RE: EU floats draft proposal in synthetic fuel tussle
Discussion
100% DA
What I was referring to was using methane as a transport medium from (say) Chile to avoid the complexities of transporting hydrogen. The methane would then be used in the same way as natural gas of course competing the cycle.
That would require a local source of CO2 such as from atmospheric DCC to be done of scale
I’m not sure if the energetically of that make sense though
What I was referring to was using methane as a transport medium from (say) Chile to avoid the complexities of transporting hydrogen. The methane would then be used in the same way as natural gas of course competing the cycle.
That would require a local source of CO2 such as from atmospheric DCC to be done of scale
I’m not sure if the energetically of that make sense though
Soupdragon65 said:
100% DA
What I was referring to was using methane as a transport medium from (say) Chile to avoid the complexities of transporting hydrogen. The methane would then be used in the same way as natural gas of course competing the cycle.
That would require a local source of CO2 such as from atmospheric DCC to be done of scale
I’m not sure if the energetically of that make sense though
That's the interesting aspect of HIF. How to most cost effectively transport the wind energy from Chile to Germany. What I was referring to was using methane as a transport medium from (say) Chile to avoid the complexities of transporting hydrogen. The methane would then be used in the same way as natural gas of course competing the cycle.
That would require a local source of CO2 such as from atmospheric DCC to be done of scale
I’m not sure if the energetically of that make sense though
It can't be shipped cost effectively as H2 so the next best thing is to import a source of carbon to allow you to export the energy as methane gas or methanol liquid. At this point it boils down to the economics of the volumes involved in each option. We can ship LNG across the Atlantic very easily and cheaply, dock it and pipe it into the energy network of Europe without batting an eyelid but I suspect that for the volumes anticipated from now to 2040 it might be cheaper to ship methanol and sell it at its high cost to motorsport etc? Methane would have to compete price wise against fossil fuel LNG so it would be massively loss making. Conversely if methanol costs £50/litre then motorsport will pay £50+ a profit etc.
Longer term the only sane solution is to move the ammonia factories to Chile and use the H2 at source to competitively replace fossil fuel hydrogen.
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?
Simple, if you ignore the fact that it is impossible.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?
911hope said:
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?
Simple, if you ignore the fact that it is impossible.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?
If cars already in use won’t run on the fuel then it won’t work
DMZ said:
I'm sure there will be another article about it, but the inclusion of e-fuels has now been agreed between the EU and Germany.
I think there will be many an article. Some will contain the rictus grin of Dave Richards while the rest will be Barry's compo face next his Meriva as he is forced to pour £1.50 petrol into it having been denied £10 unicorn poss by the evil Man. 
Then of course there will be VW's 'CarbonGate' when someone miraculously discovered they've been steaming fossil fuels round the back of the garage to make the CO2.
Problem is the current efuels come from carbon capture from industrial processes. It’s the most cost effective way to do it (it’s still not cheap). These industries have to decarbonise so this source will be gone so they will have to carbon capture from the air which is not commercially viable at all at the moment. It also doesn’t stop the production of other greenhouse gases like NOx. Also clean air zones are based on NOx emissions so don’t expect to be able to drive into most cities with this fuel.
Snuf said:
But you would not have to check the difference as there would be no C02 fuels available by then ? If C02 fuel were available what would it cost!
JCB are manufacturing hydrogen powered Co2-free engines.
Petrol and diesel will still be on sale in 2035 and for many decades after. So of course the two fuels will be on sale at the same time. The only way to distinguish the two would be to not permit FT on the alcohols so that the post 2035 ICE units ran on alcohol not hydrocarbons. That is simple enough and the operators would be able to afford the associated costs so not an issue. JCB are manufacturing hydrogen powered Co2-free engines.
JCB aren't manufacturing H2 fuelled ICE. They are testing them.
. And they produce NOx due to atmospheric combustion, carbon free H2 doesn't yet exist and it's their solution for niche applications not all applications. Nascent tech / science is always pricey.
In 1908, a gallon of petrol cost the equivalent of c. £20 (incl current VAT + duty) today.
So, given time and economies of scale, the price of efuel will obviously also fall.
Also consider that Porsche’s supplier, HIF, will not be the efuel-equivalent of Pétrus forever. HIF is developing sites in the USA, EMEA, and Asia Pacific, with plans for many more.
Meanwhile, cash-strapped Aramco is also joining the efuel party…
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1138922_aramco...
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2335341-repsol-...
In 1908, a gallon of petrol cost the equivalent of c. £20 (incl current VAT + duty) today.
So, given time and economies of scale, the price of efuel will obviously also fall.
Also consider that Porsche’s supplier, HIF, will not be the efuel-equivalent of Pétrus forever. HIF is developing sites in the USA, EMEA, and Asia Pacific, with plans for many more.
Meanwhile, cash-strapped Aramco is also joining the efuel party…
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1138922_aramco...
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2335341-repsol-...
This is comparing two things that don't exist - synthetic fuels for mass-market use and anything like the generation and transmission and materials required for 100% electric vehicles.
The end point (the cars) exist for both right now - you can put synthetic fuels in any modern SI ICE car and it will work (and probably many CI engines too).
