Now pull the plug
E-cars and eco-fuel: the climate needs both
By Helmut Becker
08/28/2022, 2:21 p.m
The commitment of the new VW boss Blume to e-fuels not only has symbolic power, it was overdue. Politicians should now create the framework for eco-fuel. The market decides the rest.
Something’s going on. A hint of turning point in the turning point of time is in the air, very still and quiet. But it is powerfully shaking the green ideals of German environmental policy. Who would have expected that e-fuels, the combustion engine alternative to electric cars that had been frowned upon for a long time, could ultimately become socially acceptable?
For a decade, electromobility was considered the ultimate climate saver. There is no sign of openness to technology in politics. Alternative, climate-neutral drives for the combustion engine – powered by hydrogen in the form of synthetic fuels (e-fuels) or based on biological waste and waste in the form of HVO 100 or as admixtures – were categorically rejected by the Federal Ministry for the Environment or in Brussels offices. Car manufacturers such as BMW or the VDMA called for openness to technology, but were never heard.
It’s a rude awakening. Sensitive production interruptions for components, corona-related disruptions in car sales, shortages and increases in the price of important raw materials and, above all, cracks in the important supply chains from China due to Beijing’s rigorous lockdown policy have added to the rigid electromobility. The automakers couldn’t care less. They benefited from the lack of significant price increases and used the time to focus their model range on the high-margin upper market segments.
Blume, Lindner and e-fuels
Review: The decision by the EU environment ministers in mid-May 2022, according to which the combustion engine in new cars in Europe was simply banned from 2035 due to unfulfillable exhaust gas regulations, was the culmination of the years of electric fixation. Germany’s representatives – led by Economics Minister Robert Habeck – also agreed.
Only as a result of violent interventions by Finance Minister Christian Lindner, which is said to have been preceded by intensive consultations with Porsche boss Oliver Blume, who will take over the management of Volkswagen from next week, did the EU environment ministers allow hydrogen-based fuels in the form of e- Fuels for combustion engines too.
Although the focus was on air and shipping traffic, less cars. But: according to the proposed law, a combustion engine with eco-fuel was allowed to live on. Then, a few days ago, Blume set the new course for Germany’s largest car manufacturer: In order to be fit for a low-CO2 future, Volkswagen also wants to use synthetic fuels. An announcement that can hardly be surpassed in its symbolic power.
The looming shortage of Russian natural gas and fears of power outages have turned people’s minds and reignited an old debate. Suddenly, it was realized that only half of the electricity in Germany was generated sustainably, i.e. “green” with wind and sun. For the remainder of the growing demand, including to fuel the planned fleet of one million fully electric vehicles by 2030, “dirty” electricity is essential. it is made from local coal, natural gas from Russia or oil from all over the world. Or it comes from nuclear power plants in France or our remaining three nuclear power plants.
The rethink was overdue
The arguments show how sensible this turnaround was in people’s minds. For all-electric vehicles without a doubt, :
- that BEVs are superior to any combustion engine, even 12-cylinder engines, in terms of driving behavior and comfort. Even Nobel champion Rolls-Royce wants to switch to electric drive from 2030.
- If they are operated exclusively with “green” electricity and the batteries are produced with “green” electricity, all-electric vehicles are the optimum in terms of environmental policy. They are the most climate friendly.
That cannot be dismissed out of hand. But,
- Unfortunately, “clean” electricity in the required quantities is permanently not available in Germany. Germany is dependent on importing “dirty” electricity to operate its fleet of e-cars. Climate advantages thus turn into climate disadvantages.
- As of today, fully electric vehicles are not yet optimal in terms of range or charging convenience. Nothing will change about that for the time being.
- The 1.6 billion combustion cars worldwide cannot be replaced 1:1 by fully electric cars in terms of resources alone.
- In terms of energy availability, vehicles are out of the question as a means of transport for around two thirds of the world market. In the south, the population suffers from a lack of electricity. In the north, the development of sustainable energy sources and grids as well as charging infrastructure for e-cars requires enormous resources and government investment.
- Fully electric vehicles are more expensive. That is why they are only affordable for the middle and upper classes. As a result, the existing “dirty” car fleet stays in traffic much longer (“Havannization”) – at the expense of the environment.
For e-fuels or the clean diesel substitute HVO100 are therefore a useful addition. The following arguments speak in their favour:
- E-fuels require hydrogen and CO2 during production, which they release again when driving. They are not CO2-free, but they are climate-neutral in use if hydrogen is produced sustainably by electrolysis and e-fuel by synthesis using “green” electricity. Combustion cars powered by e-fuels do not emit any additional CO2 into the atmosphere.
- Unlike electricity, hydrogen and e-fuels, like crude oil, can now be easily transported to Europe via pipeline or tanker and fed into the existing distribution and tank infrastructure.
- From an economic point of view, the use of e-fuels in combustion engines instead of electricity in fully electric vehicles always pays off, since with e-fuels the entire global old fleet of combustion engines with mini modifications does not have to be scrapped. The positive climate effect occurs immediately and not only when an electric car is newly registered.
But there are also valid arguments against e-fuels:
- E-fuels have a worse drive efficiency in combustion cars than electricity in electric cars (according to science about 1:7). From a purely business point of view, there is a high cost and competitive disadvantage. However, this only applies on the basis of a calculation with German electricity costs. If e-fuel is produced with nuclear power or with “green” electricity from the sun and wind in countries like Qatar or Chile, e-fuels are already competitive with battery electric cars.
- E-fuels have the major disadvantage that they are not yet available at the gas station as needed, but only in test tubes and in scientific publications (exception: HVO100 is available at 8500 gas stations in Europe).
E-mobility with fully electric cars would undoubtedly be the best solution. But the big catch is: It’s a request concert! The replacement of the combustion engine fleet by electric vehicles is not feasible due to the lack of green energy and permanently higher acquisition costs. The federal government’s e-mobility initiative for a more climate-friendly future certainly made sense. Keep it up, only fossil burners cannot and must not exist. But this initiative has its limits.
The solution can only be a mix of technologies. Admittedly, e-fuels in combustion cars are only the second-best solution. But they are carbon neutral. They have the great advantage that they can be used anywhere in the world in car fleets all over the world.
For climate reasons, both – e-cars and e-fuels – are urgently needed. It should now be the task of politics to ensure the framework conditions for the availability of eco-fuel at the filling station. The legislature must establish competitive equality. The state has subsidized BEVs with purchase premiums. Private investors ensure the provision of e-fuels. The market should decide the rest.