Porsche recently announced that they will offer reproduction magnesium engine cases to replace the brittle and decomposing originals in their '64 to '78 911.
Porsche is smart, they know their brand is tied to the classic ICE and that their customers are enthusiasts that prefer that style of vehicle, and always will. It's important that we develop a means to keep ICE vehicles for the enthusiast segment that is also taking into account carbon emissions. It's not a huge segment of the market, but a very influential one and should not be ignored. The vast majority of people will drive EVs as their daily drivers, but EVs will never capture all of the classic vehicle market.
In my opinion this is a marketing campaign designed to placate old Porsche enthusiasts until they die and have been replaced by their kids who want to drive EVs
Yep it will be like horses these days. There will be a niche group of people (like myself) that enjoy taking their ICE vehicles to track days and Sunday drives who will use these efuels and ethanol like race fuels. Unless someone is just filthy rich we won't see many people running their daily commuting appliance on efuels. My track day car will always be an ICE stick shift and my commuter will be an EV, and the funny thing my EV is faster than my track car but the track car is just a soulful rewarding experience to drive and work on.
@@patrickcorcoran4828That will be at least 60 years though. I'm 24 and I belong to the group you described. Don't get me wrong most people my age have no problem with EVs but car enthusiasts even under 25 are not fans of EVs.
@@patrickcorcoran4828you think their kids will want to drive EVs? Lol the passion for a vrooming engine gets passed down many a times. If they see enough of their friends for in an exploding lithium battery car they'll want something safer. I hope there is a meeting of technologies between electric batteries and combustible fuels. Maybe a buttery battery with synthetic hydrocarbons and electrolytes in a solution, or gel-like electrolyte that gets switched in and out of cars and they get charged by the fuel station with a solar grid. This way people can just line up, plug in charged jellies, at the gas station and then go, instead of sitting with a plug at the EV charging area for an hour or two.
Yep, taking a page from history, if they want to keep the soul of an ICE car they have to create a fueling network that doesn't rely on pumping carbon out of the ground and into the atmosphere. Even if it is five times as expensive as regular fuel these cars get driven so rarely it won't hit the folks who can afford it in the wallet too heavily. I plan on using them for my track day car when they become available, stick shift ICE sports cars all the way for fun. EV for commuting appliances where nearly all measurable environmental impact from cars comes from.
@@burnedmozzarella Yeah for 95% of people EVs will more than meet all their needs once they figure out how to deal with renters and people who don't have dedicated parking spots. The other 5% that enjoys driving will still need combustion engine vehicles (I don't care what 0-60 times EVs can put down with all that torque at zero, they have no soul), but I'm not terribly concerned with 5% of people still using gasoline.
are they tho? idk vice use to be great but became awful and made stupid articles on against anime and stuff now their laying off so much they pretty much could go bankrupt
Hydrogen is a viable fuel for internal combustion engines. They make is as a step in producing the e-fuel. It would be cheaper, more efficient, and cleaner. CNBC never asks "why not make the 911 run on hydrogen?" This was not a report. it was a commercial for Porsche.
@@seanj3667 this is an expensive way to raise hydrogen. Fuel cells don't scale cheaply. The fuel itself won't be contained cheaply, and adds weight to the vehicle as well. Infrastructure doesn't exist so energy will be expended to create it. Ironically the methanol produced is a great way to store the hydrogen cheaply. But then it costs more energy to get it back out again, so it's more efficient to just burn the methanol or use it in a fuel cell directly.
@@seanj3667 no of course. But it's best to use sunk costs (carbon) before expending new. The existing infrastructure for hydrocarbons can still be used for carbon negative hydrocarbons, for example. That would result in an immediate reduction in carbon in the atmosphere with no additional infrastructure (carbon) cost. Then, when it is ready (yet) carbon can be strategically spent where it will have the greatest impact It requires collective action on multiple fronts now and for ever.
I hope this technology innovates because I don’t want to buy a new car. My old 1997 Celica manual is fun to drive, reliable, and has been super cheap to own. I’ve spent less money on this over the time I have had it than I would spend buying a brand new Chevy bolt I’m totally fine with people buying new Tesla’s or whatever else but I think it should be part of the eco solution for people who want to reuse and maintain their old cars for years to come to be able to do so. Scrapping these cars would be such a wasteful thing
EXACTLY I don’t know why everyone thinks electric evs are more climate friendly, the amount of lithium that needs to be mined, transportation for the batteries to be made which are then transported again to a car assembly factory. Not to mention the fact that most counties simply don’t have the infrastructure to provide 100% clean energy to power these cars.
@@faisalahmed05tm66 Why is it people are only concerned about mining for EV batteries and have never been concerned about mining for electronics, or steel or coal or drilling for oil and gas? Mining for battery materials means less steel used in engines and less oil used to run them. Though to be fair batteries are just as recyclable as steel engines and it tends to be car frames rather than engines that rust to nothing and thus can't be recycled. All lifecycle analyses shows the carbon footprint of EVs is a lot lower than ICE cars at the current grid mix of fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable electricity and every year the grid gets cleaner as more wind and solar come online and they shut down the old expensive coal and natural gas power plants.
