you can do this the simplest option is to keep drilling for oil and then use carbon capture to remove atmospheric CO2. But that doesn't sound so cool
And you'd still have pollution in cities of course from burning hydrocarbons.
Total muppet!
generating the e fuel using waste CO2 from alcohol production, you could do it. There might be a small drink driving issue as you would need to be brewing the equivalent of 165 pints of beer per driver.
per day.
Or you could generate the CO2 from direct atmospheric capture as he says to be fair. You'd only need 10x the entire wind power capacity of the UK today
And it would only be 10x less efficient than using the same electricity to just power EV's but hey, it's an option.
But if you can do this the simplest option is to keep drilling for oil and then use carbon capture to remove atmospheric CO2. But that doesn't sound so cool
And you'd still have pollution in cities of course from burning hydrocarbons.
Total muppet!
Edited by Skye5 on Wednesday 28th October 22:50
sixor8 said:
You don't have to any kind of fanatic to see that's it's financially unviable for mass production. Yes, for sports teams, suoer rare cars that need it, oh, and millionaires and their shills sucking in investment. 
TBF EV fans, rightly, point out that battery tech is (effectively) still in its infancy and there is a fair chunk of improvement still to (potentially) come. Surely an ICE enthusiast could be forgiven for thinking/hoping that synthfuel has barely been born and as such there is a potential for large improvement?DodgyGeezer said:
sixor8 said:
You don't have to any kind of fanatic to see that's it's financially unviable for mass production. Yes, for sports teams, suoer rare cars that need it, oh, and millionaires and their shills sucking in investment.
TBF EV fans, rightly, point out that battery tech is (effectively) still in its infancy and there is a fair chunk of improvement still to (potentially) come. Surely an ICE enthusiast could be forgiven for thinking/hoping that synthfuel has barely been born and as such there is a potential for large improvement?Take a good book, you might be a while.
DodgyGeezer said:
sixor8 said:
You don't have to any kind of fanatic to see that's it's financially unviable for mass production. Yes, for sports teams, suoer rare cars that need it, oh, and millionaires and their shills sucking in investment.
TBF EV fans, rightly, point out that battery tech is (effectively) still in its infancy and there is a fair chunk of improvement still to (potentially) come. Surely an ICE enthusiast could be forgiven for thinking/hoping that synthfuel has barely been born and as such there is a potential for large improvement?pghstochaj said:
DodgyGeezer said:
sixor8 said:
You don't have to any kind of fanatic to see that's it's financially unviable for mass production. Yes, for sports teams, suoer rare cars that need it, oh, and millionaires and their shills sucking in investment.
TBF EV fans, rightly, point out that battery tech is (effectively) still in its infancy and there is a fair chunk of improvement still to (potentially) come. Surely an ICE enthusiast could be forgiven for thinking/hoping that synthfuel has barely been born and as such there is a potential for large improvement?And thermodynamics are fundamental laws that you can't wave away with efficiency gains, a bit like the speed of light, Planck constant etc.
The thermodynamics of combustion makes burning fuel woefully wasteful. No way round it other than some minor tinkering at the edges. So for eFuels to be even remotely possible you need virtually unlimited renewable energy. Conventional renewable source don't scale as wind turbine, solar panels etc have an amortised CO2 'cost' for the construction and disposal of thewind turbines and panels whcih means that using these sources of energy so wastefully is not the answer.
So you need a Dyson sphere or cold fusion.
That's what Hammond is pinning his hopes on ultimately. Which makes you realise how desperately he is clutching at straws (even if he clearly doesn't understand this).
And all of that conveniently ignores local tailpipe emissions.
And as mentioned it would be considerably cheaper (less than 1/2 the cost) to simply continue to use fossil fuels and use 1/9th of the renewable energy that would be required to make eFuels instead for direct carbon capture to offset the CO2 emissions (only the CO2 min you not the pollutants).
