Facebook Instagram Linkedin

Why the meta-study "E-fuels and their limits" falls short methodologically

Contents

The factsheet published by the Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft (FÖS) entitled “E-fuels and their limits – no alternative to the end of the combustion engine” has recently been cited as proof that synthetic fuels are largely unsuitable for passenger car transportation.

Although the study does concede that eFuels are indispensable in aviation and shipping, it gives the impression that they are virtually useless in the passenger car sector. However, it is precisely this view that needs to be questioned. A closer look reveals clear methodological weaknesses and very narrow assumptions that unilaterally minimize the role of eFuels in the passenger car sector. The UNITI Bundesverband EnergieMittelstand e.V., the Bft and Dr. Ulrich Kramer (head of the FVV Fuel Studies III, IV and IVb) also come to this conclusion.

The following overview highlights key points of criticism of the study and shows why it wrongly devalues eFuels in many respects.

Incorrect basic assumption about production in Germany

The study is mostly based on scenarios in which eFuels would be produced directly in Germany – where electricity prices are high and renewable resources are limited in many regions. This assumption distorts the result.

This is because eFuels are to be produced primarily in sunny and windy regions (e.g. desert regions, Patagonia). Green electricity is inexpensive and available in large quantities there.

Calculating

Global perspective: By only looking at the German market, we are underestimating the enormous global potential. According to the Fraunhofer IEE’s PtX Atlas, up to 87,000 TWh of eFuels could be produced each year – significantly more than the study suggests. In addition to the volumes assumed by Fraunhofer IEE, there is further production potential in other attractive regions within Europe (e.g. Spain, Italy, Scandinavia) that has not yet been taken into account.

The 54,800 TWh stated in the FÖS paper therefore appears to be too low. However, the global potential for solar and wind energy is far greater than the study suggests. Solar radiation alone exceeds the current energy demand many times over. This means that the supply of eFuels is also significantly higher than the factsheet suggests – even if only a fraction of the potential locations were effectively used.

Efficient production routes: In addition to the frequently mentioned Fischer-Tropsch process, eFuels can also be produced via the so-called methanol route using the methanol-to-gasoline (MtG) process. In this process, green methanol is first produced in sunny and windy regions with very low electricity production costs. In the next step, the so-called eMethanol is processed into eFuels. This second process step requires very little energy and can take place in Germany. The MtG process is therefore an approach that makes efficient use of the global potential of renewable resources.

Anyone who calculates eFuels as if they were produced in "expensive" Germany will inevitably arrive at a false picture of costs and efficiency.

One-sided scenarios for the passenger car sector

A second methodological weakness lies in the fact that scenarios are used that in fact anticipate an almost complete electrification of the passenger car fleet. This distorts the presentation in several respects:

  1. Existing vehicle fleet: In the EU alone, there are several hundred million combustion engines in the fleet. Replacing these in a short space of time is cost-intensive and not realistic for many consumers.
  2. Political and economic framework conditions: The study assumes an enormous pace in the expansion of the charging infrastructure and in purchasing behavior. In fact, other studies assume significantly slower conversion rates – especially in rural areas and financially disadvantaged households.
  3. Assumption of an unrealistically slow ramp-up of production capacities for eFuels: At the same time, the study underestimates how quickly production capacities for eFuels can be ramped up worldwide as soon as open-technology legislation and corresponding investment security are in place. Instead, the FÖS paper assumes that the legal framework conditions for eFuels will remain poor without taking into account the results of the FVV Fuels Study IVb (2022).
  4. Infrastructure for electromobility overestimated: The development of the electricity infrastructure (grid expansion, buffer capacities, charging points) for electric vehicles by 2050 tends to be overly optimistic in this meta-study. The need for electricity storage systems to provide charging power during dark doldrums is completely neglected in the FÖS assumptions. See also statement on the meta-study “Factsheet: E-fuels and their limits – no alternative to the combustion engine phase-out”, commentary by Dr. Ulrich Kramer, head of the FVV Fuel Studies III, IV and IVb.

As long as there is a large number of combustion engines, eFuels are an important lever for making them more climate-friendly.
The FÖS paper almost completely ignores this point.

