Study: Germany needs significantly more e-cars

Study: Germany needs significantly more e-cars-e-cars

The trend in terms of e-mobility points upwards. And yet there is no occasion to euphoria. On the contrary: With the aim of the traffic light coalition of 15 million electric cars by 2030, the climate goal is missed in traffic, it says at Greenpeace. There is a gap of five million e-cars, shows an analysis of the Wuppertal Institute on behalf of the Environmental Association. This reports “time.de “Calling on different sources.

Furthermore, further measures such as a ban on new registrations for combies from 2025 and a reform of the vehicle tax, it is called in the study. In 2020, traffic accounted for almost 20 percent of all CO2 emissions in Germany, at around 146 million tons. The need for action in the transport sector is all the more urgent because politicians have not yet succeeded in permanently reducing CO2 emissions in the transport sector.

In a foreword to the study, Greenpeace traffic expert Tobias Austrup writes that the drive turnaround is not the only factor in climate protection in traffic, but it is a very relevant factor. He is quoted as saying: “It promises faster significant emission reductions than the mobility turnaround, i.e. avoiding and shifting car journeys to climate-friendly alternatives such as public transport or bicycles.At almost two thirds, car traffic is responsible for the majority of traffic emissions.

The climate protection law calls 2030 a sectoral goal of at most 85 million tonnes of CO2 in traffic – compared to 1990 corresponds to a reduction by almost 50 percent. If the share of car traffic to the entire CO2 emissions of road traffic, it should be roughly constant, this should be reduced to about 52 million tonnes by 2030 to about 52 million tonnes.

Even with the 15 million e-cars targeted by the Federal Government, the car traffic 2030 would still cause more than 64 million tonnes of CO2, it says at Greenpeace. The result: to come to the required 52 million tons per year, at least 20 million e-cars in Germany would have to be allowed in 2030. Currently, according to data of the motorway federal office at 48 million cars, but only about 650.000 pure e-cars on German roads on the way. AUSTRUP therefore calls for a new admission tax for exhaust-intensive cars, a higher CO2 price, a comprehensive reform of the company car taxation – and a new leasing ban for cars with gasoline and diesel engines from 2025.

Related articles

Please follow and like us:

10 thoughts on “Study: Germany needs significantly more e-cars”

  1. Study: The world does not need exhaust shafts.

    The trend runs against CO2 causer storm, and some many eternal trucks have not heard the shot so far.
    Sustainability must not take many decades, but has to go faster.
    Finally, since half a century has been carried about it.
    But in some divisions, like the automotive industry, nothing happened.
    On the contrary, the cars were actually not more sustainable, but caused by size, mass and stronger burners more and more pollutants and garbage.
    Since there is really a faster gait, otherwise the combustion manufacturers never move.

    Reply
  2. So I personally hold 2030 as an absolutely earliest possible time, rather 2035, for a ban on banners operated with fossil fuels.
    2025 is just too much early. That would be effective for 3 years time for the manufacturers to switch all existing series -> Volume unrealistic, Alone already, considering that the vehicle generations should be sold today as a pure burner on the market for at least 7 years.

    Reply
  3. Whether the student can better serve the calculator than the Federal Government, I can not say. Anyway, it does not sound too complicated to calculate the CO2 emissions and the necessary electric cars. But regardless of whether the study has expected correctly, the conclusion, we would need a combustion ban from 2025, wrong. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the startup of electromobility is so as the Federal Government assumes it – the same federal government, which was previously believed that they can not operate the calculator. The old federal government wanted 1 million electric cars to 2020. And the Chancellor fabulated something of cars with an average of 3 liters at 100 km to ??? (2010?). Even the worst federal government can not prevent the electric cars prevail faster than in the expectation of the current Federal Government. You just have to look after the development pipeline of the automakers. It is almost only developed electric cars.

    Reply
  4. I would be interested in such dates, whether in the EU a single country can enforce such a local combustion commercial prohibition.

    The internal market may not be restricted according to EU rules. Especially at car, the EU is certainly very interested in the details, because the EU is given a type of type – the car is sold to the EU-wide.

    Restrictions are probably only allowed for health reasons. But if you drive old cars, you can not ban so easily for health or environmental reasons.

    Norway and GB are not part of the EU. Denmark just wants to implement it.

    I’m afraid: Nice study, but actually irrelevant for Germany.

    Reply
  5. Maybe you should rather than a sales ban for burners from the year xy
    First of all, think about a development ban for new series from a time xy.

    Otherwise the combustion industry will always want to / must still want to / must have / must.

    So you always have to buy a “argument” for a few years – for all the threatened jobs, etc.
    &# 128521;

    Reply
  6. Here new numbers to the BEV over 100.000 to 01.01.2022.

