The salvation of the internal combustion engine?

The salvation of the internal combustion engine?

It is in the nature of things that oil companies do not want to bury the internal combustion engine. But as Liqui Moly's former managing director Ernst Prost (see page 36) says: eleven billion combustion engines worldwide versus ten million vehicles with electric motors is quite a number. If you take the idea of ​​sustainability further, you have to openly ask yourself the question: Is it sensible and sustainable to shut down relatively radically, possibly billions of vehicles - which obviously still work well - just because of their drive? In the best case scenario, they can be highly recycled, but only if it is worthwhile, i.e. if it brings money into some coffers. Or wouldn't it perhaps make more sense, especially in the short and medium term, to make these combustion vehicles as ecological as possible? First of all: Research teams around the world are asking themselves these questions - with different results and forecasts. So we won't be able to give a final answer here. But in the Diary of Change we want to look at the mobility transition from different perspectives and remain non-judgmental. An alternative is called e-fuels – synthetic fuels whose environmental impact is ideally zero. 
 

The DAT report shows that only eight percent of those surveyed know what e-fuels are. In other words: 92 percent have no idea what that means. This is frightening, because e-fuels could, in theory, make combustion engines carbon neutral in terms of their CO2 balance. How does that work? Theoretically simple: synthetic hydrocarbon fuels can be produced from hydrogen and CO2 (ideally from the atmosphere). However, enormous amounts of electricity are required to produce hydrogen. If this is obtained from renewable energies (e.g. hydropower, wind or solar energy), the production of e-fuels would be climate-neutral. If you then burn this, the amount of CO2 previously used for synthesis is released again, resulting in a neutral CO2 balance. The sticking point at the moment: A liter of e-fuel costs around ten euros and there are no large quantities. Porsche is quite innovative in this area and has already announced that the iconic 911 sports car will run on e-fuels in the future. In order to realize this idea, the sports car manufacturer is currently building an e-fuel plant in Chile together with Siemens Energy, where the synthetic fuel will be produced using wind power. Due to economies of scale - i.e. larger production quantities - the price per liter is expected to fall to the level of current fossil fuel prices in the next few years. 
 

For many fans of combustion engines, e-fuels could be the solution: fill up with gas, enjoy combustion engines without a guilty conscience and, if necessary, only spend a few euros more. Unfortunately, that may only be half the truth. Because yes, ideally produced e-fuels would actually be CO2-neutral, could use the current gas station network and fuel current vehicles. But when it comes to emissions, there is not only CO2, but also nitrogen oxides (NOx), which pollute people and the environment. The French research institute IFP Énergies nouvelles (IFPEN) investigated exactly this and ran a commercially available Mercedes A180 with a gasoline engine and gasoline particle filter once with E-Fules and once with premium gasoline (E10) and compared the pollutant emissions. The focus was on nitrogen oxides - and their amounts were practically exactly the same, both in the laboratory and in real operation on the road. Auto, Motor und Sport made a similar comparison with two Porsche 911s: identical cars, one powered by Super Plus 98 and the other powered by e-fuels - the synthetic fuel that is to be produced at the plant in Chile. The result: consumption was higher with e-fuel, as were carbon monoxide emissions, and there were hardly any differences in NOx emissions (nitrogen oxide emissions were only slightly better with the e-fuel Carrera at 130 km/h on the motorway). What does that mean exactly? E-fuels certainly have potential. But it will take many years before they can be produced in such quantities that they can move the mass in a CO2-neutral manner. And it is questionable whether it would be better to charge the (green) electricity for e-fuel production straight into batteries. But science ultimately has to clarify that. (red)