RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
Archie2050 said:
Synthetic fuels are a complete non starter for mass transport, they replace a 70%+ efficient transfer of renewable energy into kinetic energy in an EV with an at best 20% efficient one, while still producing local pollution. they also require vastly more of the limited quantity to renewable energy to produce.
Limited quantity of renewable energy? Since when. Gulf states are overflowing with solar. So is a huge swathe of Africa. Multiple orders of magnitude more than required. And of course if you're making fuel, then the fact that the energy isn't local to the power demand isn't an issue. We already have the infrastructure to transport and distribute the fuel once we've made it.The efficiency is irrelevant when you have an inexhaustible supply of renewable energy. The only barrier is cost. And it is quite a barrier. It would be very costly to build to scale.
Local pollution is a non issue. Catalysed indirect injection petrol engines are plenty clean enough regards local air quality. DI petrol is probably good enough, but indirect injection petrol certainly so.
pheonix478 said:
shantybeater said:
We may not all be Porsche lovers (I see the often negative posts towards the brand), but their efforts to keep fossil fuel cars on the road via carbon neutral alternatives is admirable and should be appreciated by any petrol head
Pistonheads appears to be increasingly populated by people who I would never describe as petrol heads.geo1905 said:
Meanwhile, "stupid" Britain continues down the road to bankruptcy and disaster ! It is obvious to anyone with half a brain or more that 2030 was always going to be impossible to meet but, from our wonderful government, comes there nothing. What a bunch of clowns ! Is this the most useless government in living memory ?
Yes. Utterly shambolic.And on the matter on fuels, we have nothing to fear - Elon will be along to supply us with some more soulless, heavy, half-baked EVs running shonky/dangerous beta software.
What might perhaps be better, would be to encourage (through taxation or otherwise) people to run their vehicles for longer, rather than chopping them in every ~3 years for the latest.
As mentioned by others, the issue at hand is simply a visible proxy for our insatiable consumerism. I suspect the net-zero 2030 goal is a milestone doomed to failure/extension but the anchoring effect will hopefully help reduce overall emissions.
survivalist said:
A lot of people (including many on here) also seem to conflate the 2030/35 deadlines for the sale of petrol and diesel magically ending rather than just a final chance to buy a new ICE / Hybrid car.
Give the rate at which we purchase new cars, it’ll be a long time before IcE cars are actually off the road. That’s not even factoring in the fuel sales for all the other types of vehicle - vans, trucks etc
Synthetic fuels are a potential solution for 2050 and beyond.
Completely agree. The fact that some will still believe the guff that VW peddle to punters is as surprising as the willingness to believe the word of a handful of old robber barons in on the motorsport wheeze. Give the rate at which we purchase new cars, it’ll be a long time before IcE cars are actually off the road. That’s not even factoring in the fuel sales for all the other types of vehicle - vans, trucks etc
Synthetic fuels are a potential solution for 2050 and beyond.
VW dumped €20m into HIF to get first dibs on any carbon credits. Porsche got to spin their care in the community stuff while pressing on with switching everything to EV. Then Siemens and Enel realised you couldn't cost effectively ship hydrogen to Europe from Chile and it'll be years before any ammonia operations can be set up so as Enel started to step back from the deal, Porsche dropped a bit from the marketing budget to step in to use the first test bits of hydrogen until volumes hit commercial viability for industry.
The real win ahead of 2050 is that Chilean ethanol made from a hidden source of carbon will allow sufficient green washing for noisy, fun motorsport to continue in Europe.
By the time any FT processing is up and running in Chile and delivering commercially viable
Volumes the sale of ICE in the U.K. and EU will have long since stopped. But we will still be putting proper petrol in our old bangers and enjoying a day out.
The future isn't about being a sucker and waiting for some magical petrol replacement but planning what petrol car(a) to have by 2030 to enjoy for the following 20 years.
I'm currently contemplating a Fiat Abath and an Evora to sit alongside the old Rangie. I think that'll make a nice three car garage for sensible money.
NGK210 said:
Don’t ban ICEs, ban fossil fuels in 2035-40.
This would effectively force the oil companies to produce Fischer-Tropsch carbon-neutral e-petrol, ramp up economies of scale, and reduce cost/litre to affordable levels.
