Audi e-Diesel: electric diesel renewable fuel produced in Switzerland in Aargau

[ABC2019]

By applying "cost killing" type methods, we end up with what is written on the NCSH website: between 1 and 1.5 € per liter at production for a start of massive deployment around 2030. They should therefore be offered as a mixture. to 20% with fuels resulting from refining, this percentage increasing as the volumes of production by imports from tropical countries increase. In 2050, it would be 100%, with an average production cost of around 0.8 € per liter, ie 30 cents higher than currently from oil.

0,3 more on 0,8, that's + 40% so the equivalent of a barrel at $ 100, which is already very high, except that once again these costs are calculated with renewable energies manufactured with fossils at current prices - replacing all fossils with substitutes would be much more expensive, so these calculations are completely theoretical.

[NCSH]

Figures obtained: 17 kWh / liter

it still raises a little question on this point.

because a liter of fuel contains only 10 thermal kWh, and a maximum of 4 mechanical kWh.

While putting these 17 kWh directly into a battery restores 14-15 kWh without difficulty. About 4 times more.

The question, within the meaning of the Inquisition, of the best restored efficiency that all-electric solutions allow is not always optimally satisfactory, in other words without loss of service rendered.

It is widely accepted that most of the uses of light individual vehicles or delivery, craftsmen in urban and peri-urban uses will be advantageously replaced by electrified engines.
However, with regard to long journeys, apart from daily mobility, there is not unanimity but intensive propaganda for 10 years to impose excessively expensive solutions: until 2015, an individual vehicle with combustion engine segment B costing no more than € 15 to purchase made it possible to make such long trips. How much will their electrical equivalents cost, which moreover is limited to doing 000 to 200 km at most on the motorway before being recharged?
This summer, the example was given of a journey from Paris to La Rochelle in 12 hours for 600 km, i.e. an average of 50 km / h with 2 recharges. Would such a doubling of the time of long journeys be acceptable without intensive propaganda making the use of individual vehicles feel guilty?
The solution to this will be the plug-in hybrid that Ricardo had made a study of a few years ago: the possibility of going down to 20 € in mass production of segment B, is not to be excluded, that is to say a supplement. of 000 €. There are already examples of this type of vehicle in the ranges of European manufacturers, not yet at this price, however.

Likewise, it will be much more expensive to replace liquid fuels with Hydrogen in direct use ...

Not to mention that it is a matter of completely overturning industries in a few decades, millions of employees who would have to be reconverted ...

It's not just energy efficiency to prioritize.

[Remundo]

I hear your comments.

nevertheless, the technique still seems to consume a lot of electricity in relation to the liters of fuel produced. that will necessarily count too.

Especially since there is not only this electrolysis technique to have the syngas.

The more traditional techniques of gasification / thermolysis of organic materials also provide syngas. They will be in competition, and in Europe, the organic matter resource is important.

projects of large international solar structures in the south have already collapsed for geopolitical reasons. We will have to bring CO2 to these regions ... or pull the HVDC power lines to Europe ...

Let it be understood that the CO2-H2O electrolysis technique can also find its place, in particular when leaving a plant that produces a lot of "fatal" CO2.

[Christophe]

Some truck diesels are already 44% at optimum, so commonly 40 in real use.
It should be verified that Audi announced in 1998 a range of common rail diesel engine at 40%.
Miller cycle gasoline engines already reach 38% at the optimum (Audi TFSI range of 1.4, 1.5, 2 and 3 liters). Evolutions of these engines are announced, sometimes called "Deep Miller" like the study by Ricardo called "Magma" at more than 40% (RVC of 15, lean mixture, ...).


This is without taking into account the possible adaptation of the engine techniques to F1 pre-chambers which promise 50%.

Regarding the quantitative potentials, it should be noted that the use of gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons is at 8 Mtoe per year, or around 000 kgep / inhabitant, but around 1 for the inhabitants of the OECD and 000 for the rest of the world. .
Non-fossil synthetic hydrocarbons could be produced in large quantities from solar energy, for essential uses at a global average of 500 kgep annually for 10 billion inhabitants.
This would require covering 1 km² of semi-desert surface, or about 1/50 of the intertropical strip and its margins. This corresponds to around 50 TWp of solar energy capture (photovoltaic or other) producing 100 TWh. This corresponds to 000 times the power currently installed in photovoltaics (70 GWp at the end of 700).
Or 50 toe / ha / year, 10 times more than for ethanol from sugar cane.
It's huge but possible.

19-06-27-Ricardo-How-to-achieve-the-next-steps-in-engine-efficiency-for-hybrid-vehicles.pdf

I am happy to see that they are working (well seriously?) On water injection, see p13 of Ricardo's .pdf:

injection_eau_ricardo.jpg (256.87 KiB) Viewed 2810 times

And yet the detractors of this technology were, and still are, many ... surely vaccinated before their time!

[Ahmed]

You will always find water allergies ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

You will always find water allergies ...

And pretentious idiots who sweep everything away with the back of their hand contemptuously when they know nothing, even more.

[NCSH]

Some truck diesels are already 44% at optimum, so commonly 40 in real use.
It should be verified that Audi announced in 1998 a range of common rail diesel engine at 40%.
Miller cycle gasoline engines already reach 38% at the optimum (Audi TFSI range of 1.4, 1.5, 2 and 3 liters). Evolutions of these engines are announced, sometimes called "Deep Miller" like the study by Ricardo called "Magma" at more than 40% (RVC of 15, lean mixture, ...).


This is without taking into account the possible adaptation of the engine techniques to F1 pre-chambers which promise 50%.

Regarding the quantitative potentials, it should be noted that the use of gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons is at 8 Mtoe per year, or around 000 kgep / inhabitant, but around 1 for the inhabitants of the OECD and 000 for the rest of the world. .
Non-fossil synthetic hydrocarbons could be produced in large quantities from solar energy, for essential uses at a global average of 500 kgep annually for 10 billion inhabitants.
This would require covering 1 km² of semi-desert surface, or about 1/50 of the intertropical strip and its margins. This corresponds to around 50 TWp of solar energy capture (photovoltaic or other) producing 100 TWh. This corresponds to 000 times the power currently installed in photovoltaics (70 GWp at the end of 700).
Or 50 toe / ha / year, 10 times more than for ethanol from sugar cane.
It's huge but possible.

19-06-27-Ricardo-How-to-achieve-the-next-steps-in-engine-efficiency-for-hybrid-vehicles.pdf

I am happy to see that they are working (well seriously?) On water injection, see p13 of Ricardo's .pdf:

injection_eau_ricardo.jpg

And yet the detractors of this technology were, and still are, many ... surely vaccinated before their time!

I don't have the impression that the Ricardo teams pay as much interest as you all to water injection: for them, it is not at most a question of "cooling" the combustion in order to push back the limits. self-ignition. Unless it remains confidential.

[NCSH]

I hear your comments.

nevertheless, the technique still seems to consume a lot of electricity in relation to the liters of fuel produced. that will necessarily count too.

Especially since there is not only this electrolysis technique to have the syngas.

The more traditional techniques of gasification / thermolysis of organic materials also provide syngas. They will be in competition, and in Europe, the organic matter resource is important.

projects of large international solar structures in the south have already collapsed for geopolitical reasons. We will have to bring CO2 to these regions ... or pull the HVDC power lines to Europe ...

Let it be understood that the CO2-H2O electrolysis technique can also find its place, in particular when leaving a plant that produces a lot of "fatal" CO2.

Sorry for the delay in answering these questions.


Unfortunately, the fuels obtained from hydrocarbon sources starting from Biomass-Energy no longer have the same future prospects as they had during the past decades.

Despite the perseverance of many teams around the world to overcome development obstacles (including in France, see the “Connaissance des Energies” website), it seems that production costs cannot fall below 1.5 at 2 € per liter.
The uses of biomass are still more and more important, without even mentioning Chinese imports, yet vegetation, trees, energy crops in Europe (with the exception of sorghum of tropical origin) are increasingly suffering from climate change. Productivities stagnate.
The efficiency of the conversion of solar energy by photosynthesis does not exceed 0.5 to 2%, against 20 to 25% for "artificial solutions" of photovoltaic or other type. This makes it possible to promise to reach 50 toe / ha / year in a semi-desert zone. Only the cultures of algae made it possible to hope for so much, with great reinforcement of NPK fertilizers, but we already know that the phosphorus deposits will be exhausted in a few decades.

The CO2 from industrial activities or electricity production, therefore reused a second time, will only be counted as neutral if it is not of fossil origin. However, non-fossil synthetic methane will not be available in abundance before 2040, due to the cost of production. On the contrary, atmospheric carbon capture (ACD) will be more accessible, from 2030, between 100 and 250 € anywhere in the world.

For geopolitics, 50 Mkm2 of semi-arid zone, there is not only the Sahara. You should know that the Saudis have already created a research institute (KAUST) ten years ago which collaborates with the Germans on these energy subjects.

The two German start-ups Sunfire and Climeworks (now accompanied by others) were created in 2009, following the peak of oil at 150 $ / barrel, partly caused by the conccurences of use of food crops. They are now well on their way to winning their daring technological bets.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Climeworks is Swiss.

[NCSH]

I hear your comments.

nevertheless, the technique still seems to consume a lot of electricity in relation to the liters of fuel produced. that will necessarily count too.

Especially since there is not only this electrolysis technique to have the syngas.

The more traditional techniques of gasification / thermolysis of organic materials also provide syngas. They will be in competition, and in Europe, the organic matter resource is important.

projects of large international solar structures in the south have already collapsed for geopolitical reasons. We will have to bring CO2 to these regions ... or pull the HVDC power lines to Europe ...

Let it be understood that the CO2-H2O electrolysis technique can also find its place, in particular when leaving a plant that produces a lot of "fatal" CO2.

Sorry for the delay in answering these questions.


Unfortunately, the fuels obtained from hydrocarbon sources starting from Biomass-Energy no longer have the same future prospects as they had during the past decades.

Despite the perseverance of many teams around the world to overcome development obstacles (including in France, see the “Connaissance des Energies” website), it seems that production costs cannot fall below 1.5 at 2 € per liter.
The uses of biomass are still more and more important, without even mentioning Chinese imports, yet vegetation, trees, energy crops in Europe (with the exception of sorghum of tropical origin) are increasingly suffering from climate change. Productivities stagnate.
The efficiency of the conversion of solar energy by photosynthesis does not exceed 0.5 to 2%, against 20 to 25% for "artificial solutions" of photovoltaic or other type. This makes it possible to promise to reach 50 toe / ha / year in a semi-desert zone. Only the cultures of algae made it possible to hope for so much, with great reinforcement of NPK fertilizers, but we already know that the phosphorus deposits will be exhausted in a few decades.

The CO2 from industrial activities or electricity production, therefore reused a second time, will only be counted as neutral if it is not of fossil origin. However, non-fossil synthetic methane will not be available in abundance before 2040, due to the cost of production. On the contrary, atmospheric carbon capture (ACD) will be more accessible, from 2030, between 100 and 250 € anywhere in the world.

For geopolitics, 50 Mkm2 of semi-arid zone, there is not only the Sahara. You should know that the Saudis have already created a research institute (KAUST) ten years ago which collaborates with the Germans on these energy subjects.

The two German start-ups Sunfire and Climeworks (now accompanied by others) were created in 2009, following the peak of oil at 150 $ / barrel, partly caused by the conccurences of use of food crops. They are now well on their way to winning their daring technological bets.

Correction, it is not about the Internet site "Knowledge of energies" but "Encyclopedia of Energy".
See the link: https://www.encyclopedie-energie.org/la-gazeification/