01:40 the list startsthank me
Electricity as fuel!
More advanced batteries that can hold a lot of power in batteries.
Yes Electric cars and planes sound like a good future we just need to improve battery
Great work bro
Thank you because I want to learn about how make a n electric car
To all of you watching his diatribe about global warming and the fact that the planet is warming because of fossil fuels, watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Do not fall for the lies that the big media, including these YouTube channels, are propagating.
It seems likely that for high-speed aviation, you'd be more likely to burn the hydrogen directly in a jet engine than use it in a fuel cell. But that has all sorts of challenges of its own.
The price of petrol will definitely come down when demand comes down so I dont really see the need of synthetic fuel. They will never ban petrol, just the manufacture of new cars that use it..
I can see synthetic fuel powering aircraft as there is really not suitable alternative to fossil fuels there. I can also see synthetic fuel powering a handful cars and ships here and there but the future is definitely with the lithium ion battery.
There is no doubt that the big oil companies will make a synthetic fuel to keep the cash flow coming in for decades to come.
of course synth fuel is a better alternative. heck most things are at this time.but the people in charge have invested in electric, and they WILL see there dividends.None of what is going on has anything to do with logical thought or problem solving. People need to understand this is money at work and control of the population as a goal for some.Someone could invent a perpetual motion/free energy machine at this point and we will still get electric cars forced on us.
OR you use nuclear power to produce electricity and process heat that are required for the generation of synthetic fuel, then you can make the fuel anywhere and have a very short supply line to the POU thus saving a lot of energy in the transport of the fuel around the planet. Oh and you can use the excess power generated by renewables when generation capacity is in excess of demand to make the fuels, which is also a handy store for what would otherwise be wasted energy/capacity. You can also make Hydrogen and use that as a fuel for newer ICE vehicles, which are cheaper and less CO2 intensive than EV's in manufacturing, see Volvo's estimate of ~70k miles driven to match CO2 budget of ICE car to equivalent EV model.Also the CO2 cost of what the politicians want us to do (change to EV cars) is immense, 'coz they are trying to drive ICE vehicles off the road that have 20 years of life in them and replace them with CO2 producing EV production (ironic huh?)Also it is pretty much required for commercial vehicles, as the duty cycle on them precludes the use of EV's due to the time required in charging making them unable to meet the required duty cycle, at least until charging can be done in 5-10 mins (for a big artic!). As for plant machinery, they have the problem of duty cycle and extra weight from batteries making them way heavier, that requires them to be built stronger to handle the extra battery weight, which then requires extra weight to handle the extra weight to handle the batteries weight (vicious circle). This then makes for problems as the plant machinery can then be too heavy for the application! (there is a video by JCB on this - their solution is use hydrogen).Minimising CO2 generation in toto would imply removing it from the fuel process - so that means CO2 free electricity no matter what, and also minimise it in the car production process, which also means (at least right now) make ICE vehicles running on Hydrogen or syn fuel! As a bonus it is also cheaper to make the cars too, so the consumer would win for once, and discount EV's running n cheap power - that will soon go away and will be set up so it brings in equivalent duty to the use of petrol and diesel - it has to be, or the government will go broke, or income/sales tax will have to go up.
So for us petrol heads, we just need a shit tone of money to keep driving our cars in 2070. That shouldn't be too hard, easy.
The math is wrong. How 83 liters of fuel around 83 kilos, produce 226 Kg of CO2 ?!?!?!
Nuclear power will come to the rescue.Also love this guys vids. Whenever I see him I just wanna give him a big hug ahahahah
More ev evangelism.The point behind synthetic fuels is not to quash ev's, it's to produce a carbon neutral mixed fleet. Your premise around the energy required is mute because because if you build a nuclear power plant beside the synthetic fuel refinery you have an on shore fuel solution that any country can adopt and it doesn't need to be close to population centers because we can use existing infrastructure to transport and distribute it at existing fuel stations. No need to build entirely new charging infrastructure all over the place to accommodate ev's. Ends the reliance on the middle east for oil and the synthetic fuel refinery can produce a rang of fuel options from hydrogen to diesel. Hydrogen can be used to power not only fuel cells but for power generation also.EV's are a narrow minded solution and gas engine production bands even more narrow minded.If people are truly interested in reducing green house gasses etc ev's are a piece of the puzzle in a mixed fleet not the answer.If you run the numbers there's not much that can match a 2nd hand ice vehicle running on an alternative fuel.But that thinking doesn't fit the ev agenda
I like the feel of petrol engines but i cant deny the effects on climate change are gastric perhaps synthetics fuel are the way to go
Ex hard-core petrol head here. I am leaning towards electric cars now, but the technology is not ready yet, it's far from it. Especially batteries. Currently my daily driver is bicycle. I live in a cold climate and I ride all year round and I love it.
Before I say something snide, can someone explain to me how 1 liter of gas, which weighs .75 kilos, produces 2.6 kilos of carbon dioxide. Dont forget either that carbon dioxide is inert.
Anyone who HASN'T had their head in a bag for the last decade, go direct to 3.20...
See, I like the idea of this but eventually I feel like that leads to companies wholly owning bodies of drinkable, clean water and restricting access on that even more than they already have, and with companies that exist today quite literally saying that water isn't a human right, I really don't see this as being a viable solution for anyone worth less than 1 billion dollars long term.
Nuke power to make synth fuel?
Oil is not a fossil fuel bud, there hasn't been enough organisms that have lived and died to create the amount of oil we've consumed over the past 100 years. Dan Pena has the best answer to the climate change question.