2/8 #efuels(right) replace fossils without the end-use transformation required by (direct) #electrification(left)
This promises to make combustion technologies and fossil infrastructure part of the climate solution;
yet, shifting the burden to the supply side has limitations…
3/8 #Efuels require 2 – 14 times more (renewable) electricity than a direct #electrification (e.g. electric cars are five times more efficient)
Remember, (growing) renewable power capacity is far from fully meeting only today’s electricity demand.
(no regret: #renewableexpansion)
4/8 Transport sector: #Efuels can reduce CO2 based on ~100% renewable electricity and atmospheric CO2. With the current electricity mix, e-fuels strongly increase CO2 compared to fossils (while #ElectricVehicles reduce emissions today).
Remember, our CO2 budget is limited
5/8 #Efuels will likely not be competitive in the next two decades. Required #carbonprices are 800-1200 €/tCO2 today.
Innovation and scaling can reduce costs significantly; yet, their deployment relies on massive and continuous policy support (e.g. subsidies).
6/8 #Efuels may be available and competitive in the long run; yet, it is unlikely that they become cheap and abundant early enough – given limited time and #CO2budget left.
Broadly betting on e-fuels, thus neglecting end-use transformation, could lock in fossil fuel reliance.
7/8 Comparing CO2 abatement costs indicates three end-use categories. #Hydrogen is indispensable in category 3: impossible-to-electrify sectors and markets, which are huge! For OECD this would require ~5000 GW additional #windpower/#solarPV, ~3000 GW #electrolysis.