Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU Earth Transportation

Germany Urges Loophole for EU Ban on Fossil-Fuel Cars: Synthetic Carbon-Captured Fuels (cnn.com) 324

Posted by EditorDavid from the fueling-a-debate dept.
CNN reports: When EU lawmakers voted to ban the sale of new combustion engine cars in the bloc by 2035, it was a landmark victory for climate. In February, the European Parliament approved the law. All that was needed was a rubber stamp from the bloc's political leaders.

Then Germany changed its mind.

In a reversal that stunned many EU insiders, the German government decided to push for a loophole that would allow the sale of combustion engine cars beyond the 2035 deadline — as long as they run on synthetic fuels. It's an exception that could put the European Union's green credentials at risk. The bloc is legally obliged to become carbon-neutral by 2050. With cars and vans responsible for around 15% of its total greenhouse gas emissions, a phase-out of polluting vehicles is a key part of EU climate policy....

Other European countries, including Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic, have joined Germany in demanding the exception.
The case for synthetic fuels: they're made from hydrogen and carbon dioxide captured from the atmosphere, so burning them only releases air pollutants that have already been offset. CNN got this quote from the transport minister of the liberal FDP (part of Germany's current governing coalition).

"The goal is climate neutrality, which is also an opportunity for new technologies. We need to be open to different solutions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Germany Urges Loophole for EU Ban on Fossil-Fuel Cars: Synthetic Carbon-Captured Fuels More

Germany Urges Loophole for EU Ban on Fossil-Fuel Cars: Synthetic Carbon-Captured Fuels

Comments Filter:
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Smart. (Score:5, Informative)

      by r1348 ( 2567295 ) on Sunday March 26, 2023 @03:44PM (#63401057)

      Except that it requires five times the energy of an EV for the same distance.

      • Exactly - you'd be better off producing hydrogen by splitting water, storing it, and running fuel cells, since that cycle isn't limited by Carnot efficiency in an infernal combustion engine.

        • People generally dont have cars with fuel cells. They have ICE vehicles.

          • This whole discussion only pertains to new vehicles, not existing ones.

            • Why? People are going to need transportation and keeping existing vehicles on the road is often more environmentally - friendly(and feasible) than buying new.

              • There's no proposal to ban existing fossil fuel vehicles, though. This whole discussion is only about NEW vehicle sales after 2035.
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • They're easily converted to hydrogen-burning ICE engines. A fuel cell is more like a battery that combines hydrogen and oxygen chemically to produce electricity. Closer to an electric car.

            • How much does it cost to convert a gasoline car to burn hydrogen? Do you have to do a full tank swap? How much range does it lose?

              • You basically need a complete rebuild. Yes, you can run ICE engines on hydrogen in principle, but not without major changes in the engine and the fuel system. If you have hydrogen, a fuel cell and an electric engine are technologically much superior - and with a small battery, you also get the benefit of regenerative braking.

                And if you have electricity, battery cars are even simpler and more efficient (and getting better every year).

            • Except E85. Engines dont like ethanol unless they are built for it.
              • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • They do if you adjust the timings and match the seals and gaskets.

                  Most people don't have the time or money to put their car in the shop and wait to have this major type of engine work done.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Except that it requires five times the energy of an EV for the same distance.

        Also, from the perspective of a power company, it is more profitable to sell electricity at retail rates than it is to sell synthetic fuel. Well, as long as you're still competing with traditionally produced petroleum anyway. Synthetic fuel would have to be priced significantly higher in order to be a profitable product, and I doubt many people would be all that happy to be burning it in a car that wastes a good portion of the fuel as heat.

    • Technically isnt oil also captured carbon?
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Yes, but it was captured in the Carboniferous era when atmospheric CO2 was about 1500 parts per million initially vs 280 which it was before our industrial age or 412 today. That's partly why burning it is increasing CO2 levels.

