Porsche producing gas in "carbon neutral" way
(www.foxnews.com)
Comments (17)
sorted by:
It is a very old tech, basically, you make syngas ( mix of CO and H2 ) by electrolysing pressurized (~6bar) carbonated water at high temp (~200°C), then do a catalytic synthesis of liquid carbonhydrates from syngas. You could even combine electrolysis and synthesis in one-shot process adding catalyst to electrolysis step. You could make methanol, ethanol or other flammable things depending on catalyst, CO:H2 ratio and synthesis conditions you use.
The problem is that you need a lot of electricity and relatively complex device for that process. It is much easier to get syngas directly from fossil fuels or even wood (woodgas from gas generator), bypassing needless and highly ineffective conversion of fuel into electricity and then electricity into fuel. Then, do with syngas whatever you want - fuel ICE directly with syngas or synthesize liquid fuel for later use in ICE.
All in all it is very energy hungry process that is affordable only if you somehow have a lot of electricity. And by "a lot of" I mean really a lot needed to produce some decent amount of fuel enough for regular rides, not what you could harvest from even an acre of solar panels.
Ok can you redpill me on petroleum based fuel then? I have seen this theory regarding it all being a lie as far as how it is produced. Kinda makes sense when you think about it like this "why would the ruling class let all of modern society be built around vehicles that are supposedly dependent on oil you Just randomly "find". And werent some of the big name scumbag occultist families involved in the early oil industry?
What about peat? Is it from misterous processes in Earth core too? Or somehow peat is not a fuel?
So they murdered all those h2o engine creators?
Or porsche is about to get epsteined 🕵
no Idea. This method effectively uses the equivalent of gasoline.
Weird, I read that is uses co2 and water. Found that note on the picture in the post.
...presuming carbon emissions are bad.
Whether it's good or bad is irrelevant. How this is handled will be very telling since the leftists think its bad and a viable solution has presented itself. Burying it confirms it's all a con. Adopting it means they are true believers.
this is a method for producing fuel that does not change any of the infrastructure that we have for cars. Gas cars will be able to run on what this method produces. This should be the green leftists' wet dream as it is more environmentally friendly than EVs by a long shot. I'll bet that the powers that be completely ignore this, or even try to bury it, as it doesn't involve having to bully average citizens into buying new shit.
Cough**alcohol Cough
🤦♂️ imagine thinking this inefficient process is somehow good for the environment
The plant in Porsche's PoC was powered entirely by the single (albeit large) windmill on the compound. The single compound was able to produce 34,342 gallons annually, with Porsche claiming to be able to ramp that up to over 100 million annually. Multiply that by several windmill complexes aling the coast and you can simultaneously leave oil-based fuel while establishing energy independence.
Compare this with the strip mining and slavery involved with the precious metal mines for EVs, and I would 100% say this method is preferable.
Granted, this could all be bullshit fake and gay. But if the numbers are legit, I genuinely believe this is the solution.
Electric is more efficient than combustion in terms of energy consumption because coal powered steam turbines are sitting like 95% efficient while combustion engines are like 42% so green bs aside these efforts it will win market economics eventually. I think hydrogen is better than electric
the bottleneck with electric is the energy storage. While combustion engines are indeed way less efficient than electric motors, a tank of gas blows all batteries away in terms of potential energy storage.
Just 2,380,952 of these plants would be needed to provide 15 gallons of this fuel to 100 million per week.