Why are e-fuels not as big as electric cars?
In one sense, it seems logical to pursue synthetic fuels as opposed to electric vehicles (EVs). After all, we had have a global refuelling network in placefor more than 100 years to deliver liquid fuels to cars and trucks. So, if we can make synthetic fuels, or e-fuels, that have little-to-no environmental impact, then surely that’s a better, simpler solution than trying to get everyone running on batteries?
Alas, it’s never that simple and there’s some heavy-going maths that still points to fully electric as being the best solution overall. The car industry’s plans to create carbon-neutral so-called e-fuels have been rubbished by influential eco think-tank Transport & Environment (T & E). The Brussels-based lobbying group has estimated that by 2035 there would only be enough capacity to supply e-fuel for 2 two per cent of the cars on the road.
What is an e-fuel anyway?
Essentially, it’s a liquid hydrocarbon made by combining carbon taken from the atmosphere with hydrogen made from separating water into its constituent parts. The Fischer-Tropsh process then converts those two gases into a liquid which, with a bit of refining, becomes a form of petrol.
The idea behind such fuels is that because they extract carbon already in the atmosphere, they only return that carbon to the air when burned. Assuming that the manufacturing process uses renewable energy, the resulting fuel is then, in theory, carbon-neutral. Car makers from Porsche to Mazda have touted e-fuels as being a way to clean up existing combustion cars and to allow the creation of ‘clean’ petrol-engined models into the future.
Your EV questions answered: Do synthetic fuels make more sense than electric cars?
Your EV questions answered: How do plug-in hybrids work in practice and do they make sense for your pocket?
Are EVs more expensive to insure than other cars?
Your EV questions answered: Will the battery pack get damaged if the bottom my EV hits off a speed bump or a rock?
So are carmakers using them?
Porsche has already begun small-scale production of e-fuels for use in some of its racing cars, and is – with Siemens – investing in an e-fuels plant based in Chile. Formula One has said that from 2026, all of the racing cars involved in that series will run on e-fuels or other forms of renewable fuel.
Is there a but?
Yes. T & E says that predictions of e-fuels riding to the rescue of combustion engines is rubbish, and that the petroleum industry’s own figures prove it to be so. “The production of e-fuels, which are chemically similar to petrol and diesel, will still be in its infancy by the time of Europe’s planned phase-out of sales of internal combustion cars,” the group said. It reckons just five million cars out of the EU’s projected fleet of 287 million could fully run on synthetic fuel in 2035. T & E said e-fuels in cars are a Trojan Horse for oil companies and engine-makers to delay the transition to zero emission technologies. It called on EU lawmakers to resist industry pressure for an e-fuels loophole in the phase-out rules” Yoann Gimbert, e-mobility analyst at T & E, said. “E-fuels are presented as a carbon-neutral way to prolong the life of combustion engine technology. But the industry’s own data shows there will only be enough for a tiny fraction of cars on the road. Lawmakers should close the door to this Trojan Horse for the fossil fuel industry.”
[ Are EVs more expensive to insure than other cars?Opens in new window ]
What about the data?
T&E also claims that the background figures for e-fuels are muddled, and that it’s not clear whether or not carbon capture from polluting industry is involved, nor which producers will actually be able to make the fuels with truly 100 per cent renewable electricity. The lobby group also noted that e-fuels have been shown to be more polluting in an air-quality sense than ‘normal’ petrol, that they would be far more expensive to run than an electric car, and that they would drive up demand for electricity by around 36 per cent over and above the increased demand for electric vehicles.
What about using e-fuels alongside electrification?
One proponent of e-fuels continues to claim that they’re a useful adjunct to vehicle electrification. Oliver Blume has just taken over one of the biggest jobs in motoring, as the new chair of the Volkswagen Group board. Before ascending to the top job, Blume was the chief executive of Porsche, and was one of the driving forces of that company’s move into e-fuels.
“Climate protection has to be seen holistically. That’s why we need to be open in terms of technology. Electromobility is an important track. At the same time, there are more than a billion existing vehicles worldwide. They will be on the roads for decades to come. E-fuels are an effective, complementary solution in this regard. They can enable all vehicles to play a role in reducing CO2 – regardless of the power-train type. Combustion engines can be powered with e-fuels in a virtually carbon-neutral manner. They don’t have to be converted or retrofitted for it. E-fuels can be offered as an admixture or alone at all filling stations. We have to offer an option to the owners of existing vehicles too,” Blume said when discussing e-fuels. “If produced on an industrial scale, prices of less than $2 per litre could be possible. The important thing is that synthetic fuels are produced sustainably and in places in the world where renewable energy is abundant – then the higher energy input for production is irrelevant.”
Blume’s defence of e-fuels may well fall on deaf ears, however. EU authorities have chosen not to incorporate e-fuels into official future plans. Only a last-ditch effort by the German government succeeded in having e-fuels kept on the table as a possible route to decarbonising transport. The European Commission is due to deliver a report by 2026 on whether e-fuels will be worth the candle.
So where does this leave us?
Either way, car companies remain under fire for their environmental performance. T & E has accused car makers this week of deliberately underestimating their climate impact because most of a car’s emissions come from its use, not its construction or sale. T & E said: “Carmakers base their total reported emissions on a number of factors such as the average size of the vehicles, where the cars are driven and the lifespan of vehicles. Carmakers on the whole have used selective data to reach a lower figure. Toyota, for example, bases the lifetime average emissions of its vehicles on a scarcely believable 100,000 kilometres.” T & E’s estimates show that the Hyundai-Kia group is possibly the worst offender, underestimating its climate impact by as much as 116 per cent. Luca Bonaccorsi, director of sustainable finance at T & E, said: “For green investing to be effective, we need accurate data. Carmakers are trying to pull the wool over investors eyes by underreporting the lifetime emissions of their cars. This makes a mockery of carmakers’ green claims.”
Car makers have hit back, though with Oliver Zipse. BMW’s most senior executive and currently the president of industry representative body the ACEA, saying: “To be very clear: the automobile industry will fully contribute to the goal of a carbon-neutral Europe in 2050. But significant questions have not yet been answered, such as how Europe will ensure strategic access to the key raw materials for e-mobility. If the EU wants to be a pioneer of sustainable mobility, the availability of these materials must be secured. Otherwise, we will be threatened with new dependencies, as other economic regions have already positioned themselves at an early stage. Going forward, technology openness means that also hydrogen and other CO2-neutral fuels can play an important role in decarbonising.