  • Germany correct, problem is fossil fuels not ICE (Score:3)

    by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Sunday March 26, 2023 @03:41PM (#63401035)
    Germany is correct. The problem is not internal combustion. The problem is fossil fuels, the release of carbon that was sequestered, that is being newly (re)introduced to the atmosphere. A liquid fuel that is carbon neutral, is capturing, using, and returning carbon to the atmosphere is not a problem.

    • Re:Germany correct, problem is fossil fuels not IC (Score:4, Informative)

      by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Sunday March 26, 2023 @03:45PM (#63401059)
      I'm not sure - internal combustion produces toxins (particulates, hydrocarbons, CO, NOx) that aren't directly involved in climate change, but are still bad. Plus, synthetic fuels tend to be energy intensive to produce - why not just use electrolysis (powered by nuclear power and/or renewables) to make hydrogen and "burn" it in a fuel cell. Fuel cells approach 100% efficiency since they're not limited by the Carnot Cycle.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        I'm not sure - internal combustion produces toxins (particulates, hydrocarbons, CO, NOx) that aren't directly involved in climate change, but are still bad. Plus, synthetic fuels tend to be energy intensive to produce - why not just use electrolysis (powered by nuclear power and/or renewables) to make hydrogen and "burn" it in a fuel cell. Fuel cells approach 100% efficiency since they're not limited by the Carnot Cycle.

        If you want to argue that EVs are more economical that is fine, although I think that argument is a little premature given the cost deferences. Differences that will change over time. Then again the costs and externalities of EVs will be better understood in the future too. But at some date in the future EVs will be a clear winner for most people.

        That said, if the argument is about environment issues, particulates etc, that is largely a solved problem and technology can even better improve things.

        • Exhaust emissions are a solved issue at operating temperature (assuming an engine and emission systems in good condition). Hydrocarbon emissions from spilled fuel evaporating (ever smelled a gas station?) and emissions when the engine is warming up are still problems.

      • At the moment, new cars that conform to Euro 6 legislation emit 1000 times more particles from the tires than the exhaust.

        Particles from tires abundance is exponential to weight. EV would be horrible in that regard.

        In most modern cities new cars emit cleaner air than the environment. We have 95 to 98 percent reduction of everything that comes out since the mid 90 is

        Euro 7, which is in the works ATM barely lowers limits of chemicals because you cant do much more without running into the law of diminished ret

    • Re:Germany correct, problem is fossil fuels not IC (Score:5, Insightful)

      by r1348 ( 2567295 ) on Sunday March 26, 2023 @03:46PM (#63401063)

      Except that you need to use energy to manufacture synthetic fuels, which you could just use to power an EV.
      Germany is just defending its auto industry from being made obsolete, since they're really late in EV development.

      • Late compared to whom?

        • Everyone already in the EV business. Hint: The most popular non Tesla EV in Europe isn't a Volkswagen, or any other German car. Germany much like the US auto majors a still living in denial.

          "Also 9 out of 10 doctors smoke Camel". This approach is not unique to the car industry.

          • So, Ford? GM? Toyota? Stellantis? Who is making this not-a-Tesla and how great of a threat are they to Germany +

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )

            Everyone already in the EV business. Hint: The most popular non Tesla EV in Europe isn't a Volkswagen, or any other German car. Germany much like the US auto majors a still living in denial.

            The reality is that the tech and infrastructure and the economics are not quite right for most drivers and that will not change by 2035. Someday it will change, but that will be at the natural pace of improvements in science and engineering and not at the whim of politicians.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Cyberax ( 705495 )

              The reality is that the tech and infrastructure and the economics are not quite right for most drivers

              Eh, no. The economics are right even now, especially for smaller countries like Germany, where smaller cars with a shorter range can be popular. The major remaining problem to solve is home charging, but that's totally doable within the next 15 years.

              • The reality is that the tech and infrastructure and the economics are not quite right for most drivers

                Eh, no. The economics are right even now, especially for smaller countries like Germany, where smaller cars with a shorter range can be popular. The major remaining problem to solve is home charging, but that's totally doable within the next 15 years.

                I'm always amused by people who claim that electric cars are more economic NOW. So, in your worldview people have to be coerced into buying EV through oppressive laws, taxes, incentives and subsidies on EV, despite EV supposedly being more economical because...? People like blowing their money up for no reason? ICE maker conspiracy? Mind control rays?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Cyberax ( 705495 )

                  I'm always amused by people who claim that electric cars are more economic NOW.

                  I've been using EVs since 2012

                  So, in your worldview people have to be coerced into buying EV through oppressive laws, taxes, incentives and subsidies on EV, despite EV supposedly being more economical because...?

                  Because your car spews toxic shit around, and it depends on continuous mining of toxic shit. It's the same reason people had to be coerced not to dump toxic waste into rivers. It was OK when there was no other alternative, but that's simply not true now.

                  Adding incentives to switch to cleaner vehicles is absolutely the right behavior.

          • "Volkswagen has the largest market share for electric cars in Germany at 20.3%, followed by Tesla with 11.2%, according to the latest figures from motor vehicle authority KBA." (July 2022) https://www.reuters.com/techno... [reuters.com]

            For individual car models it can be different but I think brand is more relevant than individual models.

            • "Volkswagen has the largest market share for electric cars in Germany at 20.3%, followed by Tesla with 11.2%, according to the latest figures from motor vehicle authority KBA." (July 2022) https://www.reuters.com/techno... [reuters.com]

              For individual car models it can be different but I think brand is more relevant than individual models.

              In Germany. That's because Germans are very nationalistic when it comes to buying preferences, and there "it may be shitty but it's German" sells. The thing is, Scholz wants VW to be competitive in the rest of Europe too, and elsewhere people won't buy a shitty electric car just because it's German. And VW electric *is* shitty, unlike their ICE offer.

    • Germany is correct. The problem is not internal combustion. The problem is fossil fuels, the release of carbon that was sequestered, that is being newly (re)introduced to the atmosphere. A liquid fuel that is carbon neutral, is capturing, using, and returning carbon to the atmosphere is not a problem.

      TBH, smog and other shit we're putting in atmosphere is a problem too, not just CO2. The 2035 ban is completely stupid, in typical green fashion of "let's ban a critical component of our civilization, and if everything collapses, so much for the better", but it'd be really cool to transition to EVs at some more reasonable rate.

      • Set an unrealistic target/sunset date to spur development - then extend if needed. Electric vehicles are already pretty damn good. Even if only 60-80% of new car sales are electric in 2035, it would still be a huge victory vs the status quo.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        Germany is correct. The problem is not internal combustion. The problem is fossil fuels, the release of carbon that was sequestered, that is being newly (re)introduced to the atmosphere. A liquid fuel that is carbon neutral, is capturing, using, and returning carbon to the atmosphere is not a problem.

        TBH, smog and other shit we're putting in atmosphere is a problem too, not just CO2.

        Not really, that problem was largely solved decades ago and technology has and will continue to make ongoing improvements. And on the other side the externalities of large scale EV battery manufacturing, use, replacement (minor accidents), recycling, etc, is not well understood; its too new. Plus the necessary infrastructure may not be ready by 2035. 2035 was never a serious date, just political, it was always going to be changed or exceptions created. I expect it will change from a ban to a tax on ICE.

        • Germany is correct. The problem is not internal combustion. The problem is fossil fuels, the release of carbon that was sequestered, that is being newly (re)introduced to the atmosphere. A liquid fuel that is carbon neutral, is capturing, using, and returning carbon to the atmosphere is not a problem.

          TBH, smog and other shit we're putting in atmosphere is a problem too, not just CO2.

          Not really, that problem was largely solved decades ago and technology has and will continue to make ongoing improvements. And on the other side the externalities of large scale EV battery manufacturing, use, replacement (minor accidents), recycling, etc, is not well understood; its too new. Plus the necessary infrastructure may not be ready by 2035. 2035 was never a serious date, just political, it was always going to be changed or exceptions created. I expect it will change from a ban to a tax on ICE.

          No way. If you pass bullshit laws, expect resistance. If you want me to shut up about 2035, then CHANGE the damn law, instead of handwaving about "oh oh everyone knows it's not realistic".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by drnb ( 2434720 )

            Germany is correct. The problem is not internal combustion. The problem is fossil fuels, the release of carbon that was sequestered, that is being newly (re)introduced to the atmosphere. A liquid fuel that is carbon neutral, is capturing, using, and returning carbon to the atmosphere is not a problem.

            TBH, smog and other shit we're putting in atmosphere is a problem too, not just CO2.

            Not really, that problem was largely solved decades ago and technology has and will continue to make ongoing improvements. And on the other side the externalities of large scale EV battery manufacturing, use, replacement (minor accidents), recycling, etc, is not well understood; its too new. Plus the necessary infrastructure may not be ready by 2035. 2035 was never a serious date, just political, it was always going to be changed or exceptions created. I expect it will change from a ban to a tax on ICE.

            No way. If you pass bullshit laws, expect resistance. If you want me to shut up about 2035, then CHANGE the damn law, instead of handwaving about "oh oh everyone knows it's not realistic".

            EVs will eventually take over, but it will be at a pace dictated by science, engineering, and economics not the pace of political grandstanding.

    • No they aren't. ICE is inefficient, even if fossil fuels were green. It takes 5x as much energy to propel a car with e-fuels than batteries and that's based on over optimistic estimates from the industry itself about its future technology.

    • It is neutral *today* if you ignore the decades we spent putting it out there in the first place which brought us to the situation we're in today.

      Looking for new ways to move around energy were we need it is smart; capturing carbon we already put out in the atmosphere is interesting tech; but if the goal is just to put it back out there while spending tons of energy to power this "neutral" loop, I'm not sure it's a solution to anything.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        It is neutral *today* if you ignore the decades we spent putting it out there in the first place which brought us to the situation we're in today.

        EVs do not remedy the situation either. Actually the externalities of large scale EV use is not well known - its too new, and the infrastructure certainly isn't there. Whether it is production and distribution of the new electrical power required or the charging infrastructure.

        Looking for new ways to move around energy were we need it is smart; capturing carbon we already put out in the atmosphere is interesting tech; ...

        And ICE with carbon neutral fuels prevents none of that. These are not mutually exclusive things.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by x0ra ( 1249540 )

      Germany is correct.

      No, Germany is not correct, never have been, never will be. They put forth policy at a time of cheap russian gas, and now, they're backpedaling as fast as they can because they industry is being threatened. Virtue is only good as long as it doesn't get a price tag. Germany sees nothing but its own interest.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        Germany is correct.

        No, Germany is not correct, never have been, never will be. They put forth policy at a time of cheap russian gas, and now, they're backpedaling as fast as they can because they industry is being threatened. Virtue is only good as long as it doesn't get a price tag. Germany sees nothing but its own interest.

        In other words reality intruded upon a political theatre. The 2035 ban was always going to change, whether pushed back or exception made, it was pretty much guaranteed. Power generation will not be ready, charging infrastructure will not be ready, EV vehicle prices will likely be relatively expensive. The externalities are still poorly understood, its all too new, for example the recently discovered cost issues discovered regarding battery replacements after minor traffic accidents.

        EVs will eventually ta

      • Germany HAD its own source of cheap safe and clean energy, but killed it for a purely political reason.

  • At that point, why not just run pure hydrogen? It's marginally more difficult to handle, but easier to produce than synfuels.

  • These are not FOSSIL fuels (Score:5, Insightful)

    by presidenteloco ( 659168 ) on Sunday March 26, 2023 @03:47PM (#63401073)
    A technicality, but important, for climate effect.

    Synthetic fuel does not come from buried carbon i.e. liquified "fossils".

    However I wonder if the loophole request is actually sneaky. That they are actually asking to permit ICE vehicles that are CAPABLE of running on synthetic fuel. But would actually run on whatever fuel was available. i.e. mostly still fossil fuel.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tri44id ( 576891 )

      âoeHowever I wonder if the loophole request is actually sneaky. That they are actually asking to permit ICE vehicles that are CAPABLE of running on synthetic fuel. But would actually run on whatever fuel was available. i.e. mostly still fossil fuel.â

      Indeed. For this to work, they need to make it difficult to fuel these exempt cars with fossil gasoline. When they removed lead from the fuel ecosystem in the US, they required that the fueling nozzles be changed to a smaller size, so that it was phy

      • A synfuel-only car could have a flat side on the filler pipe, or some similar measure.

        A small, but politically significant, number of users would still re-program the injectors (or re-jet the carburettors, whatever tech they use) to run on unicorn's blood (or some other politically unacceptable fuel) which they buy from wherever on the black market, and pour in through a funnel they hit with a hammer until it fits.

        Any lock that has a key, can have that key copied. A mass-produced lock intended to be , used

  • German car industry afraid of losing dominance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bubblyceiling ( 7940768 ) on Sunday March 26, 2023 @04:02PM (#63401117)
    The main advantage of EVs is that one can use whatever to make electricity. No need to depend on monopoly of oil or fuel providers. True energy independence.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      The main advantage of EVs is that one can use whatever to make electricity. No need to depend on monopoly of oil or fuel providers. True energy independence.

      But the vast majority of people are charging EVs from the local utility power. So it's actually worse, as you only have one commercial power company verses multiple oil companies with gas stations in your area.

  • Self-defeating loophole (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Sunday March 26, 2023 @04:04PM (#63401127)

    The cost of production of e-fuels alone will make them a non-starter. Right now EVs are already a cost conscious option for lifetime operation (though with a higher upfront cost). Imagine with the already dramatic petrol price being 3x higher. That's what the e-fuel market will be. ... If you can call it a market, market economies of scale do not typically favour single laggard suppliers.

    • Except this loophole is not *really* about e-fuels. It is about Germany getting its foot in the door, so that it can still produce ICE cars after 2035 (I am not debating whether 2035 was a realistic date in the first place). Today, there are saying "we will only allow new ICE that can only consume e-fuels". Tomorrow, it will change to "we will only allow ICE that can consume e-fuels or fossil fuels".

      The annoying thing, is that up until a few weeks ago, they were agreeing to this change, and only reversed co

  • You pull in to a gas station and put normal gas in a new car. What is gas station going to do?
    A. Siphon out the fuel?
    B. Take you money?
    It is going to be 'B' every time making this ruling completely point. Basically this Germany's big FU to going clean.

    The only consolation here is market economic make outlawing ICEV pointless on 2035 time frame. This year is seeing some BEVs dropping in cost below equivalent ICEV, the start of a tipping point that makes synthetic fuels of little significance.

    • If you had better reading comprehension, you would understand that there never was a ban on ICE vehicles in 2035.

      There is a ban on the sale of new ICE vehicles.

    • This year is seeing some BEVs dropping in cost below equivalent ICEV, the start of a tipping point that makes synthetic fuels of little significance.

      Yeah, it is also the Year of Linux on the Desktop.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        Apple, oranges. You're making a false comparison. Think CRT vs LCDs.

        Given the choice most people, outside the USA, will chose a car that is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, cheaper to service, if does the job they need. Before you say that BEVs will never be any good for you because you have 1000mile daily commute, up hill both ways, I would point out this is about Europe where they buy cars to suit real needs, not theoretical ones.

        Try looking at the price today for a BYD Atto 3 or MG ZS. That is b

        • Apple, oranges. You're making a false comparison. Think CRT vs LCDs. Given the choice most people, outside the USA, will chose a car that is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, cheaper to service, if does the job they need.

          Yes, and guess what, despite heavy subsidies on EVs, tax coercion, oppressive laws and so on, most people here (in Europe) still buy ICE. Guess they're not as economical as you think after all.

