Synthetic Fuels: A BETTER Alternative To Electric Cars?

[@ChopperPBM]

None of this is going to deal with the biggest problem all cars face - spiders living in your wing-mirror housings, if someone can fix that I'd be so happy :)

[@SilvaPiri]

Once you can replace wing mirrors with wing cameras, that'll be solved ;)

[@kofio7581]

Couldn't agree with you more😂😂😂 Them wing mirror spiders have even started migrating into my house

[@mattysea7163]

I just repeatedly punch my wing mirror until they are all dead

[@expatbiker6598]

Sell your car since you don't use it as much. Join a car club membership for hourly car rental schemes.

[@rtfazeberdee3519]

Have a look at the wing mirrors on a Polestar 2 - they might have solved your problem

[@mees7529]

The biggest advantage of synthetic fuel however, is that you can put it in all of those existing cars. You do not have to throw them away, which would be very bad for the environment. Also imagine how long it would take for continents like africa to make the switch to electric cars

[@jrgenjrgen1165]

E-fuel will be incredible expensive. The use will be to run 250 GTO's up the hill at Goodwood or around le Mans Classic. Thats it.

[@Stefan-jk5gx]

High on copium.

[@peterroberts2952]

Sooner than you. China is here with electric bikes and cheap cars.

[@peebow1000]

@@jrgenjrgen1165 an interesting silent point about racing you kinda brought up there. GT races, hill climbs, NASCAR, (destruction) Derby's, 20,000BHP top fueler dragsters. And then on top of that, the countless petrol heads that modify cars to no end, upping their fuel consumption, only to smash or blow 'em up and force rebuilds or replacements. Why don't we apply more aggressive restrictions on all things 'motor sport' instead of punishing the entire world populace? Now the basic answer I guess will be motor sport plays a minor role in car based pollution and consumption. But it doesn't really feel like anyones trying to make ammends to resource hogging car sports

[@Neojhun]

"which would be very bad for the environment" LOL that's not PLAUSIBLE! We have a Manufacturing Supply Chain SHORTAGE! Cars are being forced to live a longer life.

[@tebitan3780]

Am I wrong or is it true that less than 10% of CO2 comes from cars. Most comes from ships, planes and industry. And nobody is talking about that.

[@_Rafiki.]

Ships and planes will be up there on the list. I heard 1 cargo ship crossing emits something equivalent to what 1000 cars do in a year

[@highlight9014]

It’s always easier and less damaging for politicians to go after the little people.

[@tebitan3780]

@@highlight9014 Yeah, because they don't pay them. Politicians will never go against big industry. Ordinary people they know that they can manipulate.

[@royster3345]

It's why ships burn two types of fuel. The lighter in territorial waters to comply, then heavy oil in international waters out of jurisdiction.

[@Ovenman940]

Claiming that nobody is going after that is just being willfully ignorant.

[@ameenr9129]

Fair enough. I just want all V8, V10, V12 and W16 to last and if this is the technology that will aid this, I'm ALL for it. Humans are incredible and I'm confident we'll find many solutions to our problems.

[@Brian-om2hh]

We already have. Renewable energy, used in electric cars.

[@mrstewns]

@@Brian-om2hh we know. Us car guys just don’t want to it. I grew up around big v8s and I don’t want to see them go before I can purchase one

[@RogueBagel]

The one part of this synthetic fuel solution that absolutely works is that the big engines you mention are largely used by supercar manufacturers. The buyers of those cars can afford whatever this fuel would cost! You're not getting a Ford buyer to pay 2-3× as much as petrol, that's for sure.

[@garybhullar2110]

@@RogueBagel At the same time if you have an electric car for your day to day driving and an ICE car on the weekends for fun you won't need to buy nearly as much fuel.

[@RogueBagel]

@@garybhullar2110 very good point!

[@ag.3820]

Well apart from Chile, nuclear plants are also pretty clean and sustainable, especially if we figure out in future what to do with the nuclear waste (right now it's just being stored). So you could make synthetic fuel pretty much anywhere, although hydrogen is probably better.

[@mrfishsticks266]

If some accident happens in these nuclear plants, it cannot be stoped, remember that

[@BBQnapalm]

Stop thinking as nuclear being the only option.. Is it better and less space-consuming than wind and solar? Absolutely! But please read about nuclear fusion! There have been major strifes in it's research lately. Its a form of power generation from any atom you wish, making radioactive substances minimal/obsolete

[@BBQnapalm]

Also, these cannot explode/ meltdown. If anything bad happens, the fusion reaction will simply fizzle.out

[@Kraven83]

Agreed. 4th gen fission plants look very good until we can, at last, commercially produce electricity from fusion. The running joke is that it's a technology always 40 to 50 years away in the future.

[@jimj2683]

Hydrogen is cheaper to produce, but much more expensive to transport and store. So in the end the total cost between hydrogen and synthetic fuel will probably be very similar.

[@mattvanders]

So I work in the power industry at a gas power station so get to see what actually happens in making energy for the country and move. First off, the biggest issue isn’t just making electricity, it making the correct amount of electricity to suit demand - what I mean by this is the amount of electricity needed isn’t a static number and will change over the day and night, in fact there is normally too much electricity being produced at night for the demand so companies will get paid to run at night to use up electricity to protect the grid. In these circumstances we need to find a way of storing the electricity until it’s needed. There are a number of pumping stations in the U.K. that will pump water from the bottom reservoir to the top reservoir when there is low demand and then let the water full back down through a water turbine to produce electricity on demand. The issues are limited amount of electricity can be produced at a time, large areas of the land scape will need to flooded for the two reservoirs and they are normally in the wrong location to demand. The other way would be to use batteries as the storage of electricity to supply grid when needed, again lots of pros and cons that are discussed in electric cars. With any substantial electrical energy from wind or sun the big elephant in the room is that they to not operate all the time or 24, you don’t get power cuts when the wind isn’t blowing (and they because our site would get turned on to top up the grid for the day). What might surprise you is that we also run if it’s the wrong type of wind or too windy to help to control the hertz of the electricity produced. What we are looking into doing is using sustainable product energy to produce hydrogen when there is low demand on the grid to be able to run the power station off the hydrogen when there is little or no wind. There is even projects in the U.K. to run carbon capturing equipment off of the wind farms. And the last thing to know is even if in the U.K. we go down the green sustainable methods we import electricity from other parts of Europe through under water cables, there are lots of electricity being produced in Europe cheaper than what can be produced in the U.K. but not always greener (Poland with it coal power stations).

[@TML34]

Why do we need to use up electricity that isn’t being used?

[@marcsimmonds7814]

And EV owners will be "paid" to charge their cars at night.

[@mattvanders]

@@marcsimmonds7814 what will happen with ev cars when they hook up to the house is they will actually start putting electricity back on to the grip and then start charging at 11-12 pm when demand is low. This will make the ev owner extra money but obviously limit the use of the car into the night (unless option for charging is selected). This is one reason for the row out of the smart meters as well as passing the actual cost of use depending on time of day onto the end user eg if there is low wind (which is cheaper to make than from a power station) then power stations will get turned on but charge a premium (I’ve seen this just from £150 a mega watt go up to £4000 a mega watt).

[@mattvanders]

@@TML34 because you can’t store it on the grid, electricity needs flow to work and so would damage equipment with power surges. Obviously power stations do try and do their bit and slow up production but you do need them to operate to help to control the frequency of electricity produced when wind and solar can’t do

[@NatoriousGamePlay]

Why not just, idk, switch to nuclear as the primary every production source?

[@bruhnomento7079]

I don't want synthetic fuel to erase electric cars, I just want it to keep petrol cars alive side by side with the electric ones

[@jijokoshyksjijo3989]

yes...that's it..

[@knshobhin560]

Can ethanol help it ?

[@jijokoshyksjijo3989]

@@knshobhin560 upto a certain extend.. because ethanol has less energy density, we need to use more of it..so that reduces the tank range of current vehicles. but it's still almost carbon neutral. a simple but complex solution is hybrids. they can increase efficiency. charge by regen braking. use it in the next acceleration. but still they use batteries and we have enough E-waste already..😅

[@AH1981]

Just needs to have mix of technology on the road as I belive it will help with mobility

[@thabangmagana869]

Why???

[@exasperated]

I see non-dino juice fuels (and not just this synth stuff, but also ethanol, biomass, refuse fermentation, etc) as a good way of keeping existing cars running, rather than it being a fuel for future vehicles. And I'm intrigued by Toyota's investment in hydrogen, both combustion and fuel cells. I'd also like to see BEV conversions become far more easily available, so we're not discarding perfectly good vehicles that've already stamped their "manufacturing footprint" into the Earth. Ultimately, I think we need to not focus on any one "save the planet" energy source, and instead look at all the possible options and see if and when they can be used. Perhaps even combining them when and where appropriate.

[@ralphwarom2514]

Hydrpgen is actually really promising.

[@neilmurphy845]

Yes exactly I think it's a great idea

[@bblbussy6351]

Totally missed the point

[@Angloman516]

Hyundai as well as Toyota'

[@Brian-om2hh]

Toyota have recently stated they are to cease all development in hydrogen technology.

[@olivier8751]

Hi, As I am working on the topic, I can say that there is several mistakes in what you say, sorry... Some of them; many ways exist to produce synthetic fuels, not only the one you describe. An electric car can easily be more GHG emitting, for instance, in Poland because it generates more GHG to build the electric car than a petrol engine car then the effiency makes the emitted GHG in Poland higher than burning petrol. But, of course, that is not true everywhere. There is also another way to produce electricity; geothermic as they do in Iceland, not as far as Chili. It is important to understand that a car is not a problem on GHG only, it is also by its tires turned to plastic particles on the road and by the brakes emitting polluting particles too. Whatever, you are right by saying that synthetic fuels will never allow to continue the business as usual... But electric cars neither.

