13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 15 Refueling the Future? Perspectives of German Stakeholder Positioning towards Renewable Fuels Dr. Dirk Scheer KIT/ ITAS, Karlsruhe, Germany Lisa Schmieder KIT/ ITAS, Karlsruhe, Germany Summery Even if there is fundamental agreement between different stakeholders on the goal of the energy transition as a whole, regarding the Verkehrswende (transition in the transport sector) and in particular regarding refuels, stakeholders set their own and sometimes opposing accents in their positioning. This refers in the storytelling for example to divergent opinions about where and from which energy the synthetic fuels are made or which political framework and policy instruments are necessary for the diffusion of refuels in the market. Against this background, the aim of this analysis is to systematically identify, systemize and analyse the diversity of stakeholder perspectives in Germany using a document-based position analysis in order to provide the broadest possible range of (controversial) positions and evaluations on the refuels’ future path. Based on a document analysis of 41 sources published by 17 stakeholders from the areas of economy (8), environment (3) and civil society (6) in the last ten years, we analyse commonalities and differences in the assessments of the refuels’ path as well as the reasons behind it. The analysis was complemented by a Groupdelphi-Workshop with stakeholders. We thereon derive comprehensive narratives and conclusions regarding relevant dimensions such as the overall potential of refuels in the context of the energy transition, areas of application, type of energy production, timeline, possible trade-offs regarding water and land availability, political framework and others. The results may allow policy makers to recognize impending acceptance conflicts early on and to take appropriate planning, design, participative or communicative measures. The analysis presented here is part of a research project called refuels - rethinking fuels (https: / / www. refuels.de) funded by the State Government of and represents the first step of a broader stakeholder analysis. 1. Introduction The transformation of the energy and transport system towards climate protection is a task for society as a whole, in which politics, business and society have to make contributions. In this context, there are sometimes very different assessments among the stakeholders about the design of the transformation and about promising and goal-oriented transformation paths. It can be assumed that the refuels route as a promising part of a transformation will be assessed very differently by different groups. It is therefore all the more important to investigate in advance which measures in which combination meet with the approval or rejection of stakeholder groups and what the reasons behind them are. Only in this way can impending conflicts of acceptance be recognised at an early stage and appropriate planning, design, participatory or communicative measures be taken. Even if there is fundamental agreement among the various stakeholders on the direction of the energy transition with regard to climate protection, the actors set their own (and in some cases contradictory) accents in their positioning in some areas. This applies in particular to the “transport transition”, which still has to be completed in large parts, and thus also to refuels routes. Against this background, the aim of this paper is to systematically record the diversity of stakeholder perspectives on synthetic fuels by means of a documentbased position analysis in order to represent the broadest possible spectrum of (controversial) positions on and assessments of fuel routes. It is related to several working papers published in the reFuels project (www. refuels.de) ([26.]; [27.]; [28.]). This paper thus ties in with the existing state of research on the potential of synthetic fuels as well as attitudes and positions of social groups (e.g. [34.]; [21.]; [25.]). This report summarises the results of the analysis. First, chapter 2 explains the method of the document analysis in more detail. Chapter 3 presents some results of the position analysis. Finally, Chapter 4 summarises the central results from a comparative perspective and draws conclusions. 