The main lobby group of the German automobile industry has recommended that all fossil fuel sales should be ended in Germany by 2045.
The news comes from a new position paper (source in German) released by the the Verband der Automobilindustrie (VDA), the trade group representing some 600 automobile-related companies in the country where the automobile was first invented.
The lobby group, in stark contrast to how American lobbyists often operate, said that the European Union’s guidance on fuels do not go far enough, and need to be stricter if it wants to reach the goal of climate-neutral road traffic by 2045.
The criticism relates to the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive III (RED III), adopted last year. It sets out goals for renewable energy deployment in various realms, including the adoption of low-carbon fuel sources for road transport.
The VDA spends much of its time advocating in its position paper for “renewable fuels of non-biological origin” (RFNBOs), which is an umbrella term for both green hydrogen (generated through electrolysis of water via renewable energy) and e-fuels produced by combining green hydrogen with other chemicals to create synthetic liquid fuels.
These fuels would be beneficial for certain heavy-duty applications for which batteries are currently too heavy, as they can be more energy dense than batteries. And as VDA points out, there are currently tens of millions of combustion vehicles on the roads in Germany whose impact could be reduced immediately via the application of sustainable fuels.
But their application has been controversial, because it is thought of as a way to maintain current auto industry practices rather than quickly reforming the whole auto industry around electrification. It’s also much more energy intensive than directly fueling vehicles with electricity, even when the most green methods are used for e-fuel production. As a result, environmental organizations typically recommend that e-fuels shouldn’t have a place in road transport, rather more in aviation and shipping.
Further, EU member nations were able to water down RED III’s targets on e-fuel adoption (with Germany being one of the main advocates for this stipulation, though there was debate among German automakers).
VDA claims that bonus incentives for e-fuels, and particularly for hydrogen, should be retained for some time before ramping down, in order to incentivize nascent enterprises focusing on their production. And that long-term targets with higher mixes of these fuels should be adopted now – VDA wants to see renewable fuel use rise to 60% by 2035, 90% by 2040, and 100% by 2045.
But after stating this target, VDA says its most interesting sentence, from which this article got its title: “In the interests of climate protection, fossil fuels should no longer be allowed to be sold at German petrol stations from 2045 onwards.”
In context, VDA is arguing that gas stations should still remain open and still sell fuel, but that that fuel should be entirely renewable. But it is a rather stark statement, and one that might not be expected from an auto industry lobbyist – a recognition of climate change and the huge amount that road transport contributes to it, and a rapid end to the primary way that road transport fuels climate change.
Electrek’s Take
We have seen various efforts to stop the sale of new combustion-engined vehicles by 2035 (which we have repeatedly argued should be sooner, and some countries indeed have targeted earlier timelines), but this might be our first time hearing an auto lobbyist call for an end to fossil fuel sales.
That said, the context of arguing in favor of greater e-fuel adoption means that this call by the VDA isn’t as entirely ambitious as it might originally seem.
While VDA is correct that current vehicles will remain on the road for a long time, and that a solution that allows them to decarbonize would be beneficial, we share the worry that e-fuels are simply a way to maintain current industry practices.
The recent history of advocacy for e-fuels by German firms does give us the feeling that there is an undercurrent of some companies trying to forestall industry electrification. Much in the same way that focus on hydrogen, or on predictions of future battery improvements, have been used by Japanese firms to convince the market that now is not the time for fully-electric vehicles.
But regardless, we must say – naturally, we agree with the VDA that fossil fuel sales need to end by 2045.
Frankly, earlier would be good – there’s genuinely no time too early to end fossil fuel sales, and no pace too quick to reduce them. The magnitude of the harm that climate change will otherwise cause, and the cost of trying to reduce it which will only increase as time goes on, dictate this.
And to see an auto industry organization at least acknowledge that fossil fuels sales need to end by 2045 completely in order to hit Germany’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal (and EU’s 2050 goal) is quite striking. We’re used to industry organizations whining about every little thing – even rules they claim to support – so it’s nice to see a step in the right direction.
But hopefully, German and EU regulators go even further than what VDA has asked, and don’t rely so heavily on e-fuels to get to carbon neutrality, and rather to increasing ambitions around electrification, public transport, and micromobility.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
SAIC MG delivered the first MG4 model with a semi-solid-state EV battery in China, starting at under $15,000.
The MG4 is the first EV with a semi-solid-state battery
In August, SAIC MG launched the all-new MG4 at the Chengdu Auto Show, deeming it “the world’s first mass-produced semi-solid-state” electric vehicle.
The new MG4 is available in five different trims: Comfort, Ease, Freedom, Smart, and the semi-solid-state “Secure” edition.
SAIC MG announced on Thursday that it had delivered the first MG4 equipped with the new battery tech. The new MG4 is on sale starting at 68,800 RMB ($9,800), with prices rising to 102,800 yuan ($14,500) for the semi-solid-state battery model.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
It’s available with two lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery sizes: 42.8 kWh or 53.95 kWh. The three lowest-priced trims are equipped with the smaller (42.8 kWh) battery, providing 437 km (271 miles) CLTC driving range, while the Smart version uses the 53.95 kWh battery, delivering 530 km (330 miles) of range.
