Batteries are not the Solution, Synthetic Fuels maybe

[politeperson]

Porsche have the right idea I think.- synthetic fuel to replace petrol.

I am not against EVs, I understand the advantages of electric motors- reliability, quietness, cleanliness, no emissions (at the exhaust). However the batteries are years away.

Batteries are heavy, nasty to make, need replacing every 8 years, take ages to charge and give limited range (210 miles in my experience of 140,000 miles of Tesla driving). Battery powered cars are OK, if you dont want to go anywhere!

So why not use the electricity to energetically force a chemical reaction to produce synthetic fuel, store the energy in the fuel then pump it like "gas" using conventional technology? Just like- going to the petrol station. This would be done in factories like existing refineries.

My reasoning- based on my own EV experience-

To travel 210 miles, you need an 85 kWh Tesla battery weighing 540 kg. The same amount of petrol/diesel in a 40 mpg car weighs 20.2kg (5.25 UK gallons). Both vehicles require 270 MJ of energy to achieve this range.

So you are carrying around half a tonne of extra weight in the electric battery car over the ICE to achieve the same range.

This extra weight is bad for roads, tires, handling, brakes and general driving pleasure. Manufactures can hide the weight a bit with suspension design and electronics but I ran out of counting how many tyres and suspension components I have been through on the MS's.

Charging at the Tesla Superchargers will take you at least 45 minutes to get back up to 80%. Tesla have the best charging network by far compared to the other manufacturers. I dread to think what it must be like for these owners in the real world trying to actually do a longer distance in a day.

You get none of these issues with an ICE car (Obvious).

If it is possible to create a synthetic fuel like petrol or diesel using the energy from electricity through renewable sources, then surely that is the solution?

The distribution infrastructure for liquids is already in place and we can run our existing cars easily to run of the new fuel with nothing but steam coming out of the exhaust. We would not then be dependent on Fossil Fuels.

What am I missing? Why are politicians running headlong into EV friendly policies and not considering the alternatives?

Can't Elon Musk just sort this out, like he does everything else?

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-e...

[Oilchange]

Personally I think PHEV is the way ahead. Best of both worlds as you can start and get onto the 'main road' on electric and get the range and relative cleanliness of the catalysed petrol away from built up areas, theoretically.

Phase out diesel cars as they're the most polluting by far, except for busses, lorries and a few trucks.

[anonymous-user]

There's more to burning fuel than whether it's emitting CO2 at the point of consumption or not.

Consider NOx, particulates, efficiency, etc.

ICEs are already dead in terms their future for the mass market, the shift to EV is gathering pace. Not so long from now people will look back on the fact that we all drove around in such wasteful things which generate so much local pollution in the same way we look at Victorian smogs now.

It's a shame, because I love them, but that's how it is.

[Deadlysub]

Oilchange said:

Personally I think PHEV is the way ahead. Best of both worlds as you can start and get onto the 'main road' on electric and get the range and relative cleanliness of the catalysed petrol away from built up areas, theoretically.

Phase out diesel cars as they're the most polluting by far, except for busses, lorries and a few trucks.

Biggest issue with PHEV is people not charging them and using them like a regular combustion engined car.

[essayer]

but you can go 210 miles. that’s not ‘nowhere’

[Terminator X]

charltjr said:

There's more to burning fuel than whether it's emitting CO2 at the point of consumption or not.

Consider NOx, particulates, efficiency, etc.

ICEs are already dead in terms their future for the mass market, the shift to EV is gathering pace. Not so long from now people will look back on the fact that we all drove around in such wasteful things which generate so much local pollution in the same way we look at Victorian smogs now.

It's a shame, because I love them, but that's how it is.

Any other future predictions certainties? I have a tenner here that I'd like to turn in to £100.

TX.

Edit - to the OP this is the wrong section for a sensible discussion. 3 2 1 before you get called a Dinosaur.

Edited by Terminator X on Friday 18th June 17:57

[Mikehig]

E-fuels are appealing for the reasons you mention. However their production requires considerable energy input as well as the construction of substantial new processing plants. Reversing the combustion process by recombining hydrogen and carbon takes far more energy than will be released when the e-fuel is used in a car. In addition, producing the hydrogen feedstock is expensive and very energy-intensive.
The energy efficiency of hydrogen is poor; e-fuels will be worse.

Those arguments are why I posted about "Blue Oil" a few days ago.
All of the technology is well-proven and has been in large-scale use for decades. The recovery. refining and consumption of oil fuels and products can continue as now. Using industrially-sourced CO2 for the oil recovery makes it carbon-negative.

