Batteries are not the Solution, Synthetic Fuels maybe
Discussion
bigothunter said:
DonkeyApple said:
It is rather. Just because one thing cannot be decarbonised as of yet doesn't mean the stuff that can be decarbonised shouldn't be.
Choose not because of expense. Dollars always matter more unless someone else is paying $$$During various fuel crisis in the past, modernised sails have been looked at to augment propulsion. A couple of high end mega yachts use them
wisbech said:
Well, technically you could run ships on batteries - some have electric propulsion. But to generate the electricity over a two week voyage say, you need a generator using fuel.
During various fuel crisis in the past, modernised sails have been looked at to augment propulsion. A couple of high end mega yachts use them
They use the most fuel leaving port. One plan was to use electric tugs to haul them up to open sea speed as these rugs could then return to be recharged. During various fuel crisis in the past, modernised sails have been looked at to augment propulsion. A couple of high end mega yachts use them
But all of these solutions are commercially non viable. And everyone has just been living through what happens to the price of goods when there is fuel price inflation on transport infrastructure that is highly sensitive to fuel pricing.
What global cargo shipping does is overtly highlight the insanity of trying to fix the problem of excess consumer activity by using excess consumer activity. You can't solve the problem through shopping more. Only by shopping less.
It's everyone's credit cards and addiction to shopping that is driving the coal power stations in China, the filthy factories in China and the hideous amount of pollution to then get that product to the docks, onto a boat, sailed round the world, driven to a shop and then driven to a home.
Increased consumer taxation or pricing at point of spend is the only way to actually reduce excess pollution.
And just how do you go about telling the average compo faced, British shop waddler that they've had too much cake and they can't have any more? You can't because it's all someone else's fault. Your pie munchers will blame the people who made the pies or sold them the pies. It's never the pie stuffers' fault. Always someone else's.
Hence why these creatures always end up blaming the dirty little foreigners for responding to their insatiable consumer demands and then starts talking about how depopulation is the solution and you know they don't mean of fat, greedy, unstoppable apex shoppers with their faces and pockets crammed full of cake but the chaps in a far away land, preferably non white. That's where the depopulation needs to start. It's all their fault.
If someone is concerned about the emissions of the shipping industry then just leave your wallet in your pocket today. Don't buy anything. It's that simple. Stop endlessly consuming stuff you just don't need.
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.
https://gcaptain.com/hmm-orders-nine-methanol-powe...
There have been similar reports about companies switching to ammonia or LNG. Although these fuels are much cleaner than traditional bunker fuel, they are all derived from oil/gas of course. If/when oil production starts to decline, the economics of these alternatives may improve.
Germany wants climate-neutral fuels to power cars.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-27...
That’s that then. What Germany wants Germany gets. It was only a matter of time anyhow.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-27...
That’s that then. What Germany wants Germany gets. It was only a matter of time anyhow.
Next step is to push for relaxing the definition of climate neutral fuel so blue hydrogen can sneak under the bar.
Never fear, we can put in place self-assessment measures to ensure the blue hydrogen suppliers are playing ball...
If ever there was another diesel fiasco in the making, it's this.
Never fear, we can put in place self-assessment measures to ensure the blue hydrogen suppliers are playing ball...
If ever there was another diesel fiasco in the making, it's this.
GT9 said:
Next step is to push for relaxing the definition of climate neutral fuel so blue hydrogen can sneak under the bar.
Never fear, we can put in place self-assessment measures to ensure the blue hydrogen suppliers are playing ball...
If ever there was another diesel fiasco in the making, it's this.
A lot of the capital going into local hydrogen projects are secretly banking on a large expansion of fossil fuel hydrogen. Never fear, we can put in place self-assessment measures to ensure the blue hydrogen suppliers are playing ball...
If ever there was another diesel fiasco in the making, it's this.
There are similar looming disasters in the biofuel market as more food production is set to be diverted to biofuel.
