The truth about carbon neutral fuels 

What do you think, what fuel will your car run on in future?

As a car enthusiast, I want to see Efuels become successful and come into the market to keep my passion alive. I want to be able to take EV truck and tow my race car to the track and fill it up with Efuel and go racing on the weekends. I want to commute with my EV to work then take my classic car out for a cruise. I can see Efuel and EV tech working as a partnership not as a one or the other option.

Oh yes, creating synthetic fuels with 100% renewables makes absolutely perfect sense for ships and large planes! Those will still take a long time to electrify. Although we've almost cracked the "excellent electric passenger car", there's still a huge demand for cheap used cars, and the EV's just aren't there yet. Not to mention commercial large vehicles. We need a plethora of parallel solutions to sustainability, so this could indeed be a important piece of that puzzle.

I get sick of having to repeat this - we need ALL of it! All the battery tech, wind, solar of various kinds, compressed air, pumped hydro, all the biofuels that don't compete for food production or forests, and even the controversial one - nuclear. People don't seem to be able to process the magnitude of what we need to do, and the fact that it really doesn't matter how much we spend, anything is worth it!

I work on a farm, and synthetic fuel represents the only feasible way that our equipment could be carbon neutral. Batteries are too heavy and expensive, and hydrogen power undeveloped both in technology and infrastructure. Meanwhile, Carbon Engineering has been producing carbon neutral diesel since 2017. This technology could be gradually integrated into existing fuel systems, eventually reducing pollution from our equipment to zero in a manner that wouldn’t completely bankrupt our farm. So, a yay from me for synthetic fuels in regards to heavy equipment.

e-fuels are the only viable solution for long haul aviation. That in itself is reason enough to develop the technology.

I say "yay" to eFuels. For aviation, there is really no eco alternative. Basically all energy comes from the sun, and "fuels" are really just batteries to store it.

Excelent vídeo! I would give a nay. I’d rather go for making biomethane from human poop. It’s easy to convert gasoline combustion engines into gas and we solve the sewage problem and at the same time we can make fertilizers.

Glad that you came back to the efficiency of the electrolysis process since that was my first thought when you mentioned it in the beginning of the video. Sounds like these fuels might end up useful in some niche uses, but us normal citizens should still expect public transportation, bicycling, walking, and EVs to make up the majority of our transportation.

I am fairly sceptical. Seems like a massive waste of resources. Although more or less carbon neutral, there is still the combustion process which pollutes at least a little. Without rethinking our consumption habits, non of these new technologies will really be viable

Renewables are produced when the sun shines and when theres wind. To use 100% renewables we need massive amounts of energy storage. e-fuels can enable the use of renewables by providing part of the energy storage needed.

Here in Sweden we have HVO100 or XLT, which is a renewable diesel made of rest products from crop and animal fats. It’s made from 99,2% renewable resources. It’s more expensive then regular diesel by about 0,5$ per liter. Which seemes to be the price constant weirdly enough. 3 dollars per liter for HVO100 and 2,67$ per liter for regular diesel. The processing technic is called ”NEXBTL“ Edit: For every 1,000,000L of HVO100 you make 10% of tCO₂eq For instance 1,000,000 L regular diesel makes ≈ 3000 tCO₂eq HVO100 makes 300 tCO₂eq. Don’t know how energy efficient it is as you put in 100% how many % you get out.

To be honest, the point being made about cost is quite misleading. The main contributor to the cost of e-fuels is electrolyzed hydrogen -- and we already know we will need hydrogen for seasonal buffering in a wind- and solar-heavy power grid. So even if ICEs went away (which is a big if at a global level, considering the cost and material requirements of Li-ion batteries when multiplied by hundreds of millions of automobiles), it stands to reason that the energy density and stability of synthetic fuels will make us pay the cost, whatever it ends up being, as there's really no alternative. BEVs won't cut it.

