E-fuels: scarce, expensive and inefficient


comment

As of: 03/28/2023 4:12 p.m

The exception for e-fuels does not change anything at the actual end of the combustion engine. This type of drive in cars will be completely antiquated by 2035 at the latest.

A comment by Holger Beckmann, ARD studio Brussels

There is a combustion engine ban, but: There is no combustion engine ban. That’s how you have to put into words what the EU member states have now agreed – after the federal government blocked the actually negotiated European decision at the last minute.

Under pressure from the German Minister of Transport, Volker Wissing, Europe’s climate protection commissioner, Frans Timmermanns, had to assure that a proposal would be made in the next few months as to how, despite the ban on combustion engines in new cars from 2035, a back door could still remain open – for them by then at the latest completely antiquated type of car drive if it is only fueled with e-fuels.

Wissing practically forced the Timmermanns to do this. Regardless of the rules of the European game and regardless of the fact that these fuels are scarce, expensive and inefficient, and that they will be needed first and foremost for aircraft, for ships and for industry.

E-fuel prices will probably be horrendous

If there is anything left over, it could perhaps be used for combustion cars – but at best at probably horrendous prices. The fact that Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner, who is known to be in the same party as Wissing, has already announced as a precaution that such cars will then be subsidized with tax subsidies illustrates the whole gross nonsense quite impressively.

The only reassuring thing about the theater: In the end, the commission will make a proposal that will not change anything about the actual end of combustion engines. And if it doesn’t make such a proposal, then the European Parliament will take legal action against it. And then maybe even Christian Lindner will have to buy a new car with an electric drive in 2035. It would be better.

Editorial note

Comments always reflect the opinion of the respective author and not that of the editors.

source site