RedNEO wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 21:36
I just can’t follow this line of thought. You are in denial at this point.
Well, that's special. You claim you cannot follow the line of thought, in the next line you apparently
can follow it sufficiently to claim that I am denial. If you really cannot follow the line of thought, maybe you should tone down a bit.
RedNEO wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 21:36
Batteries and Biofuels don’t produce the same emissions.
That's not what I am saying, is it? What I am saying is that both processes
require energy. And yes, energy is energy - it's the same whether you use it to produce biofuels or batteries. In both cases, it matters where you source that energy from. If you can produce biofuels using green energy, then you can also produce batteries using green energy. You just keep on acting if biofuels are produced using green energy
by default, and batteries are never produced by green energy. That simply is not true. If F1 wants to claim their biofuels are neutral, they must offset the CO2 emissions/choose renewable sources in biofuel production. But they could also use EV, and offset the CO2 emissions/choose renewable sources in battery & energy production. Exactly the same thing. Hell, they could keep using gasoline, offset the CO2 emissions of that, and claim carbon neutrality there.
RedNEO wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 21:36
Batteries are dirty to produce and biofuels are not. That’s just a fact!
No, it all depends on how you produce them, and how you deal with the emissions. Biofuels cost quite a lot of energy to make - the EROI (energy-return-on-investment) is typically somewhere between 0.8 and 3, depending on the processing method and source. And EROI of 1 means that you are using 1 kWh of energy to produce 1 kWh of biofuel. In other words, if you would produce that biofuel using solely gasoline, the carbon emissions are as high as that of gasoline. 0.8 is even worse. Especially during the first compulsory biofuel-mixing wave (around 2010), it was quite often found adding biofuel to the mix actually made it more polluting, not less, because the sugarcane was harvested with polluting outdated tractors, and processed in coal-fired facilities. Of course, the situation becomes better if you use renewable energy where possible, but once again.
exactly the same applies to battery production - you can use renewable energy, too.
And they I mentioned the point of other impacts - which you keep ignoring. For e.g. palm oil, displacement of biomass is a huge portion of the environmental impact - including GHG emissions. In other regions, nutrient runoff may be a big issue with lasting impact on biodiversity, and so on. Now, as I said many times, battery production has many secondary emissions, too, in mining etcetera. I do not know if, looking at the total life cycle, batteries + electricity or ICE + biofuels produce more emissions. It most likely depends on the sourcing of the biomass, the type of battery, the sourcing of the electricity, and more factors. But what you do is just discard
all emissions in case of biofuels, and condemn
all emissions in case of batteries. That is not a fair comparison, at all. And that's a fact.
RedNEO wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 21:36
I don’t see why you keep saying batteries can be produced in the same way, they cannot.
I am not saying that. Of course they cannot, they are different things. As GruntGuru says, they are not even part of the same stage of the life cycle. That doesn't mean you cannot compare the energy usage and emissions between them - you need to look at the entire life cycle including all stages to decide which techology does better, after all.
RedNEO wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 21:36
They are not recyclable and don’t come from a renewable source like biofuels.
It's been pointed out to you already that they are largely recyclable, and that recyclability gets better. Recyclability is as much a cost challenge as it is a technical one - as techniques get better (cheaper) and raw material prices go up, recycling becomes more worthwhile. This is also one of the development areas I pointed out to you several times.
And when it comes to the renewable resource part; remember that all the emissions from biofuels that I talked about are
not related to the fuel itself but to its processing. Yes, I understand that the basic idea of biofuels is that for each CO2 you produce while burning, one CO2 is taken back up by the newly growing crops. But then, as said
many times - and ignored by you consistently - there is insufficient biomass to fulfill demands. That a resource is renewable doesn't mean it is abundant.
RedNEO wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 21:36
There is no debate, biofuels are just better at making sustainable carbon neutral fuels than battery production is at making batteries that add to the carbon footprint. Batteries are only good for adding to the carbon footprint and waste footprint.
Well, batteries don't make fuels. But yes, there is a debate on what is better over the total life cycle, if you actually take all emissions into account fairly, and accept that both can be produced with or without green energy. Please keep in mind that at no point I actually claimed that batteries would win this battle, at this time - likely, batteries + electricity are better than poorly sourced biofuels, and worse than properly sourced. But (AGAIN), you also have to look at what developments are likely the coming 20 or so years if you want to decide which one to invest in, so which one wins now is not all that matters. And, as repeatedly pointed out... if there is only 30EJ worth of biofuels to use in a transportation market requiring 150EJ, choices have to be made - and trains aside, consumer cars are the transportation mode least benefitting from long range & high energy density. Even if batteries + energy are more polluting than biofuels, it would still be unlikely biofuels would be used for consumer cars simply because we do not have enough of them.
RedNEO wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 21:36
Biofuels are not a co-product of food production either, I don’t know where you got that from but these second generation bio-fuels don’t even use anything consumed by humans or animals.
I know what second generation biofuels are. The company I work for is involved in making them, as one of the very few players in the world. I don't work in that field myself, but I am aware of how the production process works.
RedNEO wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 21:36
It’s like speaking to a brick wall
You have no idea how many times I wanted to say that to you but did not do so out of sheer decency. Maybe walls need mirrors.
RedNEO wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 21:36
You battery enthusiasts need to realise batteries are beaten and let it go
Mate, I am not a battery enthusiast. I hold a PhD in biochemical engineering. I work for a company active in the field of (amongst others) 1st and 2nd generation biofuels. Now, I am not using this as an argument - I don't want to argue from authority, that's a fallacy. But I do (again) want to indicate that I am reasonably aware of how biofuel processing works. I admit that I am not sufficiently read into the comparative LCAs of electric and biofuel-based transportation, that's why I avoided a quantitative assessment of which option is better, and stuck more with a qualitative reasoning from the perspective of availability and development potential. I am
in favor of biofuels, but I am also realistic in their limitations, especially when it comes to availability (and that is
possible availability, how much we could produce
at best.). Transportation will rely on multiple fuels in the future, I am sure. Electricity, hydrogen ánd biofuels, maybe some synfuels. But with limited biofuels to allocate, it just makes little sense to use them in cars - just as it makes little sense to make planes electric considering the low energy density of batteries.
Now, we keep going in circles. I don't mind watching others do that on sunday afternoon, but in this case it's costing me too much time with too little payback. If you come up with something new, I'll address it. If you keep talking on repeat, I'll leave it at this.