2025/2026 Hybrid Powerunit speculation

[mzso]

The point is that politics prevents the problem being solved, not the available technology. We could run the entire planet on renewables within 20 years using today's technology if we wanted to. But politics prevents it.

More like people not willing to sacrifice their standard of living. Which would be rather uncomfortable for the majority of people.

[Zynerji]

putting 'renewable electricity directly into the vehicle' prevents some better use ie heating by heat pumps

Using electricity for heating is horrible waste. In this damned day and age there shouldn't be much or any heating. Only superinsulation and proper building design. Even the passive house concept is decades old.

Even ignoring that there's solar thermal. This is an interesting accomplishment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Lan ... _Community

I know some people that spend 4 months a year buried in 60+ inches of snow on their roofs, and only survive with electric heat...

[mzso]

Given the relative efficiencies between synfuels and batteries I would expect that synthetic fuels would be allocated to uses where high energy density is essential rather than nice to have. Aircraft, HGVs, farm vehicles, vehicles for remote locations seem candidates. Cars for general private use aren’t likely to be prioritised except for the category of remote use.

That’s why I think the F1 marketing is wide of the mark. It’s clear a significant proportion of the world car fleet will be fossil fuelled in 2030 but it will be reducing rapidly . Why would the production of synfuel be ramped up to meet a demand that’s disappearing?

I'm somewhat less certain about farm vehicles or large trucks. I think batteries can be made for farm vehicles to work during the whole day. There's enough volume for sure, and no serious weight tolerance.
Truck driving is rather limited by humans, which can only drive for a limited time without having to take a rest.

But airplanes for sure. There's just no credible alternative for electrified airplanes other than fuel cells.

Ultimately I think synthetic/bio or whatever fuel would be a worthy idea for F1 if it's actually economically viable.
But not with ICE. No matter how you look at it it's a waste of up to half or more of the fuel to run an engine. (also noxious gasses inherent to high temperature burning.) So it's not viable when everything is getting electrified.

[mzso]

I know some people that spend 4 months a year buried in 60+ inches of snow on their roofs, and only survive with electric heat...

And some people surely live in caves and burn wood in it to not die of cold. What's your point?
There's always a worse way to do things.

[Zynerji]

I know some people that spend 4 months a year buried in 60+ inches of snow on their roofs, and only survive with electric heat...

And some people surely live in caves and burn wood in it to not die of cold. What's your point?
There's always a worse way to do things.

I see you purposely cut the part of your quote that my statement was targeting...

Using electricity for heating is horrible waste.

Sheer hubris to tell others how to survive...

[mclaren111]

The only reason we are messing around at the edges of what is possible is because of politics. That's it, nothing else. And yes, economics is political too. "It costs too much" is a political objection, not a technical one.

Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

But technology can be changed and adapted. Politics is unchanging and unchangeable. It really doesn't matter who is in power these days.

The point is that politics prevents the problem being solved, not the available technology. We could run the entire planet on renewables within 20 years using today's technology if we wanted to. But politics prevents it.

Agreed... Just be careful of what you say here... I have been wanrned several times not to bring politics to the forum.

[mclaren111]

.... It's much, much, much more efficient (for now) to just put the renewable electricity directly into the vehicle.

putting 'renewable electricity directly into the vehicle' prevents some better use ie heating by heat pumps

Assuming there is only enough energy to do one or the other, of course.

Let's be clear here: renewable energy's problems are not technical, they're entirely political. The amount of renewable energy available is several orders of magnitude greater than the total human energy usage. We could run thousands of Earths' worth of people on the renewable energy available on this one Earth.

The only reason we are messing around at the edges of what is possible is because of politics. That's it, nothing else. And yes, economics is political too. "It costs too much" is a political objection, not a technical one.

Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

Spot On... Just be careful raising politics in the forum...

I have been warned several times now for expressing the same view as you...

[mzso]

I see you purposely cut the part of your quote that my statement was targeting...

I responded to you, not my own comment. Which by the way doesn't change the meaning.

Sheer hubris to tell others how to survive...

That didn't happen, but don't mind that... I just pointed out that it sucks.

[Just_a_fan]

Let's be clear here: renewable energy's problems are not technical, they're entirely political. The amount of renewable energy available is several orders of magnitude greater than the total human energy usage. We could run thousands of Earths' worth of people on the renewable energy available on this one Earth.

Except that it's technical and also (transitively) economical. Sunlight won't magically become the electricity in you home. Renewable is just too costly and problematic.
There's fissile material for millions of years at least. That also stubbornly refuses to fly out of the ground/ocean and become electricity in our grid.

As I said, the argument "it's expensive " is a political one not a technical one. There is enough money in the world but much of it is wasted on things for political reasons. But we can't discuss that on this forum, sadly.

[Just_a_fan]

The point is that politics prevents the problem being solved, not the available technology. We could run the entire planet on renewables within 20 years using today's technology if we wanted to. But politics prevents it.

More like people not willing to sacrifice their standard of living. Which would be rather uncomfortable for the majority of people.

No. It could be done whilst maintaining living standards. In fact it would improve living standards for the vast majority.

[mzso]

As I said, the argument "it's expensive " is a political one not a technical one. There is enough money in the world but much of it is wasted on things for political reasons. But we can't discuss that on this forum, sadly.

It is a technical one. Because people would need to pay for it. Which would translate into reduced standard of living, supposing the economy doesn't collapse. It doesn't just cost money, but a lot of resources and especially, time.
Other things are just less costly. Even nuclear, especially when it's not impaired by bureaucratic overhead.

[mzso]

No. It could be done whilst maintaining living standards. In fact it would improve living standards for the vast majority.

Only when its done. Decades into the future.
Building all that infrastructure and solar/wing generators takes people, time, manufacturing machinery, etc. To the detriment of everything else. It won't magically build itself.

[Just_a_fan]

I'm somewhat less certain about farm vehicles or large trucks. I think batteries can be made for farm vehicles to work during the whole day. There's enough volume for sure, and no serious weight tolerance.
Truck driving is rather limited by humans, which can only drive for a limited time without having to take a rest.

But airplanes for sure. There's just no credible alternative for electrified airplanes other than fuel cells.

Farm vehicles use huge amounts of energy at times. A battery powered tractor pulling a large plough in heavy ground would be depleted in short order, for example. Towing a trailer with some bales on it would be OK, however, as that'd be just like a lorry/truck.

Trucks are a suitable use for EV treatment. At the point the driver takes a rest break, the truck can be recharged. There are infrastructure issues with that, however, but the vehicle itself would be practicable.

Aircraft we agree on. Long range / large aircraft are not going to be EVs. Synthetic fuel might be a good thing for them, partly because you can design the fuel specifically for the use.

[Just_a_fan]

As I said, the argument "it's expensive " is a political one not a technical one. There is enough money in the world but much of it is wasted on things for political reasons. But we can't discuss that on this forum, sadly.

It is a technical one. Because people would need to pay for it. Which would translate into reduced standard of living, supposing the economy doesn't collapse. It doesn't just cost money, but a lot of resources and especially, time.
Other things are just less costly. Even nuclear, especially when it's not impaired by bureaucratic overhead.

Money is not a technical issue. It's a political one. The money is there but the choices of what to spend it on have fallen, so far, elsewhere.

The world, for example, spends $2 trillion/ year on bombs and bullets. Some / all of that could be spent on other things. That it isn't is because of decisions made by governments.

That money, the people employed, the resources use, could all be used on other stuff e.g. world wide renewables.

Like I said, it's not a technical block.

[Just_a_fan]

No. It could be done whilst maintaining living standards. In fact it would improve living standards for the vast majority.

Only when its done. Decades into the future.
Building all that infrastructure and solar/wing generators takes people, time, manufacturing machinery, etc. To the detriment of everything else. It won't magically build itself.

It's not to the detriment of living standards, however. It's about making choices of what is the best use of people and resources. Some people think wasting it on pointless military toys is silly, for example.

Sadly, forum rules prevent us discussing this issue further.