RE: EU floats draft proposal in synthetic fuel tussle

RE: EU floats draft proposal in synthetic fuel tussle

Author
Discussion

glm1977

199 posts

148 months

Yesterday (13:43)
quotequote all
rather than make the issue one for car makers, the EU/Regulators should be pushing this element back to the source of the fuel suppliers...

Assuming that different grades of e-fuels can be utilised by existing cars, then just make it more expensive for suppliers to produce/supply non-efules via business import/export taxes, then it becomes irrelevant to the consumer

Governments will also be kept happy as they will be able to continue to receive equivalent tax income from such fuel sales

I've probably simplified it, but the ev model on a holistic basis just doesn't make sense in its current form

Wab1974uk

652 posts

14 months

Yesterday (13:49)
quotequote all
It's good news, in that EV's are not the answer for everyone.

However, lets just hope E-Fuel isn't such priced that only those who can afford a Hypercar can afford the E-fuel to go inside it.

Edited by Wab1974uk on Friday 24th March 08:33

NDNDNDND

1,730 posts

170 months

Yesterday (13:55)
quotequote all
GT9 said:
I know this sounds like an anti-PH thing to say, but I suspect this whole e-fuel thing is not in the interests of a typical car enthusiast.

E-fuel is produced from combining hydrogen with CO2 and some subsequent synthesis.

The cheapest way to produce hydrogen and CO2 would be to split natural gas using steam.

The more cynical reader might therefore suggest that the feedstock for producing large amounts of e-fuel will therefore come from fossil fuel, but be dressed up to look like something else.

If it truly does come from renewable electricity, then the conundrum is that you could use the same amount of electricity to power 5 or more EVs instead of 1 e-fuelled car, due to the vastly different energy efficiencies of the two approaches.

Which means that carbon-neutral e-fuel offers nothing of real benefit to existing ICEs, as the many decades timeline to get to the point where there is enough renewable electricity to produce it in mainstream quantity will render the existing fleet of cars to the scrap heap.

There is also the laughably improbably exercise of trying to capture that much CO2 directly from the atmosphere.

Both the clandestine pathway and the truly renewable pathway would in my opinion possibly force an increase in the cost of petrol.

As usual, it's therefore us, the consumer, who will end up paying for someone else in a far off land to get rich off their latest circus act, and we get zero benefit from it.
Same straw man every fking time.

I think the link you posted on the other thread suggested there might be enough e-fuel for maybe 2% of passenger vehicles on predicted e-fuel production in the EU.

Sounds fine by me.

2% of vehicles in the future are classics/super cars/niche etc.

98% are Electric Qashqais.

Good. I hope so.

And I hope the legislation to ensure the continued availability of e-fuel powered ICE succeeds, as that will be the best way to guarantee future availability of e-fuel for my fun cars (from 1994 and 1985).

Not sure why Direct Air Capture is so laughable - it's happening now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture

otolith

51,672 posts

191 months

Yesterday (13:55)
quotequote all
It may be informative to understand the scale of the problem of replacing fossil fuels with synthetic fuels by putting some numbers to it.

1. Google the quantities of road fuels consumed annually in the UK.

2. Google the calorific value per litre of petrol and diesel and multiply by the quantities consumed.

3. Have a quick look at the executive summary of this report to get the ratio between the energy you require to make e-fuel and the energy in the product.

4. Multiply the fuel energy used annually by the ratio between the energy in e-fuel and the energy needed to make it.

5. Google the UK's electricity generating capacity.

Compare number #4 with number #5.

NDNDNDND

1,730 posts

170 months

Yesterday (13:57)
quotequote all
otolith said:
It may be informative to understand the scale of the problem of replacing fossil fuels with synthetic fuels by putting some numbers to it.

1. Google the quantities of road fuels consumed annually in the UK.

2. Google the calorific value per litre of petrol and diesel and multiply by the quantities consumed.

3. Have a quick look at the executive summary of this report to get the ratio between the energy you require to make e-fuel and the energy in the product.

4. Multiply the fuel energy used annually by the ratio between the energy in e-fuel and the energy needed to make it.

5. Google the UK's electricity generating capacity.

Compare number #4 with number #5.
banghead

samoht

4,441 posts

133 months

Yesterday (14:00)
quotequote all

I appreciate the value of ensuring this doesn't end up releasing a whole load more CO2 and thus preventing the ICE phaseout from achieving its goals.

However the proposal for newer ICE cars to reject fossil based fuels seems rather limiting.

A possible alternative would be that in order to sell an ICE car after 2035, a manufacturer must earn a certain number of credits. Each gallon of (CO2 neutral) synthetic fuel sold on the market earns one credit, and the required number of credits reflects the total number of gallons of fuel the car being sold is likely to consume in its lifetime.

