Expert opinions on the discussion paper "Lower Saxony and e-fuels" by the Borderstep Institute

Key statements from the opinions of Dr. Ulrich Kramer and Dr.-Ing:

Dr. Ulrich Kramer:

• “The switch to electromobility costs three times as much as the switch to e-fuels when fully and realistically considered in terms of costs.”
• “The consumer-relevant mobility costs (vehicle depreciation plus energy costs) for the driver of an electric vehicle are almost 20 % higher than the costs that the driver of a vehicle with a combustion engine and e-fuel has to pay.”
• “Only by switching to electromobility will it be impossible for us to drive greenhouse gas (GHG)-neutral cars in 2050.”
• Under optimal technology-open legal framework conditions and sustainability rules (…) we could already be driving climate-neutral (i.e. GHG-neutral) cars throughout Europe before 20402. Such a scenario would require the use of large quantities of e-fuels.”
• “Without significant imports of “green molecules” (e-hydrogen, e-fuels), the energy transition is impossible.  It is therefore necessary to carefully consider where in the energy system imported energy is used in such a way that no conversion losses occur.”
• “Therefore, the achievable expansion rate of GHG-neutral mobility paths (and not the choice of drive technology) is of fundamental importance in order to achieve the climate targets.”
• “With an ideal technology mix, GHG-neutral European mobility can be achieved before 2040, while with a scenario that focuses exclusively on the one technology “battery electric vehicles”, GHG neutrality cannot be achieved by 2050 due to technical bottlenecks.” 
  
  

Dr.-Ing. Olaf Toedter:

• “Sales of battery electric vehicles cannot be attributed to the elimination of a subsidy alone and must be differentiated. The significant slump in the number of new registrations can be observed throughout the EU wherever subsidies for company cars or private cars are discontinued or saturation of sales to first-time buyers is reached. In countries with lower incomes.”
• “The stated consumptions of battery electric vehicles are so-called WLTC consumptions and thus exclude climatic influences (significantly lower capacities and additional heat demand in winter, air conditioning in summer) as well as fast charging losses. In order to carry out a real comparison of consumption, all consumptions included in the system framework (auxiliary aggregates, air conditioning, heating, etc.) must be included.”
• “The cited early deaths from pollutant emissions are based on a mathematical view of the EEA that is not generally accepted in the scientific community. Scientific publications by physicians and toxicologists have refuted these results. The consideration of epidemiological studies based on data from the time of sulphur-containing fuels is not suitable for rejecting such statements. Since even hot spot measuring points such as Stuttgart Neckator have fallen below the immission limit values, such considerations have not been a topic of development. The consequences of health costs stated here are therefore obsolete.”
• “In the countries with large solar energy potential, for example electricity costs of around 1ct/kWh have been reported11 , which differs by factors from local electricity costs. It is often assumed that the costs of demonstration plants are based on large-scale plants, which significantly inflates prices, as do the costs of electrolysers, which are not up to date.”
• “The further development of Li batteries has not taken place as predicted in the 2022 and 2023 meta-studies. Research into alternatives to lithium-ion batteries is currently the focus of battery research, but will not influence the costs and the cost comparison considered in the discussion paper in the foreseeable future.”