[RahulNagaraj]

The European Parliament recently gave in to Germany's & a few other countries' demands to exempt e-fuels from the upcoming 2035 ban on CO2-emitting vehicles. However, a new study claims that the energy-intensive production process of e-fuels could make them expensive and more detrimental to the environment.

As per reports, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) conducted a study which showed that e-fuels could cost up to 2.80 euros per litre (US$ 11.50 per gallon), which is 50% more expensive than their current petrol prices in Germany.



Since it is mostly high-end carmakers like Porsche & Ferrari who are trying to have e-fuels exempted from the EU's plans for the future, critics took the example of a Porsche Cayenne to explain the cost. As per reports, it would cost 210 euros (US$ 228) to fill a 75-litre fuel tank of a Porsche Cayenne once.

Critics further mention that due to the enormous energy required for production, along with the need to import it from abroad, e-fuels could become extremely expensive for everyday drivers. They argued that e-fuels would likely only help rich people to continue driving their performance cars. This undermines the proposed benefits of e-fuels - decarbonising the existing fleet of ICE-powered vehicles. Critics went on to state that while e-fuels could be used as a stop-gap to help lower emissions of vehicles already on the road, treating them as alternates to EVs could ultimately derail the continent's environmental goals.

Reports also stated that while e-fuels do have lower emissions when compared to traditional petrol and diesel fuel, their use in IC engines still leads to the production of CO2 and NO2.

Alex Keynes, Clean Vehicle Manager at Transport & Environment stated, "Ultimately, e-fuels will be no more than a niche solution for Porsche drivers."

Source: CarScoops

Link to Team-BHP news

[kiku007]

The critics have a point but synthetic fuels could one day become less expensive (NOT cheap). I don't think synthetic fuels will ever be priced similar to regular petrol.

I closely follow developments in the synthetic fuels space and the following two videos are very informative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyUiHafCdvM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUKN3m8wD2Q

[Siddj38]

When bringing in the fact of carbon emissions at the time of production and usage of E-fuel, shouldn't the carbon emission and disposal of batteries be alsp brought into the conversation?

This is not even touching the fact that a lot of countries (including ours) isn't really relying on green ways to produce the major chunk of electricity.

[SKC-auto]

Germany and Italy wanted to mention about efuels in EU ban only for local political reasons(both countries being run by the right). It's a known fact that e-fuels will be very costly and the environmental benefits are very less. The F1 and super rich can ship them from Chile, for the common man it's only EVs.

Originally Posted by Siddj38

When bringing in the fact of carbon emissions at the time of production and usage of E-fuel, shouldn't the carbon emission and disposal of batteries be alsp brought into the conversation?

This is not even touching the fact that a lot of countries (including ours) isn't really relying on green ways to produce the major chunk of electricity.

Yes, even after considering battery production, battery disposal and major chunk of electricity produced from coal, still current EVs are better than an ICE car.

We are currently spending lot of money into making more renewable energy, building newer battery recycling factories and bringing newer battery chemistries for better batteries which are even less detrimental to the environment than current battery chemistries.

[supermax]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

The F1 and super rich can ship them from Chile, for the common man it's only EVs.

EVs are still nowhere near being cost effective for the common man. I'll totally accept that exotic fuels are beyond the reach of the common masses, but so too are EVs. Despite their lower cost per kilometer in pure running costs, these costs translate to lower ownership costs only if you drive a lot. I have a friend who commutes 100 km every single day, and for her, it's a great fit, as the one way drive is only 50 km, allowing her to drive both ways easily on a single charge. No range anxiety and very low running costs. However, the point to realize is that in European countries, insurance costs for EVs are super high. For my petrol estate, it costs around 4000 SEK for a full insurance while the insurance for EVs are around 15000 SEK. During the first three years of ownership for brand new cars, the climate tax for a petrol estate car like mine is around 4000 SEK and then it drops to around 800 SEK, for an EV, this is only around 400 SEK every year, including the first three years (no penalty), but the greatly higher insurance costs makes this gain also to disappear except on paper.

If one is not running for a heck a lot of miles every month, there's no way one saves money with EVs. For a common man who doesn't do more than 15000 km every year, there are no gains, but only the brunt of higher insurance and higher EMIs. The carrot in terms of climate bonus cashbacks for purchase/leases on EVs has also now been rescinded, making it even less enticing for the common man.

Much like exotic synthetic fuels, EVs too are for those who can pay a higher price for either the
a) joy of driving the latest and greatest EV with all fancy tech.
b) warm feeling that you are doing something for the environment.

For those who wish to save money but don't need to drive a lot, fuel efficient petrol cars are the solution, for at least a few more years.

[Jeroen]

In the west many people do worry about the price of fuel, just like in other countries, there are those for who petrol is a very scarce commodity based on price alone.

