EPIC Breakthrough Can SAVE the Internal Combustion Engine!

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

Check out the SPAN smart Panel & EV Charger TODAY! geni.us/SPAN

[@glike2]

Scaling limitation opportunity cost for this to be used for airlines first makes ICE car use unlikely. Also the low efficiency and low price seems like an unlikely combination. Lastly the oil industry will lower the price to kill this. Instead of the current passive climate management, the climate crisis will definitely need active climate restoration efforts unfortunately. I would like to see more thorough and open presentation of numbers and assumptions like is done on excellent analysis on the limiting factor channel.

[@iamsherlocked84]

Your argument that efuels have a window of opportunity is not valid The fact that their inefficiency kills them isn't just about how much extra low carbon energy would be needed to replace fossil fuels by efuels (with the associated environmental and geopolitical impacts). It is also about how this low carbon energy could have been used otherwise to switch off coal, fossil gas in other applications.

[@randymurray934]

why not use the e-fuel to fuel an electric engine.. That way you get a much better return in the energy output efficiency that you would normally lose in the combustion engine.!

[@jackbisson9226]

@@randymurray934 Right on the money. eMethanol or eAmmonia (hydrogen carriers) to power fuel cells to power motors FCEV. Japan and Korea are betting on this.

[@nervousfrog101]

@@randymurray934 Because if you are fueling an electric motor you may as well use a battery as it will take a fraction of the energy to build and charge the battery as it takes to make the fuel ship it to where the car is and then convert it back in to electricity in the car. Using Efuel to power cars is just a way to assuage the congnitive dissonance of people who know we need to stop burning fossil fuels but don't want to.

[@SirCarrotNinja]

I avoided this channel for ages because of how click bait the titles were...

[@brentbauer8258]

I’m for electric vehicles, but the carbon footprint for the battery car has a huge footprint.

[@rcpmac]

That has been debunked a hundred times over. Go away troll

[@robinburkey2466]

In the 1980s, the mother earth news research team was successfully using sunshine to distill alcohol fuel. Maybe that could help eleviate some of the energy input needs. Then we have to remember that a 1990s Honda crx was capable of 48 mpg and it wasn't a hybrid. Also, gasification of waste can supply a feedstock for making fuel. That's helping two problems.

[@stipcrane]

I am impressed with your open mindedness toward energy solutions. Most innovations come from outside of the box, and people driven by a narrow and static ideology usually cannot recognize great discoveries.

[@stolz999]

Every nuclear reactor produces a lot of heat besides electricity. It's a billion dollar job to catch this heat and convert it into something useful. Example: russian VVR-1200 produces 1,2 GWatt of electricity and over 3 GWatt of heat dissipating into atmosphere.

[@Gr8fdead]

Thanks!

[@randallbates8891]

I believe that the vehicle most friendly to our environment is one that is ALREADY built..

[@Cecil-yc6mc]

your belief is at odds with reality

[@randallbates8891]

@@Cecil-yc6mc Get REAL

[@tammy-lynnstewart5677]

That would be super cool. I really have trouble wrapping my head around the issue of having to "throw out" billions of current ICE vehicles to replace with electric. Being able to convert them would solve not all but some of the issues.

[@Carl_in_AZ]

🔌🔌Last month before I retired from Cummins we were allowing the use of Renewable diesel in generators and our truck engines. Many Data Centers and California fleet truck operators west of the Rockies are now using this fuel. Renewable Diesel performs like fossil diesel, with superior performance over biodiesel. It meets ASTM D975 and EN 15490 specifications in compliance with Cummins Diesel engines and most other OEMs. No, it is not 100% CO2 reduction like e-fuels but is 85% which is a step in the right direction until the H2 infrastructure and renewable energy power stations are built.🔌🔌

[@MPerry-ox9qb]

EV is a joke. The environmental impact between the batteries themselves & the amount of CO2 it takes to produce the batteries and most electricity is produced with Coal. The absolute worst fossil fuel. The best alternative today is hybrid vehicles.

[@MiddleIrvington]

You may be on the mark if Prometheus turns out to be as cost effective as they say. In other words, IF they're as efficient as they indicate, E fuels can be an effective stop-gap until fully electric aircraft, shipping and other diesel transport can be shifted to EV. Other issues may be scarce materials needed for the Prometheus method, etc...

[@cryptokoolaid]

well its better than mining all minerals for the EV cars

[@grizzlygrizzle]

I think nuclear is the way to go for generating e-fuel. It solves a lot of the geographical problems.

[@colorwashcarsandguitars]

There wouldn't be a need to switch anything.

[@hg2.]

1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate. 2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant. 3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.) 4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice. 5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas. 6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal,

[@sierraharvester]

16% efficiency sounds like a production over time problem that is insurmountable. In the end, that number will need to come up significantly or it will be relegated to a very niche market.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Direct methanol fuel cells..up to 97% efficient.

[@k.e.n.9790]

One thing I have noticed, people are looking a hybrids, but most do not know there is a good alternative to those 20 to 30 miles per gallon cars, I average 42 to 52 town and highway in a mid sized car. With only 13 gallons of gas mine averages 500+ miles per tank, add that up with the new fuel source that should really help with the fossil fuel use and the environment. By the way, Good vid.

[@spidergoose891]

Why settle there? A properly tuned diesel can double that. I average 55/85. My best tank averaged 89 mpg. (I think I'm still running a little rich)

[@TheVenom8343]

@@spidergoose891 Ok, now I'm curious. What in the hell do you drive my friend?

