Synthetic Fuels: A BETTER Alternative To Electric Cars? 

None of this is going to deal with the biggest problem all cars face - spiders living in your wing-mirror housings, if someone can fix that I'd be so happy :)

The biggest advantage of synthetic fuel however, is that you can put it in all of those existing cars. You do not have to throw them away, which would be very bad for the environment. Also imagine how long it would take for continents like africa to make the switch to electric cars

Am I wrong or is it true that less than 10% of CO2 comes from cars. Most comes from ships, planes and industry. And nobody is talking about that.

Fair enough. I just want all V8, V10, V12 and W16 to last and if this is the technology that will aid this, I'm ALL for it. Humans are incredible and I'm confident we'll find many solutions to our problems.

I see non-dino juice fuels (and not just this synth stuff, but also ethanol, biomass, refuse fermentation, etc) as a good way of keeping existing cars running, rather than it being a fuel for future vehicles. And I'm intrigued by Toyota's investment in hydrogen, both combustion and fuel cells. I'd also like to see BEV conversions become far more easily available, so we're not discarding perfectly good vehicles that've already stamped their "manufacturing footprint" into the Earth. Ultimately, I think we need to not focus on any one "save the planet" energy source, and instead look at all the possible options and see if and when they can be used. Perhaps even combining them when and where appropriate.

I don't want synthetic fuel to erase electric cars, I just want it to keep petrol cars alive side by side with the electric ones

So I work in the power industry at a gas power station so get to see what actually happens in making energy for the country and move. First off, the biggest issue isn’t just making electricity, it making the correct amount of electricity to suit demand - what I mean by this is the amount of electricity needed isn’t a static number and will change over the day and night, in fact there is normally too much electricity being produced at night for the demand so companies will get paid to run at night to use up electricity to protect the grid. In these circumstances we need to find a way of storing the electricity until it’s needed. There are a number of pumping stations in the U.K. that will pump water from the bottom reservoir to the top reservoir when there is low demand and then let the water full back down through a water turbine to produce electricity on demand. The issues are limited amount of electricity can be produced at a time, large areas of the land scape will need to flooded for the two reservoirs and they are normally in the wrong location to demand. The other way would be to use batteries as the storage of electricity to supply grid when needed, again lots of pros and cons that are discussed in electric cars. With any substantial electrical energy from wind or sun the big elephant in the room is that they to not operate all the time or 24, you don’t get power cuts when the wind isn’t blowing (and they because our site would get turned on to top up the grid for the day). What might surprise you is that we also run if it’s the wrong type of wind or too windy to help to control the hertz of the electricity produced. What we are looking into doing is using sustainable product energy to produce hydrogen when there is low demand on the grid to be able to run the power station off the hydrogen when there is little or no wind. There is even projects in the U.K. to run carbon capturing equipment off of the wind farms. And the last thing to know is even if in the U.K. we go down the green sustainable methods we import electricity from other parts of Europe through under water cables, there are lots of electricity being produced in Europe cheaper than what can be produced in the U.K. but not always greener (Poland with it coal power stations).

Well apart from Chile, nuclear plants are also pretty clean and sustainable, especially if we figure out in future what to do with the nuclear waste (right now it's just being stored). So you could make synthetic fuel pretty much anywhere, although hydrogen is probably better.

There's still hope for synthetic fuels because it's still early days for it. Other companies such as bosch are looking into developing there own synthetic fuels. Synthetic fuels will be developed for motorsports (f1 etc) and other car makers for example mclaren and mazda support synthetic fuels.

All this talk is very good, because if we just leave it to those wanting to make money out of selling us something through clever marketing, and the consumer who is well known for following fashion and the cults then we won't come up with the best solution's. It should not become a war of EV versus ICE. We do need to keep our minds open to all alternatives.

...then we all go buy 911s problem solved

All the F1 Teams are working on this, they say they will have a viable zero emissions solution in the next three years.

You appear to only be counting the emissions from the exhaust, no mention of the emissions involved in getting the oil out of the ground and to the petrol pumps, this bit always gets forgotten.