However, the cost of depreciation on new and relatively new second hand cars on an annual basis tends to be a lot more than the annual fuel bill for most.

Let’s take a very simple example. A Ford Fiesta in a pretty basic version wil cost you here in the Netherlands say euro 20000. Depreciation will be around euro 2500-3000 during the first five/six years. At about 10000 km/year

Fully comprehensive insurance about: euro 600 with a couple of years no claim
Roadtax: euro 450
Service: euro 300 plus new tires every 2-3 years

So the total cost of this car is around euro 4000-4500 per year without fuel

Our fiesta does 16 km to the liter. So based on an average of 10000 km per year we will be using 625 liters. Current price of euro 1,80 per liter. Suppose the Efauel cost euro 2,80 that means I can keep driving the Fiesta for an additional cost of euro 625. Which is about a 12-14% increase of my total annual cost.

Not that expensive. It is certainly a hell of lot cheaper than buying an EV!

The other thing is of course classic cars. The classic cars scene is huge in Europe and represents a huge number of dedicated companies and people working in this industry. As long as there is regular petrol classic car might be getting exemptions, or ideally also move to E fuels. Classic cars, on average in the EU drive about 1500-1600 km annually. So the price of fuel, within reason is not a big factor for most owner

Jeroen

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by supermax

for at least a few more years.

Very true, cannot say the same for e-fuels or Hydrogen for ever, because they are very ineffecient to produce.

With cars like VW2all (which costs same as a petrol VW Polo) launching in 2025 don't you think EVs are going to be affordable.

There are lot of EVs in China which have a starting prices of <$25K like Toyota BZ4X, BZ3(many more chinese models), even in US a Chevy bolt can be bought for $25K. In just 2 years EVs are as affordable as an ICE car in most price points.

For some reason you like comparing affordability of efuels which costs 10$ per litre with an EV, even though we do not have either the renewable energy or the money to produce them enough for all cars.

I don't want to sell you anything here, I am convinced EVs are the only future, people want to sell efuels, hydrogen but they cannot convince themselves about their future.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Suppose the Efauel cost euro 2,80 that means I can keep driving the Fiesta for an additional cost of euro 625. Which is about a 12-14% increase of my total annual cost.

But it currently costs more than 10$/litre, we need lots of renewable energy for carbon capture and producing H2 using electrolysis, then combining Carbon and Hydrogen also requires lots of energy. We need 40kwh of renewable energy just to make 1kg of H2.

[supermax]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

With cars like VW2all (which costs same as a petrol VW Polo) launching in 2025 don't you think EVs are going to be affordable.

The most expensive component in an EV is the battery, and sure, if you reduce the capacity, the prices come down. Range questions are relevant, but most discussions pooh-pooh it away.

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

For some reason you like comparing affordability of efuels which costs 10$ per litre with an EV

Except I've never done it, let alone like doing it. It was you who made a comparison, saying efuels were expensive while EVs were for the common man. I merely clarified that neither were for the common man. EVs are probably even further away from thr common man than efuels are. All my figures including insurance and tax figures were for regular petrol cars. EVs cost less to 'tank up' but are far, far more expensive unless you drive a huge number of miles. Period. Those who buy it thinking it's inexpensive to drive when they only run under 10000 km a year are just bad at math or are so excited about the EV that they have not even thought about anything other than the cost of charging versus a full tank of petrol.

[/quote]

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by supermax

EVs are probably even further away from thr common man than efuels are.

Those who buy it thinking it's inexpensive to drive when they only run under 10000 km a year are just bad at math

Petrol is now retailing at ~100₹/litre here, efuels are at 10$/litre in Chile, including shipping costs somehow if it is brought down to 5$/litre it still costs ~400₹/litre, because of lower energy density even if you get 10kmpl, that's 40₹/km, I have nothing more to discuss if you think a common man can pay 40₹/km.

What do you think people prefer in today's prices buying a 14lakh car(Nexon petrol) and running for 40₹/km or buying a 19lakh car(Nexon EV) and running at 1-3₹/km.

You can bring in 100 arguments against EVs, the bottom line is common man is buying Nexon EV, MGZS EV and taking them to road trip. Ask anyone on this forum whether they will go road trip at 40₹/km.

Since I don't know much about insurance costs in Sweden you can keep repeating the same argument which I have no idea, in India the insurance costs are almost same between ICE and EV. It is a fair to not charge road taxes because we don't have carbon taxes.

[supermax]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

I have nothing more to discuss if you think a common man can pay 40₹/km.

This is the second time in this thread that you are attributing to me things I've never claimed or implied, and that's not nice. I'm not trying to say that efuels are for the common man. I have not said a single thing in favor of efuels, or that they are appropriate for the common man. I've only said that EVs are not common man friendly as they are believed to be.

I have no issues with what the common man buys today. It's a free market. My point is that their buying decisions are not all that well thought out. Even if the insurance costs in India for EVs are not any different from that of ICE vehicles, the EMIs are much higher. Month after month. A typical common man buying an EV goes on a 2000 km road trip, putting up with additional anxiety and inconvenience of having to make multiple stops for recharging etc, and comes home thinking that he's saved so much more money than his neighbor who also came to the road trip with his ICE vehicle. And after that one road trip, he only does limited city driving month after month, while paying an EMI far in excess of his ICE owning neighbor. In this parable, the guy who saves more is the one who pays a much lower EMI. Think about the saving month after month; even a fixed deposit gives 7+ percent interest these days, so if you simply invest the balance money, it would appreciate even more, but I'm not even getting into that. Just taking the savings on the EMIs over the lifetime of the vehicle, when you are not doing thousands of kilometers of running month after month means that the ICE guy wins, even in India.

Now, coming to the insurance costs. Insurance actuaries are some of the most intelligent people, and they don't get things wrong. If in India EVs don't have a higher premium even for comprehensive insurance, it means that the insurance company isn't liable for all damages. In India, you only get a far reduced percentage on glass items, even lesser for plastics, and there's a lot of that in EVs. In Europe, apart from the minimum self risk, insurance companies need to pay in full for the repairs, or in the case of a write-off, pay the value after depreciation. Since EVs have much more expensive components, and the insurance companies don't get to refuse to pay for damage to plastics or glass, they opt instead to charge a higher premium.

PS: Of course it's possible that the common men who buy EVs have indeed done their homework; I'm sure several of them have exactly the right needs, and they do 20+k kilometers each year, and come out winning on the savings front, but the vast majority of people who fall for the EV glib-talk without doing the math, end up getting shafted, paying higher EMIs and never really recovering their higher cost of acquisition from their fuel saving vis a vis an ICE car.

[Hayek]

I think those comparing various technologies at current prices are guilty of making a couple of fundamental errors.

First, we don’t know what the technology price curve for various new technologies will be. Will battery prices and renewable energy prices follow a Moore’s law trajectory and decline with time? Or will these instead stagnate or even rise as people factor the cost of mining materials in a clean and sustainable manner?

What synthetic fuels will be developed tomorrow and how will they be made? How will the cost curve for producing them pan out compared to batteries?

The answer is we don’t know. What the Germans pushed for and got is technology neutrality in policy - viz don’t pick either batteries or e-fuels as a winner but let the market play out.

One other mistake people are making - comparing total cost of ownership for EVs in India at today’s on the road prices with those of ICE vehicles running synthetic fuels at today’s prices. Let’s recognise that EVs in India (and everywhere else) are subsidised today. No or low GST, production subsidies, lower registration costs, state subsidies etc. This is not sustainable in the long run - ultimately, taxes on the vehicle will need to be similar for EVs and non polluting ICE vehicles. And taxes on polluting fuels (high today in India) and polluting fuels for electricity generation (not so high) will need to be similar.

When all this pans out in the next decade or two, relative economics could look very different.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by supermax

Much like exotic synthetic fuels, EVs too are for those who can pay a higher price for either the.

So, you are not comparing EVs with exotic synthetic fuels.

Originally Posted by supermax

Except I've never done it, let alone like doing it. It was you who made a comparison, saying efuels were expensive while EVs were for the common man.

EVs are probably even further away from thr common man than efuels are.

Again you are not comparing, when you say "EVs are probably are further away from common man efuels are".

Originally Posted by supermax

This is the second time in this thread that you are attributing to me things I've never claimed or implied, and that's not nice.

I don't know what are you even arguing about, you and me are only talking about affordability of EVs and exotic synthetic fuels.

Since you are arguing on semantics, and I cannot type in every time below points, below are the points to clear my stand.

1. Can a common man buy and use EVs? yes plenty of EVs starting from 25,000$.
2. Are EVs always cheaper to own? No for some users and use cases, but within 3-4years, EVs will be cheaper to own for most use cases.
3. Can a common man use synthetic fuels? No, because they are very costly today, their price will be 2-3x petrol prices, let alone matching EV running costs.

Another thread you were saying H2ICE will blow EVs away, wanted to know how that project is coming up? Heard that the Toyota car burnt due to H2 leak.

[supermax]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

So, you are not comparing EVs with exotic synthetic fuels.

Again you are not comparing, when you say "EVs are probably are further away from common man efuels are".


I don't know what are you even arguing about, you and me are only talking about affordability of EVs and exotic synthetic fuels.

Since you are arguing on semantics, and I cannot type in every time below points, below are the points to clear my stand.

1. Can a common man buy and use EVs? yes plenty of EVs starting from 25,000$.
2. Are EVs always cheaper to own? No for some users and use cases, but within 3-4years, EVs will be cheaper to own for most use cases.
3. Can a common man use synthetic fuels? No, because they are very costly today, their price will be 2-3x petrol prices, let alone matching EV running costs.

