Renewable Diesel facility - Canada

[nwdiver]

nwdiver, how deeply are you tied to TSLA?

In the context of the joke I had ~2% invested in TSLA in 2010. So maybe he actually IS in 2010 and that's why the stock did so well? Time travel is real?! That would explain the comments...

.... what year is it where (when?) you are? It's 2023 here.

I invested in TSLA in 2010 because even 13 years ago the physics was obvious. Were we needed to go was obvious. If you're so confident in the need for biofuels why don't you put some skin in the game? Why aren't you invested in renewable fuels?

 

[J_dude]

~95% of cars are recycled. No reason that's not achievable with EVs

Right. So if that IS achievable with EVs we still have the same 5% waste (and I would argue it is much more than that, because you can’t REuse material as efficiently as just using it the first time. And btw it costs money and emissions to recycle also.) for less than HALF the usable, driven km. Still not adding up.

Btw, how come you left for a while and came back?

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

In the context of the joke I had ~2% invested in TSLA in 2010. So maybe he actually IS in 2010 and that's why the stock did so well? Time travel is real?! That would explain the comments...

.... what year is it where (when?) you are? It's 2023 here.

I invested in TSLA in 2010 because even 13 years ago the physics was obvious. Were we needed to go was obvious. If you're so confident in the need for biofuels why don't you put some skin in the game? Why aren't you invested in renewable fuels?

Thanks for further explaining for us the TSLA cult- You bought TSLA simply because you believe in it, and never looked at it's inflated value and long road to repaying it's investors, never mind turning a profit. I practice ethical investing or what they now call "ESG", but besides benefiting it's stakeholders I also expect an investment to show a decent ROI, and TSLA will probably never do that.

As for investing in biofuels, not being a logger, crop farmer, or "Accredited Investor" most of the better opportunities aren't available to me.

 

[turbobrick240]

I'm sure nwdiver has done alright with ROI on his Tesla investment. Last year was a bit of a nightmare for TSLA shareholders, but this year is looking pretty good so far. I'd like to see a nice bull run across the entire market myself.

 

[nwdiver]

Still not adding up.

.... why not look at the numbers? I've got ~240,000 miles on my EV with the original battery. Let's assume it dies tomorrow. The embedded emissions are ~10,000kg. That's 42g/mile. Sure, double that to account for recycling cost to be conservative. 84g/mile. EVs don't use grid mix but we'll use ERCOTs mix of 412g/kWh to be conservative. That's another ~137g/mile. For a lifecycle total of < 221g/mile. Burning a gallon of diesel emits 10,180g + 3,300 for refining and transport = 13,480. What should we assume? 50mpg? That's 269.6g/mile.

221g/mile for EV vs 270g/mile for ICE. And that's worst case. That's ignoring the embedded emissions of ICE. Using renewables would be lower. Using curtailed energy would be lower still. Recycling isn't going to be as emissions intensive and manufacturing.

And as we add more wind and solar we're going to need batteries to reduce curtailment. Why not have batteries that double as transportation? Why manufacture cars that can't take advantage of all the surplus energy that's going to be wasted if it isn't used?

< 221 vs > 270. How does that not add up?

Seems like every week there's a new study and they all come to the same basic conclusion. Even under the least favorable conditions EVs still have lower life cycle emissions. Do you need a note from the mothers of the researchers too? How much more do you need?

Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings across the United States

Electric vehicles beat gasoline cars in cradle-to-grave emissions study

Ford/U of Michigan study finds EVs cleaner from cradle to grave

Cradle-to-grave lifecycle analysis of U.S. light-duty vehicle-fuel pathways: a greenhouse gas emissions and economic assessment of current (2020) and future (2030-2035) technologies

A review of the life cycle assessment of electric vehicles: Considering the influence of batteries

 

[gearheadgrrrl]

Using the most favorable studies of EVs under the most favorable conditions doesn't help your argument. Real world grid mix give little or no GHG benefit for EVs and you're overpromising destroys your credibility. And you forget that most of us can't afford new cars of any type- Have you not noticed that the busiest forums are for two decade old TDIs?

 

[wxman]

In what case specifically? Using H2 as feedstock for eDiesel? And 'grid mix' for BEV?

The grid used was the Norway grid which, in the carculator model, is 100% renewable electricity (mostly hydro and wind).

 

[coolusername]

Providing that is based on actual numbers and not just something someone’s made up to “prove” their point, I still see nothing in there accounting for the waste after it has become obsolete... and with an EV thats just what happens. ICE (particularly diesels) will keep going for many years/km more than any current EV...
Maybe that will change with new EV tech, I hope so, but in the mean time cranking out more essentially “disposable” EV’s isn’t a good idea.