16 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 Refueling the Future? Perspectives of German Stakeholder Positioning towards Renewable Fuels 2. Methods The position analysis of selected stakeholder documents was carried out methodically via desk research by first identifying documents published by stakeholder groups with reference to (synthetic) fuels. In a second step, an analysis tool was developed as a template (“association position profile”). Finally, the database was evaluated from a comparative perspective using the profiles1. The three methodological steps are briefly explained below. A list of German associations from the fields of business, environment and civil society was compiled, as associations from these three areas are of great importance for the transport transition from an overall societal perspective. As a result, 21 organisations were identified across the three areas (cf. Table 1). The search for association-related documents (e.g. position papers, statements, working reports, etc.) resulted in statements with a positioning on the fuel route for 17 organisations. The search was carried out using the search term “fuels” on the websites of the organisations. As a result, 42 documents were available for further processing. Even if the table gives the impression of a numerical underweighting of environmental organisations (3) compared to business (8) and civil society (6), this distribution is not reflected in the results. The evaluation and presentation of results aims at an additive collection of arguments by associations without reporting frequencies. Each argument was included regardless of how often it was put forward by actors. Table 1: Compilation of the organizations considered 3. Results 3.1 Positioning of stakeholders in the big picture The overall view across all associations shows that the topic of “fuels” is firmly anchored in the German stakeholder discourse. All seventeen associations analysed have expressed and positioned themselves in one way or another on refuels (cf. Table 2). This shows that alternative fuels (biogenic or electricity-based) are perceived as a possible building block of a transport turnaround and that an intensive discussion about the pros and cons of fuels is currently taking place between stakeholders. Looking at the individual thematic lines, the following central results can be highlighted. All of the associations studied have taken a position via documents, whereby the clear majority have explicitly expressed themselves via statements, positions or position papers. Only three associations have implicitly positioned themselves on fuels (VDV, VCD, KDA). While the VDV as an association represents in particular the rail and bus-bound local passenger transport, the VCD focuses on the singular transport mode bicycle. The KDA, on the other hand, has no direct connection to mobility or the transport system. All associations, with the exception of the DBV, have taken a position on the transformation of transport and in some cases have set their own priorities, formulated goals and prioritised measures for a future transformation of transport. This shows that the topic of transport transition is now firmly anchored in the stakeholder discourse. The relevance of fuels is now also firmly integrated in the transport discourse. The clear majority of associations have issued assessments and statements on both biogenic and electricity-based fuels. For individual aspects of electricity-based fuels, there are differences between the individual stakeholder groups. The majority of associations from the economic sector have taken a very differentiated position on electricity-based fuels. Only the VDV and the DBV are somewhat more reserved in their assessment. The majority of environmental and civil society associations, on the other hand, have a less comprehensive assessment of refuels. Civil society actors in particular (with the exception of Agora) only commented on individual aspects of refuels. 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 17 Refueling the Future? Perspectives of German Stakeholder Positioning towards Renewable Fuels Table 2: Overview of all stakeholders in the association position profile 3.2 Spects of electricity-based fuels 3.2.1 Location of energy production and relevance of imports In the discussion about electricity-based fuels, the location of production facilities plays a major role. Due to (absolute) cost advantages, foreign production capacities and corresponding imports of re-fuels are being discussed. Trade associations such as the VDA see the renewable electricity volumes to be produced in Europe as sufficient to both produce renewable fuels and cover the direct electricity demand ([29.]. In addition, the existing infrastructure consisting of more than 14,000 public filling stations and the distribution systems of fuel retailers could continue to be used ([31.]), which would represent a cost advantage. According to the VDA, the production of the fuels would be possible in the long term and test plants exist ([29.]). Furthermore, according to the BDEW, there is the possibility of counteracting possible fluctuations by coupling renewable energy use with fuel production and thus making grid use more efficient ([6.]; [7.]). From the MEW’s point of view, the energy industry should be structured in a market economy ([22.]). A critical point of view is taken by the BEM, which sees refuels as a pretext to continue selling conventional passenger cars, regardless of energy production: “with the help of the permit, it is possible for conventional car manufacturers to keep their old products on offer and sell the engines with e-fuel admixtures as environmentally friendly.” ([9.]). This is because by blending with refuels, combustion engines could be sold as “environmentally friendly” even though they are less efficient than battery-powered drives and also perform poorly in the energy balance ([9.]). VDV, DBV and BDI have not yet taken a position on the type and location of energy use and the import of electricity. On the environmental side, BUND believes that water supply in warm but water-scarce areas should be considered, especially when importing refuels or renewable energy, and social-ecological land use should be ensured ([12.]). With the exception of Agora Verkehrswende, the civil society associations (ADAC, vzbv, VCD, IG Metall, KDA) did not make any statements on the location of fuel production or the relevance of electricity imports. Agora Verkehrswende ([4.]) assumes that the electricity required for the production of refuels or the refuels themselves would have to be imported. The joint study with Agora Energiewende ([5.]) also examines various scenarios with production sites in North Africa, the Middle East, Iceland (geothermal, hydropower) and Germany (wind offshore North Sea and Baltic Sea) with a view to costs, but does not take a position with regard to an optimal location. 3.2.2 Assessment of economic efficiency The economic viability of refuels focuses in particular on the current and future costs of producing synthetic fuels. The economic viability of refuels is considered low by most industry associations due to efficiency disadvantages. The VDA and the BDI, for example, currently see no economic viability due to the lack of a technology-open political framework that enables and promotes investment in refuels technology ([29.]; [8.]). The VDA explicitly calls for investment security ([29.]). The MEW takes a different view, describing refuels as a win-win situation from an economic perspective ([24.]). According to this, the main advantages are climate neutrality, storability and use in conventional engines. According to the BDEW, cost efficiency and market-based approaches are the decisive criteria for setting up suitable climate protection instruments ([6.]). With regard to manufacturer costs, the VDA is aiming for a target cost level of around 1 euro per litre of diesel equivalent (currently around 4.50 euros per litre) ([29.]). From the MEW’s point of view, refuels can be produced between 0.70 euros and 1.30 euros per litre in 2050, depending on location conditions ([23.]). The BDI ([8.]) also sees future production costs of around 1 euro per litre of diesel equivalent. No positioning on this point was identified by the VDB, BEM, VDV and DBV associations. Greenpeace is the only environmental organisation to comment on the economic viability of the price development of refuels: “E-Fuels will be significantly more ex- 18 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 Refueling the Future? Perspectives of German Stakeholder Positioning towards Renewable Fuels pensive and less efficient in the long term” ([15.]). The remaining environmental organisations, such as WWF and BUND, did not provide any information on this point. Civil society associations, such as the vzbv and the ADAC, are critical of the economic viability ([33.]; [1.]; [2.]). They emphasise above all the current state of research, in which the electric drive has a head start over synthetic fuels ([33.]). In addition, e-cars are also ahead of re-fuels in terms of efficiency advantages and costeffectiveness ([33.]; [2.]). Furthermore, there is a fiveto six-fold higher energy demand compared to battery-electric cars with direct electricity use. Considering the costs, optimistic estimates exist that consider a price of 2.29 euros including taxes as possible ([1.]). Together with Agora Energiewende ([5.]), Agora Verkehrswende also examines the potential costs of synthetic fuels in detail in a study. These vary greatly depending on the point in time considered (2020, 2030, 2050) and the location of energy or fuel production (North Africa, Middle East, Iceland (geothermal, hydropower), Germany (wind offshore North Sea and Baltic Sea)). These vary between about 10 and up to more than 25 cents/ kWh for 2020, between about 10 and 20 cents/ kWh for 2030 and between about 8 and 15 cents/ kWh for 2050 (assumed reference prices of a conventional fuel without distribution, levies/ surcharges: premium petrol, 2020: 4.66 ct/ kWh, 2030: 6.19 ct/ kWh, 2050: 7.63 ct/ kWh). Among other things, the study states that cost advantages are possible through the import of refuels. However, these in turn depend significantly on the development of investment costs for offshore wind energy. 3.2.3 Importance of refuels with regard to storage and flexibility The role of refuels for the entire energy system is discussed in the discourse under the aspects of system efficiency, storage and flexibility. Some trade associations (VDA and VDB) see refuels as a chemical storage option for surplus electricity ([29.]; [30.]). According to the VDB, biorefineries can be used as inexpensive “long-term batteries” that also contribute to stabilising the electricity grid. Furthermore, refuels technology is a good way to use CO 2 from the air ([30.]). The argument of possible grid stabilisation is also shared by the BDEW, as PtX can additionally contribute to flexibilisation and security of supply in the energy sector ([6.]). The MEW also sees refuels as energy storage ([22.]; [23.]; [24.]). The BDI, on the other hand, sees the potential for long-term storage of renewable energy in the natural gas grid or in liquid fuel storage facilities. The possibility for decentralised reconversion into electricity in CHP plants should be given at best ([8.]). No positioning was identified by the associations BEM, VDV and DBV. Environmental organisations (WWF, BUND, Greenpeace) also recognise the potential of using electricity surpluses in the sense of long-term storage for the production of synthetic fuels. At the same time, however, the WWF points out that electricity surpluses occur intermittently and electrolysers may only have low fullload hours, which in turn can lead to high costs ([35.]). For the civil society associations, the vzbv refers to refuels as a “relatively new energy storage system” in its documents, as does IG Metall in general “as a storage technology, without, however, taking a concrete position on this aspect ([33.]; [19.]). Agora Verkehrswende also addresses the aspect of electricity storage using PtX technologies, although it points to lower efficiencies. Furthermore, the operation of PtL plants in Germany via surplus electricity is not economical ([4.]). The ADAC and the VCD only address the aspect of storage in the context of electric vehicles; the KDA does not comment on this in its documents. 3.2.4 Acceptance assessment Social acceptance for technologies and ultimately the purchase of electricity-based fuels by consumers at the filling station is crucial for the future role of refuels in the transport transition. Due to the relatively small structural changes that refuels entail, refuels will meet with high acceptance among consumers, according to the MEW ([24.]). For example, the use of the existing filling station infrastructure is seen as advantageous ([29.]; [31.]). Other trade associations such as BEM, BDEW, VDV and DBV do not take a position on this aspect in their documents. The BDI also does not make any specific statements on the acceptance of refuels, although it does state that refuels contribute to “increasing flexibility in the ramp-up of electrification and possible hedging through diversification when risks arise with regard to the expansion of the electricity grid/ charging infrastructure, resource availability, customer acceptance, battery price development or recycling” ([8.]). On the part of the environmental associations, the only position on social acceptance can be found in the BUND. For BUND, PtX materials are acceptable in terms of climate policy if only renewable energy is used in their production ([10.]). Greenpeace sees at least partial acceptance among the population. Based on a representative YouGov survey conducted on behalf of the Deutsche Presse-Agentur, more than half of the respondents see refuels as an alternative to electric cars ([17.]), but the price should not be too high: “For just under half of the respondents, so-called e-fuels produced with green electricity should cost less than 1.50 euros per litre. 