[beat]

That's fascinating. I especially like where he's going on the cost of synthetic gasoline. I'm a little iffy on it (what's the source for CO2 by the ton? Atmosphere?), but if sufficiently cheap solar electricity can generate gasoline straight from the air at a price that rivals fossil fuel, it both solves the storage problem (gasoline is wonderful high density storage), and makes banning fossil fuel via regulation an achievable goal.

[danielweber]

I always ask about synthetic fuels as an alternative to electric vehicles and have never gotten a good answer on it. We already have a huge liquid fuel distribution network built up. Why re-invent the wheel?

[ZeroGravitas]

EVs are simply better, e.g. lack of local pollution, higher efficiency, simpler. Synthetic fuels may have a place for airplanes, long distance trucking, demand management and long term energy storage though

[beat]

Cost. Synthetic fuels are very expensive. The ethanol industry sucks - it's just a fancy crop subsidy.

[epistasis]

That's a biofuel, not a synthetic fuel. The difference being biological process versus a chemical synthesis process.

BTW, I accidentally downvoted you, did not mean to! Sorry for the loss of an internet point. It wasn't mean to discourage your comment.

[beat]

Synthetic fuels have it even worse, I think, in terms of cost. Unless we can get a really cheap form of electricity that is clean (solar) and connect it to a process that it more efficient than simply growing corn (or other biomass), then synthetic fuels will have the same problem. They can't be cost-competitive with fossil fuels without massive subsidy.

[epistasis]

Yeah, I agree. Making hydrogen, the first step for pretty much any synthetic fuel, is exceedingly inefficient. That means that transmitting electricity long distances is usually going to be much more cost-effective than making liquid fuels.

But I think that as electricity gets cheaper and cheaper, and as fossil fuels have a pigovian tax levied on them, that eventually synthetic or biofuels will be more cost effective than fossil fuels. Electricity is going to get super cheap, and there's going to be times when supply outpaces demand. If the electricity would go to waste otherwise, something that's 40% efficient may be a good use of it.

[ars]

> what's the source for CO2 by the ton?

Coal. Using it like this you avoid all the pollution problems (all the impurities are captured inside the process and not simply emitted).

True you still emit some extra CO2, but that vast majority of the energy content of gasoline does not come from the coal, it's added from the solar power.

So even though you do still emit CO2, as a percentage it's much more minimal.