At the same time, the EU Commission was commissioned to submit a proposal that also takes into account e-fuels – i.e. synthetic fuels produced with electricity – for new cars with combustion engines.
The Council has thus decided to keep open a future supplement to electromobility through the climate-neutral use of combustion engines in cars. This is an important step in the right direction.
He is clever, because Germany and the EU will fail in terms of climate and energy policy if they announce increasingly ambitious CO2 reduction targets while at the same time banning technological solutions to achieve the targets and increase competitiveness.
The fight against climate change while at the same time increasing our competitiveness will only be successful if we clearly reject technology bans and instead mobilize our market, technological and scientific potential.
The debate over the past few weeks about the internal combustion engine in passenger cars was ideologically charged. Here the “good” climate protectors who want to abolish combustion engines by 2035, there the “bad” industry that wants to continue using combustion engines for its profits.
But the reality is far more complex. It’s not the combustion engine that’s the problem, it’s the fuel burned. So the question is: Can the combustion engine become climate-neutral with synthetic fuels?
It is also by no means a question of yes or no to electromobility, which everyone involved in industry and politics believes should be the right thing to do. Rather, it’s about whether we shouldn’t keep other climate-neutral options open to complement electromobility.
It is also about the question of how we can make shipping, aviation, the construction industry and agriculture, which will still be dependent on the combustion engine for a long time, climate-neutral. One thing is clear: combustion engines only have a future if climate neutrality can be proven via a transparent, comprehensible and verifiable certification system.
It is also clear that if we abandon the further development of internal combustion engines with renewable fuels in cars today, all other applications will not be able to benefit from the development, and that will cause lasting damage to climate protection.
E-fuels increase energy security
A look at the passenger car shows that the future belongs to e-mobility and it must be pushed faster. We are all working on faster expansion of the charging infrastructure, greater ranges for electric cars and shorter charging times.
But it must not be concealed that in the foreseeable future the electricity for battery-powered cars will not come solely from renewable energies, but from a broad electricity mix in which nuclear energy and fossil energies including coal play a not inconsiderable role.
A combustion engine powered by renewable fuels – e-fuels – can be much more climate-friendly than an electric car that runs on 30 percent coal-fired electricity, for example. This is hidden by a simple trick: the climate-friendliness of a car is assessed based on what the exhaust emits. The electric car appears to be CO2-free, but it certainly isn’t in the overall balance.
Anyone who measures “from the cradle to the grave” must take the electricity mix into account, but also include the generation, transport and disposal processes in the assessment. This is not an argument against the expansion of electromobility, but it shows that it is wise to look at the overall eco-costs and not rule out technological competition for the most climate-friendly solution.
Another central argument for keeping options open besides electromobility is the scarcity of raw materials. Are we sure that there are enough raw materials such as lithium available for a “one-solution strategy”?
Or is it not better here, too, to rely on various options that help us to prevent new dependencies and thus protect the climate in the long term?
Even the last of us have learned from the current gas crisis: Diversification is the basic law of energy security. And without energy security, no climate protection!
In many countries, many combustion engines will still be on the road after 2050
The worldwide car fleets are of central importance for the climate in the world. How do we get the huge stock of “combustion engines” climate-neutral?
In the USA, Europe and Asia, and even more so in Latin America and Africa, a high percentage of cars will still be powered by combustion engines in 2050. If we now create incentives to make e-fuels cheaper, more efficient and available in larger quantities, we can steer the global automobile fleet towards climate neutrality.
On the other hand, anyone who already gives the combustion engine an “end date” stops its further technological development, harms the climate, endangers countless jobs in Europe, ensures that know-how that is unique in Germany and Europe is lost and creates new, unimagined dependencies.
Even opponents of e-fuels for cars do not dispute their necessity in shipping or air traffic. For this reason, too, it would be foolish to impede technological development and scaling through bans in the automotive sector. Here it becomes clear that the end of combustion engines would have dire effects on the global climate.
>>Read here: Schaeffler wants to catch up with electromobility – combustion planned
A key counter-argument against e-fuels is that they are far too expensive and inefficient. The fact is undisputed that Europe will not be able to provide the energy it needs itself in the future either.
We will continue to be dependent on energy imports. So what could be more obvious than entering into partnerships with regions and countries such as Africa, the Gulf region, Australia or South America in order to harness the huge untapped potential of renewable energies.
At the same time, we help these countries and regions to further develop their economies, achieve their climate goals and help us in Europe to diversify and decarbonize our energy needs.
A look at the map is enough to see that the electricity that is produced in Australia or Chile, for example, will hardly ever reach Europe as electricity. E-fuels are also “energy carriers” that make it possible to develop global trade in renewable energies.
It would be inefficient not to use the wind or the sun in the remote regions of the world! If, contrary to expectations, e-fuels are inefficient and too expensive in the long term, there is no need to ban them! The legislature should certainly not define the customers who are allowed to use e-fuels!
The authors:
Thorsten Herdan is CEO of the e-fuels company HIF Europe, Middle East and Africa.
Friedbert Pfluger teaches energy and climate policy at CASSIS, University of Bonn. He is a founding partner of Bingmann Pfluger International.
More: Wissing versus Lemke: New argument about the combustion engine off