The introduction of E10 is very nonsensical, it is not even necessary according to the EU
The importation of the allegedly environmentally friendly fuel E10 with a share of up to ten percent bioethanol is a flap for the government. Hardly a motorist is ready to cone the new variety – the fear for engine damage due to the aggressive fuel is too coarse. But also environmental association warns, as the yawning of cereals and sugarubbors for fuel extraction is anything but environmentally friendly and also the food prices are rising. With an E10 summit, the Federal Government now wants to increase the acceptance of the biobenzene – she is not in agreement.
They are intended to protect the climate and reduce the dependence from the oil: biofuels made of renewable raw materials such as cereals and sugarubrene. At least it sees the federal government.
E10 is GRUN, important and somehow also alternative, so suggests the Federal Environment Ministry. For the European directive on the fuel qualitat demand the increase in the bioethanol content in gasoline, says the ministry and links as to the proof of the EU Directive.
But the proof is a mud pack. By 2013, gas fuel should "a maximum ethanol content of 5% placed on the market" will, so it’s been there. In addition, the providers could be required to offer this fuel long, if the policy considered this necessary. This goal, however, has been reached, E5 is belonging to German gas stations to everyday life. From E10, however, nothing can be seen in the directive. It only writes that up to 2020 ten percent of the energy from renewable sources must come from the entire transport sector [http: // www.Handelsblatt.COM / Politics / Germany / EU-GIVE-E10-SPRIT critical Rueckwind / 3916210.HTML?p3916210 = all]. So if the Federal Government determines to achieve this goal with the introduction of bioethanol, then this is merely its own decision.
Greenpeace protest. Image: S. Dow
For there are alternatives: electric vehicles, operated with regenerative electricity can also contribute to the achievement of the target set by the EU as hybrid cars. But here the government has done too little. Instead of force the automakers with strict specifications and incentive systems for the development of affordable and efficient cars, it is batched before their lobbying work. In 2007, the European Union worked on the compilation of the CO2 limit value for new vehicles. By 2012, the limit values for the CO2 outset should be reduced to 120 grams per kilometer, which also had much more economical cars. However, especially the German manufacturers who specialize in heavy and highly motorized vehicles saw a danger in the limit. And so inherent, association and trade unions were blurred against the guidelines from Brussel and threatened with the loss tens of thousands of workplaces.
Numbers must have consumers
The Federal Government under Chancellor Angela Merkel made the request of the lobby at the time and could conclude in Brussel that the limit was reduced by improved engines only 130 grams per kilometer. Overall, the limit remained at 120 grams, but the missing 10 gram should be achieved – from the point of view of the auto industry – relatively cheap measures. Funf grams savings should be saved by improved air conditioning systems, a control system for optimal tire prere and fuel-saving switching, another funf gram should be retracted with the help of biosprit. The manufacturers were able to get a part of the delivery debt to other.
Whether this decision from the point of view of German carmakers, however, is the right one in the long term, must be confidently denied. Because the need for fuel-saving vehicles continues, in Japan, Hybrid cars drove the bestseller lists – which is not least due to the state demand of technology for technology. Germany lags there both in production and in the forefront, which Renate Kunast (Grune) already prompted to buy Japanese hybrid vehicles. With the state-supported innovation refusal, the German industry threatens to return behind the international competition – the workplaces are therefore seen long-term despite the first glance industrial political policy of the Federal Government at the game.
In the end, numbers have to pay consumers: over high fuel prices, because they prefer to tap expensive super plus tap, as to the out of their view of insecure E10, over higher fuel consumption due to the lower energy density, higher maintenance costs, because olwitches must be done perceptually In addition, E10 is more expensive in production as E5.
But even those who do not drive a car, must expect rising costs. When wheat and sugar are used in bulk for fuel production, these raw materials become more expensive – that inevitably strikes food prices. Under rising world market prices, even those people in the Third World, who have never seen a car from the inside. In addition, the okobilance of E10 is anything but good. Although no rainforest may be removed for production, but the cultivation is not infinite. It is almost mandatory that current food grade laughs are used for sprit production – and new flats are won by roding. In any case, the specifications of the legislator with this indirect entrance are done.
There is another need for action and alternatives
Meanwhile, the economy and government shifted mutually mutually blaming for the backup of consumers at the gas stations. On a hurry in Berlin E10 summit, which was significantly not in the environmentally, but in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, now explained industrial and government representatives to clarify to the new fuel. The debt on the failure of the E10 is now pushed to the consumer, which was too stupid to inform oneself. State Crepeter Rainer Bomba waved on the next press conference with a driving license and declared, within 50 seconds, each motorist with his help to find out on the Internet, whether he kill E10 or not. Nevertheless, from now on the gas stations lists with for the fuel shared cars should be sufficient. Mineralol and automotive industry will advertise for the new fuel.
So everything is fine? By no means. Because Minister Rottgen had to assist on demand that there is a need for action in the indirect land use. The Federal Government still has homework, so rottgen. So it is really certain, in the opinion of the Ministry of the Environment, that bioethanol does not lead to the shortage of food and the clearing of forest flat.
There are other solutions on the hand. Because the EU only liked that up to 2020 ten percent of the energy-renewable energy derived from renewable sources. Instead of putting money into the okologically nonsensical scrapping program, a consistent demand for hybrid vehicles had a first step in this way. But this obviously does not seem to the politics, because there were local brands largely before – they are still too much on the old technique.
Significantly more potential for quick changes are thus achieving with a consistent modernization of rail traffic. That starts with the train stream, he is recovered to almost 48 percent of stone and lignite – a tremendous potential for CO2 savings. Also investments in the electrification of the routes could help achieve the objectives set by the EU. In 2005, it was not even the half of the rail network electrically passable.