Porous, spongelike medium for H2 storage

[cawimmer430]

I think wims just really want ICE cars to survive. I can definitely understand that.

It's hard to adapt to a "new technology" when you've grown up with an "old technology" which just seemed so normal and worked. I love the ICE. I love how the torque builds up, how it sounds, how the transmission reacts with the engine, how it feels... it's an emotional thing to me. EVs just feel so soulless to me.

Also, I do not see any advantages for me in owning an EV, because frankly I don't care about emissions, CO2 etc. An EV is also not practical for my driving needs. One day I got a project in the city, the next day I got a project a little further away. I need a car with range or that at least can be refueled quickly. Another thing: electricity is not cheap in Germany. We have the second highest electricity costs in the world. Some EV charging stations in Munich demand 70 cents per kWh!!!

[MX793]

I'm no chemist or engineer, and I believe it that a lot of energy is required to produce this fuel, but I also believe that there are really smart people working on this attempting to simplify the process while yielding more results and using less energy.

The energy needed to produce synthetic fuel for example can be derived from overproduction from wind, solar, hydro etc. There are a handful of companies in Germany, in the north, which produce hydrogen from excess power generated mainly by offshore and inland wind power plants. Instead of letting that energy go to waste, use it for the production of hydrogen and synthetic fuel.

And this is another argument to use nuclear power, especially in Germany which had advanced and safe nuclear power plants. But Merkel was afraid of Tsunamis in Japan wrecking havoc in German nuclear power plants... in Germany... literally.

I do believe the future will be mixed: EVs, Fuel Cell, Synthetic Fuels and perhaps something else will come along. I'm just not excited about pure EVs, which aside from being fast, don't do much for me in terms of emotions. Yeah, they're less maintenance-intensive than an ICE, but some of us think with our emotions, not our wallets.   

One important takeaway from my post is that it is idealized.  Those numbers represent perfect efficiency (which is physically impossible).  That is the best case scenario.

Simply offsetting 10% of US gasoline consumption would require over 500 terawatt-hours per year of power just to combine CO2 and H2O into fuel.  That's as much electricity as all of Germany produces in a year from all sources combined (wind, nuclear, solar, coal, etc).  Best case scenario.  And, again, that's just the idealized power required to make octane from CO2 and H2O, not gathering the CO2 from the air or any other supporting processes associated with making synthetic gasoline.

[Laconian]

IOW, it's physically and logistically impossible for synthetic fuels to keep the ICE dream alive.

[MX793]

IOW, it's physically and logistically impossible for synthetic fuels to keep the ICE dream alive.

Unless we more than double the number of powerplants globally, or master cold fusion, I don't see synthetic hydrocarbons fuels being anything more than a niche product, sold in relatively low volume, catered to vintage car collectors so they can still drive their antiques every once in a while.  Basically like super-high octane racing fuels today.

[Laconian]

My guess is that fossil fuels will be used in some form for the foreseeable future, especially for cargo/freight. So diesel's safe, at least. Not sure about gasoline - that's much more of a consumer product.

[MX793]

My guess is that fossil fuels will be used in some form for the foreseeable future, especially for cargo/freight. So diesel's safe, at least. Not sure about gasoline - that's much more of a consumer product.

We could produce "renewable" bio fuels like ethanol or biodiesel easily enough.  But the notion of making synthetic hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 and water in large enough quantities to make a dent is not feasible without some other kind of major technological breakthrough is power generation.

[cawimmer430]

One important takeaway from my post is that it is idealized.  Those numbers represent perfect efficiency (which is physically impossible).  That is the best case scenario.

Simply offsetting 10% of US gasoline consumption would require over 500 terawatt-hours per year of power just to combine CO2 and H2O into fuel.  That's as much electricity as all of Germany produces in a year from all sources combined (wind, nuclear, solar, coal, etc).  Best case scenario.  And, again, that's just the idealized power required to make octane from CO2 and H2O, not gathering the CO2 from the air or any other supporting processes associated with making synthetic gasoline.

