RE: EU floats draft proposal in synthetic fuel tussle
Discussion
MotoGP is moving onto renewable fuels very soon, and F1 will be from 2026. There is a good interview on Sky, with Pat Symonds who is involved from the F1 side. To be fair, I think many of us always thought a carbon neutral fuel was the better option for the planet from the start. Or horse and cart. Anything but a Tesla in my case.
JJJ. said:
otolith said:
Even scaled up to their planned 50 million litres, it's still a drop in the ocean. There may be other producers, but it's still going to be tied into the global energy market. The situation in which the costs of electricity make this a financially sensible choice seems very unlikely.
There must be some merit to it? I'm at a loss as why the likes of Porsche (Volkswagen) would bother. Time will tell no doubt.F1 are this year using a mix that includes synthetic fuel, and will be fully synthetic in 2026.
A500leroy said:
Why dont they just update the hybrid rules?
It obvious the best all round solution is a vehicle that is pure electric only upto 31mph with a range of 100 miles and small petrol engine over 31mph/or if the electric runs out like the i3 rex.
Do you think it's telling that BMW gradually increased the battery rating and then got rid of the REX for the final iteration of the i3 for all European cars?It obvious the best all round solution is a vehicle that is pure electric only upto 31mph with a range of 100 miles and small petrol engine over 31mph/or if the electric runs out like the i3 rex.
Gecko1978 said:
By 2035 will all hgv's be electric or is there an exemption seems to me large good vehicles have the biggest issue. Also will buses be electric
Not sure of the HGV vehicle numbers in the UK, but the World fleet must be massive and will take YEARS to change to EV or some other green tech in the far future. Also if the price difference is the same for lorries as it is for cars there will be a lot of hauliers packing up and a shortage of trucks overall.There are some EV buses already in service and I suspect payload weight and range not such an issue.
PorkerHam said:
I'm not sure I understand the ‘it would largely force automakers to develop new engines’ point.
I thought I had read that modern Porsche engines can run on both synthetic e-fuels and pump fuel? Surely then the car just needs a sensor in the tank that can distinguish between the two?
ph
If you take the alcohol and run Fischer Tropsch you can get a blend of C6-C12 hydrocarbons that when filtered into the right blend can pass as a synthetic petrol. Done correctly no machine could tell the difference. I thought I had read that modern Porsche engines can run on both synthetic e-fuels and pump fuel? Surely then the car just needs a sensor in the tank that can distinguish between the two?
ph
But what's happened here is the EU have seen through the VW ruse as VW have zero plans to run FT on their efuel alcohols as it is so hugely expensive.
In a nerdish way it is genuinely interesting watching this play out as it's lobbying money trying to buy a market but the EU have understood what the game is. And that game is a handful of already rich old men wanting to make even more money by selling a limited amount of a liquid to a small group of men who are less rich than them. Meanwhile, they pay for PR to get the ignorant peasants to back them by tricking them into thinking they will be allowed some of this liquid. It's not for the peasantry.
No major manufacturer wants to build ICE and electric at same time if they can avoid it. Basic body needs to be terrible compromise if both drivetrains need to fit into it. Also no major manufacturer wants to continue developing two separate totally different drivetrains side by side. What this means is every major manufacturer stops developing ICE models as soon as their electric models hit critical mass meaning about 1/2 or 2/3 of their sales into 1st world markets. After that point only electric is really developed and ICE continues to be buld like VW Beetle was build in Mexico 20 years after European sell by date. Old production lines are moved to where ever and same model continues to be build with just minor changes like new colors. 3rd world markets will get smaller and smaller model line of ICE's which are basically 2030ish model year car until their infrastructure is at level where electics can take over. Even if ICE models are allowed in 1st world rest of the car is not due to evolving crash protection rules etc.
Well, here’s my take on all of this from a very simple point of view.
E-fuels may well be very expensive at the moment but so it everything when it’s at a proof of concept stage.
As far as I understand it, we have been synthesising fuel for years from WW2. Sasol are still doing it with coal in South Africa. Shell are doing this with gas in Quatar to blend into V-power. It’s the capturing CO2 and making green hydrogen that are the issues, which need developing as technologies. So why not use e-fuels as another reason to do this rather than the only reason?
