> Are there use cases where we must burn propane because we can’t replace that process with electricity?
That's not relevant in the short term. There are so many things using propane right now and it's a lot easier send them "renewable propane" than to entirely retrofit them to be electric.
> There are so many things using propane right now and it's a lot easier send them "renewable propane" than to entirely retrofit them to be electric.
I see statements like this every now and then, and I really wonder where that comes from, because that is not at all obvious, and most likely in most cases wrong.
If you imagine that "renewable propane" is something that you can just get, then it may appear easier to use your existing devices. But it's not. It's something that is not produced at any meaningful scale anywhere. There are no industrial processes to do so yet. You're talking about creating a whole new industry using technologies that don't exist yet, and by the way, a new industry that needs massive amounts of renewable energy. A lot more of that renewable energy compared to direct electrification. Nothing about that is easy.
> It's something that is not produced at any meaningful scale anywhere. There are no industrial processes to do so yet.
As opposed to...replacing every single ICE with an all-electric equivalent. I think scaled up renewable propane would be a much cheaper cost overall than rebuilding every single vehicle in existence.
> I think scaled up renewable propane would be a much cheaper cost overall than rebuilding every single vehicle in existence.
I don't think you have any realistic idea about the energy costs of synthetic hydrocarbons. We're talking about something in the range of 5x the amount of energy you need. Think 5x the number of wind turbines and solar panels, and then reconsider if you still imagine that is a cheap solution.
You can run ICE cars on LPG (propane + butane, would probably work on pure propane as well), with minor (<1000$) modification in the fuel injection system and fitting a proper tank.
This could make millions of older cars cleaner, also in the developing world. LPG is already cleaner, would benefit the developing world, and ICE engines can be produced without needing exotic materials, can be recycled 100% by smelting, are a proven, well known, durable technology, unlike lithium batteries (which are also proven, but recycling and exotic materials are problematic), and are and will be a popular technology in the developing world for a long time.
Also it would allow for cheaper and cleaner cars in the developed world, where not everybody can afford the electric dream many here are living.
It would also be somewhat suitable for long haul and heavy machinery, but most likely in a hybrid drivertrain setup.
Also it would solve the big issue of the German home heating and industry: how to stove away the sun and wind from the summer to the winter, when in the windless dark days nowadays coal is burnt, as battery of hydro storage cannot be scaled beyond a few days capacity at extremes.
There is already built, or cheap technology to gas powered solutions, no need to transition to new technology hastily. This would give runway to the green transition, as it could be net zero carbon footprint solution with less disturbance to the existing solutions.
This. There's no way the global car fleet is switching over to electric any time soon. Globally there are around 1.2 billion cars, with 65 million or so sold each year, which puts us at 15-20 years for the fleet to be replaced if every single car sold from today were electric.
Like it or not, internal combustion cars have many advantages, a big one being that they can run on different fuels. Converting to green LPG or (my pick) methanol will have to happen if we're serious about reducing transport emissions, because it's the only immediate non-cost-prohibitive option.
I'm not a mechanical engineer, but for one I have driven my father's LPG-converted car, and the cylinder didn't melt so far, so I think this is already more-or-less under control. Many car vendors in the EU (especially south and east) offered LPG-petrol bi-fuel powered cars out of the box. (I know of Dacia and Fiat for sure, and according to my brother LPG converted hybrid Priuses are popular in Poland for insanely cheap operations by cab drivers for example).
For engines getting smaller: the LPG operation of petrol engines provides lower power output (and lower torque), so an uptick in LPG powered (dual fuel?) cars would probably mandate slightly different engines sensible (bigger ones), the market would surely adapt to it.
E85 would also be fine if it wouldn't be manufactured from intensively farmed monocultural agricultural products, which make it totally non-sustainable and non-renewable factoring in the sustainability problems of industrial agriculture (soil erosion, carbon depletion of soil, death of soil microbiome, groundwater depletion, etc)
The parking ban for LPG in closed garages is a real problem, I have faced it myself. Though it is justifiable, but then it would also be justified for the BEVs as there were cases already where (heat from) a battery fire compromised the structural integrity parking complexes, so it is a manageable risk probably, and probably mostly legislative.
In case of a leak there is a risk in case of a not-ventilated enough underground garage it is possible that the gas accumulates in the lower parts before it can be sensed/sniffed, and a mix of just 2.1% with air is already at risk of explosion if a spark is generated.
Security norms changed in the EU around 2001, the norm is the ECE/ONU 67-01 (though different countries may have implemented differently in the local Law) and LPG powered cars conforming to that standard are allowed (generally) to be parked in underground garages BUT only on the first underground floor and only if the garage is conforming to some (earlier) ventilation standards.
AFAIK cases of explosions/fires related to LPG car tanks are extremely rare (thanks also to the added safety measures mandated by ECE/ONU 67-01), whilst fires/explosions originated by domestic LPG use, while not common, are more common than what they should be (the tanks in themselves are generally safe, but the - often underground - pipings often are not).
Gasoline vapors are also heavier than air, and its lower explosive limit is only 1.4%. If my parked car leaks 10 gallons of gasoline is that really any different? Or are LPG tanks more prone to leaking? I would think not, because they are probably heavier steel not the 18 gauge sheet metal (or plastic) of an automobile gas tank. But if the rule is there, I guess it must be. Hard for me to see the rationale though.
Electricity is way cheaper at the poont of generation than for residential consumer.
IIRC, solar now gets to about 3$ per Mwth, so purely energy cost would be about 0.33$ per kg of propane if 100Mj of input energy per kg of propane stands for that electrolyser plus stated 13Mj for Co2 capture for 1 kg of propane.
So, the cost is not negligible, but could be competetive even now, and solar is likely to get cheaper.
No matter how expensive it is, on a short enough timescale it is always going to be cheaper to use "renewable" propane over retrofitting to be electric.
That's not relevant in the short term. There are so many things using propane right now and it's a lot easier send them "renewable propane" than to entirely retrofit them to be electric.