Climate protection: The policy expects the e-car wrong?

Climate protection: The policy expects the e-car wrong?-protection

How big is the contribution of E-cars for climate protection? It may be far lower than promised for years. The policy has calculated fundamentally, say 170 scientists from all over the world in an open letter to the EU Commission, from which the “time” cited cite at “Stuttgart News” and “Stuttgart Zeitung”.

“The numbers suggest a savings potential we do not,” says Professor Thomas Koch from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (Kit) of the German Press Agency. The electricity mix was simply calculated incorrectly. “The question is not: electric car or burner. The question is: fossil or not, “says cook. The time of criticism is well chosen. The EU is about to tighten its CO2 specifications for newly approved cars in Europe again.

With 453.000 sold electric and plug-in vehicles in the first quarter is Europe China with 489.000 E cars tightly on the heels. And according to countries, Germany is even the second largest e-car market in the world, with nearly 250.000 newly approved electric cars until the end of May. VW is now one of the drivers of development. By 2030 Volkswagen wants to sell only one third of his cars with gasoline or diesel engine. Mercedes-Benz and BMW are a share of about 50 percent.

However, the corporations do not want to set a fixed date for the end of the combustion. Too differently, the markets and the wishes of the customers, too differently also the political specifications and the charging infrastructure. But because it goes to climate protection, the origin of the electricity is very crucial.

With electricity from coal or oil he does not see a great sense in the conversion to E-drives, recently said VW boss Herbert this. With the sentence “A modern diesel is climate-friendly than an electric vehicle loaded with coal flow”, quotes the “Passauer New Press” BMW boss Oliver Zipse. The EU Commission assumes that the electricity will become cleaner with the expansion of wind and solar systems. “No,” say cook and his colleagues. The need will continue to rise – and then the whole bill does not vote anymore.

The Federal Government wants to have not only 10 million electric cars on the street until 2030, but also transform industry and heating rapidly, so cook. The electricity requirement in Germany will therefore grow to 57 gigawatts by 2030 from 56. In 6000 from the 8760 hours a year it would also need more electricity from fossil power plants in addition to eco flow. But that has overlooked politics in their debates and bills – in any case not counted. As a result, the real CO2 emmission could be much higher than estimated by politics – in total even twice as high.

The scientists are all agreed that the climate is protected and the CO2 emissions must be reduced, stressed cook. “That’s why we need the e-car.”But the specifications also favored the E-car where the climate does not use anything. If today’s burns instead of gasoline and diesel would refuel CO2-neutral E-Fuels, they would save 25 percent CO2.

Related articles

Please follow and like us:

2 thoughts on “Climate protection: The policy expects the e-car wrong?”

  1. It’s interesting to see how many of the last messages deal with H2, E-Fuels and other alternative fuels. In general, I have nothing against technology-offness, but openness also means that one recognizes that some applications just make no sense in the respective areas. So z.B. For passenger car traffic, the E-Fuels and the H2. I am also firmly convinced that only in the truck and bus area should only be put on the battery, at most in the exceptional case you need H2, but certainly no E-Fuel.
    Another article dealt with the train and alternative drives. why? Because there could be no overhead? Then you should build which or where is the problem? And otherwise here again a battery.

    Surplus current should of course somehow be stored, but rather for applications:
    • Intercept of load tips in the power grid
    • Stationary applications, Z.B. Industry
    • Conversions to fuels for shipping and air traffic, since I do not see any real alternatives here

    Purely out of physics, that you need more energy for H2 and E-Fuels, the last statement makes pretty unbelievable. And here I see the core of thought: lobbyism. Especially since the authors of the study are near the internal combustion engines and their industry. I get here the feeling (due to the many articles for this lately) that some see your skins swim away. And especially in the energy transition to regenerative sources with wind power and solar with the station wagon of sustainable life (rising e-mobility, increasing consumption of purely vegetable products, renovation of apartments and houses etc.) If the supply is always decentralized. Of course, the lobby work difficult for several and new actors.

    Reply

Leave a Comment