"We have limited our studies to nuclear power because its capital costs are lower than wind and solar-electric power, and it has significant environmental advantages over fossil energy sources, which are not carbon-neutral."
If I already own a perfectly good ICE car, as most people do, it's much less wasteful to start feeding it synthetic gasoline than replacing the whole car with an EV. And the benefits are immediate.
Edit: Also, the energy density of hydrocarbons is unmatched. Synthetic kerosene could be used to run 747's; battery technology can't do that.
>If I already own a perfectly good ICE car, as most people do, it's much less wasteful to start feeding it synthetic gasoline than replacing the whole car with an EV
Actually this is incorrect. 75% of the energy used by a gasoline car is in the fuel it takes to drive it, and only 25% in manufacturing and disposal.
It's the same situation with incandescent lights. It's mathematically more efficient to throw out a perfectly good one and replace it with something more efficient.
>Synthetic kerosene could be used to run 747's; battery technology can't do that.
The entire point of the question I asked was: given energy source, what is the comparison between 1) sending out electricity to batteries, or 2) creating liquid carbon-neutral fuels.
"We have limited our studies to nuclear power because its capital costs are lower than wind and solar-electric power, and it has significant environmental advantages over fossil energy sources, which are not carbon-neutral."