Ignored synergy effects during ramp-up

Although the study itself initially states that eFuels are indispensable in air and sea transport, in the later passages, which deal specifically with production, costs and available quantities, it focuses heavily on passenger car transport. There, eFuels are usually devalued as inefficient or not available in time. This results in the following methodological gaps:

  1. Focus on individual sector analysis: The study assesses whether enough eFuels can be produced for passenger cars and comes to the conclusion that the quantities would not be sufficient. The fact that large-scale eFuels projects for aviation and shipping are planned at the same time (which are “indispensable” according to the study) is methodically ignored. This gives the impression that the demand for passenger cars can be considered separately from other sectors.
  2. Lack of focus on shared plants and infrastructure: If large eFuels plants for aviation are built in a region or country, these plants can also produce fuels for other applications (e.g. shipping, cars, chemical industry). Such bundling enables economies of scale (lower production costs per liter) instead of operating several small, isolated plants for just one sector.
  3. Lack of learning curves due to sector coupling: The decisive cost-cutting effect of new technologies occurs when production and demand grow simultaneously (so-called learning curves). A large, cross-sector “eFuels market” (aviation, shipping, road transport, industry) accelerates this effect, reduces unit costs and improves profitability much faster than if eFuels were only used in some sectors. Here you will find further information on the topics of co-products and integrated processes.
  4. Technology mix is not taken into account: In addition, various studies show that a technology mix in which both battery-powered vehicles and eFuels are used can achieve a faster and significantly greater reduction in CO2 emissions over the overall period than a pure focus on electromobility.

A purely "car-centric" view underestimates the positive effect that a broad, cross-sectoral use of eFuels can have on costs and availability.

Insufficient consideration of costs and efficiency

One of the core arguments of the factsheet is that eFuels will not be available in sufficient quantities and at reasonable prices in the foreseeable future. However, the study overlooks the following points:

  1. Green surplus electricity: Especially in regions with constantly high solar or wind generation (deserts, offshore wind farms), large surpluses of renewable energy can occur at times. This energy would be unused without conversion. eFuels store it and make it usable worldwide. Efficiency alone is not sufficient as an evaluation metric if energy would otherwise lie idle. Instead of calculating the “efficiency” of the end product, we should look at the input electricity, which would otherwise remain unused.
  2. Long-term storage: eFuels can be stored over long periods of time without loss and transported over long distances – an advantage that battery electric storage systems cannot offer to the same extent.
  3. Cost forecasts: The study often quotes prices of over 3.50 euros/liter of eFuel. More recent studies (e.g. Frontier Economics, 2025) assume significantly lower production costs as soon as plants are running on a large scale and politicians do not unilaterally promote only electromobility.
  4. Wrong conclusion when comparing costs: In the FÖS meta-study, the excessively high price of 3.50 euros/liter is compared with a current price for fossil fuel of 2 euros/liter, whereby fossil fuel is not suitable as a “comparison product” according to the climate targets for 2045. The comparison of mobility costs between battery-electric vehicles and e-fuel vehicles, on the other hand, is presented in the meta-study in a highly embellished way in favor of electromobility – a mix of vehicle costs and operating costs with unrealistic and unbalanced tax burdens is used as a basis, which does not stand up to a differentiated analysis.
  5. Economies of scale: The development of other green technologies (e.g. photovoltaics) shows how quickly manufacturing capacities can grow. Even if the ramp-up takes time, it is realistic that production costs will fall significantly as capacity increases. The study draws a comparison with established structures in the fossil fuel industry instead of considering scenarios in which eFuels are specifically promoted and scaled up.

In addition, pure cost comparisons often assume that fossil fuels will remain cheap in the long term. In a truly climate-neutral energy system, however, fossil fuels would become massively more expensive or be removed from the market altogether. The significantly higher acquisition costs for e-vehicles and the expensive expansion of the electricity grids are also barely mentioned in the FÖS paper – even though they are crucial for the overall assessment.

Simply calculating efficiency is not enough when you consider infrastructure, storage, global surplus electricity and the existence of millions of existing vehicles.