[@spidergoose891]

@@TheVenom8343 a 2013 Passat TDI deleted, 3" pipe and a clean tune.

[@TheVenom8343]

@@spidergoose891 Hell yeah brother!!

[@stevebean1234]

@spidergoose891 if I had space for a third car I’d buy a TDI wagon. If I could find one for a reasonable price. The people who decide to sell put 150k mi ones up for sale for $20k-$29k here. Love TDI but VW maintenance is a lot more annoying than my basic 90s Subaru.

[@Soothsayer210]

I think we WILL see Green H2/Fuel Cell combination for Aircrafts/ Ships/ Heavy Vehicles. Because dragging the weight of empty batteries does not make any sense here.

[@Southghost5997]

Maybe the heavier vehicles, but not aircraft (at least not long haul)

[@simon6071]

Good News for fans of electric vehicles. Electric Military Vehicles Are Part of Biden Climate Agenda (What? This news of Joe Biden wanting to replace US military vehicles powered by fossil fuels with electric vehicles is being censored by KZbin!!! How come? It should be good news to be promoted by you guys instead of being censored. Why are you guys censoring the decision of your "supreme leader"?)

[@simon6071]

Come on, KZbin "moderators"! Why are you censoring the news of Joe Biden wanting to replace the US military vehicles run on fossil fuels with electric military vehicles? It should be good news to you guys on the radical left who are supposed to believe that electric vehicles will save the planet, shouldn't it? I'm sure you guys are able to understand that if implemented, the US military will certainly have great problem finding suitable and working charging stations on enemy soil when a war breaks out, not to mention that even if they are able to find suitable and working charging stations on enemy soil, the electric US military vehicles will be like sitting ducks at specific target areas for a long time while charging. You guys understand that Joe Biden's decision to replace fossil fuel military vehicles with electric ones is a very stupid decision that will have severe adverse and fatal consequence to the US military, yet you lapdogs of the radical left politicians don't want the Americans to understand the danger or even just be informed that Joe Biden has made such a stupid decision because you guys want to see the US military to be damaged and destroyed from within by the radical left politicians who are traitors to this country and the American people. Shame on you, lapdogs of the radial left politicians.

[@65josec]

Nice Report. Efuel is a real good solution. not only co2 from air can be use, but also biomass material, or a combination of different sources and still produce reliable liquid fuel.

[@swapnil_dl]

Always excited for your videos. 🙃

[@aestradarespeto]

I am not a ICE engineer but surely if you ask one of them that if you can choose a fuel to burn in a ICE to be as efficient as possible, he tell you that he will not use a fossil fuel and he will change the engine structure and its working pattern. We have ICE that uses fossil fuels, thus we need carbon zero fuels similar to fossil ones because we have ICE designed for using them. So if we want a sure clean future for ICE we must redesign them to use zero carbon emmisions fuels. In European Union this is a fact that politicians until now refuses to consider, but i think is the real future. In the first step we maintain ICE as they were, using zero emmisions fuels, but in a second stage we must build specific ICE to match the full efficiency of using carbon zero fuels.

[@craigtalbot607]

Hopefully you’re onto something real here!!! LOVE it!! In your description of the downsides of electric cars, you certainly brushed over the environmental issues with getting the materials to make the batteries in the first place, let alone recycle them later!! I’m a fan, but all these arbitrary deadlines that have no technology to back them up are ridiculous!!

[@joep9617]

I agree. The scare tactic of "we only have X number of years" while pushing the goalpost for the past few decades, has gotten old. There's definitely a great sales pitch for EV's as most people can't physically see the environmental damage since mining is done in other countries; unlike dirty exhaust & oil spills.

[@gregkramer5588]

@@joep9617 it may be getting old from an emotional standpoint but that is not reflective of the science.

[@jtc1947]

I am quite sure that there are a lot of Americans like me who could NEVER afford an EV and all of the shackles that come with it. Home charging abilities. Re-cyling the batteries. I wonder how much the insurance cost is, on an EV? These devices are NOT the magical solution that everyone thinks that they are. It seems, in a lot of conversations, that AMERICA is to do and PAY the lion's share while nations like the PRC and others do NOTHING! I wonder how many people know that the PRC builds COAL FIRED plants at an enormous rate? While claiming that THEIR carbon foot-print is going down?

[@gregkramer5588]

@@jtc1947 The price is not going to be much different going forward. Leaving the house with a full charge everyday and never going for oil changes are not really shackles. Used batteries are already worth good money for stationary use as a second life and recyclers are bidding against each other for them after that.

[@grizzlygrizzle]

One downside of EVs is their dependence on the electrical grid, and given the march toward fascism in Canada, New Zealand, Brazil, Australia, the EU, and the US, it's better to keep the things we depend on as decentralized as possible. Censorship in the media, social media, and scientific journals has been going on for years, especially regarding climate and covid. Aside from being one of the hallmarks of fascism and Stalinism, it also affects the credibility of the standard climate narrative that is pushed by the World Economic Forum, the foremost international institution that actively promotes global fascism.

[@MikeKeesler]

A few years ago, I learned how to make diesel fuel from oil. So I made it to run it in my truck until I couldn't get the cooking oil that I needed because everyone at that time was competing for what little cooking oil was available from restaurants. So then I started researching other ways to make it. I discovered that high quality biodiesel could be made from algae. I researched that method and found that it is actually easier to make it with algae than with cooking oil, because the algae could be grown in plastic raceways using just water and sunlight with a little CO2 supplementing. I would think that that could be the fuel of the future. I can build pulse jet engines that will burn biodiesel very well, and it also can run my diesel truck. Just a thought. I'll be moving soon to a location where I can set up my first algae farm. Maybe something that you might want to look into.