Invest heavily in renewables and direct air CO2 capture.
Use the excess energy generated to capture CO2 and create hydrogen to synthesise into synthetic fuels.
Store any excess captured CO2 in the ground.
As electric develops a greater share of the market, store increasing excess captured CO2 into the ground so eventually you’re pulling out more CO2 than is going into the atmosphere.
In this instance by scaling up the infrastructure for e-fuels, you’re scaling it up for carbon capture and removal, and potentially a longer term hydrogen infrastructure.
Seems like a win win to me on the face of it. If I really wanted to do something about “the environment” - rather than looking stupid, glueing myself to a motorway, throwing soup at art, or standing on the petrol station canopy with a stuffed polar bear, I’d be making a more productive effort to make this a scalable and viable technology.
E-fuels may well be very expensive at the moment but so it everything when it’s at a proof of concept stage.
As far as I understand it, we have been synthesising fuel for years from WW2. Sasol are still doing it with coal in South Africa. Shell are doing this with gas in Quatar to blend into V-power. It’s the capturing CO2 and making green hydrogen that are the issues, which need developing as technologies. So why not use e-fuels as another reason to do this rather than the only reason?
Invest heavily in renewables and direct air CO2 capture.
Use the excess energy generated to capture CO2 and create hydrogen to synthesise into synthetic fuels.
Store any excess captured CO2 in the ground.
As electric develops a greater share of the market, store increasing excess captured CO2 into the ground so eventually you’re pulling out more CO2 than is going into the atmosphere.
In this instance by scaling up the infrastructure for e-fuels, you’re scaling it up for carbon capture and removal, and potentially a longer term hydrogen infrastructure.
Seems like a win win to me on the face of it. If I really wanted to do something about “the environment” - rather than looking stupid, glueing myself to a motorway, throwing soup at art, or standing on the petrol station canopy with a stuffed polar bear, I’d be making a more productive effort to make this a scalable and viable technology.
Edited by stogbandard on Saturday 25th March 07:50
355spider said:
I honestly can’t fathom which direction the wind blows with all this, and so I’ll resist passing water in the open for now.
But for those of us with ice cars which we intend to hang onto, what does the future look like post 2035 in terms of being able to actually use them?
Yes, I’m quite sure running my f355 will draw negative reactions to the majority of people , but will I actually be able to use it, will it even run on synthetic fuel? I’m not even supposed to put e10 in it let alone future mixes
In the U.K. there will still be tens of millions of ICE vehicles on the road in 2035 and nearly all in the hands of the less wealthy so petrol will remain freely available and at sensible levels of taxation. No government is going to demobilise and economically cripple its core electorate or risk Trussing the economy. The U.K. will still be selling petrol until at least 2050 which will see most of us classic owners out. But for those of us with ice cars which we intend to hang onto, what does the future look like post 2035 in terms of being able to actually use them?
Yes, I’m quite sure running my f355 will draw negative reactions to the majority of people , but will I actually be able to use it, will it even run on synthetic fuel? I’m not even supposed to put e10 in it let alone future mixes
Where there will be an issue is that our cars will be priced out of more and more towns and cities as local political regimes persist in plying their trade.
And rather than focusing on pouring even more hygroscopic and corrosive alcohol into our classic cars we will be focussing more on premium petrol that has none.
stogbandard said:
Well, here’s my take on all of this from a very simple point of view.
E-fuels may well be very expensive at the moment but so it everything when it’s at a proof of concept stage.
As far as I understand it, we have been synthesising fuel for years from WW2. Sasol are still doing it with coal in South Africa. Shell are doing this with gas in Quatar to blend into V-power. It’s the capturing CO2 and making green hydrogen that are the issues, which need developing as technologies. So why not use e-fuels as another reason to do this rather than the only reason?
Invest heavily in renewables and direct air CO2 capture.
Use the excess energy generated to capture CO2 and create hydrogen to synthesise into synthetic fuels.
Store any excess captured CO2 in the ground.
As electric develops a greater share of the market, store increasing excess captured CO2 into the ground so eventually you’re pulling out more CO2 than is going into the atmosphere.
