With many automakers transitioning from petrol-powered vehicles to electrified ones, Porsche and Ferrari are pursuing a new strategy by concentrating on the advancement of e-Fuels to preserve gas-powered engines.
This decision follows the European Commission’s delay last week of the proposed 2035 ban on new internal combustion engine vehicles as the commission prepares to carve out a role for e-Fuels after 2035. [emphasis, links added]
“Porsche and Ferrari’s status as national icons was enough to move their governments to challenge the EU plan last week just days before a scheduled vote,” Bloomberg wrote.
Germany’s Transport Minister Volker Wissing told the European Commission that he would withhold support for the approval of the new engine standards to end the sale of new combustion engine cars unless there was a plan for e-Fuels post-2035.
Italy also threatened to fight the reforms.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Sunday, discussing a compromise that would likely involve e-Fuels.
Germany and Italy are home to the world’s top sportscar manufacturers. There has been growing opposition against Brussels’ plan to ban petrol-powered engines.
That’s because who in their right mind would purchase an all-electric Porsche 911?
The alternative route, mainly for sportscar brands, is the development of e-Fuels as a climate-neutral way to preserve combustion engines—just something about the sound of a twin-turbo V-8 or V-6 that captivates motorheads.
While most carmakers are pouring tens of billions into the EV shift, Porsche has also invested in an e-fuel plant in Chile, partly because the manufacturer doesn’t plan to make its 911 sports car with a plug. Operating combustion-engine vehicles in a climate-neutral way could also help speed up the decarbonization of the transport sector, according to a Porsche spokesman. Existing vehicle stock should be included in the push to lower CO2 emissions faster, he added. Ferrari has said it’s pursuing alternative fuels to keep making combustion-engine cars that preserve its heritage.
Proponents of e-fuels say they’re essentially renewable electricity that’s been converted into a combustible, liquid fuel.
To make it, scientists combine captured carbon dioxide with hydrogen that was split from water in a process powered by renewable energy, creating a synthetic hydrocarbon fuel.
When burned in a combustion engine, the e-fuels create carbon dioxide. But since it was made from previously captured CO2, they argue it’s climate neutral. [That’s not a misprint. –CCD Ed.]
We’ve outlined the growing resistance among vehicle brands and motorsport organizations that are firm in their belief the combustion engine will be sticking around for years to come.
- Mercedes-AMG Boss Says V-8 Engine Will Be In Demand For “Next Ten Years”
- Formula 1 Boss: We “Will Never Switch To Electric”
- Ducati Says ‘Battery Technology Not Ready’ For E-Bike
It’s straightforward, the push for eFuels for sportscars will likely preserve the combustion engine, but the cost per gallon might make the cost to operate the vehicle so expensive that only the rich will only be able to afford it.
Read more at Summit News
Erm, let’s remind ourselves what this is all for. It’s to do reduce atmospheric CO2 that the global temperature in 2100 is not affected. Given ocean outgassing, Chinese power stations and recent ECS calculations- this is irredeemably POINTLESS
For the Big Three to go totally EV would be the biggest mistake since New Coke
That is an understatement. The average family can not afford an electric car and due to battery replacement they are not viable on the used car market. As those in power force the shut down of fossil fuel power plants the grid will be less an less able to power EV’s. There are not enough rare earth minerals for the batteries. The internal combustion engine is not going away. Many states will still allow them and federal restrictions will disappear when people have had enough. The big three in shifting focus to EV’s will find they have excess capacity for those vehicles, and not enough for traditionally powered cars.
“[That’s not a misprint. CCD Ed.]”
If we couldn’t laugh we would all go insane.
Time to put a our State Capital(In Sacramento)on Wind and Solar Power Only lets see that Nit-Wit Newsom put up with that and the rest of those nutbars
From the article, “but the cost per gallon might make the cost to operate the vehicle so expensive that only the rich will only be able to afford it.” That is an understatement. Today hydrogen is produced from natural gas because electrolysis is so much more expensive. Now add the cost of combining the expensive hydrogen with carbon. What’s more, all of this depends on the availability of electricity to power the process. Under net zero there will not be enough power for homes and industry because power from wind and solar isn’t adequate. One viable e-fuel would be ethanol from corn. That is not carbon neutral because of the energy required to produce it, but people empowered to make decisions are not smart enough to know that.
I would think that super cars are the perfect candidate for battery power. Super high acceleration, very expensive, and nobody wants to travel 400+ miles in one day with one of these cars.
The real problem is that the typical super car customer is I high level alpha male. Last thing he wants is a car that makes a whiiiiiiir sound as it drives by.