So much unity seems seldom in politics. In principle, Federal Environment Minister Svenja Schulze and parliamentary groups in the Bundestag seem to agree: synthetic fuels make sense. Most of them even see an opportunity for German industry to take a leading position here worldwide. You want to get started. In their view, the e-fuels produced with the help of electricity are exactly the stuff that will keep planes in the air, ships in motion and trucks in motion in the future - but not a passenger car, please. It should drive electrically. That's the plan.
But what about the climate? Shouldn't we be making a noteworthy contribution with the car? In 2025, every third newly registered car in Germany should be attributable to e-mobility. Around 55 million vehicles with combustion engines that run on petrol or diesel, some also on natural gas or LPG, remain in Germany. Worldwide, the number of combustion engines in 2025 should be well over 1,3 billion. 1,3 billion combustion engines worldwide For us, the declared sympathy for the electric car has so far far exceeded the actual buying behavior.
The situation is different only in a few high-tech countries in Europe and in China. The share of e-car sales is higher here, even if China is slowing down in the meantime. But there are at least the 1,3 billion cars of all classes worldwide, which are usually not powered by engines with exhaust emissions, as are common with German manufacturers today. Whoever wants to have a discussion here about batteries versus alternative fuels should not Talk about climate crisis. There is no killer criterion here. Only a both-and-has the chance to save the climate additional carbon dioxide pollution. However, this only applies if electromobility is produced using both batteries and hydrogen for the fuel cell or for the synthetic fuel with renewable energies.
Otherwise we find ourselves in a situation that no politician in Germany could survive today without damage. He would have to demand and promote nuclear power or diesel or both. Refuel quickly and easily next door. The struggle between battery and hydrogen for the passenger car is just as idle. Here too there will be both side by side. And that's a good thing if we will be able to fill the tanks of our conventional but modern petrol or diesel with e-fuels at the gas station next door. Now opponents of the fuel cell object, a hydrogen filling station costs many times more than a charging station. However, this additional price is relativized by the number of refueling operations. The fuel cell car has its full range again after five minutes. In the battery car, the range pointer did not even twitch after the same time. The fuel cell is suitable for similar usage profiles to the battery, creates a longer range and can be refueled faster, but only the synthetic fuels provide mobility today. None of the participants mentioned problems that stand in the way of the worldwide sale of e-fuels via the oil companies and their worldwide, well-established infrastructure.
Minister for the Environment also speaks with two tongues; however, politicians and their authorities always astonish with decisions that serve less to protect the climate and more for the continued defiance of the battery. The Federal Ministry of Transport speaks of Svenja Schulze - freely after Karl May - with two tongues. On the one hand, it praises the development of synthetic fuels, on the other hand it blocks access to the German market for care diesel from Finland, which would be only slightly more expensive than current diesel and consists mainly of biological waste. With this fuel alone, the carbon dioxide emissions of a diesel engine could be reduced by almost two thirds (see the report by "auto motor & sport-tv", "Stuttgarter Zeitung" and "Focus").
Fully synthetic fuels would be even more climate-friendly.
Regenerative energies must be of high academic quality and yet the argument that the production of e-fuels is more uneconomical and ineffective than that of batteries is superfluous. If the climate is not about alarmism, but a real crisis, the solution of which cannot be postponed, then it is pointless to discuss efficiency. We have to bring in renewable energy, whatever the cost. And by the way, we are becoming even more independent of lithium suppliers in distant, not always politically predictable countries - and history is repeating itself again. Wikipedia: “The Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (also called Fischer-Tropsch process, FT synthesis for short) is a large-scale process for coal liquefaction through indirect hydrogenation of coal.
The process was developed by the German chemists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Coal Research in Mülheim an der Ruhr in 1925. “German technology therefore has a great head start not only in synthetic fuels. The German battery manufacturer Varta was also a leader in lithium-ion batteries at the time, until the end of 1998 when the German automobile manufacturers showed no interest. Today they buy cells and know-how in Asia or try to regain their connection to the technology. We want to keep our lead, so we should keep a careful eye on the efforts to find fuel alternatives. We are nowhere near as far ahead as the statements by politicians want to awaken. The will to keep up is clearly recognizable.
Hopefully not as much money goes into developing electrical projects as the overhead line for trucks on highways. We are already recognizing that the automobile manufacturers are deducting development capacities from the combustion engines and concentrating on e-mobility. Our politicians certainly see this with benevolence, even though they are deliberately doing harm to the climate. By the way: The raw material for e-fuels or finished e-fuels could create a new livelihood for the states with more hours of sunshine. The oil-producing states that have been preferred by nature will no longer earn the money. (ampnet / Sm)