I'm not so sure I'm accepting the whole "CO2-neutral e-gas" argument. In fact I have strong doubts.

The e-gas still involves using CO2-tainted electricity to create hydrogen. That electricity would be more efficiently used directly rather than going through 3 additional conversion steps to move the CO2 emission from a smokestack that supplies electricity to the "power-to-gas" plant, to the tailpipe of an Audi car. These steps are NOT without energy losses, and you end up creating more CO2/mile than if you just used fossile fuel as a direct input to an efficient hybrid, preferably a 70+ mpg diesel hybrid. The electricity should be used directly for other purposes that are most effectively powered by electricity (residential electrical lighting is one such use).

The fact that the proponents invoke that some or all of the electricity has to come from wind power to make the argument is a telltale sign that they are cheating: Basically, they are stealing (diverting) clean wind power for use in cars instead of using it to displace CO2-tainted and dirty coal power in the electrical grid mix. That tells you right there that they are just playing CO2 shell games.

You have to look at the total picure. The truth is indisputably that the total CO2 emissions would become less if we feed the same wind power in to the grid for non-car use, and at the same time used fossile fuel directly in a diesel hybrid car that gets 70+ mpg. Their so-called closed loop is LOSSY and inefficient, and the net effect is more CO2/mile than the best existing hybrid car technology.

The "CO2-neutral e-gas" is a ruse to look good, while in truth making the overall CO2 emissions worse than what they have to be.

It is very counterproductive that people are proposing such convoluted schemes as "CO2-neutral e-gas" to look good, but there is a silver lining: It means that the policy makers and the general public are starting to understand that feeding CO2-tainted electrical grid-mix into "electric" cars is CO2-detrimental overall. The proponents are trying desperately to hide this fact, but the general public is slowly catching on to the hide-the-CO2 shell games. The proposal of such elaborate schemes is evidence that the hide-the-CO2 schemers are being backed into a corner.

In case anyone is wondering why I care about all of this:

I have two overall goals: Reduce fossile fuel use and related CO2 emissions by as much as possible, to slow global warming, AND to delay the inevitable extinction of fossile fuel sources for as long as possible. Leave the fossile fuel in the ground for future generations.

@SJC,

"using the CO2 twice" is an accounting fraud (or a CO2 shell game, as I like to call it). The proponents of e-gas ignore the excess CO2 created by the grid-mix electricity that is spent to create H2 and then bind with the CO2 to make the e-gas.

The net CO2/mile is *larger* than if they had fed the electricity directly into the car as an EV with a battery. Moreover, the electric car in turn has worse CO2/mile than the most efficient hybrid.

But there's yet another caveat: Before diverting any natgas to car use,
it would be CO2-advantageous to displace all coal-based electricity with natgas -based electricity FIRST.

If one uses electricity from wind turbines when they are generating excess power as for instance around midnight to produce synthetic methane the accounting works out since there is no economic way to store electricity.

@ Jus7tme

You're overlooking one big factor with e-gas: Germany, especially, has a big problem with surplus wind energy during periods of low demand. The power that will be used to make e-gas is essentially free; it would otherwise be wasted.

Other things being equal, it would admittedly be more efficient to use the power to charge EV batteries. But EV batteries are still very expensive for the energy they store. E-gas taps into an existing gas infrastructure and delivers far better driving range.

even better.

A biogas plant produces methane and CO2, the CO2 would be released to the atmosphere if not used for another purpose. This puts that CO2 to work making fuels rather than emitting it AND burning fuel in the cars.

@SJC

>> It is not phony accounting at all. If I burn gasoline in the car and coal in the power plant, I produce more CO2.

No, the accounting is completely wrong and as phony as it gets. If you burn coal (or natgas) to make electricity to make H2 to make syngas to run in cars, then that produces more CO2/mile than just running the natgas directly in the car, or running on gasoline for that sake. If you have windpower, use it do displace natgas and coal-fired electricty DIRECTLY. Do not add extra steps that lose energy as heat and produce more CO2 than if the windpower electricty is used directly.

This should not be difficult to understand, but there is a lot of propaganda out there by people who want it to look like they are saving CO2, when in fact they are making more CO2 than will be emitted by using best practices.

One more thing: If we EVER get to the point that there REALLY is a continental surplus in Europe or USA or Asia, of use-it-or-lose-it renewable power (such as wind power or solar power), there is a simple solution:

Transmit the power to a hydroelectric dam (in Switzerland, Austria, Germany/Bavaria, French Alps, Norway, Sweden, Italy?) and and use it to pump water back up to the reservoir. This is called pumped hydro storage, and there should be a lot more of it. It is highly efficient, and produces hardly anyextra CO2, unlike these harebrained e-Gas/syngas schemes. Pumped hydro storage does cost some money. But so do the worse alternatives.