The new MG4 with a semi-solid-state EV battery (Source: SAIC MG)
Meanwhile, the semi-solid-state variant is powered by a 53.95 kWh semi-solid manganese-based lithium-ion battery, delivering 530 km (330 miles) of CLTC range.
All new MG4 models are powered by a single front-mounted “six-in-one” electric motor with 120 kW (161 hp) and 250 Nm torque. Using DC fast charging, it can recharge from 30% to 80% in 20 minutes.
The new MG4 (Source: SAIC MG)
The electric hatch is 4,395 mm long, 1,842 mm wide, and 1,551 mm tall, with a wheelbase of 2,750 mm. That’s about the size of the BYD Dolphin.
Like most Chinese EVs nowadays, the new MG4 is loaded with modern tech and features. The smart cockpit is powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon 8155 in-car chip.
The interior of the new MG4 with a semi-solid-state battery (Source: SAIC MG)
While the three lower-priced trims feature a 12.8″ central infotainment screen, upgrading to the Smart and semi-solid-state models adds a bigger 15.6″ display with 2.5K resolution.
The company said that by reducing the liquid electrolyte content to just 5%, the semi-solid-state EV battery significantly reduces the risk of combustion and improves the cycle life.
In two recent needle penetration tests, the new battery produced no smoke, no fires, and no explosions after two hours. SAIC MG said it was an industry first, exceeding industry standards by 20%.
SAIC MG delivered over 13,000 new MG4 models in November. It’s also the best-selling independent Chinese car brand overseas, A “beacon of Chinese automotive success,” in the EU and British markets, the company said.
GM CEO Mary Barra is reportedly considering Sterling Anderson, the former head of Tesla Autopilot and co-founder of Aurora, as her potential successor. But first, she is putting him through a “tough test” in his new role as Chief Product Officer.
Anderson is well-known in the EV community. He led the Model X program at Tesla and was the director of the Autopilot program during its formative years (2015-2016). He later left to co-found Aurora Innovation, a self-driving startup that has focused heavily on autonomous trucking.
Now, a new report from Bloomberg states that Barra sees Anderson as a frontrunner to replace her when she eventually steps down.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
According to the report, Barra is “gauging” Anderson for the top job by giving him a massive portfolio that serves as a trial by fire. Since joining in June, Anderson has been tasked with overseeing the end-to-end lifecycle of GM’s products, both gas and electric, including the critical integration of hardware and software.
The “test” essentially boils down to whether Anderson can successfully execute Barra’s vision of transforming GM into a tech-first company. This involves untangling the automaker’s software woes and delivering on the promise of “eyes-off” autonomous driving for personal vehicles, a pivot away from the robotaxi-focused strategy of its former Cruise unit.
While Barra, 63, hasn’t announced a retirement date, the pressure is on to find a leader who can navigate the rapid transition to electric and software-defined vehicles. If Anderson passes this “test,” he could become the first outsider with a tech background to lead the 117-year-old automaker.
Electrek’s Take
“Tech background” is not entirely true, but mostly accurate. He has spent a few years at Tesla and then built Aurora; both are in the auto industry, but certainly on the techy side of it. Before that, he spent years at MIT, and the ‘T’ stands for technology.
I’ve only had a few interactions with Sterling, but from what I could tell, he is a smart guy who was among the most realistic about autonomy at Tesla, which is probably why he didn’t last long at the head of the program and went on his own.
He helped build Aurora into a multi-billion-dollar company that is now seen as the leader in autonomous trucking.
GM is starting to build an extensive and impressive EV lineup, but it still has issues committing to high volume due to the political landscape, which, in my opinion, the company itself often lobbied the wrong way.
I think some fresh blood could help.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The bill cleared the House in a 221-196 vote, overcoming a conservative rebellion that nearly sank the legislation in a procedural vote earlier this week.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where it is likely to be part of a larger conversation around permitting reform.
The SPEED Act’s proponents argue it is critical to help the U.S. outpace China and other global competitors in the race for AI dominance.
“The electricity we will need to power AI computing for civilian and military use is a national imperative,” said Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., the bill’s sponsor and chair of the House Natural Resources Committee.
The SPEED Act would reform the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates federal reviews for projects that would impact the environment.
It would tighten the timelines for NEPA reviews and shrink the statute of limitations for NEPA litigation to 150 days from the current six years.
Permitting reform has drawn bipartisan support recently as clean energy projects supported by Democrats became ensnared in permitting delays.
Pressure has built on Congress to act as AI has emerged as a key sector and power-hungry data centers have placed an increased strain on the electric grid.
The Democratic cosponsor of the bill, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, said the SPEED Act would allow the U.S. to be “nimble enough to build what we need, when we need it.”
Most Democrats opposed the SPEED Act, however, demanding that any permitting bill overturn President Donald Trump‘s moves to choke renewable energy sources like offshore wind.
Democratic resistance was only compounded after GOP leadership inserted language to exempt Trump’s efforts to block renewables from provisions in the SPEED Act that would limit the White House’s ability to arbitrarily yank permits it does not like.
The amendment was added after a standoff on the House floor during a procedural vote, where conservatives opposed to renewable energy demanded concessions for their votes.
“That provision codifies a broken permitting status quo,” said Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., who supports permitting reform but opposed the SPEED Act.
“I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in the Senate to craft a bipartisan product that can become law.”