[@stevebean1234]

We studied algae and its use as alternative energy in school (undergrad, not funded research). One of the problems you run into is scalability. I seem to remember that there were tricks to try to get some verticality out of the algae farms (build up, not just out). Anyway, really interesting hobby since scalability isn’t as much of an issue for a single person who wants to power a car. There are some other issues with algae but it’s still really promising. Memory too fuzzy to remember exactly what they were. There are different kinds of algae with higher energy density too

[@MamboB]

Like your videos! They are so good thank you

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

🙏

[@petersz98]

A few years there was all this hype about producing fuels from algae, and that algae farms would operate like oil refineries to produce fuel, can't help feel this idea will just wither away like that one!

[@David_Mash]

This span panel is the type of ad promotion we actually value that is related to your content. Bravo

[@tedmoss]

It costs so much they won't even advertise the price. $4,000 compared to $1,300 for others.

[@chasl3645]

​@@tedmossConsidering its capabilities and how long it lasts it might just be a great value. For a well engineered system with quality components.

[@CR67]

As a technical detail, the Wright Brothers did not invent powered flight. The first motorized airplane was invented and flown by Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the Maxim machine gun. He has not worked out all of the controls, yet, so the Wright Brothers can be credited with the invention of controlled flight.

[@whitlockbr]

This idea has seen the end of many companies for decades. I remember telling my chemistry professor about this 7 years ago and he said this had been done many times. What is different now?

[@whitlockbr]

What happens if the concentration of co2 goes down so far that the processes increase the price of the production 🤔

[@maikt904]

as layman here and i had to guess the scarcity of crude oil and or fossil fuel in general with political landscape changing and the limited amount of them overall

[@LewdCustomer]

Won't go anywhere Ricky. The cost of the fuel plus the engine maintenance will kill it in the cradle.

[@nightshadehelis9821]

The amount of fuel a fighter jet burns is insane. I was a crew cheif on a10 warthogs and it took over 10k pounds of JP8. This is just one aircraft out of thousands that are constantly flying too. A single C5 Galaxy holds 49,000 gallons. I can't even imagine what something like a cruise ship holds and burns...

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

A10 crew chief! that's amazing! wow i'd love to hear about what that was like... we did a video on the A10 on our aviation channel: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aInPp32VgZmSi7M cheers!

[@alexlindekugel8727]

ships go by ft of fuel if that helps and and depending where they are have diffrent tanks for diffrent fuels. but 1.5 to 2million gallons of fuel oil. for sea freighters.

[@Israel_Two_Bit]

Now picture doing that with batteries!

[@rustyshackle917]

Maybe we don't need thousands of military aircraft constantly flying 🤔

[@davidmccarthy6061]

@@rustyshackle917 We sort of do. Like all ICE, running them keeps them healthier. Also the pilots need to stay sharp, recertify on new equipment, and of course do their primary jobs.

[@walgranapolonio]

Meanwille Brasil is using ethanol since the 70’s as suggar cane is using Carbon from the air and using solar energy to create glicose. It coasts cents per gallon. Why it’s not worldwide used?

[@jamesfulerten8494]

There is a new exhaust purification system being developed that takes the exhaust of a fossil fuel vehicle and runs the exhaust carbon and other expulsions and purifies the carbon coming out of the exhaust into water using a complex condensation system located just behind the back seats. As the exhaust enters the chamber it pressurizes and an amount of water is produced then the water produced by the system is sent through a complex filter that removes other expulsions contained in the water and what comes out the tail pipe is cleaned air. It brand new and experiments are being done to improve the system.

[@MissMeganBeckett]

That’s so excited, I hope it works and that it becomes standard in the future, maybe then some cities built around a bowl depression like Toronto will be able to have better air quality?

[@zhubajie6940]

e-cars yes, e-intercontinental planes no. Finally, someone is bringing information about this technology to KZbin. There are no panaceas, different technology must be applied to different areas of the energy problem.

[@bencoad8492]

you did touch on this but you can make e-fuels with molten salt reactors, since they have much higher temps then old school water based reactors they are more efficient at it and can actually do it, also you just run the reactor at max capacity and make the fuels in low electricity demand times which makes it even cheaper to produce.

[@timfallon8226]

In the UK electric cars now cost as much to run as fossil fuel cars. And in the UK half of the cost of fossil fuel is tax, so in reality, in the UK, electric cars are vastly more expensive to buy and operate.

[@JohnSmith-sz4gv]

Only because uk electricity is based on the price of dirty natural gas .

[@AlexandreMS71]

I've been saying this for years ... synth fuels are even better, they are pure, no contaminants like sulfur or particles that end up in the atmosphere. But, another alternative is the fuel cells that run in ethanol or methanol.

[@chrisbraid2907]

Nice to see you thinking about legacy and alternative fuels rather than just complete energy transitions … the Smart governments among us will do the math and realise many have screwed up. They then will consider the other options that they seem to be ignoring now … I’m hoping cleaner alternative fuels will rank high on their priorities as I like driving my Classics …

[@tedmoss]

Driving classics was never a problem or a consideration to solve the problem, it might get a little more expensive when gas stations disappear though.

[@dannyp9537]

I have to ask the not so obvious question, Isn't all of the oil in the ground from plants that used to be on the Earth? So all of the CO2 (oil) in the ground used to be on the Earth. Life thrived and the Earth didn't burn up. I'm not against "cleaner" burning fuels but, could we be wrong about C02? The Earth does seem to be greener with the rise in C02 levels. Not to be controversial but...