Still bonkers though, and we'd still be slaves to the petro-dollar
SteBrown91 said:
TheDeuce said:
SteBrown91 said:
Synthetic fuels have their place keeping older cars bikes etc going in the future. They will never be a genuine alternative to fossil fuels en-mass.
Unfortunately he lives in a bubble like most famous/rich people.
What's the point if it's less environmentally friendly overall compared to petrol?Unfortunately he lives in a bubble like most famous/rich people.
I'm fully in favour of keeping special ice cars/bikes going. But that tiny demand won't ever trouble the oil supply remaining on this planet.
I seriously doubt there will ever be any laws/bans preventing buying petrol to keep a classic car running. Just like steam trains remain legal to operate. So why would you care about a fantasy synthetic fuel future when we already have more than enough petrol?
Skye5 said:
pghstochaj said:
DodgyGeezer said:
sixor8 said:
You don't have to any kind of fanatic to see that's it's financially unviable for mass production. Yes, for sports teams, suoer rare cars that need it, oh, and millionaires and their shills sucking in investment.
TBF EV fans, rightly, point out that battery tech is (effectively) still in its infancy and there is a fair chunk of improvement still to (potentially) come. Surely an ICE enthusiast could be forgiven for thinking/hoping that synthfuel has barely been born and as such there is a potential for large improvement?And thermodynamics are fundamental laws that you can't wave away with efficiency gains, a bit like the speed of light, Planck constant etc.
The thermodynamics of combustion makes burning fuel woefully wasteful. No way round it other than some minor tinkering at the edges. So for eFuels to be even remotely possible you need virtually unlimited renewable energy. Conventional renewable source don't scale as wind turbine, solar panels etc have an amortised CO2 'cost' for the construction and disposal of thewind turbines and panels whcih means that using these sources of energy so wastefully is not the answer.
So you need a Dyson sphere or cold fusion.
That's what Hammond is pinning his hopes on ultimately. Which makes you realise how desperately he is clutching at straws (even if he clearly doesn't understand this).
And all of that conveniently ignores local tailpipe emissions.
And as mentioned it would be considerably cheaper (less than 1/2 the cost) to simply continue to use fossil fuels and use 1/9th of the renewable energy that would be required to make eFuels instead for direct carbon capture to offset the CO2 emissions (only the CO2 min you not the pollutants).
Still bonkers though, and we'd still be slaves to the petro-dollar
ashenfie said:
Why do you think there is no realistic carbon capture projects out there? I don t see these ideas as fixing anything and what is the problem with planting trees? Replace some of those large open estates with their native trees, in northern Scotland. Jobs nature and carbon capture.
Trees are very ineffective at carbon capture.What do you mean no realistic carbon capture projects out there? You mean other than the operating project and the one currently under construction (along with the 50+ being progressed).
D9 said:
Battery fanatics can never understand that alternative fuels have a place.
Good to see anyone trying synthetic fuels
EVs solve the local problem of pollution. Good to see anyone trying synthetic fuels
The reality is if everyone walked or used their car less the planet wouldn't be getting destroyed, probably on a death spiral.
The resources involved in manufacturing cars is still massive yet people still buy new ones.
pghstochaj said:
ashenfie said:
Why do you think there is no realistic carbon capture projects out there? I don t see these ideas as fixing anything and what is the problem with planting trees? Replace some of those large open estates with their native trees, in northern Scotland. Jobs nature and carbon capture.
Trees are very ineffective at carbon capture.What do you mean no realistic carbon capture projects out there? You mean other than the operating project and the one currently under construction (along with the 50+ being progressed).
The only way for combustion to be sustainable is for there to be an equal and opposite process operating at a similar rate, and this relies on such vast amounts of renewable energy that it would only make sense if there was no alternative.
The problem is that there is a very reasonable alternative (batteries and electric motors) that, while it certainly has limitations, those limitations are manageable, and getting more and more so.
And all so some old bloke can have a Mk 2 Fiesta to drive around cities?
Bonkers.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff