Synthetic Fuels: A BETTER Alternative To Electric Cars?

There’s a lot of chatter about synthetic fuels currently. Many believe it’s a viable alternative to petrol and diesel and should be considered over and above electric cars. But is this potentially emissions-free fuel the saviour of petrol engines, or is it just a distraction? Rory Reid looks at the science.
Looking for your next car? Auto Trader will help make finding your next vehicle easier than ever. Compare expert car reviews and recommendations, and find your perfect car through our official KZbin channel.
Auto Trader: www.autotrader.co.uk
Check back for the latest new car reviews on everything from SUVs to supercars, plus
✅ the latest car news
✅ top tips and car advice
✅ used and new car guides
✅ best-ofs
Subscribe for more from Auto Trader UK: bit.ly/1AqiIny
Want to be the first to see our new videos? Enable notifications
Looking for more inspiration? 🚗
• Auto Trader: www.autotrader.co.uk
• Facebook: / autotraderuk
• Twitter: / autotrader_uk
• Instagram: / autotraderuk
• Pinterest: www.pinterest.co.uk/autotrade...

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@vegasromaniac]

excellent show, subbed

[@andrewducros1127]

Very very well explained. Thank you.

[@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......

[@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.

[@ericvet8b]

Great explanation!! Well done!!

[@dickiedogs727]

Nice video...thanks!!

[@stuartvasepuru1423]

Yes, every time you convert energy from one form to another, some is lost, so the more times you convert it, the higher the losses, which mount up. If you were going to create huge amounts of renewable energy to make synthetic fuel, you'd be far better off just using it to charge electric cars directly, which as Rory says, also emit no CO2. The other problem with all combustion engines is their low thermal efficiency (typically 40%), which means the amount of energy doing no work and lost as heat is a staggering 60%. Yes, that's right, if your ICE car has a 50L fuel tank, only 20L of it is actually used to move the car! For comparison, EV drivetrains are much more efficient (greater than 90%) which is why they are so cheap to run.

[@sneaky_krait7271]

When I stated this last time Rory talked about synthetic fuels I got a lot of hate. Happy to see more people are finally coming to terms with it!

[@stuartvasepuru1423]

@@sneaky_krait7271 Eh? How can you be hated for reminding people of a straightforward and indisputable law of physics? It may not be what they hoped for, but science doesn't care about people's desires, only what actually exists and can be independently verified.

[@sneaky_krait7271]

@@stuartvasepuru1423 I know, it baffles me too... luckily I am doing engineering, I hope the ones claiming against it don't.

[@stuartvasepuru1423]

@@sneaky_krait7271 Cool. When you need to evaluate an idea for practicality, always start with first principles: the laws of physics. With synthetic fuels, it's possible to make them, but unavoidable inefficiencies make them unviable as a large-scale energy source.

[@Markcain268]

I think the lack of road tax and duty is the main reason they are cheaper to run

[@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..

[@samueljbooth9124]

Grate work . Thank you to you and the team

[@nO_d3N1AL]

Love these videos, very educational

[@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.

[@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?

[@simonmurfin1910]

Great piece of work!

[@tobiasschultz9525]

Very well done! Thanks dude.

[@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

[@SplendidTruth]

Splitting hydrogen and Oxygen takes a lot of energy/electricity and a lot of heat is produced. The scale at which fuel is needed in the world, will the amount of heat production in the process be less than what current fuels produce?

[@mikael3095]

You're asking the right Questions. If the energy usage was, exaclty equal. The benifits of not damaging our enviroment, by drilling..., I then feel, that it's a better solution. Litium, also has the problem, that you nead to mine it/destroy the serounding area and land below it.

[@DavidKnowles0]

@@mikael3095 you can also extract lithium from sea water.

[@lw1878]

@@DavidKnowles0 Efficiently?

[@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.....

[@darrenbillings1833]

Great explanation....thanks

[@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. 😀

[@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.

[@789ghost342ghost]

Very informative thanks so much cheers

[@lorddrake2418]

Interesting show. thank you

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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......

[@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.

[@bernardsimon1631]

Thanks needed this explanation

[@robertmandl9326]

Thanks for the video. Very educational.

[@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........

[@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%.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@philtucker1224]

Brilliantly explained and presented by Rory as usual. However, I wonder if watching the very rich smaller nations chase (and eventually achieve) super-low emissions has any real point as surely any money available ought to be going to getting ALL of the poorer developing nations that currently have the highest emissions to at least reach the same level that the small rich nations have already achieved. THEN we can hopefully start seeing real global reductions in CO2 and the other harmful gases.

[@davidaijuka1108]

Is this true? Do developing nations have higher carbon emissions?

[@yahyahasankhan5899]

@@davidaijuka1108 In terms of global emissions the United States is definitely up there along with China and India. However, in determining emissions we usually consider emissions per capita, which generally would correspond to certain developed countries with higher emissions as compared to developing countries (US will be higher than China which has the highest emissions). Therefore, the fight for cleaner air should actually be every human’s responsibility rather than the shifting of blame as we have to start somewhere.

[@riktye8800]

I thought the US, China and India have highest emissions. We need a Star Trek moment globally to save us .....

[@SuttonBen]

What less economically developed nations have "the highest emissions" ... ? Also, who are we talking about when we say "rich smaller nations." The UK for example contains one of the largest consumer markets in the world, importing more CO2 than any other G7 nation. We just decide that it's China's fault because Western corporation don't want to be held accountable for their supply chains and consumers want to continue their relatively luxurious lifestyles

[@kwalelalipimile9245]

Add all those aircraft carriers, submarines, tanks, jets and basically all military equipment, and who has the largest and most active military?

[@qqqsfdf1232]

Very very good video, thanks.

[@clivevalentine6591]

Found that very useful. Cheers!

[@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. 😄

[@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 :)

[@ujjawalkumarsingh4077]

very well explained

[@TEDdeMedici]

Fantastic video!

[@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...

[@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.

[@MrGlobali]

Thank you very much

[@hankthetank185]

Great video Rory.

[@MarkelTherapist]

This video was very informative , thanks Rory!

[@PrinceVeganin]

I can’t see fuel cells for commercial aviation working. The volumes are just too large, surely. Commercial shipping is certainly a possibility though.

[@heinedenmark]

Fuel cells? Metanol can be used for jet turbines..

[@PrinceVeganin]

@@heinedenmark Rory talked about fuel cells for aviation at the end of the video.

[@paulcs2607]

Beautifully explained

[@froschd6013]

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

[@Napster2k12]

just use nuclear power plants for the energy

[@NO3V]

Can we store the nuclear waste in your basement please?

[@jorgejavierlaborde6623]

You forgot to mention one important and critical thing in regard with this, nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy is the cleanest and powerful energy source there is. Personally, I think that beside most countries needing nuclear energy as a way to fight climate change, I think nuclear energy is going to help produce synthetic fuel production more. Not only this is important for planes and ships, but also trucks, heavy machinery, military vehicles, and other more. In the end, because of the need to prioritize synthetic fuel production for those vehicles, I think it will end up in ICE cars. EDIT: So after I read some comments let me be clear of something. I personally think that there’s gonna be a coexistence between ICE and EV based on application, need, and money just like watches. EV is going to be better for let say rental, taxis, and inner city driving. While, ICE is clearly superior for ease of logistic and etc. Although it’s true that e-fuel is currently not economically suitable, I think that it would become due to the fact that it’s more economically suitable to invest in it, rather than to create new infrastructure for EV. Let’s face it, time is the player here. It’s easier to invest and create a nuclear power or hydroelectric plant, that can trickle down cost overall than what we currently have. Lithium is a political risk due to the fact that few countries mined it. If we already had problem with petroleum in politics, imagine lithium. This allows e-fuel to not be depended at all. In addition, what really matter in looking for car future is ship futures. Ships are the backbone of the globalized world. Focusing on ships being more eco friendly is going to be more critical due to the fact that many countries depends on this way more. Large ships= large manufacturing= large surplus.

[@dancinglizard3080]

Well said, completely agree. I'm sure by the next decade all ice cars are gonna be viable again, I hope 😭

[@ricco123tube]

Nuclear is becoming more expensive year on year. By the time you've produced the synthetic fuel and shipped it around the world, it'll be massively more expensive than just charging an electric car from the original electricity produced from whatever source. I think the main problem is that people simply have no comprehension of the logistics involved in creating something so complicated on a massive scale.

[@jamesrennie1227]

1 word Chernobyl

[@dancinglizard3080]

@@ricco123tube i still have hope on it tho, im that desperate 😭

[@ricco123tube]

@@dancinglizard3080 hope and reality are two very different things. Things are changing just like they did when the internal combustion engine eventually replaced the horse and cart. They said it would never happen and it was a ridiculous idea, they used every excuse under the sun and look where we are now.

[@kmoorman2008]

Excellent video Rory.

[@davidalder6558]

Excellent and logical presentation of the facts. Thank you, Dave from Nova Scotia, Canada

[@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.

[@Will-ql5db]

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

[@mikedoverskog]

Carbohydrates 😁

[@dannyc7901]

Great video 👍🏻

[@764music]

Great video

[@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.

[@almeidajon]

I don't know why people keep excluding nuclear energy which can generate the amount of energy to power cities and produce synthetic fuels and solve all the problems of climate change. The so called "renewable energy" need huge amounts of terrain for ste up and the efficiency is low. Just think about it.

[@johnnybgood7812]

Not sure it is being excluded is it? In the U.K. Rolls Royce are currently looking to install multiple “mini” nuclear power plants each roughly the size of a soccer pitch. Alternatives to fossil fuels is unlikely to be a one stop solution though I would have thought?

[@pedrolopes6682]

Excelent vídeo Rory!

[@maro4life]

Great video, found it enlightening 👍👍👍👍👍

[@DavidKnowles0]

My first question is what is their tail pipe emissions are. Unless synthetics are 100% clean they don't solve the problem. One of the problems is we already got to much CO2 in the atmosphere as well, so simply creating that as a cycle it doesn't solve it. Taking CO2 out of the atmosphere only to put it back doesn't make sense.

[@TheMagicJIZZ]

It's called carbon neutral

[@DavidKnowles0]

@@TheMagicJIZZ co2 isn't the only pollution fossil fuels produced. And it not carbon neutral unless every stage from creation to transportation is carbon neutral.

[@TheMagicJIZZ]

@@DavidKnowles0 that's why it's a synthetic fuel... It can have no Sulphur dioxide emissions and burn very clean for kerosene and same energy density

[@DavidKnowles0]

@@TheMagicJIZZ I read very clean in a lot of articles, very clean isn't a scientific term, how much NXO and other pollutants does it pump out of the tail, no one seem very clean to talk about it, I suspect it not much difference from the pumps.

[@SkyrimCZtutorials]

There is another place that has 75% of green electricity and thus can be used for manufacturing of synthetic fuels - France.

[@AutoTraderTV]

I think they’re using most of it for themselves. Or exporting it to neighbouring countries who don’t have enough.

[@andrewrichardson3330]

Professor!!!! This was the most interesting science class I have ever taken.

[@boxertest]

thank you

[@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.

[@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...

[@adamabbas1487]

This channel is great, can't stop watching it.

[@harry-eto]

Well done!

[@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;)

[@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.

[@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.

[@DragosStoica]

So well said man !

[@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.

[@johnnyboy1586]

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

[@alexanderbaines-buffery7563]

really good vid

[@darkmatter6714]

What a great explanation! Well done Rory

[@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..

[@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?

[@brendanburke6138]

Great vlog. Would it be possible to do a vlog on fusion power?

[@believe-in-righteousness]

Thanks

[@surturiel]

Counterpoint to synthetic fuel: plant-sourced ethanol. Easy to run gas cars on ethanol. South America ( you know, where Chile is) has been running the ethanol experiment for the better part of the last 50 years.

[@DavidKnowles0]

An they been burning down forests to grow, at least in Brazil so releasing CO2 emissions and destroying the eco system.

[@surturiel]

@@DavidKnowles0 You don't burn down forests to plant sugar cane. All sugar cane production amounts to 3% or arable land there. Problem there is with soy, and it all goes for animal feed. It is doable, if done right, and sustainably, as a transition solution, until we all get our EVs (I already have 2 BEVs at home, don't rely more on ICE)

[@EVinstructor]

The problem we have with plant based fuels is we have to choose between growing crops for food or fuel and there’s simply not enough fertile land in the world to do both.

[@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.....

[@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.

[@jabig1]

How much would we save by switching??