VDA boss Muller insists on E-Fuels

VDA boss Muller insists on E-Fuels-boss

The association of the automotive industry (VDA) continues to be strong for the use of E-Fuels. This comes from a current position paper. The “Fit for 55” package must be the basis for a triaden from innovation, investment and infrastructure for all over Europe, called VDA boss Hildegard Muller. “Decisive is that European climate policy is at the same time growth and prosperity engine and creates jobs.”

At short notice, it is important to quickly create the prerequisites for a success of e-mobility throughout Europe, so Muller. The EU Commission should the package on 14. JULY use a clear timetable with concrete goals and plans to implement a Europe-wide infrastructure at charging pillars. “Only with these measures is the climate policy of the EU credible,” says Muller. In addition, climate-neutral electricity is a prerequisite for Europe’s motorists trusting on e-mobility.

Once more warned Muller technology openness to: In order to further reduce the CO2 emissions of existing vehicles, there would also be biofuels and e-fuels in addition to the drain of e-mobility. “We will have many vehicles with internal combustion engines in 2030 – around 1.5 billion worldwide – and alone in Europe 421 million! The need to recharge the need for climate-neutral fuels as early as possible, “said the VDA president. Only with both electricity and fuels from sustainable sources – the common goals could be achieved. The EU Commission should therefore pretend a ratio of 30 percent for renewable fuels in 2030.

In the medium term, the transport sector should be gradually involved in EU emissions trading, requires Muller. Marketing instruments played a much too low role in achieving the climate goals. But it is possible, however, to minimize economic efficiency the emissions of greenhouse gases within the EU.

An end date for certain engines as well as direct or indirect prohibitions continue to decelerate the VDA. All technologies would be needed. The backup of jobs is also an industrial policy task. For all of Europe and many regions. In addition, the EU Commission always has to keep in mind that mobility is a fundamental right – and essential for social participation. Muller: “We have responsibility for the climate, but also for the employees and their families.”

Related articles

Please follow and like us:

13 thoughts on “VDA boss Muller insists on E-Fuels”

  1. Mrs. Muller is free to start a company that both the necessary infrastructure builds up the e-fuels to produce, as well as the necessary capacities on renewable energies builds up. And how she calls that as fast as possible.

    I would like to see the business plan when you commemorate how much fuel commemoration and at what price and what you have intended to do with the plants, if fewer cars are traveling with internal combustion engines.

    I have the feeling that many bwer with physics have nothing on the hat

    Farnsworth

    Reply
  2. Mrs. Muller certainly does not live in a city like Berlin, Stuttgart, Munich, Hamburg, and many more, in which the stink of exhaust gases is powerful to heaven.
    Exhaust gases are harmful and even fatal, whether oil, gas, coal or effel.
    Exhaust gases are avoidable and in the future should be demonstrated the need to acquire a combustion. Meanwhile, all trips can be made with exhaust-free mobile. Exhaust gasifications are no longer necessary.

    Reply
  3. E-Fuels fine. Then but the cars that follow the exhaust standards are missing, because that did not really work with Euro 6. Ms. Muller wants E-Fuels (ecological) sources that do not produce enough for cars who do not comply with the exhaust values, which no one wants to afford in an infrastructure that is already deselected today. Well that’s the best business prospects – something of sustainable. In addition, city wheelers have to renounce the “loving” carcinogenic diesel and benzene tank. Dear taxpayer, do it best for such a “lighthouse” best again 100md out – revenue can yes a newly invented electric car or tram tax or. -Generate

    Reply
  4. E-mobility makes sense as far as basic user needs are met and the national green power supply is sufficient. The former proves to be difficult and fast-wheeling tariffs for million metropolitan space residents without a parking space, often point out for cost reasons as uneconomical. As you know, “fears” the BEV advocate prof. Quaschning that this truth is “about” about burners “.
    On the second expect itself Prof?. Quaschning after the atomic power outlet 2022 a green flow gap, which will therefore lead to more dirt flow mix or even -import. Because e-mobility is only a new electricity consumer of many and would already need the complete German wind power production. The chemical industry expects to be in the middle of the 2030s with a consecration of their (green) electricity requirements. This is difficult, because BASF already consumes so much electricity today how quite Denmark.
    In Germany, the wide range of winds is missing for such a current energy transition. And since electricity from wind and sunny regions is not importable, we will have to import green fuels instead of electricity. Thus, the current energy transition and the problem of threatening nuclear stream imports can be transferred to a balanced energy transition.
    A Porsche graph shows that e-mobility in Germany hardly requires fewer wind turbines than import e-fuel for combustion mobility.
    https: // http://www.focus.DE / Auto / Guide / Cost / Effel and Euro-7 Climate Fuel Sprittaries Complete Wireless-Wir-Bal-All-CO2-Neutral_ID_13016662.HTML

    Reply
  5. Everyone has the right to my own opinion, only this woman definitely does not represent their opinion but chats Sch …E After your any well-paid and completely conscientious lobbyer has squeezed.

    Reply
  6. That’s so poor.
    Of course, in Germany 2030 are many burners on the street. But then it will quickly become less. Only about 3.5 million private cars are exchanged a year.And at the moment the replacement is still 75% a pure burner. Which then not scrapped in 9 years is probably clear.

    The point is that this huge investment for E-Fuels has to be in operation for 20-30 years to expect. So how long should we continue to produce burners? Finally, not even it was started with the infrastructure for e-fuels, or anyone seriously believes that a significant contribution to fuel supply can make a significant contribution to fuel supply before 2030 e-fuels, even if we start full sweets immediately with the construction?

    Just to arrive in reality. The government immediately supports the construction of an African university for the focus on EE and E-Fuels. There it will be there in the future for 5 participating African states 150 study places … so from approx. 2025 30 professionals per country.
    But that’s well enough for projects that are calculated in the double-digit square kilometer area ..

    Instead of requiring full-bodied odds, the VDA should simply submit a reputable study as the construction of the e-fuels infrastructure could run realistic and what it would cost.

    Reply
  7. Haha and I get true on e-lining for my horse and e-coal for my steam engine. With insistence I mean the taxpayer should be asked for development and infrastructure.

    Reply
  8. E-Fuels – the eyes of the old mineral oil industry light up as well as those of the combustion manufacturers, since you can leave everything at the old one – Z.B. E-Fuel production in South America.

    EE stream Germany

    Supply> Transmission> Loading Column> E-Car

    E-Fuels South America

    Electrolysis> Methanol Synthesis> Transport (12.000 Km)> Refinery> Truck Transport> Gas Station> Car

    (Source: Graphic in Focus.de)

    Where should the whole eco flow come from us for industry and E cars?

    1) The chemical industry Has huge surfaces on roofs, open spaces, company parking spaces (the cars are even in the shadow among the PV systems in summer) and probably also on special waste disposals.

    2) Other industries Also have huge surfaces on roofs, parking sets, etc.

    3) Car cars – over 40 million. Cars x Good 7m² = Ca. 300 million. m² or 300 km² and thus in the future all e-cars could produce half of their electricity themselves, which would relieve charging stations.

    4) house roofs There are more than enough, many still have room for PV systems that could be self-sufficient in the future with cheaper storage batteries, so that more power stays for others.

    5) Wind power is almost blocked politically and lobbying at a standstill, while the country remains usable for land and forestry. Often bird protection is made as a counter-argument, while huge glass façades, which cost millions of bird life, seems to be apparently nobody.

    In Germany and Europe we have so many possibilities for cheap green electricity made of solar and wind power, which one makes sense directly, so you have to be wondering why the mineral oil and burner lobby, with your wishtric VDA spokeswoman with all the power wants E-Fuels.

    The insistence on e-fuels can only be explained by the interests of large corporations, The elaborate fuel generation, long transport routes and complicated technology need to continue working on their old business models – small companies could not keep up, so it’s the E-Fuel nonsense.

    Reply
  9. May one understand this that the VDA wants to support the achievement of the climate goals through a corresponding start-up of the effuels? Then fossil fuel would have to be significantly more expensive. In order to spare the small man at the gas station the agony of choice to save organic or effuels equal. So now immediately 5% and then a year 3-5% more. Thus, the burners would make their contribution to the CO2 savings. Of course, fuel which does not correspond to that must be set extra sanctioned to give effuels a fair chance.

    Reply

Leave a Comment