Synfuels vs EVs bitchfest

[tbone]

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

 

There is no "EV crowd" here - just rperez817 and 1 does not make a crowd. But the is definitely an ICE goon squad here that lacks objectively. ?

 

Most of us are talking about science and basic physics which is as objective as it can be. And it's not about battery which is just a storage medium. It is about energy and how some "solutions" for powering vehicles at scale are really nonsense. Like hydrogen (and syn fuel in general). 

 

Syn fuel is worthy of research. There are lots of niche applications where it will work. But it ultimately still rely on internal combustion, which is already near the edge of theoretical limit of efficiency. Roughly 30% of the energy input into internal combustion is converted into forward momentum to propel our vehicle. With syn fuel, that % is lower because you lose some energy in the process of making the syn fuel. Electricity converts about 80% of energy input into vehicle propulsion. You just cannot overcome this gap with wishful thinking. 

 

 

Fair enough, but on the same token, be careful who you lump in with the ICE goon squad.  I like the all the above approach to finding solutions for efficient vehicles that work for people, which there are others like me on this forum.  I wouldn’t be trying to get a Lightning for my work vehicle if I were part of the anti-EV movement. 

[bzcat]

Goon squad is just kidding... I'm all for good discussion.

 

EV is going to be the most practical solution. But doesn't mean it is the only solution. ICE hybrids will probably still be around for a long time. And syn fuel is probably the long term solution to keep vintage cars on the road once fossil fuel production becomes too expensive for gasoline to be practical for consumer use. We used to use whale oil to light our buildings and streets... until it became too expensive and impractical. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by bzcat

[silvrsvt]

The thing people are missing is just context when it comes to conversation to BEVs vs ICE. There is a lot of FUD and plain misinformation about BEVs and some people are projecting who they are when it comes to their vehicle. I just had a heated conversation with a internet friend of mine who works at a dealership over this. They where bringing up about the $30-40K battery replacement costs and how the transit EV only does 100 miles range wise when drives more then that with his job. I think alot of it has to do with just people not accepting change and just seeing what is in front of their faces instead of what will be coming down the road. 

 

Long story short-ICE development and fuel development that is associated with it won't get as much funding due to several different reasons, where as batteries and battery materials will get increased funding that will improve range and/or recharging. 

[CurtisH]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

. . . . . I think alot of it has to do with just people not accepting change and just seeing what is in front of their faces instead of what will be coming down the road. . . . .. 

I’ve seen comments like this several times, but I don’t really understand it.  If I am buying a car today, why should I care what is coming down the road.  if we replace my wife’s Edge this year, it will not be an EV.  In 6-8 years, I’ll probably buy an EV.  In 6-8, most of the issues I’m concerned about should be resolved. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by CurtisH

[akirby]

4 hours ago, bzcat said:

 

There is no "EV crowd" here - just rperez817 and 1 does not make a crowd. But the is definitely an ICE goon squad here that lacks objectively. ?

 

Most of us are talking about science and basic physics which is as objective as it can be. And it's not about battery which is just a storage medium. It is about energy and how some "solutions" for powering vehicles at scale are really nonsense. Like hydrogen (and syn fuel in general). 

 

Syn fuel is worthy of research. There are lots of niche applications where it will work. But it ultimately still rely on internal combustion, which is already near the edge of theoretical limit of efficiency. Roughly 30% of the energy input into internal combustion is converted into forward momentum to propel our vehicle. With syn fuel, that % is lower because you lose some energy in the process of making the syn fuel. Electricity converts about 80% of energy input into vehicle propulsion. You just cannot overcome this gap with wishful thinking. 

Not disagreeing with any of that but you guys are ignoring one very big advantage for synthetic fuel IF it could be produced at volume with a reasonable cost.

300 million.

 

There are 300 million ICE vehicles right now just in the US and they can all use synthetic fuel right now.  Even if we went to 100% BEV right now at 15 million per year it would take 20 years to replace them with BEVs and that doesn’t take growth into account.  Since we’re not even at 10% BEVs yet it’s probably going to be more like 30-40 years.  Batteries may be more efficient but they aren’t going to be retrofitted so the choice for those 300M vehicles is gasoline or syn fuel for the foreseeable future.  In that context syn fuel does make sense IF it can be produced at volume and reasonable cost.  And I admit that may not be possible but we said a lot of things were impossible until somebody did it.  The huge embedded base of existing vehicles trumps the higher efficiency of batteries because batteries are not an option for them.  New vehicles are an entirely different story.

[silvrsvt]

41 minutes ago, akirby said:

There are 300 million ICE vehicles right now just in the US and they can all use synthetic fuel right now.  Even if we went to 100% BEV right now at 15 million per year it would take 20 years to replace them with BEVs and that doesn’t take growth into account.  Since we’re not even at 10% BEVs yet it’s probably going to be more like 30-40 years.  Batteries may be more efficient but they aren’t going to be retrofitted so the choice for those 300M vehicles is gasoline or syn fuel for the foreseeable future.  In that context syn fuel does make sense IF it can be produced at volume and reasonable cost.  And I admit that may not be possible but we said a lot of things were impossible until somebody did it.  The huge embedded base of existing vehicles trumps the higher efficiency of batteries because batteries are not an option for them.  New vehicles are an entirely different story.

 

Ultimately the whole point of electrification of vehicles is to remove CO2 and other emissions from internal combustion engines. Eventually ICE will be outright banned by the end of the 2030s in most cases IMO. 

 

If you went the synfuel route-your just using more energy to create something that has no net benefit in cutting down emissions...your just better off using gasoline from crude till they get to the point that BEVs make up most of the market. 

[tbone]

5 hours ago, akirby said:

300 million.

Bingo!  It’s a huge market. 
 

 

4 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

If you went the synfuel route-your just using more energy to create something that has no net benefit in cutting down emissions...your just better off using gasoline from crude till they get to the point that BEVs make up most of the market. 

Apparently you missed our discussion about potential future advancements in the development of synfuel that mitigate this issue.  

[silvrsvt]

5 hours ago, tbone said:

Apparently you missed our discussion about potential future advancements in the development of synfuel that mitigate this issue.  

 

But you missed this part:

 

Quote

If you are concerned about powering legacy ICE, we still have lots of oil underground to power them for eons. Syn fuel is net energy negative no matter how you make it so fundamentally, it doesn't make sense to apply it at scale. 

 

This is not a theoretical point. If you think about it logically, converting all existing ICE to syn fuel will require so much more energy input it just doesn't make any sense. Much more logical to speed up replacement of ICE with EV if your goal is zero emission. But for hobbyist and enthusiast that still may want to drive ICE 50 years from now, absolutely, syn fuel is a possible but niche solution to driving your classic 2022 Porsche in 2072.
 

 

Outside of powering classic/performance vehicles in limited use, Synfuels are a nonstarter for almost anything else that can be electrified.

 

Not sure what your point is-Synfuels have a very limited application but won't work as a major solution for cutting down emissions because they take so much energy (which can create more emissions) to create in the first place. 

 

I guess the best example is having an investment that can only give you a 5% return, but you need take 10% out of it to cover costs....  

 

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by silvrsvt

[akirby]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

Not sure what your point is-Synfuels have a very limited application but won't work as a major solution for cutting down emissions because they take so much energy (which can create more emissions) to create in the first place. 

Isn’t the same true of mining and factories to create batteries and the power plants to charge the batteries?  What about all those emissions?

 

Not going to continue to argue because you keep ignoring the 300 million existing ICE vehicles and only want to focus on new ones.

[rperez817]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Outside of powering classic/performance vehicles in limited use, Synfuels are a nonstarter for almost anything else that can be electrified.

 

For sure silvrsvt. Even for classic ICE powered vehicles, a better option is to convert them to BEV or other true ZEV as Ford demonstrated with the F-100 Eluminator Concept. In California, a state senator introduced a bill a couple weeks ago to "create a financial rebate program to convert gas and diesel-powered motor vehicles into zero-emissions-vehicles (ZEVs)". Senator Portantino Introduces ZEV Conversion Rebate Bill | Senator Anthony Portantino (ca.gov)

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by rperez817

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, akirby said:

Isn’t the same true of mining and factories to create batteries and the power plants to charge the batteries?  What about all those emissions?

 

Not going to continue to argue because you keep ignoring the 300 million existing ICE vehicles and only want to focus on new ones.

 

What about all the emissions from oil exploration/recovery/transportation that aren't part of the conversation?

 

The 300 million number your harping about will shrink as more BEV options come about over the next 10-20 years or due to government actions or  encouragement via incentives/fines

 

I don't understand why you don't get that the synfuels aren't a real solution and it's just better economically to use oil if you need to power ICE vehicles because synfuels don't over any advantages over oil and actually require more energy (where ever it comes from) to produce then just using crude oil and breaking it down into different components. Maybe at some point synfuels will be a reality if crude refining goes away and or gets banned in the future. 

 

The whole point of this is reduce emissions-removing ICE from transportation and phasing out coal than natural gas over the next 20 years or so. 

[coupe3w]

If it's about emissions nothing will change on this planet if China, India and some other nations don't do anything about it. The USA can cut back to zero emissions and it just won't  be but a drop in the ocean of change.

[silvrsvt]

29 minutes ago, coupe3w said:

If it's about emissions nothing will change on this planet if China, India and some other nations don't do anything about it. The USA can cut back to zero emissions and it just won't  be but a drop in the ocean of change.

 

That is like saying if your neighbors live like pigs it doesn't matter what your property looks like because of them. Its just a cop out or excuse not do anything

[coupe3w]

29 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

 

That is like saying if your neighbors live like pigs it doesn't matter what your property looks like because of them. Its just a cop out or excuse not do anything

No it's not like that at all. If your neighbor is polluting the air and water it also affects you even though you keep a clean yard and don't pollute. You can't clean up his pollution by no polluting yourself. It's like shoveling shit against the tide.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, coupe3w said:

No it's not like that at all. If your neighbor is polluting the air and water it also affects you even though you keep a clean yard and don't pollute. You can't clean up his pollution by no polluting yourself. It's like shoveling shit against the tide.

But at the same time you could take him to court (if your doing the right thing), which would be the US having trade sanctions against China or India till they clean up their act also. 

[Chrisgb]

2 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

For sure silvrsvt. Even for classic ICE powered vehicles, a better option is to convert them to BEV or other true ZEV as Ford demonstrated with the F-100 Eluminator Concept. In California, a state senator introduced a bill a couple weeks ago to "create a financial rebate program to convert gas and diesel-powered motor vehicles into zero-emissions-vehicles (ZEVs)". Senator Portantino Introduces ZEV Conversion Rebate Bill | Senator Anthony Portantino (ca.gov)

 

Now they need to write a bill creating a rebate program to convert all the fossil fuel pumps to charging stations. It does no good to have a BEV in every garage if no one has enough electrons to get back to their garage. Not.

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples' money." -Margaret Thatcher

I have no empirical data, but I think a sizable portion of the population is on board with BEVs, I personally will consider a non-ICE for one of my next vehicles. I put my share of pollutants in the air as an OTR semi driver; I burned an estimated 530,000 gallons of diesel over my 25-year career.

However I don't think we as a society should go rushing headlong into totally electrifying our transportation. I am unclear how, or if the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) funds will go to private enterprise. I read the announcement below and did word searches for private, enterprise, company, business, personal, and commercial, and got no hits. Is the plan to be similar to how tollways license commercial fuel vendors to operate filling stations at service plazas, or will the charging stations be owned and operated by local, state, or federal agencies?  I don't think we as a society should go rushing headlong into totally electrifying our transportation with batteries that contain crucial elements obtained from countries that we have strained relationships with.

https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/biden-harris-administration-announces-approval-first-35-state-plans-build-out-ev-charging

 

We began Oil Age because it was a more practical energy source for early 20th century technology transportation. The population understood that, and we had ample supply of crude oil for the consumption of the time. But as far as I can tell, there was no national effort to fund oil exploration or set up refineries and gas stations, and it was a few decades later that government got involved with road construction and maintenance. Now are we trading one finite resource, crude oil, for another, lithium? Are there safeguards to ensure procurement and distribution of it? We have issues with some of the countries that have the biggest reserves and battery technology. And I want to hear more about how the billions for NEVI will be allocated. I lean more toward fuel cell energy. We have the resources domestically for H2 production and fuel cell manufacturing, but I wouldn't want my H2 to come from a government plant or filling station.

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Chrisgb
clarification

[coupe3w]

1 hour ago, silvrsvt said:

But at the same time you could take him to court (if your doing the right thing), which would be the US having trade sanctions against China or India till they clean up their act also. 

I agree, but that is not happening. Until it does the pollution will remain.

Cheap labor and goods will keep the pollution going on for years to come.

[akirby]

2 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

synfuels don't over any advantages over oil and actually require more energy (where ever it comes from) to produce then just using crude oil and breaking it down into different components.

They give off 85% less emissions than gasoline.  How is that no advantage if the goal is to reduce emissions?

 

I guess we’ll just have to see how this plays out.  

[silvrsvt]

38 minutes ago, Chrisgb said:

We began Oil Age because it was a more practical energy source for early 20th century technology transportation. The population understood that, and we had ample supply of crude oil for the consumption of the time. But as far as I can tell, there was no national effort to fund oil exploration or set up refineries and gas stations, and it was a few decades later that government got involved with road construction and maintenance. Now are we trading one finite resource, crude oil, for another, lithium? Are there safeguards to ensure procurement and distribution of it? We have issues with some of the countries that have the biggest reserves and battery technology. And I want to hear more about how the billions for NEVI will be allocated. I lean more toward fuel cell energy. We have the resources domestically for H2 production and fuel cell manufacturing, but I wouldn't want my H2 to come from a government plant or filling station.

 

People also lived off the land and didn't travel further then a few miles from their houses either....you know we got this thing called progress that hopefully makes life easier or maybe even more enjoyable to live?

 

Not all batteries need lithium and there is research into making other types of batteries that cut down or eliminate the use of lithium. 

 

Fuel Cell/H2 production yet again makes zero sense because it takes more energy to produce it then is economically feasible. Why are you going to generate H2, then put it into a ICE, which is inherently more inefficient than a electric motor, making it even less effective? Then you have the issue of storage and transportation of H2. It boils down to that Electricity is far easier to transport long distances and to generate. The biggest "issue" is recharge times/energy density of them vs other fuels.

If a BEV can be recharged in 10 minutes, the whole range issue goes out the window IMO. 

[silvrsvt]

29 minutes ago, akirby said:

They give off 85% less emissions than gasoline.  How is that no advantage if the goal is to reduce emissions?

 

I guess we’ll just have to see how this plays out.  

 

Not quite-some info

 

https://www.petro-online.com/news/fuel-for-thought/13/breaking-news/what-are-the-disadvantages-of-synthetic-fuel/59303

Comparable emissions

Synthetic fuels share the same chemical properties as conventional petrol and diesel. This means they still release toxic gasses into the atmosphere when burned. While some synthetic products generate fewer particulates, gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur oxide (Sox) and nitrogen (NOx) are still released. This makes synthetic fuels comparable to conventional fuels, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, it’s important to note that most synthetic fuel manufacturers actively capture atmospheric carbon to produce synthetic fuel. This offsets the emissions produced when synthetic fuels are burned.  

Lackluster CO2 reductions

In a best case scenario, analysts predict synthetic fuels can slash CO2 emissions in the transport sector by 85% by 2050. In comparison, battery powered EVs could eliminate emissions. For many people, this puts synthetic fuels in second place.

In defense of synthetic fuels

Synthetic fuels may have their disadvantages. But that hasn’t stopped advocates from hailing them as the fuels of the future. In an article published in the journal Frontiers in Energy Research, the authors say synthetic fuels could step up as a “social bridge” in the global energy transition.

They warn that while battery electric vehicles (BEVs) offer zero tailpipe emissions, high manufacturing costs will prevent low-income groups from adopting the technology. This will lead to a “transport underclass” in which only high-income groups own private vehicles.

“The fear is that a radical move toward abolishing internal combustion engines (ICEs) will result in a transport social underclass where lower socioeconomic groups become transport impoverished,” reads the article. The authors also stress that manufacturing and electricity generation emissions associated with BEVs are often transferred to other locations, usually with low socioeconomic status.

They say synthetic fuels will bridge the gap and “provide a route to accelerate a transition” to a net-zero global economy. Find out more about the enormous potential in ‘Synthetic Fuels - What, How & Why’.

[tbone]

7 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

 

But you missed this part:

 

 

Outside of powering classic/performance vehicles in limited use, Synfuels are a nonstarter for almost anything else that can be electrified.

 

Not sure what your point is-Synfuels have a very limited application but won't work as a major solution for cutting down emissions because they take so much energy (which can create more emissions) to create in the first place. 

 

I guess the best example is having an investment that can only give you a 5% return, but you need take 10% out of it to cover costs....  

 

 

I didn’t miss that part, nor did I dismiss your position as it currently stands, but you completely ignored my position that commitment to developing synfuels could yield a product that is net positive on energy.  On the other hand, maybe  it won’t, I’m not one for predicting the future.  

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, Harley Lover said:

 

 

just a joke. I’ll clean this up later ? 

[silvrsvt]

Cleaned up the future Ford products posting so if we want to bitch about this some more, we can do it here

 

[akirby]

Nah I’m all argued out.

[pffan1990]

What happened to the other posts here? A separate thread regarding 'synthetic fuels vs bevs' or just 'synthetic fuels' could have been made and the synthetic fuels posts here be moved there. Did I miss something?

Edit: Nevermind for my confusion, this is the new separate thread regarding the synthetic fuels vs BEVs. The original 'perpetual future Ford products' thread can be found here...

https://blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/67722-perpetual-future-ford-products-thread/

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by pffan1990