[@brynphillips9957]

@@dannyp9537 Short answer is no. It isn't greener in the slightest. Frankly we are facing the largest amount of dying off species in the history of our recording and a good part of it is due to climate change. Yes, the Life can spread in a warmer world when it has had the usual time to adapt to it (which is usually 10s of thousands of years). Life however cant adapt fast enough with the speed of the climate transtion.

[@Israel_Two_Bit]

@@brynphillips9957 I agree. Although Danny makes a good point, taking the concept of time out of the equation can easily lead one to wrong conclusions. Take sunbathing as an example. If you lie in the sun for a couple of hours a day, you'll probably get a nice tan, since the cells in your body have time to create the melanine needed to protect the cell's nucleous from radiation damage, and your circulatory system has time to safely dissipate the excess heat on your skin through the different temperature regulation mechanisms. But if you a week's worth of sunlight onto your skin in an hour or two, there simply won't be enough time for your body to adapt. It's the same with the planet, only on a much larger physical and temporal scale.

[@tkc1129]

@Danny P Well some of that carbon is likely from a time before the world was what we now consider habitable. But on the other hand, I reckon most of the CO2 that was one in the atmosphere is now literally the dirt under our feet. Some of the more reasonable climate-conscious concerns are that the climate change brought about by humans is many orders of magnitude faster than the natural change in carbon content, and that many species won't have time to adapt. On the other hand, I am coming to believe there is no "best case scenario." With high CO2, there will be no more ice ages, which is probably good, but... a lot of rivers have been diminishing over recorded history because they are fed by glaciers that been been slowly melting since the last ice age. So no more ice ages means less available fresh water. But if we hadn't burned fossil fuels, it is likely that in a few hundred million years, CO2 levels would have been too low to support photosynthesis, and life on Earth would have ended. And before that, slowly dropping CO2 levels would have caused ice ages to be longer and more severe. Sooooo... *shrug*

[@GlennRosendahl]

This is ‘artificial photosynthesis’ - carbon dioxide plus sunlight to provide a chemical fuel. In biology that fuel is glucose, water soluble. In our technological world, the optimal fuel is a liquid hydrocarbon. The other primal energy source is electricity. Photosynthesis produces that as well, but only within the process, then uses it to make glucose. It cannot generate high voltage, or conduct it over long distances.😊

[@connecticutaggie]

Great video and way to think out of the box. One question: Are there other processes for converting Hydrocarbons into energy that are more efficient than ICEs?

[@tomislavruzicic3955]

Gas turbine I think...

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Fuel cells. Direct methanol fuel cells are up to 97% efficient.

[@connecticutaggie]

@@scottslotterbeck3796 Interesting, I wonder if it is possible that transmitting energy using methanol in pipelines might be more efficient and electricity through wires.

[@mnomadvfx]

There was something called the Wave Disc engine a decade ago that looked promising. Basically a hi efficiency hybrid concept where you just use the engine as a purely petrol -> electric generator with everything else being the same as an EV, so inverters, electric motors etc. I suspect the aggressive ramping of battery production may have killed it in its infancy. The last news was a study paper released in 2017 by Columbia University titled: "Two-Stage Wave Disk Engine Concept and Performance Prediction"

[@think2086]

Getting good at plucking Carbon Dioxide from the air and making carbon-nano-tube type things with it is the key to human civilization becoming awesome.

[@tombh74]

The problem with efuels is that you loss a lot of energy in the generation of efuels and that the combustion engine is very inefficient, just like mention in the video. Therefore efuels should only be used where electrification isn't easily possible, like airplanes, big trucks ect.

[@knote4958]

If battery technology doesn't make a quantum leap then electrification won't be possible anyways. Lithium batteries are very costly, their environmental impact is substantial in the form of open pit mines, and they have to constantly recharge from the grid. Our power grid is a far cry from being ready for full EV adoption, and it'll be many decades before it's ready. Unless we explore an alternative means of energy storage such as hydrogen fuel cells, or some other means that doesn't simply shift more burden to the power grid, then EVs have a snowball's chance in hell of taking over.

[@calvinclimie]

@@knote4958 there are many battery breakthroughs- sodium ion being just one. Electrification is not only doable with current technology, it is essential to us having any hope in mitigating the climate emergency.

[@randybobandy9828]

@calvinclimie no there aren't many battery breakthroughs. Sodium batteries are the first out of about 100+ "breakthroughs" I have seen to actually go into production. They aren't as energy dense as lithium and won't be better for vehicles. Ya it's great they are using common plentiful elements but we need energy density for vehicles.

[@tombh74]

@@randybobandy9828 There are many news about 'breakthroughs', but we easily forget the long way from a new discovery to development into a final product ready for mass-production. There can be many obstacles along the way. I don't think high capacity, low density batteries are a must. If we can get very fast-charging and plenty of charging-spots (perhaps even wireless charging), a smaller capacity battery will do just fine.

[@rxaxlxpxh]

For a home system with a back up type generator, and on location a small scale biofuel generator might be worth it.

[@arne6787]

The problem is not the internal combustion engine. It is the fuel the engine uses and the efficiency of burning the fuel. Ammonia can be used as a fuel that produces no carbon emissions. Green Ammonia stores hydrogen for use as a fuel eliminating the carbon footprint. Hydrogen from electrolysis can improve fossil fuel or refuel combustion efficiency by 20 to 100 percent depending on the application and system design. There are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuel use in ICE's that are carbon neutral or zero carbon.

