EV production often relies on coal power and harmful labor practices. Climate activists in 'Squid Games' costumes disrupted the LA Auto Show this weekend to demand urgent change.
My understanding was you meant we should keep petrol cars but replace gasoline with a synthetic efuel. If that is correct then my rebuff is still my response. If my understanding is incorrect please elaborate.
Seems you don’t understand that efuel is net zero. When it comes to efuel, it doesn’t make sense to argue with someone who doesn’t understand that part. So, I stop engaging with you here.
Anyway, I meant that EV manufacturing process has too many ways to cheat, while in case of efuel the regulations only have to happen at the factory to achieve net zero.
That’s all I have to say. And that’s a fact, whatever you say.
Let’s say you have 1kw of electricity. And you have two choices for that electricity.
One, you take that electricity, use it to crack hydrogen from water, then use more of that electricity to synthesize the fuel with atmospheric carbon, then transport that efuel to a station, then burn that efuel in an engine that wastes upwards of 75% of the energy in that efuel as heat loss.
OR, you take that electricity, and you charge a car, and the car uses that electricity to move via motor that only wastes 15-20% of the energy.
The solution is obvious yes? You’re basically wasting grid capacity to keep gasoline cars alive.
Bonus, instead of just being carbon “net zero”, you can use the carbon capture to sequester it and be carbon negative instead, since with efuels you’re just releasing that captured carbon back into the air. Isn’t it better to be carbon negative than carbon neutral?
Extra bonus? How about not giving everyone near a major road increased amounts of asthma and lung cancer due to tailpipe emissions, since carbon dioxide isn’t the only thing coming out of cars.
Extra Extra Bonus? How about not polluting the water table of every city in the world with oil leaks.
Efuels make zero sense. It actually makes MORE sense to just fucking burn good old fashioned gasoline and do carbon capture than to waste grid capacity.
The only purpose Efuels exist is to brainwash people like you into fighting electric vehicles so fossil fuel companies and auto makers can try to run out the clock.
I don’t understand your main part, which is the energy efficiency (edit: I mean, that’s bot the point). I’m talking about the regulatory problem with the EV manufacturing that makes is very hard to actually achieve net zero with EVs.
Yes, people who like to pump efuels share that problem. If you can’t understand it you will be stuck believing in oil-industry claptrap.
I’m talking about the regulatory problem with the EV manufacturing that makes is very hard to actually achieve net zero with EVs.
The main issue with gas cars is the gas, what you’re saying is a red herring that doesn’t even make sense.
Answer me this: Is manufacturing gasoline cars carbon free?
Of course not!
EVs and Gasoline cars both currently involve carbon output. So you’re trying to imply that somehow making a battery pack (the big differentiator) is a process that produces such a huge amount of carbon, that it outweighs the 10k+ gallons of gasoline an ICE car burns throughout its lifetime.
That’s an extraordinary claim. Where is the extraordinary evidence?
Efuel is made from the CO2. Therefore, even if you run your car, you are not increasing the CO2.
On the other hand, EVs actually do put more CO2 in the sense that manufacturing the batteries adds CO2.
Finally, my point is that this battery manufacturing process is hard to regulate. Do you now see how my opponents don’t properly reply to my argument!?
Even under ideal conditions, efuels are still very energy intensive. It’s also interesting that the biggest advocates for efuel adoption are oil companies.
Critics highlight that manufacturing e-fuels is very expensive and energy-intensive. Using e-fuels in an ICE car requires about five times more renewable electricity than running a battery-electric vehicle, according to a 2021 paper in the Nature Climate Change journal.
Some policymakers also argue that e-fuels should be reserved for hard-to-decarbonise sectors such as shipping and aviation - which, unlike passenger cars, cannot easily run on electric batteries.
You also should try to elaborate on what it means to “cheat” because it sounds like you are just making up a Boogeyman after listening to too much Fox News.
As I reiterate again and again, I don’t care about energy efficiency. I’m talking about the difficulty with regulating EV manufacturing to actually achieve net zero. You say I made it up, but can you say so at least after reading the very OP post that you’re commenting in? Because it’s written there, if I’m not mistaken.
And I’m no FOX listener or whatever. You should realize how much assumptions you made about me, and how that annoys me.
Have you read what I wrote?
Edit: efuel is net-zero.
My understanding was you meant we should keep petrol cars but replace gasoline with a synthetic efuel. If that is correct then my rebuff is still my response. If my understanding is incorrect please elaborate.
Seems you don’t understand that efuel is net zero. When it comes to efuel, it doesn’t make sense to argue with someone who doesn’t understand that part. So, I stop engaging with you here.
Anyway, I meant that EV manufacturing process has too many ways to cheat, while in case of efuel the regulations only have to happen at the factory to achieve net zero.
That’s all I have to say. And that’s a fact, whatever you say.
Let’s say you have 1kw of electricity. And you have two choices for that electricity.
One, you take that electricity, use it to crack hydrogen from water, then use more of that electricity to synthesize the fuel with atmospheric carbon, then transport that efuel to a station, then burn that efuel in an engine that wastes upwards of 75% of the energy in that efuel as heat loss.
OR, you take that electricity, and you charge a car, and the car uses that electricity to move via motor that only wastes 15-20% of the energy.
The solution is obvious yes? You’re basically wasting grid capacity to keep gasoline cars alive.
Bonus, instead of just being carbon “net zero”, you can use the carbon capture to sequester it and be carbon negative instead, since with efuels you’re just releasing that captured carbon back into the air. Isn’t it better to be carbon negative than carbon neutral?
Extra bonus? How about not giving everyone near a major road increased amounts of asthma and lung cancer due to tailpipe emissions, since carbon dioxide isn’t the only thing coming out of cars.
Extra Extra Bonus? How about not polluting the water table of every city in the world with oil leaks.
Efuels make zero sense. It actually makes MORE sense to just fucking burn good old fashioned gasoline and do carbon capture than to waste grid capacity.
The only purpose Efuels exist is to brainwash people like you into fighting electric vehicles so fossil fuel companies and auto makers can try to run out the clock.
I don’t understand your main part, which is the energy efficiency (edit: I mean, that’s bot the point). I’m talking about the regulatory problem with the EV manufacturing that makes is very hard to actually achieve net zero with EVs.
The rest is fine.
Yes, people who like to pump efuels share that problem. If you can’t understand it you will be stuck believing in oil-industry claptrap.
The main issue with gas cars is the gas, what you’re saying is a red herring that doesn’t even make sense.
Answer me this: Is manufacturing gasoline cars carbon free?
Of course not!
EVs and Gasoline cars both currently involve carbon output. So you’re trying to imply that somehow making a battery pack (the big differentiator) is a process that produces such a huge amount of carbon, that it outweighs the 10k+ gallons of gasoline an ICE car burns throughout its lifetime.
That’s an extraordinary claim. Where is the extraordinary evidence?
I stop here. Manufacturing EVs aren’t carbon free either. Actually, manufacturing the battery emits far more carbon than manufacturing an engine.
So, all I see from you is move the goal post repeatedly while not countering my main point: difficulty of regulation in manufacturing EVs.
Removed by mod
You don’t get the point. Efuel is net zero.
Efuel is made from the CO2. Therefore, even if you run your car, you are not increasing the CO2.
On the other hand, EVs actually do put more CO2 in the sense that manufacturing the batteries adds CO2.
Finally, my point is that this battery manufacturing process is hard to regulate. Do you now see how my opponents don’t properly reply to my argument!?
You got that timecube vibe.
Even under ideal conditions, efuels are still very energy intensive. It’s also interesting that the biggest advocates for efuel adoption are oil companies.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/what-are-e-fuels-can-they-help-make-cars-co2-free-2023-03-07/
You also should try to elaborate on what it means to “cheat” because it sounds like you are just making up a Boogeyman after listening to too much Fox News.
As I reiterate again and again, I don’t care about energy efficiency. I’m talking about the difficulty with regulating EV manufacturing to actually achieve net zero. You say I made it up, but can you say so at least after reading the very OP post that you’re commenting in? Because it’s written there, if I’m not mistaken.
And I’m no FOX listener or whatever. You should realize how much assumptions you made about me, and how that annoys me.