[sjg]

politeperson said:

What am I missing? Why are politicians running headlong into EV friendly policies and not considering the alternatives?

The big thing is the massive amount of energy needed to make them. They're synthetic hydrocarbons, so you need loads of hydrogen (itself needing loads of energy to make, typically by electrolysis of water) plus the captured carbon dioxide or monoxide.

If you had vast amounts of spare, cheap, clean power generation then maybe - but we don't so it's more efficient to use it charge a battery electric car. There's a typical EV detractor comment of "the National Grid won't cope with everyone plugging their cars in" - moving everyone to EVs and charging them is a much more manageable task than trying to synthesise over 40 billion litres a year of fuel.

Hydrogen's cost makes it quite a bit more expensive per mile than fossil petrol or diesel, and that's using an efficient fuel cell. Making synthetic fuels and then burning them in inefficient internal combustion engines would cost the end user many times more.

[politeperson]

Thanks, very constructive.

I would have thought the energy to create the electricity would be through renewable, mainly solar.

So their is not enough solar power to drive the reaction to create enough chemical?

[anonymous-user]

Terminator X said:

Any other future predictions certainties? I have a tenner here that I'd like to turn in to £100.

TX.

Edit - to the OP this is the wrong section for a sensible discussion. 3 2 1 before you get called a Dinosaur.

Edited by Terminator X on Friday 18th June 17:57

Nope, sadly not. But if we're both still around in ten years and I'm wrong about the unstoppable rise of EVs for mass market use, I'll give you £100. By then it'll be worth around £10 in today's money, so you can hold me to that

[NDNDNDND]

These discussion are all well and good, but they always seem to become quite binary.

The reality is it'll be a mix of things that get us towards a zero carbon future. Most domestic passenger cars are going to be EV, because they just make so much sense and, for most people, will be very easy to use. Heavy transport and haulage will probably be a mixture of EV for local delivery and hydrogen or synthetics for longer distances. Aviation and shipping may switch almost entirely to synthetics. And hopefully there will be a little bit of e-fuel left over to keep the classic cars going.

I wonder if at some point in the future I'll be able to stick a pipe into the ditch out the back of my house, hook up to my wind turbine/solar panel array and produce a small quantity of synthetic fuel for my own use....

Edited by NDNDNDND on Friday 18th June 20:59

[NMNeil]

politeperson said:

Porsche have the right idea I think.- synthetic fuel to replace petrol.

If it is possible to create a synthetic fuel like petrol or diesel using the energy from electricity through renewable sources, then surely that is the solution?

Synthetic fuel is made from carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
The hydrogen can be made from just water and electricity but the carbon monoxide is made from natural gas, oil or coal,
See a potential problem here?

[Carlososos]

Burning is a dead horse. We don’t need to burn to survive. There are small exceptions such as rockets for space but other than the small exceptions burning stuff is bad and pointless. We can and are learning to do better. This should all be beyond economics, the world markets and the worry that some extra weight might ruin a cars handling. The argument for burning is garbage at any angle. At the moment hydrogen and battery have a realistic future and a chance to help stop our environment changing to be less hospitable to us as humans. Synthetic fuels sound a great option for weekend collectables and occasions but for mass transport and shipping etc nah.

[bristolracer]

essayer said:

but you can go 210 miles. that’s not ‘nowhere’

Depends on if you have to turn around and come back the same day.

[off_again]

NDNDNDND said:

These discussion are all well and good, but they always seem to become quite binary.

The reality is it'll be a mix of things that get us towards a zero carbon future. Most domestic passenger cars are going to be EV, because they just make so much sense and, for most people, will be very easy to use. Heavy transport and haulage will probably be a mixture of EV for local delivery and hydrogen or synthetics for longer distances. Aviation and shipping may switch almost entirely to synthetics. And hopefully there will be a little bit of e-fuel left over to keep the classic cars going.

I think thats probably the most likely outcome too!

We, as in the car driving public, have got used to the idea that we can fill up in 5 minutes and drive 400 miles without stopping. And while that might be technically true (and several people have tried to argue that here on PH), its really not what 80% of the car driving public actually does. Sure, there are people who actually do need to have a vehicle that can travel hundreds of miles with ease and with a fast refill option, but they are certainly not the norm. Even if we look at percentiles, averages or means, the average car driver does significantly less than 100 miles per day and could easily cope with some form of EV with ease - though improvements in charging networks absolutely have to occur before this could happen en-masse.

While it still takes time to charge an EV, the convenience of them is often ignored. If you have the option of charging at home or work, it suddenly gets a lot easier. Just charge up when needed and you dont have to stop at a petrol station again! I have an i3 REX and was expecting to use much more fuel than I have - just a little extra planning and I think we have filled it up 3 times in 8 months? And the last time was my newly passed daughter not realizing and just running the damn thing out of electrons AND petrol! But hey, its simple.