Too costly? Yeah, right! ‘Big oil‘ has budgeted c. $900bn for exploration / developing new oil fields over the next seven years - so try a spot of divesting from that wee pile.
In addition to creating a fuel from CO2-capture and water – ie, no environment-screwing mining for lithium, etc – all existing ICEs would be carbon-neutral because it’s a ‘drop-in’ fuel.
With the current knee-jerk plan for BEV-only, all current ICEs will still be running on fossil-derived petrol and, obvs, still spewking mega tonnes of CO2. Meanwhile, the BEVs have to hit 30k miles before they’re CO2 neutral / negative. Peachy.
FT is enormously expensive and uses a lot of electricity. The hydrogen element also uses a lot of electricity. There is no viable industrial source of carbon for FT other than fossil fuels, this 'sucking it from the air' is pure lies, it can't be done as there is barely any carbon in air. FT has historically used coal as that the only source of carbon that is remotely affordable and even then it has only been done during war time or sanctions when the nation doing it couldn't get oil and faced destruction. This would effectively force the oil companies to produce Fischer-Tropsch carbon-neutral e-petrol, ramp up economies of scale, and reduce cost/litre to affordable levels.
Too costly? Yeah, right! ‘Big oil‘ has budgeted c. $900bn for exploration / developing new oil fields over the next seven years - so try a spot of divesting from that wee pile.
In addition to creating a fuel from CO2-capture and water – ie, no environment-screwing mining for lithium, etc – all existing ICEs would be carbon-neutral because it’s a ‘drop-in’ fuel.
With the current knee-jerk plan for BEV-only, all current ICEs will still be running on fossil-derived petrol and, obvs, still spewking mega tonnes of CO2. Meanwhile, the BEVs have to hit 30k miles before they’re CO2 neutral / negative. Peachy.
When you consider the chemistry and economics it's plain bloody stupid but at the moment it is a great way to raise free money from mug punters and lax devolved governments, which sadly is what most of the projects are actually targeting.
The point being that if you have electricity you can either use it to power an EV or lose 50% of it desalinating and electrolysing water to get hydrogen and then losing another 50% to steam it with fossil fuel sources CO2 and then lose about 80% running FT to obtain some C4-C12 long chain hydrocarbons.
As a chemist and a geologist by training and someone who raises capital for ESG projects, the one thing that I am quite comfortable with is that this efuel malarkey is a load of penny share scam b
ks as far as casual punters getting any benefit from it. This is old science and science that hasn't changed and can never change without the laws of thermodynamics being thrown out the window, which no EU directive can do regardless of the cash bungs flying around between a bunch of old men who already have enough squirrelled away offshore.
EFuels exist. They have for over 100 years. The hoi poloi aren't going to get a sniff of it ever, other than when they pay to go and see some Race cars.
There will be countless seeded press advertorials and a few petrol pumps put in, just like with hydrogen but that's all for PR from nomads who will be selling worthless shares to stupid pensioners.
Just keep using proper petrol and enjoy it. It's not going anywhere in most of our lifetimes.
There is an alternative, and very simple, solution: don’t ban ICEs, ban fossil fuels in 2035-40.
This would effectively force the oil companies to completely change their business model: produce Fischer-Tropsch carbon-neutral e-petrol, ramp up economies of scale, and reduce cost/litre to affordable levels.
Too costly? Yeah, right! ‘Big oil‘ has budgeted c. $900bn for exploration / developing new oil fields over the next seven years - so try a spot of divesting from that wee pile.
In addition to creating a fuel from CO2-capture and water – ie, no environment-screwing mining for lithium, etc – all existing ICEs would be carbon-neutral because it’s a ‘drop-in’ fuel.
With the current knee-jerk plan for BEV-only, all current ICEs will still be running on fossil-derived petrol and, obvs, still spewking mega tonnes of CO2. Meanwhile, the BEVs have to hit 30k miles before they’re CO2 neutral / negative. Peachy.
This would effectively force the oil companies to completely change their business model: produce Fischer-Tropsch carbon-neutral e-petrol, ramp up economies of scale, and reduce cost/litre to affordable levels.
Too costly? Yeah, right! ‘Big oil‘ has budgeted c. $900bn for exploration / developing new oil fields over the next seven years - so try a spot of divesting from that wee pile.
