7 ms·

Porsche Working on Synthetic Fuel to Make ICE Cars as Clean as EVs

38 points by monkeydust 5y ago

elromulous 5y ago
I've been following this for a little while. I can't help but feel like it's too little too late. Don't get me wrong - I'm rooting for it. But EVs already have so much momentum. And unlike EVs, which in the worse case can be charged at home (thus not requiring any infrastructure / supply), this solution necessarily requires supply.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Like Toyota, it is an attempt to not invest in battery R&D and shifting manufacturing to EVs. They’re holding on to their ICE investments until the bitter end.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    Porsche already makes popular EVs. They also recognize that ICE cars (by all manufacturers) sold today, and for the last few years, are likely to be on the road in 2030, probably even 2040. Seems that the introduction of a new hydro-fuel with significant CO2 reduction would be a massive environmental win, for Porsche drivers and for everybody else. I don't think you are doing the world any good by painting Porsche's efforts in a negative light.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Porsche is currently facing a possible scandal about their Taycan batteries. Also, it’s clear their battery engineering is poor based on the battery warranty requirements [1]. Legacy automakers have made very little effort to move to EVs or work towards climate friendly goals, so no, I do not assume positive intent. I see their efforts (just like Toyota’s hydrogen fuel cell engineering) as attempts to maintain the status quo at the lowest cost possible until proven otherwise. If this fuel is truly carbon neutral (which corn and sugar sourced ethanol fail on), does not emit harmful particulate or other emissions, and can be scaled up to support existing engines cost effectively, I will eat my words (Mercedes, in this article, says these fuels are a dead end and is pushing electrification, so I don’t believe this position is without merit). > An apparent hint of Porsche’s challenges with the Taycan’s battery could be seen in the warranty for the all-electric sports car, which happens to be one of the lowest on the market with just 60,000 km or three years if following conditions (Porsche Warranty Requirements) are not met: > Vehicles standing longer than two weeks supposed to be connected to a charger * Customers must assure that the Taycan’s state of charge remains between 20% – 50% * Customers must make sure that their Taycan is not exposed to continuous sunlight > Vehicles standing longer than two weeks not connected to a charger * Customers must charge the Taycan’s battery before to 50% * Customers must check every three months and assure SoC remains at or above 20% * Customers must assure that their vehicle’s temperature is between 0C – 20C Compare to Tesla's battery warranty (8 years across all models, and between 100k and 150k miles, depending on model): https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty You can even park in continuous sunlight. [1] https://www.teslarati.com/porsche-whistleblower-taycan-battery-charger-fires-coverup/ https://www.teslarati.com/porsche-whistleblower-taycan-batte...
      - listenallyall 5y ago
        You left out > it is my duty to inform the public with this article while I don’t have hard evidence and therefore can’t confirm the information to be right.
        toomuchtodo 5y ago
        “Facing a possible scandal” from my quote you replied to. The battery warranty I quoted is public information and documented. The scandal may be nothing, but the subpar battery storage engineering is evident from the warranty terms. Regardless, upvoted for transparency.
        listenallyall 5y ago
        No, the battery warranty you quoted is NOT public NOR documented. You've offered no proof it is real. Perhaps Porsche makes recommendations, to help preserve optimal performance, but you have ZERO evidence that those terms are disclaimers written into the actual warranty, nor of any warranty service denied due to failing to meet such terms.
        toomuchtodo 5y ago
        I will have an investigative reporter I work with reach out to Porsche for comment on the whistleblower’s claims and let them know a Taycan pack will be provided to an industry tear down expert for public stress testing. I’ll also have them contact the NHTSA to see if there’s an open investigation in the matter (separate from their investigation earlier in the year on the vehicle’s sudden power loss events). I appreciate you keeping me honest, and I’ll come back to HN with additional documentation when I have it. I’m either wrong or Porsche will need to make their EV owners whole. Seems pretty straightforward to clear up if there’s any truth to the matter, and no one should be purposely or inadvertently spreading misinformation, including myself.
        reitzensteinm 5y ago
  - klokwork 5y ago
    I think that's not entirely fair. There are several viable reasons why an investment into something like this makes a lot of sense. Firstly, Porsche is a manufacturer that caters to enthusiasts and many of those customers are very much wedded to ICE engines, manual gearboxes etc. Those customers will continue to buy new cars that utilise existing ICE engine designs, but more importantly Porsche has many customers who keep their cars for decades and this will allow them to continue to run them without changing the cars character. Secondly, Porsche (or more accurately, VAG) are very much investing into EV's - arguably they could have done it faster and earlier, but the investment is very much there now. Having technology like this diversifies what they can offer and in the case of some sort of global component shortage for batteries for instance, they can continue to scale. As a bit of an enthusiast myself, if I can continue to run the cars I already own at a similar environmental impact to a new EV, frankly I would be delighted, even if the cost of the fuel is significantly higher.
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    Porsche literally already makes EVs... And a pretty good one. It's more like battery advances aren't happening without a major breakthrough in chemistry.
    - natch 5y ago
      If by pretty good you mean slower, more expensive, with less efficiency and less range.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    Your comment seems to take it as a given that this is a bad thing -- can you explain why you think so? The only problem with ICEs, as far as I understand, is their use of petrol and the contents of the exhaust that creates. Assuming we can eliminate that problem, is there a remaining reason that ICEs should be deprecated in favor of electric engines?
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      AtlasBarfed’s comment in this thread sums it up well. “It also smells like a lot of the forced hydrogen hype, a FUD, delay/distraction, undermining of EV popular support, etc by the oil industry that once they get a crack they'll drive a truck through.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29653177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29653177
    - natch 5y ago
      Also the maintenance, the cost of which falls on the consumer while providing a pointless cash cow for legacy auto.
- r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
  I'm guessing (literally, I have no idea if this is true) that if these synthetic fuels can be stored and transported in the same way as normal petrol then you wouldn't have to build that much more distribution infrastructure. Instead you could just repurpose what's already there. Obviously you still have to make the stuff, which involves capital investment, but so does building gigafactories, the power plants necessary to generate the extra electricity and upgrading the grid.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >These synthetic fuels can be stored and transported in the same way as normal petrol then you wouldn't have to build that much more distribution infrastructure. Which is highly desirable for developing nations, who will be driving ICEs well into the 2040s since a large chunk of their supply is used stuff exported from rich nations.
- erik_seaberg 5y ago
  > EVs, which in the worse case can be charged at home The worst case for a BEV is street parking. From our apartment, the nearest public charger is two miles away (a 45 minute bus ride at best), and it’s too small to leave cars overnight.
surfingdino 5y ago
It's good to have options.
- aaroninsf 5y ago
  In an ideal world I'd love our car (and everyone else's) to be pure EV; in the current one, we opted for a plug-in hybrid with a decent EV range (~40+ miles) because it allows us to be 100% EV in local driving, but not worry about charging schedule/availability on longer trips. We're a single-car household in the US and we do a lot of camping and wilderness trips; for those there is currently no good EV option. Even if you stage a full charge at the bottom of a mountain, vertical climbs kill your range... and you end up in locations getting a drive-in emergency recharge may be entirely infeasible. I am sad about the complexity of our car. Lift the hood and laugh out loud. But as long as it's reasonably reliable, I would happily pay a serious premium for carbon-neutral gas for the ICE part. 2-3x even. Because then I would sleep easier; and we have the luxury of only burning that in the 5% case. All for the YES-AND.
  - surfingdino 5y ago
    I am skeptical (but willing to be proven wrong) about EVs. I am really interested to see long term reliability and safety reports. FYI. I sold my ICE car this year and have not replaced it, yet. The constant semi-lockdowns and decent public transport where I live made car ownership pointless for me at this time.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  I think there are huge quality of life and health improvements that come along with EV: the air pollution death numbers are likely understated, and I suspect there are carcinogenic and micropollution effects from ICE emissions that are being hidden by our addiction to gasoline and industry-sponsored denialism and suppression. It also smells like a lot of the forced hydrogen hype, a FUD, delay/distraction, undermining of EV popular support, etc by the oil industry that once they get a crack they'll drive a truck through. Hopefully EVs and solar/wind/battery continue their price curve improvements, to make all these distraction projects ludicrously economically infeasible. It is a triumph, dare I say miracle, of modern technology and (sigh, I hate praising economics) economics that we now have a switchover path from dinosaur heroin to something that is EVEN CHEAPER.
samwillis 5y ago
I think it’s worth noting that this is a much bigger play than being just for Porches own cars. Porsche own VW Group, they are the largest car manufacturer in the world, they are also a literal bank. They have the capital to invest in a “moonshot” type project. So firstly, this is obviously important as a hedge for them - more options for the industry moving forward (we absolutely should not only be working on BEVs) / what if there is ever a lithium or mineral shortage due to geopolitical conflict. Secondly, air flight! Battery’s will never have the energy density for longer than regional flight at a long shot. Most people agree that battery airplanes will only be successful for metropolitan flights <20km. A green, high energy density fuel is the only long term option for medium/long hall flight. Porsche want to own as much IP on that as possible and have the cash to invest.
- arethuza 5y ago
  I believe that Porsche SE are a holding company that own a majority share of VW Group who then own the Porsche company that makes cars - it is probably the latter who are making this fuel.
  - samwillis 5y ago
    True, although they are mostly a cohesive operation sharing expertise and technology. For example the Porsche Taycan and Audi E-Tron GT are built on the same platform and are almost the same car. It’s main development was lead by Porsche but it’s technology will be used by the whole group. This may be being developed within the Porsche cars group but the plan is bigger than that. It’s just the PR that’s focused at the Porsche use case right now.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Ships, aircraft, remote off-grid locations (for both power and heat), and portable tools would all benefit by carbon-neutral synfuels. Batteries work in some of these cases, but not all.
civilized 5y ago
I'll wait to celebrate until a credible source estimates total emissions impact of this fuel. Sadly, there's a lot of "green cons" going on right now. For years, America has been cutting down its own mature hardwood forests to feed power plants in the UK and Europe on the extremely questionable theory that these forests qualify as a renewable energy source. Con men administrators and officials are wrecking our environment and society to pad their CVs with wins on fake metrics. It's happening everywhere and we need to get wise.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  Greenwashing. For another example, "Biodegradable" plastics were mostly a big con.
- boppo1 5y ago
  I was just trying to dig up a bookmark on your example but couldn't find it. You don't have an article handy, do you?
  - civilized 5y ago
    Here's one: https://www.whqr.org/local/2021-10-26/green-energy-or-greenwashing-the-wood-pellet-industry-is-the-target-of-fierce-debate https://www.whqr.org/local/2021-10-26/green-energy-or-greenw... Basically, the idea behind turning forests into pellets is "we'll eventually grow more trees to compensate and recapture the CO2". But you can say the same thing about burning fossil fuels or anything else! It's insane to think that cutting down trees is somehow special in this regard. The problem with planting more trees is the same no matter how you're putting CO2 into the air: it takes decades for the trees to grow, and in the meantime all that CO2 you emitted is in the atmosphere warming the planet. And let's not forget that burning pellets emits more CO2 than fossil fuels: > According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, burning wood generates 1.5 times the CO2 of coal and 3 times the CO2 of natural gas to create the same amount of energy. It's absolutely batty, and our Ministers of Greenwashing are exploiting it to the hilt.
    - 5y ago
slashdev 5y ago
I'm sure many engineers would recoil at the inefficiency of producing hydrocarbon fuel from water, CO2, and electricity, only to then transport it all over the place, before finally burning it in a small, inefficient engine to get water and CO2 again. Hugely wasteful. Elon Musk would rightly scoff at it (actually, I'm sure he already has.) But if they could do it at an economically viable level - which will almost certainly require government subsidies - it's a great thing for the world. Climate change is a big, big problem without a single solution. We need all hands on deck. Making existing vehicles green could be a massive help. Outlaw crypto at the same time and you could even get the energy free...
- Reichhardt 5y ago
  Synthetic Fuel is not going to be for the masses, it will be for the elite driving Porsches (hence the research funding), as part of a giant green-washing scheme. What's sad is that the EU will throw subsidy money at it, instead of just doing the sensible thing and adopting EVs at all levels - simply to maintain the corporate legacy of soon-obsolete German automakers.
  - eloff 5y ago
    Fuel is fuel. Porsche doesn't own gasoline stations. If they sell this fuel, it will be for any car with the technology to burn it.
    - fuzzfactor 5y ago
      It will be for any driver willing to pay the price. From what I've been hearing the most likely to be approved in the USA will still be volatile hydrocarbons consisting of components which are synthetically crafted to meet the current standards for today's gasoline, insead of being refined from crude petroleum. This is a type of chemical fuel so a number of synthetic processes can contribute some various light hydrocarbons as well as the less volatile components which can be blended to achieve a passing result on the motor gasoline basis. Regular and premium gasolines have always been carefully blended to spec themselves. Especially to avoid "octane giveaway". Hundreds of structurally different natural hydrocarbons from one or more sources of crude oil end up in traditionally refined gasoline. Modern blending of these major streams has been an art form for decades. Some of the alternatives expected to emerge may have only dozens or fewer distinct hydrocarbon components. These can also possibly be cleaner burning perhaps with or without non-hydrocarbon oxygenated components like ethanol included. Mostly the target is that these will be truly higher quality fuels than ordinary gasoline. There is also the possibility the blending process can be made more predictable and repeatable. But cleaner burning means just less toxic exhaust byproducts like unburned hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatics, and particulates. Virtually the same amount of CO & CO2 will still be coming out, not significantly different than ordinary gasoline. So the fuel still turns to CO2, but that could be what it was made from to begin with, rather than extracting new carbon from underground the easy way. It should be worth it to keep new carbon from building up in the atmosphere. However making hydrocarbons from CO2 requires an energy input to the raw materials, equivalent to that which later be will contained in the fuel. So it takes in advance the same energy the fuel gives back later, except there are systemic inefficiencies so it actually takes more energy to make than it gives back. When this energy input is completely carbon-free is the best that can be done, while the realistic objective for the product is to burn not much differently than high-octane gasoline. So no reduced CO2 while driving, just putting back what was originally captured by the synthetic chemical processes. This will be more costly than ordinary gasoline by the time it reaches the average consumer. So I don't think competitive pricing will occur according to free market forces. Plus this one is being made with Porsche enthusiasts in mind who are not mainly average consumers and many can really afford to pay more. I can forsee a synthetic fuel that is much more stable over time and can have outstanding performance for collector cars when they are simply parked in the garage over many more seasons or years without needing to be flushed or drained before getting back on the road. Now imagine if you will, a proven blend composed of say a dozen, maybe fewer, various well-known hydrocarbons that works great. They're testing things like this now on the track even though they don't have well-developed processes to synthesize every one of them yet. Some researchers seem to have a pretty good idea what to shoot for already. The most likely MVP would be when synthetic processes are barely capable of producing the minimal number of components from clean energy & CO2. Or at least somewhat cleaner energy and a somewhat renewable carbon source besides CO2 or in addition. As long as you can buy the remaining bulk of the components from oil & chemical companies that might be the earliest launch by far. It can only get greener from there.
barbazoo 5y ago
Let those dinosaurs that can't let ICE go, fail, who cares.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  That's frankly an irresponsible and short sighted viewpoint. Fossil fuels will be around for decades at least, maybe centuries. Why would you not want them to be cleaner?
  - silisili 5y ago
    At minimum, I can't see aviation moving away from fuel for probably the forseeable future.
  - barbazoo 5y ago
    Ideally we'll stop using fossil fuels long before they run out. But we don't have time for the good old Germany auto elite to drag their feet like they used to. I have very little tolerance for that and I wouldn't cry a single tear if they went under because they missed the boat.
exabrial 5y ago
Phew. > In a similar vein, E85, a non-carbon neutral gasoline substitute made from 85 percent corn-based ethanol Ethanol is not: 1. A clean fuel 2. A carbon neutral fuel 3. A carbon negative fuel 4. A cheap fuel 5. An effective fuel 6. A responsible fuel It takes a tremendous amount of fossil fuel to make ethanol. We're better off just burning the fossil fuel.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Please, consider that the world is more than the US and that other countries have successful ethanol programs that are not the American corn scam
  - exabrial 5y ago
    There are no efficient ethanol operations both financially and carbon wise. Even it the best case scenarios, it results in a break even in many years of the future but at a major loss of habitat. Corn is a huge problem, but there are literally no crops that solve the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM
sh1mmer 5y ago
> Porsche’s eFuels are made out of CO2 and hydrogen and are produced using renewable energy. Am I missing something obvious? Even if the fuel production is carbon-neutral, wouldn’t the ICE cars still be combusting the fuel and releasing CO2? Hydrogen fuel-cell cars don’t release the CO2 because they use a different reaction. What I don’t understand is how this new fuel would change the fundamentals of an internal combustion engine regardless of how it’s made.
- freemint 5y ago
  The fuel production needs to be carbon negative, yes, that is their idea.

38 points by monkeydust 5y ago

I've been following this for a little while. I can't help but feel like it's too little too late. Don't get me wrong - I'm rooting for it. But EVs already have so much momentum. And unlike EVs, which in the worse case can be charged at home (thus not requiring any infrastructure / supply), this solution necessarily requires supply.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Like Toyota, it is an attempt to not invest in battery R&D and shifting manufacturing to EVs. They’re holding on to their ICE investments until the bitter end.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- listenallyall 5y ago
  Porsche already makes popular EVs. They also recognize that ICE cars (by all manufacturers) sold today, and for the last few years, are likely to be on the road in 2030, probably even 2040. Seems that the introduction of a new hydro-fuel with significant CO2 reduction would be a massive environmental win, for Porsche drivers and for everybody else. I don't think you are doing the world any good by painting Porsche's efforts in a negative light.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Porsche is currently facing a possible scandal about their Taycan batteries. Also, it’s clear their battery engineering is poor based on the battery warranty requirements [1]. Legacy automakers have made very little effort to move to EVs or work towards climate friendly goals, so no, I do not assume positive intent. I see their efforts (just like Toyota’s hydrogen fuel cell engineering) as attempts to maintain the status quo at the lowest cost possible until proven otherwise. If this fuel is truly carbon neutral (which corn and sugar sourced ethanol fail on), does not emit harmful particulate or other emissions, and can be scaled up to support existing engines cost effectively, I will eat my words (Mercedes, in this article, says these fuels are a dead end and is pushing electrification, so I don’t believe this position is without merit). > An apparent hint of Porsche’s challenges with the Taycan’s battery could be seen in the warranty for the all-electric sports car, which happens to be one of the lowest on the market with just 60,000 km or three years if following conditions (Porsche Warranty Requirements) are not met: > Vehicles standing longer than two weeks supposed to be connected to a charger * Customers must assure that the Taycan’s state of charge remains between 20% – 50% * Customers must make sure that their Taycan is not exposed to continuous sunlight > Vehicles standing longer than two weeks not connected to a charger * Customers must charge the Taycan’s battery before to 50% * Customers must check every three months and assure SoC remains at or above 20% * Customers must assure that their vehicle’s temperature is between 0C – 20C Compare to Tesla's battery warranty (8 years across all models, and between 100k and 150k miles, depending on model): https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty https://www.tesla.com/support/vehicle-warranty You can even park in continuous sunlight. [1] https://www.teslarati.com/porsche-whistleblower-taycan-battery-charger-fires-coverup/ https://www.teslarati.com/porsche-whistleblower-taycan-batte...
    - listenallyall 5y ago
      You left out > it is my duty to inform the public with this article while I don’t have hard evidence and therefore can’t confirm the information to be right.
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        “Facing a possible scandal” from my quote you replied to. The battery warranty I quoted is public information and documented. The scandal may be nothing, but the subpar battery storage engineering is evident from the warranty terms. Regardless, upvoted for transparency.
        listenallyall 5y ago
        No, the battery warranty you quoted is NOT public NOR documented. You've offered no proof it is real. Perhaps Porsche makes recommendations, to help preserve optimal performance, but you have ZERO evidence that those terms are disclaimers written into the actual warranty, nor of any warranty service denied due to failing to meet such terms.
        toomuchtodo 5y ago
        I will have an investigative reporter I work with reach out to Porsche for comment on the whistleblower’s claims and let them know a Taycan pack will be provided to an industry tear down expert for public stress testing. I’ll also have them contact the NHTSA to see if there’s an open investigation in the matter (separate from their investigation earlier in the year on the vehicle’s sudden power loss events). I appreciate you keeping me honest, and I’ll come back to HN with additional documentation when I have it. I’m either wrong or Porsche will need to make their EV owners whole. Seems pretty straightforward to clear up if there’s any truth to the matter, and no one should be purposely or inadvertently spreading misinformation, including myself.
        reitzensteinm 5y ago
- klokwork 5y ago
  I think that's not entirely fair. There are several viable reasons why an investment into something like this makes a lot of sense. Firstly, Porsche is a manufacturer that caters to enthusiasts and many of those customers are very much wedded to ICE engines, manual gearboxes etc. Those customers will continue to buy new cars that utilise existing ICE engine designs, but more importantly Porsche has many customers who keep their cars for decades and this will allow them to continue to run them without changing the cars character. Secondly, Porsche (or more accurately, VAG) are very much investing into EV's - arguably they could have done it faster and earlier, but the investment is very much there now. Having technology like this diversifies what they can offer and in the case of some sort of global component shortage for batteries for instance, they can continue to scale. As a bit of an enthusiast myself, if I can continue to run the cars I already own at a similar environmental impact to a new EV, frankly I would be delighted, even if the cost of the fuel is significantly higher.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  Porsche literally already makes EVs... And a pretty good one. It's more like battery advances aren't happening without a major breakthrough in chemistry.
  - natch 5y ago
    If by pretty good you mean slower, more expensive, with less efficiency and less range.
- b3morales 5y ago
  Your comment seems to take it as a given that this is a bad thing -- can you explain why you think so? The only problem with ICEs, as far as I understand, is their use of petrol and the contents of the exhaust that creates. Assuming we can eliminate that problem, is there a remaining reason that ICEs should be deprecated in favor of electric engines?
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    AtlasBarfed’s comment in this thread sums it up well. “It also smells like a lot of the forced hydrogen hype, a FUD, delay/distraction, undermining of EV popular support, etc by the oil industry that once they get a crack they'll drive a truck through.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29653177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29653177
  - natch 5y ago
    Also the maintenance, the cost of which falls on the consumer while providing a pointless cash cow for legacy auto.
r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
I'm guessing (literally, I have no idea if this is true) that if these synthetic fuels can be stored and transported in the same way as normal petrol then you wouldn't have to build that much more distribution infrastructure. Instead you could just repurpose what's already there. Obviously you still have to make the stuff, which involves capital investment, but so does building gigafactories, the power plants necessary to generate the extra electricity and upgrading the grid.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >These synthetic fuels can be stored and transported in the same way as normal petrol then you wouldn't have to build that much more distribution infrastructure. Which is highly desirable for developing nations, who will be driving ICEs well into the 2040s since a large chunk of their supply is used stuff exported from rich nations.
erik_seaberg 5y ago
> EVs, which in the worse case can be charged at home The worst case for a BEV is street parking. From our apartment, the nearest public charger is two miles away (a 45 minute bus ride at best), and it’s too small to leave cars overnight.

surfingdino 5y ago

It's good to have options.

aaroninsf 5y ago
In an ideal world I'd love our car (and everyone else's) to be pure EV; in the current one, we opted for a plug-in hybrid with a decent EV range (~40+ miles) because it allows us to be 100% EV in local driving, but not worry about charging schedule/availability on longer trips. We're a single-car household in the US and we do a lot of camping and wilderness trips; for those there is currently no good EV option. Even if you stage a full charge at the bottom of a mountain, vertical climbs kill your range... and you end up in locations getting a drive-in emergency recharge may be entirely infeasible. I am sad about the complexity of our car. Lift the hood and laugh out loud. But as long as it's reasonably reliable, I would happily pay a serious premium for carbon-neutral gas for the ICE part. 2-3x even. Because then I would sleep easier; and we have the luxury of only burning that in the 5% case. All for the YES-AND.
- surfingdino 5y ago
  I am skeptical (but willing to be proven wrong) about EVs. I am really interested to see long term reliability and safety reports. FYI. I sold my ICE car this year and have not replaced it, yet. The constant semi-lockdowns and decent public transport where I live made car ownership pointless for me at this time.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I think there are huge quality of life and health improvements that come along with EV: the air pollution death numbers are likely understated, and I suspect there are carcinogenic and micropollution effects from ICE emissions that are being hidden by our addiction to gasoline and industry-sponsored denialism and suppression. It also smells like a lot of the forced hydrogen hype, a FUD, delay/distraction, undermining of EV popular support, etc by the oil industry that once they get a crack they'll drive a truck through. Hopefully EVs and solar/wind/battery continue their price curve improvements, to make all these distraction projects ludicrously economically infeasible. It is a triumph, dare I say miracle, of modern technology and (sigh, I hate praising economics) economics that we now have a switchover path from dinosaur heroin to something that is EVEN CHEAPER.

samwillis 5y ago

I think it’s worth noting that this is a much bigger play than being just for Porches own cars. Porsche own VW Group, they are the largest car manufacturer in the world, they are also a literal bank. They have the capital to invest in a “moonshot” type project. So firstly, this is obviously important as a hedge for them - more options for the industry moving forward (we absolutely should not only be working on BEVs) / what if there is ever a lithium or mineral shortage due to geopolitical conflict. Secondly, air flight! Battery’s will never have the energy density for longer than regional flight at a long shot. Most people agree that battery airplanes will only be successful for metropolitan flights <20km. A green, high energy density fuel is the only long term option for medium/long hall flight. Porsche want to own as much IP on that as possible and have the cash to invest.

arethuza 5y ago
I believe that Porsche SE are a holding company that own a majority share of VW Group who then own the Porsche company that makes cars - it is probably the latter who are making this fuel.
- samwillis 5y ago
  True, although they are mostly a cohesive operation sharing expertise and technology. For example the Porsche Taycan and Audi E-Tron GT are built on the same platform and are almost the same car. It’s main development was lead by Porsche but it’s technology will be used by the whole group. This may be being developed within the Porsche cars group but the plan is bigger than that. It’s just the PR that’s focused at the Porsche use case right now.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Ships, aircraft, remote off-grid locations (for both power and heat), and portable tools would all benefit by carbon-neutral synfuels. Batteries work in some of these cases, but not all.

civilized 5y ago

I'll wait to celebrate until a credible source estimates total emissions impact of this fuel. Sadly, there's a lot of "green cons" going on right now. For years, America has been cutting down its own mature hardwood forests to feed power plants in the UK and Europe on the extremely questionable theory that these forests qualify as a renewable energy source. Con men administrators and officials are wrecking our environment and society to pad their CVs with wins on fake metrics. It's happening everywhere and we need to get wise.

errcorrectcode 5y ago
Greenwashing. For another example, "Biodegradable" plastics were mostly a big con.
boppo1 5y ago
I was just trying to dig up a bookmark on your example but couldn't find it. You don't have an article handy, do you?
- civilized 5y ago
  Here's one: https://www.whqr.org/local/2021-10-26/green-energy-or-greenwashing-the-wood-pellet-industry-is-the-target-of-fierce-debate https://www.whqr.org/local/2021-10-26/green-energy-or-greenw... Basically, the idea behind turning forests into pellets is "we'll eventually grow more trees to compensate and recapture the CO2". But you can say the same thing about burning fossil fuels or anything else! It's insane to think that cutting down trees is somehow special in this regard. The problem with planting more trees is the same no matter how you're putting CO2 into the air: it takes decades for the trees to grow, and in the meantime all that CO2 you emitted is in the atmosphere warming the planet. And let's not forget that burning pellets emits more CO2 than fossil fuels: > According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, burning wood generates 1.5 times the CO2 of coal and 3 times the CO2 of natural gas to create the same amount of energy. It's absolutely batty, and our Ministers of Greenwashing are exploiting it to the hilt.
  - 5y ago

slashdev 5y ago

I'm sure many engineers would recoil at the inefficiency of producing hydrocarbon fuel from water, CO2, and electricity, only to then transport it all over the place, before finally burning it in a small, inefficient engine to get water and CO2 again. Hugely wasteful. Elon Musk would rightly scoff at it (actually, I'm sure he already has.) But if they could do it at an economically viable level - which will almost certainly require government subsidies - it's a great thing for the world. Climate change is a big, big problem without a single solution. We need all hands on deck. Making existing vehicles green could be a massive help. Outlaw crypto at the same time and you could even get the energy free...

Reichhardt 5y ago
Synthetic Fuel is not going to be for the masses, it will be for the elite driving Porsches (hence the research funding), as part of a giant green-washing scheme. What's sad is that the EU will throw subsidy money at it, instead of just doing the sensible thing and adopting EVs at all levels - simply to maintain the corporate legacy of soon-obsolete German automakers.
- eloff 5y ago
  Fuel is fuel. Porsche doesn't own gasoline stations. If they sell this fuel, it will be for any car with the technology to burn it.
  - fuzzfactor 5y ago
    It will be for any driver willing to pay the price. From what I've been hearing the most likely to be approved in the USA will still be volatile hydrocarbons consisting of components which are synthetically crafted to meet the current standards for today's gasoline, insead of being refined from crude petroleum. This is a type of chemical fuel so a number of synthetic processes can contribute some various light hydrocarbons as well as the less volatile components which can be blended to achieve a passing result on the motor gasoline basis. Regular and premium gasolines have always been carefully blended to spec themselves. Especially to avoid "octane giveaway". Hundreds of structurally different natural hydrocarbons from one or more sources of crude oil end up in traditionally refined gasoline. Modern blending of these major streams has been an art form for decades. Some of the alternatives expected to emerge may have only dozens or fewer distinct hydrocarbon components. These can also possibly be cleaner burning perhaps with or without non-hydrocarbon oxygenated components like ethanol included. Mostly the target is that these will be truly higher quality fuels than ordinary gasoline. There is also the possibility the blending process can be made more predictable and repeatable. But cleaner burning means just less toxic exhaust byproducts like unburned hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatics, and particulates. Virtually the same amount of CO & CO2 will still be coming out, not significantly different than ordinary gasoline. So the fuel still turns to CO2, but that could be what it was made from to begin with, rather than extracting new carbon from underground the easy way. It should be worth it to keep new carbon from building up in the atmosphere. However making hydrocarbons from CO2 requires an energy input to the raw materials, equivalent to that which later be will contained in the fuel. So it takes in advance the same energy the fuel gives back later, except there are systemic inefficiencies so it actually takes more energy to make than it gives back. When this energy input is completely carbon-free is the best that can be done, while the realistic objective for the product is to burn not much differently than high-octane gasoline. So no reduced CO2 while driving, just putting back what was originally captured by the synthetic chemical processes. This will be more costly than ordinary gasoline by the time it reaches the average consumer. So I don't think competitive pricing will occur according to free market forces. Plus this one is being made with Porsche enthusiasts in mind who are not mainly average consumers and many can really afford to pay more. I can forsee a synthetic fuel that is much more stable over time and can have outstanding performance for collector cars when they are simply parked in the garage over many more seasons or years without needing to be flushed or drained before getting back on the road. Now imagine if you will, a proven blend composed of say a dozen, maybe fewer, various well-known hydrocarbons that works great. They're testing things like this now on the track even though they don't have well-developed processes to synthesize every one of them yet. Some researchers seem to have a pretty good idea what to shoot for already. The most likely MVP would be when synthetic processes are barely capable of producing the minimal number of components from clean energy & CO2. Or at least somewhat cleaner energy and a somewhat renewable carbon source besides CO2 or in addition. As long as you can buy the remaining bulk of the components from oil & chemical companies that might be the earliest launch by far. It can only get greener from there.

barbazoo 5y ago

Let those dinosaurs that can't let ICE go, fail, who cares.

idiotsecant 5y ago
That's frankly an irresponsible and short sighted viewpoint. Fossil fuels will be around for decades at least, maybe centuries. Why would you not want them to be cleaner?
- silisili 5y ago
  At minimum, I can't see aviation moving away from fuel for probably the forseeable future.
- barbazoo 5y ago
  Ideally we'll stop using fossil fuels long before they run out. But we don't have time for the good old Germany auto elite to drag their feet like they used to. I have very little tolerance for that and I wouldn't cry a single tear if they went under because they missed the boat.

exabrial 5y ago

Phew. > In a similar vein, E85, a non-carbon neutral gasoline substitute made from 85 percent corn-based ethanol Ethanol is not: 1. A clean fuel 2. A carbon neutral fuel 3. A carbon negative fuel 4. A cheap fuel 5. An effective fuel 6. A responsible fuel It takes a tremendous amount of fossil fuel to make ethanol. We're better off just burning the fossil fuel.

elzbardico 5y ago
Please, consider that the world is more than the US and that other countries have successful ethanol programs that are not the American corn scam
- exabrial 5y ago
  There are no efficient ethanol operations both financially and carbon wise. Even it the best case scenarios, it results in a break even in many years of the future but at a major loss of habitat. Corn is a huge problem, but there are literally no crops that solve the problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpEB6hCpIGM

sh1mmer 5y ago

> Porsche’s eFuels are made out of CO2 and hydrogen and are produced using renewable energy. Am I missing something obvious? Even if the fuel production is carbon-neutral, wouldn’t the ICE cars still be combusting the fuel and releasing CO2? Hydrogen fuel-cell cars don’t release the CO2 because they use a different reaction. What I don’t understand is how this new fuel would change the fundamentals of an internal combustion engine regardless of how it’s made.

freemint 5y ago
The fuel production needs to be carbon negative, yes, that is their idea.