Environmental protection and mobility in rural areas: study assumptions fall short

The study portrays eFuels as inefficient and harmful to the climate and health compared to battery electric cars. However, these conclusions are too short-sighted in many respects:

  • Resource and environmental balance: Battery electric vehicles also require considerable resources (lithium, nickel, cobalt) and need a dense charging network. Synthetic fuels avoid a massive conversion of existing infrastructure. It also shows that modern eFuels with optimized combustion technology can cause significantly lower local pollutant emissions than the factsheet suggests.
  • Misleading conclusions on ADAC results: Although the study refers to ADAC data, it does not go into how the engines were tuned or which exhaust gas aftertreatments were used. ADAC tests showed significantly lower pollutant emissions in appropriately adapted vehicles than conventional combustion engines. However, such details are omitted and convey a distorted picture.
  • Particle emissions due to tire abrasion are not taken into account: In addition, the weight of modern battery vehicles is often higher than that of combustion engines, which can lead to increased tire wear and more particulate emissions. In rural areas with a high proportion of driving on country roads and highways, particulate pollution could potentially increase more than the study suggests.
  • The study often only compares a new e-car with a newly produced e-fuel combustion vehicle. In reality, however, hundreds of millions of combustion vehicles already exist. With eFuels, this stock can be operated quickly and in a climate-friendly way. This is an important advantage, especially for people who cannot immediately afford an e-car or have inadequate access to charging points.
  • Existing infrastructure saves effort and costs: unlike electromobility, no completely new charging and supply structure needs to be created for eFuels. Thanks to existing filling station networks, transportation options and proven technology, eFuels can be quickly integrated into the existing infrastructure, which offers an immediate and cost-effective alternative, especially in rural regions.

A pure comparison of efficiency or emissions per vehicle ignores the bigger picture. For example, eFuels are by no means "harmful to the environment and health" across the board, but rather an important part of sustainable mobility - especially where battery electric solutions are currently reaching their limits or the vehicle fleet cannot be replaced quickly.

Conclusion: Why the study falls short and eFuels should be considered further

It is obvious that the paper does not offer a truly differentiated overall view of the topic of eFuels. The factsheet “E-fuels and their limits – no alternative to the combustion engine phase-out” focuses heavily on scenarios in which e-fuels can only play a limited role, while other, more realistic ramp-up scenarios are barely considered. At the same time, there is a lack of comprehensive embedding in the global market development and the possible synergy effects with other Power-to-X applications. Individual core statements (e.g. on the importance of a massive expansion of renewable energies) are certainly correct, but fall short if eFuels are only presented as a niche solution.
Various studies on technology mix scenarios also suggest that a clever combination of e-mobility and eFuels can significantly reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions compared to purely battery-powered mobility – in some cases by up to 40 %. The prerequisite for this is funding that is open to all technologies and does not block the rapid ramp-up of eFuels. The question of how tax losses due to the loss of fossil fuels will be compensated for in the future must also be clarified, as this problem applies equally to e-mobility and eFuels.

In this respect, the factsheet can be described as methodologically incomplete and biased in some places. A thorough, data-based analysis would include a broader selection of sources, realistic ramp-up scenarios and a holistic view (including synergies, learning curves and global projects).

Overall, this factsheet can be described as methodologically incomplete and in some places biased.

A thorough, data-based analysis would include a broader selection of sources, realistic ramp-up scenarios and a holistic view (including synergies, learning curves and global projects). It is therefore worth critically questioning supposedly “conclusive” judgments about eFuels and relying on a fact-based, open analysis. This is the only way to avoid being misled by incomplete arguments and to recognize the real potential of synthetic fuels for a sustainable future.

Sources:

Newsletter subscription

Data protection (mandatory field)*
 

Notes on data protection

Our free newsletter informs you regularly by e-mail about product news and special promotions. The data you enter here will only be used to personalize the newsletter and will not be passed on to third parties. You can unsubscribe from the newsletter or revoke your consent at any time by emailing . Your data will be deleted within 2 months after termination of the newsletter receipt, provided that the deletion does not conflict with any legal retention obligations. By sending the data you have entered, you consent to the data processing and confirm our privacy policy.

We will be happy to answer all your questions.

“CO2-neutral“ at eFuels – what exactly does that mean?

Image sources: Photo by Artem Verbo on Unsplash, Photo byMilan Popovic on Unsplash, Photo by Tasos Mansour on Unsplash, Photo by Anthony Tori on Unsplash

What do our advertising terms mean