EV production often relies on coal power and harmful labor practices. Climate activists in 'Squid Games' costumes disrupted the LA Auto Show this weekend to demand urgent change.
You should not stop there. Manufacturing the battery would have to emit more carbon than making the engine AND running gasoline through it for the life of the car. The cars doent exist as show room pieces, they work.
It’s unfair to say they moved the goalposts when you aren’t even really responding to the statement that’s being made.
Efuel is made from the CO2. Therefore, even if you run your car, you are not increasing the CO2.
On the other hand, EVs actually do put more CO2 in the sense that manufacturing the batteries adds CO2.
Finally, my point is that this battery manufacturing process is hard to regulate. Do you now see how my opponents don’t properly reply to my argument!?
Making efuel is not net zero. You just keep saying it is. Your failure to assess your opponents stems from them, by default, not believing your premise.
It’s also currently estimated at $40 per gallon. Kinda doesn’t matter if it actually was “net zero” it the cost to drive 100 miles is dozens of times more expensive than doing so with every other method.
Efuel is less efficient, simply because engines that use it are. We waste at least 50% of the energy put into it. Google also says most common cars waste between 60-80% of the energy. This means while Efuel is net zero in terms of production, assuming the energy put into creating it is all clean and 100% efficient. If we view the production and use of efuel as a cycle, you’re wasting half the energy every time. Every time the tank is fueled.
Electric engines generally waste roughly 20%. There’s some additional loss across the charging of a battery, but it’s still far better than a gas engines efficency.
The problem is the energy and waste from battery production, which makes them worse than gas car manufacturing. But they pass gas cars as long as they are used long enough. And here’s the important part, we can improve and change batteries and their production process. We are seeing massive research into this and especially into batteries not involving rare materials. We can also improve recycling of batteries. These are all things we can do to avoid oil and gas. Because gas engines are less efficient, and even with Efuel as net zero, the process of production and loss in use is just worse than electricity based use.
And electricity can be clean energy. If we just find better batteries, we can move to a much cleaner process. But a long as we remain on inefficient gas engines, we will always have co2 pollution, along with other pollution. Eg. If Norway with 98% clean electricity swapped to all electric, and battery with the car got on the same level of gas engine in terms of production waste/pollution, we’d be saving so much energy and waste because of the much higher efficiency of electric engines, and reduction in gas use. Efuel can never do that, it will need green energy for production, and waste more energy in use. Thus I see no reason to push this over electric vehicles.
There’s other downsides, such as heavier cars cause more road tear and air pollution. So ideally we’ll also move away from cars as much as possible. But trains, busses trams and so on can also be all electric and thus more environmentally friendly.
I honestly don’t understand why everybody talks about energy efficiency like it’s a problem to net zero. It’s not.
Do you guys mean that, because efuel is energy inefficient, it is net-positive? That’s wrong.
And therefore my point stands. I’ve been reiterating this logic like 10x already in this post, but somehow there will be always another reply with the same flaw.
It’s simple. We can go that way and effectively spend double the energy to drive a distance. I don’t think it’s exactly double but from 40% efficiency to 80% is the engine efficiency. So the number is just a simplification.
Reducing energy use by 50% would mean less energy having to come from other sources. Which aren’t necessarily green today.
Both solutions are improvements, but again, why go for the less efficient one when electricity is better?
Please stop talking about efficiency. It has nothing to do with net zero, nor with my point. If you don’t, I’ll treat you as someone purposefully misleading the discussion.
You should not stop there. Manufacturing the battery would have to emit more carbon than making the engine AND running gasoline through it for the life of the car. The cars doent exist as show room pieces, they work.
It’s unfair to say they moved the goalposts when you aren’t even really responding to the statement that’s being made.
You don’t get the point. Efuel is net zero.
Efuel is made from the CO2. Therefore, even if you run your car, you are not increasing the CO2.
On the other hand, EVs actually do put more CO2 in the sense that manufacturing the batteries adds CO2.
Finally, my point is that this battery manufacturing process is hard to regulate. Do you now see how my opponents don’t properly reply to my argument!?
Making efuel is not net zero. You just keep saying it is. Your failure to assess your opponents stems from them, by default, not believing your premise.
It’s also currently estimated at $40 per gallon. Kinda doesn’t matter if it actually was “net zero” it the cost to drive 100 miles is dozens of times more expensive than doing so with every other method.
Can you give me source on efuel not being net zero?
Yes, it’s expensive, but that’s I wrote “future” in my first comment.
Here’s my view:
Efuel is less efficient, simply because engines that use it are. We waste at least 50% of the energy put into it. Google also says most common cars waste between 60-80% of the energy. This means while Efuel is net zero in terms of production, assuming the energy put into creating it is all clean and 100% efficient. If we view the production and use of efuel as a cycle, you’re wasting half the energy every time. Every time the tank is fueled.
Electric engines generally waste roughly 20%. There’s some additional loss across the charging of a battery, but it’s still far better than a gas engines efficency.
The problem is the energy and waste from battery production, which makes them worse than gas car manufacturing. But they pass gas cars as long as they are used long enough. And here’s the important part, we can improve and change batteries and their production process. We are seeing massive research into this and especially into batteries not involving rare materials. We can also improve recycling of batteries. These are all things we can do to avoid oil and gas. Because gas engines are less efficient, and even with Efuel as net zero, the process of production and loss in use is just worse than electricity based use.
And electricity can be clean energy. If we just find better batteries, we can move to a much cleaner process. But a long as we remain on inefficient gas engines, we will always have co2 pollution, along with other pollution. Eg. If Norway with 98% clean electricity swapped to all electric, and battery with the car got on the same level of gas engine in terms of production waste/pollution, we’d be saving so much energy and waste because of the much higher efficiency of electric engines, and reduction in gas use. Efuel can never do that, it will need green energy for production, and waste more energy in use. Thus I see no reason to push this over electric vehicles.
There’s other downsides, such as heavier cars cause more road tear and air pollution. So ideally we’ll also move away from cars as much as possible. But trains, busses trams and so on can also be all electric and thus more environmentally friendly.
I honestly don’t understand why everybody talks about energy efficiency like it’s a problem to net zero. It’s not.
Do you guys mean that, because efuel is energy inefficient, it is net-positive? That’s wrong.
And therefore my point stands. I’ve been reiterating this logic like 10x already in this post, but somehow there will be always another reply with the same flaw.
It’s simple. We can go that way and effectively spend double the energy to drive a distance. I don’t think it’s exactly double but from 40% efficiency to 80% is the engine efficiency. So the number is just a simplification.
Reducing energy use by 50% would mean less energy having to come from other sources. Which aren’t necessarily green today.
Both solutions are improvements, but again, why go for the less efficient one when electricity is better?
Please stop talking about efficiency. It has nothing to do with net zero, nor with my point. If you don’t, I’ll treat you as someone purposefully misleading the discussion.
Honestly, are you guys payed by the lobbyists? Or are you guys copying and pasting some article downplaying efuels?
I can’t find any other explanation on why you guys all fixate on efficiency although that doesn’t affect the net zero CO2 emission from efuels.
And I have explained this like 100 times and somehow it always gets ignored, as if you people are doing strategic propaganda.