5 ms·
Porsche’s e-fuel burns just like the real thing
- frazar0 4y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20230401205313/https://www.wired.com/story/porsche-e-fuel-emissions-neutral-synthetic-gas/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230401205313/https://www.wired...
- steponlego 4y agoIs that the stuff that causes cancer?
- LarsAlereon 4y agoNo, this is making hydrocarbons out of air and water using electricity. This is an exceptionally clean, if costly, process. The potentially risky stuff is based on baking hydrocarbons out of waste using heat. Though that article you probably read is more of a clickbait hit-piece than legitimate journalism. That said, this article is also a vaguely disguised ad.
- steponlego 4y agoI just think we're jerking off pre-hydrogen which seems to be the most ideal fuel.
- Incipient 4y agoHydrogen does have its problems. It's much harder to handle and transport than a nice liquid hydrocarbon. Due to its size, hydrogen leaks easily from seals. Hydrogen embritlement on metals is also a thing. No problems we haven't solved, but they all add cost over traditional petrol.
- steponlego 4y agoIt's not hydrogen vs. petrol, but hydrogen vs. dirty lithium mines.
- defrost 4y agoPragmatic, practical, hydrogen at scale from the people currently building out ways to double and quadruple current global green hydrogen production is looking a lot like bulk transport of ammonia (hydrogen rich with 'safe' nitrogen by product) to large scale generators to distribute electricity .. to charge "dirty lithium" batteries. If it's any consolation the "dirty lithium" part doesn't happen at the mines - they fairly cleanly extract and mechanically produce concentrates which largely (today) go to China and Malaysia .. and will soon ship to Texas.
- hedora 4y agoI think it is carcinogenic. Apparently the plant for this (or another competitor) pumps carcinogens into the air at orders of magnitude above the legal limit.
- petre 4y agoI was wondering why they made it in Chile. Wind? Sun? Cheap land? Corruption and lack of evironment protection regulation? Also using ships running on HFO to transport this green e-fuel from Chile to Germany or whrerever they sell most Porsches.
- xnx 4y agoI've never understood synthetic fuel. We've got plenty of petroleum in the ground, but too much carbon in the air. Better to come up with a good sequestration strategy to put some of that carbon back in the ground.
- jaycroft 4y ago"Carbon is extracted from the air in the form of CO2 and combined with the hydrogen in a process called synthesis." It seems like at least re-burning the carbon that's already in the air is better than burning new dug up carbon? This is at least not net atmospheric carbon positive. You can do sequestration too...
- xattt 4y agoThere’s no possible way the process for carbon sequestration and fuel synthesis would use less e-fuel.
- Tsiklon 4y agoI am by no means a chemist (beyond a secondary school level), but burning CO2 doesn’t seem possible. Doesn’t burning through application of some energy split the bonds of complicated stable molecules into less complicated, but stable molecules (by adding oxygen), thus releasing energy. In this case; how do they recombine the CO2 into more complicated hydrocarbons? And if it’s energy negative, is it better to do this, or to use it to capture carbon?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deeviant 4y ago> In this case; how do they recombine the CO2 into more complicated hydrocarbons? Fischer–Tropsch process. > And if it’s energy negative, is it better to do this, or to use it to capture carbon? It's obviously "energy negative", as it would be a violation of thermodynamics for it not to be, entropy being how it is. As far as doing it over carbon capture, I would be more interested in hearing your thoughts on why carbon capture would be a better alternative.
- eminence32 4y agoIgnoring questions about if this is makes economical or environmental sense, this just seems plain cool -- it appears to be a fairly standalone industrial complex that just needs water as input, and produces fuel plus three useful byproducts. This seems like something you might build in Surviving Mars, or something.
- xracy 4y agoArticle removed due to editorial conflict of interest.
- clouddrover 4y ago> Editor’s note 4/1/2023 6:30 pm ET: This story was removed after WIRED learned that Porsche paid the author for his travel to Chile, a violation of WIRED’s editorial policy. Here's another article from a few months ago: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/12/porsches-synthetic-gasoline-factory-comes-online-today-in-chile/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/12/porsches-synthetic-gaso...
- Tsiklon 4y agoThat seems like a bit of an oversight on Wired’s part. How did that get through without disclosure?
- schiffern 4y agohttps://archive.is/jSe10 https://archive.is/jSe10
- crazygringo 4y agoI'm less curious about this for cars that can get decent range from batteries... ...and far more curious about its potential for aviation, where the weight of batteries makes powering a jumbo jet impossible. I know other technologies are being investigated (like cooled liquid hydrogen to power fuel cells), but could “emissions-neutral” synthetic fuel ever become a long-term solution for planes? Or is there something about the economics of this that will keep it niche for things like owners of eventually-antique ICE cars?
- olliej 4y agoWhat's the energy consumption for this? Alas the article has been pulled (for seemingly reasonable reasons) Internal combustion engines already have a fairly terrible energy efficiency, so what's the energy loss involved in collecting CO2 and then rebuilding a bunch of hydrocarbons from that? What this sounds like is an attempt to launder the problems of gas engines by claiming they're consuming the CO2 emissions from other engines, except they're using energy to do produce this fuel. That additional energy has to come from somewhere. Also it acts like clean water isn't also a significantly restricted resource.
- theshrike79 4y agoThe energy consumption is up there with green hydrogen. Huge. Basically this will only be viable if we've got gigawatts of excess renewable generation. Viable being "cheaper than regular gasoline".
- leobg 4y agoCan’t take their fully electric vehicle lineup seriously if they’re hedging their bets like that. He who chases two rabbits…
- aerojoe23 4y agoIt isn't one person chasing two rabbits... This metaphor... It would be like a team of people, who have to work in the dark, trying to get food. No one knows what their chasing, because they can't see it. Somethings are too fast but they will not know until they try. There may not be enough lithium to power everything. Batteries may never be light enough for aviation.