Several options exist for clean fuel production in the long-term future, writes Schalk Cloete in the third and last part of a series on the future of the internal combustion engine. Next-gen biofuels have the potential to approach current oil prices at a low environmental cost. Hydrogen can be produced economically from excess wind/solar power, nuclear heat or fossil fuels with CCS. Ammonia and hydrocarbon synfuels from clean hydrogen can be competitive for long-range transport applications.
The previous two articles described why the internal combustion engine (ICE) will remain highly competitive for decades to come and how it may adapt in the future. Another fuel-fed drivetrain, fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), was also discussed.
Currently, almost all liquid fuels for ICEs and hydrogen for FCVs come from fossil fuels. Naturally, this situation cannot last forever, and sustainable alternatives will eventually be required. This article will review some of these alternatives.
Potential of sustainable fuels
The first and most obvious candidate for sustainable fuel production is biofuels. Estimates of total technical potential of biofuels vary widely, but central estimates for the long-term future are generally in the order of 100 EJ/year – roughly the rate of transportation energy consumption today. In the image below, L, M & H represent low, medium and high scenarios in two cases where biofuel production from food crops is allowed or not. The dotted lines show the range of scenarios for fuel demand.
The second candidate is synfuel from renewable electricity. Given the significant efficiency penalties of these processes, they will only be economical at very low electricity prices. Wind and solar start to create instances of such very low prices already at moderate market shares. In a renewable energy future, wind and solar might supply about 60% of electricity, after about about a third of the total generation potential is curtailed. If we assume a tripling of global electricity generation and 70% synfuel conversion efficiency, this excess wind and solar power can supply 56 EJ/year – about half of current transportation fuel demand.
Future high temperature nuclear reactors could also produce hydrogen through thermochemical process routes. There are no relevant bounds to the rate at which these fuels can be supplied, but these reactors will need to overcome a number of technical, economic and political hurdles.
Any marginal supply beyond these sustainable sources can be met by conventional fossil fuel pathways with CCS. We have enough resources and CO2 storage capacity for several centuries of such marginal supply.
It is therefore clear that the world has sufficient potential for long-term transportation fuel production. In the next sections, we’ll take a look at the economic aspects.
Biofuels
Fuels produced from cellulosic plant matter have a much smaller negative impact on the environment and food supply than first generation fuels like corn ethanol. The IEA thinks that these technologies have the potential to reach prices competitive with oil at $45-70/bbl.
Such next-gen biofuels also have much lower greenhouse gas emissions than regular gasoline (60-100% less). This will ensure competitive costs below $100/bbl even in an environment with high CO2 taxes. The breakeven electricity cost with electric drive is shown below for perspective:
Synfuel from wind and solar
Synfuel production offers an attractive method for productive utilization of wind and solar output that would otherwise have been curtailed. Plants can be built close to the highest concentration of wind/solar sources causing negative prices, thus requiring minimal electricity transmission costs. Easily exportable synfuels also offer a good solution to the challenge posed by the highly uneven renewable energy potential and population density around the world.
Naturally, it would be most efficient to charge battery electric vehicles (BEVs) with this low-cost electricity, but this will bring serious practical and economic problems. For solar-dominated systems, it will mean that the bulk of charging must happen in the few hours around noon. This will mean massive public charging infrastructure buildouts, expensive increases to distribution capacity, and substantial inconvenience for drivers. Prices in wind-dominated systems will fluctuate randomly and mostly over timescales that are longer than the daily cycle that is best suited to electric cars.
A strategically located synfuel plant can avoid these challenges. One potential issue is the low capital utilization rate, but growth and interest rates are likely to be very low by the time that this technology becomes relevant, making this of lesser concern. The cost estimates presented below assume a 3% discount rate and 30% capacity factor.
The following graph was created for hydrogen production from future PEM electrolysis. Hydrogen transport and storage costs are estimated from this old NREL report. Adjusted for inflation, short distance transport and storage of small quantities of hydrogen (e.g. to filling stations) would cost about $1/kg. Another $1/kg needs to be added for long-distance transport of large quantities of hydrogen (e.g. from a large plant to a distant population center). Long distance transport of small quantities of hydrogen (e.g. to an isolated filling station) costs $2/kg or more. An additional $0.5/kg was added for storage at the fueling station. Keep in mind that a kg of hydrogen has about the same energy as a gallon of gasoline where total refining, distribution and marketing costs are about $0.8/gal.
In practice, this means that a population center located close to a large concentration of wind/solar generators could get totally clean hydrogen fuel for a price equivalent below $100/bbl of oil, if the average electricity cost during the 2600 lowest cost hours of the year amounts to less than $20/MWh. As shown in the graph below (for California), such a situation is a real possibility, especially in scenarios with high solar PV market share.
A population center that is further away from the production site will pay about $1/kg ($45/bbl) more, and an isolated location another $1/kg on top of that. It is therefore clear that renewable hydrogen can be economical, but only under certain circumstances.
Compared to ICE cars, the maximum efficiency of FCVs will be slightly higher, although still below a BEV. The chart below shows the breakeven electricity price for BEVs to match FCVs over three different levels of BEV efficiency advantage.
One way to avoid the large transport and storage costs of hydrogen and to enable international trade is to transform it into a fuel that is a liquid at or near room temperature. Two main options will be reviewed here: liquid hydrocarbons (from Fischer-Tropsch) and Ammonia (from Haber-Bosch). Both processes should convert energy in hydrogen with an efficiency of about 80%. An additional hydrogen storage cost of $0.5/kg will be added to add a buffer between intermittent hydrogen supply from wind/solar and constant hydrogen consumption by the plant. Ammonia distribution costs are assumed to be double that of gasoline ($0.8/gal instead of $0.4/gal).
In this estimate, hydrocarbon synfuels are more economical than ammonia up to an effective CO2 price of about $60/ton. It should be noted that hydrocarbon synfuels will be produced using captured CO2, earning the plant a small credit because CO2 storage costs are avoided. However, it is likely that, even with this credit, longer-term CO2 prices make the ammonia option more economical. Ammonia can potentially be used in ICEs or fuel cells, although the fuel cell may be more costly and less efficient than a hydrogen fuel cell. The efficiency deficits of an ICE will therefore be used in the comparison. It is clear that, in terms of fuel costs, ammonia will only be able to compete in long-range applications where BEVs need to rely primarily on dedicated fast-charging stations.
Finally, it should be mentioned that such a large-scale rollout of electrolysis plants will also produce a large quantity of high purity oxygen as a byproduct. This oxygen can be used for simple oxyfuel CO2 capture with no energy penalty. 50 EJ/year of hydrogen production via electrolysis can produce enough oxygen to facilitate the highly economic capture about 2.5 Gt/year of CO2. One smart way of using this potential would be to combust fossil fuels on site to supply heat so that a high temperature electrolysis process can be used, reducing electricity demand per unit hydrogen by about a third. This will increase the technical potential of this route by 50%.
Synfuel from nuclear
A number of different pathways exist to produce hydrogen from heat and electricity produced by nuclear power. According to calculations in a fairly recent paper, hydrogen production costs could reach $2.5/kg in a high temperature reactor. As shown below, the most cost effective configuration produced both thermal (T) and electrical (E) energy to feed the hybrid sulfur hydrogen cycle.
For comparison, a cost of $2.5/kg corresponds to PEM electrolysis costs from electricity at $40/MWh reviewed in the previous section ($30/MWh for synfuels since no storage buffer will be required for hydrogen from a steady-state nuclear plant). In this price range, synfuels from nuclear may be just on the edge of competitiveness with electric drive in terms of fuel costs for long-distance transport applications.
Synfuel from fossil fuels with CCS
Promising methane reforming processes with inherent CO2 capture are under development. For example, a recent study on membrane assisted chemical looping reforming indicated that this process could produce hydrogen with CO2 capture at a similar cost as current conventional steam methane reforming, although the capital cost portion of the cost distribution was higher. The graph below shows the hydrogen production cost as a function of natural gas price using the cost assumptions in this paper.
Depending on natural gas price developments, this pathway can produce hydrogen at a similar or slightly lower price point than advanced nuclear discussed in the previous section. The process can also produce a pure stream of nitrogen, avoiding the air separation expense of ammonia production, bringing a moderate additional cost saving.
Discussion
Long-term biofuel developments are likely to keep ICE fuel costs competitive with electricity costs for fueling BEVs for most applications. In case biofuels substantially underperform expectations, ammonia or hydrocarbon synfuels produced from clean hydrogen will only be competitive on a fuel cost basis in long-range applications where a BEV would have to charge from dedicated fast charging infrastructure at higher electricity prices. Naturally, a long-range vehicle with an ICE or fuel cell will always be significantly cheaper than a long-range BEV (there is no need for a large battery pack).
Hydrogen produced from excess electricity during wind/solar peaks, thermal processes using nuclear heat, or fossil fuels with CCS will also remain competitive on a fuel cost basis for most transport applications. However, the transport and storage costs of hydrogen are significant, thereby limiting the locations to which hydrogen can be profitably distributed. Hydrogen can therefore not become a truly ubiquitous fuel source as oil is today.
Overall, a sufficient number of alternatives exist for clean fuel production in the long-term future to ensure a diverse transport energy mix. Electricity for BEVs, hydrogen for FCVs and biofuels/synfuels for ICEs will all have their place in the market. A diverse range of energy sources will ensure a reliable supply and a high degree of competition to keep prices low, thus benefiting consumers and general economic efficiency.
[adrotate banner=”78″]
Tony Marmont says
We are a small company Fuels From Air Ltd , that pioneered SYN Transport Carbon Neutral fuels from our pilot plant, five years ago , we can collect CO2 from the air on a one pass effficiency of 83% extraction from the air holding 400 ppm CO2 .
We then use a catalysis plant or produce Methanol ( an excellent fuel in its own right ,) and again with further catalysis we can and have produced Gasoline and we could produce diesel and Jet A1 , not yet completed , out of cash!
Production costs estimated are. £0.85 per litre , for fuels on a Standard 1,000 ton a day plant , but this will drop as we had Cacaulated this on the basis of green energy at £40 a MWhr , whereas the new contracts now being signed are at £20 a MWhr , Which will reduce our cost price to around £0.60 a litre, however like the article explains hydrogen can be produced from the dissolution of water by spent nuclear power rods .however we do produce hydrogen ourselves , we do this pesently by electrolysis using only green electricity ,this fuel costs us £0.85 per litre . and now with a novel method using light and sound to separate the two gases H2 and O2 , not yet done we are in the process of. trying to build a test rig to prove the idea !
This should reduce the price of the SYN fuel , to the region of £0.50 per litre
S. Herb says
The liquid fuel options treated here have in common that they will be useful at modest scale but should not be deployed as large fractions of transportation source energy.
– using the biosphere to provide liquid fuels at a large fraction of current use would be a horrible inversion of priorities. There can can indeed be some piggy-backing on food production
– synfuels using from CO2 concentrated from FF or industrial processes do release CO2 to the atmosphere when they are burned (without re-concentration). Large-scale use is certainly not compatible with deep decarbonization.
– the author notes that H2 distribution still looks very expensive
– I am discomforted by imagining NH3 tanks spread as widely through society as gasoline tanks are now.
So the issue will be using them for applications in which they provide major value compared to electrification without busting the carbon budgets or further industrializing the biosphere.
Tony Marmont says
Hi S herb , I possibly did not explain properly how we produced the fuel , we extract water and CO2 from the atmosphere, so you may think we are robbing the air we breath , ? No , we are not , because when the fuel is burnt CO2 and water are released again and are the only , combustion products , and they go back into the air in exactly the anmout we took out , does that help ? As long as you have a supply of renewable energy , wind , solar , hydro then the fuels are totally green , Hydrogen is combined with CO2 to make a normal HydroCarbon fuel , the same as the fossil stuff , but we are carbon neutral , where’s fossil is carbon positive , i.e.continully Additive
S. Herb says
If your system really works out, would it make sense to use it to generate the equivalent of, say, 50 million barrels of oil per day (half of current world consumption) so that we can continue happily driving our ICE (or hybrid) cars? We should move in a direction that liquid fuels are used in smaller quantities, where they provide big advantages compared to electrification (airplanes may qualify).
Tony. marmont says
Yes Herb , we would need to construct smaller sizes of refinery first , and go up in size in multiples , in order to avaiid expensive mistakes as we scale up, this is always good practice in CHEM engineering .yes electric propulasion of aircraft will come , but energy density has to go a lot further yet to be practical , there will be any years ahead still when SYN fuel could fill the gap
Tony
S. Herb says
Assuming installations in regions with good ensolation, what is your estimate for the number of TW of installed PV capacity to provide liquid fuels with the energy equivalent of 50 M barrels of oil per year? I would like to be able to compare this with other estimates for total installed PV in say 2040 or 2050(!)
S. Herb says
Correction to myself, I meant 50M Barrels/day. But I will go all the way and estimate the PV needed to cover our current oil-based consumption. Some numbers:
1 Barrel ~ 1.5 MWh (1.7 MWh – 10% refining loss)
100M Barrels/day ~ 150 TWh
Efficiency Electricity to liquid energy ~ 50% (assumed)
PV Capacity Factor 25%
The result is 50 TW installed PV, just for liquids. For comparison Jacobson’s plan for 2050 has about 12 TW total world energy consumption and 30 TW of installed PV. This shows, I think, that liquid fuels will be a luxury, to be used with discretion.
Bob Wallace says
Tony needs to supply some numbers.
How many kWh of electricity are used to produce one kWh of synfuel?
Then how many kWh of his synfuel are needed to produce one kWh of kinetic energy for the vehicle?
We know that it takes about 1.25 kWh of electricity to create 1 kWh of kinetic energy for an EV.
Tony Marmont says
Well we use 2 KWhrs of electrify to produce 1 KWhr of liquid fuel, which is very good compared to power stations which use from 3.5 to 4.5 MWhrs of fuel to produce I KWhr of electricity , we have to live through what we have somehow, till we can get everything with no emissions
Bob Wallace says
Thanks, Tony. That’s part of the answer.
Then you’re going to burn that fuel in a ICE and your 2 kWh in the front door is going to turn into how many kWh of useful energy?
Tony Marmont says
Bob as you know ICE engines are typically 18 % efficient so for each gallon of fossil or sun fuel
The waste is horrific at 85%.
INR sure you knew that already !!! Tony
Bob Wallace says
“Long-term biofuel developments are likely to keep ICE fuel costs competitive with electricity costs for fueling BEVs for most applications. In case biofuels substantially underperform expectations, ammonia or hydrocarbon synfuels produced from clean hydrogen will only be competitive on a fuel cost basis in long-range applications where a BEV would have to charge from dedicated fast charging infrastructure at higher electricity prices. ”
There’s no way that biofuels or synfuels can challenge electricity. Far too much energy goes into both biofuel and synfuels.
It takes, for example, about 3x per mile as much renewable energy to power a H2 FCEV as an EV. Over 5x per mile with synfuel.
Then add in infrastructure costs. You’ve got to farm, harvest, refine and distribute biofuel. You have to ‘crack’ water, compress, transport, store and distribute hydrogen. Synfuel adds in another step of infrastructure expenses.
” BEV would have to charge from dedicated fast charging infrastructure at higher electricity prices.”
On average probably four times a year. The rest of the time EVs should be charging with inexpensive electricity since they only need to charge about three hours a day using a 220 vac outlet. That means that they can use the lowest TOU electricity. Perhaps even get a better rate because they can be a dispatchable load for utilities.
Tony Marmont says
Bob re costs ,
SYN fuels from air cost about 85 p a litre, which is about the same price as fossil when produced in a 1,000 ton a day plant , but it will cost far less than fossil , when we finish our ongoing research on the dissolution of water using Ultrasound and Ultraviolet light !
Tony
Tony Marmont says
Yes I agree , electricity has recently reared its head as a real takeover in transport , I have run electric cars , 3 in the last 20 years and am a EV fan , howvere there are billionsof ICE engines that are not going or change in the short term , because theCO2 cost and the sheer physical ability to produce new kit in such vast numbers, in a short time period, so the best we can do is ameliorate the effect to nil CO2 during this period with SYN fuels made from air and renewable electricity energy .
Bob Wallace says
Let’s build a timeline….
Within the next five years (perhaps within two) EVs become as cheap as ICEVs to manufacture.
Within five years enough companies will be manufacturing EVs so that competition makes long range EVs as cheap or cheaper to purchase than same feature ICEVs.
Within five years there will be enough rapid charging stations to drive most places in Europe, NA, and much of Asia. Range anxiety will be a thing of the past.
Ten years from now EV sales will dominate new car sales. The number of ICEVs will be significantly lower than today (ten years of millions of EV sales).
That is, of course, an optimistic timeline but it is not unreasonable. Due to lower purchase price and lower operating costs we could easily see a rapid market switch.
Does it make sense to build a large synfuel industry that could have no market 20 years from now? Would investors put up many billions of dollars to create the system?
Tony Marmont says
Yes it does , because we still need fuels for ships and aircraft , and heavy goods, all these have big or massive engines , that can’t be changed for electric in the short term , and if we have to replace everything all at once that will need a massive CO2 output , lets face it , the change over will have to be spread over many years .
Tony Marmont says
There is no case to argue that direct use of electricity ( green ) is the best use for transport , it clearly is the best and the cheapest .
However we have to live with what we have now And it will take many years to replace all the ICE emgines with clean drives, both to manufacture the drives to replace ICE in the ships. Train , planes and trucks and cars , and the best we can do Is to use carbon neutral SYN fuels as a replacement , until the necessary changes an be made to accommodate stored electricity we will struggle to get the energy density for aircraft maybe for some years, but let’s use non addative Carbin fuels while that is being brought in .?
Bob Wallace says
Synfuel perhaps for long distant flight and ocean freight.
It looks like we might have battery powered airplanes for short and moderate length flights before long. Ground transportation is best done with batteries or by electrifying rail.
Tony Marmont says
Agreed , Bob, but it all takes time, and we need a carbon neutral drop in meanwhile if we don’t want the awful consequences of Climate Change to get worse than now., meanwhile , being the next 25 to 50 years , tony
Tiff says
Hello Tony, Herb, Bob & Shalk, I came across this discussion during my 2 a.m. quest for the reality of renewable energy. I am fascinated by your brilliance, positive and supportive comments to one another, and the simple fact there may be hope. I also speak frankly that I am educated in the medical field but not on this topic. Tony what is the reality of this synuel coming into the hands of an everyday 20-something American like me? I worry fuel companies are already beating down your door. Have any of you ever seen the movie Death of the electric car? It is so daunting and typical. From my perspective I want all of you on the forefront of my future and my son. You all have amazing ideas but how can you ever be heard by the people that matter? I admire and respect all of you more than you know. The idea of the synfuel has blown my mind, as well as Schalks article on the reality of renewable energy. I do not even have any and all those charts will put together regarding wind and solar power. Mind-boggling. Separating hydrogen from oxygen with light and sound?! Harnesting 83% carbon?! This seems like it could be the most palatable intermediate answer that should have begin decades ago. One concern with any option is the reality and feasibility of maintaining and fixing any issues that surface with newer energy formats, since knowledge base and prior experience simply won’t be there for most. But a small price to pay, we have got to change. Thanks again. I truly respect to all of you I hope you are at the forefront in 2018. Now! We need you.
Tony Marmont says
Hi Tiff!
Thank you for your comments , yes the idea is so simple ,
But difficult to get investment , because of many factors .✔️
1. It represents a threat to the existing polluting fossil oil sales
2. It sounds so simple it can’t be be true , but Is is w years ago we made several thoasnd litres, which were an eye opener to the car racing fraternity
Tony Marmont. Prof . says
See previous response which escaped before I had finished !
Continued ……2 years ago we made several thousand litres , for the racing fuel industry , and the purchaser wish to place a large order with us , but we could not fulfill because we only spent £2.1 million , about $ 2.8 million on proof of concept laboratory model !and it I could not be big enough to be a production tool There is a picture of the catalytic plant See westbeaconfarm.co.uk which was to prduce 5 litres a day , about 1.5 US gallons . The inventor Dr Dave Benton , and me the financier and friend , and another friend put up the capital
We re just in the process of working with a large organisation to get on to the market with Gasoline and Jet A1 aviation fuel
Both of which do not have the Brand excluision of a competitor on forecourt sales .
This process can also produce anything which is also made from oil, for example artificial ,fertiser a huge fossil market at present .carbon fibre , plastics all with a total green pedigree.
There are many ways to exploit this invention . Without the sonsequences of fossil fuels . Their time has come and gone we must move on , did you see this week vast areas of Texas are sinking as the ground is collapsing from the century of drilling and pumping .
Thank you once more for writing
Tony
Andy Erlam says
Oil is not ‘economic’ if you take into account tax subsidies and environmental damage. What it does have is the status quo. Electric cars have huge advantages, but few think that they will solve the transport environmental issues overnight. Therefore carbon-neutral gasoline provides the third way to run private transport and more. All it needs is a tax break and cheap renewable electricity. Tony Marmont is right about the broader potential of using carbon taken from the atmosphere. So what are we waiting for? andyerlam@ymail.com
Bob Wallace says
EVs are likely to be cheaper to manufacture (thus to purchase) within five years. Once that happens we should see a rapid change in new car sales with ICEVs dropping away rapidly.
If it’s possible to make a low carbon synfuel that can replace some gasoline at a competitive price then that’s a great way to deal with the liquid fuel problem while the ICEVs already on the road age out.
Where we really, really need synfuel is ocean shipping and long distance flight.
Tony Marmont says
CAIR fuels gives Carbon Neutral emissions. Ie after the fuel, is made it is then burnt Iin Gas Turbines and ICE engines , then the process of Synthesis fuel From Air will harvest the CO2 from the air to make fuel again, it is a recurring cycle
QED
Tony
Andy Erlam says
Yes, we know. Carbon-neutral Road gasoline is on the road to jet fuel.
How do you know that electric vehicles will take over in 5 years? Is there not going to be my choice? Are electric vehicles CO2 free?
2 billion cars are a lot to replace. Neither Tesla nor the main car makers can do that in 5 years.
Can carbon-neutral gasoline compete with electric vehicles successfully. Certainly! There are several solutions to this global crisis – not one.
andyerlam@ymail.com
Bob Wallace says
I stated that it will take five years (or less) for the manufacturing cost of EVs to drop below that of same-feature ICEVs.
It will probably take another five years for half of all sales to become EVs and about five more years before essentially all personal vehicle sales are battery powered.
Add up to 15 years to that 10 before ICEVs are rarely seen on roads. At some point it will become more difficult to find fuel and repairs because the proportion of fueled vehicles will become small.
Electric vehicles are CO2 free if the source of their electricity is CO2 free.
It’s likely that EVs will be essentially CO2 free before the grid is CO2 free. We’ll need to add capacity to the grid in order to meet the increase in demand created by battery charging. We are approaching the point at which most new capacity is going to be RE, mostly wind and solar.
It is doubtful that carbon free synfuel ICEVs will be as inexpensive to power as EV battery charging. Each ‘process’ from electricity to kinetic energy uses energy. EVs use 3x less electricity as do hydrogen powered FCEVs.
Synfuel will be especially challenged. First significant energy will be lost turning electricity into fuel. Going from electricity to hydrogen uses a lot of energy. Synfuels will take more steps with energy losses at each step.
Then the liquid fuel has to be transported and distributed. More energy consumed while electricity -> batteries will lose 5% or less in distribution and 10% or less in battery charging.
Then there’s the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine. Roughly 80% of the energy in the fuel turns into waste heat while EVs lose about 10% from battery to kinetic energy.
It might take 4x as much electricity to move a synfuel vehicle a mile as to move an EV a mile.
Then, EVs are almost certain to be less expensive to manufacturer than ICEVs. ICEVs will cost more to buy and more to operate.
I can see synfuel being important, but not for personal use. Synfuel is more likely to play a role where large amounts of energy need to be transported long distances. Intercontinental air travel and shipping.
Andy Erlam says
So we are talking 30 plus years before EV are likely to dominate on these calculations. The climate can’t wait 30 years. What do we do with 2 billion ICE vehicles in the meantime? Localised carbon neutral petrol production is feasible. Technical efficiency is not necessarily a crucial factor. Broader considerations apply. There is not just one solution to the transport pollution problem.
Bob Wallace says
No, not 30 years. Thirty years before ICEVs are seen only in antique car parades.
About ten years before EVs capture more than 50% of new car sales. And ICEVs sales should drop rapidly after that.
In the US cars five years old and newer are used for about 50% of all miles driven. That means that EVs will have a larger impact than their numbers will suggest. In addition, people who drive far more than average will get more benefit than the average driver via lower operating expenses. Look for many higher mileage drivers to switch to EVs early.
Then there’s the big change which may well occur. Self-driving robotaxis.
The cost of riding in a robotaxi should be considerably less than owning one’s own car. And even cheaper if one is willing to ride share.
If robotaxis appear in the next five years, which looks likely, then the number of ICEVs should plummet. We could see a major drop in petroleum use for personal transportation within the next ten years.
Tony says
Hi Bob , your document on the effective changeover of Fuels , I mostly agreee with , however the SYN fuel we make is Carbon Neutral, better because it is simple , really! , we abstract CO2 from the atmosphere then we take the water from the atmosphere , and hydrogen from the water we have extracted and we blend the two together hydrogen and CO2 to make methanol, then we make the methanol into gasoline, and that is as long as the electricity to make this process run come from renewable sources , then that it is carbon neutral , , the resulting Gasoline can be converted into Carbon Neutral Jet A1 for Aviation use
Bob Wallace says
First, let me be clear that I hope you can produce affordable liquid fuel from atmospheric CO2 and renewable energy. We need liquid fuel for some applications.
But I do not see liquid fuel playing more than a tiny niche role in personal transportation.
You’re cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen. That takes considerable energy. You could use up as much as 30% of the electricity input at this first stage.
Then you’re turning that H2 into CH3OH by combining it with CO2, another step which uses energy.
Burning that methanol in an internal engine is extremely inefficient. A third energy loss and a huge one, up to 80% of the fuel you produce.
Operating a battery powered vehicle means a very small energy loss in electricity distribution (5% or less) and a small energy loss in battery charging (about 10%) and a bit more using battery energy to kinetic energy (about 10%).
You’ll lose far more energy in just the first step of your fuel production.
Then you’ve got to distribute and dispense your product. Even more loss.
Add to all the energy losses the fact that before long it will cost less to manufacture an EV than a similar feature ICEV.
Now you’re facing a vehicle choice in which ICEVs cost more to purchase and far more to operate. I just do not see a market for your product on the highways.
What I can see is, if they pan out, synfuel production plants close to major ports and at airports. Make the product close to point of use. Haul only to smaller ports and airstrips.
Andy Erlam says
What everyone waiting for?