Haha okay.

Ofc I don't mean transport by trucks...

Have a look at this planned project here that will be using pipeline-based infrastructure for cross-border transmission: https://en.energinet.dk/about-our-news/news/2026/energinet-and-gasunie-deutschland-strengthen-cooperation-on-cross-border-hydrogen-infrastructure-between-denmark-and-germany/

There are also limitations to the storing excess power in batteries. The capacity of batteries is one of the obvious.

Electrolysis is better for long duration storage and for larger parks, and batteries have the limitation that you mention yourself, you cannot transport batteries, but you can transport hydrogen.

Perhaps we are talking about two different things then. I'm talking about the effiency from renewable energy to eSAF, and it seems like you are talking about the efficiency from eSAF to propulsion energy, which then includes the effiency of a combustion engine.

I think it makes the most sense to isolate those two things, or else the number depends on how efficient the ICE is.

But, you are right that the effiency is really low, so the circumtances have to be there, before it makes sense, and those circumstances are a surplus of energy from renewable generators, which inevitable occurs when there is enough renewable power flowing in the grid.

Again, I'm no expert, but here are a couple of sources on the effiency:

https://montel.energy/resources/blog/what-are-power-to-x-technologies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrofuel

I think the effiency of eSAF is closer to be around 35-50 %, but I am by no means an expert in PtX (PtL).

But it is still extremely expensive, 6x more expensive than normal jet fuel. And the goal in EU is that by 2030 0.7 % of the fuel mix is eSAF.

I think the biggest challenge is the infrastructure. We are having issues with negative power prices in EU, more eSAF production can be one solution to a more stable grid in places with a high penetration of renewable energy production.

Even if you used ammonia as fuel, the round trip efficiency is like 17%

Do you have any sources backing this up?

And also, I mentioned eSAF, not SAF. There's a difference.

I believe the aviation industry is betting on ESAF which is synthetic fuel derived from renewable energy.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/air-bp/news-and-views/views/what-is-esaf.html

What? I am not sure your point is clear here.

We have quite a lot of public stats on the insurance companies in Denmark. You can see how many formal complaints a company have received, I.e. customers who have made a complaint a decision made by the insurance company, how many of these complaints have been in favor of the insurance company or the customer, which types of insurances each company gets most complaints about, etc. So there is a lot of data that allows you to make a informed decision about which insurance company you want to choose.

Does that mean you don't buy insurance or are you paying someone to intentionally scam you?

It is strange that you don't have an option to choose a insurance company who are not scammers. I mean, that no one thought of starting an insurance company which promotes self on actually helping their customers.

There are companies outside US who are not scamming people and still are profitable.

As a concept or in practice?