          Before you say that BEVs will never be any good for you because you have 1000mile daily commute, up hill both ways, I would point out this is about Europe where they buy cars to suit real needs, not theoretical ones.

          Okay, let me tell you how this works in actual, you know, real reality, in Europe. Citation: I do own a PHEV (that I didn't choose for myself but inherited, gift horse, etc.), I live in Europe, so I know what I'm talking about. Ready?

          I, like most Europeans do not live in a separate house but in a block of flats. Shar

  • How do they propose to tell the difference between cars burning carbon capture propane and cars burning propane coming from that hyper efficient "carbon capture" plant situated over a well? Personally, I'd rather see 'em synthesize powerpaste [wikipedia.org] and run fuel cells.

    • You can simply cap the amount of fossil propane petrol stations get access to and let supply and demand take care of the rest. Because the LPG market starts small and has to grow, you can use different policy measures.

      Restricting non renewable petrol would immediately piss off the majority as prices increase, which is a problem for politicians. Pissing off some LPG drivers, ehh.

      • Or rather than a hard cap, just put ridiculous CO2 emission fees on any fossil LPG over the cap. Make fossil LPG over the cap say 2x as expensive through emission fees, that will quickly provide some financial incentives.

  • What is the Glock, SIG and AR in Texas, is the no speed limit on the Autobahn for Germans.

  • Humans tend to rush headlong into exciting new realms, often (always) forgetting common sense safety measures. We did it in Henry Ford's day and here we are welcoming AI chatbots, with no thought for where it will take us. Just as after many decades of internet, security is still an afterthought even for governments and big corporations.

    Before we commit to nearly 100% electric vehicles let's ask ourselves what might go wrong.

    Here's one thing: a Carrington Event. A nasty solar electric storm that wipes out t

  • Why ban petrol cars in the first place? Simply allow the market to operate. At the moment, driving an electric car is cheaper than driving a petrol car, and they have better acceleration, and petrol is only going to get more expensive. Good luck towing your boat/trailer/caravan with an electric car though.
  • I did comprehend that, it appears you didn't comprehended what I wrote. The new car sales point was implied as it was secondary to what I was addressing and doesn't change the point I was making.

  • Perspective of a German (Score:5, Informative)

    by djgl ( 6202552 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @12:32AM (#63402359)

    Our government is a coalition of three parties. This was a stunt of our transport minister, who is part of the smallest party of these three. It was not agreed among the three parties and led to openly expressed anger, especially from the bigger green party.

    An agreement between the EU and our transport minister has been signed on Friday. Combustion engines are no longer ruled out, but the fuel must be carbon neutral, e.g. synthetic fuels, hydrogen, biogas.

    We are aware that the production of synthetic fuel needs too much energy to make it financially attractive for use as fuel in cars.
    It has also been pointed out in the press that the estimated production volume in future years is too small to leave any synthetic fuel after planes, ships, and factories who need the energy density of synthetic fuel were satisfied.

    Nobody believes people will buy cars that rely on synthetic fuel.

  • Die in a snowstorm (Score:3)

    by Canberra1 ( 3475749 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @07:13AM (#63402798)
    If you live in a remote place, not near a city. There is a mega snow even, ice. Your suburban car battery will die real soon if you have the heating on. What if snow breaks the powerlines? Freezing to death is not very nice. On the crazy side, why not make firetrucks for fighting bushfires electric. I hear lithium burns really good. In Alaska, a pickup truck with an extra fuel tank, and a light plane are normal.

  • I don't mind it (Score:3)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday March 27, 2023 @09:18AM (#63403152)

    EVs will work for most, but they won't work for everyone.

    Sure the process for making synthetic fuel is currently very inefficient, but so are EVs in certain edge cases. If you don't allow manufacturers to build new ones there's going to be a lot of garages who specialize in "refurbishing" used ICEs to be like new for those folks.

    Which does bring up another interesting question. For the ICE cars that are still on the road in 2035, do we want them running inefficiently produced synthetic fuel or ordinary fossil fuels?

Slashdot Top Deals

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close