[@motanya1972]

Can you explain to mere mortals in the English language what animal GHG is?

[@glenngeorgewoolley]

Green house gasses

[@jimj2683]

Electric cars are heavier, so they produce more particles from the tires and road dust.

[@knote4958]

The problem with electric cars is that they're very resource intensive, even if the energy generated to power them is green (over 30% of manmade emissions are from energy production, so if we broke the ignorance against nuclear and built more nuclear power plants we'd chop a large chunk of emissions immediately). -Even if we went to nuclear power (the cleanest energy we have), that doesn't solve the transmission issue. Our power grid can barely handle hot summers and solar flares, we're insane if we think it can sustain even 50% EV adoption. Full EV adoption would call for more substations and transmission lines, meaning millions of tons more of metal to be mined (lemme remind you of the massive carbon footprint of the mining process, in addition to the toxic metals and chemicals often released into the atmosphere and groundwater as a result). -Speaking of metals to be mined, that leads to the next issue with EVs: the batteries. Lithium batteries require lots of lithium, copper, cobalt, etc to be mined in order to build them. The lithium mining being bad enough, the cobalt is much more finite to source, and most of it comes from a small little African nation that takes advantage of child labor and slave labor, to which the other nations of the world cast a blind eye because they want that cobalt to keep flowing. -By the way, did I mention we still don't have a cost effective way to recycle the batteries? All that money and resources that goes into building a single battery pack, and it will still ultimately end up in a landfill before you've even gotten half of the expected mileage from the car. Don't expect it to biodegrade anytime soon.......... It may sound like I'm nitpicking, but I'm just a pragmatist, and if the whole point of EVs is to reduce our environmental impact then they get a failing grade. EVs in their current iteration only shift the problem, and will need to come a LONG way before they're actually a solution. Anyone who thinks EVs are a modern solution are the same people who think wind and solar are viable sources of sustainable energy, the type of people who respond more to spectacle than hard facts or data. The way I see it, the best thing we can do right now is switch to nuclear power, knock out up to a third of our emissions, and once we're on cheaper and cleaner energy, work on synthetic fuels that are less intensive on limited resources

[@jagjeetsihra2862]

All the F1 Teams are working on this, they say they will have a viable zero emissions solution in the next three years.

[@dmomcilovic9185]

Called formula E

[@user-oe2ti1fb8r]

They've been racing on methanal in the US for decades. F1 = Greenwash , need to try harder

[@BernMile5]

I hope they can

[@1810jeff]

As long as the government doesn't get involved they always muck everything up

[@F1ll1nTh3Blanks]

F1 is almost on a hiding to nothing with this. The task is monumental. They will achieve something that's near zero emissions, I believe but they still will have to overcome, efficiency, cost and viability.. In 3 years.. that's never ever going to happen. Best hope for synthetics is a cleaner alternative to crude oil that still has some viability to keep current engines running where electric infrastructure hasn't caught up but crude oil impact is becoming untenable. That's a good success but there's no way they will get it to be as efficient or as powerful as electricity. That's just physics, you can't overcome it. I see WRC is also using synthetics as of next year. It's a step forward but it's no prime alternative.

[@richardlw63]

You appear to only be counting the emissions from the exhaust, no mention of the emissions involved in getting the oil out of the ground and to the petrol pumps, this bit always gets forgotten.

[@seansimmons5071]

And Electric cars to make produce how much?, nevermind the electric needed to charge the cars aswell. And then the dead batteries left-over. Also the loss of tax money, peoples jobs and so on.

[@cobrachannel100]

@@seansimmons5071 Stop with our misinformation clown. Dead batteries? LOL. There is such thing as power storage solutions and recycling. ever heard of it? Everything else you said is so bogus that warrants no further comments. Delusional.

[@seansimmons5071]

@@cobrachannel100 ok keep believing your own misinformation and see who's correct in the next 10 years

[@F1ll1nTh3Blanks]

Yeh, the best hope for synthetics is that they can cut the worst excesses of that out but to burn 100% with no waste, even to formulate the mixture.. good luck.

[@scwarzewaffe85]

Much like the moot point of how much carbon is expended in the mining and manufacturing of EV batteries. & the other elephant in the room - having them produced in China , effectively handing over motive energy provision to them also. Well done west , well done.

[@Joshua-ej5tl]

...then we all go buy 911s problem solved

[@bruhwth]

Yep, all I need left is the cash to buy a 911 😭😭

[@ivegotkids8455]

Did

[@DoubleOSeven007]

Only track Porsches get the juice not your 911 street car.

[@ivegotkids8455]

@@DoubleOSeven007 i'll sell Addrita if needed but i'll miss her

[@ivegotkids8455]

@@DoubleOSeven007 i'll sell Addrita if needed but i'll miss her

[@SupraDuprah]

There's still hope for synthetic fuels because it's still early days for it. Other companies such as bosch are looking into developing there own synthetic fuels. Synthetic fuels will be developed for motorsports (f1 etc) and other car makers for example mclaren and mazda support synthetic fuels.

[@johnmason5626]

The only way synthetic fuels can be viable is if we have massive amounts of very, very cheap electricity and I cannot see that situation arising any time soon.

[@richardautenzio8117]

All this talk is very good, because if we just leave it to those wanting to make money out of selling us something through clever marketing, and the consumer who is well known for following fashion and the cults then we won't come up with the best solution's. It should not become a war of EV versus ICE. We do need to keep our minds open to all alternatives.

[@MarkJT1000]

Yes there's nowhere near enough synthetic fuel capacity to feed all cars at present. However there's nowhere enough electricity generative capacity available to be able to replace all cars with EVs either. And even if there was, the whole grid and distribution network would have to be rebuilt and expanded to cope with the demand.

[@garethbaus5471]

The power demand needed to supply the energy for the manufacturing of synthetic fuels would be substantially higher than the amount of electricity needed to power an equivalent fleet of electric cars.

[@adha2913]

@@garethbaus5471 But it would not be required at every household like an EV charging station - that's the point.

[@garethbaus5471]

@@adha2913 That would be a valid point if most homes didn't already have adaquate EV charging capability already built in as a standard feature. Most if not all EVs come with the hardware needed to charge from just about any nearby external outlet, and most single family dwellings have at least one external outlet that is fairly close to where most people would park, and since most people are parked near their house for a minimum of 8 hours a day the slow charging rate of a normal split phase outlet doesn't matter. Roughly 90% of the necessary EV charging infrastructure was already built 20 years ago.

[@adha2913]

@@garethbaus5471 Standard wall socket is not a practical solution for charging an all-electric vehicle. The charging times are far too long.

[@garethbaus5471]

@@adha2913 a standard wall socket is enough for you to do roughly double the average commute distance on a daily basis without issue. As long as you are able to charge faster than you drain it most of the time you are pretty much always going to start your day with a full battery.

[@markomarkomarko]

Re efficiency: the last step is the least efficient of them all - the internal combustion engine. After you've gone through all the problems of making and transfering your synthetic fuel you then go and convert 3/4 into heat just to use the last 1/4 to actually move the car!!

[@dronin87]

Forumla 1 cars are now over 50% efficiency. There is a lot of room for improvement with commercial vehicles.

[@Zippiye0001]

@@dronin87 Electric cars are at 78% efficiency already, so they better catch up quick.

[@DavidKnowles0]

@@dronin87 They also destroy themselves after a few races. For example, an this been in the news a lot over that last few days, McLaren engine loses 1% of it power output per race. An each engine cost a cool 10.5 million dollars.

[@markomarkomarko]

@@dronin87 yes, but at what cost? $1M per engine or so?

[@F1ll1nTh3Blanks]

@@dronin87 Yeh, but doesn't matter when they're still +20% less efficient than even the least efficient EV's.

[@johnnyboy1586]

We need a balance of synthetic,ev, hydrogen,not putting all your eggs in the same basket

[@kapuzinergruft]

The discussion is a bit biased, you can use lots of wind energy in Chile. Namibia sun energy, Mongolia, Kasachstan?. Chile doesnt need hardly as much energy it can possibly win from its land. Namibia is huge and hardly populated. That is the target for many governments. And you can still use small elecrtric car solutions for the cities. The problem being... more and more third world people buy cars, and it wont be electric vehicles... there is no sufficient infrastructue for it. Synfuels can be a solution, Hydrogen as well. And the high energy consumption for producing huge batteries is completely not mentioned. A big electric vehicle has already used up as much fossile energy as the same size diesel engine after 120.000 km when it comes out in the marker. Propaganda for Tesla comes in all shapes and forms. I didnt own a car for more then 13 years, using company cars, rental cars, public transport and bike, walking. In the USA you get arrested for walking the non existent pavements in the southern states, and public transport is much to wish for.

[@hertsdude]

Missing the carbon cost of replacing every combustion car on the planet to be a electric car this is massive. Synthetic fuel would keep them on the road

[@findingneutral426]

Yep and the emissions from making new kit. New kit that’ll be out of date in a few years.

[@HaydenLau.]

Cars aren't forcibly being replaced. It's only just when people get a new car, they get an electric one.

[@pauln0371]

It's amazing to me that people haven't really cottoned on that Synthetic Fuel is just a pipe dream for the everyday driver. Well explained in laymans terms by the way Rory. If people think the Electric charging infrastructure is bad at the moment they should take a look at the state of Hydrogen refuelling. Now that really is dire......

[@Brian-om2hh]

Fair comment...