In addition to creating a fuel from CO2-capture and water – ie, no environment-screwing mining for lithium, etc – all existing ICEs would be carbon-neutral because it’s a ‘drop-in’ fuel.
With the current knee-jerk plan for BEV-only, all current ICEs will still be running on fossil-derived petrol and, obvs, still spewking mega tonnes of CO2. Meanwhile, the BEVs have to hit 30k miles before they’re CO2 neutral / negative. Peachy.
DonkeyApple said:
… There is no viable industrial source of carbon for FT other than fossil fuels, this 'sucking it from the air' is pure lies, it can't be done as there is barely any carbon in air.
…
https://climeworks.com…
NGK210 said:
There is an alternative, and very simple, solution: don’t ban ICEs, ban fossil fuels in 2035-40.
This would effectively force the oil companies to completely change their business model: produce Fischer-Tropsch carbon-neutral e-petrol, ramp up economies of scale, and reduce cost/litre to affordable levels.
Too costly? Yeah, right! ‘Big oil‘ has budgeted c. $900bn for exploration / developing new oil fields over the next seven years - so try a spot of divesting from that wee pile.
In addition to creating a fuel from CO2-capture and water – ie, no environment-screwing mining for lithium, etc – all existing ICEs would be carbon-neutral because it’s a ‘drop-in’ fuel.
With the current knee-jerk plan for BEV-only, all current ICEs will still be running on fossil-derived petrol and, obvs, still spewking mega tonnes of CO2. Meanwhile, the BEVs have to hit 30k miles before they’re CO2 neutral / negative. Peachy.
Yep it’s such a good idea that it’s already happening. The focus is on aviation and shipping. There is a lot of investment planned for this and as you know there’s a lot of money around when it comes to energy. Once scale and an acceptable price is achieved, which is pretty much a necessity for the world as we know it, then no reason why it won’t make it to cars. If that scale isn’t achieved then we have bigger problems than driving to the shops in 2,500kg EVs. This would effectively force the oil companies to completely change their business model: produce Fischer-Tropsch carbon-neutral e-petrol, ramp up economies of scale, and reduce cost/litre to affordable levels.
Too costly? Yeah, right! ‘Big oil‘ has budgeted c. $900bn for exploration / developing new oil fields over the next seven years - so try a spot of divesting from that wee pile.
In addition to creating a fuel from CO2-capture and water – ie, no environment-screwing mining for lithium, etc – all existing ICEs would be carbon-neutral because it’s a ‘drop-in’ fuel.
With the current knee-jerk plan for BEV-only, all current ICEs will still be running on fossil-derived petrol and, obvs, still spewking mega tonnes of CO2. Meanwhile, the BEVs have to hit 30k miles before they’re CO2 neutral / negative. Peachy.
DonkeyApple said:
There is no viable industrial source of carbon for FT other than fossil fuels, this 'sucking it from the air' is pure lies, it can't be done as there is barely any carbon in air.
Simply not even remotely true. CO2 as a proportion of the atmosphere is 420 ish parts per million, or roughly 0.4%. Obviously that's one carbon atom for every two oxygen atom, and thus not 0.4% carbon. Given the size of the atmosphere, that's still plenty of carbon, huge quantities of carbon, literally inexhaustible given the intention is to release it back into the atmosphere. Gold, by way of example is about 0.001 to 0.006 parts per million in the Earth's crust. In terms of industrial processes and the fact that you don't have to go anywhere to get to the carbon, it's in the air everywhere, the proportion of carbon in the atmosphere is plentiful. It's not a tiny trace element in the atmosphere and it's bizarre to claim otherwise.Again, the only issue here is cost. In the context of producing fuel for motor vehicles and aviation (rather than producing fuel to do that and, say, fuel power stations, which isn't being proposed) there's plenty of carbon. There's also plenty of renewable energy to power the processes to extract it. But it would be bloody expensive to build the plant to do it all.
Edited by rampangle on Saturday 4th March 00:40
DMZ said:
Yep it’s such a good idea that it’s already happening. The focus is on aviation and shipping. There is a lot of investment planned for this and as you know there’s a lot of money around when it comes to energy. Once scale and an acceptable price is achieved, which is pretty much a necessity for the world as we know it, then no reason why it won’t make it to cars. If that scale isn’t achieved then we have bigger problems than driving to the shops in 2,500kg EVs.