@@patrickcorcoran4828 have you seen the issues with mining that Lithium, Cobalt and other rare earth materials that happen? EV owners often play advocates for "we are making world better" when all they do is move the issue from one country to another. Fossil fuel/coal/iron mining/drilling is way safer to get compared to battery materials. When was the last time you needed a child without foot wear to mine materials for your $100 000 gas car?
If we are around $10 per gallon on e-fuel now, with a tiny handful of tiny facilities making this, imagine what will happen in 10 years. These people sound like all the EV-naysayers 10 years ago. Too expensive, too hard, never gonna happen- look at the car market now. I am so beyond thrilled that Porsche also finds it important to continue to enjoy our classic cars in an environmentally responsible way.
Yeah, look at that 3% market share that EVs have now.. big whoop. Soooo many people are confused and think EVs are the future. They aren’t. You’ll see. Internal combustion is going nowhere.
Two small problems mentioned. 1 hydrogen from salt water is still in development stage, and may not be scalable. To make it legal carbon capture has to work. No company, (no matter how much money even the US government has given) has been able to make it work. The video even says how much of a challenge these two problems are. Good luck Porsche.
Managing money is different from accumulating wealth, and the lack of investment education in schools may explain why people struggle to maintain their financial gains. The examples you provided are relevant, and I personally benefited from the market crisis, as I embrace challenging times while others tend to avoid them. Well, at least my advisor does too, jokingly.
Achieving significant returns isn't about volatile stocks; it's about effectively balancing risk and reward. Proper position sizing and leveraging your advantage repeatedly are essential, whether you're a long-term investor or a day trader.
Certainly, many underestimate advisors until emotions lead to losses. A few summers ago, during a tough divorce, I sought a licensed advisor who, through diligent work, boosted my business from $190k to around $720k despite inflation.
The Adviser I'm in touch with is *'Jude Ryan McDonough'* , he works with Merrill, Pierce, Smith incorporated and interviewed on CNBC Television. You can use something else. for me her strategy works hence my result. He provides entry and exit point for the securities I focus on.
@@SinlowMusic Toyota has started walking away from hydrogen fuel. And their sleeping on PEVs meant they squandered all the head start that the Prius gave them. They're behind manufacturers like Hyundai, Ford, and Volkswagen now
No... This will be used to sell new cars too. That's why Germany fought the 2035 mandate. EVs make horrible sports cars, and the Germans specialize in sports car. Sports car make up a very small percentage of total cars sold. All the already soulless boring crossovers can go ev...
Sorry environmentalists already decided that farming and/or processing of the materials required to create e-fuels is bad for the environment. Also, it's usually a crop that poor third world countries need for food.
You'll be an EV fan until you realize that the batteries make up an integral part of the structure of the car in most cases and cannot be replaced. Look it up. I was surprised by that too but it makes sense that they would take these kinds of shortcuts because everything today is throw away...
@@lanpartyanimal5215 That's only true of the newest Tesla Model 3's and Tesla Model Y's, but I agree that it is a mistake. You can still replace the batteries since the pack shell is the structural component, not the batteries themselves, but it makes it a lot harder for independent mechanics to fix packs. That fits into Tesla's anti-right-to-repair stance, which I still don't understand because they haven't built out enough service centers to take care of their 11-year-old Model S's.
@@lanpartyanimal5215 Strange that. Cleveleys Electric Vehicles here in Gloucestershire, England, have already replaced and refurbished a number of EV battery packs...... Just because *you* aren't aware of it doesn't mean it can't be done......
I am 63 years old and I used to be a mechanic at auto repair shop that specialized in Germen cars. Anyone who has a chance to drive a Porsche 911, is for a real treat! Dave...
Anyone else sees the similarity to quarts watches vs mechanical watches? The quarts almos destroyed brands like rolex and omega by beeing vastly cheaper and more precise. Now most of the quarts brans are dead, overtaken by smart phones and later smart watches. Then the mechanical brands watch companies pivoted to luxury market, emphesizing the history and beauty of mechanics and managed not only to survive but to thrive. Porshe beeing a luxury car manufacturer has been doing this for a while, but with the mass market moving towards electric, if they manage to maintain their combustion engine production through regulatory hurdles they just might become the ultimate rolex of a car.
Another example could be record players and the vinyl records. Objectively an outdated analog technology that nevertheless not only still hangs around but even made a comeback. I’m a classic car lover - if they manage to survive in their niche thanks to efuels I’m happy and totally don’t mind if everyday transportation runs on batteries.
EVs are great for the majority of drivers. For some of us car enthusiasts, who are the minority, internal combustion vehicles are what causes us excitement. Sports cars, super cars and hyper cars are in low production and used infrequently, hence their carbon footprint being lower than say that of corollas on the road. Glad to see Porsche doing this as it will help keep these amazingly engineered vehicles on the road for the few of us that love them. I’ll gladly pay $10/g to keep my cars on the road. Would get an EV for daily commutes.
