Batteries are not the Solution, Synthetic Fuels maybe
Discussion
Porsche have the right idea I think.- synthetic fuel to replace petrol.
I am not against EVs, I understand the advantages of electric motors- reliability, quietness, cleanliness, no emissions (at the exhaust). However the batteries are years away.
Batteries are heavy, nasty to make, need replacing every 8 years, take ages to charge and give limited range (210 miles in my experience of 140,000 miles of Tesla driving). Battery powered cars are OK, if you dont want to go anywhere!
So why not use the electricity to energetically force a chemical reaction to produce synthetic fuel, store the energy in the fuel then pump it like "gas" using conventional technology? Just like- going to the petrol station. This would be done in factories like existing refineries.
My reasoning- based on my own EV experience-
To travel 210 miles, you need an 85 kWh Tesla battery weighing 540 kg. The same amount of petrol/diesel in a 40 mpg car weighs 20.2kg (5.25 UK gallons). Both vehicles require 270 MJ of energy to achieve this range.
So you are carrying around half a tonne of extra weight in the electric battery car over the ICE to achieve the same range.
This extra weight is bad for roads, tires, handling, brakes and general driving pleasure. Manufactures can hide the weight a bit with suspension design and electronics but I ran out of counting how many tyres and suspension components I have been through on the MS's.
Charging at the Tesla Superchargers will take you at least 45 minutes to get back up to 80%. Tesla have the best charging network by far compared to the other manufacturers. I dread to think what it must be like for these owners in the real world trying to actually do a longer distance in a day.
You get none of these issues with an ICE car (Obvious).
If it is possible to create a synthetic fuel like petrol or diesel using the energy from electricity through renewable sources, then surely that is the solution?
The distribution infrastructure for liquids is already in place and we can run our existing cars easily to run of the new fuel with nothing but steam coming out of the exhaust. We would not then be dependent on Fossil Fuels.
What am I missing? Why are politicians running headlong into EV friendly policies and not considering the alternatives?
Can't Elon Musk just sort this out, like he does everything else?
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-e...
I am not against EVs, I understand the advantages of electric motors- reliability, quietness, cleanliness, no emissions (at the exhaust). However the batteries are years away.
Batteries are heavy, nasty to make, need replacing every 8 years, take ages to charge and give limited range (210 miles in my experience of 140,000 miles of Tesla driving). Battery powered cars are OK, if you dont want to go anywhere!
So why not use the electricity to energetically force a chemical reaction to produce synthetic fuel, store the energy in the fuel then pump it like "gas" using conventional technology? Just like- going to the petrol station. This would be done in factories like existing refineries.
My reasoning- based on my own EV experience-
To travel 210 miles, you need an 85 kWh Tesla battery weighing 540 kg. The same amount of petrol/diesel in a 40 mpg car weighs 20.2kg (5.25 UK gallons). Both vehicles require 270 MJ of energy to achieve this range.
So you are carrying around half a tonne of extra weight in the electric battery car over the ICE to achieve the same range.
This extra weight is bad for roads, tires, handling, brakes and general driving pleasure. Manufactures can hide the weight a bit with suspension design and electronics but I ran out of counting how many tyres and suspension components I have been through on the MS's.
Charging at the Tesla Superchargers will take you at least 45 minutes to get back up to 80%. Tesla have the best charging network by far compared to the other manufacturers. I dread to think what it must be like for these owners in the real world trying to actually do a longer distance in a day.
You get none of these issues with an ICE car (Obvious).
If it is possible to create a synthetic fuel like petrol or diesel using the energy from electricity through renewable sources, then surely that is the solution?
The distribution infrastructure for liquids is already in place and we can run our existing cars easily to run of the new fuel with nothing but steam coming out of the exhaust. We would not then be dependent on Fossil Fuels.
What am I missing? Why are politicians running headlong into EV friendly policies and not considering the alternatives?
Can't Elon Musk just sort this out, like he does everything else?
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-e...
OK,
So in summary then,
Pumping 5.5kg of readily available, energy dense liquid into a car, in a couple of minutes is preferable to carrying around 1/2 a ton of batteries that require an hour to charge en route when depleted, as far as the driver is concerned (my original statement).
The general consensus is that any synthetic liquid that could replace the equivalent 5.5l of petrol would have to contain carbon (through the use of CO2). A non-carbon based "energy liquid" does not exist.
Burning any carbon based fuel is bad for the environment.
Wherever the carbon comes from, it takes bucket loads of electricity to synthesis petrol from it as over 90% of this input energy is lost by the time the wheels of the car are turning.
This energy loss doesn't matter, when the energy source is the Sun, as we receive an almost infinite amount of radiation on a daily basis. However we are not geared up to make use of it in sufficient quantities to replace the 50bn liters of fossil fuel used in vehicles regularly.
As a rule most of us dont actually care as long as the fossil fuel is readily available as evidenced by ICE car sales. Elon Musk understands this point which is why he has focused so hard giving his cars USP's such as acceleration, gull-wing doors, in built arcade games and fart control.
So, are we absolutely sure a non-carbon based petrol replacing liquid is pure fantasy?
So in summary then,
Pumping 5.5kg of readily available, energy dense liquid into a car, in a couple of minutes is preferable to carrying around 1/2 a ton of batteries that require an hour to charge en route when depleted, as far as the driver is concerned (my original statement).
The general consensus is that any synthetic liquid that could replace the equivalent 5.5l of petrol would have to contain carbon (through the use of CO2). A non-carbon based "energy liquid" does not exist.
Burning any carbon based fuel is bad for the environment.
Wherever the carbon comes from, it takes bucket loads of electricity to synthesis petrol from it as over 90% of this input energy is lost by the time the wheels of the car are turning.
This energy loss doesn't matter, when the energy source is the Sun, as we receive an almost infinite amount of radiation on a daily basis. However we are not geared up to make use of it in sufficient quantities to replace the 50bn liters of fossil fuel used in vehicles regularly.
As a rule most of us dont actually care as long as the fossil fuel is readily available as evidenced by ICE car sales. Elon Musk understands this point which is why he has focused so hard giving his cars USP's such as acceleration, gull-wing doors, in built arcade games and fart control.
So, are we absolutely sure a non-carbon based petrol replacing liquid is pure fantasy?
AW111 said:
Your numbers are a bit off - 5.5 kg petrol equivalent battery is nowhere near 1/2 ton.
Anyway - the non-carbon petrol equivalent is ammonia (NH3), which combines with oxygen to give nitrogen + water
IIRC it's
4 NH3 + 3 O2 -> 2 N2 + 6 H2O
(Be careful with combustion temperature - you don't want to produce NOx).
The problem for urban cars is that you waste energy every time you brake, while EV's recover most of that energy: this doesn't apply to ships, aircraft and long-haul transport, which is where synfuels have their niche.
You are correct. it 20kg of petrol will provide approximately the equivalent range as a 1/2 tonne battery in an EV.Anyway - the non-carbon petrol equivalent is ammonia (NH3), which combines with oxygen to give nitrogen + water
IIRC it's
4 NH3 + 3 O2 -> 2 N2 + 6 H2O
(Be careful with combustion temperature - you don't want to produce NOx).
The problem for urban cars is that you waste energy every time you brake, while EV's recover most of that energy: this doesn't apply to ships, aircraft and long-haul transport, which is where synfuels have their niche.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff