What's the problem with electric cars?

[baggy798]

Fisker has been fiskered hard. Filed for bankruptcy!

[Forg]

Originally Posted by Kev0607

I'm not so sure the future is solely EV. Yes EV has a future, but it won't be the only option. I think there's going to be more alternatives as time progresses.

If there is a future, it doesn't have fossil fuels in it.
It could have ICE's in it, potentially, as long as they don't burn stuff which emits stuff we can't afford for them to emit ... that won't be H2 though, as in-their-infancy fuel-cells (ie. H2-powered EV) already do it better than ICE's do.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Forg

If there is a future, it doesn't have fossil fuels in it.
It could have ICE's in it, potentially, as long as they don't burn stuff which emits stuff we can't afford for them to emit ... that won't be H2 though, as in-their-infancy fuel-cells (ie. H2-powered EV) already do it better than ICE's do.

It will be Hydrogen, because it’s the only realistic option to retrofit into billions of cars already in existence.

[Kev0607]

The EU are already talking about an alternative fuel to be used in ICE vehicles called "e fuel". Brussels chose the 2035 "ban date", so no new vehicles sold after that will have petrol or diesel engines, which cuts CO2 emissions by 100% according to them (not really, as there's still going to be used cars with ICE engines on the road, but take of that what you will ). Funny how our so called leader also pushed the deadline back to 2035...

The production of e-fuels, also known as synthetic fuels or electro-fuels, starts with the process of electrolysis, which splits water (H2O) into hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O). The hydrogen is then mixed with carbon dioxide (CO2) to create the e-fuel in liquid form.

This e-fuel is later refined into e-petrol, e-diesel, e-kerosene and e-methanol, among other derivatives, that have commercial purposes similar to those of the fossil fuels they seek to replace.

In the case of vehicles, e-fuels can be blended in with oil-based fuels and combusted in the same engine, which means a smaller but still considerable amount of pollutants are released into the air.

Germany argues these damaging emissions can be offset by decarbonising the entire manufacturing process. This would entail mixing fully green hydrogen with carbon dioxide directly captured from the air, as well as using 100% renewable electricity across the value chain.

"Provided they are produced with renewable energy, e-fuels are climate neutral," the German spokesperson said.

Source: EuroNews

This is all still in early stages, but maybe "e-fuels" will take off. Who knows.

Like I said earlier, I don't think the future is solely EV.

[canis]

I read an article a while back, that an area of solar panels the size of Arizona would be sufficient to provide everybody on earth as much energy as they could need. That's a large area, admitedly, but we could scatter them around the globe.

But in doing so, we're missing a trick. As everyone knows, solar panels work best when facing directly into the sun. The rays should be perpendicular, and the drop-off is square of itself. This means putting solar panels in places as far north as Britain are suffering a massive inefficiency before we even start.

Meanwhile, every day we point the Sahara at the sun for no reason. If we could put all the worlds solar panels on the equator, we could generate so much more. But here's the rub; How do you get that energy to where you need it?

The answer is chemically. We need to turn that energy into a chemical made from abundant resources (i.e. air and water) which we can then carry around the world to where it's needed. This chemical needs to be able to be converted back into electricity, leaving behind it's components to just blow or drain away harmlessly. Anything used in the process outside of that specification needs to be captured, returned to source and re-used.

Whoever 'cracks' that problem will save the world. (I think there might be a subtle joke in there somewhere, but keeping it real...)

So the e-fuel Kev describes above sounds to me like good progress in this field. I'm not a chemist, but what I've read about the problem, it is a tough problem to solve. Most chemical reactions aren't 100% reversible without extra entropic energy input, and that's a problem batteries suffer, and why they don't last forever.

I foresee a future where African coasts are bespotted with refineries, sucking in sea water and pouring liquid horsepower into tankers.

The other problem we have is the heat all our machinery creates using the energy thus obtained. Somehow, that heat must leave the planet.

I used to believe Hydrogen was the solution. But it was somebody on this forum, years ago now, who told me Hydrogen cannot be contained by any material. It will escape any container, no matter what you do, and that's a fundamental property of the element.

e-fuel truly is what we want. I think we'll get there in the end.

[Moose Test]

I think that if we've learned anything of late, it's that as a race we're still not nearly ready enough for global, utopian solutions.