[@jimmarvel7888]

I find your videos to be very informative! Please keep up the good work!

[@krisknowlton5935]

The price of fuel has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine as the the price of fuel was already high before the war. The reason for the high cost of fuel is because of the present administration's policies, ie. shutting down the Keystone pipeline and canceling drilling contracts (which by the way the Supreme Court just ruled that the President does not have the authority to do). Since that ruling we have seen the price of gas go down.

[@Breezemike]

What about good old LPG ( Liquid Peteolium Gas) ? Nobody talks about it. Here in Australia both petrol & diesel have gone up dramatically in price BUT LPG has remained the cheapest at only $1 and diesel at $2.30..... LPG is an e-fuel as it is a cleaner burn and better for the engine. I have a duel LPG/Petrol engine so never get stuck if l run out of LPG.

[@stevebean1234]

I should know the answer but I don’t. Volatility, maybe? Another thing that isn’t talked about much is that the harvesting processes for natural gas tend to release a lot of trapped methane. Methane has a high greenhouse gas index than CO2 when looking at a 20 year timescale. So, it burns clean, but the full lifecycle can end up being as dirty as gasoline

[@tonymercer265]

EV's, an Impractical solution to an Imaginary problem.

[@daynevickers1079]

If only we could perfect Star Trek's transporter technology, all this would be a moot point (no cynical comments, plz... it was a joke). I really do enjoy these videos; the future will be a fascinating prospect to watch unfold.

[@trolly4233]

Aren’t the transporters suicide though…?

[@rickjames9866]

This is fantastic news. It's good for the short term, we can blend this efuel with regular fuel to mitigate the emissions. It should be used in the most polluting applications at first like flying. The downside as you mentioned is it's inefficiency and resource intensive, uses lots of land. In the long term we can use this to get co2 out of the air and put the oil back in the ground.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

The downside is burning efuels still emits pollution, but ZERO CO2 (since the CO2 you emit is recaptured and made into hydrocarbon fuels.). And modern cars do not emit much NO and CO, as well as soot.

[@bringer-of-change]

The key is to not NEED everything to be purely electrified. HHO and Methane are highly efficient combustion fuels.

[@LinuxLuddite]

CNG engines are becoming popular in various developing companies

[@RandyTWester]

HHO? Is that any different from H20, or is it just hydrogen?

[@billlyell8322]

Tell me how will the poor afford these cars. They have to get to work to survive. You plan to to kill them all off? Or do we sieze all your wealth to provide them with an electric car??

[@firstdomelastdome2918]

@@RandyTWester shhh; big companies will hunt you

[@EctoMorpheus]

​@@RandyTWester H2O would be water; hydrogen gas is just H. HHO is a 2:1 mixture of hydrogen to oxygen and is what you get if you split water molecules. It's a very explosive mix

[@miinyoo]

Actually, e-fuels can be purer than the distillates (even with additives) to produce convenient and less damaging fuels overall. Big elephant in the room. Getting the renewable electricity in the first place. An absolutely astonishing build out of solar infrastructure and localized _energy storage_ is required. This is by far the highest hurdle for any "green" plans and without a megaton of more investment into both sectors of a green energy cycle, all the thought experiments in the world won't change anything.

[@itkad]

So the fuel is gonna be half as effective but you can put it in a car and a plane. In an aircraft, weight is a lot more of an issue. For cars though, it sounds like using e fuels might require you to fuel up twice as much in the future. It might become one of those ethanol things where they start cutting pure gasoline like we do now.

[@ronblack7870]

that's not how i saw it. the fuel will be the same in your car . the process to create the fuel ends up with 15 % efficiency overall not your car gets half the mileage.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Look into M85. 85% methanol (used in drag racing) and 15% gasoline. Wxisting engines can run on it with modification.

[@thespectator5259]

You misunderstood OP. The end product of Petrol E-Fuel is the same as Petrol Fossil fuel. It's just to get there, it's even more energy inefficient than normal petrol dug up from the ground.

[@jeffharmed1616]

How can any sensible person condemn plant food?

[@bitflogger]

We are in a bad place, all reasonable solutions need to be tried at the same time.

[@alphaxfang]

is it not? doesn't see any other research get axed when there is new "breakthrough" in the market...

[@englishoak69]

Epic breakthrough .... another epic breakthrough tomorrow.. Epic

[@WileHeCoyote]

Love it! Where ever you have solar panels producing power, and a grid not able to fully utilize it.... make some e-fuel untill demand spikes again

[@douglee2438]

Ditto with wind power. Wind turbines often sit idle at night due to lack of demand.

[@sharonbraselton4302]

wibd hyder ñukale hybder

[@brianb.7435]

Good points made. On a similar point ICE engine are more efficient in cold climates, where I live, as the waste heat is not wasted but used as it’s required in the passenger cabin and engine components. So there will be a blend as no one tools fits all situations.

[@tdoubt100]

What about pollution such as NOX and carbon particulates that cause a lot of health problems? Also the efficiency bit killed it for me.

[@kennedy6971]

We will always need some ICE around. When the American military runs on battery's call me. Until then I'm pretty sure the ICE isn't going anywhere. I can't imagine gasoline not being available in the USA. I don't think we have scene the end of it..

[@allanmarks2150]

Excellent video. You covered powering the conversion using wind and solar. I would like to know more about the economics of doing this conversion using forth generation nuclear plants or even the older nuclear plants Germany closed.

[@tedmoss]

Or even mirrors.

[@hallaisback]

Nuclear powering Efuel plants seems like the obvious bridge to the future for me.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

1,000%

[@themacker894]

Your researchers should watch Peak Prosperity. They had a recent episode In which they displayed a paper from a prominent researcher who detailed how long it would take just to mine the necessary minerals to replace all the cars with EV’s. I believe the most abundant mineral would take 250 years at today’s mining rates and the more rare minerals would need several thousand years. John Stossel just released a two-part series on EV’s as well that would have also been an excellent source for this video. Replacing ICE with EV’s is 100% pie in the sky, unless we find a way to make batteries from sand and double our electric grid overnight. Great video!

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Exactly. But Greenies just stick their fingers in their ears and say, Nah Nah Nah!!!

[@fuseteam]

Did you know? EVs were a thing 150 years ago too

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

True! The electric motor is superior in every way. We just need to keep investing in batteries!

[@fuseteam]

@@TwoBitDaVinci that's the thing, is it really? Why did the ICE engjne win in the first place? xd hint: it wasn't due to the battery ;)

[@theworddoner]

I’m not a fan of efuels. It’s too lazy. Rules and regulations are easily abused. It’s a great excuse to keep doing what we already are without the guilt. Edit: Military hardware is normally the last to go clean. Your point stands in regards to efuels being used in instances where it’s hard to change. But often times its a slippery slope. This isn’t all too different from using corn to make bio fuels. That was a questionable policy at best. Especially with all its inefficiencies.

[@ghoulbuster1]

That's a weird way to see it. Improving the fuel is a great compromise between lowering emissions and reliability. Other options are worse and more expensive.

[@papertowelthe6th105]

8:16 Yeah. Exxon Mobil. Big red flag

[@papertowelthe6th105]

@@ghoulbuster1 "That's a weird way to see it." - policies have been ignored by the fossil fuel industry for decades so it's not a "weird way" to see it. "Other options are worse and more expensive." - very subjective and without any arguments to back this up. Plus this sentence is part of an argument for a different discussion.

[@ipp_tutor]

@@ghoulbuster1 In a sense, this could be seen as a better form of carbon capture, a more useful one.

[@ghoulbuster1]

@@ipp_tutor Exactly.

[@garyweber7139]

This is the best news I've heard in a while.

[@peteypops]

I’d certainly think about a hybrid vehicle using e fuel as long as it has an efficient regenerative braking system

[@ZanethMedia]

Whether it's synthetic fuel, regular gas, or BEV's, I think we're all at the point of agreement that there is--and HAS to be--room for all of these technologies to keep the world moving forward.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Exactly!!!

[@francoistrempe]

I like the logic: - Problem: we took too much carbon from the ground and put it in the atmosphere. - Solution: let's make a technology that allows us to take the carbon out of the atmosphere. - But instead of putting it back in the earth to repair the damage we have done, lets use that technology to sale more fuel and put it back in the atmosphere solving the problem once and for all.

[@Mr.Blatz-]

That doesn't mean the overall burden of carbon in the atmosphere can't be reduced while using e-fuels. You can still put the majority of the carbon you scrub from the air back into the ground.

[@koiyujo1543]

as someone who loves an EV, it would be sad to see the internal combustion engine go! This is why I'm so excited to see carbon-neutral fuels like synthetic fuels and stuff that will prevent the use of fossil fuels and be carbon neutral one of the solutions that can save the combustion engine!

[@JosefMPjess]

Could you possibly stop with these bombastic titles? Look how many of your posts start with “BREAKTHROUGH”. Or “EPIC”. You are losing credibility. Pity, as you bring interesting subjects. Someone today noticed that too..

[@OneWildTurkey]

This channel is really nice from my perspective and Ricky's voice is very easy to listen to, but I was shocked when I heard that it was sponsored by SPAM. ;-) I backed it up and replayed that intro to verify what I thought I had heard. YIKES - what a name :) SPAN looks very interesting. System efficiency (the ENTIRE system) for eFuels sounds very iffy. It sounds like something Bernie Madoff or Sam Bankman-Fried would be selling. Just WONDERFUL on the outside, but the inside is a little more odorous. I still question the efficiency claims for EVs. Does that 90% actually include the complete system efficiency, or just the consumption vs transportation portion of it? If it includes everything, even the raw materials for manufacturing of the vehicles AND the windmills, solar farms and such, then it's pretty nice. I've never seen those claims tho'. There is also the point of energy being consumed to turn into the currency that is used to purchase the vehicles. The whole of each system would make a really good comparison.

[@sjsomething4936]

I too would love an end-to-end comparison, the best I’ve seen so far is one Volvo did, which included factoring in the method of producing the electricity for the EV. It demonstrated that with current-for-the-time production methods, ICE vehicles were less CO2 to produce, which I believe included the mining of the minerals for the batteries as well. Over the average lifespan of the vehicle however, in all situations the EV emitted fewer pounds of CO2, and I strongly suspect that only factored in the gasoline consumed by the vehicle, not the CO2 generated by production of the gasoline for the ICE vehicle. You REALLY wouldn’t want to see the end-to end efficiency of gasoline production, the refining process alone requires an incredible amount of energy. If someone comes up with a method of efficiently extracting the lithium from seawater, it’ll be completely game over for the ICE vehicles. Efficiency of electricity production is very high, as it doesn’t require transport from source (oil well) to refinery, and then on to the end consumer. It’s simply produced and fed into the grid, which then distributes it right to the end consumption point.

[@HaroldBrice]

I will gladly drive an electric vehicle when the power comes from a NUCLEAR powerplant. @@sjsomething4936

[@grizzlygrizzle]

I also question his acceptance of the degree of the severity of the climate crisis put forth by the heavily-censored, heavily-hyped "science." Censored science is corrupted science, as we learned with covid.

[@OneWildTurkey]

@@grizzlygrizzle People need to recognize the difference between science and $cience.

[@matthindle5037]

Sounds great. Can't wait to never hear of it again.

[@dez7726]

could be a good combination of both if you have hybrids running on e-fuels.

[@tedwalker1370]

Sounds great. What the hell are we waiting on?

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Government is corrupt.

[@tomholroyd7519]

Worth mentioning e-fuels are cleaner burning, no NOx, so no smog

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

I didn’t mention it but yes!

[@hg2.]

1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate. 2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant. 3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.) 4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice. 5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas. 6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal,

[@jamest.5001]

I think tidal energy needs to be harnessed, there is plenty of places that can be used , to store the water at high Tide, close a gate, use the energy stored in the water, or should be capable of supplying power for 8-10 hours at minimum, and more if there is a river feeding the area, basically a hydroelectric dam, and it can work in reverse, as the high tide Is filling the system, we need to do all we can to save the earth from ourselves!! ✌️

[@ricktablelander5043]

Hi I just subscribed because you have interesting content. I say let's keep testing and trying every new thing and don't give up. Efuel sounds awesome especially here in Australia large expansions of land where evs aren't practical and the cost to buy for most people is beyond us including me

[@Israel_Two_Bit]

This is so true. This is exactly why we need these types of solutions to help us during the transition and why I think eFuels are awesome. Untill we fix EVs range problem and untill they become as cheap or cheaper than ICEs so that EVERYONE, not just people in California or Germany, can afford them, most of the world will keep using ICEs. What's awesome about eFuels is that they decouple ICEs from fossil fuels, which in the past were unavoidably linked.

[@kevinglennon2370]

The beauty if the Internal combustion engine is that it offers the option of alternative fuels. Ammonia (NH3) is the real option that will enable us to ditch carbon based fuels. Japan is leading the race to develop more green ways of producing Ammonia. NH3 can be pumped into cars just like petrol and is very safe! Hydrofuel Canada Inc are another amazing company to watch!

[@Jkirk3279]

Pure NH3 IS NOT SAFE. Hydrogen rarely explodes. But Ammonia gas will simply kill you.

[@BobAgxgolf]

you will not see ammonia cars anytime soon if ever. But, it will be a likely method to transport hydrogen.

[@joemac8474]

Those little kiddos in Africa can only dig cobalt and lithium so fast though...

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Yup! Whip them harder!!!

[@Ottiz_Killgor]

Do electric car efficiency stats account for power grids providing electricity via Coal, Burning Bio Mass (trash), Oil or nuclear?

[@spidergoose891]

Yeah they completely ignore that to make electric cars seem clean.

[@PGGraham]

This is in Kepler Carbon ReCapture's roadmap, in their stage 2 platforms. They are using a process that takes CO2 straight from the water and renewable energy from the ocean. They will use the carbon to make many durable goods and materials as well as fuels! A complete win/win!

[@gregbailey45]

Much better than de-sequestering the carbon!

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Sequestration is idiotic. Modern catalytic processes can make either solid carbon or hydrocarbon fuels efficiently. Technology to the rescue. THIS is the answer!

[@PGGraham]

@@scottslotterbeck3796 thank you for explaining in one simple KZbin comment, without any supporting documentation, what the hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers who are working on CCS obviously know nothing about. You must be the smartest man alive!

[@sharonbraselton4302]

yeeß

[@waywardgeologist2520]

Back in the 1980’s New Zealand 🇳🇿 was producing gasoline from its natural gas. So, not exactly a new process.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Germany did it in WWII

[@offroadr]

E-fuels also makes a really good battery when combined with generators. You could even use the most efficient fuel type, still a loss of efficiency, but it sure uses less area.

[@playgt326]

Conclusion, we need ICEs, EVs and hybrids together, including fuel cells and H2-ICEs for a balance and energy efficiency. ♻️

[@Israel_Two_Bit]

@@playgt326Well said. What's the key to risk reduction? DIVERSIFICATION

[@playgt326]

@@Israel_Two_Bit Exactly, using bioelectricity, biofuels, hydrogen and e fuels, clean and renewable souces. ♻️

[@johnmccallum9106]

It is more than just fuel hydrocarbons are chemical feedstock for making plastics and pharmaceutical products too and having this process means not running out ever. This would be valuable even if global warming was to be found not to be the problem that it is now assumed by many people to be.

[@tonyunderwoodfilm9773]

Also be useful as a generator for ev’s (because a small engine could be a generator it could be much more efficient running at constant speeds to provide electricity to the motors or small battery pack), . Additionally could also be used to run a fuel cell and provide electricity. As the main motors are electric, benefits of low maintenance is retained. A Company called Twelve has been chosen by military to supply e-gas from small semi trailer sized portable generating plants. The world is really changing! Thanks for the great vids!

[@tedmoss]

The reason to supply the military is not because it is a good idea for everyone, it is just to solve a military problem.

[@bernl178]

It’s amazing how everything is a double edge, sword, pros and cons

[@johnsavage6628]

EVs are a boom for the tire companies! Tires wear out faster!

[@johnDukemaster]

Yes, and those tires are the biggest micro plastic polluter.

[@digiryde]

Great balanced and informative video. Trade offs are at the heart of every decision. Sometimes the trade offs are a win win, but most of the time not so much.

[@milohobo9186]

Moving away from personal vehicles is a big step forward. Between trains, subways, etc. we could radically reduce the waste that personal vehicles produce as well as revitalize urban landscapes.

[@amenhotep81]

The evolution of fuels is starting now! Yiu have made a very interesting content. Thank you :) P.S.: Subtitles are missleading - something is wrong with subtitles...

[@TwoBitDaVinci]

i'll check it out, thanks!

[@joepvandijk7949]

Even if very cost effective, you still have the problem you mentioned yourself: right now there is simply not enough renewable energy even for the electricity markets. So squandering precious energy on producing ineffective fuels is certainly no solution to slow EV uptake or whatever. Besides, you should compare this technology and its development with the development of batteries, that, as I've seen in other similar videos, is about to do far better as well with different, more lightweight materials etc. But, I also think no research should be excluded.

[@sjsz06]

I'm sorry but EVs aren't the answer. Replacing batteries will always be much more expensive than a new ICE engine. I found out the hard way. I bought a used Chevy Volt. Did fine for a year or so, then the battery pack started having problems. Ended up costing me $7000 to replace 3/4 of the pack. I can buy a lot of gas for that much money. And I worry about when the other 1/4 of the batteries will conk out. When they do, the car won't run until it's fixed. Not like you can get home in a limp mode... so call the wrecker and have the car towed to the Chevy dealer that can replace the batteries. So add the tow charge to that cost. e-fuels sound like a technology that may someday be useful, but I doubt we will see it in my lifetime (I'm 74).

[@TheRed6263]

Thanks for informing all of us. This is how we solve the issues that humanity faces, with information. It might not look good to everyone, but someone will see it and come up with a better idea.

[@SECAMBERN]

Battery powered EV's aren't the answer either. An ICE 4x4 has a smaller carbon footprint over its lifetime than either Prius or Tesla. It's the lithium mining and refining. Then you have lifespan. My truck is over 20 years old (diesel), has over 500k miles on it, and I run it on biodiesel I manufacture at home with solar energy and waste materials. It's effectively carbon neutral. I only *buy* diesel on long road trips (800+ miles).

[@sharonbraselton4302]

wribg

[@pbs36]

I would have liked to see the pollution of e-fuels discussed. Environment and health costs are too often left out and should be always included when comparing different technologies. From a quick search, it does not seem to be looking good for e-fuels: "Testing of e-fuels has found that they emit as much NOx as standard E10 petrol, and much more carbon monoxide. E-fuels also produce twice the amount of ammonia. This can combine with other compounds to form particles, for which there is no safe level of pollution. "

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Direct methanol fuel cells. But modern cars are almost pollution free.

[@bantheundead7745]

Even when he talks about the pros to this tech against evs he leaves out most of the cons about evs.

[@selimshaheddhaka]

That's because he has a vested interests in ev. He sells ev chargers. This man not reliable to give accurate information on evs

[@zaurenstoates7306]

This is a perfect and well thought out fit for nuclear as you can make hydrogen directly at high efficiencies from the heat of the reactor. You can also drive processes to make ammonia or synthetic fuels using the heat directly without having to convert it to electricity.

[@joeshittheragman42]

In the ad they forget to tell you that it’s only good for one year, and then you have to pay another $50 or so every year to resubscribe so that your app on your phone works

[@jamesvermillion5151]

Decent presentation, wonder why we don't invest in a middle ground solution (Wall Street?). After all, the PtoUS said it in the SotU address (actually whispered) that fossil fuels will still be around for decades. That said, until EV's are truly affordable for those whom aren't wealthy, I'll keep my ICE vehicles.

[@1voluntaryist]

Can the new e-fuel compete with the ultra-efficient Aptera design? Solar directly fuels the Aptera at zero cost. No need to ever fuel up for normal use.

[@kevinloving3141]

That's assuming Aptera isn't vaporware. Ask the government to Louisiana

[@1voluntaryist]

@@kevinloving3141 I'm assuming you haven't researched it. I have been following it for 14 years, since before it was electric, just the most efficient design shift ever. They are extremely open and give many tours/interviews/demos, with lots of details on their motor-in-wheel, PV, and composite fiber body.

[@sflscott11]

The same base issue with efuels is the same as EVs. Cost! EVs are too expensive and the infrastructure to support them is too. Hopefully further breakthroughs will lower efuels production costs.

[@eddewhurst7662]

ICE have been improved over the years and are unlikely to improve more but remain very inefficient. Whereas batteries are changing quickly and great leaps forward are possible. At the moment evs are expensive, but prices will come down. I think the future is evs. Air transport may be different.

[@sflscott11]

@@eddewhurst7662 it is clear that EV's are "our" future, however, the materials needed to manufacture todays batteries long term is limited and the process is not environmentally sound.

[@eddewhurst7662]

@@sflscott11 We will not run out of material for ev batteries, that is just wrong information. No mining is that environmentally friendly, but for every kilo of lithium mined in 2021 we mine 90 tons of coal and 30 tons of iron. Mining for batteries is on a relatively small scale. Sodium batteries are being brought into production in 2023.

[@jeffharmed1616]

Great crazy subject worth visiting just to acquaint non-techies with entropy. Having said that innovation starts by taking improbable routes

[@willemkossen]

What i need is a home unit to make my own fuel.

[@electricamir248]

How about a video on the mining of lithium and other minerals needed for ev batteries.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Exactly!!!

[@dholt21771]

More important is that we will need to triple current electric production.

[@scottslotterbeck3796]

Nuclear, baby!