[@philtucker1224]

I guess convenience-wise, electric charging is easier to provide in the U.K. at least, as electricity is available (almost) everywhere. However I guess if you were a thousand miles away from electricity a hydrogen refuelling station would be welcome site. Perhaps large mobile hydrogen electricity generators will become more common by 2040?

[@ricco123tube]

@@philtucker1224 it would still be cheaper in the long run to supply electricity to those parts than constantly driving up and down on a regular basis transporting the hydrogen.

[@philtucker1224]

@@ricco123tube yes, good point..

[@garethbaus5471]

@@philtucker1224 there aren't very many places with a significant population where you don't have access to the grid, and can afford a car. Most of the places that match those criteria are probably better served with biodiesel (Ideally made from old fry oil) since biodiesel is cheaper, easier to store, and safer to handle.

[@TheStressD]

The main issue is if we do go all electric, from replacing gas boilers, tech, cars all these things attached to the electric grid ect. 1) Can our infrastructure handle all that load 2) Can sustainable energy keep up with demand, without wrecking nature I.e solar/wind farms everywhere? 3) More demand for batteries would require more energy to extract raw materials 4) What happens to all the batteries when they come to the end of their lifecycle, would recycling facilities have the capacity and the ability to recycle as much material as possible due to the rise? 5) What happens if energy companies decide to hike up electricity prices worse than what they are now because they decide fossil fuels are no longer a competition? I think until fusion power becomes a reality which I think we are about 2 decades away. I think we have very shortsightedness in my opinion, to think batteries and renewable energy is going to be our hail Mary to our energy crisis is an understatement. These are the kind of questions we need to be asking ourselves.

[@aadi8568]

Well put

[@jonasweber9408]

1) yup, but sometimes it depends of the country 2) depends of politics and financial interest today 3) no problem, nothing is really rare in batteries (lithium is the 33 most present ressource on earth) and motors you can mine even in Europe. But reducing the emissions of mining will be a necessity 4) today there’s not enough batteries to recycle. The problem is not capacity it’s more the price of recycling, if it’s cheaper to mine, companies will not develop recycling. But politically in Europe every manufactures must recycle their EV batteries, and they do it. 5) we can install solar panels and be independent from them. Problems we can solve while petrol is already killing us I choose to get rid of petrol ⛽️

[@rtfazeberdee3519]

1) they'll have to start upgrading if they can't, EVs will not take over the world in 24 hours 2) Solar/Wind farms do not "wreck" nature, you can still farm animals and plants on them (apart from the offshore ones) 3) the Grid and equipment are getting greener as time moves on but unfortunately reality means that initially its impossible to make the new tech without using the old tech 4) They go to reuse (2nd life) application first and then recycle - if there is money to be made, they industry will grow with the growth of battery production. 5) Pricier charging.

[@santtumakinen7244]

The point of synthetic fuels is to have higher energy density in the fuel. This is important on planes and ships. Batteries or hydrogen itself takes too much space (hydrogen) or weight ( batteries). Using these fuels would make the transport of stuff less efficient because the amount of load you can carry decreases while there is less space or more weight. Planes and ships are really dependent on specially weight. They sink/stay on ground if there is too much weight. This is where synthetic fuels come in with higher energy density.

[@santtumakinen7244]

Secondly why does everyone talking on this topic forget about NUCLEAR POWER. One of the most reliable zero emission power production.

[@garybhullar2110]

@@santtumakinen7244 You hit the nail on the head.

[@newwi]

I absolutely agree that synthetic fuels is better than EV because A. Nickel mining destroys the environment B. You will still need to produce the battery C. 85% of Electricity that is in the market is fossil fuel or oil Meanwhile synthetic fuels if engineering could make it, someone could make a machine that absorbs CO2 then it makes the stuff.

[@X7rocks]

Didn't mention it takes years to offset the e.v production... if the argument of e.v enthusiasts is "well we'll just have fully renewable energy to charge our cars" the same can be said for synthetic fuels.

[@Brian-om2hh]

But what exactly will be the point of beginning to produce synthetic fuels for ICE cars once they begin to cease production, which will begin happening within the next few years. So, after that the existing stock of ICE cars will then soldier on for 15 to 20 years, with no new ICE cars or vans joining them because of Worldwide bans. So, would you pump big bucks into producing fancy fuels for a market that was slowly diminishing, and would eventually virtually vanish altogether in 25 years or so?

[@X7rocks]

@@Brian-om2hh "slowly diminishing" Sure bud, your entire rant is just that a rant cry about fading ice vehicles as if they're not being purchased in the largest volume at the moment .

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@X7rocks Some UK car makers are switching to 100% EV production in 2025.... And Audi in Germany have said they will produce their final ICE cars for the European market in 2026, so after those dates it'll get pretty difficult to buy ICE cars I guess..... Decreasing demand for oil, along with towns and cities all over the World introducing Clean Air Zones, will dramatically slow sales of ICE. Both Paris and Berlin have now banned diesel cars from their city centres.......

[@X7rocks]

@@Brian-om2hh didn't ask. Don't care.

[@ElishaMukumba]

Rory, Rory, Rory. Don’t be so negative. The technology is quite young at the moment. If it develops at the same rate that EVs have in the last 20 years, it can succeed. All we need is a lot of diligence and tenacity

[@MrBreakingBud]

LOL go to physics school :D

[@shiakas]

Unfortunetly there is no way around the laws of physics.

[@magnustan841]

I think synthetic and carbon neutral fuels could have a place in the heavy goods vehicles and buses going forward. They need to travel far and run for long periods throughout a day, so EV isn’t going to work. But let’s see what F1 produces for their next generation carbon neutral fuel for 2025. They made a lot of noise about its being capable for adoption throughout the automotive sector and potentially beyond to other types of vehicles. If only there was more exploitation of the immense potential of solar and hydroelectricity, we colui have more than enough nearly zero-emissions electricity to feed power stations, charge EVs and shut down stupid coal burning power stations. You just need to minimise the effect on the eco-system.

[@snakeeyes9246]

You read my mind. Larger vehicles like buses, trucks, boats, and ships can use that.

[@JustinBenn]

Yup. Ships, airplanes and huge vehicles whereby gargantuan batteries are not even remotely feasible.

[@Brian-om2hh]

EV will work perfectly well once solid state batteries come on stream. Massively less weight, physically smaller battery packs, much faster charging. Both Ford and BMW are to begin trials of solid state batteries later this year........

[@matthewvontersch6925]

Can you, if not already covered in a previous explainer, look at how green are the batteries used in electric vehicles, and what is being done about recycling at the end of their lives. My diesel GT golf is now at 200k + miles, and i would love to move to electric, but it feels like we are swapping 1 environmental problem for another in the future.

[@02autogt]

Because you are...

[@ramoncotta1264]

Here you go: An electric car takes 15,000 kwH to produce. Multiply that by the number of vehicles in current 1.4 billion, and you have just energy cost to replace every car on Earth. The production of just one lithium ion electric car battery produces 17.5 tons of co2. A regular car with a lifespan of 200,000 miles will produce 88 tons of c02 in it's life. The electric car has already consumed about 20 tons of co2 before it even gets driven. We don't yet know how long EV's will last, but it is for sure that since we produce electricity from fossil fuels, they do have a carbon footprint above and beyond that which it took to produce them. It is also likely the battery will not last 200,000 miles, so the replacement will also produce 17.5 tons of co2. Buying a used economical car is the best you can do for the environment. It has already paid back the carbon load it took to produce it.

[@bobwells1517]

You can take the shade you're throwing on synthetic fuel and cast it likewise on electric. You've some massive suppositions in the copy you're reading. Also, newsflash: CO2 is not a pollutant.

[@chippers9912]

Perhaps it could be something that is used to keep classic cars going in the future with a bit of work

[@Brian-om2hh]

You can already buy Aspen synthetic petrol in Britain. It's been on sale for decades. It costs around 3 times the price of normal unleaded petrol..... Synthetic fuels are never going to be a cheap fix......

[@entlim]

Given that the RAF today demonstrated a synthetic fuelled prop trainer in flight today..... Make up your mind

[@ricco123tube]

A demonstration is not the same as mass adoption. It's great that these old cars and planes will still have a place using synthetic fuels, but they will literally be an extremely small minority in years to come.

[@sneaky_krait7271]

Great they achieved a demonstration! Still doesn’t make a single difference in the incredibly bad efficiency in the process of making these fuels

[@andrews629]

Aircraft, to be viable, need fuel with very high energy density, by volume and weight. Currently hydrogen compression and storage requires pressure vessels that are prohibitively heavy for flight.

[@cobrachannel100]

LOL. A lot has been prototyped in human history but ended up in a landfill. Stop it!SMH.

[@F1ll1nTh3Blanks]

Demonstrations mean nothing, it's about viability. Demonstrations are like dipping your toe in the water..

[@Dreddingbath]

I learnt plenty, thanks Rory. I’d like to hear more about Hydrogen power and why this doesn’t seem to be taking off as a complimentary technology for transport alongside pure electric.

[@MarkGarnettUK]

Because it is very inefficient energy carrier; losses at every step including a lot of waste heat in the fuel cell. Very roughly you need 3x more electricity input (into making hydrogen) than if you just used that same electricity directly into your EV. Plus a whole load of other factors like hydrogen filling stations are very expensive, H gas has to be compressed to get a worthwhile amount on board (something like 300 atmospheres), if/when a H tank bursts (under the back seat) it not only destroys the vehicle but for a wide area around it, the force is so great that air bags will be deployed in other cars! If/when it leaks you can’t see or smell it, if it catches fire you can’t see the flame, it’s the smallest element so wants to leak, over time metal suffers from embrittlement so you need new tanks etc. Until there are lots of H stations, you probably won’t get a HFC car, companies that could invest in stations won’t want to until there is lots of demand. And don’t forget, a HFC electric vehicle doesn’t really have any advances over a battery EV, so most people will do the maths, realise they can charge every night at home (or every day at work), heck even refill for free if they have solar so HFC will never take off in light vehicles. So why the hype? Because an easier cheaper way of getting hydrogen is as a by-product of the oil and gas industry, if your industry made profits of around ~1bn a day, you’d probably think of ways of encouraging HFC too. The clever part of their plan is, because HFC cars are always “10 years away”, people say they will wait. I say, even if all the above is wrong, get an EV now (probably for next 2 or 3 cars you own) then switch to HFC when they are ready. That is, if you want to go back to the visiting a fuel station every week and handing over £70 each time (you know governments will tax it), when your EV only takes a couple of quids worth of electricity each night. Like diesel, sone governments are being persuaded to even invest in HFC, even though the physics ensures they will always be 3x less efficient than a pure EV, but let’s not delay any EV investments which is known workable tech that can be rolled out today, benefiting users pockets (total costs are way less), and not let the industrial lobby waste our tax payer dollars/pounds.

[@Dreddingbath]

@@MarkGarnettUK I’ve learnt a lot there too, thanks!

[@donaldduck5731]

Agreed, I could see plug in hybrid H2-electric being an option for the foreseeable future until battery technology advances to allow for longer ranges and towing caravans etc, could even have H2 canisters like LPG canisters so no massive infrastructure needed. The new C Class hybrid has 62 miles electric, my Vaxhall Ampera has 45 miles range and a good 80%-90% of all my driving work/shops/friends/dog walking is in EV mode, but I could still get back from Copenhagen in a day when Covid hit and the borders started closing around Europe. If H2-EV hybrids could get around 100miles range electric only, then the inefficiencies of H2 production would be negligible since for most people over 90% of their driving would be electric only, however drivers would have no range anxiety, or get caught out and stranded either and cars would maybe be more affordable than pure electric cars are now. The argument I regularly hear is you need to carry the weigh of a battery and ICE engine/fuel cell with a plug in hybrid, however a pure EV needs to carry the weigh of a much larger battery which is rarely required for most journeys too so it's not so black and white. Plus if H2 is produced using zero carbon processes it doesn't matter a dam how inefficient it is, it will have no impact on the environment, it's only so called blue H2 promoted by O&G which is not green in the slightest and needs to be avoided. Problem is a pure EV is not a realistic option for many people including me, so the only option is a something like the new Merc petrol hybrid or a H2 hybrid if one existed.

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@Dreddingbath The word is *learned* not learnt.......

[@Dreddingbath]

@@Brian-om2hh thank you for your contribution

[@davidsamways]

Another well communicated and intelligent video. I've still got a couple of 1930s motorcycles and I hope that in 30 or 40 years time there will be fuel for the (though I doubt I'll be riding them). Hopefully, what we'll see is a return to the 1900s when petrol was bought from the local chemist shop!

[@philtucker1224]

I expect that in 30 or 40 years time, if your Grandkids are showing your old motorbikes at a show, they’ll be able to buy half a litre bottle of “petrol” at the local B&Q for about £10 ha ha! 😂 -Stay well buddy!

[@Brian-om2hh]

You can already buy Aspen synthetic petrol. It's been on sale for decades. The downside is the cost. £20+ per gallon......

[@errolmacdonald3256]

Funny but not only is your first featured airline Canadian, but so is Air Transat. We Canadians are such small players in that game that I feel confident you're not placing any inordinate blame on us. But what I really want to say is, Rory, you are an incredible communicator. You're not stealth-reading from a teleprompter, you're looking straight at us & giving us the goods in the most cogent manner, and, just as you signed off with a "Love you," this is why we love you right back.

[@TheLordHiggs]

5:40 Yes, but you don't have Battery Degradation and replacement with petrol. Not to mention all the mining and refinement required for battery production. Which some have argued is just as bad as fossil fuels in the first place. Sooo.....

[@Brian-om2hh]

But you will start to experience less availability of petrol and diesel within the next 5 to 10 years......

[@stefandsc1028]

I don't care about the energy source of my car, I just want to be back driving after max. 10-15min of recharging for at least 400-500km . The batteries in the current form don't offer sucht thing, and I don't want to be forced to rely mostly on dead times for charging. This is the reason why I dismiss the electric cars in their current form.

[@brianfeely9239]

Here here. I’d have to agree 100%.

[@theSTUNTHAMSTER]

But your car sits out side most of the day, charge it then?

[@stefandsc1028]

@@theSTUNTHAMSTER it would mean that every single parking spot along the street shoud have a charging outlet. also let's not forget long journeys, which I'm particulary interested of. when I get to 500km, I know that after 20km I'm out of fuel. To also sit for hours to refill, that's a deal breaker for me.

[@chrispawlak14]

@@stefandsc1028 Everyone wants . Maybe we need to change our expectations on travel , some generation will have to start to pay back to the environment what our ancestors took for granted. We all knew we were living on borrowed time and would have to make sacrifices to keep our planet habitable . Time to pony up , put our big boy shoes on and come up with solutions. Not directed at you personally, but the truth none the less.

[@stefandsc1028]

@@chrispawlak14 it's not the cars to blame, the industry pollutes many many times more than just the cars. why naval ships are never blamed for emissions? they are dirtier in one go than all the cars in my city in one year. and the list goes on. how about reforestation? how about protesting in front of Brazil's or Indonesia's embassies because of the deforestation in Amazon or in the tropical rain forest?

[@JP_RS6]

It was my understanding their aim was to EVENTUALLY, create a synthetic fuel that, whilst did release carbon into the atmosphere, it would only output the same carbon into it as an EV would in terms of energy used from an non-renewable source for the EV and renewable for the fuel production. We are not quite at those levels yet, evidently.... So whilst it does create extra steps, if we can create a synthetic fuel for HGV/SHIPs and aircraft to run on and do it in sufficient quantaties its most likely viable. Planes cannot run on current batteries, even if they were 20 or 30 times more energy dense they could only fly 10ths of what they can on current fuel. I don't know if hydrogen fuel cells are on option on planes either, again weight issues. If we source the electric from renewables and emit 80% or more, less carbon then its worth pursuing, massive undertaking or not, these oil companies need to invest in every avenue.

[@NO3V]

Your understanding was wrong. Energy consumption from source to wheel is roughly FIVE times higher with synfuels vs. battery electric. Efficiency is your master in physics.

[@JP_RS6]

@@NO3V It was my understanding that was their aim. Not their current level. But regardless, I can't be bothered with a debate especially around my intent, so ok. Edit: your comment comes off rather condescending.

[@DavidKnowles0]

Then they better hurry the hell up given how quickly the UK grid and other industrialise rich nations who could afford this fuel are switching to renewables. The British grid for example is around 40% renewable, sometime it reaches 60% and it does lows of about 25%.

[@florimondkrins9980]

You get it Rory, Synthetic fuels as well as hydrogen, and even electricity are what we call energy vectors. You don't find then in a usable form in nature, you need to transform it from a primary source of energy, such as wind, sun, nuclear or fossil fuel. The thing with synthetic fuels and why they are attractive is their energy density. Like crude oil they concentrate a lot of energy and can be used by planes, car or ships to go further with less volume. And even if the efficiency of the process to make them is pretty poor at the moment, they might still be useful for a few specific applications like you mentioned, planes. Just to say that this issue isn't easy and won't be solved with a magic wand.

[@saranjs3365]

Synthetic fuels or petrol is advantageous in a sense that it is a form that can be transported around easier (in trucks, pipes and in car fuel tanks) than electricity (through the grid yes, but what about in cars or vehicles themselves) which you need heavy battery packs to store and transport. Also, much easier to fill up in a few seconds or minutes compared to electric. But one major issue and elephant in the room, that you are not talking about is the destruction of a whole amount of global politics, infrastructure, transportation, storage, conversion, stock futures, businesses, jobs, wealth that would be destroyed in the death of typical fossil fuels. Also, technology wise, we know very little about electricity even though we use it daily in our lives. More so, compared to fossil fuel technology. This could be a major reason why many are averse to this change. How about doing some research on this for your next video? It could be an interesting topic to delve in to, but may be too deep.

[@iainansell5930]

main problem is, 'Who's going to pay for it?'

[@iainansell5930]

@@saranjs3365 i dunno, gridserve have shown with their bespoke EV service station in braintree, you can solar/wind farm onsite.. doesn't provide all the power used, but definately eases up on the national grid somewhat..

[@jimj2683]

@@iainansell5930 If the cost of renewables keeps dropping, synthetic fuels will eventually become profitable. Then many private companies will be paying to develop it and sell it.

[@alpharenz1329]

You could convert cars to use natural gas or nh3 (ammonia) fuel. Hydrogen needs to be stored very cold to fuel. NH3 if tank rupture is a death trap if you breathe it in higher concentrations. They have created a fleet of commercial freight trucks to use NH3 ammonia.

[@froschd6013]

Thanks for the video. Somehow you forgot the CO² output and recourse usage making new electric cars to replace regular cars.

[@philipyau2664]

One litre of petrol produces 2.37KILOS of carbon? Do you mean GRAMS? Also, it's a bit confusing when you are comparing the half billion LITRES of synth with 100bn GALLONS required for air transport. The real comparison is 0.5bn litres versus 454bn litres so Porsches output wouldn't even come near to solving the problem. Otherwise, I love your reviews, always the most entertaining reviewer on YT (or TV!)

[@aapelikahkonen]

Yeah, 2350 to 2370 grams (2,37 kg) depending on the source. Remember: the fuel itself weighs less than a kilogram per liter, but combustion requires oxygen from the air, hence the confusing increase in mass.

