Batteries are not the Solution, Synthetic Fuels maybe
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
bigothunter said:
I suspect we are regressing towards a divided society.
Today's motoring accessibility will be available to the affluent only. They will be able to afford the product and operating costs of 'regular' cars capable of long distance travel. A return to the Grand Touring class.
Meanwhile affordability will restrict plebs to cheap short-range EVs imported from the Orient. Fine for popping to the shops and local trips, bugger all use for anything else. If plebs want to go further, they can use public transport. Otherwise they just stay at home.
Just a vision and a fairly unpleasant one. We shall see...
But everyone loves the 70s!Today's motoring accessibility will be available to the affluent only. They will be able to afford the product and operating costs of 'regular' cars capable of long distance travel. A return to the Grand Touring class.
Meanwhile affordability will restrict plebs to cheap short-range EVs imported from the Orient. Fine for popping to the shops and local trips, bugger all use for anything else. If plebs want to go further, they can use public transport. Otherwise they just stay at home.
Just a vision and a fairly unpleasant one. We shall see...
No back to the 50s Golden Age of Motoring or even possibly the 30s. Plebs and pensioners need to know their place...
bigothunter said:
DMZ said:
EVs are for the affluent and eFuel is for the affluent. If you want to be clean you need to pay. Nothing new here.
I suspect we are regressing towards a divided society.Today's motoring accessibility will be available to the affluent only. They will be able to afford the product and operating costs of 'regular' cars capable of long distance travel. A return to the Grand Touring class.
Meanwhile affordability will restrict plebs to cheap short-range EVs imported from the Orient. Fine for popping to the shops and local trips, bugger all use for anything else. If plebs want to go further, they can use public transport. Otherwise they just stay at home.
Just a vision and a fairly unpleasant one. We shall see...
If they really wanted to 'restrict plebs' then it would be a lot easier to ration petrol than electricity.
I know it's exciting to come up with these doomsday scenarios, but good sci-fi has to have consistent internal logic.
looks like there is a way back for ICE engines even post 2035. So long as the propulsion method is carbon neutral
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activi...
Alternative fuels that are CO2-neutral, so called #efuels, still offer a future for this great technology and for millions of jobs in this industry. And I'm glad that the official text of the legislative resolution states: "the Commission will make a proposal for registering after 2035 vehicles running exclusively on CO2 neutral fuels in conformity with Union law, outside the scope of the fleet standards, and in conformity with the Union’s climate-neutrality objective.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activi...
Alternative fuels that are CO2-neutral, so called #efuels, still offer a future for this great technology and for millions of jobs in this industry. And I'm glad that the official text of the legislative resolution states: "the Commission will make a proposal for registering after 2035 vehicles running exclusively on CO2 neutral fuels in conformity with Union law, outside the scope of the fleet standards, and in conformity with the Union’s climate-neutrality objective.
SpeckledJim said:
Is 20 minutes on a charger if you want to go to the seaside really going to mean all that? Sounds a bit dramatic.
If they really wanted to 'restrict plebs' then it would be a lot easier to ration petrol than electricity.
I know it's exciting to come up with these doomsday scenarios, but good sci-fi has to have consistent internal logic.
Hardly a doomsday scenario If they really wanted to 'restrict plebs' then it would be a lot easier to ration petrol than electricity.
I know it's exciting to come up with these doomsday scenarios, but good sci-fi has to have consistent internal logic.
Common man has become a motorist in recent times. I can see that trend being reversed. Indeed it's happening already...
bigothunter said:
SpeckledJim said:
Is 20 minutes on a charger if you want to go to the seaside really going to mean all that? Sounds a bit dramatic.
If they really wanted to 'restrict plebs' then it would be a lot easier to ration petrol than electricity.
I know it's exciting to come up with these doomsday scenarios, but good sci-fi has to have consistent internal logic.
Hardly a doomsday scenario If they really wanted to 'restrict plebs' then it would be a lot easier to ration petrol than electricity.
I know it's exciting to come up with these doomsday scenarios, but good sci-fi has to have consistent internal logic.
Common man has become a motorist in recent times. I can see that trend being reversed. Indeed it's happening already...
Or by other things much bigger and more significant than the difference between SSBB and a whirry electric motor?
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
looks like there is a way back for ICE engines even post 2035. So long as the propulsion method is carbon neutral
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activi...
