Miracle cure eFuels comes to the rescue of the German car industry! That is what I understand from the recent reactions in German politics. E.g. from @_FriedrichMerz (@CDU) as discussed by @Stefan_Hajek in @wiwo.
You see, it IS eminently possible to power the trusted combustion engine with fuels that are produced using low carbon electricity. That's not the problem.
The problem is that you need A LOT MORE ENERGY while propping up an engine whose only advantage is that it can burn stuff.
Let's look at that engine first. Don't get me wrong: Germany should be proud at the heights to which it has taken this extremely complex marvel of engineering. The electric motor is simple by comparison. But also better on all fronts.
Actually, the higher the overcapacity of the combustion engine in normal use (e.g. for a car that can accelerate quickly) the the bigger the disadvantage of the combustion vehicle. Here the relatively slow and small Porsche already uses six time as much energy.
Then there's the losses when producing fuel from electricity. When you add that up you end up with around 87% energy losses versus 73% losses for the electric vehicle. So eFuels need over five times (73/13=5.6) more energy. transportenvironment.org/press/e-fuels-…
I think eFuels might be perfect for hard to electrify mobility like aviation. But building five times more windmills in order to protect an engine that is simply less efficient seems like a bad idea to me.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Can you see if it will work as advertised?
(Explanation starts at 40 seconds and ends at 1:36.)
Perpetuum mobiles violate the first or second law of thermodynamics so scientists scoff at them. But often it is not trivial to prove a specific perpetuum mobile will not work.
In this case though it's analogous to an old idea that's already been disproven called the float belt.
In the Netherlands there is much ado about a new ENCO study showing NUCLEAR is cheap. It apparently convinced more than half of parliament. But it is riddled with errors and was rushed through without any check. If the errors are corrected the conclusion reverses. (short thread)
The same ministry (@MinisterieEZK) commissioned a peer reviewed study earlier this year (by Kalavasta) that showed nuclear is more expensive.
Why did they commission this new non-peer reviewed study from a group that is mainly doing nuclear security studies?
Fortunately the writers of the Kalavasta study already reacted to the new pro-nuclear ENCO study. They point out the main problems with the new study that are glaringly obvious for most experts.
First of all, @Mike_Page is right that electric motors are actually more efficient at turning calories into motion than humans. So if we would replace heavy electric trucks with an army of cyclists, this would indeed not be good for the climate and require too much food.
Second of all, I think it's probably true when you compare an electric bike to a car but the 30g/km for a vegan like me is clearly less than for an electric car (~50g/km for manufacturing plus ~40g/km for driving in the EU) and you have to add my CO2 emissions as car driver.