[@NO3V]

Had to check too. No it's indeed kg. Chemistry is fun.. (remember you don't just need the petrol but also a lot of oxygen from the air for an engine to run)

[@philipyau2664]

@@NO3V Wow! That explains why my scales say I weigh 95kg when I'm actually only 70kg (I wish).

[@iCozzh]

@@philipyau2664 just exhale my dude;)

[@malph9216]

A report published a couple of weeks ago, by no less than Volvo, reported that some EVs produce 70% more emissions during their production process than that of an ICE car. It also stated that it would take around 70k miles before those extra emissions were negated and the EV became 'carbon neutral'. You can't defy the laws of physics, energy has to come from somewhere. Over the past few weeks, the weather in this country has been calm and is becoming colder and it's getting darker. Our renewables have ground to a halt, the turbines are not going round and the solar has no sun.....just at the time people need more power for light and heating. What is going to be the priority, living like civilised human beings, or keeping the economy going by diverting power to car charging stations and living in the cold and the dark? EVs are not the answer!

[@bloodynorahvan2203]

I don’t suppose you have links to any of these news sources?

[@MarkJT1000]

Yes I read that too.

[@muten861]

All you citet is correct. But your conclusion is totally scrap. If the BEV does after 77k km less enviromental damage than the ICE(as Volvo does state). Whats about this??? Thats a clear statement for BEV and not against it! Furthermore Volvo adds, that these numbers will getting in favor of the BEV, because of future improvement in the production processes.

[@ashtontechhelp]

Civilised human beings would not soil their nest. They would consume less, to balance what they have against what they need. Smart grids are already being implemented, in the UK the grid can request that supermarkets adjust their fridges / freezers as necessary and the supermarket gets paid for doing so. Demand pricing is already shifting behaviour, my charger can be set to charge my car when electricity is most plentiful (and therefore cheaper). 60% of the country has a house with a drive, so could also do that. Most charge overnight in any case, which is always the greenest period. Going forwards I would hope that we will have better storage (think of all those cars that could do vehicle-to-grid) and greater interconnections with our European partners, so that we can share their wind, solar, nuclear resources as necessary. We are building more capacity on renewables all the time, obviating this issue. Tidal looks like it is finally happening, also. It's not just about the CO2, it's also about the NOX, the CO, the massive amounts of energy required to create, store, pump, deliver, pump fuels. Well-to-wheel, ICE is just not efficient. Not in the slightest. They waste most of their energy as heat and noise, at every single stage. It's also worth considering which batteries you are putting in your pack. I would imagine that the BYD blade battery requires less energy to make, simply because it has very much less steel surface area than a pack made of cylindrical cells. Many modern factories are powered by clean energy, so will not be generating CO2 in the first place, apart from those few periods when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. By all means, let hobbyists continue using ICE for as long at they can - there are still cars rolling around from 100 years ago, but let us not pretend that they are a modern, or efficient / refined way of getting about. EVs are the answer, and are becoming more the answer all the time. Car sharing will make a massive difference also. Many modern car sharing systems use electric, as the car is returned to a charge point, so that it is always ready for use. No need to mess about with fuel.

[@Angloman516]

@@ashtontechhelp Fridges and Freezers are set at an optimum temperature for the product stored, there isn't too much leeway preservation wise.

[@1991julez]

90% of people can use electric cars every day with the right infrastructure, myself included, but I would love synthetic to work for the 10% to allow people like me to use I.C.E. For the weekend

[@Brian-om2hh]

The problem there is viability. Who will throw big bucks at producing synthetic fuels for just 10% of the people who might need it? And with no more ICE cars or vans being produced, it's a constantly diminishing market. The economics just don't add up.....

[@1991julez]

@@Brian-om2hh well Porsche are developing synthetic fuels which hopefully shows their intent on continuing ICE 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@1991julez Porsche are developing synthetic fuel to maintain the viability of their *motorsport* activities, not continued ICE production. There is never going to be enough synthetic fuel from the plant in Chile to go on general sale. It is estimated the US alone would need 200 synthetic fuel plants like the one in Chile, to satisfy their demand alone.

[@markozivanovic117]

How are you going to produce the needed electricity if everyone switches to EV's? We should use all kinds of green energy we can. Focusing only on one is wrong.

[@philipbroggio9315]

Well argued video . If you start with 100kWh of Green electricity and produce hydrogen , compress it , store it, transport it ,put it in a car ,use a fuel cell etc you get back 19kWh for transport. Direct electrification gets back 70% . This process can't be any more efficient. For personal transport it is utterly wasteful even to use hydrogen as we would need to build three times the amount of turbines and solar panels !!! Need to keep hydrogen for things that are hard to directly electrify.

[@sid1234213]

I hope synthetic fuel works out. I just want the sweet sound of that V8-V10 around till I buy my first sports car. 😭

[@Brian-om2hh]

Sadly I fear your hopes may not be met.....

[@homerfeltheim12345]

I wish governments and fuel companies would jump on to this versus EV’s. It would help bring costs down plus ALL existing gas/petrol cars can run on this. No need to replace vehicles or worry about mining for battery material

[@pereldh5741]

Or change the infrastructure, which in itself is a CO2 bomb

[@mike-rayner-videos]

i think ALL existing cars can run on this ... is a bit of an overstatement... the cost of conversion would be huge

[@JaydenDimaio]

Did you not watch the video? It's a dumb idea that doesn't work.

[@grahamthompson5581]

Watch the video. It would massively increase costs.

[@360nutrition9]

I truly believe that the whole point is to have options, EVs will need a ton of electricity to be charged and we don't have the infrastructure to handle nor to produce it without risking many blackouts a year since its something we already have issues with once in a while, the same its for the synthetic fuels, but might be used for airplanes and ships, and hydrogen to cover another part of the demand , and use solar panels installed on EVs, trains boats trucks etc so to reduce the amount of electricity we need to produce. think we should figure out which means of transport needs what, and have as many options as possible so to produce in as many places as possible without put too much stress on the systems especially in the first bit of the transition.

[@SuttonBen]

Issue is that synthetic fuels and hydrogen cells also require huge amounts of electricity in the production process. Energy production being gas, coal and oil free is seemingly the most important step. If only the money was actually going into these sector... Also, we need definitely better public transport infrastructure

[@ricco123tube]

Do you have any idea how much electricity is used to get oil from the ground, move it around the world, refine it, pump it into tankers, get it to forecourts, pump it back into cars and everything else that I've not mentioned inbetween? Charging EVs will not cause blackouts, or cause more than some areas already have, that's just nonsense. I already have a charger that selects the cheapest off-peak times when electricity is in excess, basically when there is too much available. Cars will eventually store cheaper energy and then supply the home when necessary, even in a blackout. Solar on EVs is just silly really, you'd need a roof the size of a bus to make it useful on a car.

[@iainansell5930]

@@ricco123tube national grid has already stated that EV charging won't be a problem.... as its mostly done at night and uses less electricity per household, than the household would at peak times normally...

[@martinsalinas6731]

@@iainansell5930 At night? Just when there is no sun and the wind is weaker...

[@deepmind3996]

You might as well say the same for solar panels which are made from burning coal. Electric cars which are powered by the grid which in turn is powered by various fuel types.

[@lando1071]

When I was a kid, the biggest issue was all the drilling for oil. Wouldn't this at least eliminate this or greatly reduce it? Added benefit is that we can mostly keep existing engines and infrastructures. Eventually we can find a cleaner source for power but for now it kinda solves a lot of issues.

[@Rapscallion2009]

It makes sense. Move most cars to electric, and use synthetics for niche ICE classics of sporting historical or scientific interest. It's a bit pointless to use electricity to manufacture fuels on a mass basis when instead it can simply go in batteries

[@connorcampbell5274]

Yeah, batteries... you know, those things that are so bad at storing energy it's literally more energy dense to move water up a hill, so it can fall back down again.

[@oootoob]

The efficiency difference between eVs and ICE cars is also a major factor and is also why hydrogen fuelled cars are doomed.

[@iCozzh]

10000%

[@Tokkodai]

I was interested in this synthetic fuel and this video clearly answered all the questions i had! Thank you again guys this was informative

[@kapuzinergruft]

The propaganda worked its way into your system right.

[@borisgodunov6]

@@kapuzinergruft Wait until they find out that making Batteries enough for the cars across the world is more deadly than the cars with the internal combustion engines. And thats only creation process. Batteries can't be renewed They are thrown away in the 3rd world countries where it goes under the soil and poisons the whole countries. Also electricity they use for charging cars is not always "Pure". add this all together and you will get the absolute bullshit that is just being pushed because of Agenda. Electric cars= no private life(they can hear you if they want. even if you leave your smartphone at home), Not safe(Any good hacker will be able to hack your car because its connected to the internet and make an accident), No more fast travelling across tens of thousands miles if necessary, Government will turn off your car if you make a crime(or they just need it). This is just an Agenda and nothing more. People in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Union were much more free than future generations will ever be :)

[@st-ex8506]

As a chemical engineer, I have been working on aspects of synthetic fuel manufacturing (not the whole chain of chemical processes necessary, but on one), and can therefore talk with a decent level of first-hand information. I will present a quick-and-dirty energy accounting comparison between an ICE car running on synthetic fuel and an EV. Let's start by laying the hypothesis that every bit of power needed is generated by 100% renewable sources, so as to take out the discussion of the CO2 footprint of any one grid. Let's also state that the amount of chemical energy contained in one liter (works also gallons) of synthetic fuel is 100 units. The sum of the chemical processes necessary to produce that liter of synthetic fuel is 50% efficient. Actually, it is today much worse than that, but let's suppose the technologies improve. So, you need 200 units of renewable power to produce your liter of fuel. To which you have to add 5-10% loss to transport and distribute the fuel. Let's be optimistic and say that you need 210 units to produce 1 liter of fuel IN YOUR CAR'S TANK. But that's not the energy that you, as the consumer, consumes, but rather mechanical energy of the wheels of your car, making it move. The tank-to-wheel real-world average efficiency of a modern ICE car is around 25%. So, you need 210 units of renewable power energy to get 25 units of mechanical energy moving your car. Ca. 88% of the starting energy is hence wasted by going the synthetic-fuel route. Now to the BEV. Let's start with 100 units of the same renewable power as before. 5 units are lost in grid transport. We are down to 95. 10% is lost in the process of charging the EV's battery. We are down to 85.5. The engine-transmission train is at least 90% efficient, we are down to 77. Let's account for electric system consumption (car computer, heating, some parasitic losses, ...) of around 5% of the battery; we are down to a final amount of around 73 units of mechanical energy reaching the wheels. So, in the BEV case, we start with 100 units of renewable power, and end up with ca. 73 units moving your car. Only 27% of the starting energy is hence wasted in the case of a BEV. BEVs therefore use precious 100% renewable power no less than 6 TIMES MORE EFFICIENTLY than an ICE car running on synthetic fuel. Actually, it is even worse than that, as the BEV regenerates electricity when going downhill or breaking, while an ICE car obviously does not. If that was not enough, synthetic fuel has two further big disadvantages: - When combusted, it emits exactly as much NOx and nanoparticles as dino juice. So air pollution is not alleviated, only the net generated amount of CO2. - The chemical processes to produce it are very expensive. Count on paying your synthetic fuel $10-20/USG! (rough guesstimate... but synthetic fuel will be A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE than present day's gasoline!) Conclusion: Forget synthetic fuel for any road transport. For long-range aviation use, the jury is still out.

[@kempmartin]

How about the acid rain caused by the very dirty nickle and lithium mined for batteries for electric cars? You're from Top Gear right? Did you not watch the video of how much effect, even making a hybrid makes?

[@parkerd3915]

I'd love a professional comparison and the history of all wheel drive systems. How they came along, how they changed and what the differences of them are today in modern everyday SUVs with the pros and cons. Maybe with some tossing SUVs into real live situations. Just a thought. Thank you for the video and love from Germany :)

[@chrisogrady28]

Subaru good, haldex bad, ferrari fun

[@parkerd3915]

@@chrisogrady28 Let me answer that with an ol' German expression: Hmpf. Yes. You read that right. So let me have a take on that: Subaru okay, but lovely; haldex okay (look at Magma from South Korea... do not really, I just have one) and Ferrari suck at offroad.

[@chrismantonuk]

Awesome video Rory! It feels like the future will be a combination of many of these technologies. There is space for everything. New vehicles? Probably BEV, great! Trains and ships? Hydrogen Fuel cells, awesome! Older cars and classics? Synthetic fuels, bring it on! The more the merrier, as long as the seed power comes from renewables/nuclear we’re good.

[@jijokoshyksjijo3989]

exactly.. it's not one technology or another.. it's actually the perfect mix of all technologies always works. there's actually no need to replace EVs with synthetic fuel or vice versa

[@AH1981]

I totally agree, it's about the mix of technology that will satisfy everyone eventually

[@integralhighspeedusb]

Same. BEV is great for commuting and road trips. Lacks a little something on the race track I feel. 😄

[@mb-3faze]

11:50 - no, you can't just stop at hydrogen and use that as a fuel - it has to be compressed (and cooled) and transported to be useful. Those additional steps are also incredibly wasteful of green electrons. Jeez - just put the green electrons on wires (that already exist) and store them in batteries - cut out the middle man (men, crowd).

[@EVinstructor]

There is one green hydrogen filling station in the UK. It makes the hydrogen and compresses it on site from wind power so no transportation. It cost a lot of money to build. And it can fill……………. 16 cars a day. Yes 16 cars a day. Wow. The logistical problems and industrial processes needed to make green hydrogen simply don’t make it viable for road transport.

[@connorcampbell5274]

>store them in batteries QUICK, SOMEONE TELL THE PRESIDENT! THIS MAN'S FIGURED IT OUT! Man, I just can't believe no one thought of this before.

[@JohnRMTurner]

He suggested using wind, waves and solar for fuel production. He forgot to mention that nuclear power could also be used. On-demand power 27/4, and no CO2

[@MrAvant123]

I chose to not go electric yet but DO like electric cars. My problem with elec cars right now is as follows 1) 'Useful' electric cars are too large and/or too expensive right now 2) There is no used market yet for elec cars so you are forced to buy new or pay almost the same for used 3) It is clear, if you do a bit of research, battery tech will radically improve in the next few years which will probably make the current crop of EV's look a bit 'last year'. Being from the tech industry I am very familiar with the cost of being an 'early adopter'. I have a 3 month old BMW that I bought for List -16.5% you cant do this with a Tesla

[@Aki-vx8rl]

Great video, but it omitted some important arguments. Firstly, there's not enough lithium to make all cars BEV, let alone trucks, ships, planes,... So other energy solutions and further new battery technologies are required. Secondly ICE H2 engines are being developed, see Toyota next gen Prius. Synthetic fuels were only/mostly intended for converting legacy ICE engines as this doesn't require massive changes in the supply chain. And it's a way to reduce CO2 in an older fleet, which is important considering the average are of a car on the road is 10 years old. Final thought, there's indeed no debate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But there's still a massive debate how potent a GHG it is, as most of the warming potential is from positive feedback which are theorized only not proven.

[@bloodynorahvan2203]

Absolute BS on the lithium. We even have reserves here in the UK. Most is from Australia. We aren’t running out of lithium any time soon.

[@christianpearson7108]

@@bloodynorahvan2203 were not running out of oil anytime soon

[@Brian-om2hh]

There is no shortage of lithium. There are large lithium deposits in Australia, Chile, Brazil, the Congo, the US, Canada, Russia, China, Cornwall in the UK, and God knows where else. Also, as EV adoption increases, batteries can be recycled in increasing numbers, with the lithium being 90% recovered and sent back into the system to be reused in new batteries. Circular economy. Try that with petrol and diesel.....

[@helderfmachado]

Like you did for the energy will be good the people to do the same exercise for the EV. The analysis of the environment impacts should be made to the beginning till the end of their live. Currently the environment impact of producing all the components + all the years/efforts required to "make disappear" all again is much higher that an internal combustion car. Let's be realistic, at the stage a EV is not greener than a regular car.

[@mikael3095]

Agree. And just taking into consideration, replacing your battery, oneday. EV, already polutes more Initially. And have to be used for a extended amount of time, to be more _"greener"_ that a gas car. But what if your battery, the most polutent part, fails, before the point, the EV is more _"greener_" than a gas. Well you just made things worse, and your EV is going to have to last a, looooong time to make up for that battery swap, you did.

[@DavidKnowles0]

The question is can they be made cleaner than fossil cars, an the answer that can only be yes with technological development work a hell of a lot cleaner, especially for cities and towns.

[@vinex19]

You are completely forgetting one source of energy that can be deployed basically anywhere, which during the day produces excess, which we need anyway. Nuclear energy is the key.

[@Randomvideos-yr6cc]

The answer is yes. Solar has a problem of too much electricity at day and a lot less at night. So just use the extra electricity produced during day to generate synthetic fuels and use them to burn at night. Easy.

[@MarkelTherapist]

This video was very informative , thanks Rory!

[@Will-ql5db]

@ 1:36, "... and that process of combustion releases HYDROCARBONS.".... Umm, NOPE, you got it BACKWARDS.

[@mikedoverskog]

Carbohydrates 😁

[@Rastor0]

Overall great video, but Porsche aren't the only ones pushing this idea, perhaps only the loudest. See for example BMW announced an investment in Prometheus Fuels; Bentley and McLaren have advocated synthetic fuel; etc.

[@aaronmiller5012]

Sheds some light for the ICE

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@aaronmiller5012 But only if you could stomach paying £20+ per gallon.....

[@bogdan8268]

Or we could use electric cars powered by hydrogen so we don't need electricity for the other two steps, trapping C02 and making the e-fuel. What about using green electricity for trapping the CO2 from air (cleaning air) and not using energy for the rest of the process in getting the e-fuel? These are just some thoughts . Feel free to comment but don't hate me for it. :)

[@tvanbroekhoven]

Great video. Should only add how inefficient ICE's are. From all that energy only 20% will then be used for kinetic energy. The rest is wasted heat.

[@lorenkelley1568]

Rory, I love your reviews of electric cars. I’m planning to get one within a year or so. But I would much rather have a plug-in hybrid with a range of 80 or 100 miles electric with a petrol engine generator to give it another maybe 200 miles. It would be so much more practical, and if there’s ever enough synthetic fuel produced by renewable electricity then it would be a carbon neutral powered car. It was strange that you mentioned Chile as a good country to produce synthetic fuel. It can be produced anywhere that has abundant renewable electricity, mainly wind, which would be the best source. Also you should look up what they are doing in Iceland, which has internal combustion powered vehicles already using carbon neutral synthetic fuels. Next time you cover this topic please invite some engineers and other experts who know a lot about synthetic fuels, or provide links for your viewers so they can learn more about this very important topic. There is a lot to it, and it’s not just about cars.

[@ivanbastos4963]

Yeah, hybrids, in my opinion, still outshine electrics in every way. Electrification of combustion engines is really the way to go, and with an hybrid you will have the practicality, confort and low cost of an electric engine for your short daily commutes while also having the option to have long road trips without having to stop for recharging

[@jimj2683]

The point in the video about not having enough renewable electricity is false. Covering only 1% of the Saharan desert in solar panels gives enough electricity to power the entire Earth today. It is only question about profitability and political will.

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@ivanbastos4963 Hybrids are now 15 year old tech, and still put out emissions. We need to ditch the combustion engine completely...... Car makers will probably quit producing hybrids within 5 or 6 years.... You would still have to stop for the bathroom on a long trip driving an ICE car. So what if you could add 200 miles of range in the time it took to use that bathroom, and drink a quick coffee? Well that's happening today, with Tesla Superchargers. They add 75 miles of range for every 5 minutes they are hooked up to the car.

[@SuttonBen]

Synthetic fuels have a whole host of barriers for mass adoption. One, they are still a smaller batch product and most car manufacturers that are talking about using the tech is in the context of super cars and high end sports cars. Like hydrogen, the electricity requirement is a huge problem. To actually reach a point where this system is close to environmentally friendly we need to have already moved away from fossil fuel power. That issue is in some ways also faced by EVs, but in a different way. Another issue is that for what I understand, synthetic fuels are not carbon neutral. Most claims suggest they can reduce car emissions by 85%, meaning a continued release of green house gasses.

[@aaronmiller5012]

Then it will be sucked out of the air and back in. Carbon neutral!!!

[@SuttonBen]

@@aaronmiller5012 as I said, at around 85% efficiency. Therefore, it still adds carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Synthetic fuels are a way of keeping ICE cars on the roads but ultimately is not the future. This makes it inherently unattractive to investors, as the technology is limited to a transition. Synthetic fuels could also hamper the movement towards zero carbon transport, by providing a halfway house that doesn't really solve anything.

[@aaronmiller5012]

@@SuttonBen Yeah. It can play a role in the future. EV’s are only one solution. That all by itself is not enough. Surely efuels will have some obstacles to overcome but I am certain they will. The US should look into this fuel once it becomes recognizable.

[@NoOne-xy6iz]

It's crazy to think that vehicles that run on liquid fuels will be seen as exotic some 40 years from now! Maybe. Probably.

[@ydid687]

all life's experiences can be streamed through a wire to the brain - anguish joy pain happiness abject terror and torture, taste smell, audio it's crazy to think how in a few years people will think how most 'lived'

[@grahamthompson5581]

I don't think 'exotic' is quite the right word. Do we see steam engines as 'exotic'?

[@SleightWryder]

12:12 we'd have to replace a lot of transport. We need a mixed approach to our energy woes that won't be a burden to 97% of people. We can use hydrogen plants to create this stuff for petrol cars while converting diesel engine to vegetable diesel. Maybe when we get over our fears of nuclear we can even use that until we transition comfortably to all electric. Besides, the way we currently use lithium is unsustainable as well. We poison our groundwater with the waste and we have yet to improve our recycling of it.

[@DuarteMolha]

If you are using electrolysis to generate o2 h2 why go create synthetic diesel... Just use h2 fuel cells.

[@lukeb4461]

Don't sit on that fence. An EV (according to Volvo) is 15% better for the environment than an Ice car after 200k. So if we can make an ice car 25% more efficient we are in a good place, no huge expense on infrastructure (pumps or chargers, and don't forget the environmental cost for doing so), no need for range anxiety, no need for a change in habit

[@bloodynorahvan2203]

FUD

[@rosswootton8825]

What seems to be overlooked when talking about electric cars is the environmental damage caused by making them (considerably greater than petrol or diesel cars) and what about the toxic burned out battery at the end of a car’s life.

[@robertschenck9902]

Take a look at nowyouknow’s clips channel giving quick answers to complex issues

[@jandersen6802]

Here is the thing: Synthetic E-fuels will be made where the renewable electricity is super cheap or even free. At least 10x cheaper than what you and I pay in electricity at home. Without taxes or with subsidies it could become competitive very soon if you look how fast the prices of renewables is falling (and the main cost is actually the electricity!) And most of the infrastructure is there already. Also, paying $30 or $10 to refuel/recharge your vehicle doesn't really matter, when you paid $100 000 for it new. Gas cars are especially useful in cold climates where batteries suffer. The excess heat from the engine is used for heating, so the total efficiency of a gas car actually goes up in cold climates. The only small problem might be NOx and particles, but already the newest engines are very clean in this respect. An even cleaner solution is to use a gas turbine as a range extender for an EV with a small battery. Then you get most of the advantages of both systems. A turbine generator is quite efficient running only at its optimal rpm and with a recuperator to charge the battery. Very close to a gas piston engine in efficiency. But it is smaller, lighter, requires far less maintenance, has less vibrations and most of all: it burns the fuel more completely, so the emissions are much lower. Check out the TED Talk from the Wrightspeed founder!

[@jijokoshyksjijo3989]

nice..

[@Brian-om2hh]

And you somehow think that you'll be able to use fuel with no tax on it? Your ar$e will heal up first.....

[@subieasunayuuki]

You didn't talk about Team Japan which comprises of Toyota, Subaru, Mazda and two motorcycle companies. They're working to preserve their ICE cars.

[@HelloKittyFanMan.]

"Diesel and petrol...." That sort of wording has always bothered me, because "petrol" sounds short for "petrol...EUM," and diesel fuel IS petroleum just like gasoline is, but just at a different level of refinement. So when someone says "petrol" vs. "electric," I'd like to think of "petrol" meaning _both_ diesel and gasoline. That's how I wish they would really say it all the time, and just say "gasoline" for that like we here in the USA do. That's what makes actual sense.

[@michaelleaver1766]

There must be reasons why Toyota haven't gone full EV yet,it would seem they're backing hydrogen.Elon Musk i believe said himself even for the UK to completely convert to EV's,the raw materials to make all the power cells isn't available based on current tech.

[@dominicrusho]

Japan wants to become an energy independent, hydrogen based economy - that’s a large reason behind their pursuit of hydrogen

[@michaelleaver1766]

@@dominicrusho I'd say from what little i know that they're probably backing a more feasible source of energy.The only reason that they've not adopted it yet is because of cost and probably pressure from certain fossil fuel companies.But the Toyota Mirai shows it's possible among other models by Hyundai etc.

[@cobrachannel100]

Hydrogen is a crazy idea, unless u can "import" hydrogen from other planets :D Otherwise, you will end up using more energy to produce it, than if it was used to directly power BEVs.

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@cobrachannel100 Quite...

[@jdmfan2170]

use nuclear power, as its the cleanest way of producing electricity

[@kylereese4822]

To make the fuel you need infrastructure that the customer will need to pay for as it`s a new fuel it will cost 2, 3, 4 or more times than petrol/diesel..

[@Beorn.]

Hi Rory, interesting video which explains the issues really well so thanks. I enjoyed watching it. Q? When you do reviews especially of ev's why don't you include the tech such as how well the adaptive cruise or lane keeping assist works?

[@AutoTraderTV]

There’s not much difference between any of them at the moment (in the Uk anyway). They all sort of work fairly well but aren’t amazing.

[@Beorn.]

@@AutoTraderTV I have had adaptive cruise on my last two cars and I find them different. The New Hyundai ionic 5 has level 2 adaptive cruise. Going through the Mercedes EQA's on Autotrader not one has adaptive cruise control. A dealer confirmed this apart from one car due in this country next year! Don't know whats going on there?

[@RandyTWester]

The CO2 for synfuel can come from a biofuel source, such as a wood gasification power plant, or a natural source like a lake in the Rift Valley.

[@anwaaraslam723]

Adding to your last points, if you have 100% green electric power, for synthetic fuel if you have 80% efficiency for the first two reactions, you also have the 50% efficiency for burning it(then mechanical loses). So you have made use of 30% of that original electrical energy. With hydrogen you could make use of 60-80%. But with an electric car you can make use of 100% of that energy with no extra cost. That’s the issue, they will always be worse than electric cars but are still a worth while investment to replace current fuels.

[@aborkmga1]

There's over 1.5 billion petrol car running around the world all these car switching to electric is super hard buy if they found clean fuel that will be the choice for alot of people and countries , electric car need infrastructure and building infrastructure is super expensive but for petrol car the infrastructure is already there

[@shiakas]

Unfortunetly synthetic fuels still produce local pollution and are very expensive. Electic cars are much cleaner and are getting cheaper (some are cheaper than ICE cars)

[@aborkmga1]

@@shiakas i mean new type of fuel with 0 emissions ,, there's still alot of countries that have enough electricity for homes so electric car are not an option for them they the one will be super happy of cleaner option that can run their old cars

[@shiakas]

@@aborkmga1 they wont be once they learn the cost of these fuels.

[@nervousfrog101]

Good video. Hydrogen fuel cells may have a place in aviation and shipping but for cars etc rather than using the green electricity to create hydrogen why not just put the green electricity straight into a battery-electric vehicle, it's just more economically viable.

[@skylerburke]

What?? Ya because people in China have clean energy 😂

[@nervousfrog101]

@@skylerburke And what does what the Chinese are doing have to do with my comment? Just another idiot parroting some vaguely xenophobic uninformed nonsense so it makes them feel better about their indifferent ignorance because thinking hurts. A lot of the stuff China makes that is the root cause of their high emissions ends up in western countries so we are just off-shoring our C02 emissions. So what we choose to do in this country matters if we are not prepared to cut our emissions how can we expect China to cut the emissions on the stuff they make for us.

[@WatchGeek]

Wait, 1kg of fuel = almost 3kg of CO2?? HOW MUCH AIR does get mixed with this one kg of fuel to create 3KG of CO2?

[@mikael3095]

Dono.😂😂😂

[@bernardthedisappointedowl6938]

The straight forward version is - In the fuel are carbon and hydrogen atoms - the hydrogen combines with oxygen to make water vapour, but the carbon atoms bonds to two oxygen atoms to make CO2. So for every carbon atom in the fuel, it adds two oxygen atoms, hence multiplying the original weight by three - If you're wondering why the weight of the hydrogen in the original fuel can be ignored - Although the hydrogen component of the fuel is burnt off safely as water, the actual weight of the hydrogen is very small (lightest element in the periodic table) and the oxygen atoms are about a third heavier than carbon, so overall, the final burnt products are 3 times the weight of the fuel, despite the hydrogen not counting in the weight the final product, --------- If I was being more accurate, I should say 'mass' not 'weight', but that's a chat too far for a KZbin comment, ^oo^

[@TML34]

14.7:1

[@WatchGeek]

@@bernardthedisappointedowl6938 thank you sensei 😄👍👏👏👏

[@bernardthedisappointedowl6938]

@@WatchGeek Glad to help, thanks, ^oo^

[@MTB_Rider_96]

Great video. I've done a fair amount of research into synthetic fuels and Bio-fuels. In 2016 I started a Bio Fuel company (long story) and spent 2 solid years doing research - and you are correct - Synthetic fuels are Not going to save the ICE automobile.

[@scotthalpert2863]

Question - how can a liter of petrol, which weighs approx 0.7 kg produce over 2kg of CO2? Are you sure your decimal point is in the right place?

[@RonSmith472]

We need more trees 🌳 they'll eat up the co2

[@jijokoshyksjijo3989]

yes.. when it comes to climate change and global warming.I hate it when people misses this simple fact. the rate at which amazon forests are dissapearing is an ana alarming one.. yet when it comes to climate change and global warming all mofos will jump over the automotive industry.. 😂

[@leyonbiju1258]

planting more trees rn won’t make a difference. we need bigger solutions

[@jijokoshyksjijo3989]

@@leyonbiju1258 that's true.. because if we plant a tree right now it will take 10 or 20 years to become an actual tree and absorbs a reasonable amount of CO2.. but still we can reduce deforestation.

[@mikael3095]

No we don't. Whe need to cut them all down to mine Lituim and other resources, to make EV's. That will save the plante. - I'm just fucking around.

[@TML34]

@@mikael3095 😂 How about one 911 = 100 trees to plant. 😀

[@areyouabusta1996]

Great video, please to an explanation on hydrogen fuel cell cars...

[@NO3V]

Split Water using Energy in hydrogen and oxygen (a waste product if all you need is hydrogen for a fuel cell). Retrieve energy when needed for turning the wheels by recombining the hydrogen with oxygen from the air. Waste A LOT of (electric) energy for those processes and for compressing, storing and transporting the hydrogen. Besides a lot of other problems (cost and durability of fuel cell AND of electrolysers, size, weight and durability of 700bar tanks, still need a battery, cost + chicken-egg-problem of stations, ...) that's all you really need to know. The electro-chemistry can remain a black-box, you don't know how oil becomes petrol or how hyper-exactly an engine works either.

[@antoniocalhamar2787]

When the 16 biggest cargo ships on the planet produce together as much pollution as all the cars on the road around the world, and remain one of the least regulated, i don't think any of this really matters in the big overview of things, just give it a search. Its all pointless, you cover a small hole but the gigantic one next to it remains untouched.

[@mikael3095]

And the funny part is, when somebody had a EV shipt to them. On a gas trick and a gas powered ship.

[@NickFoster]

So you're saying because ships pollute more than cars we shouldn't do anything about cars? Really?

[@apexerman1]

A very thorough and concise explanation. It mirrored by understand when Porsche first mentioned the investment in synthetic fuels in Chile. It's really for Porsche and Porsche owners to consume the fuel and pay the likely high cost as a result. And that's fine... nothing is equal in this world. Alas, I've already reconciled the move to EV's and I will maintain my vintage car for the occasional backroad excursions. But as the owner of an EV as well, I find it's better suited to commuting duties. Now, that manual-shifting EV conversion on the Porsche 356? I could do that. 🙂

[@mohmoudfarah1897]

Yes, you are right, it is confusing, and yet, it was informative.

[@NZGilead]

As much as I would like a solution to save combustion engines, I got your point. But EV are not the solution either as it is being said only producing the batterie will generate more CO2 before the single mile, than a combustion engine car at the end of its life.

[@Neojhun]

LIES! Stop spreading misinformation. We have a Manufacturing Supply Chain SHORTAGE! No ICE cars are being decommissioned early. They are being forced to living longer life than before BEVs were mass produced. Fact is BEVs even on the Dirty United States Grid consumes HALF the resources in sheer tonnage in a relatively short 200,000 Mile lifespan. At 300,000 Miles which is plausible for BEVs it saves even more resources. Yes a BEV at 0 ZERO MILEs consumes about 150% 1.5x the resources of similar ICE car. Being the battery requires soo little consumable resources (not raw material) to manufacture, that quickly is offset by ICE vehicle Consuming Fuel. Worst case scenario for BEV and best case scenario for a weaker slower ICE parity point is around 100,000 Miles. Well guess what BEVs have an amazing lifespan.

[@nsm487]

i hope one day i can say "this video didnt age well" lol i think we negating the downsides of evs...the amount of eletricity needed to produce and run them..especially if the whole world adopts it and their overall environmental impact.

[@tommy_egan]

Yeah, all that lithium and cobalt mining is not exactly carbon neutral. But I think that somewhere down the line we'll ask ourselves why don't we just use nuclear energy to produce synthetic fuels. If nuclear energyu used then this video will indeed not age very well.

[@Richard-Bullock]

There is one thing I would like to know, and it concerns classic cars (like mine) that have little value in any way, shape or form other than to their owners. For example, I have a 1991 Nissan Micra K10. Even though it's an absolute minter, with under 40k miles, it is not worth much financially, and really it's just an 80's/90's motorised shopping trolley. But one that I happen to have a great deal of affection for. Obviously I am far from being the only one in that situation. Not all classics are exotica to be drooled over. So the question is, in the long term am I going to be able to keep my Micra as Nissan intended, or will I have to at some point go for an electric conversion? I think a limited supply of synthetic fuel would help to keep classics running in their standard form.

[@Nordlicht05]

In Germany many got the tick since the Corona crisis startet that they need some hobby and search for older cars. Mostly cars that have some nostalgic feeling but also not expensive. Like some old fiestas VW BMW's from 70s-80s and so on.

[@MyMednas]

The reason to make synthetic fuels instead of burning hydrogen is the energy density. Planes for sure need more dense liquid fuel, cars also benefit greatly. Producing energy dense liquid fuels makes a lot of sense. It also a lot easier transition from existing aero and auto engines.

[@cianchim9034]

Its still waste of time and environment.because the power output is not enough

[@connorcampbell5274]

@@cianchim9034 You want to talk about wasteful, talk about being able to produce energy, but not being able to use it because there's no way to store it. Even if it is a lossy process to create synthetic fuels, you have more cost not producing anything with your available energy supply than to put your potentially unused energy into a process that can use it reliably later. EV's are a dead end, HFC might have a future. If you can't store your energy, what's the point of creating massive networks of renewables?

[@micheals1992]

Ships aren't the most polluting thing on the planet. They're actually the greenest form of transportation for cargo if you look at the ton miles per gallon. They get around 600mpg per ton, a train gets upto 500mpg per ton, a lorry can get about 170mpg per ton. The average car is around a ton so you may get an idea of what these things are capable of. In other words. If you car was efficient as a ship it would get 600mpg, a train? 500mpg, a lorry? 170mpg. A lorry isn't always fully weighted though so a lorry carrying toilet rolls would get a lower ton mpg then one carrying bricks.

[@ivanbastos4963]

I really do believe synthetic fuels will be the future energy source for our transportation. When the last drop of oil is sucked out of the last mineable reserve the only suitable alternative is making our own fuel, i.e. synthetic fuel. Yes, maybe electric cars can take over the individual auto industry, but let's not forget, all other transportation methods (that don't run on railroads) are unviable for electrification. Think about it, there's no competition to fuel's energy density. Batteries are miles away from being comercially viable to completely replace fuel, and we don't have the infrastructure to implement hydrogen easily. So what will power all the trucks, planes and ships of the world? If trucks were electric trips accross the US would take weeks. If planes had batteries, they wouldn't even take off cause of all the weight. So obvisouly the only option is to go with a carbon neutral synthetic fuel that can keep powering cars, trucks, planes and ships with next to no change in our infrastructures. Sure, synthetics aren't the way to go right now cause the investment required to start large scale production and their cost to produce are still out-competed by oil based fuels, but the day we run out of the black gold, there won't be any competition.

[@Brian-om2hh]

And how much do you expect to pay for this fuel? Think in terms of 3 to 4 times the cost of current petrol, and you'll be in the right ball park.... And what energy source will be used in the production of this fuel? Why, it's good old electricity of course!

[@ivanbastos4963]

@@Brian-om2hh Have you not read what i said? Obviously synthetics aren't economical now, but in the future, after oil runs out, companies will invest in more and more production plants and prices will eventualy come down. And if we're talking costs, how much do you expect people to pay for their car? Tell me if you can find a single electric for under 2000€, I'll wait. And also, those batteries will be as expensive to replace as the car was to buy, but yeah, electric is the way to go

[@Brian-om2hh]

@@ivanbastos4963 A little while ago, I saw a nice used Renault Zoe on sale for £6k..... You don't *have* to buy new..... And why would you *replace* the battery? I'll be having my battery pack refurbished at a fraction of the cost of replacing it, when the time comes.....