28 percent would find 1.5 to 2 euros okay. This means that e-fuels should generally not cost much more than a litre of premium petrol, the price of which was 1.53 euros in May according to the Mineral Oil Association” ([17.]). The WWF and NABU have not provided any information on acceptance. A similar positioning to Greenpeace can be found at the ADAC. In the association’s view, most customers would accept refuels, but only if the price is 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 19 Refueling the Future? Perspectives of German Stakeholder Positioning towards Renewable Fuels affordable, although there is generally a high ecological awareness ([1.]). In its documents, the vzbv calls for “political and technical options to be carefully weighed up and unacceptable side-effects to be ruled out before proceeding to implementation. Otherwise, there will be no acceptance for biofuels, also for ecological reasons ([32.])”. The remaining civil society associations (including VCD, IG Metall and KDA) have not taken a position on the acceptance of synthetic fuels. 3.2.5 Role of securing Germany as a location for business and investment From the point of view of industrial and economic policy, aspects of securing the location and value creation are important factors in securing prosperity. With regard to the role of securing the location and value creation, the MEW sees at least part of the value creation in Germany as secured by means of refuels ([22.]). The BDI emphasises that know-how as well as jobs: “[...] in core European industrial technologies such as engines and gearboxes as well as in the energy and gas industry” ([8.]) should be secured. No positioning can be found in the documents of the trade associations VDB, BEM, BDEW, VDV and DBV. IG Metall points out that Germany should continue to serve as a development and production location for synthetic fuels and battery cells in line with industrial policy ([19.]). 3.2.6 Assessment of sustainability criteria Sustainability on the three pillars of ecology, economy and social issues forms an important orientation for refuels as an umbrella concept. On the part of the trade associations, there is agreement that refuels can make an important contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thus to achieving the Paris climate targets ([30.]; [9.]; [8.]; [22.]). In this context, both the VDA and the DBV mention that, on the one hand, sustainability criteria must exist for biogenic fuels so that there are “[...] no undesirable environmental impacts [...]” ([13.]). Among other things, ecological impacts are to be checked at regular intervals during the production of refuels. The DBV criticises the currently applied method of greenhouse gas accounting according to the so-called source accounting, in which emissions from raw material production in agriculture are accounted for and greenhouse gas avoidance is assigned to the transport sector. The environmental associations demand the comprehensive inclusion of sustainability criteria in the production and use of refuels. From BUND’s point of view, the water supply in warm and water-scarce areas in particular should be considered and further ensured. In addition, the association calls for social-ecological land use to be taken into account in the context of fuel production and for further work on sustainability criteria for PtX in the future ([10.]; [11.]; [12.]). Greenpeace ([16.]) also emphasises from a climate protection perspective that “synthetic (liquid) fuels [have] a worse efficiency than propulsion systems with hydrogen fuel cells. In this respect, it would be very welcome from a climate protection perspective that vehicle concepts with fuel cells for large cars and trucks or long distances become marketable as soon as possible.” The vzbv points out that greenhouse gas neutrality of fuels can only be assumed if only renewable electricity is used. Agora Verkehrswende also notes that it must be ensured that the renewable electricity is generated from renewable energy so that the electricity-based fuels contribute to decarbonisation. It points out that the use of plant-based raw materials releases greenhouse gases and endangers animal and plant habitats ([3.]; [4.]). The ADAC emphasises that, from a sustainability perspective, refuels should be used in the existing fleet as soon as possible, as today’s vehicles remain in the fleet for more than a decade ([1.]). 