The US government funded rural electrification that resulted in massive increases in farm productivity. Then there was the interstate highway system - that’s been a mixed bag. The human genome project has been a massive success. So don’t write off everything the government provides.
Companies do dumb things, too!
see my post about the "Porsche" plant
What is dumb and not dumb today will not be known for several decades. Competition between ideas is the best way to increase innovation.
No, thermodynamics is already known.
And which law of thermodynamics determines the best energy policy?
You are being obtuse. I’ve already studied thermodynamics at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Go buy a book. Even then you’ll likely argue for a process that’s 35% efficient vs 80%+.
This image will illustrate why thermodynamics gives a low prospect for synthetic fuels. It comes from this article.
www.forbes.com
Maybe you should buy an economics book. There is a lot more to solving problems in the real world than just "thermodynamic efficiency". After all solar panels are only about 25% efficient so should they be disqualified? Same with wind turbines. The only reason that both make sense is because wind and sun are "free". Currently the problem with solar and wind is not their low efficiency but rather that they are seasonally and weather dependent. The solution is large scale storage which does not currently exist at scale. If hydrogen or synthetic fuels can store some excess solar production (which occurs most every spring and summer day resulting in "negative" electric rates) even if it is not as efficient as an electric motor that does not mean it can not be a useful part of the solution.
I think they'll be a niche product. Doesn't mean there isn't a use for them. The synth fuels have the same problem as direct hydrogen. That is such fuels are an energy transfer medium. Plus an extra step of processing to get there. They aren't a direct energy source. Fossil fuel is an energy source as far as we are concerned in the use of it. Synth fuel turns liquid fuels into a transfer medium rather than an energy source, and one that is not highly efficient.
If "efficiency" was the goal rather than providing practical and affordable energy with a minimum of externalities then yes this is a good analysis. The problem is it assumes that batteries that can store huge amounts of energy can practically and safely and economically be built, this is not a given. I don't know the answer but I would guess there are going to be multiple technologies involved with solving the future energy needs of the world. My issue is that going "all in" on unproven technologies because the central planners are subsidizing them while ignoring other potential solutions is sub optimal.This image will illustrate why thermodynamics gives a low prospect for synthetic fuels. It comes from this article.
Synthetic Fuels Won’t Save The Planet, So Don’t Say They Could
Electric vehicle critics argue that synthetic e-fuels are the answer to climate change, not batteries. But they’re wrong. Here’s why.
View attachment 281916
Well I understand how you are looking at it I think. Obviously fossil fuels are less energy efficient than EVs. But the fuel has enough energy so that inefficiency doesn't keep it from being economical. Plus its high energy density. EV's are to the point even with reduced energy onboard and lower energy density they are roughly competitive with fossil fueled cars. If carbon emission is an issue, EVs are better than fossil fuels. I don't like the gov't interference either as I don't think it is needed at this point.
Some people probably think I am crazy being so anti-subsidy, especially when it come to energy, but I am old enough to remember the 1960's. At the time Nuclear energy was going to be the solution and there were articles and TV shows showing a very bright future with unlimited and even unmetered energy (just pay a monthly fee like the internet). While there were less direct subsidies (of course the military indirectly subsidized a lot) there was a huge subsidy that governments offered which was a liability waiver. This certainly "jump started" the nuclear power industry (prematurely) and the unintended result was they ended up killing what should be a clean, safe and reliable source of energy. All they had to do was leave it alone and let the technology develop enough that it would be safe enough for commercial insurance. I could easily see something similar happen to solar. If the non stop subsidies keep more solar coming online and mid day negative rates keep getting bigger and bigger solar may become economically unviable. This combined with some low probability weather evet where a large area is without power during a cold snap and people die could turn public opinion radically against solar and another great source of clean energy could be lost.
and what I see on this thread proves your point.
To put it in perspective, more people died in Teddy Kennedy's car than at Three Mile Island.
Honestly: If you don't bother checking the sources I provided, what's even the point of discussing this further?
They are responding to regulations being placed on them and to government subsidies making them profitable. I have some knowledge re: Porsche.
Not sure why there has to be only one solution for the future. Some technologies like Syn Fuels are most likely a transition solution but they could be helpful especially if it uses up some excess mid day solar capacity, which I see as one of the biggest challenges for the green transition. If every solar farm has to sell at negative rates for 2-3 hours per day that only leaves a fraction of their production to over come their losses and try to make a profit. While predicting the future is difficult to me it is a safe bet that all this 80% EV by 2030 talk is not going to pan out if for no other reason than consumer demand.... many consumers are not interested in EV's as they don't fit their needs.