Exactly as a 23 year old car enthusiast myself when I heard Toyota was going to release the GR corolla with a six speed manual and a 1.6 L turbo charged in line 3 cylinder that produces 300 hp and 276 foot pounds of torque also with an all-wheel-drive system I about Peed myself with excitement and the icing on the cake is it comes with a mechanical handbrake that’s cable operated, and every other thing is pretty much mechanical the all wheel drive system the waste gate on the turbocharger the cooling system It’s essentially a love letter to the older cars that were all mechanical not to mention it’s a hot hatch, which is cool in itself but it’s purpose built to be fun and fast and put a smile on your face now if they would’ve made the GR corolla electric or even hybrid with a CVT automatic transmission it would’ve just been another dismal car on the road that meant absolutely nothing even if it had performance parts like good suspension and big disc brakes, and the carbon fiber roof that cut its weight down by 22 pounds on the circuit edition and even the much lighter Morizo edition that’s more track focused because it does not have a backseat it would’ve still been very heavy because of the batteries and electric motors, a dismal boring car thank goodness they didn’t do that to the GR corolla life is dismal enough with every new car, being a hybrid or an EV with a CVT transmission with a stupid name so I am very happy what Porsche is doing and I do think it is the answer with the E fuel electric vehicles are not the future at least my future anyway because I won’t be caught dead in one those cars are more like iPhones with a bigger lithium battery. Where is the enthusiasm and passion in that I know they have excellent acceleration, but that’s about all they possess that interest me and that doesn’t really make a fun exciting car that puts a smile on your face every time you drive it because you’re missing one vital component the noise, the noise of a naturally aspirated, or turbo charged and supercharged engine and modifications, of course tuning the engines to make some get more power. That’s also fun which electric cars would be taking away because you really can’t make an electric car go faster by tuning it, or throwing some performance parts to it besides tires and brakes and suspension you really can’t do anything to the battery or the electric motors that I know of anyway but even still, it’s not as enjoyable as there internal combustion engine counterparts
EV's are booring, they all drive the same, EV's are a step to just get people of the vehicles, and use public transportation and be dependent on government and loose their freedom of going anywhere they want and be confined to a 15 minute city and be slaves
EVs are not great for the majority of drivers; they are great for a very small minority of urban drivers - namely those in fairly dense cities in smaller, rich countries. Any timeline to phase out ICEs by X date is nothing but a gamble at this point that we'll have a magical breakthrough in battery tech before that date
If $10 per gallon is the thing that keeps one from buying a Porsche, then one is not a Porsche driver. Our fuel in Germany has been at or more than $USD 10 per gallon for years. As a Porsche driver, I could not care less...... I'm happy to pay a premium to continue to drive my 911 Turbo.
I heartily support the Porsche’s synthetic fuel engineers and their management board and I deeply believe that lots of people like me can find an opportunity to invest in such a project only to keep the “real” engines on the road
I bought the 4.0 liter 718 because it's the last ICE version. It is very true that the loyal fans might not embrace the future of this brand. I know I'm not buying any EV for long distance travel or spirted driving.
Another useful thing about e-fuel wasn't mentioned is energy transport - you can make e-fuel in Chile and transport it to Europe, but you can't transport just electricity over such a long distance. Another way to look at e-fuel as just a storage for green hydrogen. Hydrogen itself is very light, volatile and low density gas which need heavy high pressure tanks or very low temperature liquification to store, while if you bind it with carbon and make e-fuel, it's easy to store.
Then extract for use as hydrogen how, in what reliable & efficient way? Electricity's very easily transported, not that there's a need when it can just be generated anywhere.
@Unstable sid High voltage AC is cheaper for short distance lines and easier to change voltage. HVDC lines require DC-AC converters, which are more expensive than AC-AC converters, so the efficiency savings over AC are only worthwhile for lines over a certain length.
Arguably the biggest upside to efuels is that unlike battery-powered EVs, they don't require a tenfold increase in global mining capacity to make them feasible at scale. Nobody talks about the mineral supply shortfalls, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and anyone who claims otherwise is delusional.
Germans sent us to the moon technically. They are the only hope in the auto world. BMW and Toyota will follow suit and likely assist Porsche. Those two brands do not want fully electric either.
@@awilmymartinez3707 the only people that gonna go bankrupt are those buying battery electric. We all know batteries degrade after a certain amount of recharge and the cost to replace those batteries aren't cheap and add the cost of charging and the mileage tax they gonna put on it. for the cost of one of those batteries I can buy all the gas needed for the life of a car, battery electric is just not worth buying.
@@awilmymartinez3707 do you think Toyota only sell cars in the West? The Asian and African markets are decades away from complete EV overhaul. Toyota's hybrid will reign supreme in these markets. While BMW will cater to the growing middle/upper class in the said markets, who don't give 2 cents about electrification.
I'm about to buy another Cayman, which is their true mid engine car. I'll gladly pay $10.00/gallon to take it out for a drive on the roads. It's not about going really fast but the sound of the engine as a well matched downshift just before a corner puts the car in the perfect balance. I'd own an electric for daily commuting but I'm happily retired so a Honda and a GMC perform well for errands. It's about driver engagement in the experience and Porsche does it best. I owned two Corvettes great cars and a lot of fun but they don't come close.
Not to forget the core need of a true petrolhead: engine sound! The biggest reason Porsches are bought. Hardly anyone would want a classic Mustang if there wasn't a mindblowing engine sound.
Right. That is for sure. The thing is, is that efuel is baloney. You want REAL gasoline and the highest octane at that for a Porsche , Mustang , etc. The only true source for top grade gasoline is from crude oil. All this talk about climate change, carbon footprint, and sustainability is nothing more than a trick played by the power elites of Western Europe, the U.K., and North America on their own people. Like all these decades has gone by and very little if anything about EV's and now it is like 'oh no, too much carbon in the atmosphere. We should all remember , plants and vegetation breathe in carbon and give off oxygen so that us humans can live. The reasoning of the present day power elites is badly bent out of shape.
@@hectornecromancer5308 Get real. It's a non starter. It's been estimated the US alone would need around 9000 e fuel manufacturing plants similar to the one in Chile, to supply it's needs..... It's not happening.
I don’t know why everyone thinks electric evs are more climate friendly, the amount of lithium that needs to be mined, transportation for the batteries to be made which are then transported again to a car assembly factory. Not to mention the fact that most counties simply don’t have the infrastructure to provide 100% clean energy to power these cars.
@@Brian-om2hh the one in Chile is currently only pilot scale. Real plants will produce thousands of times as much. There are 120 petroleum refineries in the US alone.
To compare the reliability of a Porsche even to a simply Toyota is just ludicrous. A ten year old Porsche will need a multitude of repairs and services while the Toyota doesn’t.
At time marker 12:13. It was stated 19% is loss at charging. Take you down to 81%. And then you loss 20% in the car. That leaves you 65%. Am I missing something here?
Don't forget... don't run your car to 0 and don't charge over 80%. That takes you to 50% of the electricity you paid for, moving the car but only in summer, when it's not too hot. In winter, you have roughly 20% of the electricity you paid for, available to move you.
@@PTANV-x2g , nope. I love details and if you're going to put them in your video, they should pass the sniff test. Or at least explain why your numbers are not adding up.
The EU proposal did not refer to existing petrol cars, but only to NEW cars. I find it very questionable why many media outlets spread the story that e-fuels are necessary to keep existing cars on the road. The use of petrol in general was NOT part of the EU proposal.
True however firstly they will probably at some point ban gasoline and secondly we already have a lot of tax on regular fuel so it will probably become very expensive. E Fuels wouldnt be taxed the same way
Almost 30 years ago I built a woodgas generator for my truck. In the last 15 years I have cooked waste plastic to Diesel. Synthetic fuels are nothing new.
Petrol costs only around $3 a gallon, the rest is tax. The $10 is only production cost in 30+ years, once the process is scaled up. Estimated price in 2035 is closer to $16 a gallon plus tax.
@@1marcelfilms There isn't going to be any maintenance for the batteries. It's now coming out that the batteries form an integral part of the car and can't be replaced in most of them. Can you say toxic waste dumps?
@@lanpartyanimal5215 while batteries don't need as much maintenance as ICE component, god foraskes you if it's broken, as it can cost as much as the car itself
ANY internal combustion engine, whatever the fuel, is inherently less efficient than a battery-powered equivalent. So many moving parts. Every part takes a bit of power. Electric motors are simple, efficient, and require little or no servicing/maintenance. This is due to fail.
The thing is, synthetic hydrocarbons will be necessary in many applications: construction, mining, marine propulsion, and aviation, just to name a few.
Nothing wrong with efuels as long as they are made properly, but it's all in the use case. They will always be more expensive than just doing an EV on electricity (as the vid points out). So it doesn't make sense for the average consumer. It could be feasible for some rich fella who doesn't care or for some industry where it makes sense due to constraints of alternate types of fuels.
A transition to electric vehicles on a global scale will take a century since billions of people live in electricity starvation. And creating a powerful and flexible grid will cost untold trillions and take decades. Just look at India, they consume less than 1000 kWh/person/year. The average EV driving 10 000 miles a year will require roughly three times that amount. And this doesn't even take into consideration the supply crunch on major materials such as copper.
Kudos to Porsche for wanting to maintain their heritage and doing something about it, as opposed to refusing to change and just making a lot of noise against EV's. I don't imagine ever owning a Porsche or using efuels but you have to admire their ambition in creating a new fuel source.
11:06 is very well done. eFuels will always be less efficient and more expensive than Battery Electric. Excess wind electricity at night will get stored (not wasted). The only way eFuels will be cost effective is with MA$$IVE Tax Payer Subsidies.
Another major sector that would benefit from e-fuel is the agricultural and forestry sector, running heact equipment day after day under tremenomdous loads is not possible at this time with electric power.
12:56 "Consumers aren't going to want these expensive fuels." Madame, we're talking about Porsche 911. It's already a luxury item. You think expensive fuels is going to stop people? And who cares if this is a waste of money. It's Porsche's money, not yours. Let them waste it. If you're that convinced that it's a bad use of money, then just let it happen, and Porsche will learn that lesson on their own. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Transition into the electric cars while making a limited production line for the E Fuel market. Like said, EFuel will be expensive at first, but cost per gallon will reduce with time and technology.
But the problem there will be that the gradual decline in ICE manufacturing will mean the target market is constantly shrinking. Would you put big bucks into an e fuels market you knew was shrinking from day 1?
@Brian-om2hh I don't believe EVs should be the only solution to climate change, nor should it be an absolute one. The same thing goes for E-fuels. I look at them as options and choices for keeping the earth clean. And sports car manufacturers are exempt from ICE bans, since they make a small amount of cars per year. Porsche and Ferrari are keeping the tradition alive, regardless of the electric future. And I don't even care if Electric cars are slower than the ICE cars. All that matters is that the ICE cars owners will have their fun, while being aware of climate change. And to me, in my honest opinion, I find it quite insulting for car companies trying to make their electric sports cars trying to put in fake sounds and exhaust to make it sound authentic, like, it doesn't really work for me. But if it's something that the customers want, save that as a different or alternative version of the same ICE car being produce at the same time. And we won't go anywhere without making compromises, such as saving electric cars for Econoboxes, and ICEs for sports cars. That way, we could stop demonizing each other, and let us live our lives with the cars we choose. There are also some young people that still want to hear the sound of the engines, so don't generalize that all of them will just suddenly stop and switch to EVs. There's nothing wrong with having that feeling of nostalgia for car sounds, as long as you respect them for having that. With that in mind, I hope this eases the dread of having to give up the passion of car engine sounds that we are all used to for years.
No, Porsche is also going electric. The electric Taycan is selling almost as much as the 911. Together with Audi they developed a new high performance electric platform which will be released with the Macan and the Boxster in 1-2 years. The Boxster won't even get a new ice model, it will only be sold as a full electric.
Even if internal combustion engines are banned it would still be good for cement production and in Belgium you often pay €1.90/L for super +98 so the price difference won't be much if they can produce it on a mass scale.
the efficiency is just ridiculous to me. that e-fuels don't make sense for cars purely from an efficiency standpoint is a non argument. abundant energy will make this a non argument. shipping and aviation industry will need these kinds of fuels which in turn means that these industries will invest heavily into the infrastructure needed to make e-fuels. when these industries are up and running at full speed, the transport sector can use this to support their own net-zero path. sure EV's are more energy efficient when using them but there is still a large part of the population that actually likes ICE or even needs them because there is no grid to go full electric at this moment.
The considerations made by Porche's e-fuels managers and HIF's director are kinda iffy. They are taking for granted that someone else will invest and develop two major factors that influence e-fuels production: - Decarbonisation technologies - Sustainable energy production I think these two assumptions are quite big to make...
Even at $40 a gallon? Just to give you an idea of the cost ball park, we in Britain have had Aspen synthetic petrol for decades. It costs around £30 to £35 per gallon......
@@Brian-om2hh I live in Canada and we don't have that. Regular or E85... And like they said, It's not scaled yet! Even at 40 yes, I would buy... To help scale the price down! 2$ a gallon is about .65/L It's what I used to pay for my 1st car to fuel, on regular 20 years ago!
The problem is cost. Even if efuels can be made in such a fashion that they are carbon neutral, they will always be far more expensive than electricity for an EV. Meaning it prices out most people.
@ralphdepino9650 No reason for people to be so emotionally tied to a fuel type. Doesn't make sense. Not wanting to drive one while the infra is still being built out or they're higher priced, etc ... sure. But based on it being EV vs gas makes no sense. In the end the average person will care about cost. This alone will make the transition occur.
@ralphdepino9650 They certainly can. The issue is that it'll always be FAR cheaper to run a car on electricity than on efuel. By a large margin. That'll tend to price most people out of it. It isn't that efuel can't co-exist with other options, but simply the economics of it will limit wide-market usefulness.
@@JT_771 It depends because all electric companies don't charge a flat rate you've got your peak and off peak rate, but if a lot of people go battery electric more than likely you won't have off peak rates and rates are gonna go up because of the demand. I'm not for battery evs, I'll either go gas hybrid or hydrogen electric.
Porsche in 2035- So making hydrogen out or water was hard, and so was capturing CO2. So we fracked for natural gas, and split it with electricity from coal fired power plants. We'll figure out the hard parts later. Good news is we aren't using oil any more to make gas.
Petty comment here, but why say that two wind turbines in Chile produces as much as six in Germany? Why not 1 compared to 3? The math tutor inside me is disappointed.
To put this into perspective: 1B liter annually is 6M barrels. 6M barrels is... < 3 days of current German oil consumption.... Meaning less than 0.01% of annual consumption.
I've talked about this before. Eventually there will be enough excess renewable energy that we will extract carbon from the air, turn it into solid carbon (e-coal, essentially), and rebury back in the coal mines where we found it, to take carbon out of the atmosphere. We will refill empty wells with eTar and ePropane extracted from the air and water.
The Porsche 911 is a halo & identity car for the company. And yet it fits just 2 adults in front, 2 midgets (little people) in back. There is demand, economies of scale, & 60 years of refinement that engineering has an absolute mastery of. /// Full Year Porsche Production ALL 911 2020- 8,840 2021: 10,042 ALL 718 20-3,447 21-4,292 ALL TAYCAN 20-4,414 21-9,419 ALL PANAMERA 20-3,870 21-4,257 ALL CAYENNE 20-18,092 021-17,299 ALL MACAN 20-18,631 21-24,716
I THINK E FUELS ARE A BAD IDEA ," If e-fuels are made with hydrogen from water, the water supply could potentially be affected depending on the scale of e-fuel production and the method used to extract the hydrogen from water. Water is a finite resource, and if large amounts of water are used for e-fuel production, it could put a strain on local water supplies and potentially lead to water scarcity "
So I like that Porsche admitted that Direct air capture technology is actually not fully developed. Because in the USA many government officials here lied about whether the tech was up to spec, and it cost many of us hundreds of thousands in losses for investing in such with a false promise.
The point is that you can produce e-fuels where the sun shines 12 h a day, 35 days a year, and you can use them in Minnesota during winter when there is neither wind nor sun. That relativates the efficiency issue. Efficiency is not the point. The point is cost and time/location. The Saudis already build solar plants that produce electricity for 1 cent per kWh, corresponding to 20 cent per litre or $1.4 per gallon of e-fuel. The electricity is not a limiting factor.
The fact that they are doing this makes me want to take every penny I own and buy Porsche products or Porsche stock. The title should be “Porsche is smart, they recognize that electric vehicles are not as environmentally sound as we have been lead to believe, also that they can not replace existing vehicles fast enough, what is really needed is a drop in fuel for existing cars”
That’s what some tried to do also with horse and carriage when the ICE came around. We all know what happened. There’s NO ICE vehicle that can compete with an EV performance wise and the fun factor to drive it. A Tesla plaid is much more performant than any Porsche ICE will ever be and the new roadster will be mind blowing. Porsche is trying to hold on to something desperately because they don’t have the know how of mass producing a compelling EV. It’s over for Flinstone ICE technology!😂 For those who really want the engine noise, well they can mimic it in the car cabine without disturbing others outside. They could even mimic the exhaust in the car cabin for the real fans so those outside won’t get cancer. And Toyota, an other brand late to the party, even comes up with fake gears for EVs, how thoughtful.
*Being able to provide all my needs without the help of the Government is really a dream come through and I’m getting $50,000 returns from my 10k investment*
My first experience with her gave me the assurance and confidence that has made me to invest without fear of losing, I really appreciate her efforts and transparency..
Mary Margaret Schimweg has been such a blessing to me, my colleague got me involved in this and I can't thank her enough, my first placement was a little amount of Ethereum and my investment has been growing so well even with the dip
My dad's Taycan needed a battery replacement after 12k miles and it has been sitting at the shop for 6 months now. When he called, the rep said that there are 3 cars ahead of him so he probably will have to wait even longer. Even service intervals took them weeks to complete while it only took 1 or 2 days for my Tesla. Porsche needs to drastically step up its EV service before customers get tired of being treated like 2nd class citizens, because my dad already swore off Porsches.
@@ViburaBlanca The car line is too new to determine long-term reliability. There's always outliners like my dad's car but it's "supposed" to have little issue up to 50k miles. We need more people getting pass 50k or even 100k to fully determine the actual reliability.
It's befitting that Porsche would undertake this initiative to keep ICE alive as long as it can - it is a performance brand through and through....and it feeds off its loyalists....but what I'm hearing in this video is if anything, they'll keep the e-fuel technology to the flagship model like the 911 while rest (if not most) of the other models in the portfolio will be EVs....I have a Cayenne and I like my SUVs - as much as I aspire to own a 911 one day, I don't want to have to be a multimillionaire to own a 911 to have a combustion engine vehicle - I hope they're able to find a way to transfer that technology into its other models somehow (while keeping EV as an optional model, as opposed THE only model).
I hope more car manufacturers jump on board with E-Fuels. I see EVs as a band aid we are swapping from one CO2 polluter to another. Mining batteries from lithium produces just as much as fossil fuels. I'll hold onto my ICE car for as long as I can. I wonder with E-Fuels would there be a method/application to convert a ICE car to use E-Fuel. If they can accomplish this they will be onto a winner.
E-fuels and current petrol are chemically identical. There would be no need to convert an ICE for the use of e-fuels. Any ICE can use e-fuels. However, e-fuels is no true solution for the problem you see with EV cars. To make e-fuels one has to generate electricity, produce hydrogen and capture carbon from the air, and then combine those to make methanol as explained in the video. But to generate electricity without CO2 you need either windturbines or solar panels. Both require rare earth metals to function and mining those are environmentally polluting in the same way as lithium mining is. And in general those metals are only mined in China, so you have to deal with that country, whereas lithium is mined in many more countries around the world. And, yes, if you want to charge your EV you also need solar panels or windturbines, so you have to deal with mining the same metals. But as EVs are about 5 to 6 times more efficient well to wheel, you need 5 to 6 times less of those metals. And to make hydrogen you need an electrolyzer that also requires some material that need to be mined and thus pollute. This is a step you don't need for an EV. So, you might be familiar with the pollution caused by lithium mining, but the alternatives also need materials to be mined and thus pollute in the same way, but that story isn't told as often. And just to add. Just because there isn't a well-to-wheel emission of CO2, doesn't mean that the same goes for the other tailpipe emissions. In the combustion process in an ICE nitrogen from the outside air bonds with other elements in the combustion and creates NOx. Changing to e-fuels doesn't change that. The same goes for particulate matter, soot and some other trace gasses. Although mostly not contributing to climate change, those pollutants are bad for air quality, cause health problems and have the potential to cause problems for flora and fauna. The only way to get rid of that is to make a change to cars without tailpipe emissions, thus cars with combustion engines.
there are some videos already investigated your pollution concerns. Even if the pollution is the same, I don't want to inhale exhaust at my house vs a power plant burning coal 3000 miles away. Also, for people own a home with reliable charging at night, cannot get any better. Why waste time going to gas station, hydrogen, eFuel station to refill when you can charge at home while you sleep. EV is not perfect and it's not for everyone, but for most daily usage owners, the benefits out-weight the concerns. Of course, there are people still using old tech like DVDs, so not going to go there. Peace.
@@xavierdarche4822 "But to generate electricity without CO2 you need either windturbines or solar panels." False, you need nuclear energy, especially because the waste heat from a nuclear power plant can be used for the production of the e-fuels. "In the combustion process in an ICE nitrogen from the outside air bonds with other elements in the combustion and creates NOx." This is almost completely eliminated from the tailpipe of modern gasoline-burning cars by the catalytic converter. The particulate emissions from modern gasoline vehicles are also negligible. Modern gasoline vehicles are extremely clean and would be significantly cleaner when burning e-fuels, as e-fuels don't contain many of the less desirable compounds which are found in petroleum products and burn cleaner as a result.
@@PistonAvatarGuy Even if you want to use nuclear power plants. You need roughly 6 times as many nuclear power plants if you want to use the electricity to make e-fuels compared to using it for charing BEVs. And even if it's viable to use waste heat for e-fuels, that waste heat can better be used to heat homes, a far more efficient use. So, as you need 6 times as many nuclear power plants, I don't think you can find the political will to build that many extra nuclear power plants in almost any country. At least here in Europe there is already pushback to build any nuclear power plant, let alone build 6x more than the hundreds already needed for a CO2 free electricity production.
@@xavierdarche4822 It's not quite that simple, because you could use a significant amount of energy from a nuclear power plant that is normally wasted, so you'd just be using the system more efficiently. Electric cars also require significantly more energy to produce when compared to ICE vehicles, so that skews the comparison. The following could be true: The electricity produced by a nuclear power plant could be used to power electric vehicles (including public transportation vehicles and trains which are always connected directly to the grid), while the waste heat (which will exist anyway) could be used to produce e-fuels for aircraft and a small number of ICE vehicles on the roads... or on race tracks And, no, you can't often use the waste heat from a nuclear reactor in homes, the distances between the reactors and the homes are typically too great. We're going to need nuclear anyway, so-called "renewables" have been proven to be a pathetic joke.
Why is it so hard for them to perfect an e fuel. The military uses ammonia which is three parts hydrogen, methanol and ethanol also burn very efficiently and clean, and even hydrogen itself. All these fuel sources are cleaner than EV battery production and take minutes to refuel a tank. Nothing new. Racers and the DIY crowd would have it done in hours. Not impressed with “e” fuels at all.
11:36 The efficiency argument sounds good on paper, however, an EV has limitations that makes it very limiting for towing, COLD weather, and driving long distances. I Love my EV, I had it for 5 years, perfect car as a daily driver. but for towing, long distances, cold weather and cost, it may takes another 10 years.
At least conceptually the idea is that you take the carbon out of the air, the fuel is burned, putting all the carbon back in the air. But since it is carbon you had extracted from the air (vs from oil), the idea is that you have a draw and as such aren't adding to the net amount in the air. In practice it'll depend very heavily on how efuels are actually made.
Porsche wake up, stop dreaming. The problem is not the fuel but the ICE, the most inefficient piece of machinery devised by man, that deliver to the wheels even below 30% of the power produced. While we are talking over 75% of the power produced by an efficient electric motor. Considering that the parts needed by an EV are much less than half than an ICE car, and the wind and solar energy cost just one third of gas or even less than synthetic fuel, should tell intelligent people that the ICE era is dead, and a beautiful new clean era is upon us. Be responsible and develop the electric motors, for its efficiency is pointing to our future from the limitless wind and solar energy ideally construed like Tesla with an OTA which would eliminate costly maintenance. I drive a Tesla and I would never again consider any other ICE car, but the vast majority of people when informed, feels the same way. If you don't stop wasting money on dreams, the consumers are going to do that for you within this decade.
@@m4rvinmartian That’s a indescribable passion. If you take your time, restore your carburators and the car runns like new, despite beeing 60 years old, then take a cruise and people come to talk, take pictures and share their storys when their family had cars like this.. To me that’s worth it, even the e-fuel costs.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Efficiency does not equate to environmentally friendly. I could make a real efficient arsenic vaporizer, doesn't exactly make it a green breakthrough. It's about what we're putting back into our environment, not how well we preserve the entropy of the universe. Go ahead and look up how Tesla gets its lithium and tell me it's still an environmentally friendly company.
The real value of this technique is its potential to over produce and hence become carbon negative, if a suitable storage method is used. So the factor 5 difference in energy efficiency of efuels vs. BEV would be offset by the reduction in co2 in the atmosphere, if say every litre burned (because fuel is going to continue to be burned for some time) corresponded to some x litres equivalent stored. This is a great way to get scale production (and hence potential over production) up and running as a parallel approach to addressing the problem of rising atmospheric co2. Combined with the other bio storage methods for co2 reduction, which would also be equally useful for fuels in those cases where it makes sense for now, this seems entirely necessary.
Well we're in the situation we're in because for the last 200 years we have been burning solid and liquid carbons that have been trapped in the earth for millions of years. If we somehow manage to sequester all that million year old carbon the earth will go back to a stable carbon cycle where plants release carbon when they die and take it in when they grow. The fossil carbon we burn in cars and coal plants has never been part of that natural cycle.
I began my investment journey at the age of 38, primarily through hard work and dedication. Now at the age of 42, I am thrilled to share that my passive income exceeded $100k in a single month for the first time. This success reinforces the importance of the advice mentioned earlier. It is not about achieving quick wealth, but rather ensuring long-term financial prosperity.
Investors should exercise caution with their exposure and exercise caution when considering new investments, particularly during periods of inflation. It is advisable to seek guidance from a professional or trusted advisor in order to navigate this recession and achieve potential high yields
This is superb! Information, as a noob it gets quite difficult to handle all of this and staying informed is a major cause, how do you go about this are you a pro investor?
Through closely monitoring the performance of my portfolio, I have witnessed a remarkable growth of $483k in just the past two quarters. This experience has shed light on why experienced traders are able to generate substantial returns even in lesser-known markets. It is safe to say that this bold decision has been one of the most impactful choices I have made recently.
My layman's Dunning-Kruger-effect-prone understanding of things is that if the EROI of a fuel is bad, then it's a waste of money and resources, it doesn't matter that you're capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. If that's done in any volume worth for climatic effects (which I seriously doubt), then it possibly can still have a higher EROI and lower net CO2 emissions by doing "whatever else" with that captured CO2 and then using conventional, cheaper fossil fuels, instead of wasting oney synthesizing less of it. Just but only the amount of fossil fuel you'd have synthesizing with the same budget, and pocket the difference, or give it to charity. Energy waste from excess production in renewables isn't really an excuse, it would be better to find "anything else" to do with the energy (even if only storing it in conventional batteries or try new technologies that seem reasonable upon scrutiny). The renewable energy surplus isn't even all that significant, since Germany still indirectly helps funding a war by buying gas from a hostile regime that wages it. It is interesting though if one could devise a way to capture CO2 in significant volume, but I'm afraid it costs at least as much energy as it was produced by burning the fossil fuels in the first place, unless there's some really smart idea being neglected somehow. I'd guess the best bet would be massive reforestation, perhaps with new technologies allowing for unprecedented growth rates and nocturnal "hybernation" of plants, or yet artificial lighting so that they just capture CO2 as if it were day time.
Year-over-year inflation stood at 6.5% in December 2022-the lowest that figure has been in more than a year. Inflation was in line with what economists expected and gave many of them a reason to believe that the peak of inflation may be behind us. I have approximately $150k stagnant in my port_folio that needs growth. What is the best way to take advantage of this downturn?
you’re right! The current market might give opportunities to maximize profit within a short term, but in order to execute such strategy , you must be a skilled practitioner
I've actually been thinking of reaching a portfolio-adviser, my 401k and stocks been losing everything it's gained since 2019, mind if I looked-up this one coach you use?
There are many financial coaches who excel in their profession, but for the time being, I employ "Jackson Sten Marsh," because I adore his methods. You can make research and find out more.
You can also make E fuel from algae. You can even make it carbon negative. You grow algae and then turn it into gasoline or another type of oil. If you use 60% to 80% for fuel then store the rest underground and you have a carbon-negative fuel.
*Please stop, you have no idea what you are talking about and all you're doing is a half-assed parroting of a two or 3 headlines you read, but didn't read the story.*
Nuclear energy is perfect for this, high temp reactors can drive chemical reactions using heat directly to make hydrogen, synthetic fuels and fertilizer. You can make hydrogen at around the same or higher efficiencies than current nuclear plants make electricity
You can't put an E at the front of fuel and pretend its a different product. It doesn't matter if you use carbon capture if you're still making gasoline that is still putting exhaust in areas people live. Electricity is going to win!
The new edition of the IEA’s annual Global Electric Vehicle Outlook shows that more than 10 million electric cars were sold worldwide in 2022 and that sales are expected to grow by another 35% this year to reach 14 million. This explosive growth means electric cars’ share of the overall car market has risen from around 4% in 2020 to 14% in 2022 and is set to increase further to 18% this year, based on the latest IEA projections.
The problem with eFuels is that you are still burning [expletive] to move you around. That is so inefficient. Heating up an engine block does *not* move your car forward. By 2030 *_every_* new car sold will have an electric powertrain, *_by law._* Every buyer of every new car sold will be ever so thankful of the added torque, power, and efficiency of the electric powertrain. When a _Porsche 911_ ends up being _shut down_ by a cheap *Chinese* nock-off or by a *Tesla* you'll wonder who's the _troglodyte_ driving that old *911?*