The problem with electric cars is that they're very resource intensive, even if the energy generated to power them is green (over 30% of manmade emissions are from energy production, so if we broke the ignorance against nuclear and built more nuclear power plants we'd chop a large chunk of emissions immediately). -Even if we went to nuclear power (the cleanest energy we have), that doesn't solve the transmission issue. Our power grid can barely handle hot summers and solar flares, we're insane if we think it can sustain even 50% EV adoption. Full EV adoption would call for more substations and transmission lines, meaning millions of tons more of metal to be mined (lemme remind you of the massive carbon footprint of the mining process, in addition to the toxic metals and chemicals often released into the atmosphere and groundwater as a result). -Speaking of metals to be mined, that leads to the next issue with EVs: the batteries. Lithium batteries require lots of lithium, copper, cobalt, etc to be mined in order to build them. The lithium mining being bad enough, the cobalt is much more finite to source, and most of it comes from a small little African nation that takes advantage of child labor and slave labor, to which the other nations of the world cast a blind eye because they want that cobalt to keep flowing. -By the way, did I mention we still don't have a cost effective way to recycle the batteries? All that money and resources that goes into building a single battery pack, and it will still ultimately end up in a landfill before you've even gotten half of the expected mileage from the car. Don't expect it to biodegrade anytime soon.......... It may sound like I'm nitpicking, but I'm just a pragmatist, and if the whole point of EVs is to reduce our environmental impact then they get a failing grade. EVs in their current iteration only shift the problem, and will need to come a LONG way before they're actually a solution. Anyone who thinks EVs are a modern solution are the same people who think wind and solar are viable sources of sustainable energy, the type of people who respond more to spectacle than hard facts or data. The way I see it, the best thing we can do right now is switch to nuclear power, knock out up to a third of our emissions, and once we're on cheaper and cleaner energy, work on synthetic fuels that are less intensive on limited resources

The discussion is a bit biased, you can use lots of wind energy in Chile. Namibia sun energy, Mongolia, Kasachstan?. Chile doesnt need hardly as much energy it can possibly win from its land. Namibia is huge and hardly populated. That is the target for many governments. And you can still use small elecrtric car solutions for the cities. The problem being... more and more third world people buy cars, and it wont be electric vehicles... there is no sufficient infrastructue for it. Synfuels can be a solution, Hydrogen as well. And the high energy consumption for producing huge batteries is completely not mentioned. A big electric vehicle has already used up as much fossile energy as the same size diesel engine after 120.000 km when it comes out in the marker. Propaganda for Tesla comes in all shapes and forms. I didnt own a car for more then 13 years, using company cars, rental cars, public transport and bike, walking. In the USA you get arrested for walking the non existent pavements in the southern states, and public transport is much to wish for.

Yes there's nowhere near enough synthetic fuel capacity to feed all cars at present. However there's nowhere enough electricity generative capacity available to be able to replace all cars with EVs either. And even if there was, the whole grid and distribution network would have to be rebuilt and expanded to cope with the demand.

Re efficiency: the last step is the least efficient of them all - the internal combustion engine. After you've gone through all the problems of making and transfering your synthetic fuel you then go and convert 3/4 into heat just to use the last 1/4 to actually move the car!!

We need a balance of synthetic,ev, hydrogen,not putting all your eggs in the same basket

Funny but not only is your first featured airline Canadian, but so is Air Transat. We Canadians are such small players in that game that I feel confident you're not placing any inordinate blame on us. But what I really want to say is, Rory, you are an incredible communicator. You're not stealth-reading from a teleprompter, you're looking straight at us & giving us the goods in the most cogent manner, and, just as you signed off with a "Love you," this is why we love you right back.

Hi, As I am working on the topic, I can say that there is several mistakes in what you say, sorry... Some of them; many ways exist to produce synthetic fuels, not only the one you describe. An electric car can easily be more GHG emitting, for instance, in Poland because it generates more GHG to build the electric car than a petrol engine car then the effiency makes the emitted GHG in Poland higher than burning petrol. But, of course, that is not true everywhere. There is also another way to produce electricity; geothermic as they do in Iceland, not as far as Chili. It is important to understand that a car is not a problem on GHG only, it is also by its tires turned to plastic particles on the road and by the brakes emitting polluting particles too. Whatever, you are right by saying that synthetic fuels will never allow to continue the business as usual... But electric cars neither.

It's amazing to me that people haven't really cottoned on that Synthetic Fuel is just a pipe dream for the everyday driver. Well explained in laymans terms by the way Rory. If people think the Electric charging infrastructure is bad at the moment they should take a look at the state of Hydrogen refuelling. Now that really is dire......

Another well communicated and intelligent video. I've still got a couple of 1930s motorcycles and I hope that in 30 or 40 years time there will be fuel for the (though I doubt I'll be riding them). Hopefully, what we'll see is a return to the 1900s when petrol was bought from the local chemist shop!