    1. Tesla Model 3 CA. 1.3 million.
    2. Nissan Leaf CA. 575.0005.
    3. Wuling Hong Guang Mini eV CA. 545.000
    4. Tesla Model Y CA. 490.000
    5. RENAULT ZOE CA. 350.000
    6. Tesla Model S CA. 340.000
    7. GEELY CHERY EQ CA. 240.000
    8th. BMW I3 CA. 235.000
    9. BAIC EU series CA. 225.000
    10. BAIC EC series CA. 210.000
    11. Hyundai Kona eV approx. 200.000
    12. Tesla Model X CA. 195.000
    13. SAIC ROEWE EI5 CA. 190.000
    14. Saic Baojun E Series / Kiwi eV CA. 180.000
    15. BYD QIN / QIN PRO / QIN PLUS EV CA. 180.000
    16. BYD Yuan / S2 eV CA. 160.000
    17. GAC AION S CA. 150.000
    18. VW E-Golf Ca. 145.000
    19. GW ORA R1 EV CA. 140.000
    20. GEELY EMGRAND EV CA. 135.000
    21. Audi E-Tron CA. 135.000
    22. Jac IEV E Series Ca.135.000
    23. VW ID. 3 approx. 135.000
    24. Chevrolet Bolt Ca. 125.000
    25. VW ID 4. Ca. 125.000
    26. BYD E5 CA. 120.000
    27. Changan Benben eV approx. 120.000
    28. BYD Han eV Ca. 115.000
    29. Kia Niro eV approx. 115.000

    Reply
  7. Always interesting these studies – unquestionably the transport sector is one of the issuers. What is missing is the consideration of the other 80%, ie our living, working and agriculture, which have a much higher savings potential, since so far has happened too little there: Everyone currently notes through energy prices, which for a potential the insulation of buildings both in industry and in private living has – responsible for about half of the emissions. Even if no car drives, the CO2 sample is not solved, the traffic, is not the emitent – despite enormous increases in mileage and vehicle weights, the emissions are now slightly back in this area. Also missing basic numbers, what will be related to what? An imaginary average. How counting hybrid vehicles, which are calculated well, just not real. Are emissions per km or per capita. What if, as I’m afraid, computational enough e-vehicles are present but the emissions are not losing accordingly because the areas live, industry, agriculture still behind her?
    Back to the car; I drive a pure electric vehicle from conviction, because only zero emission continues and because it works, all the black painters and range fanatics. You do not necessarily have to ban the “others”, it helps more steering taxation, whoever wants to do it, should that too, so you can then co-finances measures that work compensating. On the other hand, a ban makes it easier for some people to plan which vehicle will be procured. Of course I have to buy my electricity green (without biogas, because CO2 too) – the world has enough energy from the sun – there are also enough storage options, you just have to build them, the effectiveness is secondary, the mass counts. And please do not compare systems that have been optimized for 100 years (fuel) with systems that have been under construction for ten years (electricity). You will have to wait a long time for the right time.
    Thinking further: If living, working and life weren’t so far apart locally, some traffic would also be superfluous, but inner cities are still becoming emptier in favor of the shopping paradise outside the city gates. Schools are closed because it is more effective to have big schools – how do the children get there? Rental rates in the city are too high so one must, especially as a family on the suburbs or the land, where then the schools are missing and the public transport and … and is currently taught in schools in the open window and some sleeps on open window – counts But the CO2 emissions at the car.

    Reply
  8. The euphoria is indeed no occasion! As well as, in addition to missing charging options, a unchecked price dynamics on the public charging column ensures that for many the store has meanwhile even more expensive than to refuel as a diesel? In this way, the market penetration of e-mobility came to ride is brutally covered. More and more people are fearing that they are now sacrificed after the initial lockvogel offers as well as on the feedback column. Politicians should not underestimate how quickly the resulting frustration with energy costs and general gallopapic inflation at non-low parts of the population results in political distress, radicalization and the call for the “strong man”! What we urgently need is a much better communication of the alternativeness of the comprehensive decarbonization of our economy at all levels and cross-sector. It must be credibly conveyed to the citizen that all the contribution must be made according to their capacity. This can only succeed if it is comprehensibly righteous and the loads are distributed fairly! Without a social flanking, the biggest challenge of this century – the complete ecological conversion of our economy – ends in a catastrophic disaster!

    Reply
  9. “AUSTRUP therefore calls for a new admission tax for exhaust-intensive cars, a higher CO2 price, a comprehensive reform of the company car taxation – and a new addition of cars with gasoline and diesel engines already from 2025”.
    Here m is missing.E. The demand for immediate introduction of a staggered luxury tax for PS monster dirt shafts. Even the clearly recognizable trend towards PS e-monsters, politics should counteract immediately as long as our electricity is still ‘dirty’ to the big part. I just find it sick that the car sleeve opened a late pubertare competition, who is the first to bring an electric car to the market, which creates the sprint from 0 to 100 in less than two seconds. Ironically with Elon Musk does not have to measure a car.
    My demands are probably nothing but Wishful Thinking in the face of an FDP Transport Minister.

    Reply
  10. Clear that Germany needs more natural gas and nuclear power and is even more clearly that one is inevitably necessary to have more BEV to be able to sell these energy stands in bulk.

    Now I’m watching this here:

    https: // youtu.BE / PU8XBDEGH_4

    https: // youtu.be / mfn2fa6djoi

    Is this BEVs at this topic?

    Reply

Leave a Comment