How could the math possibly work out on this? If a gallon of gas holds 33.70 kWh of energy, and you can get cheap electricity for $0.1/kWh, you're looking at $3.37/gallon if you have a magical process that converts with 100% efficiency. Even if you hit your efficiency goal, which would be impressive, who is paying $7/gallon for gas? Just buy an electric car. This can only possibly be useful when all of the oil is gone and there is no other alternative, right?
We expect a gallon of gasoline to require approx. 60 kWh of electrical energy. If the price of that electricity is below 5 cents, the economics work. If the price is lower, the efficiency of the conversion could also be lower if that optimized other costs (like capital). Electricity is routinely below 5 cents now at utility scale (wholesale), which is where we will want to be.
In the long term, electric vehicles may indeed replace ICE cars. That would be awesome. One way to see what we're doing is to make sure the path to that future is good. We can't burn fossil fuels while we wait to replace the existing vehicle fleet with electric cars. By using zero carbon we make sure that we are solving the problem right away.
You might want to focus on jet fuel, since we don't know how to make batteries with sufficient energy density for long range flights and don't know if such energy density will ever become possible.
It might also be worth looking at where airplanes tanker fuel, that is to say, carry more fuel than they need for their current leg because refueling at the next stop would be difficult or expensive. Apparently a lot of that currently happens on short flights to small islands; while I hope Wright Electric and/or the EViation Alice will eventually take over that market, in the short term that's a market that might be willing to pay a bit more for liquid fuel made from air plus local solar panels.
Fuel oil that can be burned in combined cycle power plants in the winter may also be valuable for dealing with seasonal imbalances in demand vs renewable generation that lithium ion batteries can't cost effectively balance.
4.5 is not so much. Gasoline is very energy dense, stores well (especially synthetic) and transports well. This is great - gas will be around for a long time to come - if we can shift the source of it to something better, I'm all for it.
1. Airplanes and boats will still need gas for a while
2. We’ll need to suck carbon out of the atmosphere anyway. So a process like this will be necessary, even if in the end the product needn’t be turned back into gasoline. This will be costly, but it’s the price we pay for all of the fuel we burn currently.
Ah, that certainly explains it. I'm still highly skeptical of how widespread this will ever be, since electric cars will become even more compelling as electricity costs decrease, but you've convinced me to not dismiss this completely as impractical. Thanks for the context.
Batteries still are the main issue with electric cars. The range, charging time and battery life are getting better but still don't match hydrocarbons.
It's just a great storage mechanism.
Storage is also a big issue when it comes to renewables. You could take in carbon in areas with lots of sun and ship the fuel to areas not well suited for solar generation.
This really would be a game changer for lowing the net carbon output.
This also means you could solve one of the big problems in the power grid, peak generation. Use the extra capacity during off peak hours to generate fuel that is later used to fire up power stations to supply peak demand.
But liquids fuels like ethanol are used for MANY more things than just transport – plus the cost of fossil fuels can only go up on any reasonable timeline.
Intermittent renewable energy like wind also drives cost really low sometimes. This could be an alternative to grid-based storage of electricity. Comparison of capital cost and loss and value of the byproduct would be interesting.
No the economics does not work, if you include the "externalities" of that gallon of gas. You are continually creating waste heat and carbon emissions, while using naive reasoning based on Gas Buddy prices.
Solar is already down to $0.065/kWh for industrial applications [1]. That's $3.90/gallon at today's prices, and solar prices continue to fall.
The DOE's 2020 targets came three years ahead of schedule. Their 2030 target is $0.04/kWh [2], which would work out to $2.40/gallon. Mix in the fact that a bunch of countries (and US states) have implemented carbon taxes and you've got yourself a good long term investment.
In the US, gas taxes are low (I think I pay 15 cents per gallon tax on a total of $2.50 per gallon).
Taxes are low as here in the US (a) many people hate taxes and (b) with such a low population density, commerce is very reliant on road vehicles. So raising taxes has an outsized impact on commerce.
About that in parts of Seattle as well. Which is low given a few year rolling average. We should expect gasoline prices to rise, and fast. So anything that starts to look into economically viable options at $7-10/gallon is worth checking into now in a startup phase.
Yes, and that's just until now. Anyone want to bet that we've hit rock bottom in terms of prices, efficiencies, and economies of scale? Or are we going to see another 10x? 0.17$/gallon. 20x?, 0.09$/gallon (rounding up because I'm lazy).
My view is that is more a question of when than if and that the point where it stops mattering relative to the comparison to fossil fuels depending on your point may already be quite near or even in the past.
Some places are still getting expensive solar, some places are bidding at 0.025/kwh. It doesn't really matter. What matters is what the bids will be ten years or so from now, which is when realistically this could start becoming operational at a meaningful scale.
It's 2019. Ramping up production for something like this takes some time. A decade can fly by for a startup like this. Doing the math with 2019 prices and efficiencies means you get a very conservative view of what would be possible now with today's level of technology at today's scale.
