Porsche says synthetic fuel can be as clean as EVs - Autoblog
They can be used in internal-combustion engines with no modification.
www.autoblog.com
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Would I have to switch from Mobil 1 to Mobil 120?or electricity in a drum if you prefer.
They'd probably call it Mobil 0.Would I have to switch from Mobil 1 to Mobil 120?
I'm with @blacksheep-1 to a large degree. While it's cool and a good thing to look at future alternatives. Forcing the masses to subsidize technology for the sake of technology or further heads of state political careers is questionable.
Germans pay about 2X the price we pay for electricity for example. Why? Because their government went headlong into alternative sources and decades later they still can't figure out how to make it economically feasible. If you drive around Germany (Not quite as fast as you think they do) You'll see Wind turbines all over the place and you will notice that most of them are not spinning, even on windy days. Apparently, it's really hard to regulate the energy produced by the turbines and they end-up feathering them instead of trying to deal with the variances, a lot. Meanwhile they pay for both those white elephants + the conventional stuff needed to actually power the grid = 2X the price on electricity.
Likewise our good 'ol US ethanol fuel it takes more fuel to grow the corn than what is produced... I would not be surprised to see that the German synthetic fuel consumes more electricity to create than the equivalent KW produced by the engines it powers...
I believe that ethanol was more about having the public subsidize farmers directly than it is about emissions. A powerful farm lobby got it done with the help of the environmentalists. So long as people are driving cars that burn gas, it's a guaranteed source of income for farmers. The money is effectively a tax on consumers, collected by oil companies and routed through them to farmers. Meanwhile, the government can stand back and claim that it's not a tax or a subsidy, it's just a regulation. Consumers pay more, farmers make more and government congratulates itself on a shell game well played.Ethanol is/ was a joke, they do however have good lobbyists which is why they were successful into railroading that stuff in. Now don't get me wrong, ethanol/methanol is a good fuel for certain applications, but it is almost impossible to keep water out of it. From a firefighting standpoint, it is a nightmare, since it cannot be shipped by pipeline, (or if it is, requires a dedicated ethanol pipeline, so short distance only) like most oil/gasoline products. It has to go either by railcar or truck, and then is mixed into the fuel at the distribution point, this creates it's own set of issues since the truck/rail uses fuel to distribute it. This stuff, by itself, also does not go out very easily if it catches fire. Lastly the Indycar E98 has enough gasoline (2%) to ignite it, but then has all the attributes of an alcohol fire on steroids.
this is a pretty good article, and it quotes Williams Fire out of Texas, which is an industry leader in industrial firefighting such as oil well fires, etc, they are great to work with.
The only place I se for ethanol fuel is around farm country to power the local vehicles, or like Brazil, where their main export is sugar, and they have a large amount of material to create ethanol. So for large fuel markets, it's a no habla.
Ethanol fuels fire concerns (nbcnews.com)
The document actually makes my point, and very clearly: "Ethanol producers in the United States generate around 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol each year, most of which is derived from corn [...] and crops grown solely for energy purposes [...] Our agricultural community especially stands to benefit"Not so much a shell game. Renewable, less pollution and carbon Neutral. Runs cooler. Has run race cars since the 50’s.