Same with carbon sequestering as lobbying grows to enable carbon credits to be issued for just temporarily storing CO2 in depleted reservoirs. Ie, to monetise as taxpayer's expense the practice of pressurising old reservoirs to force out the last of the fossil fuels. We know that CO2 comes back out via the unsealed and unsealable exterior path of the multiple well shafts even when the interiors are plugged.
These are all Tom Midgely level disasters in waiting but unlike poor Tom, these entities behind them know exactly what the problem is.
The thing is that there is so much taxpayer's money all around the world to be grabbed that all of these things are hugely lucrative.
Blue hydrogen is big bucks as you're stripping away the carbon from methane, the element that has the most energy, supposedly binning all that energy to be left with hydrogen that you need more than 4 times more of than methane for the same energy. But that industrial carbon can then be 'captured from the air' and used by the likes of VW to manufacture an eFuel which then becomes a laundered fossil fuel etc.
Non of this will stop until there is a significant breakthrough in energy storage in reality.
GT9 said:
Next step is to push for relaxing the definition of climate neutral fuel so blue hydrogen can sneak under the bar.
Never fear, we can put in place self-assessment measures to ensure the blue hydrogen suppliers are playing ball...
If ever there was another diesel fiasco in the making, it's this.
Of course. “Carbon neutral” is suitably vague anyhow. Never fear, we can put in place self-assessment measures to ensure the blue hydrogen suppliers are playing ball...
If ever there was another diesel fiasco in the making, it's this.
DonkeyApple said:
GT9 said:
Next step is to push for relaxing the definition of climate neutral fuel so blue hydrogen can sneak under the bar.
Never fear, we can put in place self-assessment measures to ensure the blue hydrogen suppliers are playing ball...
If ever there was another diesel fiasco in the making, it's this.
A lot of the capital going into local hydrogen projects are secretly banking on a large expansion of fossil fuel hydrogen. Never fear, we can put in place self-assessment measures to ensure the blue hydrogen suppliers are playing ball...
If ever there was another diesel fiasco in the making, it's this.
There are similar looming disasters in the biofuel market as more food production is set to be diverted to biofuel.
Same with carbon sequestering as lobbying grows to enable carbon credits to be issued for just temporarily storing CO2 in depleted reservoirs. Ie, to monetise as taxpayer's expense the practice of pressurising old reservoirs to force out the last of the fossil fuels. We know that CO2 comes back out via the unsealed and unsealable exterior path of the multiple well shafts even when the interiors are plugged.
These are all Tom Midgely level disasters in waiting but unlike poor Tom, these entities behind them know exactly what the problem is.
The thing is that there is so much taxpayer's money all around the world to be grabbed that all of these things are hugely lucrative.
Blue hydrogen is big bucks as you're stripping away the carbon from methane, the element that has the most energy, supposedly binning all that energy to be left with hydrogen that you need more than 4 times more of than methane for the same energy. But that industrial carbon can then be 'captured from the air' and used by the likes of VW to manufacture an eFuel which then becomes a laundered fossil fuel etc.
Non of this will stop until there is a significant breakthrough in energy storage in reality.
plfrench said:
Could be a perfect opportunity for the UK to make a killing flogging renewable electricity to Germany via our new interconnect with them - it's due to be operational in 2028 - we might have a fair bit of spare electricity during windy nights moments to sell to them by then. If other countries want to waste electricity in creating efuels or hydrogen for cars then we can profit from it.
That's the thing. The U.K. doesn't need rescuing by some magic gas. We don't have the max panic that German industry has. When we have excess generation we can hurl it into cars and export it for cash and credits to neighbours. The actual issue is when we don't have an excess but a shortfall but then we have absolutely buckets of nat gas to fall back on. Hence why we are investing in projects to scrub the exhaust better from gas fired power stations.
And there lies a truly interesting potential for green hydrogen when produced locally so no storage or transport is required. Of you can collect the CO2 from the initial combustion you can catalysenot with hydrogen to form methane again. Ergo, your gas fired station keeps recycling the same carbon atom again and again with it never being released and the excess can be converted to methanol and pumped into the gas well for permanent sequestering, or as methane to be stored and taken out later etc.
