The Big Problem With Synthetic Fuels
Переглядів 418,923
2 роки томуCan synthetic fuels save combustion engines for the future? eFuel explained.
Subscribe to Engineering Explained for more videos! - goo.gl/VZstk7
Recommended Books & Car Products - amzn.to/2BrekJm
EE Shirts! - bit.ly/2BHsiuo
As the automotive industry seeks out cleaner transportation, synthetic fuels (carbon neutral efuels) show a promising environmental benefit. Could synthetic fuels replace the need for electric cars and keep the combustion engine alive for future generations? This video will analyze carbon neutral synthetic fuels, discuss energy storage and the challenges of renewable energy, explain the process of how various (electric, hydrogen, combustion) energy sources power vehicles, and ultimately calculate the efficiency and costs associated with synthetic fuels vs conventional gasoline or electric cars. While eFuels do seem promising for certain sectors, some drawbacks will likely prevent mass adoption within the passenger car market.
Related Videos:
Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? • Are Electric Cars Wors...
Plug-In vs EV - • Is A Toyota SUV "Green...
Are Teslas Better For The Environment? • Are Teslas Actually Be...
What Happens To EV Batteries? • What Really Happens To...
Related Links/Sources:
SAE eFuel Efficiency - www.sae.org/publications/tech...
eDiesel Efficiency - www.sciencedirect.com/science...
AVL Energy Presentation - www.avl.com/documents/4053291...
Royal Society Briefing - royalsociety.org/-/media/poli...
Energy Density - afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publi...
Engineering Explained is a participant in the Amazon Influencer Program.
Don't forget to check out my other pages below!
Instagram: / engineeringexplained
Facebook: / engineeringexplained
Twitter: / jasonfenske13
EE Extra: / @engineeringexplainede...
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
**Addressing Frequent Comments!** 1). *“I’m already paying $2/L.”* Porsche is at $10/L, and hoping to get it down to $2/L. That’s cost. Add in your local tax, and that number goes up. A big part of why fuel is more expensive in Europe vs the US is that it is taxed significantly higher in Europe. Additional edit: EV owners pay road taxes as well - it's incorporated into higher registration fees (you're not tax exempt simply because your transportation could be carbon neutral). 2). *“I’m an EV shill.”* Haha okay. I still love my supercharged Miata, and despite how slow it is, my Crosstrek as well. It’s possible to like both combustion cars and EVs, and also acknowledge the shortcomings of each. I like burnouts. I fly frequently for work. The Jaguar F-Type SVR’s exhaust is a sound worth hearing. I’m not good for the planet. None of this changes the information presented in this video. 3). Not one compliment on those tree drawings?! C'mon. Those are some nice trees.
@justinlynch6691 2 роки тому
I see no reason to excessively tax this fuel source if it captures its carbon from the atmosphere and gets its energy from atmospherically cleaner sources like nuclear or renewables. People are already paying the energy premium to create it.
@hellsing56666 2 роки тому
@@justinlynch6691 it's not taxed because of co2, but to earn money. So why should it be less taxed? For me, we will shift from a energy taxation, to a kilometric taxation, maybe via assurance fee. So in that case maybe clean fuel will be less taxed.
@xeternallegendx 2 роки тому
A major factor regarding energy cost could be timing though in the future. One issue of renewable energies is that it is far less controllable when/how much is produced on a short time-scale. For example, solar power is only generated during the day, whereas a lot of EV charging is happening at night, so the consumption and production of power doesn't line up. With 100% renewable energy, there needs to be a capacity a lot higher than the actual use to compensate for these fluctuations, which means that there will be overproduction at times (too much power produced, potentially overloading the power grid). In that situation, the "cost" of energy could go down significantly when excess power can be burned through production of synthetic fuels. Currently, as far as I'm aware, this modulation is done through coal plants primarily (in germany at least), which are no longer going to be an option in the future, obviously. Assuming potentially negligible costs for the electric power itself, couldn't the cost for synthetic fuels become very competitive in thsi scenario (and a realistic way of eliminating emissions for the billion+ combustion engines still in use)?
@NikoBellaKhouf 2 роки тому
@@justinlynch6691 exactly right
@ODST_Republic 2 роки тому
I'm just gonna miss the sound of my car, evs are nice, but its not the same feeling as a combustion engine.
@olik136 2 роки тому
I wasn't thinking that synthetic fuel will replace electric cars- I was hoping that it will be an affordable fuel for classic cars in the future when normal everyday transportation is based on electric engines and batteries.
@andrewpaulhart 2 роки тому
IMO Not enough classic car enthusiasts to make it worthwhile from a saving the planet standpoint.
@I_Am_Lt_Surge 2 роки тому
The way I see it, the best way to preserve classic cars is as their engines finally kick the bucket, replace the power train with electric motors. I dislike it as much as the next guy, but to preserve history as best as possible, and to recycle efficiently, this is the best option I can see. But as long as privately made fuel like Ignite exsists, combustion engines will live on.
@paulkhayet4589 2 роки тому
@@andrewpaulhart I mean it already exists, they are just going to have to pay like $12/gallon to run those cars
@STho205 2 роки тому
No portable energy store is cheaper to produce than poking a hole in the ground and heating the goo with taps on the evaporator column for diesel, kero, gasoline and nat gas. That's why there is so much PR, hysteria and government spin to make you switch to a harder to produce and more expensive portable energy store.
@MikeR65 2 роки тому
Electric cars are bad for the environment. It’s just a different way than gas engines.
@private3146 2 роки тому
Porsche is gonna make that synthetic fuel.
@ZDY66666 2 роки тому
faith in porsche, fingers crossed
@a-g2153 2 роки тому
@@ZDY66666 same man, i want to have a v8 :(
@magical5181 2 роки тому
Porsche respects the community so much, they NEVER want to make the 911 electric. I have faith in Porsche, the guys working there are 10 times smarter than this guy in the video, no offense. And they work as a team
@vladimirchervenkov6949 2 роки тому
@@magical5181 I noticed some missing pieces from his explanations. In Porsche we trust.
@magical5181 2 роки тому
@@vladimirchervenkov6949 Porsche all the way
@JohnLee-db9zt 2 роки тому
For car enthusiasts who still love their ICE sports cars, eFuel is still the best option to stay carbon neutral. I’m sure if the price of eFuel can be brought down to 2x the cost of fossil fuels, many car enthusiasts would buy eFuel over fossil fuel. I would. Cool thing about eFuel is that it doesn’t contain those nasty chemicals like benzene and toluene that are known carcinogens.
@iHelpSolveIt Рік тому
No its not😂. If its small enough to be part of the car, then yes. Never have to fillup.😅
@rientsdijkstra4266 Рік тому
That may be a solution for a small number of specialty cars owned by rich people who want to keep their rare historic cars alive and take it for a rare and expensive trip in the weekend. But that is of no practical importance for 99.9% of dailty drives of people who use a car to get to their work or do practical things in an economic way.
@sigmamale4147 11 місяців тому
No one's buying essentially the same thing for twice the price lol
@coliimusic 7 місяців тому
@@rientsdijkstra4266Cars in general will become much more cost prohibitive in the future so why worry to that degree about expense if you can already afford owning one?
@rientsdijkstra4266 7 місяців тому
@@coliimusic It is not practically feasible for the mass market.
@Newtoschool 2 роки тому
I literally just wrote a 15 page paper on this 😂 you couldn't have made this video 3 weeks sooner
@NicholasHoward 2 роки тому
😅
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
What's my grade haha?
@davidscott5903 2 роки тому
I feel your pain.
@gogox98 2 роки тому
Out of curiosity, could we see it? Like is it public?
@joachimsingh2929 2 роки тому
Many publications aka reviews of studies or studies or comprehensive publications are behind a paywall. Maybe it was just for school and not a public paper.
@EmmaCross94 2 роки тому
YOU HAVE SHATTERED MY DREAMS BUT YOU WILL NOT WEAKEN MY RESOLVE
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
Honestly the research had me pretty distraught. Time to get a couple redlines on the Miata!
@yanzi1957 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained 😂😂😂😕😕
@ritdhar6579 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained Hope that Research makes them better
@familyriess4184 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained Those who only focus on climate change would have us place our attention solely on carbon emissions. But even if synthetic fuels were cheaper and more energy efficient, why would we want to burn them, resulting in putting tons of other pollutants into the air?
@BenMitro 2 роки тому
@@familyriess4184 You mean like oxides of nitrogen etc.? Good point, though I imagine ozone emitted from high voltage power lines and other sources of pollutants from renewable sources, grid and usage will also become a problem when the scale of electricity use increases to replace fossil fuels. Also, one would hope that synthetic fuels will be engineered to reduce/eliminate such pollutants, by reducing/controlling combustion temperatures (if this is at all possible).
@2manycarsjeff 2 роки тому
Despite the energy efficiency disadvantage of synthetic fuels, the global distribution network for liquid fuel is already in place. The infrastructure needed to match current ICE vehicle use with electric or hydrogen power blows the efficiency equation out of the water from a practical standpoint. It would take decades and trillions of dollars to get even close.
@electric7487 2 роки тому
Well said.
@CourtneyCoulson 2 роки тому
Came here to say the same thing, while it is interesting to see the pure stats, it disregards real world factors. It's much more environmentally friendly to use an alternative fuel in existing vehicles instead of scrapping billions of cars to start all over again. Synthetic fuels are the most logical progression from where we are now.
@electric7487 2 роки тому
@@CourtneyCoulson Statistics and real-world factors also completely disregard politicians', tree huggers', and EV fanboiis' agendas. These gas and Diesel car bans that are being pushed all over the world are nothing but empty virtue signalling, as they are designed to look "green" but cause a lot more problems than they solve.
@mixrable1212 2 роки тому
They're also forgetting the fact that some of the richest people in the world are in the oil industry and would not like to see their market share being threatened by electric cars and buses and planes. If e fuels can become viable enough, which I think they will, you can bet your ass that every oil company would jump on it and market and sell it to the world, making it a hell of a lot cheaper than possibly even conventional fuel. Imagine a person living in the third world seeing this option of buying a cheaper fuel for their car that doesn't require them to buy an electric vehicle and can simply just use their regular car AND the added benefit of the fuel being green. Instant sell.
@marcossonicracer 2 роки тому
infrastructure will change pretty quick when politics gets into this mix. we built the petrol stations over time, and i guarantee we will build electric stations too overtime. it is just a matter of adoption. and when there is mandates in place, the adoption will be very quick.
@SierraKilo76 2 роки тому
e-fuels are just being invented. So most likely we will see a reduction in price. On the other hand, the infrastructure for those fuels is up and running. Calculate the expenses for hydro and the gap will be different. And efuels (even in a mix with traditional fuels) could help make the transition smoother for those who are not able to buy a new car right now - or live somewhere where they need better infrastructure for charging (public charging stations and/ or cables to their neighborhood / house to charge there).
@JakobusVdL 2 роки тому
According to the information in the video, unless the efficency of producing e-fuels changes by more than an order of magnitude, the cost of efuels stays much higher than for battery ev's..
@electric7487 2 роки тому
@@JakobusVdL Or, if more companies jump in to the eFuel game. And once we get more of our power from nuclear energy. Those will help the costs go down imnensely as well.
@JakobusVdL 2 роки тому
@@electric7487Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but I think the point of the video is that the amount of energy in producing e-fuel is many tiimes higher than using it to charge ev batteries. So if the price of the input energy goes down, the price of both will reduce proportionately to the energy price.
@Glenhh 2 роки тому
Makes no sense, BEVs will still be cheaper because they can use that energy to drive instead if using it to make a fuel and burn it. Way less efficient.
@electric7487 2 роки тому
@@Glenhh At this point, practicality completely annihilates the efficiency argument because the infrastructure for liquid fuels is already in place whereas for EV's it's tiny in comparison.
@BlackPanthaa 2 роки тому
You had me until the end, at $2 a litre that would be literally better than a lot of fuel prices in the UK and these are diesel numbers. I imagine similar in Europe. $2 = £1.42 and current UK average per litre for petrol is £1.29 diesel £1.31. £1.70 being highest as of current costs which is no higher than average right now. But in general the argument in the UK is that most people live in 'town houses' with no owned parking or driveway, it's illegal to run a cable across a footpath. Others in apartments which will inflate flat prices so much to install electric chargers which it's already a good £300k for a London flat with no parking as is. Synthetic fuel is likely to have a place here.
@oldcountryman2795 2 роки тому
Nobody cares about the problems that you Brits have created for yourselves through ridiculous over-regulation. You put onerous taxes on your fuel, refuse to build refineries and then cry about the cost of “petrol”.
@BlackPanthaa 2 роки тому
@@oldcountryman2795 nah it's all of Europe and honestly the rest of the world that's similar. You guys are the odd ones out
@car_ventures 2 роки тому
Agree, most homes don't have the ability to charge a vehicle. People need to come to terms with both ICE and EV existing in the long term. The synthetic prices are cheaper than some places I've seen, especially motorway services. A good amount of people don't care what fuels their transportation, so there's certainly space for EVs to increase in their presence but a complete switch is unwise. There's also the issue around people having freedom of choice etc.
@iandavis8725 2 роки тому
That $2/L is before any costs are added on though such as vat, profit for the company producing it/station profit per litre, fuel tax etc. Probably heading towards $3-$3.50 easily before you actually get to purchase a litre making it roughly £2.50 per litre.
@tedferkin 2 роки тому
@@oldcountryman2795 The issue is nothing to do with lack of supply. I think over 80% of the cost of diesel and petrol is fuel duties, which you do start your arguement with. However, our road system is free to use and the cost is born out of those fuel duties, plus some car ownership duty.
@jb1555 2 роки тому
Fifteen straight minutes of whiteboard: today was a good day!
@nakre15 2 роки тому
The reason i like the idea of syntetic fuels, is that you can use, most of the same infrastructure. And when i comes to costs and not building more on behalf of nature itself. I vote for this!.
@MightyJabroni 2 роки тому
Exactly. It scales much better. And it has an intrinsic advantage. Hydrogen and carbon dioxide will always be available. The core ressources required for it are basically infinite.
@CAPHENIA 2 роки тому
So true!
@ronalddolman2654 Рік тому
And therein lies the problem. We like to believe that that infrastructure is already in place and paid for. But the reality is that that infrastructure requires continuous maintenance, adaptation and renewal and therefore has to be paid over and over again. So the question is, would you be willing to pay to maintain an infrastructure for a fuel that is only marginally better but ten times more expensive? Or would you rather spend that money on a new infrastructure for a fuel that is ten times more efficient at a fraction of the cost?
@thatguyalex2835 Рік тому
@@MightyJabroni Plus, e-fuel can be used on older existing ICE cars when battery or solid-state electric becomes the norm in the future. E-kerosene can be used to power long range airplanes, while e-fuel could power ships. General aviation would benefit from synthetic avgas.
@_checkit Рік тому
Yea, we're not gonna talk about that part, just about the nasty parts!
@kiteboatbike 2 роки тому
Not sure if it's been mentioned in the comments already, but the synth-fuel ICE scenario still results in NOx and (I guess) particulates emissions that require scrubbing and filtering if we're to keep to the clean air targets, too.
@ME-cb1vw 2 роки тому
It's a burning process after all so yes nox, noise, particulates are still a problem.
@geomtol 2 роки тому
NOx and PM emissions from modern engines is incredibly low. In most areas it's a non-issue. In non-attainment areas like LA etc. it's obviously still an issue though, which is why CARB is still working hard to lower it further.
@electric7487 2 роки тому
@@geomtol The problem with California is that their draconian emissions regulations ARE NOT WORKING. They have the strictest environmental regulations in the US yet they have some of the most polluted cities in the US and those cities' pollution problems are only getting WORSE.
@HumbleMechanic 2 роки тому
EE videos are the only reason I know what day it is. Never change bro!
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
Haha I'm actually considering changing the post date. Oh, we'll all be off.
@robertschnobert9090 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained you're awesome! 🌈
@holden2260 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained what do you think of lithium and other battery materials running out by 2030?
@cryptohouse1676 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained I think you made a mistake in your assumptions. I am pretty sure synfuel companies will locate in regions of Earth with the absolute lowest cost of renewable energy. That cost is going to be much lower than what we pay to charge at home (and especially what we pay at rapid chargers). The average cost per kWh in the USA is about $0.13. Hydroelectricity in certain parts of the world is less than $0.05 per kWh. Wind is lower than $0.02/kWh in some places. That cost is going to go down even more, since it is controlled by flexible companies that can locate anywhere in the world and wind + solar is only going to become cheaper from here on. I doubt household electricity prices in the USA are going to match that price drop. Bottom line: Synfuel is going to be much cheaper than you expect, when it is scaled up. The low efficiency matters less than total cost and convenience. Battery prices will probably fall slower than we think from here. Because the higher demand for the materials to build these batteries will drive up prices.
@davidebattisti8991 2 роки тому
Nobody is talking about e-fuel being introduced in F1 next year, it could make things better for e-fuel because in F1 technologies are developed waaaaay faster than anywhere else.
@SohamBee 2 роки тому
But so is the case with electric vehicles, just look at the amount of development in the last 5 years.. at some point (maybe in 20years, maybe in 100years) F1 will adopt fully electric vehicles to be relevant to road vehicles
@JF-pf9hx 2 роки тому
An F1 team cannot use more than 100m a year on research. Meanwhile car companies are burning billions on battery research every year. I guess many problems described in this video would not be problems if we pour the same amount of money as we did on battery cars.
@AutoMotivate 2 роки тому
That is the exciting part
@AmaroqStarwind 2 роки тому
Synthetic fuels, super fuels, and a more efficient means of producing hydrogen would all be great things in my eyes.
@camcar1091 2 роки тому
Yes I agree! They will make efuel affordable
@bean420man 2 роки тому
My only concerns with electric cars is the batteries used, the charging network and how that works for people who don't own/rent a house, the range and the overall cost of the vehicle. Get those things figured out and I'm fully on board. Mainly, I would like something that can go much further than what we have now.
@fritzweserich4238 Рік тому
Thats the issue
@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 6 місяців тому
We are getting better with the range but the issue is that many that have the best range currently are ultra luxury models not meant for the masses. It’s getting closer but we aren’t quiet there yet, at least 3 more years and hopefully the batteries needed for the range will be lighter and smaller as it’s proven smaller lighter batteries are better for range for smaller cars
@RoyBoy2019 2 місяці тому
Govts are falling into the trap of requiring L2 charging in new condos / apartments etc. Thing is L1 slow charging covers most average daily driving needs, given cars are parked for ~12 hours on average. L1 does not require higher electrical service to the building and is a fraction of the L2 costs. If govts had the autonomy to pull back the $1.3 trillion of explicit fossil fuel subsidies, that could help a bit on the transition costs.
@illuminate4 12 днів тому
@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 yeah. Most EV's have started out being "affordable" but then the industry realized these are a really hot topic. Plus, there are stats that have shown that people with a higher income are more likely to care about the planet. put two and two together, and you have what we see now. Price jacked EV's with leather plastered interiors to justify the price because let's be honest, the main demographic that was going to buy these was people with deeper pockets.
@HazewinDog 2 роки тому
huh, I had no idea synthetic fuels were so cool. I have my doubts that we'll reach Porsche $2/l goal, but that would change everything. that's less than 30% more expensive than the current petrol price in Germany. I would gladly pay much more than that to keep driving ICE cars.
@cryptohouse1676 2 роки тому
The fuel will be produced in regions with the absolute cheapest renewable energy in the world. That energy is much cheaper than what we pay to charge our electric vehicles at home. On a large scale synthetic fuels will become much cheaper than what people expect.
@ps.2 2 роки тому
More to the point, it would allow you to keep flying on 787s and A350s. (Though it's possible those engines can be converted to use either H₂ or NH₃, which are probably easier/cheaper to produce than a full synthetic jet fuel.)
@aristotelisentertainment279 2 роки тому
Synthetic fuels won't replace electric cars but they can save expensive performance ice cars and racecars.
@alexjennings02 2 роки тому
That’s all we care about anyway
@_topikk_ 2 роки тому
It seems like electric cars are almost effortlessly faster than similar ICE vehicles though, and can be made even faster with advancements in battery tech coming down the pipeline allowing for lighter packs.
@Dagreatdudeman 2 роки тому
@@_topikk_ It's not about the speed. The noise is the reason to save ICEs
@aaravs524 2 роки тому
@@Dagreatdudeman same reason I dont want to see manuals die off,(maybe just an america problem idk) its just the fun nothing to do with speed
@davidscott5903 2 роки тому
@@aaravs524 AGREED! I love manual transmissions.
@nithishjvj8736 2 роки тому
It's better if Synthetic, Fossil, Hydrogen, PHEV, HEV, and EVs perform side by side rather than one replacing another
@vedantpatil7839 2 роки тому
Thats what i was thinking🤔
@peekaboo1575 2 роки тому
Freedom of choice hurts some people's pockets and ideologies.
@OCtheG 2 роки тому
@@peekaboo1575 Bingo ^
@lighteningbolt6397 2 роки тому
Don’t forget the steam engines!
@ericgosselin1947 2 роки тому
Totally agreed. Plus, hybrid vehicle and plug in hybrid are way to go until battery become really efficient.
@AlexEMF 2 роки тому
Engineering Explained by Jason is one of my favorite channels. I love the videos. Pretty useful and informative.
@hondantv6506 2 роки тому
you are missing hte steps untill the battery is able to store the energy vs. the tank is mainly just a box.
@anthonyromzek1121 2 роки тому
Looking at the title, I’m thinking this is a response to that Donut Media from a little while ago lol
@4R8YnTH3CH33F 2 роки тому
That video was so bad.
@STho205 2 роки тому
They all follow each other and repost their take on the same subject. Like rival networks producing The Munsters and the Addams Family.
@venkatsai5765 2 роки тому
true
@electric7487 2 роки тому
@@4R8YnTH3CH33F Yeah. They were way too casual and took a billion years to get to the point.
@hellsing56666 2 роки тому
Donut is more entertainment focused, EE more engineering focused.
@TomFewchuk 2 роки тому
I don't get how you can talk so fluently and coherently for 15mins straight without taking a breath! Excellent rundown
@sbeezynukka 2 роки тому
That’s what happens when you love to share knowledge on things! I’ve been told the same thing when explaining things to people!
@BenMitro 2 роки тому
@@sbeezynukka they are just being polite :)
@surferdude4487 2 роки тому
Perhaps he is an android.
@NdnaJnz7 2 роки тому
@@surferdude4487 Perhaps an android running on H2. It's only 15 mins, so he doesn't have to worry about storing it.
@BenMitro 2 роки тому
@@Sidowse I get that Simon, but that is true for every profession or trade. No one appreciates what goes on in the background to fix your plumbing, to repair your computer or to service the car.
@kevinkuriakose08 2 роки тому
I feel like for car guys a hybrid of ev and synthetic fuel is a perfect combo.
@ikebvrner 2 роки тому
Eww, wrong. Make gasoline leaded again.
@playgt326 2 роки тому
And hydrogen.
@ryanjonathanmartin3933 2 роки тому
@@ikebvrner we're doing far better than we did without. Please don't advocate for creating more problems.
@user-fo9lw3pq8l 2 роки тому
Hell yeah! Love that instant torque from Electric engines
@charlesrodriguez7984 Рік тому
@@ikebvrner you do know that lead is a poisonous metal right?
@nwbasson 2 роки тому
1. Should nuclear also be considered on par with renewable energy? 2. Even if lion batteries are improving, I don't think there is much more room to pack more energy in there, it will never get close to anything traditional fuel has unfortunately.
@kevinrusch3627 2 роки тому
I'd say that nukes should count, yes. They're not *renewable*, but given that there's about 10,000x as much fission fuel in the ground as there is carbon, I think that counts. Plus, for lack of a better term, "we know how to do it." Meaning "we haven't really figured out fusion, but we have figured out fission, and it's not dependent on 20 more years of invention."
@paperhouse6282 2 роки тому
There are still many opportunities to increase the energy density of the battery. Lithium Ion has an energy density of 250 watts/kg, solid state batteries 600 watts/kg, diamond batteries 1000 watts/kg. If using 75 kWh battery pack Lithium Ion = 300 kg with a range of 350 miles Solid state = 125 kg with a range of 400 miles Diamond battery = 75 kg with range above 500 miles With the same battery pack they have a big difference in range, that's because of the weigh reduction.
@innerpeacesoundscape 2 роки тому
"Hey bro, what fuel you runnin'?" "C whatever H whatever."
@PavelKostromitinov 2 роки тому
Actually it should be "C something H something", it's not that you can run on any CnHn
@nasonguy 2 роки тому
I’m runnin on C6H12O6. It’s pretty sweet.
@farikkun1841 2 роки тому
tell that to keto people haha
@maslak22 2 роки тому
@@nasonguy Try C2H5OH, it's strong ;-)
@nasonguy 2 роки тому
@@maslak22 C2H5OH with no H2O buffer?
@BiggMo 2 роки тому
13:25 “the cost is absolutely insane” I use to say that about LED light bulbs, they were $30-$40 each when they entered the market, but through volume, evolution in the technology and manufacturing efficiency you can now buy the same bulb for $1.65. Is it conceivable that fuel costs will find a similar path in the market? I also remember computer memory chips in the 90’s was $50 per megabyte.
@NicholasHoward 2 роки тому
If i were to guess, fuel production is as efficient as it's gonna get- they've been optimizing it for years and years. There's not much room to go
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
You're comparing different technologies. Again, I'd reference the conclusion of this video. Has energy gotten cheaper and cheaper and cheaper? And even if it does, using double the energy will always cost more than using half the energy. It's not a matter of tech advances, it's an energy problem. Whichever path uses the least energy will make the most financial sense.
@rkan2 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained When you pluck semiconductors in form of solar panels in to the equation - electricity is still getting cheaper - especially kind which doesn't create co2.
@th3d3wd3r 2 роки тому
You've described what's happening to the battery market right now.
@th3d3wd3r 2 роки тому
@@rkan2 You can pick up an LG NeON 2 panel for a couple hundred quid. 330w per panel. Throw in a powerwall for energy storage and it starts looking appealing.
@superspecky4eyes 2 роки тому
I would like to see some numbers based on the life cycle of LI batteries. I've heard they last a maximum of 10 years. If everyone is buying a brand new car every ten years rather than keeping a traditonal car running, potentially for decades, aren't we just creating more manufacturing/recycling waste? Granted you can replace the battery, but we don't even do that with our mobile phones, we just sling it in a drawer and buy the latest model.
@felixbeutin8105 Рік тому
people aren't running cars for decades though
@RayBlaxe 8 місяців тому
You can always recycle lithium, and keep it's 90% of the quality
@DodgerFloof 8 місяців тому
@@felixbeutin8105My brother has a 1982 Diesel Mercedes that still runs and drives after 41 years. There are many cars out there that probably won't last that long but are maybe closer to 20-30 years, but that's still a very long time.
@CTSimRacing 8 місяців тому
People need to start looking at long term instead of short term. When narrowed down to post production, EV's look great. It's only once you take into account what it takes to produce them that you find they never become a carbon neutral vehicle. Within 10yrs you have to replace either the whole battery or cells in the battery at which point you "carbon footprint" rises substantially.
@NickBohanes 8 місяців тому
@@CTSimRacingTesla model 3 long range battery has a replacement lifespan of 500 000 miles. Average American drives 13 500 miles per year. That's 37 years until you need to replace it. The expected life expectancy of a Toyota Carolla is 300 000 miles.
@MrFelicesBladewing 2 роки тому
Point is why i think Fuel Cell or synth fuel will play a bigger role in the future is the infrastructure we have right now. inventing and optimizing the complex processes of the "energy production" seems way more reasonable than every person relying on a constant charging mechanism and the evolution in battery efficiency.
@owethumsomi7260 2 роки тому
Porsche really gave me hope😭
@scooby3715 2 роки тому
Same here
@julioperez1850 2 роки тому
I feel you all. My LS3 swapped 350Z has its days numbered until I can turn it into an EV
@broshido2745 2 роки тому
2$ for 1L of fuel is a ok price, in my country the cost of 1L is around 1.5$ so it wouldn’t make a massive difference
@johnburns4017 2 роки тому
Hope for what?
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
Doesn't mean it won't exist! But I think the shift to EV/FC for the majority of passenger cars is inevitable at this point. Carbon neutral fuel is neat, it's just gonna be pricey.
@aurorajones8481 2 роки тому
I dont need this to save all ICEs. I just want a niche kept alive. Similar to how few of us ride motorcycles. Bless you Porsche.
@aurorajones8481 2 роки тому
38 bucks yikes. I hear they are still working on it. Its not perfect. Thankfully none of this is on the immediate horizon meaning i dont have to worry about any of this as ill be in old folks home riding an autonomous pod around. I guess you really do not want to live forever.
@Muskar2 2 роки тому
People still ride horses today, and there's also steam engine trains around. So I'm sure there'll be niches kept alive for those with persistence, knowledge and wallets for it.
@private3146 2 роки тому
I agree with you!
@Muskar2 2 роки тому
@@Hadhoudtn That makes no sense. Obviously they'll be affordable, otherwise it'll never make the masses. All low-end cars aren't fancy looking though, so that's probably gonna stay the same. And they'll certainly be heavier - although less heavy over time. Underpowered is a given, although they should be more powerful than the ICEV equivalent.
@glockmanish 2 роки тому
@@Hadhoudtn "underpowered EVs" ... you cleary never have driven an EV. And since when does the vehicle weight repell people from buying cars (nowadays more useless SUVs and Pickups are bought than ever before) or hinder performance? Cars are getting heavier for over 30 years (at least outside of US) and nevertheless they constantly gain performance, measured in boring stuff like acceleration times, lap times, towing capacity and so on. The "ugly" part is your personal preference. The affordability will fix itself with scale. Already there are cutting edge 800V EVs from Korea in the 40.000$ bracket. People buy cars in that price bracket all the time. As soon as these hit the second market there is no discussion about affordability any more. And the truly affordable bang-for-buck EVs aren't even sold in the US ... like the 50kWh small cars from Stellantis (Peugeot, Citroen, Opel, Fiat), Renault with their Zoe or the really decent EVs from China (Aiways, X-Peng, MG).
@jdmjesus6103 2 роки тому
This is what I've been telling people for years, even before I'd heard of synthetic petrol (because of bio-ethanol). You'll never HAVE to get rid of your classic car, but it will get expensive.
@glenf4115 2 роки тому
Agreed, when the majority of cars are non-petrol it's going to be prohibitively expensive to run them.
@stauffap 2 роки тому
Yeah, but keep in mind that renewables will only give a limited amount of energy. If you look at the studies they usually estimate that we'll already have to drive much less in order to achieve a carbon neutral energy grid fast enough for the paris agreement. So if the amount of energy we have is limited then the less efficiently we use that energy the more we'll have to sacrifice/the more we'll have to give up. In terms of the transport sector that means that if we all decided to use synthetic diesel in ICE's we'd only be able to travel 1/7 of the distance we'd be able to travel if we all drove EV's. So if you want sacrifice more, if you want to travel less, then you're going to chose something as inefficient as an ICE with synthetic fuels. This applies for everyhing we do. If we chose the most efficient methods then we'll barely have to make sacrifices compared to today. But if we chose overly inefficient uses of energy then we'll have to give up more. A notable technology are heat pumps in this regard and the cogeneratio of electricity and heat. It's far more efficient to use biomass in to cogenerate heat and electricity in a power plant and to heat your home with a heat pump (and the heat from the powerplant if available) then to just directly heat your home with the biomass. To make it short the dumber we use the available energy the more expensive it will be and the more we'll have to give up (for example we can drive less miles per year). A lot of people don't seem to get this. So question we need to ask ourselves is: "Are our sentimental attitudes towards ICE's worth being able to drive less miles and pay more?"
@pseudonymous1382 7 місяців тому
@@stauffap To your point about cogeneration of heat and electricity, I believe this is cost prohibitive on anything but an urban scale; this is the same reason why older American cities have steam networks to heat indoor radiators, whereas to my knowledge suburban and rural communities essentially never have steam networks. At most, perhaps larger buildings such as hospitals or universities might have their own steam network. In a great many respects, one of the main conclusions to be drawn is simply that suburban communities are largely unsustainable from an energy consumption standpoint. Instead of continuing to focus on individual personal transportation with EVs, hybrids, ICE with synthetic fuels, hydrogen and so on, it's far more prudent to encourage urbanization. People simply would not need a vehicle to travel to wherever they need to go if public transportation or walking can fulfill that need within an urban context.
@stauffap 7 місяців тому
@@pseudonymous1382 You know, you don't have to "believe" anything. There have been a ton of studies about how we can build an energy system without fossil fuels. So we know how it can be done and how it can't be done and we also have cost estimates (costs will roughly stay the same if we do it correctly).
@Redmenace96 4 місяці тому
@@stauffap You're right! Plenty of science fiction and ignorance of how 80% of the world population lives. What is this, "We"-stuff, Kimosabe?
@mukwanofred9147 2 роки тому
Thanks so much for this great explanation of upcoming synthetic fuel. It's really great to hear that it can be an alternative. I have some inquiry to make and seek for your insight. I have an ML270 CDI with manual gearbox with 6 speed 2003. Currently the radiator fan does not put on automatically. You're need to turn on the AC fan knob to put on the radiator fan. But then it's on for a short time and then turn off. I just replaced the old one with an after market one. What do your think could be the problem. Thanks
@GreenShogun 2 роки тому
You think $2 per litre is expensive 🤣🤣🤣 that's how much I've been paying for at least the last decade at the pump in the UK
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
Haha, that's the cost of the fuel. Add UK fuel taxes, and it'll go up.
@C_R_O_M________ 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained Well, governments are pushing this energy deprivation agenda. It won't end well! Renewables EROEI is horrendous.
@1300l 2 роки тому
2? Here it's 4,5 per liter.
@PC-te8ph 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained i think they wont tax it.
@samfedorka5629 2 роки тому
@@C_R_O_M________ It's really not that bad for wind. Wind is very cheap and pumped water can take care of the biggest downside (it's intermittent). I haven't looked into it, but nuclear is probably quite good, but the payoff time is quite long. Nuclear isn't currently renewable so not everyone counts it.
@rkan2 2 роки тому
14:00: Ah, the 10$/gallon gasoline. Me as an European: I already pay almost 9$/gallon for gas - that's not that bad. (let's just omit the fact that most of the cost is taxes :P )
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
Haha yes, once you add in taxes, you're well over $2/liter w/ synthetic.
@thegelik4967 2 роки тому
But taxes for what, if it is Carbon neutral?
@chriseaton2730 2 роки тому
@@thegelik4967 I'm not sure what all of the taxes are allocated to but road maintenance must be a part of it.
@thegelik4967 2 роки тому
Chris Eaton yeah, but in the end it will be considerably cheaper on taxes
@samuel999 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained I'm not sure I share the same concerns about taxes. As EVs become more prevalent, we're starting to see governments shift taxation onto the vehicles themselves. My guess is that enthusiast eFuels will be too small a proportion of the market to justify their own tax. Thus preserving an elevated, but still attainable cost. As well, there is some further hope in Europe (see: classic car emissions exemptions) that so-called 'vehicles of historic import' will be protected by governments in the EV transition.
@fyis3723 2 роки тому
I mean they are releasing next year almost everything Porsche has done was a success, All we have to do is wait for the results
@Brian-om2hh 2 роки тому
The wait may be a very long one. The factory hasn't even started to be built yet.
@Trig. 2 роки тому
This should be viewed as an alternative, not a full on replacement
@dzello 2 роки тому
Gonna be hard to see that as an alternative considering Europe and some parts of Canada are starting to ban ICEs from 2035-2040.
@Trig. 2 роки тому
@@dzello we have to somehow get their attention with these, but how?
@dzello 2 роки тому
@@Trig. Synthetic fuels, as Porsche mentioned, are viewed as unviable. Porsche is only developing that for motorsports. So the world is going full electric regardless of some personal preferences.
@Trig. 2 роки тому
@@dzello so what you’re saying is that it’s almost impossible to bring this to their attention?
@dzello 2 роки тому
@@Trig. Not almost, just impossible. Manufacturers are going full electric since they know synthetic fuels arent viable. Synthetic fuels are for motorsports where energy density matters and price is itrelevant, but other than that, its full EVs.
@jtackerman28 2 роки тому
I can see the price of synthetic fuel being driven down similar to how the price of batteries has been driven down. And that cost could be offset by blending with ethanol or petrol based fuels while tech advances.
@electric7487 2 роки тому
Yep. Gas at the pump will eventually be mixtures of something like B20 (20% biogasoline or e-Gasoline with 80% petroleum gasoline), then as more efficient and scalable eFuel production techniques are discovered, it will rise to B50, B75, and then B100.
@damartimantilla 2 роки тому
You are not getting the main point here which is that to produce synthetic fuels you need energy and you go through multiple steps. Every step is an energy penalty. Because electric vehicles get the electricity directly from the grid they involve the least number of steps and therefore they are the most efficient. There is go way to go around that.
@XQgint 2 роки тому
@@damartimantilla You are using Jason's simplification as a doctrine. Just because there is more steps does not mean it is more energy efficient. If each step in synthetic path was 99% efficient and charging of battery was 5% efficient, would the battery be more efficient just because it has more steps with it's 5% vs 90+% efficiency?
@SpinachLeaf 2 роки тому
@@damartimantilla also what about the cost that batteries will have on environment and the ecosystems it mined at? EVs will just cause demand to skyrocket. So i guess so long as people wont see it since it will be confined to destroying the places its mined at itll be ok? And what about the cost of doing away old infrastructure? we all know the US current infrastructure has trouble keeping up with demand without the massive strain EVs will bring. Im not against EVs i just think everyone is expecting the change to come way too soon.
@jtackerman28 2 роки тому
@@damartimantilla who cares if that power comes from a renewable source like solar,wind,hydro,nuclear.
@2f2f45 2 роки тому
I think we also need to factor in the total environmental impact of manufacturing and disposing/recycling of batteries vs a simple fuel tank. This was a great video, but in my opinion it only tells one facet (albeit an important one) of a multi-faceted story. This should have been stated more clearly.
@knroo-j1487 2 роки тому
We should also include the total environmental/human impact of oil extraction, refining, transport, the effects of burning and placing it into our atmosphere (since it can't be recycled), as well as the related health implications, associated geopolitical and literal armed conflicts we employ, to ensure access. I think if we actually looked at the total picture when it comes to how we get our cheap gas, it would put a lot into perspective, as well.
@electric7487 2 роки тому
@@knroo-j1487 Lmao. The whole point of synthetic fuels and biofuels is to provide fuels (that will get cheaper and cheaper over time) using techniques that reduce the resulting environmental damage to only a fraction of that caused by extracting and refining crude oil.
@knroo-j1487 2 роки тому
@@electric7487 Lmao. I get that, but I'm specifically responding to the person above me. They want a deep dive of battery manufacturing/tech, but somehow stopped at "a simple fuel tank" for comparison. I suggested we also do a deep dive of fossil fuels which fill that very tank. Meanwhile, EE already offered insight into synthetic fuels, so we have that covered.
@tomcockcroft9394 Рік тому
Environmental impact of recycling well you’ve managed to contradict yourself by only using 4 words 😂😂😂😂😂
@thisisgarrett3819 2 роки тому
Drive an electric car daily, use a gas-powered car for fun? I can live with that
@stauffap 2 роки тому
Renewable energies will provide a limited amount of energy. Already while assuming that we're going to electrify the transport sector researcher are telling us that we have to drive less in order to achieve a carbon neutral energy system. So if you think that it's a good idea to drive an ICE with e-fuels "for fun", then i hope you know what that would mean. It would mean that we all have to give up more things i.e. the more inefficiently we use our limited energy sources the more people will have to give up. That means that you'll be able to drive less miles per year etc. So lets just imagine that we all went with synthetic diesel vehicles instead of electric cars (the entire transport sector). That would mean that we could only drive 1/7 of the distance that we could drive if we all drove EV's. The way i see it you're really shooting yourself in your own foot by wasting energy like that. We have to be smart about how we use energy, if we don't want to make huge sacrifices. The same goes for other inefficient uses of energy. You could heat your home with biomass for example. That would be the most efficient use of biomass though. It would be more efficient to use the biomass to produce heat and electricty and to then use that electricity to heat your home with a heat pump. So generally it's a bad idea to heat directly with biomass. Instead use it in combined heat and power powerplant and heat your homes with heat pumps. That means we can do more with the same amount of energy, which again means that we have to sacrifice less. And i don't know about you. But i'd rather drive an EV and am able to drive 10'000 miles a year then to drive an EV and an ICE "for fun" and only drive 5000 miles a year.
@Irowned 2 роки тому
Nah, gas daily.
@stauffap 2 роки тому
@@Irowned I'm not sure if you're just not very intelligent or if you're just immoral. What do you think?
@thisisgarrett3819 2 роки тому
@@Irowned were you not listening to a word he said?
@Volusiaev 2 роки тому
As Bernie Sanders would say: "Why do you have 2 vehicles when many people can't even afford one?!!!! That's not fair!"
@owethumsomi7260 2 роки тому
But Jason won't we run out of lithium in the near future then we will have the same problem again.
@mathew936 2 роки тому
Also how environmentally friendly is mining of lithium really?
@danielhuerter5210 2 роки тому
Lithium is not the issue. We have enough supply for thousands of years. Nickel is much more scarce. Nickel mining needs to be scaled up to meet the future demand. Tesla already announced that they will be mining Lithium from Nevada completely Acid Free.
@NicholasHoward 2 роки тому
@@mathew936 the lithium only has to be mined once. Once an EV reaches the end of its lifecycle, the batteries can be recycled (though EV battery recycling isn't done by many companies at the moment, but there's money to be made in that industry, so someone will). The upfront environmental cost of lithium mining and battery production is still offset within the first 20,000 miles of the EV's life, even if fully powered by a coal plant.
@snapon666 2 роки тому
cobalt ....even worse
@aqpatt4675 2 роки тому
That's a big problem no one wants to talk about, if all cars and other means of transport get totally electrified, how much lithium and other conductors will be left after idk, 100 years of massive extraction? Furthermore, these materials are also used for all kind of electronics which are not going to decline in the future but highly increase. We are already living a worldwide semiconductor shortage, so what will happen when the demand is very much higher than now? Also, as the guy above me commented, the extraction of these materials is nowhere near of being carbon neutral, and what happens with batteries and other electronic components after the car is scraped? They are highly toxic and you can't just leave them in a scrapyard since it will pollute the air or even the underground water, so yeah massive electrification will come with serious problems that for the moment nobody at the governments or the car companies like Tesla seems to care about.
@asmyth89 2 роки тому
At $38/gallon it would cost nearly $400 to fill the tank of my Miata. I love you, little car, but uhh no. Haha
@franciscotorres1005 2 роки тому
Imagine how much itd take a v8 truck to fill 😂
@Jcewazhere 2 роки тому
My little Bolt takes about $4 to 'fill' at home. Compared to my old Subaru's $30+. If you can charge at home a used EV is great, just stay away from old Leafs.
@swankscabinet1625 2 роки тому
So I just found this company called Prometheus Fuels. They are creating carbon neutral fuels from the air at the price of normal gasoline. You should look them up, it’s very cool technology and it completely makes sense! They are going to be the near future with BEVs and FCEVs being a later future once everything becomes more efficient with time.
@christopherayala4619 2 роки тому
@@swankscabinet1625 same except I knew prometheus company for a year also america bmw made the company aswell.
@marcgravel2382 2 роки тому
I second the Prometheus Fuels suggestion. Very clever technology. They could upend this whole argument, or at least balance the equation a bit. As an aside, batteries still have huge issues around where and how raw materials are sourced, and more importantly, who controls said materials, not to say how to process/recycle end-of-life batteries.
@cawimmer430 2 місяці тому
One of the biggest arguments against eFuels is the “poor thermal efficiency” of combustion engines. But in my opinion and experience, I am wondering if this even matters anymore. Case in point. I’m a freelance photographer and I drive a lot all over Germany meaning long Autobahn cruises. My car (2018 Mercedes A250 W177) is loaded with my heavy gear and I will often just cruise at 130 km/h with the occasional venture into the 200 km/h+ zones. On such trips, my gasoline car can get 6 L / 100 km - which is incredible. In cities, I combine Start-Stop with “aggressive driving” (quick acceleration from a standstill to get up to speed and then let the car coast) and in this fashion I can improve my fuel economy. When I am stuck behind people who can’t drive and need a minute (literally) to accelerate to 50 km/h, my fuel economy actually worsens. I learned in driving school to always accelerate quickly to 50-60 km/h in the city, then coast, to improve gas mileage. Bottom line: modern ICE are so efficient and there’s probably room for improvement. Of course they can’t touch the efficiency of an electric motor, but they are nonetheless efficient in this day and age for what they are. Also, I saw an interesting documentary on these new Dual-Fluid-Nuclear-Reactors which are being developed by German engineers in Canada and Rwanda (of all places). The head engineer said these reactors produce a lot of heat - and this heat could be used for electrolysis to create hydrogen and eFuels and thus would offer these fuels at competitive prices. What’s not to like about this???
@Marc-ob5po 2 роки тому
Another idea is to run a combustion engine with the oil of plants. I'm from Germany and I know some people who took sunflower oil for their Diesel engines because it was less expensive and it could be CO2 neutral.
@farikkun1841 2 роки тому
why not palm oil
@Marc-ob5po 2 роки тому
@@farikkun1841 I dont know if it would work in a diesel engine and you must warm the sunflower oil up because it is too viscous, so I dont know if its with palm oil also possible. In addition to this rain forests get cleared to plant palms and thats not good for our climate
@Marc-ob5po 2 роки тому
@@farikkun1841 I saw an engine concept of the year 1995 where you could use every plant oil
@nicolasjules579 2 роки тому
Or ethanol
@Marc-ob5po 2 роки тому
@@nicolasjules579 yes its also interesting and not so expensive to equip on "normal" cars but you can't buy E85 at gas stations in Germany since 2016 anymore because the taxes rose up for E85 and the gas stations would not get enough money for this.
@vasilikosolov 2 роки тому
Wont syntheyic fuel production would be cheaper when the technology improves overtime? same as EV batteries
@jackroutledge352 2 роки тому
Yes, but then so will battery electric. The issue is the efficiency. If you can find a cheaper source of power, then the price goes down. But so does the cost of electricity to charge your car, or to produce hydrogen for your fuel cell, so it's still uncompetitive. The efficiency is unlikely to improve much, since that is determined by the thermodynamics of the process, rather than any particular technology.
@TKUA11 2 роки тому
Sounds like a cope. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Gas cars drive just fine and allow people to be lifted out of poverty. It’s only the privileged rich that are thinking up projects to burden everyone else
@timex987987_jj3_studios 2 роки тому
@@TKUA11 If left alone long enough, our gas supply will be broken. Because everything pretty much runs on fossil fuels, the whole world would grind to a halt once fuel runs out. And don't say that there's an endless amount of fossil fuels to burn. There isn't. The goal is to find another sustainable energy source before our primary fossil fuel runs out. So...not a conspiracy.
@EjinRenos 2 роки тому
Porsche has already outlined the ways to make mass production a lot cheaper along with Siemens energy and it looks viable, effective, and possible. It also looks to be in a very near future timeline as opposed to the ever slow growing battery technology, which is one of the oldest technologies mankind has and yet hasn't progressed nearly as much as some technologies in the past few decades. Assuming more support would get behind this carbon neutral alternative fuel (looking at you Toyota with your opposition towards going electric...) then there's a good chance combustion engined will not disappear
@thephantomzoneboxing 2 роки тому
@@timex987987_jj3_studios fossil fuels are a myth the earth naturally produces this substance thru its life cycle dead plant and animal life is NOT the basis for gasoline as the powers to be want you to think cuz youre a dummy 😊
@JokerisWild4 2 роки тому
The reason the cost is higher for synthetic fuel is due to a lack of economies of scale. Once you produce massive amounts of something the cost per unit dramatically reduces.
@C41N4 Рік тому
The price problem: don’t worry. Costs will go down, just like computer parts. If you were to take your phone and sell the parts back in the 1990s, you’d be able to get millions for it. Those parts now are much cheaper. The energy efficiency problem: sure it makes sense in the maths. But it’s not the point. The point is that the transition in the infrastructure is an easier one than EV stations or even fuel cell stations. Also as the technology advances, it would absolutely increase in efficiency. So yeah, the math checks out, but there’s a lot more involved here than just numbers. It just makes sense to go synthetic. Plus, did I mention VROOM?
@Tarkov. 2 роки тому
How do these numbers compare to ethanol and bio-diesel?
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
Great question!
@PerErikKarlsson 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained Will you make a video about that? Would be interesting.
@tavern.keeper 2 роки тому
Ethanol production consumes more fuel than it produces.
@daniel_960_ 2 роки тому
The area required for these is huuge. Interesting for making use of some spare land and mixing few percent into normal fuel. But impossible to replace all fuel with that.
@anydaynow01 2 роки тому
@@daniel_960_ Yeah I remember the backlash from environmentalists when they started clear cutting forests in certain countries for this and palm oil. Then there's also the issue with biomass farming but that's another topic!
@TheGIGACapitalist 2 роки тому
Honestly for shipping, I think nuclear is probably the route to go. Much higher energy density than anything else and is reliable for long trips.
@danieljensen2626 2 роки тому
Lol, just in case you need to drive for 20 years without stopping at all.
@faxxzc 2 роки тому
i dont think private companies can be trusted with nuclear boats. just imagine they neglect the upkeep and now you have hundreds if not thousands little fukushimas running around. Then when end of life is reached the ships conveniently just happen to sink in the middle of international waters because dismantling nuclear boats is a nightmare. No thanks.
@MrHarr0073 2 роки тому
@@danieljensen2626 I'll jump off subject a bit: naval vessels
@David-lr2vi 2 роки тому
@@faxxzc That’s exactly how it would go down! Here in Australia Woodside Petroleum had an oil rig that was past its use by date so they just “sold” it to two dollar front company and that company goes broke so bingo now the taxpayer is on the hook to decommission it and clean it up!
@electric7487 2 роки тому
Nuclear-electric does make sense, at least in theory, for large container ships and cruise ships.
@deswikksersbraut 2 роки тому
What you didn't mention is that sometimes efficiency also doesn't matter. It's better to make efuel or hydrogen out of a windmill then having to stop that windmill cause no one is using that energy at that moment. Plus efuels are a lot easier to transport than electricity or even hydrogen. Also here in Germany those prices don't even seem that high in comparison to our fuel prices now so it might become an alternative for eg classic cars. Love your Videos!
@tomcockcroft9394 Рік тому
Genius, why Germany is f*cked 😂😂😂😂
@foodonfilm5935 2 роки тому
2:16 when we run out of crude oil how are we supposed to keep creating and building all of these new EV vehicles? How are you tyres going to be made? Any plastic components in the car including the interior?? Rubber door seals etc etc. A huge contributing factor to the running out of raw materials is the sheer volume of NEW vehicles being produced full stop whether they be EV or ICE or any combination in between. My 30 year old BMW E30 could run on synthetic fuel and requires very little raw materials to be maintained and be fuelled using existing infrastructure within the UK without needing anything new built. I don't get the sustainability movement when it's based around new new new. It all seems to be missing the point imo. It really irritates me when you see hundreds of brand new cars at ports waiting to be shipped or sitting outside dealerships when I think of how much raw material must have been used in their manufacture.
@Muskar2 2 роки тому
A lot of claims, assumptions and questions here. I am very skeptical that you read up on any papers or even talked to veteran experts, even though I'm not one myself. If you feel invalidated by "the sustainability movement" then that's probably something you should work on with yourself and those people. Don't let the facts suffer. We are all mortal, fallible creatures with different interests and qualities, and that's okay. Repairability and modularity are definitely popular sustainability topics and part of the "circular economy" discussion. Look it up if you're interested. Do what you gotta do. Take care.
@foodonfilm5935 2 роки тому
@@Muskar2 I'm actually a graduating motorsport engineering so am quite clued up about alternate powertrain solutions lectured by some true experts so thank you for the assumption! I also have no idea where feeling invalidated comes from lol.
@ronaldlenz5745 2 роки тому
You can make synthetic monomeric precursors for tires and other plastics. We Chemical Engineers know how to do it. It's just a matter of cost.
@foodonfilm5935 2 роки тому
@@ronaldlenz5745 That is interesting to know!! I had no idea about that sort of technology. Is there some basis then to be worried how we would continue to produce tyres or not?
@Muskar2 2 роки тому
@@foodonfilm5935 Sorry, maybe my phrasing was out of line? I apologize if that was so. I have ASD so it can be hard for me to tell sometimes. Congratulations. I'm glad you're about to get real experience, I'm sure you'll quickly get answers to a lot of these questions. I come from a family of engineers, a few of whom work a lot on sustainability in big international companies, so I know it can take a long time to get your head around how deep the rabbithole goes. And when you're young it can sometimes be hard to keep an open mind. There's a lot of ambivalent studies with different strengths and weaknesses in methodology and data. I'm just a CS who likes natural sciences as a hobby. Take care!
@TexRobNC 2 роки тому
Wow, I had just been wondering, actually, while watching one of your battery tech breakdowns, and some talk about different fuel energy densities, if something like an e-fuel could be made. I'm so glad to see this is something that's being worked on, I'm sure there is a future in this tech.
@tngdwn8350 2 роки тому
As far as I know the point of the synthetic fuel isn't to replace EVs, but to give sport car enthusiasts and owners of oldtimers a possibility to drive their car without fossil fuel (CO2 neutral). Also there is maybe a hope of it being used for all the cars which are out there today, because the existing combustion engine cars will stay on the road for some time. It would be wasteful to just destroy them and also not everybody is able to just buy a new EV, so maybe it is possible to use it for a transition phase for regular cars too. But probably it's just too expensive too replace fossil fuel in the transition phase.
@johnholmes1886 8 місяців тому
Missed out a couple of big issues. 1. Amount of carbon produced making electric cars (mining transporting processing all the stuff to make it not counting any other pollution ). 2. Shear limits on how much stuff we need to convert to all electric transport including the up front production of carbon to make those vehicles (ie not enough copper mines and 10+ years to develop new ones). 50% fuel efficiency gain would be a better goal short term and cost wise.
@MrAlexthemachine Рік тому
Also your calculations on cost of ownership is not relevant when you factor in the 10 year cost of ownership at 15k miles per year. Why?, I thought you would never ask. Well it seems like the warranty on these ev batteries is around 8 to 10 years or 100k to 150k miles so after your warranty is up, the cost of replacing all of your degraded and poor capacity lithium batteries is going to be a minimum of 30k usd if you have a decent sized ev. So with that cost calculation we are not far behind combustion powered engines on long term cost efficiency.
@jimurrata6785 2 роки тому
Bio-diesel has better energy density than even gasoline and works fine in ships and planes.
@xypher337 2 роки тому
I was thinking about bio diesel. If you can design an engine from the start to run it, you could run the thing on cooking oil. From a survivalist point of view, thats extremely useful.
@TDubya811 2 роки тому
Not too many diesel aircraft out there at the moment. But pretty sure the engines are very similar to what is used today. Wonder why it hasn't been adopted for aircraft and shipping as of yet. Cost possibly?
@tangydiesel1886 2 роки тому
@@TDubya811 jet fuel is very similar to diesel. More similar to diesel than gasoline anyway.
@jimurrata6785 2 роки тому
@@TDubya811 diesel is so close to jet fuel they can practically be considered interchangeable. Yes, cost is the factor.
@Reindeer911 2 роки тому
@@TDubya811 A gas turbine engine can run on anything in theory. Reason why kerosene (Jet A) is used is that it's cheaper to produce than diesel. Reciprocating aircraft engines that run on diesel are extremely rare... I've only seen one which was an experimental biplane.
@saims.2402 2 роки тому
I feel like I understand so much more of these videos after going through grade 11 math and chemistry.
@STho205 2 роки тому
Actual education will do that. Stick with the hard sciences and you'll have life skills of being able to understand or call BS on media articles produced by social "scientists".
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
@@STho205 For any of the (very legitimate) social scientists out there that read this, just worth mentioning social science most definitely exists, and those pursuing it shouldn't be discouraged. Regardless, yes, you'll find media manipulating information to align with their agendas. Not exactly black and white!
@STho205 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained it is not a hard science or solely empirical one, but it is an honorable discipline of mostly philosophy and political study. ...But you have done your feelings policing of the comments so good and proper.
@saims.2402 2 роки тому
@@EngineeringExplained woah, you actually read my comment, I actually had a tiny impact on your life, can I be your apprentice?
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
@@STho205 Haha, I bring it up because my wife, who has a degree and masters degree in biology, is currently pursuing a PhD, also in the same realm, but with a heavy social focus.
@stuffhappens5681 Рік тому
2021 the USA alone used 19.8 million barrels of oil PER DAY. Most of it used to make gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. There’s no way synthetic fuels can scale to those levels of production. The most we can hope for is that enough will be available to power collector cars so they can continue to be driven without environmental restrictions.
@Akgis32 2 роки тому
It's a alternative and the cost will go down, the planet and the economy can't support a massive change to evs overnight, synthetic fuels won't replace evs but will give ice engines a longer lasting future
@tt-ln4mc 2 роки тому
not just that but why can't we have EVs and Synthetic ICE cars sold simultaniously? If you want an EV go buy one, if you want an ICE car you can buy one too
@rucarnuts13 2 роки тому
$40 a gallon is fine for a weekend gasoline car, not a daily. I’d definitely pay that to keep driving my RX-7 on the weekends, but I’ll definitely have an electric daily in the future.
@mountainbikerdave 2 роки тому
That's $800 a fill up. If you have 2 solid days of weekend ridding then that's $1,600 a week. Or $3,200-$6,400 a month I really really hope you're not married cause your wife is going to castrate you if she ever finds out how much money you're planning on spending for a hobby 😂 Burn all those receipts 😆
@georgeb5262 2 роки тому
For me, they needs to make bldc based electric motors. They are not that soulless as ACs, better performance, but break down a lot. I will drive anything as long as it's fun to drive.
@georgeb5262 2 роки тому
@@electric7487 It's with extra step.
@georgeb5262 2 роки тому
@@electric7487 Wasn't they built different and more effective than normal AC?
@electric7487 2 роки тому
@@georgeb5262 There are basically two types of AC motors used today: Induction motors, and PMSM's. BLDC motors are PMSM's.
@Slappetinus 2 роки тому
I think it only makes sence as a legacy fuel for classic cars and stuff, so perhaps there will be a market for synthetic fuels, as small as it might be.
@Roxor128 2 роки тому
Personally, I think the main market for synthetic fuels will be large-scale aviation. I think I recall the viable range for electric aircraft is something like 400km, and carrying a couple of dozen passengers. Basically, what's currently serviced by propeller aircraft. Large-capacity aircraft that use jet engines can't be converted to battery power. Those need synthetic fuel to make them carbon-neutral. Perhaps you might be able to build the atmospheric capture and synthesis equipment on-site at major airports and run them off solar panels on the roofs of the many airport buildings? Or, if not all, then at least a decent chunk of their power requirements.
@simonbyholm350 Рік тому
Theres some reasons hydrogen and e-fuels might become part of the future fuel mix. 1. Energy storage. They plan anyway to store excess wind energy as hydrogen so the conversion to hydrogen can be considered ”free” as long as demand for fuel is not larger than the need for storage. 2. Batteries are still very polluting to make so there might be environmental advantaged with efuels for cars that you dont drive a lot of miles but need the range. 3. Hybrids with efuel might be the best of both worlds, small battery for city drivning but the combustion engine for the range. 4. e-Fuel can be made from excess energy when electricity price is low, so the energy may only cost half of that used to charge the EV and that will offset some of the losses. 5. E-fuels can probably be mixed with ethanol and bio-diesel fuels which adds flexibility to the fuel market. 6. In war time there may be no electricity for days, but you can have liquid fuel stored in an inexpencive container for emergency use. 7. For army vehicles that need long range off grid. I aldo believe the process of making hydrogen and e-fuels will become more efficient as demand drives innovation, will be interesting to see where we are 10 years from now.
@mikesomething8853 2 роки тому
You are missing a couple key points. First if we want a green and non nuclear grid, photovoltaic and wind must produce excess energy, that energy needs to be stored in some way, to use at night and for no sun/wind conditions. Part of that surplus can be used to manufacture fuels without the efficiency mattering too much because otherwise it would be wasted by curtailment. Second we are talking about a undeveloped technology, some of the first photovoltaics were made with gold and selenium and were 1-2% efficient, should we have ignored the principle forever because the early ones were not good enough?
@oldwrench4213 2 роки тому
Synthetic fuels have been around since WW2. That should clarify as to the future of synthetic fuels.
@ayushk4099 2 роки тому
That synthetic fuel was made from Coal
@GODAXEN 2 роки тому
Electric cars have been around before WW1. That also sould clarify the future of synthetic fuels.
@christianpearson7108 2 роки тому
electrics came before internal lol
@oldwrench4213 2 роки тому
@@GODAXEN Yep. ICE is on borrowed time.
@Emira_75 2 роки тому
Not carbon neutral ones tho, but yeh all the more reason they are not applicable to the mass market
@dansanger5340 2 роки тому
It's weird how some people really love the sound of internal combustion engines, and some people really like the quiet of electric vehicles. A few people really like both, or don't care either way. I wonder if a study has ever been done on how it breaks down.
@Jcewazhere 2 роки тому
I switched from a Subaru to a Bolt. While I liked the sound that boxer engine made I also enjoy the singing that the motor in my Bolt makes. It's definitely not silent, though it is quieter. I haven't been in a Tesla to see just how quiet their motors are. I have test driven an eGolf and Fiat 500e, but the road noise was worse in them so I couldn't hear the motor much during those tests. I like videos of those super loud V8s and other gas guzzling engines, but IRL they're too loud for me. The boxer never got too loud. I really don't like Harley and other motorcycle engine noise. I like the 1/4 cost per mile a lot more than I miss the sound from the boxer. :)
@coffelt683 2 роки тому
its like the left, right, and centrists in politics lol
@linuxbasic3399 2 роки тому
people who really care about the sound... here's the catch... ic engines dont produce sound anymore... its engineered sound... which can be done for ev too...
@juancappadocio6311 2 роки тому
@linuxbasic wrong
@kentslocum 6 місяців тому
This was very informative and intriguing; thanks!
@JakobusVdL 2 роки тому
Thanks Jason that is really useful information. I had read about synthetic fuels recently, this explains why they're not the panacea to decarbonising transport. I've also heard people argue that synthetic fuels are only carbon neutral to produce, but not to use. I'm not sure what they mean, do you also have a video that explains that process??
@MTKARusty Рік тому
...Did you not watch this video? He explains this in detail.
@kschleic9053 2 роки тому
Someone needs to make a playlist of Engineering explained, organized so that each video builds on the last in terms of concepts... These videos are an amazing resource for introducing STEM concepts to young automotive enthusiasts:)
@ashliehiggins 2 роки тому
We need a mix of all fuel sources, BEVs for commuting, FCEV/PHEVs for longer distances and synthetic for fun/racing and industry.
@joseacuna3239 2 роки тому
Well, there is ethanol
@armadillito 2 роки тому
Fast charging BEVs will go plenty far enough. If you're carrying humans, humans need to stop every few hours anyway.
@waynebullock9717 2 роки тому
@@armadillito As long as you are only talking about normal passenger cars, then sure. BEVs will not work for anything larger for a long time - the battery tech isn't there yet.
@Milan_Openfeint 2 роки тому
Three words: electrification of highways
@waynebullock9717 2 роки тому
@@Milan_Openfeint that would work great in California - where they already have rolling blackouts. The grid can't support this amount of load, and won't for a very long time. Plus all the EM fields that will cause who knows what kinds of side effects lol
@DerExperiminator 2 роки тому
Thanks for wrap-up this topic, nice to see some numbers.
@damiankirstein3311 Рік тому
Those are only numbers without context. There are many many benefits of efuel: faster refueling than charging, lower car weight, you don’t have a problem with very expensive and not ecological batteries, high efficiency with high speeds. And petrolheads will still have sound of exhausts + possibility to tune cars
@christopherevans195 2 роки тому
For anyone wondering, the hydrogen energy density (kWh/l) is for hydrogen in a liquified state. Thought it should be mentioned. Keep doing good work EE!
@farikkun1841 2 роки тому
isnt hydrogen gas when pressurized enough, it turns into liquid?
@christopherevans195 2 роки тому
@@farikkun1841I am by no means an expert but for liquid H2 to exist it must be cooled below its critical point of 33 K and pressurized above its critical pressure of 13 bar. If these conditions are not met then the hydrogen atoms have too much kinetic energy for the intermolecular forces of attraction to bind them together in the liquid phase.
@Patchuchan 2 роки тому
You can store it as lithium hydride.
@jimj2683 2 роки тому
The hydrogen tanks weigh a lot.
@n9clip 2 роки тому
2$ per liter is what I'm paying now for regular fuel :(
@TKUA11 2 роки тому
Per gallon? Dang man, why don’t u elect some politicians that aren’t Gona bend you over and abuse you, when you’re at the pump?
@muki_x 2 роки тому
$1.25 per LITER
@TheExegetic 2 роки тому
@@TKUA11 7.64$ pr gallon here
@TKUA11 2 роки тому
@@TheExegetic you’re getting ripped off. Call your legislators and tell them that this is not ok
@SkyrimCZtutorials 2 роки тому
@@TKUA11 Issue is that Europe is just going green for decades. Most people here think it is fine. USA is on the opposed end so as a result you got cheap petrol.
@TheNathanEverest Рік тому
Thank you for making a quality video on this matter as I was looking for a more refined look on the subject
@RPAX100 2 роки тому
what is completely ignored/missing: - medium/long-term storage and costs - current electric costs can not projected to the future: its a question of supply vs demand. just take the oilprice of 1960 (~3$ per 🛢!) and see how that developed....
@heathwirt8919 2 роки тому
Very interesting and informative, thank you for sharing this information.
@thomasmullins1783 2 роки тому
Well you answered another question that I didn't even know I had, Jason. Good job!
@benreber2277 2 роки тому
I love your videos. Very good explanation. I just bought a used 2013 focus electric. Everyone keeps telling me that the 50 miles real range isn’t worth the car. But my excursion v10 costs me $5,000 a year in fuel for my work commute and going out a few times on the weekend. Currently electric is costing me $.04 per mile charging at home and quick charger where I live is free. So far I’ve done 500 miles and paid $10 mainly from the chargers in jersey where I bought the car to drive it home.
@osvaldovalencia6330 2 роки тому
Really bro v10? You really expecting savings gas on a V10 excursion.
@ayugoslav5554 Рік тому
This dude is driving a viper as daily
@gottliebdee263 8 місяців тому
Overall cost of running a car needs to be considered. We need to include the cost of wearables. Fuel might be expensive but how much is a new battery, or tyres or brakes? Are the insurance costs of an EV more? Are taxes more or less and how will they change, (because they WILL change - the govt ALWAYS move the goalposts)?
@chrispritchard7977 Рік тому
My understanding of the porsche synthetic fuel was that it was molecularly identical to crude based fuel. Wouldn't that mean it's energy density is actually identical to normal gasoline? Or is that the difference from the ethanol being added to current fuel sources.
@fastnb 2 роки тому
Nice video. You note a very important subject. Also called EROEI = energy returned on energy invested. The thing to look for against (marketing) "Green washing". 2,5dollar a liter for synfuel isn't that expensive, in the Netherlands we pay €1.75/liter for E10 95octane. And €2.00/L for 100octane without ethanol, with today's exchange that is $2,5/L
@EngineeringExplained 2 роки тому
Should have pointed out, $2/L is referencing cost. However much individual countries tax that cost is a different subject (big part of why fuel is much more expensive in Europe vs US).
@fastnb 2 роки тому
That's a valid point. 2 days ago, I was in Germany and paid €1,54/L for E5 95 (E10 was even cheaper). Pure tax difference.
@wermagst 2 роки тому
@@fastnb You paid about 1€ in taxes and fees, the gasoline price is approx. 0,50€/l.
@connorbunch3577 2 роки тому
It seems reasonable to imagine that the costs associated with producing these types of fuels will come down over time. Also, I sometimes wonder if things like carbon capture may save the ICE.
@xmtxx 2 роки тому
the problem is that, in the end, an ICE can never have a better efficiency than the carnot cycle, whitch is around 35% If I recall well. It will never be cheaper than EV. Plus, they are mechanically very complicated (way more than EV). If battery technology improve enough, there will be no advantage for ICE. Especially in cars. Edit: I got my numbers wrong, some engines are at 40%, best diesel (not applicable in a car) are around 50%.
@ayoutubechannel921 2 роки тому
@@xmtxx search up opposed piston engines, they have really high efficiency
@BreachMePlz 2 роки тому
@@ayoutubechannel921 no one cares
@vedantawasthi5410 2 роки тому
@@BreachMePlz and why is that?
@dzello 2 роки тому
@@ayoutubechannel921 Nah, you're mistaken. Opposed piston engines have high efficiency '' for ICE engines '', not high efficiency in general. No ICE has high efficiency due to its nature as an ICE.
@nicodimarcotv5549 2 роки тому
The actual problem which is not getting discused very often is that the infrastructure of Ev‘s isnt good enough for everybody having an EV and not to mention what will happen to exsisting ICE cars ? By replacing every ICE car the CO2 emissions would skyrocket because the battery production emitts massive amounts of CO2. In fact altough the efficeny of e-fuels is not that good at the moment we should keep using ICE‘s because producing millions of new cars with batterys which are emitting a lot of CO2 in production is not helping to fight against the global warming.
@antonynikolov8283 2 роки тому
Here is where I think the argument can be a bit flaud. The problem with fuel efficiency right now is well - engine friction, but also that engines suffer from knock, so at high output scenarios you need to supply a lot of fuel to that engine in order to avoid this. The thing about these synthetic fuels which Porsche have confirmed is that they seem to be A LOT cleaner even without additives than standard fuels. This would mean a much higher octane rating and similarly to natural gas - can be engineered to produce less emissions. Differently from natural gas, these fuels seem to be able to create a higher energy output when ignited. This would allow engine manufacturers to increase compression ratios, advance timing and increase overall engine efficiency, especially when combined with all the f1 tech that is available which is slowly trickling down to passenger cars like chamber ignition etc. The problem with EV's is that finding more efficiency is a lot harder there then it seems to be with ICE's with the current tech available. So if we get the ICE to ~40-45% efficiency rather than 25% efficiency that's a huge step in the right direction. Or maybe i just want my freaking gas-guzzling BMW M-cars because the way they make me feel - happy :(
@theogulland6007 2 роки тому
Would love to see your take on BioLPG e.g. Scalability of it and engine wear vs low tax / fuel costs. Also if a city already has gas mains, then ease of distribution
@fricken99 2 роки тому
The good thing is that when there is heaps of renewable energy infrastructure there will be extra supply so might as well us that excess for something. *Assumption is this excess in supply won't be better needed elsewhere.
@romeosierra1006 7 місяців тому
@engineeringexplained Two counter points to your video. 1. Carbon capture out of the atmosphere; a huge incentive for synthetic fuel technology. 2. The resources pulled from the earth to build and power electric vehicle and their environmental impact
@paulnorman6061 5 днів тому
Methanol can be brewed(wood spirit) or made synthetically. The main reason liquid fuels will always be around is that you can't ship/trade energy using batteries internationally and you still need to run shipping and aircraft which make batteries weight prohibitive.
@brianvenable5350 2 роки тому
All of VP Racing's racing fuels are synthetic, no crude is involved.
@joshk.photo.pro1 2 роки тому
😳
@LazerLord10 2 роки тому
hmmm... seeing that diagram is very useful! But one thing it shows is that a good way to improve system efficiency for FCEV and ICE vehicles, why have that electrolysis step occur after the transmission? Even if it's less efficient, I would think that a hydrolysis system could be a good way to store excess energy on-site of the generator.
@BullCheatFR 2 роки тому
Transmission losses are smaller when that electricity is reinjected near the point of use. Not to say it's as good as on-site storage at either the use site or production site but it's not 100% worse either.
@mark_5588 2 роки тому
The difference is using surplus renewable energy and seawater where the purification of the water is just another efficiency loss. Performing that hydrolysis inland means that you are using freshwater as your source and competing against drinking water resources. The people who screamed about food vs fuel are going to melt when they see the math for drinking water vs fuel.
@BullCheatFR 2 роки тому
@@mark_5588 it takes 2.5 gal / 10L of water to make 1kg of hydrogen. A typical hydrogen car goes 60mi on that 1kg. It takes at the very least 3 gallons of fresh water to make 1 gallon of gasoline. Usually around 5. And let's not talk about ethanol. So hydrogen fuels slightly decrease demand for freshwater as long as the power used during electrolysis comes from a non-thermal source of energy. I still don't believe in H2 but it wouldn't make the water problem worse. Maybe we should start by stopping grass gardens in the middle of the desert instead.
@manganvbg90 2 роки тому
Worst thing with EV furure, is the lack of engine noise. As a petrolhead I love the revving of the engine, more than the feeling of speed. Also, 20k$ battery changes doesnt drag me to it.
@amitchakrapani6262 2 роки тому
I think hybrids + synthetic fuels are the best way to make ice live Carbon neutral fuels on a hybrid gives the best fuel efficiency and power too plus it has a exhaust sound (really matters as road trips are fun cause them)
@Roxor128 2 роки тому
Internal combustion cars are going to be a niche market for synthetic fuels. The big bucks in them will be fuel for airlines running big planes, like 747s or A380s. Small propeller planes that travel a few hundred kilometres at a time with a couple dozen passengers will be going electric like most cars. The big ones that use jet engines are where fuels will still be needed, simply because those are just too big for battery power. Oh, and I suppose you could use it for rocket launches, too.
@amitchakrapani6262 2 роки тому
@@Roxor128 i disagree, internal combustion engine is a art, but that's not my point, in my country it would be really difficult to have electric cars as chargers to supply are very less plus really depends on country, but hybrids and electric is best bet, not all electric, even hydrogen fuel cell is better than electric in my country, and ice cars which used rarely can be sold even after 2030 as they don't get used every day, the cars or transportation used everyday should be hybrids or hydrogen or electric
@hawkeallen1319 2 роки тому
Solid video, learned a lot and was really glad to learn about this subject as I was curious about the actual cost per gallon. One thing I thought was missing was the impact of junking all combustion driven cars, what are we going to do with all these cars if we cannot use them?
@electric7487 2 роки тому
This is why banning ICE cars is actually a very, VERY bad idea overall. These politicians who try to do this don't really care about the environment; they're pushing an agenda.
@adrianthoroughgood1191 Рік тому
No one (well very few) is talking about banning ice. The are banning new ice. You keep using the existing ones till the break down too much then replace with EV. EV production will take a long time to replace them all.
@bloodykills7509 2 роки тому
I know that they won't replace them, I just hope that they can extend the life of the internal combustion engine.
@Brian-om2hh 2 роки тому
That's precisely the opposite of the aim. The nations and companies who have signed up to the Paris Climate Agrrement - which is a legally binding agrrement - have little hope of meeting their emissions/carbon footprint targets with too many combustion engines still being used. Therefore, you can probably expect to see ever increasing legislation, with the aim of reducing their usage.....
@starstencahl8985 2 роки тому
@@Brian-om2hh That’s why he was hoping the synthetic fuel could save the ICE for a bit, so we can use it with those synthetic (green) fuels
@dzello 2 роки тому
@@Brian-om2hh The increased legislation even already started. From 2035, Quebec bans ICE sells. From 2040, Europe does. Expect manufacturers to stop making them earlier (no ponit making them for a dead market).
@R1___ 2 роки тому
Ice cars are staying here for atleast another 20-30 years
@dzello 2 роки тому
@@R1___ Well, where I live, the ICE sells ban is in 2035. Thats in 14 years... We expect manufacturers to make electric cars only by then. So.. Id say less than that.
@EnneaIsInterested 2 роки тому
The direct heat of very-high temperature reactors is key. Make Rosatom-style floating reactors, have energy pipelines going on to land. You get to keep the energy in this scenario.
@rabihkattan7702 11 місяців тому
That’s so precise and perfectly explained. But you forgot to mention the environmental damage that will be caused by batteries and their disposal. I’m a car enthusiast and a Porsche owner and definitely will support e-Fuel
@macro820 2 роки тому
What about syn diesel made by bio organisms? Guess it's hard to put into a %
@haphazard1342 2 роки тому
Yeah I don't think there's much value in putting energy inputs into large scale chemistry to make synthetic fuels. It's just not an efficient use of that energy, which could instead power many things directly. However, if we are able to cheaply produce syn-diesel using biological processes with minimal inputs, then that's potentially a huge win. The most promising thing I've seen has been bioengineered algae in mechanically aerated vats, which can be refined very easily and cheaply to produce bio diesel. This nearly eliminates the energy inputs since the algae capture the energy from the sun, and also eliminates the carbon inputs since the algae capture that from the air. The issues are engineering/breeding the most productive algae, and establishing the processes for it. If we can do this with saltwater, that's even more useful since it makes production dramatically more geo-flexible without impacting local fresh water supplies. If this approach can be made commercially viable, then I think it's our best avenue for making existing fossil fuels infrastructure carbon neutral in the short term. ICE is mostly bad because of the fossil fuel carbon release: we know how to deal with the other pollutants well enough.
@0hypnotoad0 2 роки тому
The stumbling block there becomes solar efficiency. Photosynthesis is not very efficient at converting sunlight into energy, and then there's still quite a lot of processing to do once the organism has created the fuel.
@tomgnyc 2 роки тому
I heard there's a HUGE problem with the amount of nitrogen needed to grow these organisms.
@michaelpatrick6950 2 роки тому
I worked for a year on an algae to diesel project. And it all comes back to the real golden rules: the 3 laws of thermodynamics. Running the algae in photosynthesis mode meant the surface area to get enough sunlight into them to produce a significant amount of C17 oils was about the surface area of the US (only a slight exaggeration). However, algae can run in fermentation mode so you could then get them to produce significant quantities in tanks but you have to feed them simple sugars produced in complex processes. Ultimately we scrapped the project to make fuel after we found that the oil was a fantastic fat for food use and the dried algae made a very good flour for baking. When I see one of Exxon's greenwash ads about algal fuels, I throw something at my TV. I've bought a lot of TVs.
@xyzzyx2869 2 роки тому
The biggest Advantage of syntethic fuels is that we already have produced the Cars that can run that fuel. For electric or hydrogen alternatives we have to Produce the Cars First. As we all know is the production process of a vehicle responsible for a significant amount of the carbon totally emmited during its lifetime. Internal combustion cars are clearly not the future, but they should maybe be used with synthetic fuels instead of replacing them with other vehicles. greetings from germany, really good video
@starstencahl8985 2 роки тому
Ehrenmann
@xyzzyx2869 2 роки тому
@@starstencahl8985 lol
@patricksmith4424 2 роки тому
Very informative and well delivered, thanks for posting.
@ronaldlenz5745 2 роки тому
I’ve always said, save crude oil for petrochemicals. Don’t burn them. It’s way more cost effective to use crude for petrochemicals and use renewables for energy.
@skep_tikal9348 2 роки тому
FT Reactors can make long chain petrochemicals as well.
Алексей Навальный
Переглядів 2,7 млн
Politeka Online
Переглядів 597 тис.
На Сегозеро Сергеев Николай
Переглядів 2,6 млн