However, an investor needs to look a decade ahead. Or longer and assign some probabilities to likely outcomes. The outcome where there's no progress whatsoever in making clean energy tech better in the next ten years seems unlikely. So, betting on < 1$/gallon as a feasible goal in 1-2 decades seems like a reasonable bet. If the rest of the technology works as advertised (room temperature synthesis and extraction of alcohols) and the technology can be scaled at reasonable cost, that ought to be basically a money printing machine. The lower that price drops, the better. As long as oil remains the primary source, you can pocket the difference as profit.
At industrial scales, you can buy electricity much cheaper than $0.1/kWh if you locate your facility in the right place. For example, hydroelectric power near a large dam can cost as little as $0.02 to $0.05/kWh.
I expect I'll see new battery powered aircraft before I see today's aircraft powered by kerosene synthesized from water and carbon dioxide in the air. And we'll probably see more rail/car before then since the massive cost increase on airline tickets from this will destroy the industry.
As the other reply pointed out, without a huge(like 5x) improvement in energy density (specific energy, actually) of batteries, this is physically impossible. Even with improvements, it would still be inefficient as batteries don't lose mass as they are used up - airliners can't even land with full fuel, they have to use it up, or dump it in an emergency situation.
Using a process like this would essentially make the fuel simply a much better battery for airplanes than our batteries today.
There is a good chance we will make jet fuel in the next 2-3 years. There appears to be a lot of demand for it. We're starting with gasoline because it's a much bigger market / impact, but it's not that hard to make jet fuel too.
And if synthesizing jet fuel turns out to be viable, I could easily see governments 10–20 years from now requiring airlines to use it, the way they are for automobiles.
Battery powered aircrafts would require huge jumps in electrical storage. There are no signs of them becoming a reality any time soon. Not to mention the complete replacement of old planes is going to be very very slow.
I don't understand your rail/car replacing flying argument. There are no signs that flying is going to get so expensive that people would rather pay for it with so much of their time.
For comparison, in Sydney, Australia, as of this morning, basic unleaded 91 octane fuel is about AUD 1.35 / litre at best. Which is USD 0.94 at today's exchange rate. Just under USD 4 / US gallon.
Of that, AUD 0.41 is federal fuel excise, and AUD 0.12 is GST.
In Quebec our electricity can be lower than 0.05$ CAD/kWh (3.28¢/kWh based on the Rate L [1]). Our courrent lowest price is 1.384$ CAD/L. So considering that 1L would be 8.9 kWh. So all it would need is an efficiency of 33% to be profitable with an electricity cost of 0.05$ CAD/kWh. That's excluding any tax incentive to do so or any deal made with HydroQuebec to use excess power.
China’s EV goal is 20% of new vehicle sales by 2025. That is to say, 80% of sales in 2025 will still be gas. (So will the 100 million gas vehicles sold in China between now and then). We are a long ways away from not needing this tech.
Don't skate to where the puck is, skate to where the puck is going to be.
Electric cars can't compete against gasoline cars until the price hits about $6/gallon. And considering that crude prices are relatively low, but gas in CA is almost $4/gallon in the Bay Area, it doesn't take much time for normal rates to hit $6/gallon in the next 10 years or so.
At that price, it becomes more economic and that's the time frame probably what they're targeting as well.
What? They compete today with significantly lower fuel cost. You see 100+ mpge on every electric car I know of today, you're looking at half-1/3 the per mile cost in an electric car. That more than makes up for the higher upfront cost over the lifetime of the vehicle, with cars you can go buy right now, today.
I don't know why you got down voted on this. My experience of EV vs ICE (sometimes in the same vehicle - daily driving in a Prius plug-in) agrees entirely with your comment: the lovely EV experience of linear, quiet acceleration is so pleasant compared to driving a petrol car, even an automatic. And my Prius in EV mode isn't even a that great an electric experience compared to that of an i3 or 2018 Leaf.
ICE cars cant compete with convenience of:
* not needing to refuel
* less maintenance needed
* not spewing particulates in air etc (if you care about what you breathe)
I don't know about you. I've driven the last 5 months / 5,000 miles without using a Supercharger once, except for the first day I took delivery just to try it out.
It's there when I need it for the long road trip. But daily life is effectively refueling-free.
What percentage of round-trips are under 200 miles? NHTS recorded the distance from ~750,000 car trips in 2009 and found the 95th percentile is 30 miles, and the 99th percentile is 70 miles. Somewhere on the order of 1 in 1,000 trips needs a Supercharger stop along the way.
I go on vacation a few times a year. Renting a car just for that is more expensive than extra cost of fuel. Not to mention most rental cars won't let me use my truck as a truck (putting rock in the back damages the bed, and a trailer is right out - both things I do only a couple times a year but I still own a truck for just those few times).
IF this is as good as they claim I don't see electric cars as worth it as a first car. They are slightly cheaper for an in-town only commuter car, but the downsides of electric cars (expensive battery replacement, limited range without long recharge times) are something that fans hate to acknowledge. Note that I said first car, once you have decided to have a second car electric is probably better.
