The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

Synthetic fuel is not just biofuel
https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/20/porsche-pumps-first-synthetic-fuel-as-chilean-plant-finally-starts-producing/

There's nothing new under the sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas

For small scale it is possible. But the issue, again is competition, in this case competition for electricity.

The whole process is going to be a wildly inefficient way to store and then release energy.

focuszing723

I just want to point out I'm not being disparaging towards air plants.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

Synthetic fuel is not just biofuel
https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/20/porsche-pumps-first-synthetic-fuel-as-chilean-plant-finally-starts-producing/

There's nothing new under the sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngas

For small scale it is possible. But the issue, again is competition, in this case competition for electricity.

The whole process is going to be a wildly inefficient way to store and then release energy.

We can argue and speculate over what level of scale is feasible but not sure that Porsche (who are very successful operators in the auto world) would be investing in it if they did not see the potential. I am inclined to take their view over yours.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

Doesn't really solve the emissions problem, no?

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

They are using atmospheric CO2 and electrolytically generated H2, then making methanol and subsequently high octane gasoline using one or other of a number of fairly energy intensive processes that have been known for about 75 years.

There are a lot of projects around the world that are gaining investment but that aren't going anywhere. Not least all the CCS or CO2 sequestration projects you read about. Piss in the ocean.

This sort of synthetic fuel production may go somewhere, certainly for aviation, which will hoover up capacity.

This thing you've posted Stevo can only ever be small scale, because it uses a long sequence of inefficient processes and requires both a water source and a wind farm, plus a chemical processing plant, which itself will require a lot of energy to run.

The benefit to Porsche is marketing. By which I mean greenwashing. And for all I know they have funds allocated for green investments that will need to go somewhere. But the era of the combustion engine will not be prolonged by synthetic fuel, particularly if there are further step changes in battery energy density.

photonic69

Stevo_666 said:

Synthetic fuel is not just biofuel
https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/20/porsche-pumps-first-synthetic-fuel-as-chilean-plant-finally-starts-producing/

I was chatting only last week with a man who has links to the car industry and Shell and he confirmed that synthetic fuel is already being produced. It can also be made to be better and exceed the performance of regular oil derived petrol. It's just the cost of it is relatively high compared to pumping black sh!t out of the ground and distilling that.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

Doesn't really solve the emissions problem, no?

Depends where the electricity comes from. The actual fuel, setting aside infrastructure tp make it, is carbon neutral.

Edit: You mean clean air issues in cities. In which case, it is probably not as bad because you aren't starting out with lots of components you don't want.

Biodeisel is just as bad as diesel though, pretty much, because the particulate emissions are a consequence of the combustion process.

First.Aspect

photonic69 said:

Stevo_666 said:

Synthetic fuel is not just biofuel
https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/20/porsche-pumps-first-synthetic-fuel-as-chilean-plant-finally-starts-producing/

I was chatting only last week with a man who has links to the car industry and Shell and he confirmed that synthetic fuel is already being produced. It can also be made to be better and exceed the performance of regular oil derived petrol. It's just the cost of it is relatively high compared to pumping black sh!t out of the ground and distilling that.

Relatively? I would guess many times higher.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

Doesn't really solve the emissions problem, no?

Depends where the electricity comes from. The actual fuel, setting aside infrastructure tp make it, is carbon neutral.

might have to explain how it is neutral to me!

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

Doesn't really solve the emissions problem, no?

Depends where the electricity comes from. The actual fuel, setting aside infrastructure tp make it, is carbon neutral.

might have to explain how it is neutral to me!

It is made by compressing air and removing the atmospheric CO2, and hydrolysis of water to produce H2. These are made into methanol (CH3OH) and that's made into petrol. So all the carbon is atmospheric and when you burn it, you get back to where you started, CO2 and H2O.

None of these processes are new, by the way. They are just packaged together in one pilot plant.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

Doesn't really solve the emissions problem, no?

Depends where the electricity comes from. The actual fuel, setting aside infrastructure tp make it, is carbon neutral.

might have to explain how it is neutral to me!

It is made by compressing air and removing the atmospheric CO2, and hydrolysis of water to produce H2. These are made into methanol (CH3OH) and that's made into petrol. So all the carbon is atmospheric and when you burn it, you get back to where you started, CO2 and H2O.

None of these processes are new, by the way. They are just packaged together in one pilot plant.

Thanks

photonic69

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

Doesn't really solve the emissions problem, no?

Depends where the electricity comes from. The actual fuel, setting aside infrastructure tp make it, is carbon neutral.

Edit: You mean clean air issues in cities. In which case, it is probably not as bad because you aren't starting out with lots of components you don't want.

Biodeisel is just as bad as diesel though, pretty much, because the particulate emissions are a consequence of the combustion process.

Actually particulate emissions from diesel are greatly reduced to almost negligable levels with new technology. It's the crud that comes off brakes and tyres which is the bigger issue now.

Also the phrase 'carbon neutral' or 'net zero' is a pipe dream. There is going to be pollution somewhere along the line - digging ore from the ground to make batteries; making composites to produce wind turbine blades; smelting ore to produce copper for the charging infra. etc etc etc.

Just as long as it's in China and not on our shores it's OK, yah?

First.Aspect

photonic69 said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

Doesn't really solve the emissions problem, no?

Depends where the electricity comes from. The actual fuel, setting aside infrastructure tp make it, is carbon neutral.

Edit: You mean clean air issues in cities. In which case, it is probably not as bad because you aren't starting out with lots of components you don't want.

Biodeisel is just as bad as diesel though, pretty much, because the particulate emissions are a consequence of the combustion process.

Actually particulate emissions from diesel are greatly reduced to almost negligable levels with new technology. It's the crud that comes off brakes and tyres which is the bigger issue now.

Also the phrase 'carbon neutral' or 'net zero' is a pipe dream. There is going to be pollution somewhere along the line - digging ore from the ground to make batteries; making composites to produce wind turbine blades; smelting ore to produce copper for the charging infra. etc etc etc.

Just as long as it's in China and not on our shores it's OK, yah?

Pretty much. You could hypothetically power all of this "cleanly" but there's just not going to be enough clean energy to waste it on nostalgic vanity projects, to large scale anyhow.

Re deisels, I have some knowledge about dpfs and exhaust recycling etc. From some patent work I did 5 or 6 years ago.

Yes, diesels can now be very clean in that respect, but politics have overtaken science and engineering.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

They are using atmospheric CO2 and electrolytically generated H2, then making methanol and subsequently high octane gasoline using one or other of a number of fairly energy intensive processes that have been known for about 75 years.

There are a lot of projects around the world that are gaining investment but that aren't going anywhere. Not least all the CCS or CO2 sequestration projects you read about. Piss in the ocean.

This sort of synthetic fuel production may go somewhere, certainly for aviation, which will hoover up capacity.

This thing you've posted Stevo can only ever be small scale, because it uses a long sequence of inefficient processes and requires both a water source and a wind farm, plus a chemical processing plant, which itself will require a lot of energy to run.

The benefit to Porsche is marketing. By which I mean greenwashing. And for all I know they have funds allocated for green investments that will need to go somewhere. But the era of the combustion engine will not be prolonged by synthetic fuel, particularly if there are further step changes in battery energy density.

You described hydrogen production by electrolysis as easy the other day. This process adds in carbon captured which is definitely technologically behind. However, the end product would be easier to ship than pure hydrogen, so it seems like something worth exploring to me.

Note the end goal with ideas like this is includes lots of solar panels in deserts.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

The first few pages of this thread were dedicated to rubbishing Rick's ideas because they weren't fit for ~15% of the population so I'm not sure what you were expecting.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

Yes. The article even says that it's a stopgap while legacy ICE vehicles are replaced.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

They are using atmospheric CO2 and electrolytically generated H2, then making methanol and subsequently high octane gasoline using one or other of a number of fairly energy intensive processes that have been known for about 75 years.

There are a lot of projects around the world that are gaining investment but that aren't going anywhere. Not least all the CCS or CO2 sequestration projects you read about. Piss in the ocean.

This sort of synthetic fuel production may go somewhere, certainly for aviation, which will hoover up capacity.

This thing you've posted Stevo can only ever be small scale, because it uses a long sequence of inefficient processes and requires both a water source and a wind farm, plus a chemical processing plant, which itself will require a lot of energy to run.

The benefit to Porsche is marketing. By which I mean greenwashing. And for all I know they have funds allocated for green investments that will need to go somewhere. But the era of the combustion engine will not be prolonged by synthetic fuel, particularly if there are further step changes in battery energy density.

You described hydrogen production by electrolysis as easy the other day. This process adds in carbon captured which is definitely technologically behind. However, the end product would be easier to ship than pure hydrogen, so it seems like something worth exploring to me.

Note the end goal with ideas like this is includes lots of solar panels in deserts.

This Porsche project adds in the sequential energy inefficiencies of obtaining the CO2 (which isn't going to be achieved in the same way as CCS on power plants I wouldn't have thought), plus the inefficiency of making petrol from the two gasses, and finally the inefficiency of turning that into propulsion in an internal combustion engine. Compared to generating H2 and turning it into electricity in a fuel cell.

So whereas H2 production followed by using it in a fuel cell might be say 50% efficient overall, I would guess the overall process proposed by Porsche would be closer to single figures.

I don't know the actual numbers - these are wild stabs in the dark - but I can't see how the synthetic fuel route could be anything other than a way to use H2 that is several times less efficient.

So all of these processes are technologically possible, but the question is whether they are worthwhile.

rjsterry

All so the ICE nostalgia club can have a car that goes brrrm.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

So all of these processes are technologically possible, but the question is whether they are worthwhile.

I think that blue pills are cheaper.

focuszing723

The tyre particles pollute air, water and soil and contain a wide range of toxic organic compounds, including known carcinogens, the analysts say, suggesting tyre pollution could rapidly become a major issue for regulators.

Air pollution causes millions of early deaths a year globally. The requirement for better filters has meant particle emissions from tailpipes in developed countries are now much lower in new cars, with those in Europe far below the legal limit. However, the increasing weight of cars means more particles are being thrown off by tyres as they wear on the road.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyres-produce-more-particle-pollution-than-exhausts-tests-show

I love seeing old classic cars on the road, the worse thing would be to scrap them.

Cars have gotten too complex, they should be simple and easy to maintain, keep on the road stopping the huge environmental impact of scrappag waste. Also car tyres, what about the impact of them?

Perhaps ignorance is the answer.

focuszing723

Yep, quadcoper converting planes is the answer. No road infrastructure maintaince, just converted to utilities service channels.

TheBigBean

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

They are using atmospheric CO2 and electrolytically generated H2, then making methanol and subsequently high octane gasoline using one or other of a number of fairly energy intensive processes that have been known for about 75 years.

There are a lot of projects around the world that are gaining investment but that aren't going anywhere. Not least all the CCS or CO2 sequestration projects you read about. Piss in the ocean.

This sort of synthetic fuel production may go somewhere, certainly for aviation, which will hoover up capacity.

This thing you've posted Stevo can only ever be small scale, because it uses a long sequence of inefficient processes and requires both a water source and a wind farm, plus a chemical processing plant, which itself will require a lot of energy to run.

The benefit to Porsche is marketing. By which I mean greenwashing. And for all I know they have funds allocated for green investments that will need to go somewhere. But the era of the combustion engine will not be prolonged by synthetic fuel, particularly if there are further step changes in battery energy density.

You described hydrogen production by electrolysis as easy the other day. This process adds in carbon captured which is definitely technologically behind. However, the end product would be easier to ship than pure hydrogen, so it seems like something worth exploring to me.

Note the end goal with ideas like this is includes lots of solar panels in deserts.

This Porsche project adds in the sequential energy inefficiencies of obtaining the CO2 (which isn't going to be achieved in the same way as CCS on power plants I wouldn't have thought), plus the inefficiency of making petrol from the two gasses, and finally the inefficiency of turning that into propulsion in an internal combustion engine. Compared to generating H2 and turning it into electricity in a fuel cell.

So whereas H2 production followed by using it in a fuel cell might be say 50% efficient overall, I would guess the overall process proposed by Porsche would be closer to single figures.

I don't know the actual numbers - these are wild stabs in the dark - but I can't see how the synthetic fuel route could be anything other than a way to use H2 that is several times less efficient.

So all of these processes are technologically possible, but the question is whether they are worthwhile.

Yes, less efficient, but that doesn't mean it is pointless. There is two and half times more sun in the Atacama desert and far fewer nimbies than in the UK, so it is a easier place to make power. That easy power won't help the UK though, so storage and transport of it are factors.

All of that said, sequestration of carbon is really not effecient at the moment, so perhaps it won't go anywhere. The Wright brothers first few flights didn't go very far though

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

All so the ICE nostalgia club can have a car that goes brrrm.

There are better ways to think of it than that.

pangolin

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

All so the ICE nostalgia club can have a car that goes brrrm.

There are better ways to think of it than that.

Vroom?

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

The idea of using biofuels for heating has also been and gone as soon as someone did the sums for how much farmland they would need. It's a bit of a dead end.

The article and the video that FZ posted are more optimistic than you are.

What, the petrolhead magazine article you posted?

It's more ethanol head really.

To those who say it's a dead end, have they spotted that the 'E5' and 'E10' descriptors on pump fuel refers to the ethanol content? That's quite a lot of ethanol we are already producing and using.

It's directly competing with food production and there's just not enough farmland. The best yields in Europe are under 8 litres per hectare from sugar beet. Europe is already having to import feedstock just to produce enough bioethanol to make up the 5% and 10% you mention above.

To switch entirely, the UK would use about 60% of entire EU annual production. At best it's a stopgap.

As I posted above, synthetic fuel is not just biofuel - see link to what Porsche is doing.

Also as posted above, it will part.of the solution, not the only solution.

Did you read anything that I've posted upthread?

They are using atmospheric CO2 and electrolytically generated H2, then making methanol and subsequently high octane gasoline using one or other of a number of fairly energy intensive processes that have been known for about 75 years.

There are a lot of projects around the world that are gaining investment but that aren't going anywhere. Not least all the CCS or CO2 sequestration projects you read about. Piss in the ocean.

This sort of synthetic fuel production may go somewhere, certainly for aviation, which will hoover up capacity.

This thing you've posted Stevo can only ever be small scale, because it uses a long sequence of inefficient processes and requires both a water source and a wind farm, plus a chemical processing plant, which itself will require a lot of energy to run.

The benefit to Porsche is marketing. By which I mean greenwashing. And for all I know they have funds allocated for green investments that will need to go somewhere. But the era of the combustion engine will not be prolonged by synthetic fuel, particularly if there are further step changes in battery energy density.

You described hydrogen production by electrolysis as easy the other day. This process adds in carbon captured which is definitely technologically behind. However, the end product would be easier to ship than pure hydrogen, so it seems like something worth exploring to me.

Note the end goal with ideas like this is includes lots of solar panels in deserts.

This Porsche project adds in the sequential energy inefficiencies of obtaining the CO2 (which isn't going to be achieved in the same way as CCS on power plants I wouldn't have thought), plus the inefficiency of making petrol from the two gasses, and finally the inefficiency of turning that into propulsion in an internal combustion engine. Compared to generating H2 and turning it into electricity in a fuel cell.

So whereas H2 production followed by using it in a fuel cell might be say 50% efficient overall, I would guess the overall process proposed by Porsche would be closer to single figures.

I don't know the actual numbers - these are wild stabs in the dark - but I can't see how the synthetic fuel route could be anything other than a way to use H2 that is several times less efficient.

So all of these processes are technologically possible, but the question is whether they are worthwhile.

Yes, less efficient, but that doesn't mean it is pointless. There is two and half times more sun in the Atacama desert and far fewer nimbies than in the UK, so it is a easier place to make power. That easy power won't help the UK though, so storage and transport of it are factors.

All of that said, sequestration of carbon is really not effecient at the moment, so perhaps it won't go anywhere. The Wright brothers first few flights didn't go very far though

Never say never with regard to synthetic fuels, but it's hard to change the basic chemistry or maths here. If there is a market for this sort of thing at all, its aviation, because there's not a viable alternative to the jet engine on the horizon.

Large scale CCS is a pipedream, at leat if you want to make any impact on global warming.

Wheelspinner

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

First.Aspect

Wheelspinner said:

UK and Europe don't really give two f^cks about global warming, despite the hand-wringing political double speak lies.

Drax power station.

12% of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from a plant run by a company that is clear-felling old growth forest in Canada, turning it to pellets, shipping it in diesel powered tankers to the UK and burning it in a process that creates MORE emissions than coal. And calling it "renewable" and claiming subsidies because oh look, we planted a tree that in several decades time we can cut down again.

Europe is just as bad.

Sick of the bullsh1t and hypocrisy. Let's all drive battery powered cars charged up with electricity generated by burning old forest wood shipped from the other side of the world, eh? What a smart idea.

Er, have you got any evidence for any of that? It is very possibly true in part, but the 12% from Canadian old growth has the feel of a More or Less article to me.

webboo

There was a BBC Panorama programme about this I guess the stats come from there.