In this instance by scaling up the infrastructure for e-fuels, you’re scaling it up for carbon capture and removal, and potentially a longer term hydrogen infrastructure.
Seems like a win win to me on the face of it. If I really wanted to do something about “the environment” - rather than looking stupid, glueing myself to a motorway, throwing soup at art, or standing on the petrol station canopy with a stuffed polar bear, I’d be making a more productive effort to make this a scalable and viable technology.
That's a great plan, only bit missing is that you wouldn't waste the e-fuel in cars, it would be used to decarbonise other transportation sectors where batteries aren't viable.E-fuels may well be very expensive at the moment but so it everything when it’s at a proof of concept stage.
As far as I understand it, we have been synthesising fuel for years from WW2. Sasol are still doing it with coal in South Africa. Shell are doing this with gas in Quatar to blend into V-power. It’s the capturing CO2 and making green hydrogen that are the issues, which need developing as technologies. So why not use e-fuels as another reason to do this rather than the only reason?
Invest heavily in renewables and direct air CO2 capture.
Use the excess energy generated to capture CO2 and create hydrogen to synthesise into synthetic fuels.
Store any excess captured CO2 in the ground.
As electric develops a greater share of the market, store increasing excess captured CO2 into the ground so eventually you’re pulling out more CO2 than is going into the atmosphere.
In this instance by scaling up the infrastructure for e-fuels, you’re scaling it up for carbon capture and removal, and potentially a longer term hydrogen infrastructure.
Seems like a win win to me on the face of it. If I really wanted to do something about “the environment” - rather than looking stupid, glueing myself to a motorway, throwing soup at art, or standing on the petrol station canopy with a stuffed polar bear, I’d be making a more productive effort to make this a scalable and viable technology.
It also means hydrogen is, by and large, avoidable for transportation, which avoids the difficult job of distribution and onboard storage of one of the universe's most difficult substances to safely and effectively distribute and store onboard a vehicle.
Sandpit Steve said:
JJJ. said:
otolith said:
Even scaled up to their planned 50 million litres, it's still a drop in the ocean. There may be other producers, but it's still going to be tied into the global energy market. The situation in which the costs of electricity make this a financially sensible choice seems very unlikely.
There must be some merit to it? I'm at a loss as why the likes of Porsche (Volkswagen) would bother. Time will tell no doubt.F1 are this year using a mix that includes synthetic fuel, and will be fully synthetic in 2026.
Post the 2018 funding round into HIF the model has had to change from the original plan which was to ship the Chilean wind energy to Genoa in the form of H2 to be burned back to electricity and distributed into the grid. The economics of building a fleet of tankers capable of transporting H2 was too high plus local politicians started to be concerned over the endless docking of ships which could take out the whole of Genoa if anything went wrong or was made to go wrong.
So the original energy plan has died a bit of a death so Enel, the major partner to Siemens, has pulled back on investment promises leaving a gap into which VW has stepped until investment and backing is sourced from the grey hydrogen industry to build a born Haber plant in Chile to process the wind energy into ammonia for the fertiliser industry.
Industry needs a massive and constant supply of H2 so up to 2035 while the HIF wind project is being built to the size and capacity there is going to be modest amounts of H2 being produced that has no industrial or energy value due to its high cost and irregular flow. This is perfect for VW and motorsport.
For VW they can import industrial carbon waste (note how Porsche's PR team have recently been instructed to start stepping away from the elusive claims that Porsche are able to remove carbon from the atmosphere) and create basic alcohols using the H2. These can be shipped and burned in cars cars designed to combust them. The cost doesn't matter as motorsport has the means to pay. It's also relatively low demand and there are enormous potential PR gains from all the manufacturers involved in lovely noisy, smelly motorsport to talk about how they care about the environment etc.
Up to this point everything makes perfect sense.
The whole eFuels for punters post 2035 is a weird tangent. They're back to implying science they know not to be true or possible to get normal punters to back them on something that no normal punter will ever get a whiff of.
