Can close e-fuels the CO2 gap in traffic?

Article menu

Can close e-fuels the CO2 gap in traffic?-e-fuels

Also with more electric cars and more freight traffic on the rail, further savings of CO2 are inevitable, so that Germany can achieve its climate goals in the mobility sector. There could also be biofuels and synthetic fuels, the mineral oil economic association (MWV). Even with the hoped-up breakthrough of e-mobility with ten million electric cars on the streets and 60 percent more freight traffic on the rail by 2030, a CO2 gap of 19 million tons remain in the German climate destination for the transport sector, according to the main executive of the MineralOlschirtschaftsverband (MWV) Christian Kitchens. He proposes to close this gap with biofuels and climate-neutral synthetic fuels. “The goal is to achieve only with a significantly increased share of renewable fuels,” he said in the congress fuels of the future in Berlin.

The objective given by the Federal Government is to reduce CO2 emissions from traffic compared to today by 2030 by more than 40 percent to 95 million tonnes. This is to be achieved by efficiency enhancement of the vehicles with internal combustion engine, relocation of transports to the web, a massively growing portion of electric cars and larger levels of renewable fuels.

A suitable way to promote the introduction of e-fuels is the conversion of today’s energy tax for gasoline and diesel to a CO2 pricing, so kitchens. “This would make renewable fuels tax-free and thus present a real incentive for investment in these climate-friendly fuels.”The opportunity is offered by the European Green Deal initiated by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in whose framework the EU EU Directive should also be revised.

At national level, federal politics can drive the market launch for renewable fuels over a tendering of production volumes. Financing could contribute the revenue from the planned national emissions trading from 2021. “Using these measures, the climate goals are reachable in traffic,” says kitchens.

“Climate protection is not to be at theinate in traffic,” kitchens clears up. Sinking generation costs for renewable electricity in solar and windy regions, for example, in North Africa and the Middle East, the cost expectations for E-Fuels have already significantly reduced, according to the MWV boss. “We appeal to the EU and the Federal Government to free the way to reach the climate goals.”

Seniority of E-Fuels doubtful

Critics, on the other hand, complain about the inefficiency of E-Fuels due to their enormous production costs: E-Fuels are based on hydrogen (which one can also use in a fuel cell car). If hydrogen is added in a further step CO2 from the air, hydrocarbons form with petroleum-like structures that can replace gasoline and diesel as a fuel in a combustion vehicle. Ideally – if only eco flow is used in the production – when combustion then only as much CO2 comes into the atmosphere as it was previously deprived.

The additional production step, in which already elaborately prepared hydrogen is further processed in gaseous or liquid fuels, increases the energy requirement of E-Fuels. Together with the low efficiency of internal combustion engines, the total efficiency decreases significantly compared to the battery electric car. With the electricity, which brings an electric car 100 kilometers far, a vehicle with E-Fuel is just 15 kilometers ahead.

The car and mineral oil industry points out that the use of e-fuels also brings advantages: the existing infrastructure (vehicles, gas stations) can be used as synthetic fuels basically have the same properties as conventional fuels.

Since currently not enough renewable electricity is available to provide e-fuels climate-neutral, synthetic fuels in car traffic have a heavy stand. Other applications already appear more meaningful: about air traffic and shipping, where the electrification is difficult

Sources: MWV – Press Release of 21.01.2020

Please follow and like us:

7 thoughts on “Can close e-fuels the CO2 gap in traffic?”

  1. If you are serious about the CO2 reduction you would have to produce as much e-fuels as possible, if necessary up to further nuclear power. But the 400 million tonnes of CO2 of the Australian bush fires obviously also interested nobody – is only half of all German CO2 emissions in a year.

  2. If you want to reduce the CO2 emissions of the traffic in the long term, nothing works without e-fuel.
    Because in 2050 the largest part of the approved burners may be a H license plate. These are cars with little km / year but a lot of sales for restoration and maintenance.
    Aircraft will not fly with batteries across the Atlantic in the future.
    Maybe in 2050 is possible from Frankfurt to Palma de Mallorca electrically fly.

  3. E-Fulls are just greenwashing in my eyes. It is further burned, it costs tons of energy to produce developed edges. And the low yields? It’s easy to puke and it’s just the old industry lobbies. Denk after, Go Electric and not further with the old oil grays.

  4. Just thought about it: What should change? E-Fuels produce a similar amount of CO2 such as fossil fuels. The emission of the car is not adjusted. The cities continue to be grown with exhaust gases. The air is contaminated by the combustion process … should I continue? The Greenwashing: “But we have also recorded the CO2, so we are neutral” does not draw my view here, because with the unnecessarily consumed electricity can drive eautos kilometers far. However, I do not say that efuels do not have any existence! There are certainly applications. But not in personal mobility and certainly not in domestic traffic!

  5. “Continue to use vehicles” … These are not released for the fuel. As the whole thing ends then you can already guess if you are back to the organic diesel introduction. There have been enough, because with her car, the seals had dissolved.
    And Mrd. Into a technology that should serve for the mass market, but which is in no way mass suitable in any way, is almost negligent.
    The clamps to old technologies will be completely based on the economy.

  6. E-Fuels can be made from renewable energy, water and CO2. In combustion, no more CO2 arises as previously taken from the air. CO2 technically a zero buzz game. A BEV does not give a CO2 while driving if it was loaded with renewable entery. At this point from CO2 point of view, both drives would be the same.
    If you now see the entire production process is produced by the BEV more CO2. The bigger the battery all the more CO2. The burner is better in the CO2 balance at the Protuption. There are enough studies .
    Then a burner would be better in the sum better like a BEV. or?
    It’s not all as easy as it seems. I think it will give a solution for every application

  7. You have to seek to find a bigger nonsense than what else gives me kitchens.
    We can finally install the exhaust on the front, then every user also gets his own dirt off. At least CO2-neutral.


Leave a Comment