I hope that the process will be simplified so that more can be produced while using drastically less energy. I'm a believer!

[cawimmer430]

IOW, it's physically and logistically impossible for synthetic fuels to keep the ICE dream alive.

Unless there is a good mix in the future of EVs, Fuel Cell and Synthetic Fuel. There are companies worldwide researching this, attempting to improve the process. I don't think they'd invest resources, time and money into this if they thought it's a dead end.

[CaminoRacer]

Unless there is a good mix in the future of EVs, Fuel Cell and Synthetic Fuel. There are companies worldwide researching this, attempting to improve the process. I don't think they'd invest resources, time and money into this if they thought it's a dead end.

Daimler just ended hydrogen fuel cell development of cars because it's too expensive compared to EV.

https://electrek.co/2020/04/22/daimler-ends-hydrogen-car-development-because-its-too-costly/

[Laconian]

I don't think they'd invest resources, time and money into this if they thought it's a dead end.

Government: "Save the planet! $10B worth of grants for carbon-neutral R&D research!"
Bosch: "Uh, yeah, sure, this thing is totally gonna happen. Now gimme dat money. "
Government: "OK, u can haz money."
Bosch: "Money!"

[MX793]

I hope that the process will be simplified so that more can be produced while using drastically less energy. I'm a believer!

Faith cannot overcome laws of physics.  Conservation of mass and energy are science law.  You can't make something from nothing.  If burning a liter of octane gives off 33.8 MJ of energy, producing a liter of octane cannot require less than 33.8 MJ or else the balance is broken.  The absolute least energy required to produce synthetic octane is what I've shown in my math.  Not including the energy consumption involved in harvesting and processing CO2 from the air.

[cawimmer430]

I'm curious. Do you guys really want the ICE to die!? 

[SJ_GTI]

I'm curious. Do you guys really want the ICE to die!? 

Wanting something REALLY REALLY HARD doesn't change reality.

[cawimmer430]

Wanting something REALLY REALLY HARD doesn't change reality.

I just can't see EVs working for the entire world and for everyone. That's also a reality.

[Laconian]

I just can't see EVs working for the entire world and for everyone. That's also a reality.

I agree, there are diminishing returns the harder you work to make EVs ubiquitous. There will still be diesel and ethanol to power the ICEs that need huge energy storage.

[shp4man]

I'm curious. Do you guys really want the ICE to die!? 

It won't. Emerging nations will be using it much longer. Lots of oil left.

[MX793]

I agree, there are diminishing returns the harder you work to make EVs ubiquitous. There will still be diesel and ethanol to power the ICEs that need huge energy storage.

The real limiting factor with BEVs right now is battery capacity paired with recharging time.  Range is on the low side compared to an ICE powered car, and that's paired with recharge times that take much longer than an ICE.  The shorter range would be tolerable if a charge up was as fast as an ICE car.  The longer recharge times would be more tolerable if they had much more range.  However, remember that even a "big" battery doesn't hold much energy compared to a fuel tank.  75kWh is the equivalent energy released from burning about 7 liters (1.8 gallons) of diesel fuel or 8.3 liters (2.2 gallons) of gasoline.  Imagine a car going over 200 miles on so little fuel.

[Laconian]

It won't. Emerging nations will be using it much longer. Lots of oil left.

Trucks, tractors, mopeds. Glorious-sounding V8s will probably be gone - it's not like Ferraris are bound in any way by practicality.

[AutobahnSHO]

I'm curious. Do you guys really want the ICE to die!? 

No. But they are NOT the most efficient machines. So much is lost to heat from every cylinder explosion.

[Laconian]

I think my biggest regret with losing the ICE will be the loss of manual transmissions, but they're essentially all dead anyways...

[MX793]

I think my biggest regret with losing the ICE will be the loss of manual transmissions, but they're essentially all dead anyways...

Besides transmissions, the general character that a drivetrain lends to a vehicle.  Different engine notes, different shaped power bands.  Some cars have early torque and no top end, others come to life when the tach needle crosses a certain threshold.  Electric motors all have the exact same power delivery characteristics and all pretty much sound the same, too.  The only difference from vehicle to vehicle will be power to weight ratio.

Then again, just as MTs have pretty much died out, the ubiquity of the 2.0T engine configuration these days is kind of priming us all for the monotony of powertrain character that is to come.

[Soup DeVille]

I'm curious. Do you guys really want the ICE to die!? 

It won't.

We still have steam engines.

[GoCougs]

Steam's external combustion .

But no, ICE ain't going anywhere. EV's are a dog that just don't hunt.

[cawimmer430]

I just feel that the future of mobility should be mixed. EVs make sense for those who literally just drive short distances in the city and never venture outside. But for those of us who require more range and faster refueling, an EV does not make sense, especially in its current state. Teslas might be the exception, but all of the more affordable EVs like the Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe etc. have drastic range drawbacks the moment you turn on the radio - literally. 

The real limiting factor with BEVs right now is battery capacity paired with recharging time.  Range is on the low side compared to an ICE powered car, and that's paired with recharge times that take much longer than an ICE.  The shorter range would be tolerable if a charge up was as fast as an ICE car.  The longer recharge times would be more tolerable if they had much more range.  However, remember that even a "big" battery doesn't hold much energy compared to a fuel tank.  75kWh is the equivalent energy released from burning about 7 liters (1.8 gallons) of diesel fuel or 8.3 liters (2.2 gallons) of gasoline.  Imagine a car going over 200 miles on so little fuel.

^THIS!^ 

[CaminoRacer]

EVs have insanely efficient motors paired with inefficient energy storage tanks.
ICEs have inefficient motors paired with insanely efficient energy storage tanks.

[cawimmer430]

EVs have insanely efficient motors paired with inefficient energy storage tanks.
ICEs have inefficient motors paired with insanely efficient energy storage tanks.

So what we need is an electric motor that burns gasoline/diesel. 

[CaminoRacer]

So what we need is an electric motor that burns gasoline/diesel. 

Finding the solutions to both inefficiencys would be awesome. Both EV and ICE vehicles could travel 1,000-1,500 miles on a single tank.

ICE development has come a long way from the 60/70s. Emissions are down, mileage is up. Still a long way to go, though. ICE thermal efficiency is like 30-40% compared to electric motors at 90-98%.

My Bolt battery is the equivalent of about 2 gallons of gas, so it's got about the same amount of improvement needed.

[cawimmer430]

Finding the solutions to both inefficiencys would be awesome. Both EV and ICE vehicles could travel 1,000-1,500 miles on a single tank.

ICE development has come a long way from the 60/70s. Emissions are down, mileage is up. Still a long way to go, though. ICE thermal efficiency is like 30-40% compared to electric motors at 90-98%.

My Bolt battery is the equivalent of about 2 gallons of gas, so it's got about the same amount of improvement needed.

Yeah, the efficiency of the ICE engine has been improved big time, but it's still nowhere near an electric motor.

If memory serves me right, I saw or read something awhile back which stated it was theoretically possible to get a gasoline engine to run at 40%+ efficiency and a Diesel at 47%+ efficiency.

Will be interesting to see what the future will hold in store for us. Fuel Cell seems dead... so EV or synthetic fuels (I still believe in them...). 

[Laconian]

The 40% and 47% numbers seem pretty far removed from where we're at today.

[Laconian]

The Model 3's permanent magnet reluctance motors are apparently 97% efficient at converting energy into motion. So replace that "Engine Losses - 68-72% loss" with "3%". And the "parasitic losses" part would probably be at a similar number, albeit for cabin heaters and battery temp management.