Porsche Working on Synthetic Fuel to Make ICE Cars as Clean as EVs
caranddriver.com
caranddriver.com
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.
There are use cases other than automobiles which would benefit by petroleum-analogue fuels, most especially aircraft and marine shipping, though also some overland freight (trains, trucks), remote off-grid applications, and some portable tools and equipment. Batteries suit some but not all of these cases.
Yes, there's a huge efficiency loss, but the win is in storage, portability, energy density, safety, and on-demand availability. Round-trip recovery would likely be ~15--25%, mostly through hydrolysis losses (~40--50%) and Carnot efficiency (only 25--50% of heat energy produces useful mechanical energy). Those are givens, again, the question is the trade-off and capabilities gained.
There's well over 50 years of research into these technologies. I've summarised and collected this in earlier comments:
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.
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.
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.
Batteries work in some of these cases, but not all.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
You can even park in continuous sunlight.
[1] https://www.teslarati.com/porsche-whistleblower-taycan-batte...
> 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.
Regardless, upvoted for transparency.
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.
It reads to me like standard FUD - and I dare say if it were about Tesla you'd be the first to insist on more evidence.
But if it turns out to be true it will be shocking. Especially damaging coming from the leader of the pack of ICE companies ramping up BEVs.
In that document, it states the following: Your Responsibility for Normal Use Your Owner’s Manual (which includes specific recommendations against using your car in certain ways) was written with the assumption that you will use your car only in ways for which it was designed. Please refer to your Owner’s Manual for important information on how to maximize the life and capacity of the high-voltage battery.
(Sidenote, also excluded is "The vehicle was subjected to improper treatment or excessive demands (e.g., using the vehicle in motorsport competitions) or otherwise overstraining or overloading the vehicle.", which is implies you're not allowed to track the car at all)
Owners Manual link: https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/attachments/2020-porsche-t... It states the following (page 63): Notes on leaving the vehicle unused for long periods For idle periods of two weeks or longer: e Do not park the vehicle with a discharged high-voltage battery; connect it permanently to the mains supply instead. e Make sure that the high-voltage battery is charged to between 20% and 50% throughout the idle period. The Profile function can be used for this purpose, for example. e Make sure that the ambient temperature is between 0 °C and 20 °C in the vehicle's location. If it is not possible to connect the vehicle permanently to the mains supply: e Charge the high-voltage battery halfway (to a charge level of 50%) before parking the vehicle. e Check the charge level every three months and recharge if necessary so that the charge level does not drop below 20%. e Make sure that the ambient temperature is between 0 °C and 20 °C in the vehicle's location. e Avoid using the Porsche Connect smartphone app. Establishing a connection between the app and the vehicle activates the high-voltage system and therefore discharges the high-voltage and 12-volt batteries.
Note, all these things are reviewed by legal at a company like Porsche. They chose not to use words like 'if possible' or 'we recommend', unlike in other places where it talks about HV battery care. These are instructions, and if you violate them then it reads to me like Porsche has a right to yank your warranty. Maybe Porsche is more lenient, but the strict reading implies to me that failing to follow owners manual instructions (i.e., using the car as 'designed') is a warranty yank.
Every auto manufacturer has certain specs or recommendations -- Use premium (high-octane) fuel. Only use specific brand of motor oil / anti-freeze / brake fluid. Follow local speed limits. And yet, except very extreme circumstances, they honor their warranty even when they know you haven't followed those precise instructions. No car manufacturer will deny a warranty claim because you drove on 28 psi tires when the manual stated 30. Now if you drove at 12 psi for thousands of miles, yea, they might not replace the suspension. If you never changed the oil in 4 years, they might have an issue -- but if you used Quaker State instead of Mobil 1, and waited till 8000 miles instead of 7500, they aren't going to void the warranty.
The Teslarati "article" (really, just an unfounded, unverified, unsubstantiated rumor) was widely shared at Taycan forums, like the one you linked to, and not a single person reported having any warranty denial issues (or fire issues) like what was stated.
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?
“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.”
It's more like battery advances aren't happening without a major breakthrough in chemistry.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.