Associations criticize energy cost comparison of gas stations

Associations criticize energy cost comparison of gas stations-cost

The planned energy cost comparison for cars with internal combustion engine and vehicles with alternative drives is encountered at the mineral oil industry and operators of charging columns on massive criticism. This reports the “automotive week” citing different sources. According to the plans of the black-red government coalition, in the future, gas stations from a certain size a comparison of the costs should be attached approximately by gasoline, electricity, natural gas and hydrogen per 100 kilometers for certain vehicle groups.

The German Mineral Oil Advice Association Support all measures that promote climate protection and transparency for consumers, said competitor Christian Kuchen of the “World on Sunday”. “Whether the planned energy price information at the gas station counts is rather questionable.”In addition to the fuel prices, consumers must also know various other factors to decide for a drive type. “The potential to inform the consumer comprehensively about costs and benefits of various mobility options is so unfortunately only exhausted to a very small part,” kitchens are quoted in the sheet.

The Federal Association of Energy and Water Management (BDEW), where many charging column operators are organized, is critical to the planned comparison. Although it is welcomed that transparency should be created, it says in an opinion. “However, the presentation of energy costs does not create actual transparency, especially with regard to the comparability of fossil operated and electric cars, but could lead to a false expectation of consumers,” said a spokeswoman of the BDEW. Thus, for example, consumption in city traffic is a completely different than that of highway travelers.

The Federal Government recently launched a change in the energy consumption identification law. Thereafter, from 1 should. October at all gas stations with more than six dispensers a comparison of the cost of different types of drive. On posters or screens, the cost of a 100-kilometer ride with super, E10 gasoline, diesel, electricity, hydrogen, autogas and natural gas should be reported. The data should determine the Federal Ministry of Economics once per quarter. The Federal Government is committed to implementing an EU requirement.

Related articles

Please follow and like us:

6 thoughts on “Associations criticize energy cost comparison of gas stations”

  1. “For example, consumption in city traffic is a completely different other than the motorway rides.”

    Agrees, consumption in the city is even lower than on the highway. Most people mainly drive short distance.

    I was now at the weekend with my e-up (CW value of 0.33) on the highway on the road and with mainly 130km / h because I have not driven a long-distance. The consumption was at the end of the journey at 14kWh. So an energy content of 1.4 l diesel. I do not know a small car, who gets such a consumption. On long-distance I drive slower and land at 10kWh / 100km. For more efficient vehicles, driving physics suggests more.

    Farnsworth
    Reply
  2. I puzzle all the time what benefits such a comparison should bring me.
    Can someone help me?
    The costs are dependent on consumption and the energy price offered to me, the energy price is political and market economy steered. The benefit represents the route from A to B, and of course, how little emissions are administered to the environment.
    The emissions of the above-mentioned energy sources are similar to hydrogen in an environmentally independent, or even deadly.
    It could also be asked how long it endures a person with a running combe in a closed room, without falling to fall.
    Hydrogen would be the only energy source who had no death.
    D.H. In the milk girl bill, hydrogen has the highest environmentally obligible benefits in the energy sources mentioned :-)))))

    Reply
  3. Since most motorists probably drive short distances, I see small city cars with small battery, 4 seats and fold-up backrest (for weekend bulk purchase) as well as solar cell body than the e-car of the future. A small electric car with a small battery also consumes less resources.

    The solar cell carossomy costs possibly. Extra charge, but at an average of 16 sun kilometers per day (summer up to 35 km), it is almost 6.000 km per year and this is available for less than 3 euros per 100 km, if you write the surcharge of solar cell body over the lifetime.

    The small short-distance e-car could get along all summer over without charging station, only in the dark year time it would have to go to the socket, the wallbox or a charging station (Z.B. Employer).

    Reply
  4. The consumption of Eautos varies greatly due to their energy efficiency.

    Since 70% more can be used in winter than in summer under ideal conditions. Such high fluctuations do not exist with the internal combustion engine, if you are not currently permanent gas on the highway.

    If you are now the cost of WLTP at the Tank, this is misleading and if you listen to real consumption, the Eauto is not particularly good in comparison to the diesel.

    Reply
  5. The state precursor is more than praising. So far, the users of small E-Mobile were ripped off at flat-rate rates. Why do the lobbyists have such a fear ? Maybe because the “average” user of a whatever cars are made clearly in mind how their pricing policy looks like.
    What speaks, on the other hand, a total price with an average consumption for burners with Z.B. 7l per 100 km and for e-vehicles from Z.B. 15 kWh / 100 km (and separately for composite and non-network customers). At least I can immediately recognize with our Corsa E, whether the total price so stated is realistic and would possibly. Calculating “Sauses”. Presumably, some of us would come out of the eyes when we would recognize that some “players” prices publish from well over 10 euros!
    For a serious transparency of pricing policy, I can only hope that we do not need years in D again until we see clearly here !

    Reply
  6. The question is not how high are the costs for the different types of drive, but what high is the damage to our environment and under what catastrophic conditions, our descendants have to live on a dying planet, if we are not in no time in the shortest time gasoline, diesel and gas-powered vehicles forbid. That it makes people who still buy cars with fossil drive today is irresponsible.
    The future belongs to the E-car, and there is no way about it ..

    Reply

Leave a Comment