Carbon neutral fuel is not far off

[Focused]

This could be very interesting for petrol-heads...


https://forecourttrader.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/a...

[otolith]

The end to end efficiency of making hydrogen, making it into synthetic fuel, then burning it in an engine must be appalling.

[CrossMember]

It was not far off 20 years ago when I first head of it. It's still not far off. In another 20 years it will still be not far off.

In 20 years, Elon has backed batteries, and nobody with even half his resources has backed anything else. So, VHS beats Betamax, regardless of the merits of the each solution.

I think Solid state batteries will be the next step change, and after that we'll have 1000 mile range and we'll stop looking for alternatives.

[CrossMember]

otolith said:

The end to end efficiency of making hydrogen, making it into synthetic fuel, then burning it in an engine must be appalling.

Doesn't matter. The efficiency of the components (CO2 scrubbers etc) will only improve, and the idea is that all the electricity put into the system is renewable and limitless. Efficiency isn't the aim, cleanliness is. And it also solves the storage issue in a more energy-dense way than a current Tesla battery. And you can fill your tank just like petrol, instead of charging for hours.

It's technically possible, and that has been known for a long time. It's done in labs every day. But that doesn't mean it will succeed as a viable scaled-up solution with lots of investor backing. If it was going it, it would have succeeded by now.

Battery tech is getting the investment, so I think that's what we'll end up with.

[otolith]

It doesn’t matter, because we have so much clean carbon neutral energy that we can afford to waste most of it?

[Hugh Jarse]

I came to the same conclusion fifteen years ago (many others said the same much earlier) www.aerohydrogen.com then designed various duberries to produce the hydrogen www.aerogeni.com and have struggled to find funding as applications are so complex. Cannot see how batteries can be used in aircraft or shipping, but reckon the above posters comments is about right, that batteries have enough range now and charging speed to make car fuel unnecessary. However you can can make a good case for small hydrogen engine range extender plus small battery as the best compromise www.mulecell.com

[CrossMember]

otolith said:

It doesn’t matter, because we have so much clean carbon neutral energy that we can afford to waste most of it?

We already waste 99.999999999% of it.

By failing to capture it in the first place. So, no, it really doesn't matter.

I'm being a bit flippant to make my point. Yes, we could argue all day about the definition of "waste".

[otolith]

Sure. Well, let's get ten times the generating capacity we need to run cars on batteries in place and then think about it.

[rxe]

otolith said:

It doesn’t matter, because we have so much clean carbon neutral energy that we can afford to waste most of it?

The point is about storage of energy, rather than efficiency. Hydrocarbons are an absurdly efficient and dense store of energy - better than any battery we can dream of.

We have the technology to turn sunlight into energy today. About 45,000 square miles of solar panels on the equator (say, in the sahara) could deliver the ENTIRE global energy demand, even at 10% efficiency. Sounds like a lot of solar panels, but it is only 350 miles by 350 miles. Perfectly within the realms of possibility. (It’s on a similar scale to the level of Chinese city building over the last 10 years....)

However, that simply produces an absolute shed load of unusable electricity where you don’t need it. Tie this into hydrogen generation and synthetic fuel creation, and you have (say) 50% of global energy demand, as hydrocarbons, perfectly renewable.

[xjay1337]

CrossMember said:

It was not far off 20 years ago when I first head of it. It's still not far off. In another 20 years it will still be not far off.

In 20 years, Elon has backed batteries, and nobody with even half his resources has backed anything else. So, VHS beats Betamax, regardless of the merits of the each solution.

I think Solid state batteries will be the next step change, and after that we'll have 1000 mile range and we'll stop looking for alternatives.

But will that really be affordable to most people who spend maybe £12-£15k on a car?
Doubt it.........

Until there is a method of being able to drive for approx 300-400 miles, being able to fully refuel in 10 minutes tops, Electric cars will always be a minority, or used as secondary cars in and around town (for which they are fantastic).

Imagine the queues at the "pumps" when you need to recharge your batteries..... because of course, there is never going to be the infrastructure to allow every single parking spot at your work to charge your car.

[springfan62]

xjay1337 said:

But will that really be affordable to most people who spend maybe £12-£15k on a car?
Doubt it.........

Until there is a method of being able to drive for approx 300-400 miles, being able to fully refuel in 10 minutes tops, Electric cars will always be a minority, or used as secondary cars in and around town (for which they are fantastic).

Imagine the queues at the "pumps" when you need to recharge your batteries..... because of course, there is never going to be the infrastructure to allow every single parking spot at your work to charge your car.

Tesla v3 superchargers can already charge at 250kWh which is 1000 miles, so a 15 minute charge can give you 250 miles.
Faster charging also means less waiting for availability and also with most people home charging visiting a supercharger is only needed on long journeys.

[Hoofy]

xjay1337 said:

CrossMember said:

It was not far off 20 years ago when I first head of it. It's still not far off. In another 20 years it will still be not far off.

In 20 years, Elon has backed batteries, and nobody with even half his resources has backed anything else. So, VHS beats Betamax, regardless of the merits of the each solution.

I think Solid state batteries will be the next step change, and after that we'll have 1000 mile range and we'll stop looking for alternatives.

But will that really be affordable to most people who spend maybe £12-£15k on a car?
Doubt it.........

Until there is a method of being able to drive for approx 300-400 miles, being able to fully refuel in 10 minutes tops, Electric cars will always be a minority, or used as secondary cars in and around town (for which they are fantastic).

Imagine the queues at the "pumps" when you need to recharge your batteries..... because of course, there is never going to be the infrastructure to allow every single parking spot at your work to charge your car.

