So there it is, the EU legislative package that is supposed to save the climate. “Fit for 55” is what the European Commission has put forward. What sounds like a health program for people in their prime means that by 2030, at least 55 percent less greenhouse gas should be emitted in the EU than in 1990. There are also plans to ban new registrations of cars with internal combustion engines from 2035. One can ask the question: is it still possible?
The legislative package deals with all areas in which CO2 emissions are an issue. I am only looking at the topic from an automobile perspective.
From 2035, only electric vehicles and those powered by hydrogen should be eligible for approval, no more combustion engines – and also no plug-in hybrids with combustion engines.
Another question: Does EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen actually know the content of the laws submitted? She just said in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung that it should be left to the car manufacturers to decide whether to reduce the CO2 emissions of cars or those of fuels. “They know best how to develop new cars or new fuels.”
From this statement one could conclude that the technology is open, ie synthetic fuels (so-called e-fuels) and biofuels could also be used. And that would be good. After all, every combustion engine is climate-neutral if it is operated with the right fuel. But far from it – there is no mention of this in the bills. This open approach would be the best solution for the climate and for people.
Why? If you fully rely on the electric card, there is less incentive to invest in the development of e-fuels, to increase their efficiency and to produce them in large quantities. But that would pay off. Ideally, e-fuels are generated using solar power from CO2 that is extracted from the air. From a technical point of view, diesel and gasoline can be produced in this way, but there are different processes for this. This means that current engines can be operated without any problems (and would be immediately climate-friendly). Alternatively, such fuels can be made so that they can be optimized for newly developed engines and then run even cleaner and more efficiently.
Current disadvantage of e-fuels: You need a relatively large amount of energy to produce them. But: when you look closely, that’s actually secondary. One would only have to build correspondingly large solar fields, for example in unused desert areas. There is enough solar energy, you just have to use it. And e-fuels are also a great way to store and transport energy. In contrast to hydrogen, you don’t even need to build a new infrastructure.
So that we don’t get each other wrong: I am not speaking out against electromobility, on the contrary. But it would be far more expedient to use all sensible options for reducing CO2, in the areas where they work best. Of course, it is only effective if the goal is really to protect the climate and not other interests. Power, money, ideology, etc. Or overcompensating for the unfortunate diesel scandal.
E-cars are important, there are many areas of application for which they are ideally suited and where they can make their contribution to the climate, but also to air pollution. But they are not the golden solution to all problems. Even if charging facilities are to be created on main connections every 60 kilometers (and a hydrogen filling station every 150 km), it is not yet clear where so much sustainably generated electricity will come from. Not even how the necessary amounts of electricity should get to the charging stations. Via substations at motorway service stations, perhaps?
As long as the entire electricity demand is not met sustainably, we don’t need to talk about sustainable electricity for electric cars. That would be eyewash.
There is also another aspect: if we replace all cars with electric cars, nothing will be gained. It would be much more important to generally drive less. That will probably happen automatically through the massive taxation of CO2 and thus of fuel, because people will no longer be able to afford it. Gentlemen, do you really think that a commuter happily gets stuck in traffic jams? Or maybe a lot of people would switch to public transport if the connection were acceptable? Probably yes.
There are still only legislative proposals, not yet any laws. But if they are approved by the council and the countries, it will be really expensive for the consumer. And the economy is also in danger. Yes, we urgently need to take care of the climate in Europe too, although Europe is only responsible for a tenth of global CO2 emissions. And even if China, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam are currently planning the construction of more than 600 coal-fired power plants. But short-sighted EU laws do not help the climate or the people.