I don't think we can afford a "one solution for all applications" approach anymore, as we had with fosil fuels for so long. We need to do everything possible. Some cars will be electric, but we don't know yet the batery tech capacity we have. How many can we sustain on current battery tech before we run out of materials. And many industrial as well military gear will not be able to go full battery. Same with planes and ships. We need diverse solutions for everything. And yes the costs that will come with it. Please note, we do not use fosil fuels because of the greatnes of its smell or enviroment, but because they are STILL so dirt cheap, compared to anything. Also the really big key word is energy storage. We can store synthetic fuels easily and in existing fuel storage. Stop looking at fuel as fuel. but Energy. Bateries are a fast storage, great for parts of our solution, but low density and expencive to isntall and maintain. A huge fuel depo can have cheap storage for years in case of global fluctuations and other crisis. All is energy, the de facto currency of the world. Everything else is paper to help trade energy. This synthetic tech will need to be funded and further developed, even if most car owners wont afford the fuel cost. But other applications will need it. Out storage will need it. Hopefully we will find a more efficient process than than decomposition and resynthesis. It's not a "bridge-technology", but part of the diverse long term solution.

This synthetic fuel will be great for clasic and vintage vehicles people like me will still ride clasic bikes and synthetic is a great substitute to oil based fuel 👍

When we talk about synthetic you also have to think about the environmental impact other energy sources have. The destruction we cause while mining for lithium is a serious problem that doesn't exist with synthetic fuel.

You did not mention the massive amount of CO2 needed to make vehicle batteries, and the electricity to fuel them. This offsets almost all gains overs ICEs

Let's not forget about mining raw materials needed to make batteries for EVs on a colossal scale. Also, do the power grid networks really have the capability to handle the load when billions of people are charging their cars?

Here in Denmark we have the project Power to X. It takes excess green energy from when it's a very windy day for example, and all the power needs have been met, it takes that excess energy and makes it into e-fuel, so you can store that excess energy that would othervise have been lost.

Best option is to reduce consumption- improve public transport instead

I'm confused... why make hydrogen, and then make fuel out of it? I thought that hydrogen was the energy dense solution. Or is the point that existing vehicles could use this stuff?

It is actually easy to deploy into market. Government just needs to regulate incremental mix of e-fuel into regular fuels. It wouldn’t harm current cars and opens a development window for perfection in 10-20 years.

The fastest way to ramp up the production of renewable energy from intermittent sources is probably by pairing those energy-capture facilities directly with fuel production or other chemical synthesis facilities on a micro-grid. That way you don't need to worry about grid upgrades or energy generation contracts, and the fuel production facilities can be designed with an accurate estimate of the amount and costs of the energy they are getting. By not depending on regulated energy from a grid they can take advantage of the cheapness of the mostly unregulated energy being produced by these intermittent sources by ramping production to match their energy supply.

While the video gives good insight into the topic, I think a large chunk of the answer was left out: the demand for vehicle miles driven goes up, as sprawling and suburbanization continues. Look to the Netherlands to see how every day transport can be made non car dependent. Look to Atlanta to see how it should not be done. We also need to make sure trains outcompete planes for most medium and long distance travel. We basically have all the tech we need already, we only need to prioritize and make sure the places we find ourselves living our lives in does not induce the need to fly halfway around the globe once a year, just to get a brake from it all.

The low-hanging fruit for e-fuels is ammonia as it allows you to skip the carbon capture step, as such is pretty much the most efficient to produce. As for using it or synthetic hydrocarbons, they will probably make a bigger impact with powering industrial equipment or as a supplemental fuel, rather than the primary energy carrier for personal vehicles.

I think we should invest more on e-fuel

We are going to have to face the reality that de-groth of our energy usage is inevitable. The capitalist will never allow that, so it will be forced upon us by cataclysm. I'm not being hopeless or pessimistic, I am simply accepting the grief.

Efficiency is the key to CO2 reduction, no matter which energy consumer we're using.

It's nice that you covered synthetic e-fuels; however, why not discuss synthetic biofuels? At less than half the cost of e-fuels, a great way to solve biomass disposal problems, plentiful and safe in intermediate forms like urea, as well as useful for other applications besides fuel, and much, much more energy efficient to produce, it seems a natural solution.

Electric Public transportation >> Electric cars

I am interested in building cars and when I heard of the phase out of combustion engines I felt like my dreams were being crashed I don’t care whether combustion engines are slower than EVs I just love combustion engines the sounds they make and the great way it brings people together during builds. I really hope synthetic fuels become a thing I don’t mind driving an EV but I deffo wanna rock a combustion engine

What about Hydrogen or Ammonia Combustion engines?

I can not wait for this to power my V8!!! Sign me up!! You only touched on it but the speed of adoption that will be the advantage here not to mention the commonality with fuel for airplanes and ships. A fuel that can green the existing rolling stock of vehicles is what we really need.

It’s nice to see my masters thesis topic on display 😀

There is not "one size fits all" for decarbonizing the grid... In the future there will be several alternative fuels, each targeting a specific application. So it's a YaY for me.

e-fuels may be carbon-neutral but still produce significant particulate and air pollution. They will always be super expensive due to the inherent overall low efficiency but will likely be used for planes and keeping classic vehicles on the road. Hydrogen fuel cells for shipping and maybe remote trains and some larger trucks. Batteries for everything else from Trucks down.

It's mentioned a bit, but this video almost misses perhaps the main place where e-fuels are useful: aviation. Batteries are not usable for airplanes except for very short distances (certainly not transatlantic). Hydrogen might work, but it's still a lot heavier than kerosene. And weight matters a lot in airplanes. The only real possibility of sustainable flying IMHO is e-fuels. That said, I agree that e-fuels don't make a lot of sense for cars. Also, adding lots of renewable energy to the grid and only producing e-fuels when energy is cheap (aka when there is more than necessary) might actually be a good way to stabilize the grid.

If we were 100% renewable and have excess then I'd be all for it

I think synthetic fuels will still have their place as a bridge. I'm still running my first car and have been for 7 years now. I don't expect to change car until it truly dies. I think it's important to note the carbon emissions used to create new EVs to replace current cars. Personally, I think it's better to run our old ICE cars until they truly die using eFuel rather than rushing to buy EVs which currently produce alot of carbon in their production, lifetime (assuming a large proportion of their energy comes from fossil fuel power plants) and their disposal (what are we going to do with all the dead batteries and their chemicals etc.?). I think the average consumer is going to be using ICE cars for the next 20 years at least.

Small electric airplanes already exist and medium size ones are being designed. Short haul flights will be electric. And then there are also aluminum batteries, which have 10x the energy density of lithium ion batteries, but cannot be recharged so they have to be recycled once they're used, so longer haul flights could easily go electric as well. Also, a power line is easier, cheaper, and more efficient to build, especially through rough terrain, than a road. The claim that they cannot use the wind power in Chile is a marketing technique for their technology.

eFuels will be most likely a solution for a niche market. Ever thought how old (especially classic) cars with combustion engines will be moved once our emissions of carbon dioxide are that strict that you are not allowed to run those with regular fuel? Exactly like this. Planes and ships will profit from that as well, that's right. About the batteries in EVs: the production of them needs ressources like cobalt or lithium and the process to create the battery needs a lot of energy as well. On average a current EV needs around 8 to 8.5 years to be better for the climate than one with a combustion engine. I don't think our technology for batteries is quite good yet. The difference? Combustion engines are researched better and movement with electricity just started to be popular. Recycling of batteries might be a good idea, still needs research. I believe there are some other issues as well: company cars are often replaced about every five years (and even less) - sure those cars are sold to others as well, but how about we stick to cars instead of replacing them every 5 years? This is an issue I see with the car industry in general: you don't want to have high milage due to the costs of repairs. Currently those are actually getting higher and higher (and that's not even the fault of the complexity or only partially). I don't think we will rely only on ONE form of energy in the future. eFuels, electricity, hydrogen - these are options and we shouldn't just say that ONLY ONE of them is right. eFuels are expensive, no doubt and they "waste" energy. Actually you can use that wasted energy as well. Ever heard of the energy conservation law? Energy just changes into another form, in most cases thermal energy. Use this energy to heat up something and you won't "waste" that much energy anymore. That's how it is done with combustion engines in cars and that's how it can be done in general without "wasting" that much energy. We're still on a long road to real effinciency and just using different ressources our earth provides, doesn't make things that much better (in terms of batteries). Recycling is and will be a big topic in terms of ressources. I know that it currently sounds like EVs are solving all of our problems regarding the emissions, but that won't happen all that fast. There's the factor mentioned with 29 % being regenerative energies, which isn't even one third, but the other is the production of the batteries. There is the need of more research in the topics of regenerative energies as well - with the current efficiency we won't be able to provide the energy we need to sustain ourselves in a "green way" (at least without using every inch available). Using wind has about 50 % efficiency, using sun currently 30 % (experimental ones have reached more than 40 though), run-of-the-river power plants up to 94 % (highly dependent on flow) and pumped-storage power plants have around 75 - 85 % of efficiency. These technologies can't be used just anywhere without losing much efficiency.

I am looking forward for the ‘use case’ of efuels for the classic car market. I see this as the potential way forward for this unique piece of automotive history. Do you agree?

the science and application of it is marvelous. . . but why does it feels like it is just a strategy of oil companies so that they won't be phased out.

efuel can be an alternative to store energy excess of renewable instead of battery: we should treat efuel like energy storage and not a product to make.

Agree, probably not a viable solution for the ICU mass market but I’m sure there are some car enthusiasts out there who will be happy to pay a premium to keep their petrol cars running when they’d otherwise be banned. And then there is aviation of course so I think developing efuels is well worth a shot.

Very interesting. I think the shipping/ air travel markets might see some use for this product. They’d have to work real hard to find new renewable energy sources tho! Australia is an untapped resource for renewable energy atm, maybe we could see that market open up and provide more energy resources.

More of these please. IC engines are tried and tested technology that needs to be improved further and further

In 2035 a car from to day is 12 years old so when e fuel is at a low price almost all non electric cars are gone

I knew nothing about this, now I feel I know quite a bit. Very comprehensive vid. Thank you

The ultracompact Range Extender Engine combined with biofuels and e-fuels will be what saves the ICE. EV owners will realize that being able to use liquid fuels has many fringe benefits. Reducing gasoline use by 90% will be good enough for the environment and having a residual network of petroleum stations will make the transition easier for legacy vehicle owners.

01:47 my Chemistry teacher would have gone ballistic if we ever shoved our nose into a container with chemicals like that

As a total non-expert, I like the idea of e-fuels and I think they'll have their place in our future. People will keep being attracted to antiques. It's also much easier to store e-fuels than hydrogen, so I can see it being used in remote places or quick response. However, I think most things will run on batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Of course, I wish we will return to walkable and cyclable developments and use buses and trains as our primary transportation.

This video didn’t talk about the cost and efficiency loss of transporting E-Fuels from these remote locations. Best case scenario with E-Fuels is that you get a tiny fraction of a percent of the initial energy that went into the process at an astronomical cost. They aren’t even viable for aircraft or boats. Honestly, nuclear is more likely to be an option for boat transports and that isn’t remotely close to being a reality in the commercial world.

E-Fuel and/or methane conversion is the answer to the energy storage/battery problem. Green energy such as solar and wind is unpredictable so a storage method is needed to store energy during high output or else the energy will go to waste, the trend is to use battery such as Lithium battery. Compared to fuel, Battery has lower energy density, is bigger and more complicated than a simple fuel tank, it's performance also degrades over time, and to make the battery it requires rare earth metals which comes from mining the earth which produces a lot of waste and recycling will never recover 100% of the metal so additional mining is inevitable. E-Fuel is basically just fuel so existing facility can be used with little modification, despite the loss from multiple conversion stages : Green energy>Hydrolysis+Carbon capture>H2+O2+CO2>Methanation/E-Fuel. The extra energy itself is still stored instead of being wasted, with carbon capture being powered by green energy it also offsets the fuel combustion and drives demand for more carbon capture which makes it profitable, it'll probably even drive people to burn coal just for more carbon ironically.

It's not like everyone will be driving evs by 2050. I'm not switching to evs until we get 50miles to the kw and least 500 miles in real life driving range. If that's not possible oh well, than I won't make the switch

efuel might become cheaper then oil with how oil and gas prices are going... We're nearing €2/liter in the Netherlands

eFuel does imply energy storage. So if we think of it a a battery and energy. They could also be the buffer for the intermittent nature of wind and solar, like natural gas power plants are now.

Thank you for being honest (somewhat) about the numbers involved.

Not just planes and ships, but also trucks. Vehicles that need long travel at relatively low efficiency with lots of power have a hard time with batteries. They’re just not dense enough. That’s definitely trucks, at least long-haul trucks.

Solar cells in the early 90s was also very expensive, almost the same price as gold back then

I like the breakdown of efficiency of efuel, with these sorts of efficiencies it's a non starter. What I would like to see is a breakdown of EV efficiency, from construction of the batteries to the construction of the vehicle.

what about how much energy is needed to break down the CO2 molecule and then to combine it with hydrogen? energy balance - that's the important part

It would be nice if this could be a solution but it is nowhere near the yields needed to be efficient with about 8% making it to the car. You are right prices for this won't drop until 2050 because that's around the time they'll perfect it if not longer.

I hope there will be some e-fuels for our oldtimers though. They can't just end up gathering dust in some museum.

A video on the 1st of April that isn't a joke 😤

10$ per liter was in the test reactor, with current wind and solar costs, 0.80-2€ per liter are possible by 2030.

We will never have only one method of energy production. Hydro and geothermal are pretty much maxed out with current technology; hydrogen is extremely energy intensive to produce and the problems with storage and transportation have not been effectively addressed yet, some W&S make sense, but it's too resource intensive and chaotic to ever be capable of doing the heavy lifting. FF has a lot of advantages, and that's why approximately 80% of our energy needs are currently met with this method. It's energy dense, high capacity factors, it's stable and easy to store where we want it until use. It's also dirty, and we should replace burning it for fuel as much as we can. Nuclear power, however, requires a fraction of the resources of any alternative as well as being the safest and lowest environmental impact method available. We should be using it as much as possible. Adding more Nuclear power plants would mean far less environmental impact than attempting replacing FF burning with other methods of energy production. Without even factoring in the required backup, wind and solar use 100's of times more resources per unit of power production than NP does. That's 100's of times more mining, pollution, and waste, including toxic substances like mercury and cadmium that have half lives of forever and unlike used nuclear fuel are not safely contained. 100's of times more manufacturing and transportation that's done with FF, 100's of times more land and habitat loss. Nuclear power is the safest method capable of meeting our energy needs ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy And the fastest way to decarbonize. How fast can we build clean energy per capita? From @jmkorhonen & @Kaikenhuippu Climate Gamble: t.co/Z4bKDoy2AV twitter.com/CC_NoThanks/status/1358287438091804673?s=19 How fast can we build clean energy per capita? From @GrantChalmers t.co/J0Abtov19Q scienceforsustainability.org/wiki/How_quickly_can_we_build_clean_energy%3F Using NP, a reliable clean power source, negates any need for massive overbuild and backup. Which means way less resources are needed, which means it is a greener solution. A huge problem with dilute intermittent power sources like Wind and Solar is the ridiculous amount of resources needed to produce such massive power generation and storage units. No matter how problematic one may think nuclear power may be (its not its been producing clean reliable power for more than six decades without effecting the climate or human health), the environmental devastation caused by attempting to replace FF at scale with any other available alternative far exceeds that. m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zc7rRPrA7rg.html#dialog When looked at in perspective, it's very clear that NP is the cleanest, safest, lowest environmental impact method of energy production available that is capable of meeting our energy needs. We have to meet our energy needs regardless; I vote for doing so with the least harm possible. www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Why-nuclear-is-an-environmentalists-story

If a long winter blackout occurs in a land of electric cars most of the population will perish in the freezing cold. The gas powered car that would provide cabin heat for many days will not be there. The electric car could only supply heat for a short time and would quickly discharge its battery making a trip to a shelter impossible.

Usually these solutions looks like puzzling to be implemented, but it's more about good will and market change than it looks like. So, there is a lot of economic interest involved, where no one wants to lose money, even if it causes damage to the environment.

I glad this video discusses needing to decarbonize the grids. My question though is why does everyone talk about renewable energies as if they themselves are sustainable and not carbon intensive to produce. Everyone loves to point out that solar panels and wind turbines are great sources which I also believe, but everyone ignores all of the nasty issues with sourcing their materials and the amounts of carbon emitted in their production. It's always end use numbers not overall net numbers in a life cycle given. Valid question would be how long would it take at the normal 18% efficiency of a solar panel before it negated the co2 used to produce it?

Interesting stuff 👍

Battery powered vehicles use a huge amount of energy in their production, so much do that you need to drive over 100000kmd to break even with petrol powered cars. On top of that, battery powered cars have low range, are heavy and take a very long time to refuel. Efuels definitely have a future but it has to be a globally mandated solution backed by governments around the world that would boost the economies of some of the poorest countries in the world on the Sunbelt. (Except Australia).

I dont care what fuel i use... weather be methane or hydrogen or synthetics ....As long as i can have my combustion engine 😁 best of luck to the scientist/developer. 👍🏻

I was left wondering, wouldn't it be more effective to use the hidrogen after the hydrolysis and not continue the complicated process?

Why not use alternate steps? Electrolysis, carbon capture and part of the synthesis can be replaced by creating wood gas in a renewable energy kiln (either electric or by stored thermal energy). This also produces biochar which multiplies the carbon negative effect of the process and can run as a side business for soil enhancement.

The ultimate bridge immediately needed is EV retrofit kits for existing ICE vehicles. Batteries that aren’t as destructive as Lithium based ones

Yes but only for little domain usage, we need to first work on a renewable electric energy transfer system, power cables for transferring electricity from one point in the world to other points. Right now only one such project is in implementation, that is Australia to Singapore power line, for transferring solar energy from Australia to Singapore.

Great and very informative. You are the best source of information in English.

Good video, again. But eFuels are a waste of...well, everything. If the only problem with the switch to EVs is cost, just MAKE IT CHEAPER. Perhaps tax the hell out of the combustion engine, since it's one of the most damaging machines on --- and to -- the planet. Polluter pays principle? We can argue about public transit, bikes (my favorite when it's not raining), and suburbia later.

Awesome host!! Loved it, thanks for the info

All things that help to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere is worth using. If the e fuel can power the generators that provide power to our electrical grid it decreases the need to mine for the things needed for the batteries and oil products. The large wind and solar fields to provide power to make the e fuel will help bring down the cost so the average home owner can have a wind mill and or solar panels. This will reduce the strain on the electrical grid. The cleaner burning fuel allows us to drive our classic vehicles. Destruction or permanent storage of the classic vehicles is like destroying art and history. Neither shall be taken lightly.

Most energy produced during lunch hours gets lost. This is the time in the day to transform solar into e fuels.

So essentially the problem is how much renewable electricity we have. I like how we don’t talk about zero point energy. That is just in the air.

Yay! As the comment below indicated we need all the energy sources, even controversial nuclear, for this system in the world to work. Also, although cost may deter efuels from being a bridge “too late” it’s never too late! We can modernize the grid in spots throughout the world, balance the load where the grid is not as modern, and continue to analyze the practicality of renewables in different countries and adapt them where they are not totally practical or efficient, it’s all possible 👍

From working in the carbon footprint world, I think carbon offsets have a much better chance than biofuels. They are both a bridge to a cleaner energy future, but carbon offset projects use the exact same technology we are already use in regular projects. There is no advanced research needed. The difference is really if the project qualifies to be a carbon offset project, which is a whole other story.

So these are synthetic "E-Fuels" not green crude. Green crude is very promising. I hope it receives more funding and attention.

Im getting pretty sick of mentioning only renewables when discussing decarbonised electricity....

Batteries and electricity are the solution for daily driven passenger cars, but for everything else (buses, trucks, ships, planes, agricultural equipment, construction equipment, military equipment) batteries don’t have the energy density required to move those things.

glad that finally at the end there was some balance in the video. Obv the current energy consumption for driving cars in the world is way too high as if you could keep the combustion technology only, and just replace the fossil fuel with eFuel, but nobody (at least in his right mind) is arguing that, also yes the electric vehicle has a lot of advantages especially in the indivudal mobility application. Nevertheless eFuels will 100% have his place in modern energy supply systems and has some huge upsides. Im excited in which direction it will al develop, the best technology for the respective application case will eventually prevail and most likely its gonna be a mix of all the different innovations. Oh btw as you could imagine im a chemical engineer working on stuff like Methanation/FT and other chemical fixing of electric energy so i might be triggered a little bit haha.

Hello, can we use the e-fuel to power our gas heating at home??? Supplied during our existing gas-pipe infrastructure... The world is just talking about powering engines with it.... (A solar roof + heat pump is not affortable or simpliy not possible for most of all people!)

This may be the future of trucks because of the energy density. That's a big deal in the USA.

Small modular nuclear power plants that produce electricity exclusively for the synthetic fuel refineries could work. My concern is the water being used. Are we in danger of using up all our water?

using smr to produce e fuel, can me produce enough to bridge fuel to continue internal combustion cars to the point of all electric

There will always be use cases for e-fuels. We should definitely get this cranking.

Its only expensive as its new , petrol , diesel , lpg were expensive once until mass production methods were refined and it was used as mainstream fuels.

What do you mean by saving the internal combustion engine?if you mean making the BEVs obsolete then you are right EVs are definitely the future but synthetic fuels help existing combustion engines to coexist with the electric vehicles

do evs have any disadvantage?

I didn't even know that this existed. Good Video thank you.

I see the value of efuel in national security area, if the someone blockade your country's trade route, you could switch to efuel, and cost of production won't be an issue in these situation.

It's a great idea but have to speed up production of it , i run a diesel escalade would be nice to use it at. descent price