The merits of this are that it forces companies to get serious about supplying synthetic fuels in volume before they can start selling new ICE cars, helping drive a high volume, lower cost process. By front-loading the CO2 reduction it helps buy time for global warming. And finally it also avoids adding extra control devices into people's cars which could malfunction or be subverted, and avoids a lack of synthetic fuel distribution in a certain area leaving motorists unable to use their cars.

otolith

51,672 posts

191 months

Yesterday (14:01)
quotequote all
Yes, there may be enough to provide a few rich people with fuel for their toys. It's not a mass market solution.

rodericb

5,516 posts

113 months

Yesterday (14:08)
quotequote all
Oh damn I saw the thread title and thought someone had invented a fuel made from beer.

Fastlane

947 posts

204 months

Yesterday (14:09)
quotequote all
Arsecati said:
There is absolutely a time and a place for EV's, and they make sense for probably around 95% of driving requirements. But out on a track day or up the mountains on an early Sunday morning...... the sound........ THE SOUND!!!!! To forever lose the wail/scream/roar of a Ferrari V12, Lambo V10, Hellcat V8, Porker F6, Audi 5C, Kawasaki Supercharged 4, Triumph triple, Harley twin or a CCM single would be like The Godfather without the music of Nino Rota, Star Wars without John Williams or anything from Sergio Leone without Ennio Morricone........ when you take away the soul - you take away everything.

And so here endeth my sermon for today......... Amen.
But you will still be able to drive your Sunday car using petrol, as long as it wasn't built after 2035. Given another 12 years of EV development (imagine a 2035 Rimac/Bugatti), I doubt they'll be any market at all for non-EV supercars anyway, so this is all moot...

hiccy18

1,940 posts

54 months

Yesterday (14:13)
quotequote all
Sounds nuts to push car manufacturers to invent new engines and efuels when pushing for cleaner efuels to supply the ongoing ICE market will improve the existing fleet. The mass market looks likely to go EV, synthetic fuels could serve the niches whilst being less harmful than existing fuels.

Classics and motorbikes are facing non-existence with this path.

Roger Irrelevant

2,437 posts

100 months

Yesterday (14:18)
quotequote all
otolith said:
Yes, there may be enough to provide a few rich people with fuel for their toys. It's not a mass market solution.
Was it ever suggested it was though? It's a bit ironic that whenever there's an article on synthetic fuels you get a few people saying 'But it can't entirely replace fossil fuels therefore it's a waste of time', and they're the same people who spend so much time countering 'But an EV can't do absolutely everything an ICE can therefore they're a waste of time'. Just like it's a bit odd pointing out that you can go further by directly charging a battery with electricity than you can by using that electricity to make synthetic fuels. Like anybody who is going to be buying the sort of niche high-end car that runs on pricey synth fuels is going to care; they're probably already driving a Cayenne or Range Rover - and not a Kia Picanto - because absolute efficiency is not their top priority when it comes to such things.

GT9

4,310 posts

159 months

Yesterday (14:33)
quotequote all
Roger Irrelevant said:
Was it ever suggested it was though?
Umm, yes, in fact it was.
Go back 6 months or 12 months and you''l see plenty of posts saying the e-fuel is the future, EV is a stopgap.
Go back a few years and you'll see plenty of posts saying hydrogen is the future.

otolith

51,672 posts

191 months

Yesterday (14:44)
quotequote all
Roger Irrelevant said:
otolith said:
Yes, there may be enough to provide a few rich people with fuel for their toys. It's not a mass market solution.
Was it ever suggested it was though? It's a bit ironic that whenever there's an article on synthetic fuels you get a few people saying 'But it can't entirely replace fossil fuels therefore it's a waste of time', and they're the same people who spend so much time countering 'But an EV can't do absolutely everything an ICE can therefore they're a waste of time'. Just like it's a bit odd pointing out that you can go further by directly charging a battery with electricity than you can by using that electricity to make synthetic fuels. Like anybody who is going to be buying the sort of niche high-end car that runs on pricey synth fuels is going to care; they're probably already driving a Cayenne or Range Rover - and not a Kia Picanto - because absolute efficiency is not their top priority when it comes to such things.
People see this and get their hopes up.

Mouse Rat said:
I like EV's, however anyone with half a brain knows they cant replace all ICE vehicles and hence this ban couldn't hold up. So it s good to see common sense and market forces unravelling this into a compromise.
I'm hopeful that I'll be able to keep my Lotus on the road indefinitely. If that means I have to run it on synthetic fuels, so be it, but I think the idea that there's a future business model for the likes of VW in it is fanciful.