4. Conclusions The analysis of stakeholder positions on refuels has shown that the issue of electricity-based fuels has been taken up by many associations in the fields of business, the environment and civil society - with quite different emphases and positioning. Fuels from renewable resources are discussed and evaluated by the associations in different thematic contexts. These range from a fundamental classification in the self-image of a transport turnaround to the differentiation of biogenic and electricitybased fuels to individual technical, economic, social and ecological aspects of electricity-based fuels. The positioning also focuses on the political framework conditions that are conducive to this. In the overall view of the position analysis, three crossstakeholder narratives can be synthesised, which take up the individual aspects mentioned above and condense them in their evaluation. These narratives serve as illustrative points of positioning in the current stakeholder discourse on refuels. Narrative 1: refuels are crucial for the success of the transport transition In view of the urgency of climate protection and thus the upcoming defossilisation of the transport sector, refuels - especially for the existing fleet, but also beyond - represent an immediately available solution using the existing infrastructure and are thus an important building block for achieving the climate targets. By dovetailing the two sectors of energy and transport, a significant contribution is made to grid stability, flexibility and security of supply in the energy system. In the process, refuels offer the possibility of storing surplus electricity in synthetic fuels until it is used, in the sense of a grid-stabilising and fluctuation-eliminating application. Refuels also ensure that at least part of the value creation remains in Germany and thus make a significant contribution to securing the loca- 20 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 Refueling the Future? Perspectives of German Stakeholder Positioning towards Renewable Fuels tion within the framework of the national transformation process. This concerns local value creation, know-how and job security, purchasing power and tax revenues. Within the framework of a technology-open approach, refuels should play out their potential for the transformation of transport. The acceptance of users will be crucial for the widespread use of synthetic fuels. The possibility of using the existing infrastructure, which does not require any significant changes in behaviour, favours this. In addition to the areas of application that are difficult to electrify (ship and aircraft), refuels are also seen as relevant for private transport in rural areas and for use in the existing fleet. Narrative 2: refuels have potential - in transport modes without alternative and in compliance with sustainability criteria In principle, there is potential for the use of synthetic fuels. While synthetic, electricity-based fuels are considered to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to phase out fuels from cultivated biomass by 2030. Refuels should only be used where no (direct electric) alternative is foreseeable, e.g. for use as a basic material in the chemical industry, as storage to ensure the stability of the energy supply or as an energy source in special transport sectors such as shipping and aviation. For the production of refuels, the use of CO 2 from the air is necessary for climate policy reasons (no fossil CO 2 ). Moreover, refuels are only acceptable in terms of climate policy if they are produced entirely on the basis of renewable energies. From a sustainability perspective, a complete phase-out of the use of cultivated biomass for road transport is necessary in the long term. With regard to biofuels, only those (of the second generation) that have no to little ecological impact are acceptable. The use of pesticides, fertilisers and the endangering of the food industry as well as rainforest deforestation must be avoided. In addition to electricity and CO 2 , the production of re-fuels requires water. It must therefore be ensured, especially when importing refuels from water-scarce regions, that water availability is not impaired. The use of land for renewable energies must also take ecological and social aspects into account. The expansion of generation capacities for refuels does not make sense at the present time, but should take place after 2030 at the earliest, as the overall balance of electricity-based fuels is worse than that of conventional fuels due to the current CO 2 intensity of the electricity mix. The next few years should be used for further research and development in the field of refuels in order to then derive an appropriate path for the development of electricity-based fuels on the basis of sound knowledge and taking into account the development in the electricity sector. Narrative 3: Transport transition as sustainable, affordable, safe and comfortable