Carte mondiale HVO / XTL Diesel

Die Karte erfreut sich mittlerweile großer Beliebtheit. Anbei ein paar Antworten zu Fragen, die uns gestellt wurden.

a) Why can’t I find any e-fuels on the eFuelsNow map?

The name “eFuelsNow” may be confusing for some users. It comes from the name of the organisation that created it: the registered association eFuelsNow e.V. Nevertheless, the spelling alone makes it clear that this is about something else. This is because the electricity-based fuel is spelled differently: E-Fuel (with an ‘E’ and a hyphen). Furthermore, we cannot simply change the registered name of our association. Nevertheless, you can be sure that as soon as the political objections have been resolved and E-Fuels become available, this app will be the first place where you’ll find the new fuel. Until then, the app will display related products. This is because HVO diesel fuel and E-Fuel diesel fuel are both synthetic diesel fuels in accordance with DIN EN 15940. Furthermore, HVO and E-Fuel both belong to the main group of reFuels.

b) There are too many stations. Could you limit the map to Europe (or HVO100)?

There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Every user is looking for different fuels. Continuing to offer blended fuels makes it possible to refuel in a climate-friendly way even in places where HVO100 is not yet available. Furthermore, these blends are of great interest to the scientists for whom the map was primarily created. Both the app and the Google view allow users to filter results as required.

c) Are there any stickers?

I’ve made a few stickers myself and I’ve still got a few left. You can get in touch at info@efuelsnow.de

d) Will HVO100 also be available at large fuel retail networks?

This is already the case in Europe (see Spain (Repsol), Italy (ENI, Tamoil) and Scandinavia (Circle K, Neste, OKQ8)). The energy companies in these countries do not own any oil platforms, which is another reason why the use of renewable, synthetically produced fuels is of interest. However, government regulations play the key role. And here, a clear contradiction can be observed between loudly proclaimed demands for climate protection on the one hand, and the active obstruction of climate protection measures on the other. Why this is so is something that our descendants will probably only ever find out.

e) Have you visited most of stations yet?

You can’t visit every petrol station. But YES! I regularly go on long HVO refuelling trips and have travelled extensively throughout all regions for this purpose (including the USA). The same applies to my companions, who are also frequently ‘on the road’, and to some followers with which we regularly exchange messages. Naturally, we get information from them as well.

f) Where do you get all that information about petrol stations from?

Over the years, I have built up a good international network, through which I regularly enquire about changes to fuel blends and the refuelling network. I also search around 20 databases almost every week. Not everything changes all the time, of course.

g) Why did you create this fuel map?

As mentioned in the ‘Extra’ tab, I am motivated by the ongoing misinformation regarding the availability and technical aspects of synthetic fuels. Many arguments – such as efficiency – are often presented in a simplified manner. Efficiency is not an end in itself, but must be considered holistically: alongside electrical and system efficiency, costs, time and resources also play a part. In all these respects, HVO is a highly efficient solution, as the energy content of waste materials is high and the electricity required for production is low (see calculations by HAW Hamburg, Prof. Willner). To provide the public with technically accurate information, we engineers are working closely with the faculties of several renowned universities, for whom this objective dissemination of information is also a major priority.

h) Why are some people against liquid, climate-friendly fuels?

To answer this question, it is helpful to take a look at the debate: The rejection of liquid energy sources is striking, even though their ease of storage and transport makes them unbeatable for flexible global mobility. The impression arises that criticism of this energy source is often used as a leveraging tool to restrict individual mobility as a whole. Electricity is, after all, difficult to transport and store. The electricity system is designed for households and industry (not for transport). The resulting shift away from motorisation is rejected by the majority of the population, as it has serious economic consequences. Economic success and affordable energy that is available at all times are, in fact, the very foundation of effective environmental protection – as negative historical examples (such as the GDR) have impressively demonstrated. Our association is open to all technologies. Every technology has its pros and cons, but the physical principles must be formulated technically correctly. We focus on market-based solutions so that engineers can develop offerings tailored to customers’ real needs. As many critics do not fully understand the long-term consequences, we believe in open, respectful dialogue. We want honest, people-centred environmental protection that everyone can participate and that respects people’s fundamental needs.

i) HVO still emits CO₂ at the other end. So isn’t it still bad for the climate?

Climate-friendly synthetic fuels are based on the principle of the circular economy – a closed cycle, such as we find everywhere in nature. Carbon itself is not the problem here; what matters is its origin. It cannot come from ancient fossil sources and be released into the atmosphere as well. If that happens, the CO₂ cycle is disrupted. The CO₂ released during use must have been captured beforehand – a principle that the well-known engineer and author Wolfgang Maus has already described in detail. Around ten per cent of Germany’s green electricity is already generated in a similar way (e.g. via biomass). It makes no difference whether the thermodynamic process takes place under the bonnet or on the outskirts of town. Combustion processes account for around 80 per cent of global energy conversion in the primary energy sector. They cannot be substituted. Nor are they necessarily harmful to the climate. For this reason, the term ‘decarbonisation’ should definitely be avoided and the term ‘defossilisation’ used instead. A completely carbon-free ‘decarbonised’ world would not be biologically or technically viable. A simple comparison illustrates this: we humans ourselves are also part of such a CO₂ cycle. We utilise the energy of an apple that has just grown on the tree by absorbing CO₂ from the air we breathe.