It's a decade away, but it's a heck of a lot easier to build half a dozen synthetic fuels plants once the process is proven than it is to build the generation and uprate the electricity distribution infrastructure to 10s of millions of homes for universal electric cars (and don't forget, electric heating and cooking too).
Me? I suspect both will exist Net zero is a nonsense with anything like a modern lifestyle. Even the foamy mouth proponents of it agree - not a single one is anywhere near it in their own life right now, yet are trying to force it on everybody else whilst pretending that all of the technology and solutions exist (they don't). You should be very, very worried about that.
The end point (the cars) exist for both right now - you can put synthetic fuels in any modern SI ICE car and it will work (and probably many CI engines too).
It's a decade away, but it's a heck of a lot easier to build half a dozen synthetic fuels plants once the process is proven than it is to build the generation and uprate the electricity distribution infrastructure to 10s of millions of homes for universal electric cars (and don't forget, electric heating and cooking too).
Me? I suspect both will exist Net zero is a nonsense with anything like a modern lifestyle. Even the foamy mouth proponents of it agree - not a single one is anywhere near it in their own life right now, yet are trying to force it on everybody else whilst pretending that all of the technology and solutions exist (they don't). You should be very, very worried about that.
Fiesta1.0L said:
It's a decade away, but it's a heck of a lot easier to build half a dozen synthetic fuels plants once the process is proven than it is to build the generation and uprate the electricity distribution infrastructure to 10s of millions of homes for universal electric cars (and don't forget, electric heating and cooking too).
Can you post any kind of quantitive analysis that shows this to be the case?Fiesta1.0L said:
This is comparing two things that don't exist - synthetic fuels for mass-market use and anything like the generation and transmission and materials required for 100% electric vehicles.
The end point (the cars) exist for both right now - you can put synthetic fuels in any modern SI ICE car and it will work (and probably many CI engines too).
It's a decade away, but it's a heck of a lot easier to build half a dozen synthetic fuels plants once the process is proven than it is to build the generation and uprate the electricity distribution infrastructure to 10s of millions of homes for universal electric cars (and don't forget, electric heating and cooking too).
Me? I suspect both will exist Net zero is a nonsense with anything like a modern lifestyle. Even the foamy mouth proponents of it agree - not a single one is anywhere near it in their own life right now, yet are trying to force it on everybody else whilst pretending that all of the technology and solutions exist (they don't). You should be very, very worried about that.
You have to be mindful that the EV zealots have a vested interest in dismissing any vehicle fueling technology other than electric, for new vehicles. The end point (the cars) exist for both right now - you can put synthetic fuels in any modern SI ICE car and it will work (and probably many CI engines too).
It's a decade away, but it's a heck of a lot easier to build half a dozen synthetic fuels plants once the process is proven than it is to build the generation and uprate the electricity distribution infrastructure to 10s of millions of homes for universal electric cars (and don't forget, electric heating and cooking too).
Me? I suspect both will exist Net zero is a nonsense with anything like a modern lifestyle. Even the foamy mouth proponents of it agree - not a single one is anywhere near it in their own life right now, yet are trying to force it on everybody else whilst pretending that all of the technology and solutions exist (they don't). You should be very, very worried about that.
They seem to be desperate to avoid the possibility of being left holding the Betamax version of a car, and consequently try to denigrate all other methods of powering a vehicle for the future, by ignoring all the downsides of using an EV, and `bigging' up any advantages an EV can provide, whilst doing the exact opposite for ANY other vehicle fueling technology. You have to look for the vested interest to get a clearer picture of what is happening.
GT9 said:
Alternatively, you could grab a calculator and try to quantify what your vision actually involves.
What, like the fact that a Tesla 3, weighs one thousand pounds more than an equivalent ICE Ford Focus. That is like buying a Focus, and discovering it comes with a thousand pound caravan `permanently' attached to the back of it.
Pan Pan Pan said:
GT9 said:
Alternatively, you could grab a calculator and try to quantify what your vision actually involves.
What, like the fact that a Tesla 3, weighs one thousand pounds more than an equivalent ICE Ford Focus. That is like buying a Focus, and discovering it comes with a thousand pound caravan `permanently' attached to the back of it.
Pan Pan Pan said:
What, like the fact that a Tesla 3, weighs one thousand pounds more than an equivalent ICE Ford Focus.
That is like buying a Focus, and discovering it comes with a thousand pound caravan `permanently' attached to the back of it.
It’s the size of a 3 series, not a Focus, and most versions are lighter than my 335D.That is like buying a Focus, and discovering it comes with a thousand pound caravan `permanently' attached to the back of it.
Pan Pan Pan said:
GT9 said:
Alternatively, you could grab a calculator and try to quantify what your vision actually involves.
What, like the fact that a Tesla 3, weighs one thousand pounds more than an equivalent ICE Ford Focus. That is like buying a Focus, and discovering it comes with a thousand pound caravan `permanently' attached to the back of it.
Ready to tell us yet, which of 34 and 10 is the bigger number, PPP?
My new favourite poster, I think.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff