Jump to content

Synfuels vs EVs bitchfest


Recommended Posts

On 2/13/2023 at 11:43 AM, silvrsvt said:

The issue is that it will most likely never scale up to the point to be able to replace gasoline production from petrochemicals. If this was a viable replacement (the Germans used it in WW2 for crying out loud) why wouldn't it be the focus or the path forward? 


We could say exactly the same thing about electric vehicles manufactured in early 1900’s.

 

It has taken about a century since first BEVs were abandoned (in favor of ICE) for modern BEVs to make a comeback and challenge ICE for a second time; in large part due to advances in battery technology and also electronics.  Just saying that German failure to make fuel viable 80 years ago doesn’t preclude success in future.  It doesn’t guarantee it either, so I will keep an open mind and remain as objective as possible on both sides of issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2023 at 5:10 PM, 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 believe people accept “good” change easily, but assuming you are correct about human nature not liking change in general, why is it different when resisting BEVs versus synthetic fuels?  It is clear you don’t want to accept synthetic fuel just like others don’t want BEVs to succeed. 
 

BEVs will no doubt improve, but electrification challenges remain.  Synthetic fuels are way too expensive today, but if price under $8.00/gallon can be achieved within a decade or so, and produced with renewable energy, it would have some advantages that batteries can’t provide.  There are pros and cons to both, so maybe we should encourage healthy competition and see what happens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

E85 makes a lot more sense.

 

Automakers have pretty much abandoned E85 capability for new cars and light trucks nowadays. The only model year 2023 vehicles listed by the EPA with that capability are as follows. 2023 Fuel Economy Guide

  • Chevrolet Silverado 1500/GMC Sierra 5.3L (fleet only)
  • Ford F-150 3.3L
  • Ford F-150 5.0L
  • Ford Explorer 3.3L (fleet only)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

 

Automakers have pretty much abandoned E85 capability for new cars and light trucks nowadays. The only model year 2023 vehicles listed by the EPA with that capability are as follows. 2023 Fuel Economy Guide

  • Chevrolet Silverado 1500/GMC Sierra 5.3L (fleet only)
  • Ford F-150 3.3L
  • Ford F-150 5.0L
  • Ford Explorer 3.3L (fleet only)

 

There is also an E85 option for the GM HD pickups equipped with the 6.6L gas engine.  Ford may introduce it for the 6.8L at some point too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eFuels could also play a role in air transportation, shipping, military, and other needs where batteries may not be practical for much longer period, so their development is probably worth the investment in research and pilot plants regardless of automotive needs.  One advantage I find promising is that manufacturing and use locations are decoupled to a much greater degree.  Fuel could be manufactured in one continent or area and then shipped to where it is needed for consumption.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, akirby said:


How do you grow that much corn??


We export a significant amount of corn annually, so we could conceivably start holding some of it back.  They could also start looking at genetically modifying corn that is specifically for ethanol production that has the best characteristics, and as mentioned, there are other plant materials that can be used.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tbone said:

We export a significant amount of corn annually, so we could conceivably start holding some of it back.  They could also start looking at genetically modifying corn that is specifically for ethanol production that has the best characteristics, and as mentioned, there are other plant materials that can be used.  

 

Farmers are going to sell their corn to whoever pays them the most for it.  They'll only hold corn back if you pay them to do so.  

 

Genetically modifying corn for ethanol production is an interesting idea, but expect the anti-GMO crowd to raise a ruckus.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, tbone said:


We export a significant amount of corn annually, so we could conceivably start holding some of it back.  They could also start looking at genetically modifying corn that is specifically for ethanol production that has the best characteristics, and as mentioned, there are other plant materials that can be used.  

We really don’t export that much corn. This crop year (Sept 1 - Aug 31) exports are just 14% of corn production. 38% will be used in ethanol production and about half of total corn production will be used for animal feed, seed, and other industrial uses. 5.3 billion bushels of corn will be used for ethanol. (A bushel is 56 pounds). It’s true ethanol can be made from lots of different plant matter, but there’s nothing else currently available that could provide anywhere near the amount of ethanol feedstocks that corn does. 

Edited by Trader 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2023 at 12:47 AM, Rick73 said:


We could say exactly the same thing about electric vehicles manufactured in early 1900’s.

 

It has taken about a century since first BEVs were abandoned (in favor of ICE) for modern BEVs to make a comeback and challenge ICE for a second time; in large part due to advances in battery technology and also electronics.  Just saying that German failure to make fuel viable 80 years ago doesn’t preclude success in future.  It doesn’t guarantee it either, so I will keep an open mind and remain as objective as possible on both sides of issue.

this from Jayski Silly Season with manufacturers discussing electrification of NASCAR:

 

Mark Rushbrook, global director for Ford Performance Motorsports, said an intermediate step could involve moving to a “low carbon fuel or a responsible fuel” while still utilizing a combustion engine.

“We’ve got a great formula here with Cup and Xfinity and Trucks and three good national series, but there’s an opportunity to look and do more and try to introduce that technology in a way that makes sense.”

 Motorsport 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tarheels23 said:

this from Jayski Silly Season with manufacturers discussing electrification of NASCAR:

 

Mark Rushbrook, global director for Ford Performance Motorsports, said an intermediate step could involve moving to a “low carbon fuel or a responsible fuel” while still utilizing a combustion engine.

“We’ve got a great formula here with Cup and Xfinity and Trucks and three good national series, but there’s an opportunity to look and do more and try to introduce that technology in a way that makes sense.”

 Motorsport 


I just hope people do not confuse symbolic gestures with productive results.  It is great that eFuels (or hybrids and BEVs) are tested in NASCAR and other racing, but until spectators travel to race track in BEVs or with eFuels, all powered from renewable energy sources, it may not make much of a real difference beyond improving the conversation.  I will admit not knowing how much fuel NASCAR burns directly on track versus total associated with the sport, but expect it’s not a large percentage.

 

Not picking on NASCAR or any motorsport because, as an example, the same applies to a football stadium full of spectators, some traveling long distances to attend away games.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rick73 said:


I just hope people do not confuse symbolic gestures with productive results.  It is great that eFuels (or hybrids and BEVs) are tested in NASCAR and other racing, but until spectators travel to race track in BEVs or with eFuels, all powered from renewable energy sources, it may not make much of a real difference beyond improving the conversation.  I will admit not knowing how much fuel NASCAR burns directly on track versus total associated with the sport, but expect it’s not a large percentage.

 

Not picking on NASCAR or any motorsport because, as an example, the same applies to a football stadium full of spectators, some traveling long distances to attend away games.

did not suggest that synfuels will be an even part of an answer just thought with this thread the timing was suggestive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, tarheels23 said:

did not suggest that synfuels will be an even part of an answer just thought with this thread the timing was suggestive

 

The thing is that synfuels aren't a bad thing for things that need/want it, but for to be a real solution for cutting back CO2 in the real world (well maybe in aviation) there it doesn't make sense.

 

If F1 and NASCAR want to go carbon neutral and use ICE still, a synfuel is good course of action. 

 

Lots of it its just marketing with companies and the whole Carbon trading thing seems like its more of speculative trade like cryptocurrency (maybe not the best comparison)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

The thing is that synfuels aren't a bad thing for things that need/want it, but for to be a real solution for cutting back CO2 in the real world (well maybe in aviation) there it doesn't make sense.


If objective and brutally honest, electric vehicles don’t make much sense to me either; today or for many years to come as long as the primary objective is to reduce CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rick73 said:


If objective and brutally honest, electric vehicles don’t make much sense to me either; today or for many years to come as long as the primary objective is to reduce CO2.

Why? 
 

it’s simple-your removing vehicles that generate 2x the amount of CO2 of a BEV along with a bunch of other emissions. Not to mention there are other options with generating electricity with cleaner options. 


https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Not to mention there are other options with generating electricity with cleaner options. 

 

Furthermore, when cleaner options for generating electricity are applied as is already happening nowadays, both new BEV and existing BEV in operation reduce their CO2 emissions (and emissions of other pollutants too). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2023 at 1:30 AM, Rick73 said:


If objective and brutally honest, electric vehicles don’t make much sense to me either; today or for many years to come as long as the primary objective is to reduce CO2.

how about the fact that it will probably cost less to use a lot green energy forms in the near future. Most places where mechanical  systems are replaced by electricity, those areas show improvement in cost and efficiency- that is what will drive change.
 

China is quickly moving to replace oil imports with domestically generated electricity and I suspect that their long game is to replace all those coal fired plants with nuclear power plants or it could simply double down on solar wind and battery tech which is how I see Europe and USA going.

Change is inevitable and is happening now in spite of any reservations 

Edited by jpd80
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

Why? 
 

it’s simple-your removing vehicles that generate 2x the amount of CO2 of a BEV along with a bunch of other emissions. Not to mention there are other options with generating electricity with cleaner options. 


https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-a-mid-size-bev-and-ice-vehicle

 


Agree completely that adding clean, green, renewable electricity makes sense when affordable and or practical, but using that added generated capacity to power vehicles would not be my first choice at present.  I would use the extra green generating capacity to first eliminate coal plants, then start eliminating older natural gas electric plants.  By addressing the grid first, we can reduce CO2 faster.  To me it makes little sense to add BEV loads that will keep coal plants running longer.  Some people say you can do both simultaneously, but I don’t buy that argument. 

 

In the past you have stated that even coal-powered BEVs reduce CO2, but I don’t believe that’s correct (data says otherwise).  Additionally, using “grid” averages like many “professional” environmentalist seem to do when addressing additional loads is inconceivable.  The report you link above shows significant confirmation bias by making assumptions that are not realistic in order to support their views.

 

I’m on your side as far as reducing CO2, but think we need a different approach and to think bigger because atmospheric CO2 continues to go up fast.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

To me it makes little sense to add BEV loads that will keep coal plants running longer.  Some people say you can do both simultaneously, but I don’t buy that argument. 

 

BEV won't keep coal plants running longer, the transition from coal to renewables for power generation is already occurring simultaneously with the transition from ICE powered motor vehicles to BEV.

 

bzcat mentioned the following facts regarding BEV and electric power generation in another thread.

  • The grid is fine overall but needs more storage capacity.
  • EV demand is not a spike but a graduate build. We have lots of time to add the necessary generating and storage capacity into the grid. Even with the mandate on new car sales, it will take 30+ years to phase out all the ICE
  • EV uses very little electricity (the article says 0.4% of the generating capacity at peak now and up to 4% by 2035). In comparison, crypto currency already uses about 2% of our electricity. So anyone out there saying EV is going to collapse the grid is living in a parallel universe.
  • EV is parked 23 hours a day so charging is pretty spread out during low demand period. 
  • EV demand is strong. California is probably 5 years ahead of the rest of the US in terms of EV penetration and it is at 16% of new cars sales and is projected to hit 20% end of this year or early next year.
  • As the grid adds more renewable and phases out coal or gas, the EV CO2 footprint will get smaller over its lifetime.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...