Soupdragon65

54 posts

Yesterday (14:45)
quotequote all
Roger Irrelevant said:
otolith said:
Yes, there may be enough to provide a few rich people with fuel for their toys. It's not a mass market solution.
Was it ever suggested it was though? It's a bit ironic that whenever there's an article on synthetic fuels you get a few people saying 'But it can't entirely replace fossil fuels therefore it's a waste of time', and they're the same people who spend so much time countering 'But an EV can't do absolutely everything an ICE can therefore they're a waste of time'. Just like it's a bit odd pointing out that you can go further by directly charging a battery with electricity than you can by using that electricity to make synthetic fuels. Like anybody who is going to be buying the sort of niche high-end car that runs on pricey synth fuels is going to care; they're probably already driving a Cayenne or Range Rover - and not a Kia Picanto - because absolute efficiency is not their top priority when it comes to such things.
They may not care, but do you really expect the EU to legislate to allow a few rich people to drive Bentleys or Porsches using synthetic fuel when then best thing to do with the limited supply that would be available is to provide a solution for sectors where EV is currently not feasible (aviation and shipping mainly)?

No this is just countries trying to protect their car industries, and will hopefully be seen as such and disregarded. The users (rich or poor) rightly won't get to decide.

JJJ.

181 posts

2 months

Yesterday (14:52)
quotequote all
I can't knock the idea of having efuel available in the future. If it makes owning an ICE post '35 possible what's not to like?
No doubt the fuel will be more costly but at least it gives people an option.

Generally speaking I can't see
electricity being cheaper in real terms in the future no matter how it's generated. It's even possible it will become more expensive. Time will tell on that one, I'm certainly not optimistic.

The more options available to people generally speaking the better.



Edited by JJJ. on Thursday 23 March 14:58

GT9

4,310 posts

159 months

Yesterday (14:59)
quotequote all
Wab1974uk said:
It's good new, in that EV's are not the answer for everyone.

However, lets just hope E-Fuel isn't such priced that only those who can afford a Hypercar can afford the E-fuel to go inside it.
I'd say that anyone driving an ICE in 2040 will be driving a car already on the road or one produced on the next 12 years (or 7 years) depending on where you are.

Which is why I'd prefer petrol to stay reasonably priced.

Maybe I'm over-egging the issue around foreign (and maybe domestic) corporate shenanigans, but I'm not seeing the upside for regular UK petrol cars here.


otolith

51,672 posts

191 months

Yesterday (15:00)
quotequote all
JJJ. said:
Generally speaking I can't see
electricity being cheaper in real terms in the future no matter how it's generated. It's even possible it will become more expensive. Time will tell on that one, I certainly not optimistic.
That doesn't help, though, because e-fuels are synthetic fuels made using electricity, so they are also pegged to energy costs. If a BEV is too expensive to run, running on synthetic e-fuels will be several times too expensive.

MountainsofSussex

220 posts

173 months

Yesterday (15:06)
quotequote all
Coming at it from a "this is part of my job" perspective (but nobody from HR or marketing shoot me please, personal opinions and all that!)
The regulations in the UK and EU don't stop a petrol car bought before 2035 from being filled up with petrol after 2035. Can't remember the details, but the petrol will be increasingly "renewable" in future. This renewable portion uses A LOT of energy to produce, so will be really expensive won't be sloshing around spare and will be needed for aviation, where batteries really won't work (except for really small places and really short journeys). Earmarking it for cars means aviation, and to an extent shipping can't decarbonise. I should point out that it's not a totally daft solution for hypercars that at best do a few miles per year, so the embedded CO2 in the batteries would never pay back. But it won't work for the rest of us as the fuel will be so expensive. There will be an interesting tipping point coming, where EVs start to dominate, so running a petrol station becomes less viable, so there are fewer of them and fuel prices go higher, even more EVs because of that, and you might not even need a ban, as petrol and diesel cars go extinct

JJJ.

181 posts

2 months

Yesterday (15:14)
quotequote all
otolith said:
That doesn't help, though, because e-fuels are synthetic fuels made using electricity, so they are also pegged to energy costs. If a BEV is too expensive to run, running on synthetic e-fuels will be several times too expensive.
Porsche's efuel plant is in South America, located in one of the best locations to generate wind power. So, what would that have to do with pegged energy costs? I'm asking because I don't know.

otolith

51,672 posts

191 months

Yesterday (15:31)
quotequote all
JJJ. said:
otolith said:
That doesn't help, though, because e-fuels are synthetic fuels made using electricity, so they are also pegged to energy costs. If a BEV is too expensive to run, running on synthetic e-fuels will be several times too expensive.
Porsche's efuel plant is in South America, located in one of the best locations to generate wind power. So, what would that have to do with pegged energy costs? I'm asking because I don't know.
It's a drop in the ocean (and people wanting hydrocarbons from that plant will be competing with industry and aviation). Further, do you imagine that it will be retailed below the local market price for e-fuels, which will be set by local energy costs? We've already seen what the cost of generating electricity from gas did to the price for which renewable energy could be sold.