My twin brother and I own a tiny Renault. We wanted to reduce the emissions from our driving, but at 21 years old we can’t afford a hybrid, let alone an electric car. However, we heard from our father about an add-on component that could be installed in any car, allowing us to use both petrol and bioethanol as fuel. The installation would cost only about 300 euros and would also be very practical, since we could alternatively use petrol if bioethanol wasn’t available. We were genuinely puzzled as to why more people don’t talk about this option, until the reasons were revealed to us.
There are two problems associated with installing such an add-on. First, under the EU’s biofuel distribution obligation, fuel distributors must in any case supply a certain standard amount of biofuel per year. Currently, the situation is such that our installation would not have changed the overall emissions of driving in the world at all. Individuals therefore have no ecological incentive to switch to biofuels. This wouldn’t be a problem if biofuels beat petrol on other metrics, such as cost and practicality. However, this isn’t currently the case, which brings us to the main reason why this installation is so rarely done.
The installation is widely perceived to carry significant financial risks. First, the car almost always loses its warranty. Second, there are many unsubstantiated rumours circulating that the installation would shorten the car’s lifespan. However, there is no scientific consensus whatsoever on the effects of the installation on a car’s lifespan or condition. Opinions seem to depend mainly on which party the source represents. The argumentation is usually based on individual case examples or small cohorts selected so that the results support that party’s views.
A broad study is therefore needed on whether biofuels cause harm to cars. If no harm is found, the loss of warranty due to the installation should be banned across the EU. Such a study would also give peace of mind to those who fear their car will be damaged by biofuels. It may also turn out that certain car and biofuel types are prone to problems. In that case, the loss of warranty due to installation should first be banned within the EU for car types that are not problematic. The results of the study should also be taken into account regarding the biofuels sold. Following this, the EU should aim, in the long term, to ensure that only cars compatible with approved biofuels are sold in the region. The ideal scenario would be one where no biofuel installation is needed at all, and a car could automatically be fuelled with both petrol and biofuel. Since, for example, bioethanol is already cheaper than petrol, people would naturally gravitate toward driving on biofuels.
It’s true that biofuels are a controversial topic, and not everyone even considers them an ecological option. However, the drawbacks of biofuel production relate only to certain manufacturing methods, and nowadays there are numerous other biofuel production methods in use that far surpass ordinary petrol in terms of ecological sustainability. In addition to the reforms outlined in the previous paragraphs, increasing investment should be directed toward the production of second- and third-generation biofuels, meaning, for example, the utilisation of waste and algae.
All in all, I believe the EU’s biofuel distribution obligation could indeed be a great way to keep biofuel prices low, but this directive causes more harm than good if the financial risks faced by consumers are not eliminated. The most ideal outcome, however, would be one where it’s not only environmentally conscious individuals who drive on biofuels, but the vast majority of people, simply because it would be cheaper than driving on petrol and at least equally practical.
More information
Satu Westerholm
Helsinki Metropolitan Area Young European Federalists, Secretary
[email protected]
