mikapen

And so goes the Fed Subsidies and Tax Credits. Vagaries disguised as "Popular" (let's get on the bandwagon) legislation.

In 1997, I spent $10,000 on Energy Saving Windows, expecting a Tax Credit. It was removed in November of that year without notice, so I missed it.
In 2000, I did the same (new house) and spent $10,000 on insulation under the Fed Tax Credit Program, but it was eliminated in Nov of that year without warning. Missed that, too.

In 2010, I got a $10,000 tax credit for my BlueTec ML. I actually got it, but wasn't expecting to!
Now Diesels are Horrible, and VW / M-B came under the gun for violating EPA "rules." How the pendulum swings.
I lost my Special-ordered-already-built-shipped-to-Maryland '15 GLE Diesel, which just disappeared.

Do you suppose all the drawbacks of EV's will put them on the Horrible list soon?
Why do the Feds think they can incentivize unproven products? Popularity and votes, not science.

Another FWIW.
VW didn't break any EPA guidelines, because EPA never published any. Still haven't. I used to work closely with the EPA, and I'm aware that they violated the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling to enact rules. The case was brought by Bosch et. al. (OEMs and OEM manufacturers) because there was no guidance, and they needed direction to develop new technologies. Sounds reasonable, but not for EPA. They need to be "On the Fence" because their funding depends on being on board with whatever Administration signs the checks.

In 2015, Bosch et.al. sued and won again at the Supreme Court, who issued a stronger judgement against the EPA. They still have not acted.
Further, the EPA received the entire VW (and all others') software coding, which was specifically approved by EPA.

Then a College does testing and finds that there are "Defeat Devices" which were expressly approved to facilitate "fast warm-ups." They were, in fact, Defeat Devices, but not to defeat the EPA (non) guidelines, but to facilitate earlier "spirit of the law" - quicker warm-up.
Now that the S*** has hit the fan, the EPA is very quiet about their violation of two specific Supreme Court rulings. Nobody wants to sue their Regulators

So the industries are left to guess, spend Billions, waiting for the next Popular Trend. EV or ICE.

TexAg91

All is not lost…introducing synthetic fuel made from CO2, water, and wind power…it’s CO2 neutral if you care about such things.

You Tube

Ron.s

[QUOTE=TexAg91;8619834]All is not lost…introducing synthetic fuel made from CO2, water, and wind power…it’s CO2 neutral of you care about such things.
I saw a recent article too…but it’s almost $45 a gallon now. Obviously by scaling production that number will come down.

Here’s some additional info:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3...eutral-e-fuel/

TexAg91

[QUOTE=Ron.s;8619835]Yes, small quantities being produced to prove out the concept, price is not a concern. The raw ingredients are cheap— CO2 from the air, water, and power from wind or solar…or the grid. If there is money to be made, the capital will come to build the required infrastructure. I see this being funded with private capital…not taxes.

mikapen

F1 is using a percentage of synfuels now, and increasing annually.
Goal is to lead the way.

Ron.s

[QUOTE=TexAg91;8619864]The hype is “Carbon Neural and Sustainable”, I have yet to see anything about economic feasibility. You could be right but it’s also possible that it will be a lot more expensive than petroleum based and the EV equivalent. The current production of 34,000 gallons (all to Porsche) leaves open the question of feasibility at high volumes. Porsche has sorta admitted that they need more by saying they will run it “if available”. The cost of land, Facilities, equipment and added Wind Farms//Grid energy, profit margin, etc. aren’t free. IMO, feasibility remains an open question. Porsche has put up $75 million so maybe it will work out. The raw material is free, hopefully this will give us another option even if it gets blended with Petroleum based fuel. It looks to be at least a 4 step process.

Here’s the explanation of the process for anyone not following the subject:“Produced using electricity generated by wind power, eFuels are impressively sustainable. Through electrolysis, water is broken down into its components (hydrogen and oxygen). The hydrogen is then processed with CO2 (extracted from the air) in order to produce e-methanol.

In the final step, referred to as the methanol-to-gasoline synthesis, it is turned into synthetic raw gasoline. This is then processed into a standard-compliant fuel that can be used in all gasoline engines.

From 2022, the plant (located in southern Chile) is expected to produce 34,000 gallons of synthetic fuel per year. Initially, the automaker will purchase this in full, using the eFuel in its motorsport activities. In the future, however, the brand will use synthetic fuel in its own combustion-engined models which, thankfully, includes classic cars.”

TexAg91

[QUOTE=Ron.s;8620102]On the surface...once the infrastructure is in place and the capital expense recuperated, how could it not be cheaper than gasoline from petroleum? The raw materials are abundant and cheap, and I would think the infrastructure sustainment costs would be a push. If you don't want to build a dedicated windmil or solar farm, use grid energy...it's being "greened" up each year.

mikapen

If you stop and think about it, oil is essentially "captured carbon."
​​​​​​

Ron.s

[QUOTE=TexAg91;8620123]Capital expenses are amortized over the useful life of plant and equipment so that could be 30-40 years for the plant and and 10-15 for equipment. During that time there is maintenance expense and equipment gets upgraded or repaired. You will also have increasing variable costs from labor, power, transportation, middlemen (distributors/gas stations) and taxes to pay plus there is going to be a profit margin added. The actual cost of crude oil is small compared to the cost of refined gas at the pump. Will these new “refinery type processes” be less expensive than refining crude? The steps of converting the ethanol to gasoline and then to useable fuel are unknown’s…seems complicated? Will Governments subsidize this product like they did with Ethanol? Will the Save the planet movement be happy with them using water and Oxygen in high volumes? Water has become a scarce resource in many places. We have cheap gas in the US because of our refinery’s and economy of scale vs European Countries that gave higher transportation costs. We use about 135 billion gallons of gasoline annually so there might need to be local, high volume production in the US. Gasoline prices and EV costs will also increase in the future. Just the transition process of transportation and distribution could take a decade or more. Will the Political situation waver enough to even give this technology a chance?
There are too many unknowns at this time, IMO. I hope it becomes a viable alternative because the EV future is being mandated without enough concern over consequences.

TexAg91

Well it is an interesting tech that has potential, will be interesting to watch to see if it pans out.

kvelez

Imagine a major hurricane threatening South Florida and everyone is evacuating on their EV's, and they get stuck trying to get to the charging stations. The same holds true for Blizzards and forest fires.

Frenetic

That’s actually a good point, although if you’re stuck on the freeway barely moving your battery really doesn’t drain too much, but yes if you run out it’s not like you can take a gas can and fill it back up in an emergency.

This would be an interesting innovative avenue when it comes to EVs.

Vyper340vb

Consumers decide what they want to buy not government or manufacturers. IMHO, Going down the single source path of electric for everything is a huge mistake even if, which is not possible yet, it was possible. Imagine what can be done using what governments did with Covid if electricity is the main source for everything you do, need, etc…

Aggie57

you mean like they line up at gas stations when there’s any sort of emergency?

jaxslk

Just a little levity...

TexAg91

That’s ok, they are using Porsche’s sustainable eFuel, so it’s carbon neutral!

Frenetic

lol.

I was thinking more along the lines of a portable, rechargeable suitcase-size battery (2 or 3 KWH) that had enough power for 15 or so miles (at 2 WH/Mile). If we assume 12 lbs per KWH, that battery would weigh up to 40 lbs. Heavy but still manageable. Would people buy such a device and keep it in their garage for an emergency? Maybe. I should patent one.


Actually, someone already has. https://www.zipcharge.global

Vyper340vb

true however there are many times more fueling opportunities than charging and the time to fill is incomparable. See California charging station backups and videos for reference…

mikapen

And now an Aussie bank won't make auto loans for ICE cars. I know Australia is pretty Woke, so I'm not surprised.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/...ctric-vehicles

Frenetic

Well it’s easy for that Australian bank to say activism is behind their decision, but if anything they’re probably thinking the same thing that I am (and the reason why I created this thread to begin with): will the value of internal combustion engines cars start to tank soon? If that happens, the collateral on these loans would be worth a lot less, greatly increasing their exposure to losses on these loans.

If I was a bank, I, too, would start to question the risks of giving loans for these types of cars.

Ron.s

You make a good point but that’s not their reasoning if you read the comments. They will “still lend on used cars to support their customers that can’t afford an EV”. Lenders have methods to deal with depreciating assets or there wouldn’t be loans available for other rapidly depreciating commodities. Other banks will see this as an opportunity to gain market share.
IMO, there’s a better chance that used ICE vehicles will hold value for at least 10-15 years as the mandates for EV’s move forward. There are almost 300 million cars in the US alone so it will take decades to make the transition to EV even if they were 100% in demand by the public.

Frenetic

Every asset a bank loans to depreciates. Right now, however, there is some level of certainty when it comes to predicting the value of that asset over time. This allows a bank to accurately weigh the risk versus collateral and make the loan. This transitory period presents a lot of uncertainty.

Again, I’m saying this is going to happen overnight, but it’s certainly coming in my opinion. But yes, that article brings up another point, maybe the more immediate risk and fallout sits on loans for more expensive cars simply because the buyers for these cars can more easily afford to make the transition.

Ron.s

I worked in the Financial Sector for over 20 years with the early part managing Consumer Finance. As a lender I would be more concerned with the fact that early EV’s will become obsolete and could (probably will) depreciate far faster than a used ICE vehicle. Some lenders abandoned the RV market in the past because of the inability to predict value and concern that they could be worthless. Other lenders saw an opportunity and were able to tighten underwriting and increase margins.
The simple fact is that there will be little change in the percentage of ICE vs EV vehicles by 2025. The huge numbers of existing ICE vs new EV production mean the percentage can’t be switched anytime soon.

Frenetic

Well I hope you’re right. I need to unload this thing in four years, and while I was prepared for a loss like any other car, I think a change is a coming…

mikapen

[QUOTE=Ron.s;8620102]That plant is an Exxon Mobile / Siemens endeavor, with VAG leading and BMW also participating. The Proof of Concept will only generate about 800 gallons, and Exxon's current footprint is very small - they think it's scalable. Picture in this article - https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2021...ile-25683.html
I expect XOM to be a leader, if not THE leader, in green fuels. I think they have invested, or committed to invest, $10 Billion near term, despite the Fed's punishing them for keeping us Energy Independent.

Here's Exxon's announcement https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/New...ace-conditions
Regarding the racing program, Mercedes was worked with Petronas for lubes and fuels, but their Synfuel business has been focused on civilian use in Malaysia. Ferrari is with Shell. Etc.

Mercedes announced in 2020, that they would abandon all SynFuels because it was not a "viable option," as others have said above, and that they would be focusing on battery cars. https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/i...-viable-option

Mercedes also said they were quitting their world-leading Hydrogen Fuel Cell project, which they had been working on since 1992, with H2 fleets operating since 2003. Old article: https://group.mercedes-benz.com/inno...omobility.html

Some big bets being made here.