Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

Martyn1981

Yep, the low efficiency is, I feel, reflected in that 80-120% figure. Maybe one day, all of the energy inputs will be low carbon, in a 100% low carbon leccy world, that has electrified 'everything'. But that still means using up 80-120 units of clean energy, to produce 100 units of clean energy.

And, of course, to get to that clean energy input, it will require all the road/ground vehicles involved to be BEV, so no demand for the bio-fuels (from road transport) anyway, even if we optimistically get 20% more out than we put in.

I think it's BEV's all the way for ground transport, and maybe synthetic fuels for longer distance aviation and shipping, that can't be electrified.

Use the bio-fuel land for RE, food and rewilding.

zeupater

QrizB said:

There's no logic flaw as you're still failing to understand the point being made.

You come across as being moderately smart, so I'm not able to tell whether you're genuinely misunderstanding or being deliberately awkward.

... the point is totally understood ... your position is based on what you have said ... "The argument is that (inclding fuel production etc) the net carbon released when driving an ICE vehicle 1 mile while running on biofuels is 120% of the carbon released when driving the same vehicle 1 mile with fossil fuels.", however, as previously posed, my position is that includes a flaw ... the flaw being that although it may be the case, it doesn't consider the relative carbon cycle timeline for both the raw fuel-stock (crude, crop etc) and the energy source carbon cycle as consumed in the processing & delivery, which leads to ....  

QrizB said:

But it doesn't. The biofuel cycle requires carbon inputs (and other GHGs) to grow the crops and refine the fuel. Carbon which is additional to the "recycled" carbon in the fuel itself. This carbon is greater than the carbon present in an equivalent amount of fossil fuel.

... herein lies the second flaw and I'll explain through a simple analogy .... an argument often made against EVs is that they aren't as green as claimed because the FF carbon inputs from the creation of electricity is so significant that you might as well just drive ICEVs, completely ignoring the fact that the carbon intensity of electricity generation has fallen significantly, and continues to fall .... the flaw in logic is one of nailing the conclusion as fact and therefore irrefutable, whereas it should be considered as no more than a transitional state measured at a point in time at a particular location (grid carbon intensity varies by country, location, time etc) .... this is exactly the same premise as considering all carbon input in the creation of bio-fuels as being derived from FF sources and this will effectively always be the case - looks like exactly the same issue to me, that's why I see a flaw in the logic. 

Now then, as to whether I would support the mass adoption of bio-fuels, well on balance probably not mass adoption, but I agree with Mart that there are certain applications where there's a significant advantage over the likes of batteries etc, as well as the validity of what ED110220 posted above regarding pressure on suitable land resource, but I would have thought that this would have been pretty obvious having posted .... 

"The real quandary around biofuels is related to what you want to do with the biomass ... "eat it" ..or.. "heat with it", so it really comes down to the same economic-political argument that is currently used within societal engineering, but rather than being a personal choice between heating & eating based on available funds, it would simply be a centralised political decision based on available resource, that being land .... if this is the case then those arguing the social benefits of addressing both in a common way as being positive must be more than just a little conflicted ..." 

... yes again, the "heat with it" is an analogy which is meant to apply to other forms of energy conversion other than foodstuff, with decisions (probably political) having to be made as to where priorities lie when considering the limitation of available suitable land.

This is really the crux, it's the very reason for the need for distractions to be made .... the problem is that of suitable resource limitation and not one of relative efficiency at all, it's one where bio-fuels should be in the mix, with the emphasis on 'mix' and one where the position regarding comparisons is seen as fluid rather than absolute ...

HTH - Z 

ed110220

Martyn1981 said:

Yep, the low efficiency is, I feel, reflected in that 80-120% figure. Maybe one day, all of the energy inputs will be low carbon, in a 100% low carbon leccy world, that has electrified 'everything'. But that still means using up 80-120 units of clean energy, to produce 100 units of clean energy.

And, of course, to get to that clean energy input, it will require all the road/ground vehicles involved to be BEV, so no demand for the bio-fuels (from road transport) anyway, even if we optimistically get 20% more out than we put in.

I think it's BEV's all the way for ground transport, and maybe synthetic fuels for longer distance aviation and shipping, that can't be electrified.

Use the bio-fuel land for RE, food and rewilding.

To give a idea of a scale of the land efficiency problem I was trying to compare Indonesia's production of palm oil with the UK's diesel consumption. Oil palm is the highest yielding oil crop and Indonesia is by far the largest producer, producing almost twice as much as the next largest producer Malaysia. Indonesia produces about 45 million tonnes of palm oil annually.

I couldn't easily find a definitive conversation efficiently of palm oil to biodiesel. Some sources suggest it is very high. Let's be optimistic and assume a tonne of palm oil is equivalent to a tonne of diesel. 

The UK consumes about 20 million tonnes of diesel per year. So very roughly it would take half of Indonesia's production, by far the largest producer, to cover one medium-smallish country's consumption. 

I think that should show why biofuels can't be more than a niche solution.

shinytop

ed110220 said:

Martyn1981 said:

Yep, the low efficiency is, I feel, reflected in that 80-120% figure. Maybe one day, all of the energy inputs will be low carbon, in a 100% low carbon leccy world, that has electrified 'everything'. But that still means using up 80-120 units of clean energy, to produce 100 units of clean energy.

And, of course, to get to that clean energy input, it will require all the road/ground vehicles involved to be BEV, so no demand for the bio-fuels (from road transport) anyway, even if we optimistically get 20% more out than we put in.

I think it's BEV's all the way for ground transport, and maybe synthetic fuels for longer distance aviation and shipping, that can't be electrified.

Use the bio-fuel land for RE, food and rewilding.

To give a idea of a scale of the land efficiency problem I was trying to compare Indonesia's production of palm oil with the UK's diesel consumption. Oil palm is the highest yielding oil crop and Indonesia is by far the largest producer, producing almost twice as much as the next largest producer Malaysia. Indonesia produces about 45 million tonnes of palm oil annually.

I couldn't easily find a definitive conversation efficiently of palm oil to biodiesel. Some sources suggest it is very high. Let's be optimistic and assume a tonne of palm oil is equivalent to a tonne of diesel. 

The UK consumes about 20 million tonnes of diesel per year. So very roughly it would take half of Indonesia's production, by far the largest producer, to cover one medium-smallish country's consumption. 

I think that should show why biofuels can't be more than a niche solution.

Indonesia already makes biodiesel from almost 50% of its palm oil. It's used to mix with mineral diesel exclusively for domestic consumption - no exports.  Currently 40/60 Bio/mineral but rising to 50/50.  

(above according Google AI )   

Definitely not niche for Indonesia but looks like it is in world terms. This seems to be purely a balance of payments/economic initiative rather than an environmental one.