mobility - if refuels contribute to this, then yes! From a climate policy perspective, there is an urgent need for action to tackle the transport turnaround. Sustainable, comfortable and affordable mobility that is accessible to all is the basis for welfare, quality of life and social participation. Especially from a social perspective, positive effects are expected from the transformation process, such as better air and higher quality of life in cities, less congestion on the roads, more space for urban culture, new jobs, etc. In order to achieve these goals, energy and resource consumption as well as greenhouse gas emissions must become significantly more expensive, while at the same time ensuring a social balance. It is therefore possible that a situation may arise in which CO 2 -intensive mobility becomes so expensive for part of the population that some travels can no longer be afforded. For this reason, it is important to exclude or mitigate unacceptable side effects in the sense of mobility participation of the entire society and to enable all people - whether in the city or in the countryside - to have flexible mobility on foot, by bike, bus and train or with vehicles. The development of refuels is currently at an early stage and is far from being commercially viable. Despite the general increase in ecological awareness, most users will only accept refuels at an adequate price. A relevant question will therefore be what taxes the state will impose on these fuels and how much fuel the cars consume in everyday use. In order to ensure openness to technology, politics must participate financially and at the same time create framework conditions for investment strategies that encourage investors and companies to invest in the development and production of refuels. References [1] ADAC (Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club) (2019): Synthetische Kraftstoffe - Energieträger der Zukunft? , o.O. [2] ADAC (Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club) (o.J.): Elektromobilität voranbringen - Antriebsalternativen technologieneutral unterstützen, o.O. [3] Agora Energiewende (2019): EU-wide innovation support is key to the success of electrolysis manufacturing in Europe, Berlin. [4] Agora Verkehrswende (2017): Mit der Verkehrswende die Mobilität von morgen sichern: 12 Thesen zur Verkehrswende, Berlin. [5] Agora Verkehrswende (2018): Klimaschutz im Verkehr: Maßnahmen zur Erreichung des Sektorziels 2030, Berlin. [6] BDEW (Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft) (2018a): Klimaschutz im Verkehrssektor - Bei-trag der Energiewirtschaft, Berlin. [7] BDEW (Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft) (2018b): EU-Paket für saubere Mobilität - „Clean Mobility Package III“, Berlin. [8] BDI (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie) (2018): Positionspapier der deutschen Industrie zum Aufbau von Rahmenbedingungen für die e- 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 21 Refueling the Future? Perspectives of German Stakeholder Positioning towards Renewable Fuels fuels-Technologien. „e-fuels - jetzt handeln und Chancen nutzen“. [9] BEM (Bundesverband eMobilität | Elektromobilität) (2019): Wahnsinn des Klimakabinetts: Verbrennungs-motoren sollen im Einsatz bleiben - CO²-Reduktion durch mehr Wasser- und Flächenverbrauch an-gestrebt, Berlin. [10] BUND (Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V.) (2019a): Schlussfolgerungen des BUND zum Impulspapier des Öko-Instituts „Kein Selbstläufer: Klimaschutz und Nachhaltigkeit durch PtX“, o.O. [11] BUND (Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V.) (2019b): Kein Selbstläufer: Klimaschutz und Nachhaltigkeit durch PtX: Diskussion der Anforderungen und erste Ansätze für Nachweiskriterien für eine klimafreundliche und nachhaltige Produktion von PtX-Stoffen (Impulspapier im Auftrag des BUND im Rahmen des Kopernikus-Vorhabens „P2X“), Berlin. [12] BUND (Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V.) (2019d): Power-to-X ist nicht per se klima-freundlich und ohne Nachhaltigkeitsregeln potentiell schädlich (Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung von BUND und WWF), o.O. [13] DBV (Deutscher Bauernverband) (2019b): KLI- MASTRATEGIE 2.0 des Deutschen Bauernverbandes, Berlin. [14] Deutsche Energie-Agentur (dena) & Ludwig Bölkow Systemtechnik (LBST) (2017): E-Fuels Studie - Das Potenzial strombasierter Kraftstoffe für einen klimaneutralen Verkehr in der EU: Zusammenfassung (Ein Gutachten von LBST und dena im Auftrag von VDA), o. O. [15] Greenpeace (2019a): Der Beitrag von synthetischen Kraftstoffen zur Verkehrswende: Optionen und Priori-täten (Kurzstudie