A recent study conducted by the German organization “Fos” on behalf of Klima-Allianz Deutschland has reignited the debate on e-fuels. It deems them an alternative that fails to meet the needs of the transportation, industrial, and agricultural sectors. Yet another biased argument advanced by dying ideologues who don’t even realize they’re contradicting themselves
The European Union had established that vehicles powered by internal combustion engines would no longer be sold by 2035. The decision is still in effect, but recent economic and political turmoil is calling it into question. Geopolitical uncertainties, energy market instability, critical supply issues for the raw materials needed to produce batteries, the difficulties in disposing of them, and issues related to the lack of an adequate charging network are pushing some countries and their industrial groups to reconsider the possibility of fully electrifying their fleets.
This is also due to the car market’s low propensity to purchase fully electric vehicles. This has led to a renewed interest in alternatives to traditional propulsion systems, which is evident on several fronts. The range extends from electrification using hydrogen-powered fuel cells to the direct use of hydrogen in traditional engines, although the latter could also be powered by biofuels or so-called e-fuels, synthetic fuels produced using renewable electricity.
The direct use of hydrogen and e-fuels in traditional engines benefits from the fact that engine and vehicle manufacturers could achieve significant carbon dioxide emission reduction targets without having to radically disrupt their current production, as they must do by switching to full electric. This is a balanced and attractive solution, but it is still opposed by the most extreme environmental fringes, those who would like to completely eliminate any option other than full electric or, at least, capable of maintaining internal combustion engines operational.
The latest claims to this effect come from a wild study promoted by Klima-Allianz Deutschland, a German network of over 150 environmental organizations also supported by social and religious organizations, and conducted by “Fos” (Forum Okologisch-Soziale Marktwirtshaft), a German organization dedicated to developing political-economic studies to support a rapid energy transition.
The title of the study, “E-Fuels and Their Limits: No Alternative to the Phase-Out of Internal Combustion Engines,” speaks volumes about the underlying objectives of an analysis that, in terms of content, approaches the underlying topic without even the slightest bit of critical thinking, despite some information drawn from highly authoritative sources, including the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems Research and Innovation.
This highly biased and partisan stance has not lacked the economic consensus of the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Protection. This demonstrates that the Germans, not content with the economic catastrophes green policies have wrought on their industry and the country’s economy, are determined to continue on the path toward an increasingly uncertain future.
Rather than considering e-fuels as a potential alternative to be developed to broaden the scope of solutions aimed at reducing climate-related emissions without destroying the Western economic and social fabric, the analysis starts from the assumption that e-fuels currently exhibit structural limitations that significantly diminish their role as a real alternative. They are synthetic fuels obtained through an electrochemical process that uses electricity to produce hydrogen from water, which is then combined with carbon dioxide to generate liquid or gaseous fuels similar to petroleum-based fuels.
The study argues that for e-fuels to be considered climate-neutral, they should be produced using exclusively renewable sources and using carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere or derived from non-fossil industrial processes for production. These considerations coincide precisely with the ultimate goal pursued by e-fuel supporters, but since environmentalists must say “no” a priori, the study criticizes not so much the fuels themselves as their production process, considered extremely inefficient given an energy efficiency of between 13 percent and 16 percent.
This is much lower than the 75 percent that characterizes the direct use of electricity to power electric cars and vehicles. From this perspective, the same amount of renewable energy used to produce e-fuels in the tank of a vehicle powered by a combustion engine could directly power six electric vehicles.
A correct point of view, were it not for some of the details mentioned above. The first of which is that the market is currently not rewarding electric vehicles given their high costs, limited operational time, and the lack of a true energy grid in most Western countries.
Not to mention the issues surrounding raw material supplies, which, if the green transition were to be implemented drastically, would lead the West to depend on countries that are politically unreliable and have little respect for human rights, especially China. E-fuels, on the other hand, would allow for localized, European production, and by maintaining current engine architectures, they would not lead to cost increases on final products. Not to mention that battery-powered electric vehicles are poorly suited to the most energy-intensive applications, such as advanced open-field agricultural applications.
In this regard, the same study emphasizes that e-fuels could even be considered essential—a claim that contradicts the title of the study—for the decarbonization of sectors that are difficult to electrify, such as aviation and maritime transport, where energy density and operational requirements make the use of batteries impractical. This is true, as are the estimates that for 2045 indicate a need for e-fuels ranging from 116 to 305 terawatt-hours annually to support these sectors. With an even greater priority for production for industry and heavy transport.
Even a child would understand at this point that if e-fuels are good for powering a truck, a plane, or a construction machine, they would also be good for powering a car or tractor. This claim the study’s authors dispute not on a technical level but on a forecasting level. According to their forecasts, the automotive sector alone will see a reduction in the internal combustion engine fleet and an acceleration in electric mobility, making the contribution of e-fuels marginal and uncompetitive. According to them, by 2045, the electrified European car fleet will actually account for a market share ranging from 74 to 100 percent, and it doesn’t matter if nothing currently supports these predictions. The authors also forget to mention that their rosy forecast primarily includes hybrid vehicles, which, as such, are equipped with internal combustion engines.
The German study then highlights the critical issues inherent in the large-scale production and availability of e-fuels. Currently, global production of these fuels is limited to pilot projects and demonstration plants, and even the most optimistic scenarios predict that global production could reach just 70 terawatt-hours per year by 2030, insufficient even to cover the needs of Germany’s air and sea transport alone.
To reach production levels adequate to meet the needs of all sectors requiring synthetic fuels, production capacity would need to grow at annual rates exceeding 30 percent, an unprecedented rate in the energy sector. This is a problem, but one no different, and indeed easier to solve, than the one Europe would face in terms of its electricity grid if the full-electric growth advocated by environmentalists were to materialize. In this regard, consider the significant critical issues facing electricity production in Germany following the decision to close nuclear power plants.
Decarbonization and e-fuels
No one writes about it, but blackouts in various parts of the country are becoming more frequent than ever. Not to mention Italy, which in recent years has seen hours-long blackouts in many metropolitan areas during the summer due to the power consumption of air conditioners alone. In fact, those who praise electric vehicles fail to realize that there’s no electricity, no networks to transport it, and no charging stations to charge it. Another criticism leveled by the study against e-fuels is their cost.
Currently, their production costs are very high, so much so that a liter of e-fuel costs more than double that of a liter of fossil-fuel gasoline. The launch of large-scale production will obviously reduce this gap but will not eliminate it, so much so that a liter of e-petrol is projected to cost two and a half euros at the pump in 2050. This is a correct analysis, but biased, as it places e-fuels at a disadvantage compared to electricity only if the latter remains at current levels between now and 2025. Therefore, it compares a projected cost in 2050 with a current cost. A comparison that not even the most hackneyed accountant could sign off on.
The icing on the cake is the consideration that e-fuels do not solve the problem of local emissions. Although they are theoretically carbon neutral when produced correctly, vehicles that use them continue to emit nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, further increasing the air quality concerns in urban areas. In contrast, electric vehicles completely eliminate local exhaust emissions, contributing more effectively to reducing air pollution. Here too, the study is self-serving, forgetting that although electric vehicles do not emit exhaust fumes, their production is by no means free of environmental impacts, especially when it comes to batteries. The extraction and processing of the raw materials needed to build these components, primarily lithium, cobalt, and nickel, actually result in high levels of pollution and energy consumption.
E-fuels, if produced with renewable electricity and carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere, could guarantee a neutral emissions balance, thanks to increasingly advanced and practical engine technologies capable of significantly reducing nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions. Furthermore, a fair comparison between fully electric and e-fuel-powered vehicles should also take into account the current composition of the European energy mix, where much of the electricity comes from fossil-fuel-fired thermoelectric power plants.
It follows that to make electric cars truly “non-polluting,” they should be powered by recyclable energy—coincidentally, the same energy used to produce e-fuels. It’s also important to note that a comparison of the emissions balances of the two propulsion systems should also take into account grid losses as well as the life cycles of the vehicles and their components. In fact, the study commissioned by Klima-Allianz Deutschland from “Fos” is yet another demonstration of how environmental fringe groups advance arguments so questionable that they’re criticized by a wide range of industrial, scientific, and political organizations. These organizations frame environmental issues in global terms, thus considering urban pollution only one of the critical factors to address. This is the least problematic, given that the alleged “toxicity” of air in many metropolitan areas is at its lowest since the beginning of industrialization.
Title: Decarbonization and e-fuels, the debate continues in Europe
Author: Jacopo Oldani