There is a trick trying to be played. We know the theoretical maximum wind energy that could be generated from the only three geolocations on the planet where this is possible. We also know that Germany only has control of one of those locations. We obviously know how much H2 can therefore be theoretically manufactured. And we know that the first industrial users of this capacity will be the existing grey hydrogen industry. So there's actually very little to almost no green hydrogen to power anything much beyond some race cars.
There is the exact same issue with biofuels. You can't produce any more ethanol without further decreasing the amount of food for humans or deforesting more of the planet. This is why the aviation industry and haulage industries aren't investing enormously in biofuel solutions beyond basic niches which could be maintained on alcohols made from genuine, audited food and manufacturing waste (Why Sweden has become a hub for this, IKEAs vast wood wastage being the trigger).
To convert any of these alcohols into an actual synthetic petrol you need to run a hugely energy intensive and expensive process called Fischer Tropsch on them to synthesise the long chain hydrocarbons. Germany last did this to coal in the 1940s. South Africa did it in the 80s to circumnavigate fuel embargos on the apartheid regime. It's hugely inefficient and expensive which means nations only turn to it in a state of emergency akin to war or war itself.
We know that the sudden economic change of this decade, the end of EU expansion, the cost of living impact on Western consumer appetite for new cars has materially changed the outlook possibly even the survivability of the German car industry to remain in the EU but how does a modest supply of alcohol where the carbon element is sourced from industry, mainly the fossil fuel industry, going to save VW?
It only makes sense if you not only source your carbon supply from the fossil fuel industry but also your H2 supply. Those are the only viable sources that would permit anything more than a few race cars to move around burning alcohol.
The only sane conclusion is that VW is trying to get H2 from steaming gas and CO2 from the combustion and steaming of coal and gas signed off as renewable and so create a massive and endless stream of carbon credits from using fossil fuels!!! Where the waste end product, some superfluous alcohol can be sold off to punters to burn as opposed to having to dispose of the waste themselves.
The only way this all adds up economically is if fossil fuels are the elemental primary sources and the desired end product is the tax credit with the alcohol a waste product that can be rebranded as 'efuel' and sold off under the guise of being an eco product to assist in green washing.
The EU seem to have picked up in this. Probably not difficult as there are no funding plans or documents to suggest any major FT plants are scheduled for construction either in Europe or Chile and everyone knows you can't capture CO2 from thin air viably as there is almost no CO2 in the atmosphere and if it could be done, even at a modest economic loss that would be how the planet had already solved the climate crisis!!!
In short, there is a tax trick being played here and the EU is seeking to pin it down so that they don't end up agreeing to something that would just be a mechanism that funnelled tax payer money from everyone in the EU into the Luxembourg and Liechtenstein coffers of a few aristocratic German industrial families.
Luckily for us we can all just keep using the real McCoy in our cars for as long as we want or need to. Which is nice.
The killer issue with efuels is direct carbon capture (DCC). Unless you can do this using excess renewable energy and minimal environmental impacts the whole thing is a non starter. Industrial waste CO2 is just not plentiful enough.
Even then, having captured the carbon why would you then go on use more energy to convert it into fuel only to burn it again in a process 4-5 times less efficient than just using the electricity to power an EV?
The reason companies have latched onto efuels is that they can somehow pretend they are greener. They aren’t, burning a litre of efuel releases the same CO2 as a litre of fossil fuel, it’s the same process. (The carbon capture has already happened, in accounting terms it’s a ‘sunk cost’)
It’s a deceptive form of greenwashing really.
How many pilot efuel plants are actually using DCC? There’s a reason for that.
The only possible justification for DCC is in parts of the world where there is excess renewable energy that otherwise couldn’t be used due to the transportation costs. Even then the fuel synthesised should be used in power stations not in vehicles.
Even then, having captured the carbon why would you then go on use more energy to convert it into fuel only to burn it again in a process 4-5 times less efficient than just using the electricity to power an EV?
The reason companies have latched onto efuels is that they can somehow pretend they are greener. They aren’t, burning a litre of efuel releases the same CO2 as a litre of fossil fuel, it’s the same process. (The carbon capture has already happened, in accounting terms it’s a ‘sunk cost’)
It’s a deceptive form of greenwashing really.
How many pilot efuel plants are actually using DCC? There’s a reason for that.