This is the nub of it, for the world to remain the same, a world that many people here seem desperately to cling to, this thermodynamically unavailable advance just had to happen?That’s almost the definition of clutching at straws.
You could say the same about needing the infrastructure for BEVs except that is technologically achievable.
rampangle said:
Limited quantity of renewable energy? Since when. Gulf states are overflowing with solar. So is a huge swathe of Africa. Multiple orders of magnitude more than required. And of course if you're making fuel, then the fact that the energy isn't local to the power demand isn't an issue. We already have the infrastructure to transport and distribute the fuel once we've made it.
The efficiency is irrelevant when you have an inexhaustible supply of renewable energy. The only barrier is cost. And it is quite a barrier. It would be very costly to build to scale.
Local pollution is a non issue. Catalysed indirect injection petrol engines are plenty clean enough regards local air quality. DI petrol is probably good enough, but indirect injection petrol certainly so.
The cost of such an inefficient process is always going to be prohibitive. If you want to export solar energy from Africa it would be far more efficient to export hydrogen and then use that to generate electricity in a fuel cell. The combustion process is just too wasteful.The efficiency is irrelevant when you have an inexhaustible supply of renewable energy. The only barrier is cost. And it is quite a barrier. It would be very costly to build to scale.
Local pollution is a non issue. Catalysed indirect injection petrol engines are plenty clean enough regards local air quality. DI petrol is probably good enough, but indirect injection petrol certainly so.
Added to which, as anti EV sceptics are eager to point out, even renewables have some CO2 impact, mainly in the production of the panels, turbines etc which themselves have a finite lifespan.
In the case of utility scale Solar it’s around 40g/ kWh, slightly higher for domestic around 48g. That’s low if you then use the electricity efficiently. If you waste more than 80% in a synthetic fuel cycle though the it becomes as a problem. And that’s without including transport costs.
Synthetic fuels produced using low carbon rather than extremely low carbon sources are not environmentally viable because if the limitation.
kambites said:
Anyone would think that the German manufacturers had got hopelessly left behind with regards to electrification or something... 
VW have 6 EVs in the UK line up, Mercedes also have 6, and BMW have 5.Their models span multiple market segments. They also have existing dealer networks to sell and service, which is very important in transitioning from ICE to EV.
Tesla have 4 models and no dealer network.
Who is being left behind?
Jader1973 said:
VW have 6 EVs in the UK line up, Mercedes also have 6, and BMW have 5.
Their models span multiple market segments. They also have existing dealer networks to sell and service, which is very important in transitioning from ICE to EV.
Tesla have 4 models and no dealer network.
Who is being left behind?
I’m really not a massive fan of Tesla, but they have the only reliable/accessible charging network and are now over twice as profitable per unit compared to their nearest competitor. Most other automakers have been caught slouching. Their models span multiple market segments. They also have existing dealer networks to sell and service, which is very important in transitioning from ICE to EV.
Tesla have 4 models and no dealer network.
Who is being left behind?
In many ways the deadline (and Teslas popularity) have created the change of tide they want anyway….. whether or not the deadline is altered or cancelled, the direction is clear.
I think chinas ownership of majority of minerals and metals is of concern for governments as well but we’ll see how that unfolds.
I can see governments pushing agenda and then manufacturers and consumers are so far down the line by time you get to deadline it’s irrelevant anyway.
I think chinas ownership of majority of minerals and metals is of concern for governments as well but we’ll see how that unfolds.
I can see governments pushing agenda and then manufacturers and consumers are so far down the line by time you get to deadline it’s irrelevant anyway.
Some people believe in god !!!!
Do the Chinese , Indians , Russians etc believe in climate change???
We Will soon be flooded with cheap and nasty Chinese EVs made using coal power and charged with expensive renewable what ever that is energy and imported gas..
Won’t make sod all difference to the climate , which isn’t a issue anyway unless you’re a watermelon or riding a newly discovered gravy train…
Do the Chinese , Indians , Russians etc believe in climate change???
We Will soon be flooded with cheap and nasty Chinese EVs made using coal power and charged with expensive renewable what ever that is energy and imported gas..