Another thread you were saying H2ICE will blow EVs away, wanted to know how that project is coming up? Heard that the Toyota car burnt due to H2 leak.

I don't like to make statements that might be misconstrued as personal comments, but it seems like you are having a comprehension issue. I'm AGREEING with your point that efuels are impractical, but adding that EVs are just as impractical, but you responded as if I'd stated that efuels were for the common man, which I never did. This was your imagination.

Your claim that EVs will be cheaper to own for most use cases is misinformed. It is indeed cheaper, but only for people who drive way in excess of the most common average annual usage. In India, it's common to find cars with 40-60k km mileage in ten years of usage, which is far too less to justify the higher upfront costs of an EV. If you are doing 20000+ km year after year, EVs are a perfect solution, and I'll wholeheartedly agree, but otherwise, for most use cases, EVs won't be cost effective, with the higher acquisition costs.

Pointing at $25K price tags, without bothering to look at size, capacity, segment etc is again fallacious. For a common man, who has kids, and needs to lug some shopping bags etc in addition to a baby stroller, a tiny hatchback isn't going to be a good buy, just because it fits the budget. He'd be much better off buying a bigger petrol vehicle. And then the Achilles heel of EVS; range. Only the cars with the tiniest batteries are cheap. The more you want range, the less enticing it becomes. It can still make perfect sense for a second or third car for the family, which can be used for long commutes etc, for a single driver, but when we are talking second or third car, we are already away from the 'common man' scenario.

As regards H2ICE, or any other technology, the beauty of being open to ideas is that you can explore them and inspect them, without seeing them as a threat, when you are strongly entrenched in your own pet ideology, like a cult. Sweden is still working actively on H2 powered vehicles, particularly in the heavy vehicles segment, which too is interesting to a technology aficionado. I was under no illusion that H2ICE or anything else will become reality in the next couple of years, so again, it seems that your imagination ran berserk. I'm just open to ideas, particularly when I'm not forced to choose sides right away. I have an ICE car which I hope to own and operate for a considerable time, and I'll continue evaluating options as I close in on the date when I'll have to make a change, either for economic reasons, or legislative ones.

[SKC-auto]

Originally Posted by supermax

but it seems like you are having a comprehension issue.

OK, Thanks.

Your claim that EVs will be cheaper to own for most use cases is misinformed.

Sorry, you have no idea how battery tech is evolving.

Pointing at $25K price tags, without bothering to look at size, capacity, segment etc is again fallacious.

I gave you couple of examples like Toyota Bz4x which is as large as a Hyundai Tucson is selling for 25K$ with 54kwh battery, Toyota BZ3 selling for 25K$. You should remove your negative lens and judge EVs the same way as you do about H2ICE.

As regards H2ICE, or any other technology, the beauty of being open to ideas is that you can explore them and inspect them, without seeing them as a threat, when you are strongly entrenched in your own pet ideology, like a cult.

Sorry to say you are not open to ideas, you are probably restricted by your love for ICE cars.

I have significantly read about the science behind making H2, synthetic fuels and EVs. I understand only EVs will work because they use the primary energy source that is Electricity, eventually battery costs will fall significantly, which for some reason you don't want to believe(not a sign of open mindedness).

Those who don't read science behind these tech, don't understand efficiencies of each system, ignore what experts say, including this study say about synthetic fuels, tend to say "Believe me Bro".

The moment you said H2ICE will blow away EVs, I know you do not understand much about this EV transition, no surprise you call it a cult. You do not understand that this transition to EVs has to happen soon, and we cannot wait for those exotic Synthetic fuels or the exotic H2.

Needless to say, as a proof of my arguments EV sales is increasing significantly and reached several million, all those exotic fuelled cars are sold few thousands.

[supermax]

Originally Posted by SKC-auto

Sorry, you have no idea how battery tech is evolving.


I gave you couple of examples like Toyota Bz4x

Electricity, eventually battery costs will fall significantly, which for some reason you don't want to believe(not a sign of open mindedness).

I'm perfectly willing to believe that in the future, the technology will improve and costs will come down. I'm not willing to blindly believe that they are cheaper today, and that too for most cases, when for the most common cases they are simply not. I'm open to EVs in the future, not now.

Toyota Bz4x has been described in the Nordic countries as a fiasco, an unsellable car, and worse. The range tests in Norway have show it to be falling woefully short of promised numbers, even when compared to other EVs. In Norway, Toyota is honoring a full refund for open orders, and Toyota Norway is not disclosing the numbers of people who've elected to get their money back. It's slightly more complicated in Sweden, because the contract law works a bit differently here.

https://www.vibilagare.se/nyheter/to...aka-sina-bilar