And there are plenty of people who will only have a budget of £2-3k tops. By the time EVs trickle down to that pricepoint, you will probably need to factor in £1-5k to replace a battery that's about to die.

Agree on the ease of refuelling, too, especially if you live in a flat with no parking.

I do like the PHEV concept, though. Ability to charge when convenient to you but otherwise relies on petrol.

[CrossMember]

xjay1337 said:

But will that really be affordable to most people who spend maybe £12-£15k on a car?
Doubt it.........

Until there is a method of being able to drive for approx 300-400 miles, being able to fully refuel in 10 minutes tops, Electric cars will always be a minority, or used as secondary cars in and around town (for which they are fantastic).

Imagine the queues at the "pumps" when you need to recharge your batteries..... because of course, there is never going to be the infrastructure to allow every single parking spot at your work to charge your car.

25 years ago I couldn't afford a mobile phone.

[otolith]

rxe said:

otolith said:

It doesn’t matter, because we have so much clean carbon neutral energy that we can afford to waste most of it?

The point is about storage of energy, rather than efficiency. Hydrocarbons are an absurdly efficient and dense store of energy - better than any battery we can dream of.

We have the technology to turn sunlight into energy today. About 45,000 square miles of solar panels on the equator (say, in the sahara) could deliver the ENTIRE global energy demand, even at 10% efficiency. Sounds like a lot of solar panels, but it is only 350 miles by 350 miles. Perfectly within the realms of possibility. (It’s on a similar scale to the level of Chinese city building over the last 10 years....)

However, that simply produces an absolute shed load of unusable electricity where you don’t need it. Tie this into hydrogen generation and synthetic fuel creation, and you have (say) 50% of global energy demand, as hydrocarbons, perfectly renewable.

Or, we could use a fraction of that generating capacity by spreading the generation geographically and across solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal and nuclear and not wasting 90% of it by using a horribly inefficient storage mechanism? Hydrocarbons are fantastically energy dense, but the process of getting energy in and out of them (especially if you are thinking of burning them in engines) is far from efficient.

[Chris32345]

otolith said:

Or, we could use a fraction of that generating capacity by spreading the generation geographically and across solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal and nuclear and not wasting 90% of it by using a horribly inefficient storage mechanism? Hydrocarbons are fantastically energy dense, but the process of getting energy in and out of them (especially if you are thinking of burning them in engines) is far from efficient.

And what do you suggest battery' for that volume?
Doubt with have enough lead lithium ect to make even half that level of battery storage

[xjay1337]

CrossMember said:

xjay1337 said:

But will that really be affordable to most people who spend maybe £12-£15k on a car?
Doubt it.........

Until there is a method of being able to drive for approx 300-400 miles, being able to fully refuel in 10 minutes tops, Electric cars will always be a minority, or used as secondary cars in and around town (for which they are fantastic).

Imagine the queues at the "pumps" when you need to recharge your batteries..... because of course, there is never going to be the infrastructure to allow every single parking spot at your work to charge your car.

25 years ago I couldn't afford a mobile phone.

What's your point?

[otolith]

Chris32345 said:

otolith said:

Or, we could use a fraction of that generating capacity by spreading the generation geographically and across solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal and nuclear and not wasting 90% of it by using a horribly inefficient storage mechanism? Hydrocarbons are fantastically energy dense, but the process of getting energy in and out of them (especially if you are thinking of burning them in engines) is far from efficient.

And what do you suggest battery' for that volume?
Doubt with have enough lead lithium ect to make even half that level of battery storage

The point is that if you spread it geographically and diversify the generation, you don't need to store it - or at least not to the same extent.

[rxe]

otolith said:

The point is that if you spread it geographically and diversify the generation, you don't need to store it - or at least not to the same extent.

Doesn't matter if you diversify it and spread it - you need to store energy that you don't want to use "right now".

You want solar panels on the equator - you get far greater efficiency. Sticking panels on roofs in the UK may be good for our credentials. but they'd generate between 40 - 100% more energy for most of the year in the Sahara.

So you need a temporal and physical shift of the energy - and that means some storage capability.

[otolith]

rxe said:

otolith said:

The point is that if you spread it geographically and diversify the generation, you don't need to store it - or at least not to the same extent.

Doesn't matter if you diversify it and spread it - you need to store energy that you don't want to use "right now".

You want solar panels on the equator - you get far greater efficiency. Sticking panels on roofs in the UK may be good for our credentials. but they'd generate between 40 - 100% more energy for most of the year in the Sahara.

So you need a temporal and physical shift of the energy - and that means some storage capability.

What's the point if storing and transporting it makes it less efficient?

[Flumpo]

rxe said:

otolith said:

The point is that if you spread it geographically and diversify the generation, you don't need to store it - or at least not to the same extent.

Doesn't matter if you diversify it and spread it - you need to store energy that you don't want to use "right now".

You want solar panels on the equator - you get far greater efficiency. Sticking panels on roofs in the UK may be good for our credentials. but they'd generate between 40 - 100% more energy for most of the year in the Sahara.

So you need a temporal and physical shift of the energy - and that means some storage capability.

A few years ago I saw an interesting experiment that was being done in the USA. I think it was in Nevada. Solar powered trains (can’t think of a better word) went up a steep incline powered by the sun up to the top. When you wanted energy they tipped over the crest to a vertical drop and through a dynamo they created energy.

Obviously that’s probably not feasible large scale. But maybe wind or solar could power something which could then have its energy converted into something else. Could you use wind to pump water into a lake then open a dam when you need the power.