Because the energy conversion efficiency is different.
The current conversion efficiency of internal combustion engines is 20% to 30%, while that of hydrogen fuel cells is 60% to 80%.
According to the practical results of commercialized hydrogen vehicles, for the same 100-kilometer journey, an internal combustion locomotive requires 4 kg of hydrogen, while a fuel cell vehicle requires only 0 .5 kg of hydrogen.
Although due to the different speeds (internal combustion locomotives have high power and speed, a lot of energy is used to combat wind resistance), the saving effect energy consumption of fuel cell vehicles is still very evident.
However, internal combustion locomotives also have their own advantages. Its cost is basically the same as ordinary cars, and its technology is mature. She cant directly use existing production lines, while the cost of the fuel cell. vehicles is more than 10 times higher than this.
As for the gas turbine, this thing consumes too much energy at idle because it must maintain a pre-turbine temperature of at least 1200°C, otherwise it will have to be restarted. Although the conversion efficiency can be close to 40%, it cannot be stopped once started, because it takes a long time to restart and consumes a lot of money, so it makes no sense to install it in a car.
Synthetic e-fuels are not the future of cars
E-fuels are the latest alternatives to internal combustion engine power, but they cannot -not be the savior that cars need.
Since humans began using gasoline as a transportation fuel, the world has been searching for alternative fuelsatives to achieve superior durability and performance. Some alternatives, like methanol, show promise from a performance perspective, while others, like biodiesel, aim to reduce environmental damage.
A final alternative, e-fuels are synthetic fuels produced by electrolysis of water (preferably using electricity from renewable sources such as wind power), much like e-fuels. hydrogen used to make fuel. The difference is that hydrogen is used to run electric motors, while e-fuel can be used directly in internal combustion engines (ICE). They do this because they add carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide during the production process.
Converting water into hydrocarbons to power engines without adding more carbon
Of course, the firstthing that comes to mind is "how to add carbon to make an environmentally friendly fuel?" The process of making synthetic e-fuels involves splitting water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, then adding CO or CO2 (extracted from the atmosphere or recovered from factory production) to the hydrogen to create synthetic hydrocarbons. Once this process is complete, the carbon content of the car's exhaust gas will be equal to that of the intake air, making the combustion process carbon neutral.
No additional investment is required to produce, transport and use synthetic e-fuels.
The advantage is that the fuel uses existing equipment and infrastructure. It could be produced in today's factories and refineries, transported by the same means currently used, and stored in much the same way in the stcurrent service ations. You can add it directly to your current fuel tank and the car will run pretty much the same as it does today, although there are obvious differences in mileage, fuel economy and power of overtaking.
In this sense, this should be quite an attractive investment for an oil company like Mobil, which has refining and extraction facilities around the world and is already very advanced in capturing and storing the carbon (CCS). The company is also working with Porsche to develop e-fuels for racing programs.
Porsche invests in synthetic fuel
Porsche's investment in e-fuel is driven more by self-interest. Although the company is committed to developing and producing electric vehicles, it also said earlier that eIt would not compromise on the comfort and character of its legendary 911 Carrera, which some said meant there would never be an electric version of the 911.
The German company and some partners have started looking for innovative solutions for its Halo cars, and judging by the production celebrations of the Haru Oni project in Chile, it is clear that this road leads to e-fuels. , Porsche in There, a 911 is filled with factory-produced synthetic e-methanol.
When the $24 million investment was announced in 2020, Michael Steiner, then Porsche R&D director (now board member responsible for R&D), said: " We want and love cars like the 911. Cars like this with high-revving internal combustion engines or turbocharged engines, because in the future you will be able to drive these cars without having to bear the unnecessary burden of emissionsCO2 ions”.
The goal was to produce enough fuel at the Chilean plant to make e-fuels a viable alternative by 2022 and start using them in Porsche Experience Centers and at sporting events automobile. The plan then calls for increasing gasoline consumption from an initial level of 34,342 gallons per year to 14.5 million gallons by 2025, then increasing that number 10-fold by the end of the decade , which would be 1,000 fewer than Americans will consume in 2021. About times.
Cost and consumption could prevent the use of e-fuels in road cars.
In fact, the high cost (the process of converting water into hydrocarbons for combustion is not cheap) - could end up relegating e-fuel to the status of the newest racing fuel, like its ancestor methanol. The throughput of the production processmakes Porsche's production forecasts sound like science fiction.
First, the process and equipment for splitting water molecules is expensive, and half of the electrical energy required is spent on the conversion. Then there's the energy lost when running a car's engine, which is expected to be greater than with traditional natural fuels.
Methanol can increase the power of internal combustion engines, but its low energy content means fuel economy suffers. Today, we have no reason to believe that synthetic methanol will be a significant improvement over conventional methanol.
Unless the cost of e-fuel becomes significantly lower than gasoline, it is difficult to predict that it will become a viable alternative for future car development.