If we can relax a little on the whole range thing, I really do think that batteries are a viable way forward. I do find it utterly strange that we have EV manufacturers chasing frankly stupid performance figures (Tesla Plaid with 0-60 in 2.something seconds). I can remember early XR3's and GTE's getting the same sprint in 7 seconds and we thought they were fast enough. Do we really need to focus our efforts on an expensive car that can do that? Or should we be focusing our efforts on a more affordable car that has a wider appeal? Who knows, but we do need to rethink our approach to transport and how we can use it sustainably and with minimal polution going forward.

I moved away from the UK 7 years ago but have had the opportunity to visit London several times since. While I am first in line to rant against the congestion charge and the frankly ridiculous charges they now have, the reduction of pollution is absolutely noticeable. The air is cleaner and I had significantly fewer black bogies!!! Crude I know, but that has to the aim - reduce that localized pollution and re-think how we do the transport side of things. EV's are a part of that, even if they arent the best approach. And if we can get our head out of the whole "I need to be able to drive 400 miles without stopping at a drop of a hat", we might actually get somewhere.

[tamore]

passenger cars will be BEV. BEVs now are what the model t is to modern ICE. EVs in 10 years will be almost unrecognisable in terms of drive train to what we have now.

big stuff..... who knows. H2? synth fuel? something else we aren't yet looking at?

Edited by tamore on Friday 18th June 21:56

[Lincsls1]

off_again said:

I do find it utterly strange that we have EV manufacturers chasing frankly stupid performance figures (Tesla Plaid with 0-60 in 2.something seconds). I can remember early XR3's and GTE's getting the same sprint in 7 seconds and we thought they were fast enough. Do we really need to focus our efforts on an expensive car that can do that? Or should we be focusing our efforts on a more affordable car that has a wider appeal?

Totally agree, glad I'm not the only one that's noticed this silly, pointless trend.
If the goal is to get us all into small efficient EVs, then why aren't they making them? Surely smaller motors and smaller cars require less energy, meaning longer range and more affordability?

[Carlososos]

Lincsls1 said:

off_again said:

I do find it utterly strange that we have EV manufacturers chasing frankly stupid performance figures (Tesla Plaid with 0-60 in 2.something seconds). I can remember early XR3's and GTE's getting the same sprint in 7 seconds and we thought they were fast enough. Do we really need to focus our efforts on an expensive car that can do that? Or should we be focusing our efforts on a more affordable car that has a wider appeal?

Totally agree, glad I'm not the only one that's noticed this silly, pointless trend.
If the goal is to get us all into small efficient EVs, then why aren't they making them? Surely smaller motors and smaller cars require less energy, meaning longer range and more affordability?

It was the halo effect. A good way to attract attention to a new system is to show how good they are. Acceleration is a massive headline in ice vehicles so smashing those figures is a great advertisement. As we are passed that initial introduction now would be great time to start mass producing affordable, wide appeal ev’s. Ice burdend oems are playing chicken with new ev start ups. As soon as someone makes a game changer affordable ev the others will as quick as a whip join in. The only reason we don’t have affordable and wide appeal ev’s is because they make more money from say a petrol Astra than a bev one.

[NMNeil]

tamore said:

EVs will be BEV. BEVs now are what the model t is to modern ICE. EVs in 10 years will be almost unrecognisable in terms of drive train to what we have now.

big stuff..... who knows. H2? synth fuel? something else we aren't yet looking at?

They have been looking at alternatives for oil for a very long time.
The closest so far is ethanol.

[NDNDNDND]

NMNeil said:

politeperson said:

Porsche have the right idea I think.- synthetic fuel to replace petrol.

If it is possible to create a synthetic fuel like petrol or diesel using the energy from electricity through renewable sources, then surely that is the solution?

Synthetic fuel is made from carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
The hydrogen can be made from just water and electricity but the carbon monoxide is made from natural gas, oil or coal,
See a potential problem here?

Carbon DIOXIDE. Which can either be captured from industry or energy generation to be reused to manufacture fuel, or else be drawn directly from the atmosphere to render the fuel close to carbon neutral.

Not sure where you got the bit about carbon monoxide from. It's just wrong. The main problem with efuel is that it requires a large amount of electricity, which can be produced renewably but would require a very substantial amount of infrastructure if it were to simply replace carbon fuels directly.
As such, it will only really be used where necessary - shipping and aviation, for instance - and hopefully a little bit will still be available to burn for fun.