Battery replacement is not really a factor under any kind of "normal" use. One Tesla owner driving for Tesloop was able to burn out a battery after extensively (exclusively) Supercharging from low charge to 95-100% charge after about 350,000 miles. Maintenance cost over that time was calculated as $0.05/mile. [1]
With V3 Supercharging, you can drop in with your Model 3 at 15% and be at 80% in 24 minutes. In my road trip experience, that's barely enough time for everyone to use the bathroom and pick out a beverage. [2]
Interesting stats on the battery replacement, but if my family/youth groups/etc. routinely took 20+ minutes for a gas station bio break, there'd be words. Especially if we had to do it every 150 miles (80-15%).
I go both ways on that one. On the one hand I want to get there. On the other hand my doctor wants me to get out and take a 10 minute walk every hour anyway.
Also worth mentioning that 65% of the LR Model 3 is over 200 miles.
So if you are starting the day with 95% charge, and ending the day plugged in at your destination with 15% charge, that means you can travel about 450 miles with just one ~20 minute stop to charge along the way.
How is that not fast enough? The only issue is if you can't plug in at your destination. Maybe in that case you have breakfast near the next Supercharge on your route.
Yes, it is something you might have to think about for a minute. The guidance software will map out Supercharging stops for you.
How long are you waiting in line to get a chance to charge? I've been driving with my friend with a Tesla and he visited 2 places before giving up because the line was too long.
I do expect that they will figure out a reservation system which tracks and queues vehicles en route, like an air traffic controller, to cut down on inefficient ad hoc queueing at the location.
It would be super fun to program such a system, backend and front. Even more so as the cars become increasingly autonomous.
For now at least you can click on the map and see live how many chargers are in use.
But nobody makes trips to the gas station to refuel. Re-fueling is something that's done on the way at a convenient gas bar, and typically takes only 2–3 minutes.
I’m very skeptical about 2-3 minutes. Maybe if you disregard lost momentum and don’t keep track of your mileage or wait for a receipt or have to go around once or twice to find a spot or...
Because I keep track of my mileage and have to carefully babysit the process (likes to overflow) I’d say I lose at least 10 minutes every time I get gas, and that’s every 130 miles or so.
Well, the speed depends entirely on how fast the pump is. Some are faster than others, but I never have to wait for a spot, and printing a receipt takes 5 seconds. Maybe diesel pumps are faster? I sometimes use the truck pumps at freeway service centres, and it comes out like a firehose.
Only 130 miles? Is that normal? My car can easily go 600 miles on a 15 gallon tank (diesel), but I've had it for so long I don't remember what other cars are like.
Now I'm curious how long it actually takes. Next time I fill up I'll time it.
No, 130 is definitely not normal. Theoretically I can go 200, which itself is pretty terrible, but my fuel pump sensor is shot and I just prefer to play it safe.
This is accurate in my experience. Pay at pump takes ~2.5 minutes for the whole process. I note mileage and reset OBC when I do this - included in the time. I typically buy around 50 L.
If the ev car companies got their shit together, they could have used swappable battery packs.
You can wait around for 12h to charge, or you can turn in your cores and pay for 100% capacity batts now. And the swap would be quicker than standing around filling up a tank.
But no. Each ev is different and proprietary. The chargers aren't even the same.
I mean the battery technology for EV companies is their special sauce. If they are all the same that takes away their differentiator. I agree it would be better for customers but it's understandable why that isn't something they want to do.
Much like swappable batteries in a smartphone, there are tradeoffs to such a scheme. And an electrical “pump” is vastly simpler to implement than something that would allow swapping out a car-sized battery.
Sure, but one can argue that a EV could be designed/optimized for faster battery replacement. While it would still need at least a forklift to move the batteries, I believe the time needed for battery swapping could be greatly reduced with a proper design.
I’d much rather have an EV optimized for efficiency, battery endurance, etc. given that battery swaps would only really be useful for long distance road trips.
But you’d still need to have expensive batteries in stock on location, technicians and equipment. I can’t see that ever being done at scale.
Tesla did that for a while. They abandoned the plan. Batteries are big and heavy. It turns out to be far more important that engineers have the ability to fit them around the other parts (suspension...) than the ability to swap a standard battery.
Yep, the batteries are ridiculously heavy and they’re used as structural elements in the car.
So swapping batteries is hard to do, and unnecessary for most drives. Sure, you’d want to be able to swap batteries in five minutes like pumping gas. But who’s going to ship batteries out to the middle of Kansas, build infrastructure, and pay technicians just for people on a road trip who want to swap batteries?
And the national average (today) is $2.95, you might as well compare Hawaii and Alaska which are also economic islands.
>it doesn't take much time for normal rates to hit $6/gallon in the next 10 years or so.
The national average 10 years ago was $2.45, which is $2.90 accounting for inflation. The only way gas hits $6 is if we have a second Great Inflation or massive political changes in the United States and abroad.
That's very US centric though. It's already much higher where I live (Vancouver, just minutes from the US border): $1.70 CAD/L ~= $4.80 USD/gal. I don't think $6 is far off at all in many locations.
