RedNEO wrote: ↑22 Dec 2020, 19:04
I did read it. Did you read mine? Perhaps you wouldn’t have corrected me if you did because I said net zero is when more carbon will be being extracted than put back in. Anyway I’ve already pointed why biofuels are better at doing what batteries were trying to do but now it’s become about ‘whataboutisms’. It’s not about not liking batteries it’s just I share the opinion of Toto that biofuels solve a problem better than they could. If you think they are not as efficient thats fine, but they have far more benefits than losses and remember it’s only the second generation of biofuels and they have already achieved carbon neutrality.
Yes, I noticed you had conflicting statements on carbon neutrality in that post. I can't smell which one to take seriously and which one to discard, so I picked the first statement - which you seem to use in later posts, too, anyway.
You haven't actually addressed why biofuels are batteries in the long run, or in the consumer car market at which engine development would be targeted. You simply waived any comments on that, or provided a strawman response. The comments you received were not 'whataboutisms', but addressed valid aspects that deserve further discussion in deciding whether ICEs, biofuels and synfuels are a viable, long term option for consumer cars (and hence whether further development of them is warranted).
Your argument so far seems to be hinging on 2 points.
1: Toto says X, so that is the truth and I agree with it (which is an argument from authority)
2: Battery production comes with huge emissions, while biofuels are carbon neutral (which is a fallacy too).
How exactly do you think that biofuels are produced carbon neutral (it's not important which generation they are in this question, per se)? The equipment to harvest biomass runs on gasoline or diesel. Most processing steps are heated with gas, and carbon isn't captured and stored. Some may be electric, but with grid energy - which is a mixture of sources, including fuel. The practical way to claim carbon neutrality in that case is to use (1) green energy certificates to claim the grid energy you use is green, and (2) offsetting the carbon emissions from the other processing steps. The thing is, of course, the exact same thing applies to batteries. You can buy green energy certificates for the grid energy used to produce batteries (and the electricity for car usage), and you can offset the other emissions of battery production. If biofuel producers can claim their biofuels are net zero emission if they offset production emissions, then battery producers can claim net zero emission if they offset production emissions. Otherwise, if you want to keep complaining that battery production is causing substantial
gross emissions, then you need to accept that biofuel production is causing substantial
gross emissions, too. You cannot complain about the one and waive the other, which has been pointed out numerous times, yet you keep committing exactly this fallacy.
And, net zero CO2 emissions does not remove the other secondary emissions of both options. For batteries, the social and environmental impact of lithium, cobalt and graphite mining for example. For biofuels, the land use, nutrient runoff, impact on land and water quality, pesticide use, etcetera. If you want to have a fair assessment of which tech has the biggest impact, you need to assess those aspects. It's quite hard for 2nd generation biofuels because they are a co-product of food production, but because it's hard in practice does not mean it can be ignored.
Also, I did not claim batteries are better at this stage than biofuels. I don't know if they are, I have not had the time to delve deep into LCAs and such. I stated they have more
potential, for a number of reasons that were listed several times. First and foremost, because the available biomass is hardly sufficient to cover aviation fuel demands, and because aviation has the biggest need for liquid fuels. So you
need alternatives for consumer cars if you want to step away from fossil, and there battery tech has simply has the best papers. Despite it being mentioned several times, you didn't address this.
The second argument is that there is much more development potential in battery tech. The processing steps for 2nd generation bio can be somewhat more efficient, but it won't be a huge deal more. For battery tech, prices keep dropping substantially, energy costs per kWh storage capacity, too, and the environmental footprint via efficiency gains as well (which seems to be your biggest concern). Of course, a more-and-more green energy grid also has an impact (if we consider gross emissions), but that applies equally to battery tech and biofuels.