The main issue is if we do go all electric, from replacing gas boilers, tech, cars all these things attached to the electric grid ect. 1) Can our infrastructure handle all that load 2) Can sustainable energy keep up with demand, without wrecking nature I.e solar/wind farms everywhere? 3) More demand for batteries would require more energy to extract raw materials 4) What happens to all the batteries when they come to the end of their lifecycle, would recycling facilities have the capacity and the ability to recycle as much material as possible due to the rise? 5) What happens if energy companies decide to hike up electricity prices worse than what they are now because they decide fossil fuels are no longer a competition? I think until fusion power becomes a reality which I think we are about 2 decades away. I think we have very shortsightedness in my opinion, to think batteries and renewable energy is going to be our hail Mary to our energy crisis is an understatement. These are the kind of questions we need to be asking ourselves.

Missing the carbon cost of replacing every combustion car on the planet to be a electric car this is massive. Synthetic fuel would keep them on the road

You could convert cars to use natural gas or nh3 (ammonia) fuel. Hydrogen needs to be stored very cold to fuel. NH3 if tank rupture is a death trap if you breathe it in higher concentrations. They have created a fleet of commercial freight trucks to use NH3 ammonia.

Rory, Rory, Rory. Don’t be so negative. The technology is quite young at the moment. If it develops at the same rate that EVs have in the last 20 years, it can succeed. All we need is a lot of diligence and tenacity

I wish governments and fuel companies would jump on to this versus EV’s. It would help bring costs down plus ALL existing gas/petrol cars can run on this. No need to replace vehicles or worry about mining for battery material

I think synthetic and carbon neutral fuels could have a place in the heavy goods vehicles and buses going forward. They need to travel far and run for long periods throughout a day, so EV isn’t going to work. But let’s see what F1 produces for their next generation carbon neutral fuel for 2025. They made a lot of noise about its being capable for adoption throughout the automotive sector and potentially beyond to other types of vehicles. If only there was more exploitation of the immense potential of solar and hydroelectricity, we colui have more than enough nearly zero-emissions electricity to feed power stations, charge EVs and shut down stupid coal burning power stations. You just need to minimise the effect on the eco-system.

Perhaps it could be something that is used to keep classic cars going in the future with a bit of work

How are you going to produce the needed electricity if everyone switches to EV's? We should use all kinds of green energy we can. Focusing only on one is wrong.

The point of synthetic fuels is to have higher energy density in the fuel. This is important on planes and ships. Batteries or hydrogen itself takes too much space (hydrogen) or weight ( batteries). Using these fuels would make the transport of stuff less efficient because the amount of load you can carry decreases while there is less space or more weight. Planes and ships are really dependent on specially weight. They sink/stay on ground if there is too much weight. This is where synthetic fuels come in with higher energy density.

I learnt plenty, thanks Rory. I’d like to hear more about Hydrogen power and why this doesn’t seem to be taking off as a complimentary technology for transport alongside pure electric.

Given that the RAF today demonstrated a synthetic fuelled prop trainer in flight today..... Make up your mind

Didn't mention it takes years to offset the e.v production... if the argument of e.v enthusiasts is "well we'll just have fully renewable energy to charge our cars" the same can be said for synthetic fuels.

5:40 Yes, but you don't have Battery Degradation and replacement with petrol. Not to mention all the mining and refinement required for battery production. Which some have argued is just as bad as fossil fuels in the first place. Sooo.....

I truly believe that the whole point is to have options, EVs will need a ton of electricity to be charged and we don't have the infrastructure to handle nor to produce it without risking many blackouts a year since its something we already have issues with once in a while, the same its for the synthetic fuels, but might be used for airplanes and ships, and hydrogen to cover another part of the demand , and use solar panels installed on EVs, trains boats trucks etc so to reduce the amount of electricity we need to produce. think we should figure out which means of transport needs what, and have as many options as possible so to produce in as many places as possible without put too much stress on the systems especially in the first bit of the transition.

I don't care about the energy source of my car, I just want to be back driving after max. 10-15min of recharging for at least 400-500km . The batteries in the current form don't offer sucht thing, and I don't want to be forced to rely mostly on dead times for charging. This is the reason why I dismiss the electric cars in their current form.

I'd love a professional comparison and the history of all wheel drive systems. How they came along, how they changed and what the differences of them are today in modern everyday SUVs with the pros and cons. Maybe with some tossing SUVs into real live situations. Just a thought. Thank you for the video and love from Germany :)

I absolutely agree that synthetic fuels is better than EV because A. Nickel mining destroys the environment B. You will still need to produce the battery C. 85% of Electricity that is in the market is fossil fuel or oil Meanwhile synthetic fuels if engineering could make it, someone could make a machine that absorbs CO2 then it makes the stuff.

Thanks for the video. Somehow you forgot the CO² output and recourse usage making new electric cars to replace regular cars.

You get it Rory, Synthetic fuels as well as hydrogen, and even electricity are what we call energy vectors. You don't find then in a usable form in nature, you need to transform it from a primary source of energy, such as wind, sun, nuclear or fossil fuel. The thing with synthetic fuels and why they are attractive is their energy density. Like crude oil they concentrate a lot of energy and can be used by planes, car or ships to go further with less volume. And even if the efficiency of the process to make them is pretty poor at the moment, they might still be useful for a few specific applications like you mentioned, planes. Just to say that this issue isn't easy and won't be solved with a magic wand.

Awesome video Rory! It feels like the future will be a combination of many of these technologies. There is space for everything. New vehicles? Probably BEV, great! Trains and ships? Hydrogen Fuel cells, awesome! Older cars and classics? Synthetic fuels, bring it on! The more the merrier, as long as the seed power comes from renewables/nuclear we’re good.

It was my understanding their aim was to EVENTUALLY, create a synthetic fuel that, whilst did release carbon into the atmosphere, it would only output the same carbon into it as an EV would in terms of energy used from an non-renewable source for the EV and renewable for the fuel production. We are not quite at those levels yet, evidently.... So whilst it does create extra steps, if we can create a synthetic fuel for HGV/SHIPs and aircraft to run on and do it in sufficient quantaties its most likely viable. Planes cannot run on current batteries, even if they were 20 or 30 times more energy dense they could only fly 10ths of what they can on current fuel. I don't know if hydrogen fuel cells are on option on planes either, again weight issues. If we source the electric from renewables and emit 80% or more, less carbon then its worth pursuing, massive undertaking or not, these oil companies need to invest in every avenue.

You can take the shade you're throwing on synthetic fuel and cast it likewise on electric. You've some massive suppositions in the copy you're reading. Also, newsflash: CO2 is not a pollutant.

@ 1:36, "... and that process of combustion releases HYDROCARBONS.".... Umm, NOPE, you got it BACKWARDS.

The efficiency difference between eVs and ICE cars is also a major factor and is also why hydrogen fuelled cars are doomed.

Can you, if not already covered in a previous explainer, look at how green are the batteries used in electric vehicles, and what is being done about recycling at the end of their lives. My diesel GT golf is now at 200k + miles, and i would love to move to electric, but it feels like we are swapping 1 environmental problem for another in the future.

One litre of petrol produces 2.37KILOS of carbon? Do you mean GRAMS? Also, it's a bit confusing when you are comparing the half billion LITRES of synth with 100bn GALLONS required for air transport. The real comparison is 0.5bn litres versus 454bn litres so Porsches output wouldn't even come near to solving the problem. Otherwise, I love your reviews, always the most entertaining reviewer on YT (or TV!)

He suggested using wind, waves and solar for fuel production. He forgot to mention that nuclear power could also be used. On-demand power 27/4, and no CO2