EVs aren't as disposable as you think. I know someone who had a ten year old 2013 Tesla Model S with >120,000 miles, and the battery had minimal degradation, I think around 15% loss of range or something. I know someone who has a 2017 Model 3, also with >100,000 miles, and battery degradation is minimal for that car, too. Lithium ion battery chemistry is much less susceptible to degradation than you think, especially when liquid cooled and in larger scale applications. Even as the batteries degrade, today's EVs have enough range out the gate that a degraded one in 15-20 years still has enough capacity to perform adequate commuter car duties.

 

[coolusername]

Using the most favorable studies of EVs under the most favorable conditions doesn't help your argument. Real world grid mix give little or no GHG benefit for EVs and you're overpromising destroys your credibility. And you forget that most of us can't afford new cars of any type- Have you not noticed that the busiest forums are for two decade old TDIs?

These forums aren't that busy? I've only just joined recently, but large swaths of TDIClub are dormant with little to no posting activity. It feels like it's just a small group of a few dozen people hanging on.

 

[J_dude]

These forums aren't that busy? I've only just joined recently, but large swaths of TDIClub are dormant with little to no posting activity. It feels like it's just a small group of a few dozen people hanging on.

Yes I believe what was meant was that the busiest areas of this forum board are the ones discussing TDI’s that are around two decades old, the MKIV platform.

In response to your previous reply, cool, good to hear they’re improving somewhat, but that’s also best-case scenario. Anyway, I’m sure it will get better, but not sure we should keep cranking out the ones that aren’t going to last...

 

[nwdiver]

The grid used was the Norway grid which, in the carculator model, is 100% renewable electricity (mostly hydro and wind).

What math was used to arrive at 98g eCO2/km? Norway averages ~25g eCO2 /kWh. An EV gets ~4 km/kWh. That's ~7 g/km. Even manufacturing isn't going to add >50. Where's the other ~half coming from?

Using the most favorable studies of EVs under the most favorable conditions doesn't help your argument. Real world grid mix give little or no GHG benefit for EVs and you're overpromising destroys your credibility. And you forget that most of us can't afford new cars of any type- Have you not noticed that the busiest forums are for two decade old TDIs?

That wasn't the most favorable. That was the LEAST favorable. Even an EV powered from 100% coal still eeks out a slight gain. Most favorable would be a high renewable/nuclear mix like Norway. That yields life cycle emission of ~50g per mile. ~80% lower than ICE getting 50 mpg.

That's fine. Keep the old TDIs. Lots of cars that need to come off the roads before a 2000 Jetta that gets >45 mpg even on a bad day. As I've said countless times... my point is we stop building NEW ICE. That's it. And stick with that argument. A new car is more expensive than the used one you already own. Has the benefit of probably being true. Stop with the BS and lies.

 

[wxman]

What math was used to arrive at 98g eCO2/km? Norway averages ~25g eCO2 /kWh. An EV gets ~4 km/kWh. That's ~7 g/km. Even manufacturing isn't going to add >50. Where's the other ~half coming from?

Broken down as follows:

Chassis - 42 g/km (BEV); 41 g/km (ICEV-d)
Powertrain - 10 g/km (BEV); 10 g/km (ICEV-d)
Energy storage - 30 g/km (BEV); 1 g/km (ICEV-d)
Fuel supply - 2 g/km (BEV); 8 g/km (ICEV-d)
Maintenance - 9 g/km (BEV); 8 g/km (ICEV-d)
End-of-life - 5 g/km (BEV); 4 g/km (ICEV-d)

Total - 98 g/km (BEV); 72 g/km (ICEV-d)

Again, this is in the Norway grid which is 100% renewable (86% hydro, 13% wind, 1% solar). The default battery is 72 kWh, NMC622. The default useful vehicle lifetime is 200,000 km. The default driving cycle is WLTC. Vehicle mass is 1889 kg (BEV); 1191 kg (ICEV-d). Vehicle power is 188 hp (BEV); 169 hp.

See https://carculator.psi.ch/display_quick_results/US for sample results.

 

[nwdiver]

Fuel supply - 2 g/km (BEV); 8 g/km (ICEV-d)

A gallon of diesel has ~13kg of emissions. What ICE-d is getting ~1000 miles per gallon? 50 mpg is ~270 g/km.

Maintenance is ~4x more energy intensive than fuel? .... how?

 

[wxman]

A gallon of diesel has ~13kg of emissions. What ICE-d is getting ~1000 miles per gallon? 50 mpg is ~270 g/km.

Maintenance is ~4x more energy intensive than fuel? .... how?

This is efuel diesel, not petroleum-based diesel.

 

[nwdiver]

This is efuel diesel, not petroleum-based diesel.

Why would we spend >$10 for a gallon of ediesel when we could just make cheaper fertilizer from H2? The Hydrogen ladder exists for a reason.

The net effect is you're just converting methane into diesel. With HIGHER emissions than if you were simply refining oil into diesel.

Like I said; This is a question of economics. Could you build a nuclear power plant + eDiesel refinery. That will produce super-clean diesel? Sure, but that $40B would go ~5x farther just building a wind farm.

And that comparison assumes 200k km. That's <125k miles. Is that really an accurate assumption for vehicle life with a modern BEV? My car is already almost twice that. And that's with a 1st or 2nd generation battery. The new LiFe batteries should do much better. Doubling the life would reduce the life cycle emissions to ~55g/km.

 

[wxman]

Where did you get >$10/gallon for ediesel? One of the links you posted in #35 ("Cradle-to-grave lifecycle analysis of U.S. light-duty vehicle-fuel pathways: a greenhouse gas emissions and economic assessment of current (2020) and future (2030-2035) technologies") has estimates the cost of efuels at $5.19/gallon (Table 20 on page 37). Prometheus claims that they can make eFuels for <$3.00/gallon (https://www.prometheusfuels.com/news/dude-wheres-my-fuel).

This is all hypothetical anyway. Synthetic efuels have not yet been produced at the commercial scale that I'm aware of. This thread is about biofuels, which are being produced that the commercial scale and have almost the same GHG advantages.

 

[nwdiver]

Where did you get >$10/gallon for ediesel? One of the links you posted in #35 ("Cradle-to-grave lifecycle analysis of U.S. light-duty vehicle-fuel pathways: a greenhouse gas emissions and economic assessment of current (2020) and future (2030-2035) technologies") has estimates the cost of efuels at $5.19/gallon (Table 20 on page 37). Prometheus claims that they can make eFuels for <$3.00/gallon (https://www.prometheusfuels.com/news/dude-wheres-my-fuel).

This is all hypothetical anyway. Synthetic efuels have not yet been produced at the commercial scale that I'm aware of. This thread is about biofuels, which are being produced that the commercial scale and have almost the same GHG advantages.

The average market price of the feedstock. Hydrogen. You'd need ~2 kg of H2 to make a gallon of ediesel. The cost per kg is >$5. That's not counting the cost to actually refine it...

What exactly is the point of this given that the Hydrogen ladder is a thing? What sense does it make to invest CAPEX in a facility to convert H2 into a liquid fuel when you can sell it into the EXISTING market that needs ~10B kg/yr? At the very least it makes no sense until that demand is met. Just to meet that demand will require ~500TWh of electricity. An increase of 13%. The math for efuel doesn't come close to remotely making the tiniest bit of sense. Not for the next ~50 years.

FCEVs make no sense for this reason, eFuels are even worse. BEVs pencil because they use ~70% less energy AND can use curtailment with no additional CAPEX. What part of that is incorrect?

 

[wxman]

That hydrogen ladder appears to lump all efuel into a single category. I've demonstrated in post #26 that epetrol is much more energy intensive to produce than ediesel. The reaction that takes place in the FT unit (which makes diesel, jet fuel and some naphtha) is highly exothermic. Thus not all of the energy used to produce H2 by electrolysis comes from renewable electricity.

I wasn't the one who developed carculator. If you think it contains significant errors, then contact the developer. Contact information is given in the main website page (https://carculator.psi.ch/).

 

[nwdiver]

That hydrogen ladder appears to lump all efuel into a single category.

That's not the point. Look at where H2FC cars are positioned. They're also in the 'uncompetitive' category and it's physically impossible for efuel to be more efficient than H2FC.

What sense does it make to invest CAPEX in a facility to convert H2 into a liquid fuel when you can sell it into the EXISTING market that needs ~10B kg/yr? At the very least it makes no sense until that demand is met. Just to meet that demand will require ~500TWh of electricity. An increase of 13%. The math for efuel doesn't come close to remotely making the tiniest bit of sense. Not for the next ~50 years.

FCEVs make no sense for this reason, eFuels are even worse. BEVs pencil because they use ~70% less energy AND can use curtailment with no additional CAPEX. What part of that is incorrect?

 

[wxman]

What part of that is incorrect?

The ~70% less energy for BEV. It's actually more like 22% less in the case of diesel ICEV. Where the 70% figure coming from?

Meanwhile, biomass-based diesel fuel has lower GHG emissions than BEV in the same scenario (Norway electric grid) in carculator also. Why do you believe IPCC on its conclusions about AGW, but dismiss its recommendations on using biofuels for a larger role than renewable electricity?

 

[nwdiver]

The ~70% less energy for BEV. It's actually more like 22% less in the case of diesel ICEV. Where the 70% figure coming from?

Meanwhile, biomass-based diesel fuel has lower GHG emissions than BEV in the same scenario (Norway electric grid) in carculator also. Why do you believe IPCC on its conclusions about AGW, but dismiss its recommendations on using biofuels for a larger role than renewable electricity?

An mid-sized sedan BEV like the model 3 gets ~130mpg. That's ~260wh/mi. Even if you optimistically assume ~50mpg for a TDI that's ~820wh/mi. That's 68.3% less. Hence ~70%.

For the ~5th time. You have to look at the net effect. If taking 10kWh from the grid means 10# of coal is being burned because that's the load following plant then the net effect of taking 10kWh from the grid is 10# of coal is burned. Doesn't matter if I have 1kW, 10kW or 100kW of solar. That 10kWh of solar would have displaced 10# of coal if I hadn't instead used it to charge my car. The net effect is 10# of coal is burned. Fortunately this is almost never the case. Increasingly the load following generator is wind especially off-peak.

What's the net effect of burning a gallon of biofuel? It's supply constrained so the net effect is an additional gallon of oil is burned. Biofuels are great. We need to stop adding cars that burn oil so they can be used to displace more oil instead of going as fuel for new cars.....

 

[wxman]

An mid-sized sedan BEV like the model 3 gets ~130mpg. That's ~260wh/mi. Even if you optimistically assume ~50mpg for a TDI that's ~820wh/mi. That's 68.3% less. Hence ~70%.

That doesn't include the much higher upstream energy required by BEV.

From the carculator results (full LCA); 2.545 MJ/km (BEV in Norway grid)/3.274 MJ/km (ICEV-d using 100% eDiesel made in Norway grid) = 0.777 - 1 = 0.222 or 22.2%.

For the ~5th time. You have to look at the net effect. If taking 10kWh from the grid means 10# of coal is being burned because that's the load following plant then the net effect of taking 10kWh from the grid is 10# of coal is burned. Doesn't matter if I have 1kW, 10kW or 100kW of solar. That 10kWh of solar would have displaced 10# of coal if I hadn't instead used it to charge my car. The net effect is 10# of coal is burned. Fortunately this is almost never the case. Increasingly the load following generator is wind especially off-peak.

A 100% renewable electricity grid won't have any coal-generated electricity by definition. Isn't that the goal over the next ~25 years?

What's the net effect of burning a gallon of biofuel? It's supply constrained so the net effect is an additional gallon of oil is burned. Biofuels are great. We need to stop adding cars that burn oil so they can be used to displace more oil instead of going as fuel for new cars.....

And for ~5th time, there's enough biomass to potentially produce >100B gallons/year. That more than enough to completely displace all the middle distillate fuel (diesel and jet) that's currently being consumed in the U.S. annually.

 

[nwdiver]

And for ~5th time, there's enough biomass to potentially produce >100B gallons/year. That more than enough to completely displace all the middle distillate fuel (diesel and jet) that's currently being consumed in the U.S. annually.

Cool; Why not pause new ICE manufacturing at least until >50% of jet fuel is biofuel. Would that be fair?

 

[[486]]

Cool; Why not pause new ICE manufacturing at least until >50% of jet fuel is biofuel. Would that be fair?

economics doesn't really care about anyone's idea of fair

 

[jmodge]

economics doesn't really care about anyone's idea of fair

That’s a fact

 

[Pat Dolan]

Biomass, while renewable, is such at relatively slow timescales compared to the rate of consumption, so it's finite.

Outside of biofuels for automotive use, there's a lot of discussion on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) derived from biomass. However, without a significant curtailing of the absolute quantities consumed, there's nothing sustainable about it, regardless of its source.

I work around the SAF situation a fair bit. ANY bio fuel that depends on crop production is IMHO not practical in the long run. SAF has a number of production paths, but the harsh reality is the need for jet fuel is far, far greater than any realistic capacity that is likely to develop - and if that starts displacing food crops the crap would (and SHOULD) hit that fan.

We have a potential customer that had (I think for investment milestones) to be able to fly their airframe on SAF, so they bought a small turbine and found it ran so poorly it was not really possible to demonstrate (they are not engine people). They will end up going diesel because that is far easier and cheaper to burn SAF than turbines (if they need to be modified to work....and most certainly do).

IMHO bio-D of any kind is what is saving our collective rear end - as the all seem to provide the lubricity that HPCR and earlier systems need. Where is the new plant in AB??