6 ms·

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

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.

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.