As a chemical engineer, I have been working on aspects of synthetic fuel manufacturing (not the whole chain of chemical processes necessary, but on one), and can therefore talk with a decent level of first-hand information. I will present a quick-and-dirty energy accounting comparison between an ICE car running on synthetic fuel and an EV. Let's start by laying the hypothesis that every bit of power needed is generated by 100% renewable sources, so as to take out the discussion of the CO2 footprint of any one grid. Let's also state that the amount of chemical energy contained in one liter (works also gallons) of synthetic fuel is 100 units. The sum of the chemical processes necessary to produce that liter of synthetic fuel is 50% efficient. Actually, it is today much worse than that, but let's suppose the technologies improve. So, you need 200 units of renewable power to produce your liter of fuel. To which you have to add 5-10% loss to transport and distribute the fuel. Let's be optimistic and say that you need 210 units to produce 1 liter of fuel IN YOUR CAR'S TANK. But that's not the energy that you, as the consumer, consumes, but rather mechanical energy of the wheels of your car, making it move. The tank-to-wheel real-world average efficiency of a modern ICE car is around 25%. So, you need 210 units of renewable power energy to get 25 units of mechanical energy moving your car. Ca. 88% of the starting energy is hence wasted by going the synthetic-fuel route. Now to the BEV. Let's start with 100 units of the same renewable power as before. 5 units are lost in grid transport. We are down to 95. 10% is lost in the process of charging the EV's battery. We are down to 85.5. The engine-transmission train is at least 90% efficient, we are down to 77. Let's account for electric system consumption (car computer, heating, some parasitic losses, ...) of around 5% of the battery; we are down to a final amount of around 73 units of mechanical energy reaching the wheels. So, in the BEV case, we start with 100 units of renewable power, and end up with ca. 73 units moving your car. Only 27% of the starting energy is hence wasted in the case of a BEV. BEVs therefore use precious 100% renewable power no less than 6 TIMES MORE EFFICIENTLY than an ICE car running on synthetic fuel. Actually, it is even worse than that, as the BEV regenerates electricity when going downhill or breaking, while an ICE car obviously does not. If that was not enough, synthetic fuel has two further big disadvantages: - When combusted, it emits exactly as much NOx and nanoparticles as dino juice. So air pollution is not alleviated, only the net generated amount of CO2. - The chemical processes to produce it are very expensive. Count on paying your synthetic fuel $10-20/USG! (rough guesstimate... but synthetic fuel will be A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE than present day's gasoline!) Conclusion: Forget synthetic fuel for any road transport. For long-range aviation use, the jury is still out.

Like you did for the energy will be good the people to do the same exercise for the EV. The analysis of the environment impacts should be made to the beginning till the end of their live. Currently the environment impact of producing all the components + all the years/efforts required to "make disappear" all again is much higher that an internal combustion car. Let's be realistic, at the stage a EV is not greener than a regular car.

90% of people can use electric cars every day with the right infrastructure, myself included, but I would love synthetic to work for the 10% to allow people like me to use I.C.E. For the weekend

I was interested in this synthetic fuel and this video clearly answered all the questions i had! Thank you again guys this was informative

Well argued video . If you start with 100kWh of Green electricity and produce hydrogen , compress it , store it, transport it ,put it in a car ,use a fuel cell etc you get back 19kWh for transport. Direct electrification gets back 70% . This process can't be any more efficient. For personal transport it is utterly wasteful even to use hydrogen as we would need to build three times the amount of turbines and solar panels !!! Need to keep hydrogen for things that are hard to directly electrify.

When I was a kid, the biggest issue was all the drilling for oil. Wouldn't this at least eliminate this or greatly reduce it? Added benefit is that we can mostly keep existing engines and infrastructures. Eventually we can find a cleaner source for power but for now it kinda solves a lot of issues.

It makes sense. Move most cars to electric, and use synthetics for niche ICE classics of sporting historical or scientific interest. It's a bit pointless to use electricity to manufacture fuels on a mass basis when instead it can simply go in batteries

A report published a couple of weeks ago, by no less than Volvo, reported that some EVs produce 70% more emissions during their production process than that of an ICE car. It also stated that it would take around 70k miles before those extra emissions were negated and the EV became 'carbon neutral'. You can't defy the laws of physics, energy has to come from somewhere. Over the past few weeks, the weather in this country has been calm and is becoming colder and it's getting darker. Our renewables have ground to a halt, the turbines are not going round and the solar has no sun.....just at the time people need more power for light and heating. What is going to be the priority, living like civilised human beings, or keeping the economy going by diverting power to car charging stations and living in the cold and the dark? EVs are not the answer!

I hope synthetic fuel works out. I just want the sweet sound of that V8-V10 around till I buy my first sports car. 😭

12:12 we'd have to replace a lot of transport. We need a mixed approach to our energy woes that won't be a burden to 97% of people. We can use hydrogen plants to create this stuff for petrol cars while converting diesel engine to vegetable diesel. Maybe when we get over our fears of nuclear we can even use that until we transition comfortably to all electric. Besides, the way we currently use lithium is unsustainable as well. We poison our groundwater with the waste and we have yet to improve our recycling of it.

Loved this video. HIF Global in Chile developed the tech for synthetic gasoline, and it is awesome. Global production might save a few cars, but hydrogen fuel cells are the future of heavy transport. In the interim, my company can make 600 litres of renewable diesel from a tonne of biomass at a wholesale price of $us 1.00 a litre. Like HIF, we are moving to full production in Australia.