I can't think of a worse idea right now than placing the world's future energy needs into the hands of a new cartel, and one centered on some of the most geopolitically unstable regions on the planet. Energy supply has to now consider nation-state energy security too, outside of Arthur C. Clarke style visions of the future because "we are who we are".

Local microgeneration coupled with efficient storage technologies will get my vote every time.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Kev0607

The EU are already talking about an alternative fuel to be used in ICE vehicles called "e fuel". Brussels chose the 2035 "ban date", so no new vehicles sold after that will have petrol or diesel engines, which cuts CO2 emissions by 100% according to them (not really, as there's still going to be used cars with ICE engines on the road, but take of that what you will ). Funny how our so called leader also pushed the deadline back to 2035...

The production of e-fuels, also known as synthetic fuels or electro-fuels, starts with the process of electrolysis, which splits water (H2O) into hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O). The hydrogen is then mixed with carbon dioxide (CO2) to create the e-fuel in liquid form.

This e-fuel is later refined into e-petrol, e-diesel, e-kerosene and e-methanol, among other derivatives, that have commercial purposes similar to those of the fossil fuels they seek to replace.

In the case of vehicles, e-fuels can be blended in with oil-based fuels and combusted in the same engine, which means a smaller but still considerable amount of pollutants are released into the air.

Germany argues these damaging emissions can be offset by decarbonising the entire manufacturing process. This would entail mixing fully green hydrogen with carbon dioxide directly captured from the air, as well as using 100% renewable electricity across the value chain.

"Provided they are produced with renewable energy, e-fuels are climate neutral," the German spokesperson said.

Source: EuroNews

This is all still in early stages, but maybe "e-fuels" will take off. Who knows.

Like I said earlier, I don't think the future is solely EV.

Synthetic Fuel is already an option, you can buy it today as a direct petrol substitute, it is used extensively now in some forms of motorsport (for example the Goodwood Festival Of Speed stipulates that cars must run on minimum 70% synthetic fuel). And, based on what I've read, it's actually better than normal petrol. Think about it - it's easier to control the quality of a mix based on what you add, not what you have to remove, to make it.

However, as described above, synthetic fuels need a lot of energy to make, far more than to refine petrol, so they're not that green or affordable.........

[Moose Test]

Originally Posted by canis

somebody on this forum, years ago now, who told me Hydrogen cannot be contained by any material. It will escape any container, no matter what you do, and that's a fundamental property of the element

Somebody exaggerated. Sure, as a very low molecular weight gas it's more difficult to contain than heavier molecules such as methane and propane but it's done all the time in industry and with negligible leakage when done properly. There's nothing 'impossible' or magical about it. And if it should leak, if it does so in free space, being so light it very rapidly disperses, unlike hydrocarbon fuels.

[Tannaton]

Originally Posted by Moose Test

And if it should leak, if it does so in free space, being so light it very rapidly disperses, unlike hydrocarbon fuels.

And that's the point. There is a lot of speculation on the 'net that Hydrogen cars would be prone to exploding, but it is baseless.

The tanks that hold hydrogen would need to be very strong - the critical pressure where is starts to liquify at room temperature is around 190 PSI but in practice as liquid hydrogen is compressible, storage tanks operate at pressures of 5,000 psi and higher. Hence, a metal cylinder to contain that is most unlikely to be compromised in a collision.

But if it was, or the plumbing damaged, the hydrogen will instantly vaporise and as hydrogen gas is a fraction of the density of air, it will very quickly disperse upwards into the atmosphere. Other fuels like petrol and LPG are heavier than air and their vapors linger at ground level, making them much more dangerous in any leakage.

[canis]

Originally Posted by Tannaton

And that's the point. There is a lot of speculation on the 'net that Hydrogen cars would be prone to exploding, but it is baseless.

Oh I'm not worried about explosion. Petrol is extremely volatile so that would be a stupid criticism to make. I just wonder how it would be stored. Yes it's kept in tanks, of course, but how long before it escapes? How would this affect the logisitics for worldwide distribution?

There was another criticism made back then too; In tests it produced clouds of vapour which woudln't disperse for hours. I suppose this would depend largely on local weather conditions, but it might not be suitable in cooler climates.

Admitedly, I don't actually know anything empirically here. I'm just throwing ideas around because a good idea ought to be able to withstand any scrutiny.