Posted on 12/21/2022 12:50:27 PM PST by Red Badger
Porsche said Tuesday that a pilot plant in Chile started production of the alternative fuel, as it aims to produce millions of gallons by mid-decade.
Officials say e-fuels can act like gasoline, allowing vehicle owners a more environmentally friendly way to drive.
Porsche officials celebrated the beginning of e-fuel production with the filling of a Porsche 911 with the first synthetic fuel produced at the site.
Barbara Frenkel, member of the executive board for procurement at Porsche, (left) and Michael Steiner, member of the executive board for development and research fuel a 911 with e-fuel at a pilot plant, Punta Arenas, Chile. Porsche AG
Porsche and several partners have started production of a climate neutral “e-fuel” aimed at replacing gasoline in vehicles with traditional internal combustion engines.
The German automaker, owned by Volkswagen , said Tuesday that a pilot plant in Chile started commercial production of the alternative fuel. By mid-decade, Porsche is planning to produce millions of gallons of the e-fuel.
Porsche expects to initially use the fuel in motor sports and at its performance experience centers, followed by other uses in the years to come. Ultimately, the plan is for the fuel to be sold to oil companies and others for distribution to consumers.
E-fuels are a type of synthetic methanol produced by a complex process using water, hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Companies say they enable the nearly CO2-neutral operation of gas-powered engines. Vehicles would still need to use oil to lubricate the engine.
In the pilot phase, Porsche expects to produce around 130,000 liters (34,342 U.S. gallons) of the e-fuel. Plans are to expand that to about 55 million liters (14.5 million U.S. gallons) by mid-decade, and around 550 million liters (145.3 million U.S. gallons) roughly two years later.
The Chilean plant was initially announced with Porsche in late 2020, when the automaker said it would invest $24 million in the development of the plant and e-fuels. Partners include Chilean operating company Highly Innovative Fuels, Siemens’ renewable energy unit and others.
Company officials say e-fuels can act like gasoline, allowing vehicle owners a more environmentally friendly way to drive. They could also use the same fueling infrastructure as gas, compared with the billions of dollars in investments needed to build a network of charging stations for electric vehicles.
But entirely replacing traditional fossil fuels with e-fuels would be difficult and extremely costly. In 2021, about 134.83 billion gallons of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the U.S., an average of about 369 million gallons per day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Still, production of such a fuel would allow Porsche and others a way to continue producing vehicles such as Porsche’s iconic 911 sports car with a traditional engine alongside, or rather than, a new electric model. While electric vehicles can offer outstanding performance, their driving dynamics differ from traditional engines.
Porsche officials celebrated the beginning of the e-fuel production with the filling of a Porsche 911 with the first synthetic fuel produced at the site.
“The potential of eFuels is huge. There are currently more than 1.3 billion vehicles with combustion engines worldwide. Many of these will be on the roads for decades to come, and eFuels offer the owners of existing cars a nearly carbon-neutral alternative,” Michael Steiner, Porsche’s director of research and development, said in a release.
Steiner and others reiterated Tuesday that the development of the fuel does not change the company’s plans to have 80% of its lineup consist of EVs by 2030.
PING!...............
So ww2 synthfuel?
The Germans still trying to create a synthetic fuel? Didn’t work during WWII.
They don’t indicate if there are any mild or major engine modes to use this fuel.
Not sure how viable this is, but if it is viable, you can be certain it will be kneecapped. Buried in a mountain of regulations and significant sabotage.
The powers that be have too much invested in EVs at this point.
Didn't see that in the article, did I miss it?
Even if this worked and would be economical, it will not be allowed. The problem is not CO2. The problem, from the elites viewpoint, is there are too many people populating the world and they are everywhere. EVs are part of the planned wedge to force, what people remain the future, to relocate to massive urban area, depopulate all the rural areas, and completely give up their mobility.
I’ve seen some claims that, with economies of scale, synthetic methanol could be manufactured at a cost of $0.35 per gallon. It could be economically viable at that rate, but no idea how close to reality that number is.
“synthetic methanol”.
In other words, NOT usable in anything I or most others here own.
Very corrosive to most current vehicle fuel systems, low BTU energy content compared to gasoline.
So in addition to scaling up production it could only be used in cars specifically made for it.
Not practical but I suppose the political posturing is priceless.
In WWII the Germans made synthetic fuel from coal, and it did work. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1020261.pdf
And (a) the energy used to power the “E-fuel” plant uses what as its power source?, and (b) how reliable is that source?, and (c) how repeatable is that source in a way to make such a fuel commonplace?????
I think we will find the Porche “E-fuel” plant is not widely repeatable and that fuel will not become widely commonplace.
Only the ELITES will be able to afford it!.................
They did... and there are no modifications required. Here's the other info of note, though:
1. The energy density of methane appears to be about 25% higher than for gasoline... so that's clearly nice (this wasn't in the article).
2. The cost is currently prohibitive. ($44-ish per gallon-equivalent).
3. They "expect" that scaling up will drop costs to $8/gal-equivalent in a few years.
Still too high, of course, but probably worth further exploration.
(I should add that I read a differently-sourced article mentioning that ‘no modifications required’ bit... CNBC omitted that salient detail.)
I saw that part. They don't take water, hydrogen and carbon dioxide, throw it in a tank somewhere, shake it up and out comes fuel.
From energy.gov: Thermal processes for hydrogen production typically involve steam reforming, a high-temperature process in which steam reacts with a hydrocarbon fuel to produce hydrogen. Many hydrocarbon fuels can be reformed to produce hydrogen, including natural gas, diesel, renewable liquid fuels, gasified coal, or gasified biomass. Today, about 95% of all hydrogen is produced from steam reforming of natural gas.
So there has to be some form of energy expended to make synthetic fuel. The question then becomes, how much energy is expended? I'm no whiz here on this topic, though I do remember high school science and having it drummed into my thick skull that as energy is transfered from one form to another, some of it is lost in heat. Therefore, can't get more energy out than what's put in.
happy to be corrected here, again I'm no whiz on this topic. just seeking information.
Allow?
It’s similar to methanol, so different air/fuel ratio, more compression ratio, producing more power and less fuel mileage.
Methanol used today (think some forms of race cars) is pretty corrosive (you have to flush the lines after a race, and a problem if splashed on paint).
To me, this sounds like “greenwashing” for high performance cars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.