RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed

RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed

Friday 3rd March

Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed

German Transport Minister and unlikely PH hero insists door must be left open for synthetic fuel use


If you were betting on a country to take issue with the EU’s directive on the sale of zero-emission cars only from 2035, Germany would've been a shoo-in. Not just because they have a significant say in the bloc, but because its car industry has been (and continues to be) responsible for some of the very best combustion engines ever. And while some manufacturers are all-in on electric, the fact that a company like Porsche has invested so heavily in an efuels plant in South America suggests EV is not a basket they necessarily want to put all their eggs in just yet.

The alternative fuels argument is the one currently being put forward by German Transport Minister Volker Wissing, according to Reuters. As it stands, there’s a non-binding part of EU law that a proposal will be made on cars being sold with carbon-neutral fuels post-2035 ‘if this complies with climate goals’. Goodness knows how on earth that’ll be settled upon - imagine the investment is made in sustainable fuels, only for a proposal to be made a decade from now that says anything with tailpipe emissions can’t be sold? It’d be carnage. It’s clarity on this matter that Wissing is said to be seeking: he wants a clearer assurance on whether synthetic fuels will be able to be used post-2035 in new cars, and what exactly the proposal would look like.

There’s support for his viewpoint, too, with Italy’s Energy Minister Gilberto Pichetto Fratin suggesting that his country’s position is that EVs “cannot be the only solution for the future”. It rather goes without saying that we’d love to see every avenue pursued to keep engines relevant. Think how diverse the new car lineup is right now, with mild hybrids, plug-in hybrids, petrols, diesels and EVs out there; different powertrains suit different lifestyles and different interests, just as they will a decade from now. A multi-faceted approach seems like the right path.

Of course, plenty of others are firmly in the EV-only camp: Audi won’t build a combustion engine after 2033, and Germany’s own environment ministry backs the deal. Which must make for some tense meetings with transport right now. For the moment the EU seems committed to its original stance - delaying a vote this late is very unusual - but rubber-stamping the lawmakers' deal is apparently not going to be as simple as all that. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, will attend a German cabinet meeting this weekend - this is undoubtedly going to come up in discussion. To be a fly on the wall in that meeting, eh? For now at least, the combustion engine door remains propped open. 


Author
Discussion

Twinair

Original Poster:

417 posts

129 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
A last minute outbreak of sanity?

Let’s see…

romac

478 posts

133 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
Definitely think options need to be kept open!

el romeral

733 posts

124 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
Maybe some common sense at last?

NMNeil

5,479 posts

37 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
"Porsche has invested so heavily in an efuels plant in South America"
$75 million is loose change for Porsche, not a heavy investment.
https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/2022/company/porsc...
And from the HIF website
"We use renewable energy to produce green hydrogen via electrolysis, and we capture CO2 from the atmosphere, or from an industrial or biogenic source. We will then combine the green hydrogen with the CO2 through a process called synthesis, obtaining a gasoline substitute that can work in existing engines and infrastructure."
Let me get a shovel so I can move some of this BS.


Wab1974uk

652 posts

14 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
I bet the British government stick to their 2030 deadline

rampangle

103 posts

2 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
I'm definitely pro carbon-neutral synthetic fuels. But can't see it happening at scale any time soon.

And that's the problem. It needs to happen soon before the manufacturers stop making combustion engines, before the installed base of combustion cars begins to dwindle and then before the infrastructure of fuel depots and stations etc begins to wind up.

OK, that entire process is going to take a while. But the BV thing. Really is accelerating fast and left too long, several of the key advantages of synthetic carbon neutral fuels (such as copious existing infrastructure, the ability to turn an existing ICE car into something close to carbon neutral and so on) will begin to fade away.

Archie2050

824 posts

3 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
Synthetic fuels are a complete non starter for mass transport, they replace a 70%+ efficient transfer of renewable energy into kinetic energy in an EV with an at best 20% efficient one, while still producing local pollution. they also require vastly more of the limited quantity to renewable energy to produce.

They can only ever be an appropriate solution for niche sectors where battery EV's are not practical such as shipping, possibly aviation, motorsport and possible historic/ classic cars. There's no justification in producing modern performance cars intent on relying on synthetic fuels except for very high end limited volume use such as the <1000 model per year exemption.

You're not going to be buying an M3 or 911 to run on synthetic fuel come 2035

samoht

4,441 posts

133 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all

1) It's important we get to net zero by 2050, otherwise we're really pushing our luck with the climate
2) Legal restrictions should always be the minimum possible to achieve social needs such as (1), i.e. we should maximise individual freedom and choice within these constraints.

Therefore any technology which is actually (not just theoretically 'could be', but actually is) carbon-neutral should be allowed.

Don't worry that a given technology is "inefficient" - the market will decide, either we'll produce a lot more energy, or it'll exist as a niche solution for enthusiasts, or it'll die out naturally.

sixor8

5,189 posts

255 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
Wab1974uk said:
I bet the British government stick to their 2030 deadline
That's the deadline for non-hybrids. Commonly used incorrectly as the last ICE cars.

The next thing the EU need to define is how far is a 'reasonable' distance for hybrids to be able to travel in EV mode only. scratchchin

Archie2050

824 posts

3 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
samoht said:
1) It's important we get to net zero by 2050, otherwise we're really pushing our luck with the climate
2) Legal restrictions should always be the minimum possible to achieve social needs such as (1), i.e. we should maximise individual freedom and choice within these constraints.

Therefore any technology which is actually (not just theoretically 'could be', but actually is) carbon-neutral should be allowed.

Don't worry that a given technology is "inefficient" - the market will decide, either we'll produce a lot more energy, or it'll exist as a niche solution for enthusiasts, or it'll die out naturally.
The trouble is that it is not carbon neutral. Even renewables have a CO2 impact, for commercial PV it's normally quoted as around 40g CO2/kWh.

If you then use this electricity in a very inefficient way by manufacturing synthetic fuels, the CO@ impact of the synthetic fuel can actually be quite high, far more than if you just used that electricity to run a battery EV. Off shore wind is better, but you would need a vast surplus of this to even begin to produce enough synthetic fuel to replace fossil fuels. It's just not practical.

swisstoni

14,529 posts

266 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
How very European.

otolith

51,672 posts

191 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
"If you were betting on a country to take issue with the EU’s directive on the sale of zero-emission cars only from 2035, Germany would've been a shoo-in. Not just because they have a significant say in the bloc, but because its car industry has been (and continues to be) responsible for some of the very best combustion engines evera significant chunk of its GDP and the jobs of a million voters"

Nomme de Plum

446 posts

3 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
Anything that diverts R&D budgets from EV development is really short-temism.

An ICE is already a ridiculously inefficient form of propulsion. Why try to prolong it?

What happens when in a decade or two we find those synthetic fuels are not all good for the environment both in production and maybe even exhaust gases.

How much energy will be consumed producing these fuels?





Nomme de Plum

446 posts

3 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
otolith said:
"If you were betting on a country to take issue with the EU’s directive on the sale of zero-emission cars only from 2035, Germany would've been a shoo-in. Not just because they have a significant say in the bloc, but because its car industry has been (and continues to be) responsible for some of the very best combustion engines evera significant chunk of its GDP and the jobs of a million voters"
Not to mention some pretty dodgy behaviour of the VW variety.

To me it's like the Tobacco industry suggesting for years cigarettes were not deleterious to ones health and then ignoring the impact on non smokers.

TdM-GTV

264 posts

204 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
Some form of synth fuel will be in use I'm sure. For a start, it'll be used for older cars which will still be running for a while yet and there will be classic cars that they won't stop you running.

The issue is volume. Assuming longevity is there, EVs will come down in price as volume ramps up, EVs work for a lot of people (not all) and the infrastructure will improve to make it work for more people. The more who are on EVs the more expensive synth will be as an end product because the smaller the market.

Therefore, even if they allow some synth fuel engine cars to be made, they will be in small number I suspect because running costs will be fairly significant. The good news is that because the fuel and process to make it is pretty damn carbon neutral even if it's not quite perfect, the impact to the environment would be absolutely tiny.

The one thing that might make synth viable is shipping, freight and aviation. Electric doesn't work for these guys so they need *something* to replace their 'dirty' engines. Synth seems like a more realistic and safer option than fitting them all with mini nuclear generators I'm sure!

GT9

4,310 posts

159 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
rampangle said:
I'm definitely pro carbon-neutral synthetic fuels. But can't see it happening at scale any time soon.
The issue is one of end-to-end efficiency for the renewable electricity route.

Using the same electricity to power an electric car gets you something like 5 times further down the road, possibly even more.

How do you square that circle for something like this being available to the 'the masses'?

I can't see how such a limited supply of fuel can be available to anything other than just a handful of new ICE cars produced after some future date, and at a significant premium over regular fuel.

Even the most aggressive growth plans only deliver enough for about 1% or 2% of cars on the road.

How do you decide who gets the unicorn juice? is it done by a raffle?








otolith

51,672 posts

191 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
GT9 said:
How do you decide who gets the unicorn juice? is it done by a raffle?
Easy. It will cost an absolute fortune.

borat52

518 posts

195 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
Wab1974uk said:
I bet the British government stick to their 2030 deadline
I'll be shocked if that goes through in 2030, or if it does you'll see all sorts of qualifications for hybrids accepted.

It's going to be v.hard to get off conventional fuels for new cars in favour of electrification unless there's a tech breakthrough.

LBW2020

427 posts

28 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
samoht said:
1) It's important we get to net zero by 2050, otherwise we're really pushing our luck with the climate
2) Legal restrictions should always be the minimum possible to achieve social needs such as (1), i.e. we should maximise individual freedom and choice within these constraints.

Therefore any technology which is actually (not just theoretically 'could be', but actually is) carbon-neutral should be allowed.

Don't worry that a given technology is "inefficient" - the market will decide, either we'll produce a lot more energy, or it'll exist as a niche solution for enthusiasts, or it'll die out naturally.
Number 1, so 150 plus years of climate change is going to be undone by 15 years of EV's? i dont think so.....
Number 2, you have no choice, the amount you earn makes the choice for you....there is no freedom it's an illusion....your are always constrained by what you earn

The damage we have done to the climate will not be reversed unless we get an event that sends us back into the ice age....god forbid
EV's will not stop climate change and definitely wont reverse what we have started we will always emit emissions and raise the temperature of our atmosphere, why because we are growing as a populous and this we cannot reverse !

otolith

51,672 posts

191 months

Friday 3rd March
quotequote all
borat52 said:
I'll be shocked if that goes through in 2030, or if it does you'll see all sorts of qualifications for hybrids accepted.
Hybrids are allowed until 2035