It's crazy to think that vehicles that run on liquid fuels will be seen as exotic some 40 years from now! Maybe. Probably.

Overall great video, but Porsche aren't the only ones pushing this idea, perhaps only the loudest. See for example BMW announced an investment in Prometheus Fuels; Bentley and McLaren have advocated synthetic fuel; etc.

Great video. I've done a fair amount of research into synthetic fuels and Bio-fuels. In 2016 I started a Bio Fuel company (long story) and spent 2 solid years doing research - and you are correct - Synthetic fuels are Not going to save the ICE automobile.

A very thorough and concise explanation. It mirrored by understand when Porsche first mentioned the investment in synthetic fuels in Chile. It's really for Porsche and Porsche owners to consume the fuel and pay the likely high cost as a result. And that's fine... nothing is equal in this world. Alas, I've already reconciled the move to EV's and I will maintain my vintage car for the occasional backroad excursions. But as the owner of an EV as well, I find it's better suited to commuting duties. Now, that manual-shifting EV conversion on the Porsche 356? I could do that. 🙂

Wait, 1kg of fuel = almost 3kg of CO2?? HOW MUCH AIR does get mixed with this one kg of fuel to create 3KG of CO2?

use nuclear power, as its the cleanest way of producing electricity

This video was very informative , thanks Rory!

Great video. Should only add how inefficient ICE's are. From all that energy only 20% will then be used for kinetic energy. The rest is wasted heat.

The CO2 for synfuel can come from a biofuel source, such as a wood gasification power plant, or a natural source like a lake in the Rift Valley.

Hi Rory, interesting video which explains the issues really well so thanks. I enjoyed watching it. Q? When you do reviews especially of ev's why don't you include the tech such as how well the adaptive cruise or lane keeping assist works?

Synthetic fuels have a whole host of barriers for mass adoption. One, they are still a smaller batch product and most car manufacturers that are talking about using the tech is in the context of super cars and high end sports cars. Like hydrogen, the electricity requirement is a huge problem. To actually reach a point where this system is close to environmentally friendly we need to have already moved away from fossil fuel power. That issue is in some ways also faced by EVs, but in a different way. Another issue is that for what I understand, synthetic fuels are not carbon neutral. Most claims suggest they can reduce car emissions by 85%, meaning a continued release of green house gasses.

11:50 - no, you can't just stop at hydrogen and use that as a fuel - it has to be compressed (and cooled) and transported to be useful. Those additional steps are also incredibly wasteful of green electrons. Jeez - just put the green electrons on wires (that already exist) and store them in batteries - cut out the middle man (men, crowd).

You might as well say the same for solar panels which are made from burning coal. Electric cars which are powered by the grid which in turn is powered by various fuel types.

You can always just use nuclear as power to make electricity for the synthetic fuel plants. Transport boats can use nuclear also.

Don't sit on that fence. An EV (according to Volvo) is 15% better for the environment than an Ice car after 200k. So if we can make an ice car 25% more efficient we are in a good place, no huge expense on infrastructure (pumps or chargers, and don't forget the environmental cost for doing so), no need for range anxiety, no need for a change in habit

Rory, I love your reviews of electric cars. I’m planning to get one within a year or so. But I would much rather have a plug-in hybrid with a range of 80 or 100 miles electric with a petrol engine generator to give it another maybe 200 miles. It would be so much more practical, and if there’s ever enough synthetic fuel produced by renewable electricity then it would be a carbon neutral powered car. It was strange that you mentioned Chile as a good country to produce synthetic fuel. It can be produced anywhere that has abundant renewable electricity, mainly wind, which would be the best source. Also you should look up what they are doing in Iceland, which has internal combustion powered vehicles already using carbon neutral synthetic fuels. Next time you cover this topic please invite some engineers and other experts who know a lot about synthetic fuels, or provide links for your viewers so they can learn more about this very important topic. There is a lot to it, and it’s not just about cars.

We need more trees 🌳 they'll eat up the co2

If you are using electrolysis to generate o2 h2 why go create synthetic diesel... Just use h2 fuel cells.

If you haven't already watched it, check out the interview video on here with the CEO of Prometheus Fuels. I'm very hopefully that these smart, modular, low energy systems will make synthetic fuels totally viable and make EVs redundant. Given that Volvo have been open and honest in the energy usage of producing EVs, saying that they would need to drive 70k miles or so just to match the environmental cost of a new ice car, EVs battery tech needs to develop massively to match current ice convenience and range.