The U.K. is on a completely different energy path to a country like Germany. We have an abundance of about the cleanest fossil fuel, we don't have legacy 20th century industry to move to net zero, we have an enormous shallow coastline and an island that juts out into the eastern side of the Atlantic, we have an even population distribution over a short distance and can easily electrify. This isn't to say that it is going to be easy but that it's going to be completely different.
DMZ said:
Italy is also saying no to the ban. And Poland. Tbh it was never going to fly. The UK can still ban ICE of course but I suspect there will shortly be shuffling of feet and some carbon neutral mumbo jumbo.
Both Germany and Italy tried and failed to get the ICE ban (or 100% reduction of CO2) reduced to 90%. They succeeded in getting a non-binding request to look at e-fuels, but it's non-binding and they have to prove it's as good on CO2 as a BEV (which they won't) and that it won't impact other industries decarbonisation efforts which they can't. It's over.DMZ said:
Italy is also saying no to the ban. And Poland. Tbh it was never going to fly. The UK can still ban ICE of course but I suspect there will shortly be shuffling of feet and some carbon neutral mumbo jumbo.
I've always held the view that in the U.K. we know 2035 may need to slip. If you can't keep the base workforce sufficiently mobile you cannot support GDP so if we get towards 2035 and it becomes apparent that this will be an issue then we will simply tweak things to extend the sale of certain ICE cars. For example, at the 2030 hybrid only switch we could decide to also extend the sale of very basic and small ICE vehicles. Think the cheapest 1L petrol cars but nothing else. I don't think there would be a total lifting of the end of ICE, merely the most affordable and frugal being permitted to as to not impact social and economic mobility. I also suspect that there could be a deeper divide between the devolved governments as nations such as Wales and Scotland are set hard on anti ICE policies but have populations most exposed to the economic risks of reduced mobility.
But again, this 2035 issue highlights a manifest structural difference between the U.K. as a whole and the EU. In the U.K. we basically import all our personal transport needs. This means that we are not at the same risk of economic shock from a section of society momentarily stopping buying new cars which is likely to happen for a period of years in the run up and on the other side of the 2035 ban. It's not good for VAT receipts but in the EU there are serious risks because of the enormous size of the French and German car industries, their increasing struggles to compete against Asia, their rising net zero costs and the fact the their largest single market is their domestic EU market which when you look at the bulk of the 26 nations almost none will be ready for mass electrification of their transport infrastructure by 2035 which means new car sales will plummet and the European car manufacturers simply don't have the balance sheets to survive any kind of multi year prolonged drop in sales volumes.
One can pick pretty much any of the smaller EU nations and see quite quickly that their geography, pop densities and infrastructures just aren't close to being able to handle 2035 by any means other than a large fall in new car purchases as significant numbers of the population have to keep hold of ICE.
The issues some worry about in the U.K. pale into insignificance when contrasted to those of key EU member states.
From a purely mercenary perspective, the U.K. has been handed a massive potential competitive advantage by the EU with their 2035 and 2050 rulings and frankly we should continue to leap at these gifts. 2035 has become a reason to celebrate the demise of the British car industry and 2050 has become a reason to celebrate the grimness of the 80s and 90s and the near end of 20th century industry in the U.K. that. Just like our miserable weather and being a small island stuck offshore is being turned into something to celebrate. In relative terms to our immediate economic competitors we've been handed a monumental gift.
D4rez said:
DMZ said:
Italy is also saying no to the ban. And Poland. Tbh it was never going to fly. The UK can still ban ICE of course but I suspect there will shortly be shuffling of feet and some carbon neutral mumbo jumbo.
Both Germany and Italy tried and failed to get the ICE ban (or 100% reduction of CO2) reduced to 90%. They succeeded in getting a non-binding request to look at e-fuels, but it's non-binding and they have to prove it's as good on CO2 as a BEV (which they won't) and that it won't impact other industries decarbonisation efforts which they can't. It's over.Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff