The problem with fuels made from electricity is that pesky thing called thermodynamics. If an efuel was developed that was more efficient than electricity then we’d be able to use it to produce more electricity than we put in.
Lots of fuels (like petrol) are a lot more energy dense than out best batteries. If we can synthesize fuels like that just using electricity as an energy source (that can be generated from renewables) then you have a carbon free dense store of energy that can be used to power a vehicle for a long distance without refueling.
The problem with these (fuel cells etc) is that the conversation rate is inefficient, wasting a lot of energy. As we are not using 100% renewable energy this means carbon is being released still.
If we had an entirely renewable energy grid (with oversupply when sunny/windy etc) then those energy losses would not matter.
People are obsessed with efficiency because it’s the only metric that matters. We have a finite amount of resources on this planet and efficiency is the only way we can make it last. If you aren’t a ‘save the planet’ type of person then efficiency still matters because it’s directly correlated with cost.
You are comparing different efficiencies. Solar panels are 15% to 20% efficient at converting light into energy. As far as I’m aware every Efuel being developed (and every hydrocarbon fuel for that matter) has a 0% efficiency at converting light into energy but if I am mistaken please do correct me.
In a completely technical sense the hydrocarbon fuel was at one time produced from light energy (dead plants) but that’s taking your point and being pedantic since the “efficiency” of the conversation is probably astronomically low when you account for the loses sustained by whatever lifeform died and became said hydrocarbons.
E-fuel? So like what? Electricity…
It’s fuel made using electricity as the energy source.
The problem with fuels made from electricity is that pesky thing called thermodynamics. If an efuel was developed that was more efficient than electricity then we’d be able to use it to produce more electricity than we put in.
Lots of fuels (like petrol) are a lot more energy dense than out best batteries. If we can synthesize fuels like that just using electricity as an energy source (that can be generated from renewables) then you have a carbon free dense store of energy that can be used to power a vehicle for a long distance without refueling.
The problem with these (fuel cells etc) is that the conversation rate is inefficient, wasting a lot of energy. As we are not using 100% renewable energy this means carbon is being released still.
If we had an entirely renewable energy grid (with oversupply when sunny/windy etc) then those energy losses would not matter.
You avoid the giant, expensive battery though. People are obsessed with efficiency in a self-defeating way.
People are obsessed with efficiency because it’s the only metric that matters. We have a finite amount of resources on this planet and efficiency is the only way we can make it last. If you aren’t a ‘save the planet’ type of person then efficiency still matters because it’s directly correlated with cost.
Better ban solar panels cause they’re only 15-20% efficient. /s
You are comparing different efficiencies. Solar panels are 15% to 20% efficient at converting light into energy. As far as I’m aware every Efuel being developed (and every hydrocarbon fuel for that matter) has a 0% efficiency at converting light into energy but if I am mistaken please do correct me.
In a completely technical sense the hydrocarbon fuel was at one time produced from light energy (dead plants) but that’s taking your point and being pedantic since the “efficiency” of the conversation is probably astronomically low when you account for the loses sustained by whatever lifeform died and became said hydrocarbons.
E-fuels are made from solar power. It is not anywhere near 0%. Also, clearly efficiency is not “the only metric that matters.”