Thread by @AukeHoekstra

Electrofuels or eFuels are all the rage now.
The reason: lovers of combustion engines that wake up to realise their engine is really on the way out.

But eFuels into combustion engines is NOT a realistic solution for cars. Let me explain -again- why.
autocar.co.uk/opinion/indust…

eFuels are not a new idea. So I've made these calculations 15 years ago and many times since. That some people have just woken up doesn't change fundamentals that made them a bad option for cars then and make them a bad option for cars in the future.

The most basic problem is in the basic process:
electricity -> hydrogen
hydrogen -> eFuel
eFuel -> electricity

That means that you have to produce ~5x (!) more low carbon electricity. Think about the costs, space and raw materials required!

Now of course EVs are not problem free either. We have to look closely at the materials needed for mining batteries. We should do that more sustainably, limit unsustainable materials per batteries, share cars, maybe don't aspire to a Hummer for the commute.

But for the love of Science, could people that compare eFuels to batteries at least include the fact that they need 5x more land and renewable energy when they make the comparison? Is that most basic form or logic and sanity really too much to ask?

And please don't get me started on biofuels, which are worse still.

All of this still apart from the fact that combustion engines don't last long compared to electric motors and batteries, require more maintenance, are noisy, and spew carcinogenic and lung-disease promoting stuff in the air (which you can only partly filter out at great costs).

So YES, mining stuff for batteries is a problem. We KNOW!

It's NOT a dirty little secret. It's out in the open from the start and only utter morons are unaware of it.

It's just that the alternatives, especially the ones containing a combustion engine are WORSE!
Capice!?