Won’t make sod all difference to the climate , which isn’t a issue anyway unless you’re a watermelon or riding a newly discovered gravy train…
Ivan stewart said:
Some people believe in god !!!!
Do the Chinese , Indians , Russians etc believe in climate change???
We Will soon be flooded with cheap and nasty Chinese EVs made using coal power and charged with expensive renewable what ever that is energy and imported gas..
Won’t make sod all difference to the climate , which isn’t a issue anyway unless you’re a watermelon or riding a newly discovered gravy train…
Should we do nothing? What happens in 46 years when we run out of oil reserves? Do the Chinese , Indians , Russians etc believe in climate change???
We Will soon be flooded with cheap and nasty Chinese EVs made using coal power and charged with expensive renewable what ever that is energy and imported gas..
Won’t make sod all difference to the climate , which isn’t a issue anyway unless you’re a watermelon or riding a newly discovered gravy train…
I’m all for keeping my fun ICE for the time being, and if there’s a more environmentally friendly way of doing that in the future then all the better.
Although, I don’t think middle class westerners loading up EVs is going to solve all our problems, it’s a step in the right direction.
There is a bit of a paradox with EV adoption, when our general consumer habits are probably having a worse effect on the environment. I guess every little helps.
[quote] Marvin The Paranoid Android said
Oh look, there’s a surprise, I wonder how that happened….
[/quote]
The EV deadline is just not workable, it’s a joke, It’s a very clever marketing strategy to make people buy very expensive cars that make them feel better & for politicians to feel they are seeing to be doing something.
The infrastructure is not in place, my own experience is that none of the clients I talk to are getting anywhere the range they have been promised and what charging points there are, especially on the motorways, are a shambles.
I am not an old man grasping at straws, I just remember VHS v Betamax v V2000 v Laserdisk.
This is not over yet.
Oh look, there’s a surprise, I wonder how that happened….
[/quote]
The EV deadline is just not workable, it’s a joke, It’s a very clever marketing strategy to make people buy very expensive cars that make them feel better & for politicians to feel they are seeing to be doing something.
The infrastructure is not in place, my own experience is that none of the clients I talk to are getting anywhere the range they have been promised and what charging points there are, especially on the motorways, are a shambles.
I am not an old man grasping at straws, I just remember VHS v Betamax v V2000 v Laserdisk.
This is not over yet.
Archie2050 said:
The cost of such an inefficient process is always going to be prohibitive. If you want to export solar energy from Africa it would be far more efficient to export hydrogen and then use that to generate electricity in a fuel cell. The combustion process is just too wasteful.
Added to which, as anti EV sceptics are eager to point out, even renewables have some CO2 impact, mainly in the production of the panels, turbines etc which themselves have a finite lifespan.
In the case of utility scale Solar it’s around 40g/ kWh, slightly higher for domestic around 48g. That’s low if you then use the electricity efficiently. If you waste more than 80% in a synthetic fuel cycle though the it becomes as a problem. And that’s without including transport costs.
Synthetic fuels produced using low carbon rather than extremely low carbon sources are not environmentally viable because if the limitation.
It's a complex debate, but I think hydrogen would work out worse overall. Added to which, as anti EV sceptics are eager to point out, even renewables have some CO2 impact, mainly in the production of the panels, turbines etc which themselves have a finite lifespan.
In the case of utility scale Solar it’s around 40g/ kWh, slightly higher for domestic around 48g. That’s low if you then use the electricity efficiently. If you waste more than 80% in a synthetic fuel cycle though the it becomes as a problem. And that’s without including transport costs.
Synthetic fuels produced using low carbon rather than extremely low carbon sources are not environmentally viable because if the limitation.
For the synthetic fuels, the infrastructure exists and so does the installed base of cars. For hydrogen you need all new infrastructure and a whole new fleet of cars. That's a painful carbon footprint.
Also think the CO2 impact of the solar plant is probably much overstated. You probably wouldn't be using panels at scale, but some kind of reflector array etc and over the very long haul you'd be maintaining the plant not just rebuilding over and over.
Ultimately, it's hard to be certain, but I think once renewables are the norm for electricity production, your CO2 impact numbers for the plant become much overstated and the efficient of synthetic fuels stops mattering. And once again it all comes down to cost. And given infrastructure and installed base of cars etc, I think synthetic fuels win there.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff