According to media reports, a new meta-study of the Berlin Forum ecological-social market economy (Fös) disenchants the efuel as gamuchang in road traffic. Anyone who expects new and illuminating will be disappointed. It is neither a study nor are there new knowledge. Jürgen Roth, President of Efuel Alliance Austria: “The 7.5 pages overwritten with Factsheet are primarily political hetorics, the results of alleged studies are wrong, compare so that the result is determined from the outset. Essential facts, on the other hand, are kept secret. The paper is turned backwards instead of the transformation necessary for climate protection. ”
Stephan Schwarzer, General Secretary of Efuel Alliance Austria adds: “As a sponsor of the Fös, Robert Habeck’s Ministry of Climate, his purpose seems to consist of spreading doubts about efuel. Therefore, the study does not dismantle the use of efuels in road traffic. If you want to get away from fossil fuels, you cannot avoid non-fossil fuels. Anyone who denies the right to exist will accept that fossil CO2 will be expelled longer and the climate is burdened. ”
The EU Commission thinks about AUS for the ban on combustion
The EU Commission also seems to finally approach a fact-oriented perspective. It wants to help the battered auto industry in Europe by loosening the rigid regulations, you can hear from Brussels. For this purpose, a package is to be put together that not only includes exposing the impending fines, but may also tip the lump-sum burner ban 2035 and take into account CO2-neutral fuels such as eFuels as an equivalent solution.
Unlike the fös paper claims, it has long been known that the efficiency in the engine is not the only crucial criterion to assess the usability of a technology. Nevertheless, the judgment is mainly based on it. The paper does not hide the fact that electricity from the network is highly CO2-intensive, especially in the cooler half of the year. Electricity becomes more expensive because the scarcity will by no means lose weight. From today’s perspective, an uninterrupted power supply of all consumer groups cannot be guaranteed in a serious manner.
The other reasons that are led to the meeting against EFUEL are also incorrect. Efuels can be produced in large quantities, making it cheaper, and they will help reduce the emissions of traffic drastically in the 1930s. Reliable data provides the current Frontier-Economics-Studie.
Stephan Schwarzer: “E-cars will also be a minority program in the 1930s, so the fuel-side solution is needed. Efuels will not be late, they can come earlier if politics creates the necessary framework conditions. Even the fös only sets a high proportion of e-cars on the fleet for 2045 and does not ask the question of how CO2 emissions can be saved by then. ”
If you want efuel in aviation, you also have to promote it in road traffic
It is correct that efuel is urgently needed for aviation, but the conclusion from it is not to keep efuels away from cars, but to divide the loads between aviation and other parts of the mobility sector. The faster the production is raised, the faster the aviation can benefit from it and voluntarily overfill the odds. The more demand there is, the faster the supply grows and the faster the costs per liter.
Jürgen Roth: “Actions such as those of the Fös contribute to uncertainty and damage the concerns of climate protection. Instead of going all the ways, Fös only wants to see e-cars, although it is obvious that the majority of the population does not go. Papers such as those present may be useful political interests in the current German election campaign, but not to climate protection. ”