Share post with someone:

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on whatsapp
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on email

10 comments on “E-mobility, hydrogen or biofuels?”

  1. Many thanks to Mr. Ahlers for this comprehensive guest article. This time to the three technological candidates for the energy transition in the mobility sector. A fair look at the strengths and weaknesses of e-mobility, hydrogen and biofuels (alcohols). As usual, critical and with an interesting perspective on past decades energy policy. Thank you also for the open indication of the conflicts (in the best case development potential), which show all three approaches across the entire value chain.

    With all justified criticism of the alternatives, we must not forget that we need alternatives. You mentioned the problems of fossil diesel. Not only to finally break the lethargy in climate protection in the mobility sector, but also to be prepared for the post-fossil era. A direct policy approach that has been around for some time is the update of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II). Some pressure can be built up here by further increasing the mandatory quotas for low-carbon fuels.

    In the short and medium term, a colorful mix of second generation biofuels can cost-effectively reduce our carbon footprint in the mobility sector. In the long term, we can look forward to the strengths of e-mobility, green hydrogen (fuel cells) and third-generation biofuels.

  2. Finally someone who reports on facts and not on fancies and wishful thinking.
    The media should finally stop reporting only on lobbyists' interests, then we would reach the zero CO2 target by 2050 much faster.
    Dr. Tanner
    CH train

  3. H. Moddemann

    Basically, they are right. The production of rapeseed and grain, corn, food still have priority, or more on their side; Seaweed such as cyano bacteria can be used without restriction.
    They have up to 43% lipids and 25% proteins. They will be doubled in 2 hours.
    Regards
    H. Moddemann
    EUKLIT GmbH

  4. Bernd Ahlers

    In addition to H. Moddemann's contribution, grain, maize and Co end up in the feed troughs of the meat industry at around 2 billion tons annually. The usable proportion for animal fattening is just 10 to 12 percent. The vast majority (“rest”) passes uselessly through the digestive tract of the farm animals. Over 78 percent of the ingredients, the layperson speaks of waste, could thus be used to convert 660 billion liters of bioethanol and 520 million tons of biological carbon dioxide for the food industry. Yearly! Without additionally using a single square meter of agricultural area!

    PS: The total European (EU 28) petrol and diesel consumption in 2019 was just under 350 billion liters.

  5. We can reduce methane without any problems, we only have to do without meat, butter, cheese, milk, yoghurt, eggs, meat, shoes and the like.
    Unfortunately, people don't want to miss hamburgers and Co. People in Germany alone eat 65 kg of meat / head / year.

    13 million cattle, 6 million sheep, 25 million pigs and 120 million chickens are found in Germany alone and supply us with their products.

    In short: abolishing cattle = much, much less methane = much better for the environment.

    And when we run out of cattle, 60 percent of the agricultural land used today, which is used only for cattle as pasture and for the cultivation of animal feed, is available for growing food.

    Sorry, we don't need more agricultural land for growing food. So much that the industrialized nations throw 20 billion tons into the trash every year.

    And if we still manage not to throw away any more food and produce it for the garbage can, more agricultural land will become free and we will save tons of GHGs because there is no need for cultivation, transport, processing and storage. That would be a step in the right direction.

  6. There is no other way than electrification to transport.
    The manufacturers have long understood this and the broad market is following suit.
    PS The BlombergNEF sees the share of electric cars by 2040 at over 60%.

    No study can help against this, the alleged advantages of biofuels, nicely talked about.

    Here the Source.

  7. Here is the link to BloombergNEF and the Energy Outlook. As a bioenergy enthusiast, it's great to see that biogas in addition to fuel cells and CCS was added as a new category.

    @time I think the article shows quite nicely that no technology is "nicely talked", but constructive and open solution approaches are discussed.

  8. I would like to ask Mr. TIME if he has any idea how much PV and wind energy still has to be built to "electrify the transport"?
    In 2018, 198 TWh of "green electricity" was fed in, the energy consumption in road traffic was 710 TWh.
    The fact that the manufacturers get involved in the market is also due to the enormous amount of funding they receive from us tax figures.

    Studies really can't do anything nice, but basic math skills might help.

  9. Tomorrow's traffic will be like a bouquet - there will be something for everyone and every application - and biofuels will be a flower in the bouquet. This flower may be a little smaller than the other flowers, but not less important. That is exactly why I recently founded a startup that supports transport companies in choosing the right flower. The choice is and will become increasingly difficult, especially in road freight transport. In addition to the classic diesel truck, gas truck (CNG, LNG), biogas truck (CBG, LBG), biofuel truck (bioethanol, HVO), electric truck, (electric) retrofit truck, Hybrid trucks and soon hydrogen trucks will be added. Uff, which truck should a transport company choose next - which one today, tomorrow and the day after? Depending on who you ask, you always get a different flowery answer.
    Greetings AR from Camideos

Post a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.

This website uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn more about how your comment data is processed.

Deutsch English
X