Alternative fuels that are CO2-neutral, so called #efuels, still offer a future for this great technology and for millions of jobs in this industry. And I'm glad that the official text of the legislative resolution states: "the Commission will make a proposal for registering after 2035 vehicles running exclusively on CO2 neutral fuels in conformity with Union law, outside the scope of the fleet standards, and in conformity with the Union’s climate-neutrality objective.
This will be the opening for "blue oil" which comes from oil fields where industrial CO2 is used to enhance recovery. The amount of CO2 injected is greater than that emitted by the extraction process, refining and sudsequent combustion. So it is described as carbon-negative.https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activi...
Alternative fuels that are CO2-neutral, so called #efuels, still offer a future for this great technology and for millions of jobs in this industry. And I'm glad that the official text of the legislative resolution states: "the Commission will make a proposal for registering after 2035 vehicles running exclusively on CO2 neutral fuels in conformity with Union law, outside the scope of the fleet standards, and in conformity with the Union’s climate-neutrality objective.
This is being led by the US where there's already a CO2 pipeline network close to the Gulf coast. The technology has been in use for decades but has typically used geographic CO2. It is being encouraged by state-sponsored subsidies for sequestering CO2.
If/when "blue petrol" hits the market it will be very counter-intuitive because using more of it will be better for CO2 levels so there will be a case for preferential tax treatment to lower the price. Best hang on to those high-power V8s!
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
looks like there is a way back for ICE engines even post 2035. So long as the propulsion method is carbon neutral
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activi...
Alternative fuels that are CO2-neutral, so called #efuels, still offer a future for this great technology and for millions of jobs in this industry. And I'm glad that the official text of the legislative resolution states: "the Commission will make a proposal for registering after 2035 vehicles running exclusively on CO2 neutral fuels in conformity with Union law, outside the scope of the fleet standards, and in conformity with the Union’s climate-neutrality objective.
Except of course that cities won't let you in because of the NOx that is produced, https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activi...
Alternative fuels that are CO2-neutral, so called #efuels, still offer a future for this great technology and for millions of jobs in this industry. And I'm glad that the official text of the legislative resolution states: "the Commission will make a proposal for registering after 2035 vehicles running exclusively on CO2 neutral fuels in conformity with Union law, outside the scope of the fleet standards, and in conformity with the Union’s climate-neutrality objective.
bigothunter said:
SpeckledJim said:
And that is being caused by EVs?
Or by other things much bigger and more significant than the difference between SSBB and a whirry electric motor?
EVs are just a convenient piece in the jigsaw. They suit the broader agenda.Or by other things much bigger and more significant than the difference between SSBB and a whirry electric motor?
Or of stopping poor people having a nice day?
(or both?)
SpeckledJim said:
bigothunter said:
SpeckledJim said:
And that is being caused by EVs?
Or by other things much bigger and more significant than the difference between SSBB and a whirry electric motor?
EVs are just a convenient piece in the jigsaw. They suit the broader agenda.Or by other things much bigger and more significant than the difference between SSBB and a whirry electric motor?
Or of stopping poor people having a nice day?
(or both?)
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
looks like there is a way back for ICE engines even post 2035. So long as the propulsion method is carbon neutral
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activi...
Alternative fuels that are CO2-neutral, so called #efuels, still offer a future for this great technology and for millions of jobs in this industry. And I'm glad that the official text of the legislative resolution states: "the Commission will make a proposal for registering after 2035 vehicles running exclusively on CO2 neutral fuels in conformity with Union law, outside the scope of the fleet standards, and in conformity with the Union’s climate-neutrality objective.
The 2035 plan is for zero emissions, not for carbon neutral, and any combustion engine, no matter the fuel has exhaust emissions.https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activi...
Alternative fuels that are CO2-neutral, so called #efuels, still offer a future for this great technology and for millions of jobs in this industry. And I'm glad that the official text of the legislative resolution states: "the Commission will make a proposal for registering after 2035 vehicles running exclusively on CO2 neutral fuels in conformity with Union law, outside the scope of the fleet standards, and in conformity with the Union’s climate-neutrality objective.
“In Europe, e-fuels for cars would suck up renewable electricity needed for the rest of the economy. It is also naive to assume that developing countries, some of whom lack power for their basic needs, would spare their renewables for e-fuels in Europe’s cars just to suit the vested interests of engine makers. Synthetic fuels that are made in Europe should be prioritised for planes and ships, most of which cannot use batteries to decarbonise.”
