[opinion] - hmmm…VW/Audi/Porsche may be in trouble…

[tigerbalm]

One of my ex-colleagues who has worked for the last few years for a R&D company making synthetic petrol has just been told he will be made redundant since they can not raise the investment needed to continue.
Whether it is the projected cost which puts investors off or the time scale to viability I don't know.

That is disappointing to hear – I have been a bit of a "fan" of this eFuel research and approach. I had hoped that the EU decision to exempt cars running on synthetic fuel would give the research a focus and purpose.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...s-from-2035-ban-on-new-sales-of-combustion-en

I wonder how much the market is assuming that the 2035 ban isn't realistic and will get pushed back to a much further date? The enthusiasm for these aggressive timelines seems to have waned since the end of the pandemic.

There is no way that the synthetic fuel is as environmentally friendly as a full battery electric vehicle recharged from a renewable energy source.

But I just love the idea that a country such as Ireland(*) – which has an abundance of wind energy – could with this technology be self sufficient in producing synthetic petrol (we currently import 100% of our supply) – while simultaneously taking CO2 out of the environment very appealing.

Post 2035 there are at least 1.4 billion combustion engines in worldwide usage and this technology – while imperfect – offers a potential solution to massively reducing their environmental impact.

* The Atlantic off the west coast of Ireland has some of the largest wind generation potential in the world. Already, during very windy days, Ireland has generated 100% of its energy requirement from wind. Though of course it is still unreliable until more offshore wind farms have been developed.

Live view of generation sources for the island of Ireland (both Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland) as – despite Brexit – acts as a single electricity market:

https://www.smartgriddashboard.com/all/

 

[f1eng]

But I just love the idea that a country such as Ireland(*) – which has an abundance of wind energy – could with this technology be self sufficient in producing synthetic petrol (we currently import 100% of our supply) – while simultaneously taking CO2 out of the environment very appealing.

I completely agree, this company was doing research near Banbury but the production plant was planned next to a hydro dam in Scotland.
I was intrigued to see recently that around 40% of all (very polluting) cargo ships on the ocean are transporting fossil fuels, oil, coal and gas so anything using local fixed generation is doubly environmentally valuable.

 

[prj]

I completely agree, this company was doing research near Banbury but the production plant was planned next to a hydro dam in Scotland.
I was intrigued to see recently that around 40% of all (very polluting) cargo ships on the ocean are transporting fossil fuels, oil, coal and gas so anything using local fixed generation is doubly environmentally valuable.

That's the reason electric is being pushed so hard.
It is not just the tailpipe emissions from burning the fuel, but also from refining and transporting it, which conveniently gets ignored by all the EV naysayers. They just do not factor it into their calculations...

 

[tigerbalm]

I was intrigued to see recently that around 40% of all (very polluting) cargo ships on the ocean are transporting fossil fuels, oil, coal and gas so anything using local fixed generation is doubly environmentally valuable.

There is just so much "stuff" embedded in the cost of petroleum products. I remember reading that there is about 1.5 to 2.5 kWh of electricity used in the production of a litre of petrol.

My 911 Targa is using about 10 litres of petrol to move it 100 km. Which means there is about 25 kWh/100km of electricity used to produce the petrol! Which is approximately the same amount that it took to move our Taycan Turbo S the same distance directly!

 

[whitex]

Absolutely, much of the pollution is inherent in the IC engine, not the fuel's origin.
It also means the (as yet non-existent) green hydrogen powered vehicles are only really clean using fuel cells producing electricity for an electric motor not burning it. In an IC engine it retains many the problems inherent in IC engines, like damaging their own lubricant, complexity, airflow limited power band and NOx emissions.

EVs can damage their own lubricant too. Properly combusted hydrogen should not create any NOx emissions, and if you really wanted to be sure, just provide both pure hydrogen and pure oxygen to the engine, mix before combustion, there cannot ne NOx emissions if there is no N.

 

[whitex]

There is just so much "stuff" embedded in the cost of petroleum products. I remember reading that there is about 1.5 to 2.5 kWh of electricity used in the production of a litre of petrol.

My 911 Targa is using about 10 litres of petrol to move it 100 km. Which means there is about 25 kWh/100km of electricity used to produce the petrol! Which is approximately the same amount that it took to move our Taycan Turbo S the same distance directly!

Energy density of gasoline is approximately 12.2kWh/kg, which translates to 9.7kWh/l. So your calculations are off quite a bit.

https://chemistry.beloit.edu/edetc/SlideShow/slides/energy/density.html

As much as 80% or more of energy from gasoline is lost as heat from an internal combustion engine. Perhaps your numbers are after the 80% loss (i.e. usable mechanical energy from best internal combustion engines burning gasoline)?

 

[f1eng]

EVs can damage their own lubricant too. Properly combusted hydrogen should not create any NOx emissions, and if you really wanted to be sure, just provide both pure hydrogen and pure oxygen to the engine, mix before combustion, there cannot ne NOx emissions if there is no N.

I don't know which EVs run their motors hot enough for long enough to damage their lubricants, but I haven't done a search.

Of course if you only burn pure oxygen and pure hydrogen you won't get NOx but I have never seen that seriously proposed.
Most IC engines get their oxygen from the air - though one of the technically easy ways to get more power is use an oxygen carrying fuel like methanol as well.

You still have the cost and pollution of distributing hydrogen to "filling stations" too.

I am mystified why it is being suggested and the reason for its popularity depends on the profound ignorance of most people.

 

[whitex]

I don't know which EVs run their motors hot enough for long enough to damage their lubricants, but I haven't done a search.

Of course if you only burn pure oxygen and pure hydrogen you won't get NOx but I have never seen that seriously proposed.
Most IC engines get their oxygen from the air - though one of the technically easy ways to get more power is use an oxygen carrying fuel like methanol as well.

You still have the cost and pollution of distributing hydrogen to "filling stations" too.

I am mystified why it is being suggested and the reason for its popularity depends on the profound ignorance of most people.

I wasn't saying it's a better solution than EVs, nor even that it's a viable end-to-end solution, simply that it is possible to create an internal combustion engine that will not pollute. If we start including costs of production and distribution, there is nothing that humans produce and distribute that does not pollute at some point during that process. Heck, humans themselves pollute by simply staying alive.

 

[tigerbalm]

Energy density of gasoline is approximately 12.2kWh/kg, which translates to 9.7kWh/l. So your calculations are off quite a bit.

I was focusing on the amount of electricity that is used today to produce, refine, transport and pump a litre of petrol. Not the amount of energy that is contained within the petrol itself that is produced or how it is utilised by an engine.

If a Taycan drives 100 km and a 911 drives 100 km – the numbers I've read suggest that they both consumed about the same amount of electricity to do it. Of course that is pretty much all the energy that the Taycan uses, where as its only the beginning of the use of energy the 911 needed.

Every litre of petrol used some amount of diesel to be transported to the fuel station in a truck. Goodness knows how much energy is used to produce the additive package and chemicals added to premium fuel, etc.

 

[f1eng]

Energy density of gasoline is approximately 12.2kWh/kg, which translates to 9.7kWh/l. So your calculations are off quite a bit.

https://chemistry.beloit.edu/edetc/SlideShow/slides/energy/density.html

As much as 80% or more of energy from gasoline is lost as heat from an internal combustion engine. Perhaps your numbers are after the 80% loss (i.e. usable mechanical energy from best internal combustion engines burning gasoline)?

You need to read what was written more carefully before replying.

The point was about how much energy is needed to refine a litre of petrol and distribute it. Not how much energy burning it can release.

Yes whilst the proportions have got slightly more favourable using turbochargers and hybrid - current Formula 1 cars are about 50% efficient - the rule of thumb I learned over 50 years ago that ⅓ energy goes int the coolant, ⅓ out of the exhaust and ⅓ available at the flywheel is still more or less true.

 

[whitex]

I was focusing on the amount of electricity that is used today to produce, refine, transport and pump a litre of petrol. Not the amount of energy that is contained within the petrol itself that is produced or how it is utilised by an engine.

My bad, misread your original post.

 

[f1eng]

simply that it is possible to create an internal combustion engine that will not pollute.

Yes but one you describe has never been proposed by any practical engineer

 

[ct14garage]

Let those who love EVs drive EVs.

Let those who love ICEs drive ICEs.

Let those of us who love ICE and EV each for their strengths drive both.

As we do here in Thailand where most families own ICEs and EVs at the same time and there are not pointless discussions.

—

The USA expanded their economy and arguably built their empire based on polluting the planet like nobody before…

Of course now that they’re rich they start to care about the planet and complain when China and others do exactly the same. Typical Western arrogance.

There needs not be any debate. ICEs and EVs will cohabitate for many many many years to come.

Forget about 2035

 

[whitex]

Yes but one you describe has never been proposed by any practical engineer

I don't disagree. I don't think hydrogen in the form that has been tried by car companies to-date has been practical either. Production-to-car hydrogen is never going to be practical. Heck, at this point in human civilization, I think also any new type of fuel that requires new type of distribution is too impractical. What makes EV viable is that the electric grid already exists, with exit points at commercial as well as residential real-estate.

 

[Zcd1]

Perhaps a Taycan forum is not the right place to ask this question, but does anyone have any ideas why someone would choose a slower ICE Macan over a faster, more powerful, more modern Macan EV at a similar price?

The Macan EV is significantly more expensive than the ICE version.

If they were closer in price, the Macan EV might be an easier sell.