The only possible justification for DCC is in parts of the world where there is excess renewable energy that otherwise couldn’t be used due to the transportation costs. Even then the fuel synthesised should be used in power stations not in vehicles.
It's simple. Stop selling fossil fuels at 'fuel stations'. If they only supply synthetic fuels, problem solved.
Isn't the whole point that we stop burning fossil fuels? Fuel stations would no longer need to sell them, so just prevent their sale and car manufacturers don't have to figure out how to distinguish between the fuel types, which would be kinda hard to do anyway.
Synthetic fuel production would need to be ramped up to meet demand, but surely, that's the aim anyway.
Isn't this the simplest and most obvious solution?
Isn't the whole point that we stop burning fossil fuels? Fuel stations would no longer need to sell them, so just prevent their sale and car manufacturers don't have to figure out how to distinguish between the fuel types, which would be kinda hard to do anyway.
Synthetic fuel production would need to be ramped up to meet demand, but surely, that's the aim anyway.
Isn't this the simplest and most obvious solution?
UKenGB said:
It's simple. Stop selling fossil fuels at 'fuel stations'. If they only supply synthetic fuels, problem solved.
Isn't the whole point that we stop burning fossil fuels? Fuel stations would no longer need to sell them, so just prevent their sale and car manufacturers don't have to figure out how to distinguish between the fuel types, which would be kinda hard to do anyway.
Synthetic fuel production would need to be ramped up to meet demand, but surely, that's the aim anyway.
Isn't this the simplest and most obvious solution?
Yea and as DA and GT9 have amply explained it simply does not add up.Isn't the whole point that we stop burning fossil fuels? Fuel stations would no longer need to sell them, so just prevent their sale and car manufacturers don't have to figure out how to distinguish between the fuel types, which would be kinda hard to do anyway.
Synthetic fuel production would need to be ramped up to meet demand, but surely, that's the aim anyway.
Isn't this the simplest and most obvious solution?
The way to reduce atmospheric CO2 is to
Burn less fossil fuel
Capture waste CO2 from necessary industrial processes
Possibly use spare renewables for DCC
Nowhere in that list is ‘burn more synthetic fuel’
It’s a scam
UKenGB said:
It's simple. Stop selling fossil fuels at 'fuel stations'. If they only supply synthetic fuels, problem solved.
Isn't the whole point that we stop burning fossil fuels? Fuel stations would no longer need to sell them, so just prevent their sale and car manufacturers don't have to figure out how to distinguish between the fuel types, which would be kinda hard to do anyway.
Synthetic fuel production would need to be ramped up to meet demand, but surely, that's the aim anyway.
Isn't this the simplest and most obvious solution?
In absence of nuclear fusion, the maths will never work, we are not going to have enough renewable electricity due to the extremely poor energy efficiency of the e-fuel pathway.Isn't the whole point that we stop burning fossil fuels? Fuel stations would no longer need to sell them, so just prevent their sale and car manufacturers don't have to figure out how to distinguish between the fuel types, which would be kinda hard to do anyway.
Synthetic fuel production would need to be ramped up to meet demand, but surely, that's the aim anyway.
Isn't this the simplest and most obvious solution?
Direct electrification of the passenger car sector is the only way to make decarbonisation work for ALL transportation sectors.
See here for the numbers: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Don't see a big problem if its not over engineered. A couple of examples might be a special pump nozzel such as the Unleaded v leaded solution, or perhaps a dye in the fuel as per red diesel, checked at MOT/Annual inspection time to name a couple. I'm sure there will be many other options that could be developed between now and then.
Soupdragon65 said:
The killer issue with efuels is direct carbon capture (DCC). Unless you can do this using excess renewable energy and minimal environmental impacts the whole thing is a non starter. Industrial waste CO2 is just not plentiful enough.
Even then, having captured the carbon why would you then go on use more energy to convert it into fuel only to burn it again in a process 4-5 times less efficient than just using the electricity to power an EV?
The reason companies have latched onto efuels is that they can somehow pretend they are greener. They aren’t, burning a litre of efuel releases the same CO2 as a litre of fossil fuel, it’s the same process. (The carbon capture has already happened, in accounting terms it’s a ‘sunk cost’)
It’s a deceptive form of greenwashing really.