im Auftrag von Greenpeace Deutschland), o.O. [16] Greenpeace (2019b): Greenpeace-Studie: Synthetische Kraftstoffe für Pkw zu teuer und ineffizient, o.O. [17] Greenpeace (2019c): Grüner Treibstoff ja, aber bitte ohne viel Extrakosten, Berlin. [18] Greenpeace (2019d): Greenpeace- Studie: Strombasierte Kraftstoffe können Klimalücke im Verkehr nicht schließen: Verkehrsministerium überschätzt CO 2 -Einsparpotenzial von E-Fuels deutlich, Berlin. [19] IG Metall (Industriegewerkschaft Metall) (2019b): Antrag L1.001: Leitantrag 1 Aktionsprogramm zur Mobilitäts- und Energiewende, o.O. [20] IG Metall (Industriegewerkschaft Metall) (2019c): Neue Autos braucht das Land, o.O. [21] Kasten, Peter; Kühnel, Sven (2019): Positionen zur Nutzung strombasierter Flüssigkraftstoffe (efuels) im Verkehr, Berlin. [22] MEW (Mittelständische Energiewirtschaft Deutschland)/ bft (Bundesverband Freier Tankstellen) (2017): Kein AUS für den Verbrennungsmotor - Mit E-Fuels alle Vorteile für die Klimawende nutzen, Bonn. [23] MEW (Mittelständische Energiewirtschaft Deutschland)/ bft (Bundesverband Freier Tankstellen) (2018): Prognos-Studie zu neuen flüssigen Energieträgern: E-Fuels sichern das Erreichen der Klimaziele, Bonn. [24] MEW (Mittelständische Energiewirtschaft Deutschland)/ bft (Bundesverband Freier Tankstellen) (2019): Überzeugungsarbeit für die Zukunft flüssiger Kraftstoffe, Bonn. [25] NPM-AG2 (Nationale Plattform Zukunft der Mobilität, Arbeitsgruppe 2 „Alternative Antriebe und Kraftstoffe für nachhaltige Mobilität“) (2019): Elektromobilität, Brennstoffzelle, alternative Kraftstoffe: Einsatzmöglichkeiten aus technologischer Sicht, herausgegeben vom Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur, Berlin. [26] Scheer, D.; Nabitz, L.; Narasinghe, N. (2021): refuels im Stakeholder-Diskurs: Eine Positionsanalyse von Verbänden aus Wirtschaft, Umwelt und Zivilgesellschaft, Working Paper refuels 01 (KIT-ITAS), Karlsruhe [27] Scheer, D.; Schmieder, L.; Pfeiffer, J. (2021): Gesellschaftliche Implikationen von rege-nerativen Kraftstoffen im Expertendiskurs, Working Paper refuels 03 (KIT-ITAS), Karls-ruhe [28] Schmieder, L.; Scheer, D. (2021): Regenerative Kraftstoffe im System betrachtet: Zur Rolle von refuels in Energiesystemanalysen, Working Paper refuels 02 (KIT-ITAS), Karlsruhe [29] VDA (Verband der Automobilindustrie) (2017): Mehr Klimaschutz durch eine bessere und umfassendere CO 2 -Regulierung: Position zur CO 2 -Regulierung Pkw post 2020, Berlin. [30] VDB (Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie) (2019): Allianz für grüne Kraftstoffe: Klimaziele im Verkehr sind nur mit CO 2 -armen Kraftstoffen zu erreichen (Gemeinsame Erklärung der Verbände BDBe, DVFG, MEW, MVaK, MWV, UFOP, UNITI und VDB), Berlin. [31] VDB (Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie) (o.J.): Klimaschutz mit nachhaltigen regenerativen Kraftstoffen: Bestehende nachhaltige Optionen zur Treibhausgasminderung im Verkehr nutzen, neue Technologien gezielt fördern (Ein Positionspapier vom Bundesverband der Deutschen Bioethanolwirtschaft e.V. (BDBe), Biotechnologie-Industrie-Organisation Deutschland e.V. (Bio-Deutschland) Clariant, Deutscher Bauernverband e.V. (DBV), Mittelstandsverband abfallbasierter Kraftstoffe e.V. (MVaK), Novozymes, Scania Union zur Förderung von Öl- und Proteinpflanzen e.V. (UFOP), UNITI Bundesverband mittelständischer Mineralölunternehmen e.V., UPM, Verband 22 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 Refueling the Future? Perspectives of German Stakeholder Positioning towards Renewable Fuels der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA), Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie e.V. (VDB)), o.O. [32] vzbv (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband) (2011): E 10-Debakel: Ursachen und Auswege (Hintergrundpapier zu „Benzingipfel“ am 8. März 2011 im Bundeswirtschaftsministerium), Berlin. [33] vzbv (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband) (2018): Kraftstoffverbrauch von Autos senken: Klima schützen, Verbraucher entlasten (Stellungnahme des Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverbands zum Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission für eine Verordnung zu den CO 2 -Flottengrenzwerten von Personenkraftwagen), Berlin. [34] WD (Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages) (2018): E-Fuels, WD 5 - 3000 - 008/ 18, Berlin. [35] WWF (World Wide Fund For Nature), BUND (Deutschland Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland), Germanwatch, NABU (Naturschutzbund Deutschland), VCD (Verkehrsclub Deutschland (2014): Klimafreundlicher Verkehr in Deutschland: Weichenstellung bis 2050, o.O.