Porsche Fires Up Production of eFuel, Made from Water in Chile

[Jon A]

I don’t think it’s about what we prefer. E fuel is just produced from non fossil fuel component’s it still gives off carbon when it burns, may be a bit less than petrol, but carbon neutral it ain’t.
It’s the kind of thing they would use to keep old ICE cars on the road temporarily- it’s electric or hydrogen moving forward not combustion sadly.

I thought the point about e-fuel was that the carbon given off when it is burnt was little more than the carbon extracted from the atmosphere when it is produced, and that using solar/wind power to run the manufacturing plant makes its production virtually carbon neutral too.

No. None of the above.

[Old Chimer]

I don’t think it’s about what we prefer. E fuel is just produced from non fossil fuel component’s it still gives off carbon when it burns, may be a bit less than petrol, but carbon neutral it ain’t.
It’s the kind of thing they would use to keep old ICE cars on the road temporarily- it’s electric or hydrogen moving forward not combustion sadly.

I thought the point about e-fuel was that the carbon given off when it is burnt was little more than the carbon extracted from the atmosphere when it is produced, and that using solar/wind power to run the manufacturing plant makes its production virtually carbon neutral too.

No. None of the above.

"It’s important to emphasise that eFuels will not stop cars with combustion engines producing carbon emissions at the tailpipe. Like all petrol it undergoes a combustion process creating hydrocarbons, but unlike normal gasoline (which is based on fossil fuels therefore emitting carbon that was once locked away in oil reserves) eFuels emit largely the same carbon output as was absorbed by its production, making it ‘almost’ carbon-neutral."

[Jon A]

I thought the point about e-fuel was that the carbon given off when it is burnt was little more than the carbon extracted from the atmosphere when it is produced, and that using solar/wind power to run the manufacturing plant makes its production virtually carbon neutral too.

No. None of the above.

"It’s important to emphasise that eFuels will not stop cars with combustion engines producing carbon emissions at the tailpipe. Like all petrol it undergoes a combustion process creating hydrocarbons, but unlike normal gasoline (which is based on fossil fuels therefore emitting carbon that was once locked away in oil reserves) eFuels emit largely the same carbon output as was absorbed by its production, making it ‘almost’ carbon-neutral."

It’s the production that requires more energy than could practically be supplied from wind etc but the main problem is emissions. UK/EU are going with the zero emissions route, so this won’t fit.
It’s a great innovation with plenty going for it, but it’s not the future while we fixate on emissions as a primary criteria.
My guess is that in a decade or so we will be forced to buy efuel for the remaining ICE vehicles in circulation and that might extend combustion lifetimes a little, but ultimately, only temporarily?

Ultimately, and putting emotional attachment aside, electric power for a car is far superior as an A to B proposition- quicker, quieter, greener, more flexible and cheaper to build, service and run.

It just doesn’t make the right noise!

[Old Chimer]

No. None of the above.

"It’s important to emphasise that eFuels will not stop cars with combustion engines producing carbon emissions at the tailpipe. Like all petrol it undergoes a combustion process creating hydrocarbons, but unlike normal gasoline (which is based on fossil fuels therefore emitting carbon that was once locked away in oil reserves) eFuels emit largely the same carbon output as was absorbed by its production, making it ‘almost’ carbon-neutral."

It’s the production that requires more energy than could practically be supplied from wind etc but the main problem is emissions. UK/EU are going with the zero emissions route, so this won’t fit.
It’s a great innovation with plenty going for it, but it’s not the future while we fixate on emissions as a primary criteria.
My guess is that in a decade or so we will be forced to buy efuel for the remaining ICE vehicles in circulation and that might extend combustion lifetimes a little, but ultimately, only temporarily?

Ultimately, and putting emotional attachment aside, electric power for a car is far superior as an A to B proposition- quicker, quieter, greener, more flexible and cheaper to build, service and run.

It just doesn’t make the right noise!

BEVs are evolving quickly, I suspect efuels will do likewise. Neither is a silver bullet. Both, and indeed other solutions, have significant parts to play imho.

[GTB]

Zero Emmissions!!!

Ok possibly zero emmissions from a vehicle itself, but lets all look at the full extraction of materials from the planet, processing those materials, manufacturing of the vehicle and delivery to the delaership, then ongoing replacement of parts. There will certainly be emmissions somewhere and possibly higher than we have at present.

I agree Jon A UK in particular and EU so focussed on the end product emmissions and nothing before that, nor if the emmissions from hydrocarbons etc are in other countries that they turn a blind eye to.

So ships of the future will have big wooden masts with cloth sales, wooden hulls shaped by hand tools and if the wind doesnt blow then delivery of the nice new Macan EV will be held up as that ZERO emmission ship drifts somewhere in the North Sea!

I fully support given Im an engineer, to eliminate/replace/reduce etc what we have if we can help protect finite resources on the planet, but its absolutely bunkum to think net zero can happen, India and China reap the financial rewards and employment while the UK/Europe think there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

GTB

[Jon A]

Zero Emmissions!!!

Ok possibly zero emmissions from a vehicle itself, but lets all look at the full extraction of materials from the planet, processing those materials, manufacturing of the vehicle and delivery to the delaership, then ongoing replacement of parts. There will certainly be emmissions somewhere and possibly higher than we have at present.

I agree Jon A UK in particular and EU so focussed on the end product emmissions and nothing before that, nor if the emmissions from hydrocarbons etc are in other countries that they turn a blind eye to.

So ships of the future will have big wooden masts with cloth sales, wooden hulls shaped by hand tools and if the wind doesnt blow then delivery of the nice new Macan EV will be held up as that ZERO emmission ship drifts somewhere in the North Sea!

I fully support given Im an engineer, to eliminate/replace/reduce etc what we have if we can help protect finite resources on the planet, but its absolutely bunkum to think net zero can happen, India and China reap the financial rewards and employment while the UK/Europe think there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

GTB

Completely agree. Just to be clear, I’m talking about zero exhaust emissions on the finished vehicle. This, I think, is where the political powers are focused.
Kind of makes sense as you have to start somewhere right? BEV’s obviously create carbon to manufacture and may not “break even” for many years after new - but an ICE car will never break even?
Anyway, the future is the future so I’m not going to stress about it, just see what unfolds…

[SAC1]

The CAR magazine report...

https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/ ... 136ff3b0d2

[wilko]

The issue here is that most of our political leaders are morons.
E fuels offer massive advantages in that they store renewable energy in an energy dense mobile fuel.
Electric aeroplanes. I don’t think so! E fueled planes, absolutely.
Most electric cars on most developed power grids are still getting >50% of their energy from fossil fuels.
E fuels produce co2 and water but the same amount is removed from the atmosphere in their production.
Small engine electric hybrid vehicles with 50-70 mile battery range are the way forward, low tailpipe emissions around people, and then the convenience of petrol (but E fueled) in open spaces where the localised co2, does little harm.
Efuels are applicable to gas in our homes, aviation fuel, sea freight, and pretty much everything else we do. They use the existing distribution and storage network so no extra energy used building new infrastructure.
Batteries as a sole source of energy for anything bigger than a laptop or a phone is pure stupidity. Driven by the political will of the morons running Europe et al.
Same idiots that told us diesel was the way forward.

[Nuclear Nick]

^^^ +1. Same case can be made for Hydrogen, which is what we should be using.

[wilko]

^^^ +1. Same case can be made for Hydrogen, which is what we should be using.

No it cant. Hydrogen is the smallest and lightest molecule so has the lowest density and low energy content per cubic meter. This means it has to be stored at incredibly high pressures to get any amount of energy into a reasonable volume.
Problematic as because the molecules are so small they leak through all the seals.
Gas pipe work to transport it to household boilers would be much larger, so much more infrastructure needs to be built along with new storage.
It also has a problem in that it’s flame front speed is incredibly high so it has to be burnt in high pressure nozzles so that the gas speed is high enough to stop the flame burning back down the pipe and extinguishing.

Carbon is the high energy density part of hydrocarbons, and as long as you generate them from co2 absorbed from the atmosphere and water, then you are not producing any co2 increase in the atmosphere by burning them.

It’s much simpler to generate methane than the complex hydrocarbons produced for e fuels for road transport.

Currently all electric vehicles are powered 100% by fossil fuels as they require extra capacity from the grid and until we have an excess of carbon neutral electricity, the extra demand is generated burning natural gas..

One day (hopefully) our governments will wake up, but I doubt it.