How many pilot efuel plants are actually using DCC? There’s a reason for that.
The only possible justification for DCC is in parts of the world where there is excess renewable energy that otherwise couldn’t be used due to the transportation costs. Even then the fuel synthesised should be used in power stations not in vehicles.
'Direct air capture and storage (DAC+S) removes CO₂ directly from ambient air. In contrast, carbon capture and storage (CCS) captures CO₂ from point sources of carbon dioxide, such as the smokestacks of iron and steel factories. It then transports the captured CO₂ to a storage site, where it is sequestered.'Even then, having captured the carbon why would you then go on use more energy to convert it into fuel only to burn it again in a process 4-5 times less efficient than just using the electricity to power an EV?
The reason companies have latched onto efuels is that they can somehow pretend they are greener. They aren’t, burning a litre of efuel releases the same CO2 as a litre of fossil fuel, it’s the same process. (The carbon capture has already happened, in accounting terms it’s a ‘sunk cost’)
It’s a deceptive form of greenwashing really.
How many pilot efuel plants are actually using DCC? There’s a reason for that.
The only possible justification for DCC is in parts of the world where there is excess renewable energy that otherwise couldn’t be used due to the transportation costs. Even then the fuel synthesised should be used in power stations not in vehicles.
When they say 'sequestering' what they actually do is sell the CO2 to oil companies who pump it into semi depleted reservoirs to extract the last bits of oil before capping all the wells and letting the CO2 seep out over the next 100 years.
DAC isn't viable. You either crush igneous rock and lay it out so that the CO2 in the atmosphere can slowly react with the olivine minerals which you then collect and dump in the sea. This works and genuinely sequesters the carbon but as you can imagine it takes forever and only removes tiny amounts. There are other chemical and catalytic ways. The former is used by companies like Climeworks and the latter is spearheaded by the impressively loss making yet persistent Carbon Industries of Canada which utilises stupid and easily rewarded Western provincial governments to funnel and endless supply of taxpayer money to their Board members. The latest deal being signed by the SNP to just give them £millions and £millions of English taxpayer money over the next 5 years.
Obviously, DAC doesn't exist but all companies want their customers to fall for the illusion that DCC is somehow DAC.
Hence why Porsche to date have repeatedly tried to claim they are using atmospheric CO2 when what they mean is that they're using industrial CO2 but not releasing it into the atmosphere at that moment in time but later via dirty local combustion as opposed to collecting it cleanly at source and processing it for burial.
Now the big DCC wheeze is to pay a bakery or brewery to set up on the land next to your factory. What you then claim is that the carbon you are using is coming directly from the little bakery or micro brewery while the big pipeline you want no one to focus on brings in your CO2 from the fossil fuelled power station or coal burning industry that just happens to be mysteriously down the road.
Coal offers an endless supply of CO2 and Eastern Europe has an endless supply of coal.
What's really interesting about both GH and DCC CO2 is that it's really cheap to push hydrogen and CO2 together to get methane. It's the cheapest of all the H2 chemical processes. CH4 is what the U.K. burns to make most of our electricity. Now, if you could DCC from the exhaust of a gas power station and your wind farms tended to produce a surplus of electricity that you could convert to H2 why wouldn't you simply push the CO2 from the burning of nat gas into the green hydrogen from the excess of wind energy together to make methane or synthetic natural gas and pump that straight back into your gas power station?
With DCC and GH you can simply capture and recycle endlessly the valuable and energy rich carbon atoms of fossil fuel meaning you can run gas powered electricity for zero emissions.
Why on Earth would you, instead of doing that simple industrial process, invest a whole complex stream of processes and wrap it up in a load of PR bulls
t. If you have GH and DCC why would you do anything other than make methane and trap the carbon endlessly in your domestic electricity cycle?Once you start to think logically about this stuff and look beyond the wunderwaffen propaganda then we can start to see why the U.K. in its more sane corners has no interest in green hydrogen or eFuels as some form of miraculous cure.
If we can solve true DCC from industrial waste then we can stick to burning methane gas and being carbon negative wile doing so. That's the Holy Grail.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff