Efficient, carbon neutral fuel for cars

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exploration of efficient, carbon-neutral fuel options for cars, considering various production methods and their practicality. Participants examine theoretical and practical implications of hydrogen, methane, biofuels, and batteries, as well as the infrastructure needed for these fuels.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose hydrogen from water hydrolysis as a simple production method, but note challenges with storage of liquid hydrogen.
  • Others suggest the Sabatier reaction to produce methane as a potential next step in fuel production.
  • There is mention of steam reforming as a method to create liquid fuels, alongside biomass gasification and biofuels from crops or algae.
  • One participant argues that liquid fuels are necessary due to economic factors and highlights the inefficiencies in synthetic liquid fuel production.
  • Some participants question the exclusion of batteries from the discussion, suggesting they may be a more efficient option for energy storage compared to the proposed fuels.
  • There is a viewpoint that batteries could improve to eliminate the need for liquid fuels, while another participant mentions the potential of biofuels from algae as a viable alternative.
  • Concerns are raised about the material handling costs associated with using seawater for algae production in desert regions.
  • Participants discuss the efficiency of various systems, including the potential for combined heat and power (CHP) systems in vehicles.
  • Some express skepticism about the efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen internal combustion engines.
  • There is a suggestion that all intermediate fuels, including electricity, involve inefficiencies that may not justify their use over direct fuel options.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the best approach to carbon-neutral fuels, with no consensus reached. Some advocate for batteries, while others emphasize the importance of liquid fuels or biofuels. The discussion remains unresolved regarding which option may ultimately prove to be the most efficient and practical.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions, such as the need for a fully converted electrical grid to renewable sources before considering certain fuel options. There are also discussions about the infrastructure changes required for different fuel types, which remain unresolved.

Czcibor
Messages
294
Reaction score
128
Assuming that a carbon neutral fuel for cars has to be used, what would be most practical and efficient? (Assumption: there is electricity from hydropower/nuclear or possibility to grow plants for biofuels)

1) Hydrogen from water hydrolysis?
(If I get it right, production is simple but the challenge starts with storage of liquid hydrogen)

2) Go next step and get methane from Sabatier reaction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction

3) Go even a step further and get a liquid fuel through steam reforming?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming#SMR

4) Biomass gasification and get fuel a liquid fuel from it?

5) Or maybe just produce biofuels from crops / algae / whatever?

Which of those process would be worth using? With contemporary technology, but some serious adjustments in infrastructure are possible. I mean not only energy loses at production but also practicality of easy to transport and storage of fuel.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Czcibor said:
carbon neutral fuel for cars
Czcibor said:
transport and storage of fuel.
You have identified the economic limiting factor, and that liquid fuels are the only way to go. You have likewise identified the problem that synthetic liquid fuels are net energy losers in terms of the energy lost in synthesis.
Czcibor said:
most practical and efficient?
Fischer-Tropsch liquid fuel synthesis from organic feedstocks in nuclear or solar thermal fired plants? That might actually be a way around the solar-thermal nighttime energy storage problem.
 
Why have batteries been excluded from this?

Also, imo, assuming we've already converted our entire electrical grid to non-carbon fuel is putting the cart before the horse.
 
Bystander said:
You have identified the economic limiting factor, and that liquid fuels are the only way to go. You have likewise identified the problem that synthetic liquid fuels are net energy losers in terms of the energy lost in synthesis.

Fischer-Tropsch liquid fuel synthesis from organic feedstocks in nuclear or solar thermal fired plants? That might actually be a way around the solar-thermal nighttime energy storage problem.
Sounds reasonable.
Now I have one argument against converting natural gas to gasoline. Iran which is in situation where it may be a possible idea, actually prefers just compressed natural gas as fuel for cars and even created a dedicated engine.

russ_watters said:
Why have batteries been excluded from this?

Also, imo, assuming we've already converted our entire electrical grid to non-carbon fuel is putting the cart before the horse.
I forgot them. You want to say that batteries would be the choice or that just would be one of possibilities?
 
Czcibor said:
I forgot them. You want to say that batteries would be the choice or that just would be one of possibilities?
I think they are probably the best choice -- they are considerably more efficient than at least the first three you listed.
 
russ_watters said:
I think they are probably the best choice -- they are considerably more efficient than at least the first three you listed.
More efficient after including lifetime of the battery?

Anyway - for city cars - what about trolleybusses/trolleytrucks / trolley... passanger cars(?) (assuming that anyway infrastructure can be changed)?
 
Of course, nobody knows which of these options will ultimately prove to be the best, otherwise we wouldn't see people investing in all of these options today. Having said that, my opinion is that one of the following two will win out:

(1) Batteries will improve to the point that we don't need liquid fuels and will drive pure electric cars.
(2) Biofuels produced from algae. Today, the company Algenol is saying that they will be able to produce ethanol directly from algae for $1/gallon. Their technology uses seawater to grow the algae in desert climates, so it uses neither fresh water nor arable land.

We might also see both battery and liquid fuel options continue. I think it is much easier to get passenger cars to work on batteries than it is heavy equipment and airplanes, so liquid fuel might continue to be the fuel of choice for these even if batteries improve.
 
phyzguy said:
(1) Batteries will improve to the point that we don't need liquid fuels and will drive pure electric cars.
This is counting battery mass as payload?
phyzguy said:
seawater to grow the algae in desert climates,
Material handling costs for moving seawater to deserts are going to be what?
 
Bystander said:
Material handling costs for moving seawater to deserts are going to be what?

They don't pipe seawater inland, they build their facilities in desert regions along the coast, of which there are many (Mexico, Chile, Western Africa, Australia, ...).
 
  • #10
If the ponding is done at sea-level, what's the necessity of locating in desert regions?
 
  • #11
Bystander said:
If the ponding is done at sea-level, what's the necessity of locating in desert regions?
Land is cheap. Coastal areas with adequate rainfall tend to be heavily populated.
 
  • #12
A fuel cartridge to be engineered that absorbs CO2 in series with or as a replacement f
or the CAT and is exchanged when fuel is taken on board.The old cartridge to be used as a building material.
Car connected up as CHP when not commuting.
2 state Thermal storage cartridge used to store 70% wasted combustion energy and used to heat/cool the home
 
  • #13
russ_watters said:
Why have batteries been excluded from this?

Wouldn't batteries be more of an energy storage device than a fuel? Unless someone would consider disposable batteries! :oldeek:
 
  • #14
All intermediate fuels and that includes electricity require further inefficient stages. I fail to see the advantage of electricity which must need not only a 50% generation energy loss followed by a 30% distribution loss followed by a 30% storage loss.
Better to concentrate on an efficient engine, an efficient drive train and not to waste the unwanted heat; store it and take it home for heating. And while you are doing that plug the car generator and cooling into the home as CHP.
 
  • #15
Czcibor said:
More efficient after including lifetime of the battery?
I don't know what that means/how you would quantify that. If you mean cost effective, that's tough to say, since the infrastructure for the others doesn't exist. I'm not very optomistic about hydrogen, though, because neither fuel cells nor hydrogen internal combustion engines are very efficient.
Anyway - for city cars - what about trolleybusses/trolleytrucks / trolley... passanger cars(?) (assuming that anyway infrastructure can be changed)?
Already exist, but sure, there are ways to make them more efficient, such as making them hybrids.
 
  • #16
jack action said:
Wouldn't batteries be more of an energy storage device than a fuel?
Yes - as far as I can tell, all of the first three proposals are storage methods instead of dug-out-of-the-ground fuels. The required assumption is made in the first line of the OP though: that we've already converted all of our electrical production to renewable/clean sources before having extra clean power to use for transportation.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
13K
  • · Replies 117 ·
4
Replies
117
Views
11K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K