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/only...
NMNeil said:
The 2035 plan is for zero emissions, not for carbon neutral, and any combustion engine, no matter the fuel has exhaust emissions.
“In Europe, e-fuels for cars would suck up renewable electricity needed for the rest of the economy. It is also naive to assume that developing countries, some of whom lack power for their basic needs, would spare their renewables for e-fuels in Europe’s cars just to suit the vested interests of engine makers. Synthetic fuels that are made in Europe should be prioritised for planes and ships, most of which cannot use batteries to decarbonise.”
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/only...
Ships cannot use batteries or the economics of ship operation make batteries commercially uncompetitive? Clearly some vested interests are more important than others...“In Europe, e-fuels for cars would suck up renewable electricity needed for the rest of the economy. It is also naive to assume that developing countries, some of whom lack power for their basic needs, would spare their renewables for e-fuels in Europe’s cars just to suit the vested interests of engine makers. Synthetic fuels that are made in Europe should be prioritised for planes and ships, most of which cannot use batteries to decarbonise.”
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/only...
There is currently no definitive ban on carbon neutral fuels in 2035 (in the EU, the UK can obviously do what it wants). Otherwise there wouldn't be investment in efuels. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that it would be banned because it makes no sense seeing as there will be gazillion amounts of ICE around anyhow so the problem needs fixing no matter what. One way or another it will have a use. If it turns out to be more efficient and cheaper to use EVs then of course EVs will win in the long run.
bigothunter said:
Ships cannot use batteries or the economics of ship operation make batteries commercially uncompetitive? Clearly some vested interests are more important than others...
Shipping is close to impossible to go carbon neutral. Unlike aviation and other goods transport solutions the percentage of cost attributed to the fuel is enormous. In some cases it's as high as 60%. Bunker fuel is seriously cheap and you really cannot synthesise such long chain hydrocarbons.
There is any alternative fuel present or in any lab that is close to being remotely affordable or as energy dense.
The only viable solution to reducing the pollution from cargo ships is for people to reduce the amount of junk they demand to be shipped. Ie buy less tat, fill fewer ships.
Funnily enough, global warming would help shipping as a 365 northwest passage across the top of Russia would dramatically shorten the route to get Chinese tat into the homes of European shopping addicts.
The only viable solution is to levy taxation at point of docking on the goods that will ensure the end customer pays for the carbon offset credits for their shopping.
DonkeyApple said:
bigothunter said:
Ships cannot use batteries or the economics of ship operation make batteries commercially uncompetitive? Clearly some vested interests are more important than others...
Shipping is close to impossible to go carbon neutral. Unlike aviation and other goods transport solutions the percentage of cost attributed to the fuel is enormous. In some cases it's as high as 60%. Bunker fuel is seriously cheap and you really cannot synthesise such long chain hydrocarbons.
There is any alternative fuel present or in any lab that is close to being remotely affordable or as energy dense.
The only viable solution to reducing the pollution from cargo ships is for people to reduce the amount of junk they demand to be shipped. Ie buy less tat, fill fewer ships.
Funnily enough, global warming would help shipping as a 365 northwest passage across the top of Russia would dramatically shorten the route to get Chinese tat into the homes of European shopping addicts.
The only viable solution is to levy taxation at point of docking on the goods that will ensure the end customer pays for the carbon offset credits for their shopping.
bigothunter said:
Consistent picture - dollars matter more than climate change $$$
It's common sense. It's the exact same reason why EVs are starting top down etc. If you read anything about shipping there is lots of investment into cleaning it up but unlike cars which can simply run on batteries there is no replacement for bunker fuel and no alternative for shipping itself for the foreseeable future.
DonkeyApple said:
bigothunter said:
Consistent picture - dollars matter more than climate change $$$
It's common sense. It's the exact same reason why EVs are starting top down etc. If you read anything about shipping there is lots of investment into cleaning it up but unlike cars which can simply run on batteries there is no replacement for bunker fuel and no alternative for shipping itself for the foreseeable future.
bigothunter said:
DonkeyApple said:
bigothunter said:
Consistent picture - dollars matter more than climate change $$$
It's common sense. It's the exact same reason why EVs are starting top down etc. If you read anything about shipping there is lots of investment into cleaning it up but unlike cars which can simply run on batteries there is no replacement for bunker fuel and no alternative for shipping itself for the foreseeable future.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff