Does ban on combustion engines mean synthetic fuels get trashed too?

HANOVER: The decision by European Union policy makers to outlaw combustion-engined vehicles from 2035 in order to meet net zero emission targets means Europe is definitely heading down the electric avenue.

Naturally, electrically-powered vehicles will take centre stage but what about promising alternatives like synthetic e-fuels?

Some makers like Porsche and Mazda have been investing in this technology heavily in a bid to save the thermal car engine from doom at the end of the decade. Do they still have a chance of doing so?

Environmental organisations like Germany's Nabu have been breathing a collective sigh of relief over the "virtual end of the internal combustion engine in Europe".

They would have liked an even earlier end but organisation chief Leif Miller seems satisfied: "Without question, the European combustion engine phase-out sends a signal worldwide for climate protection".

Another positive aspect seen by Miller is that car manufacturers will not be able to offset possible reductions in the CO2 output of their model fleets by using synthetic fuels to power combustion engines.

Supporters and suppliers of artificial e-fuels are sore about the Strasbourg vote which they believe could scupper the synthetic fuel industry.

They say that concentrating only on battery-electrics means zero-emission mobility will not work well in regions without enough green electricity to operate them and in those where people do not have enough income to buy new electric cars.

What's more, they see it as a waste of the potential for reducing the world's overall CO2 emission balance. This is something the younger generation of combustion engines can do well, provided they run on e-fuels.

"The EU Parliament is preventing 48 million cars with combustion engine cars in Germany alone from being included in efforts to achieve CO2 neutrality," lamented the head of the German Association of Medium-Sized Mineral Oil Companies, Elmar Kühn.

His association has of course a vested interest in continuing to sell conventional fuels and, in future, synthetic versions too. However, Kühn is voicing an important ecological reason for why he thinks saying "no" to e-fuels is a blunder.

E-fuels only make sense if their production places less burden on the raw materials cycle and the environment compared with making normal petrol, diesel or liquid gas. This means they must not release any more CO2 that was previously bound up over the long term.

And there is the rub: The so-called "power to fuel" processes used to make synthetic fuels do not obtain the fuel from the chemical refinement of crude oil, which has been stored in the ground for millions of years and increases the carbon content of the atmosphere when burned.

Instead, they work the other way around. They assemble hydrocarbon chains from hydrogen and CO2 but doing so is an energy-intensive process in itself.

It also requires hydrogen in its purest form, for which water must be split in an expensive process. When such fuel is used to power a thermal engine, only as much CO2 is is emitted from the exhaust pipe as was previously extracted from air or biomass.

The logic is not lost on climate protectionists but some see it as an attempt by carmakers to keep combustion technology alive for as long as possible.

Meanwhile, industry has been lobbying for green fuel for years. "To achieve the climate targets, we also need e-fuels," said the head of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), Hildegard Müller.

Naysayers also note that the green wind, solar or bioelectric power used to generate hydrogen for synthetic fuels is needed for many other purposes during the energy transition.

Experts said in one report that suppyling just 10% of new cars with e-fuels instead of electrifying them would require 23% more renewable electricity generation in Europe.

On top of that, the efficiency from energy conversion is often lower for e-fuels than for electric motors. Some experts say e-fuels are best kept for large engines in ships or for aircraft which use kerosine.

Projects are now under way to produce kerosene from waste CO2 or cooking fat residues with hydrogen. The quantities are small, but airlines are already showing interest.

The Brussels decision has dismayed the petroleum industry. Opponents of e-fuels are waging an "ideologically motivated battle against the car," said Kühn.

The EU Commission's strategy to date has tended to point toward an end to the internal combustion engine through the back door - without direct bans, but with climate protection targets that have been raised to such an extent that the production of conventional petrol and diesel engines would de facto be phased out.

On average, passenger cars on roads in Germany were just under ten years old in mid-2021 which means there will still be a lot of them around in 2030 and beyond.

In Germany, where the emotional attachment to cars runs high, many citizens reject a ban on internal combustion cars, according to surveys.

In a survey by the opinion research institute Civey, 57% said a ban on internal combustion cars was wrong. Another 35% of those surveyed thought it the right decision. The remaining 8% were undecided.

In its survey the opinion research institute YouGov found a slim majority of 51% of Germans rejecting the EU Parliament's ban, with 37% in favour and 12% undecided.

Although a majority of MEPs recently voted to ban combustion engined-cars from 2035, the EU parliament still has to negotiate details with the EU member states.