What seems to be overlooked when talking about electric cars is the environmental damage caused by making them (considerably greater than petrol or diesel cars) and what about the toxic burned out battery at the end of a car’s life.

Good video. Hydrogen fuel cells may have a place in aviation and shipping but for cars etc rather than using the green electricity to create hydrogen why not just put the green electricity straight into a battery-electric vehicle, it's just more economically viable.

There is one thing I would like to know, and it concerns classic cars (like mine) that have little value in any way, shape or form other than to their owners. For example, I have a 1991 Nissan Micra K10. Even though it's an absolute minter, with under 40k miles, it is not worth much financially, and really it's just an 80's/90's motorised shopping trolley. But one that I happen to have a great deal of affection for. Obviously I am far from being the only one in that situation. Not all classics are exotica to be drooled over. So the question is, in the long term am I going to be able to keep my Micra as Nissan intended, or will I have to at some point go for an electric conversion? I think a limited supply of synthetic fuel would help to keep classics running in their standard form.

You didn't talk about Team Japan which comprises of Toyota, Subaru, Mazda and two motorcycle companies. They're working to preserve their ICE cars.

"Diesel and petrol...." That sort of wording has always bothered me, because "petrol" sounds short for "petrol...EUM," and diesel fuel IS petroleum just like gasoline is, but just at a different level of refinement. So when someone says "petrol" vs. "electric," I'd like to think of "petrol" meaning _both_ diesel and gasoline. That's how I wish they would really say it all the time, and just say "gasoline" for that like we here in the USA do. That's what makes actual sense.

Great video, but it omitted some important arguments. Firstly, there's not enough lithium to make all cars BEV, let alone trucks, ships, planes,... So other energy solutions and further new battery technologies are required. Secondly ICE H2 engines are being developed, see Toyota next gen Prius. Synthetic fuels were only/mostly intended for converting legacy ICE engines as this doesn't require massive changes in the supply chain. And it's a way to reduce CO2 in an older fleet, which is important considering the average are of a car on the road is 10 years old. Final thought, there's indeed no debate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But there's still a massive debate how potent a GHG it is, as most of the warming potential is from positive feedback which are theorized only not proven.

There must be reasons why Toyota haven't gone full EV yet,it would seem they're backing hydrogen.Elon Musk i believe said himself even for the UK to completely convert to EV's,the raw materials to make all the power cells isn't available based on current tech.

There's over 1.5 billion petrol car running around the world all these car switching to electric is super hard buy if they found clean fuel that will be the choice for alot of people and countries , electric car need infrastructure and building infrastructure is super expensive but for petrol car the infrastructure is already there

Adding to your last points, if you have 100% green electric power, for synthetic fuel if you have 80% efficiency for the first two reactions, you also have the 50% efficiency for burning it(then mechanical loses). So you have made use of 30% of that original electrical energy. With hydrogen you could make use of 60-80%. But with an electric car you can make use of 100% of that energy with no extra cost. That’s the issue, they will always be worse than electric cars but are still a worth while investment to replace current fuels.

Excellent analysis. I'm one of those who aren't keen on EVs as they are: the total carbon footprint in their manufacture is high, the range is generally poor, they're extremely expensive, and the infrastructure is appalling, particularly in rural areas. I like the idea of clean vehicles, but if we can clean up our act with existing vehicles, investment in better synthetic fuels must be worth a try. I did like the Mirai hydrogen cell concept, but it's a very energy consuming process. We're all in for a milk float future, by the looks.

just use nuclear power plants for the energy

Here is the thing: Synthetic E-fuels will be made where the renewable electricity is super cheap or even free. At least 10x cheaper than what you and I pay in electricity at home. Without taxes or with subsidies it could become competitive very soon if you look how fast the prices of renewables is falling (and the main cost is actually the electricity!) And most of the infrastructure is there already. Also, paying $30 or $10 to refuel/recharge your vehicle doesn't really matter, when you paid $100 000 for it new. Gas cars are especially useful in cold climates where batteries suffer. The excess heat from the engine is used for heating, so the total efficiency of a gas car actually goes up in cold climates. The only small problem might be NOx and particles, but already the newest engines are very clean in this respect. An even cleaner solution is to use a gas turbine as a range extender for an EV with a small battery. Then you get most of the advantages of both systems. A turbine generator is quite efficient running only at its optimal rpm and with a recuperator to charge the battery. Very close to a gas piston engine in efficiency. But it is smaller, lighter, requires far less maintenance, has less vibrations and most of all: it burns the fuel more completely, so the emissions are much lower. Check out the TED Talk from the Wrightspeed founder!

As much as I would like a solution to save combustion engines, I got your point. But EV are not the solution either as it is being said only producing the batterie will generate more CO2 before the single mile, than a combustion engine car at the end of its life.

Or we could use electric cars powered by hydrogen so we don't need electricity for the other two steps, trapping C02 and making the e-fuel. What about using green electricity for trapping the CO2 from air (cleaning air) and not using energy for the rest of the process in getting the e-fuel? These are just some thoughts . Feel free to comment but don't hate me for it. :)

Ships aren't the most polluting thing on the planet. They're actually the greenest form of transportation for cargo if you look at the ton miles per gallon. They get around 600mpg per ton, a train gets upto 500mpg per ton, a lorry can get about 170mpg per ton. The average car is around a ton so you may get an idea of what these things are capable of. In other words. If you car was efficient as a ship it would get 600mpg, a train? 500mpg, a lorry? 170mpg. A lorry isn't always fully weighted though so a lorry carrying toilet rolls would get a lower ton mpg then one carrying bricks.

I really do believe synthetic fuels will be the future energy source for our transportation. When the last drop of oil is sucked out of the last mineable reserve the only suitable alternative is making our own fuel, i.e. synthetic fuel. Yes, maybe electric cars can take over the individual auto industry, but let's not forget, all other transportation methods (that don't run on railroads) are unviable for electrification. Think about it, there's no competition to fuel's energy density. Batteries are miles away from being comercially viable to completely replace fuel, and we don't have the infrastructure to implement hydrogen easily. So what will power all the trucks, planes and ships of the world? If trucks were electric trips accross the US would take weeks. If planes had batteries, they wouldn't even take off cause of all the weight. So obvisouly the only option is to go with a carbon neutral synthetic fuel that can keep powering cars, trucks, planes and ships with next to no change in our infrastructures. Sure, synthetics aren't the way to go right now cause the investment required to start large scale production and their cost to produce are still out-competed by oil based fuels, but the day we run out of the black gold, there won't be any competition.

Great video, please to an explanation on hydrogen fuel cell cars...

i hope one day i can say "this video didnt age well" lol i think we negating the downsides of evs...the amount of eletricity needed to produce and run them..especially if the whole world adopts it and their overall environmental impact.

How about the acid rain caused by the very dirty nickle and lithium mined for batteries for electric cars? You're from Top Gear right? Did you not watch the video of how much effect, even making a hybrid makes?

That's kinda neat. I never thought about it, but the output of burning gas is heavier than the input. Since gasoline is lighter than water, 1L of gasoline weigh less than 1KG. But the CO2 output is actually heavier than the raw material (at least the liquid portion) because it combines carbon molecules with oxygen.

Electric cars; oh god no! Hydrogen cars:Yes absolutely ! In a fuel cell configuration though: oh no absolutely NOT ! Hydrogen in slightly converted/adjusted existing ICE cars: yes absolutely ! To convert the existing fleet of ICE cars from fossil into Green H2 (Hydrogen) burning ICE cars is the ultimate thing to do. (carbon foot print spoken) Even Toyota is shifting from Hydrogen fuel cell cars to Hydrogen ICE cars. They are in research and development state, with their Toyota Corolla Race car (Go see their youtube video!) with3 cylinder Toyota Yaris GR engine running on Hydrogen H2. They've raced this car in a 24Hr race for R&D purpose and it turned out to be a success ! Now, what if a H2 adjustment kit would be available for existing cars? No new cars are necessary to be build (huge Carbon foot print win !) just the existing fleet of cars are to be adjusted. And of course, more windmills should be build into the sea or all roofs of all buildings should maximally build with Solar Cell Panels to create Green H2 ! Even old cars, I mean like 40 year old cars,(or even older) like a Corvette with 5,7 liter V8 by Bob Lazar (go see this youtube video!) could run on H2, so even our heritage cars could run on H2 ! So yes, I think you've mentioned the most obvious solution to the whole fossil-carbon problem. Let's face it...electric cars have an enormous carbon footprint at manufacturing, and at the end of their life cycle. And when they are in use they run on Cole and Nuclear power. So how eco friendly are electric cars to begin with? Especially in comparison with modified existing ICE cars to H2...