Batteries are unsustainable and have massive resource requirements. It's basically an obsession with "efficiency" while actually being extremely wasteful.
You say that while promoting the idea of more inefficient energy transfer systems. Electric motors operate above 90%, traditional motors around 25-30%. Trying to mitigate that with wasting more energy by creating an artificial fuel is even more wasteful.
Burning stuff is unsustainable, using batteries, that are recyclable is not.
Solar panels are only 15-20% efficient. No one is going around saying we need to ban solar panels.
Fuels made from solar power are the opposite of unsustainable. They are the most sustainable ideas possible. It is basically artificial photosynthesis.
We don't make fuels from solar power.
Unless you mean hydrogen, which by itself is already 30-40% less efficient then just using the electricity directly in a battery.
And that is without counting all the hydrogen that just escapes through any form of containment we try to keep it in.
Hydrogen is a fuel. E-fuels are hydrogen plus CO₂ and converted into synthetic hydrocarbons.
You are blatantly ignoring the part where solar power is incredibly inefficient to begin with, and we don't care. It's still cheap energy.
You're confusing the efficency of solar panels with the efficiency of burning hydrocarbon based fuel (perhaps intentionally?). Yes, solar panels convert about 20-30% (they're getting better with time) of the energy provided by mankind's closest and most beloved fission reactor into energy we can use, the rest being reflected or turned into heat, but the source (that giant ball of fission) is infinite and non-detremental to the environment to keep running. Hydrocarbon production not only requires this original source but once calculated would provided you end delivery efficency levels that are dramatically lower (likely less than 1%), Natural hydrocarbons are limited in supply, and the whole chain is significantly more toxic for the planet when you calculate in byproducts produced during production or consumption. It's legitimately not even close and if you truly believe hydrocarbons are even remotely viable you've misinterpreted one of the data points somewhere in your calculation.
Except you've just proved my point: Solar is basically infinite energy. So why obsess over efficiency? If you have something made from solar power, it is not a big deal.
I'm not obsessed with efficency, but it is a useful metric to consider when thinking about the overall picture. Additionally I've not made your point. Solar still requires implementation, land use, and is finite in access to humanity despite the source being infinite. Producing hydrogen fuel with this consideration would automatically increase the required solar capacity by 20-40% based on current hydrogen production processes. In addition there are byproducts and downsides from creating traditional hydrocarbon based fuels in a renewable manner.
Useful in isolation, but that is not what is happening here. People want to maximize the efficiency of a resource that is basically infinite in nature, while being fine with it destroying the rest of the environment in the process. It doesn't take much thought to realize that deprioritizing efficiency in favor of other factors is a much better compromise.
And this is even more stark when you realize that we are not merely prioritizing efficiency; we effectively have a cult of efficiency. One that maximizes the perception of efficiency even at the cost of actual efficiency. BEVs are still insanely inefficient compared to ideas like mass transit or walkable neighborhoods. A grid that runs entirely on renewable energy needs vast amounts of energy storage, which can't be solved by batteries without massive amounts of waste. A much smarter balance of solutions will actually reduce waste and improve efficiency. However, that imply that BEVs are a niche idea and aren't really needed in the grand scheme of things.
Absolutely agree with you when it comes to all of that, but I'm just saying after spending a pretty significant amount of time reading up on current 'renewable' hydrocarbon production it's not what it's cracked up to be. We should almost assuredly be investing in transport networks that are vastly more efficient and environmentally friendly than our current networks (light rail, bus networks, electric bikes, etc, etc), but it's a far easier argument to talk someone into an BEV vehicle vs a ICE one than it is to get them to take the bus or petition their local council for better community transit, and like it or not new vehicles will continue to be made. Not sure what that says for us as a species, headed high speed towards self and environmental destruction, but at least BEVs seem to help lift the metaphorical foot off the accelerator. I hope we eventually get to a point where current transport networks look as outdated as horse and carriage to our descendants.
Talking someone into a BEV is just laziness, and more greenwashing than being a serious solution. It's not even easier, as you now need a garage and tolerance for long recharge times and less range. The actual easiest idea would be to create a drop-in replacement for ICE cars. E-fuels are an option. Hydrogen cars are similarly straightforward as a possibility.
BEVs are at best a transitional idea. All it seems to be good for is changing people's minds on green transportation. But it won't get us to the promise land. There are too many problems, and the resource requirements mean they create huge new problems of their own. We need to push for whatever that can best get rid of fossil fuel cars, which will have to be something else.
I disagree with you there. Most of the common affordable BEVs are perfectly capable of providing required transport as a drop in replacement for most people I've met. Charging infrastructure is also extremely cheap and easy to implement. Implenting mass scale 'e-fuel' is a pipe dream requiring significantly more infrastructure and funding than available and reasonable. A good place to look is at F-1 or Porsche who are both building renewable hydrocarbon fuel networks. Both demonstrate that the economics and environmental costs just do not work out unless there's an engineering reason to do it (like producing high density light fuel). Meanwhile if we migrate a camery driver from their 4 banger to a mid-range BEV they'll be hard pressed to notice except in the 0.1% of long range travel which could be handled by flight, rental, or mass ground transport depending on travel needs. Additionally their fuel costs will drop significantly as they charge at home with low cost outlet electricity (which can then be a centralized focus for a governmental body to regulate and transition to environmentally friendly renewables like wind/solar), eliminating the need for expensive and energy intensive fuel delivery supply chains, stations, and frameworks. BEVs are just better than ICE in most regards when you look at the overall picture and don't discount the unseen costs.
You're not seeing the whole picture then. Having only BEVs will mean millions of people being totally screwed over on transportation, and vast new mining operations everywhere. It's pretty much an environmental nightmare in its own right. A lot of attacks on the alternative ideas are just strawman arguments. As if BEVs will be exclusively micro-compacts and all ICE vehicles will be giant SUVs and with zero mass transit options.
In reality, BEVs are part of the problem. And one that can't be truly solved.
Hydrogen is a dead end, because it is nowhere near green to produce it in large quantities, and the technology is still not ready, nor is the supply network. It's just an idea pushed by fossil fuel companies hoping to transition to selling hydrogen.
E-fuels are not zero emission, but the basic premise is that somewhere else along the chain it reduced GhG emissions into the atmosphere - like capturing methane from cow burps, or biogas from garbage dumps.
These fuels will have uses - hydrogen in rockets and e-fuels for aircraft - but for almost all land vehicles, BEVs or going electric, is the most readily available and working strategy.
That's just BEV propaganda. They're trying to sell you unsustainable BEVs instead of a fuel that can be made from water.
Not to mention it will leave millions of people stranded without any means of transportation. As it turns out, the gas station is pretty much unreplaceable. BEVs are really just toys for the rich. The whole thing is pretty much a variable on climate change denial or at least an adjacency idea.
Where is the comparison to the solar panel? I'm comparing methods of propelling, you are comparing solar panels and?
If you can use the energy more efficiently and choose not to it's not sustainable (or at least not very smart)
Because it is solar power ultimately powering it all. If you don't care about the efficiency of that step, you don't really care about all of the later steps. It is still green energy and still cheap.
The problem with BEVs is that while it is efficient in one respect, it is insanely wasteful in others. As a result, it is an unsustainable idea and functionally just greenwashing.
So it's the same if you have to build 5 times as many solar panels to do the same thing? It's just not.
Now we're in the "pro-BEV bullshit" zone. Batteries won't magically solve all transportation needs, nor solve the energy storage requirements of the grid. Alternatives still have to exist anyways, and the total lifecycle efficiency of BEVs isn't that special. In a lot of cases, avoiding excessive use of batteries will save you energy. So pursuing alternatives will not need radically more solar panels.
Where did I say batteries were perfect?
If you can admit that, you can admit there can be superior options to BEVs.
Admit what? That they aren't perfect? Yeah sure, nothing is. But where is the better option?
E-fuels or hydrogen made from green energy. With the latter you won't even give up on the future being EVs. They are the actually sustainable forms of transportation that everyone can accept.
... But they are way more inefficient then batteries, which is what I've been saying all this time.
Which doesn’t matter, something I’ve been saying all this time.
And the efficiency of batteries has been massively exaggerated too.
Batteries are unsustainable and have massive resource requirements. It's basically an obsession with "efficiency" while actually being extremely wasteful.
You say that while promoting the idea of more inefficient energy transfer systems. Electric motors operate above 90%, traditional motors around 25-30%. Trying to mitigate that with wasting more energy by creating an artificial fuel is even more wasteful.
Burning stuff is unsustainable, using batteries, that are recyclable is not.
Solar panels are only 15-20% efficient. No one is going around saying we need to ban solar panels.
Fuels made from solar power are the opposite of unsustainable. They are the most sustainable ideas possible. It is basically artificial photosynthesis.
We don't make fuels from solar power.
Unless you mean hydrogen, which by itself is already 30-40% less efficient then just using the electricity directly in a battery.
And that is without counting all the hydrogen that just escapes through any form of containment we try to keep it in.
Hydrogen is a fuel. E-fuels are hydrogen plus CO₂ and converted into synthetic hydrocarbons.
You are blatantly ignoring the part where solar power is incredibly inefficient to begin with, and we don't care. It's still cheap energy.
You're confusing the efficency of solar panels with the efficiency of burning hydrocarbon based fuel (perhaps intentionally?). Yes, solar panels convert about 20-30% (they're getting better with time) of the energy provided by mankind's closest and most beloved fission reactor into energy we can use, the rest being reflected or turned into heat, but the source (that giant ball of fission) is infinite and non-detremental to the environment to keep running. Hydrocarbon production not only requires this original source but once calculated would provided you end delivery efficency levels that are dramatically lower (likely less than 1%), Natural hydrocarbons are limited in supply, and the whole chain is significantly more toxic for the planet when you calculate in byproducts produced during production or consumption. It's legitimately not even close and if you truly believe hydrocarbons are even remotely viable you've misinterpreted one of the data points somewhere in your calculation.
Except you've just proved my point: Solar is basically infinite energy. So why obsess over efficiency? If you have something made from solar power, it is not a big deal.
I'm not obsessed with efficency, but it is a useful metric to consider when thinking about the overall picture. Additionally I've not made your point. Solar still requires implementation, land use, and is finite in access to humanity despite the source being infinite. Producing hydrogen fuel with this consideration would automatically increase the required solar capacity by 20-40% based on current hydrogen production processes. In addition there are byproducts and downsides from creating traditional hydrocarbon based fuels in a renewable manner.
Useful in isolation, but that is not what is happening here. People want to maximize the efficiency of a resource that is basically infinite in nature, while being fine with it destroying the rest of the environment in the process. It doesn't take much thought to realize that deprioritizing efficiency in favor of other factors is a much better compromise.
And this is even more stark when you realize that we are not merely prioritizing efficiency; we effectively have a cult of efficiency. One that maximizes the perception of efficiency even at the cost of actual efficiency. BEVs are still insanely inefficient compared to ideas like mass transit or walkable neighborhoods. A grid that runs entirely on renewable energy needs vast amounts of energy storage, which can't be solved by batteries without massive amounts of waste. A much smarter balance of solutions will actually reduce waste and improve efficiency. However, that imply that BEVs are a niche idea and aren't really needed in the grand scheme of things.
Absolutely agree with you when it comes to all of that, but I'm just saying after spending a pretty significant amount of time reading up on current 'renewable' hydrocarbon production it's not what it's cracked up to be. We should almost assuredly be investing in transport networks that are vastly more efficient and environmentally friendly than our current networks (light rail, bus networks, electric bikes, etc, etc), but it's a far easier argument to talk someone into an BEV vehicle vs a ICE one than it is to get them to take the bus or petition their local council for better community transit, and like it or not new vehicles will continue to be made. Not sure what that says for us as a species, headed high speed towards self and environmental destruction, but at least BEVs seem to help lift the metaphorical foot off the accelerator. I hope we eventually get to a point where current transport networks look as outdated as horse and carriage to our descendants.
Talking someone into a BEV is just laziness, and more greenwashing than being a serious solution. It's not even easier, as you now need a garage and tolerance for long recharge times and less range. The actual easiest idea would be to create a drop-in replacement for ICE cars. E-fuels are an option. Hydrogen cars are similarly straightforward as a possibility.
BEVs are at best a transitional idea. All it seems to be good for is changing people's minds on green transportation. But it won't get us to the promise land. There are too many problems, and the resource requirements mean they create huge new problems of their own. We need to push for whatever that can best get rid of fossil fuel cars, which will have to be something else.
I disagree with you there. Most of the common affordable BEVs are perfectly capable of providing required transport as a drop in replacement for most people I've met. Charging infrastructure is also extremely cheap and easy to implement. Implenting mass scale 'e-fuel' is a pipe dream requiring significantly more infrastructure and funding than available and reasonable. A good place to look is at F-1 or Porsche who are both building renewable hydrocarbon fuel networks. Both demonstrate that the economics and environmental costs just do not work out unless there's an engineering reason to do it (like producing high density light fuel). Meanwhile if we migrate a camery driver from their 4 banger to a mid-range BEV they'll be hard pressed to notice except in the 0.1% of long range travel which could be handled by flight, rental, or mass ground transport depending on travel needs. Additionally their fuel costs will drop significantly as they charge at home with low cost outlet electricity (which can then be a centralized focus for a governmental body to regulate and transition to environmentally friendly renewables like wind/solar), eliminating the need for expensive and energy intensive fuel delivery supply chains, stations, and frameworks. BEVs are just better than ICE in most regards when you look at the overall picture and don't discount the unseen costs.
You're not seeing the whole picture then. Having only BEVs will mean millions of people being totally screwed over on transportation, and vast new mining operations everywhere. It's pretty much an environmental nightmare in its own right. A lot of attacks on the alternative ideas are just strawman arguments. As if BEVs will be exclusively micro-compacts and all ICE vehicles will be giant SUVs and with zero mass transit options.
In reality, BEVs are part of the problem. And one that can't be truly solved.
Hydrogen is a dead end, because it is nowhere near green to produce it in large quantities, and the technology is still not ready, nor is the supply network. It's just an idea pushed by fossil fuel companies hoping to transition to selling hydrogen.
E-fuels are not zero emission, but the basic premise is that somewhere else along the chain it reduced GhG emissions into the atmosphere - like capturing methane from cow burps, or biogas from garbage dumps.
These fuels will have uses - hydrogen in rockets and e-fuels for aircraft - but for almost all land vehicles, BEVs or going electric, is the most readily available and working strategy.
That's just BEV propaganda. They're trying to sell you unsustainable BEVs instead of a fuel that can be made from water.
Not to mention it will leave millions of people stranded without any means of transportation. As it turns out, the gas station is pretty much unreplaceable. BEVs are really just toys for the rich. The whole thing is pretty much a variable on climate change denial or at least an adjacency idea.
Where is the comparison to the solar panel? I'm comparing methods of propelling, you are comparing solar panels and?
If you can use the energy more efficiently and choose not to it's not sustainable (or at least not very smart)
Because it is solar power ultimately powering it all. If you don't care about the efficiency of that step, you don't really care about all of the later steps. It is still green energy and still cheap.
The problem with BEVs is that while it is efficient in one respect, it is insanely wasteful in others. As a result, it is an unsustainable idea and functionally just greenwashing.
So it's the same if you have to build 5 times as many solar panels to do the same thing? It's just not.
Now we're in the "pro-BEV bullshit" zone. Batteries won't magically solve all transportation needs, nor solve the energy storage requirements of the grid. Alternatives still have to exist anyways, and the total lifecycle efficiency of BEVs isn't that special. In a lot of cases, avoiding excessive use of batteries will save you energy. So pursuing alternatives will not need radically more solar panels.
Where did I say batteries were perfect?
If you can admit that, you can admit there can be superior options to BEVs.
Admit what? That they aren't perfect? Yeah sure, nothing is. But where is the better option?
E-fuels or hydrogen made from green energy. With the latter you won't even give up on the future being EVs. They are the actually sustainable forms of transportation that everyone can accept.
... But they are way more inefficient then batteries, which is what I've been saying all this time.
Which doesn’t matter, something I’ve been saying all this time.
And the efficiency of batteries has been massively exaggerated too.