[nyokodo]

> The energy efficiency of converting wind -> electricity -> fuel -> mechanical power has to be less efficient than wind -> electricity -> mechanical power

It depends on how efficient it is to use existing ICE tractors vs creating new electric tractors. If tractors are like other ICE vehicles then something like half the energy they take over their lifetime is used in their production so if you want to get to Net-0 sooner generating carbon neutral fuel might be the way to go.

[ncmncm]

Efficiency is secondary. Cost is primary. As the cost of generator capacity continues on down, people worry less about efficiency. The top-line input, sunshine, is free. So it is a question of capital cost amortized over energy produced.

[nyokodo]

> Efficiency is secondary. Cost is primary.

While the question I was responding to was explicitly about efficiency, you might be right about cost. However, ICE tractors that are already owned along with the capital required for their use and maintenance are potentially a lot more attractive to keep vs new electric tractors. Sunshine might be free but it’s not available in sufficient quantities everywhere with current technology, and all technologies will require ongoing maintenance. With China becoming an untrustworthy trade partner the cost of solar panels will likely rise. If they do I hope they can make affordable efuel so that we make progress either way.

[ncmncm]

Solar panels are produced in many more places, now. (Former-Soviet) Georgia produces a very great number of them, for example, at exemplary prices.

There is plenty of sunshine most places if you can bank fuel during off-season. Finns will probably still need to import from the south or via transmission line if the wind is off -- as they have done for many decades on a more regular schedule.

[nyokodo]

> There is plenty of sunshine most places if you can bank fuel during off-season

Energy storage is woefully insufficient yet to cover days let alone seasons so that is a very big "if."

[ncmncm]

You seem to be saying you think keeping liquid fuel in tanks does not qualify as storage. If that is what you mean, you will need to explain why you think that, because it makes no sense.

If you mean we have not yet built out as much storage as we will ultimately need, because we anyway haven't enough renewable generating capacity built out yet to charge it from, then yes we know. The solution to that is obviously to continue building out renewable generating capacity, and then storage for the excess.

[nyokodo]

> You seem to be saying you think keeping liquid fuel in tanks does not qualify as storage.

I just misread what you wrote. I didn't see "fuel" and thought you were referring to other means of renewable storage. Fuel as an efficient and much less geographically limited means of storage makes a lot of sense.