Recently, superethanol has been increasingly popular among motorists. And it is not for nothing that this alternative fuel, which is considered more environmentally friendly, has many undeniable advantages. Among them is the price, as a liter is always much lower than unleaded 95 or, worse, 98. It is true that E85 leads to a very small cost overrun, but this is always compensated by a very low price at the service station. In addition, this fuel is cleaner because it is made from ethanol obtained from agriculture. Thus, the proportion of used oil is very significantly reduced.

The tension in the supply of fuel in no way justifies the jump in prices at some gas stations. We do not allow artificially inflated prices. I urged DGCCRF to act. Inspections take place in @hautsdefrance https://t.co/RXJWH912tA

— Agnes Pannier-Runacher 🇫🇷🇪🇺 (@AgnesRunacher) October 11, 2022

Not very environmentally friendly

Therefore, on paper, this alternative would be good. But in reality it is not so. Not according to Transport & Environment, anyway. The latter really criticizesE85, which she considers harmful to the planet, but not only. And the NGO does not go hand in hand when it explains that flexfuel is ” a failed experiment, a planetary mess“. But what is the reason? According to the association, the land cultivated to produce this fuel could actually feed at least 120 million people if food were grown there.

A future limitation?

And according to the UN, there are currently such 50 million people who will experience food difficulties. But that’s not all. Because solar panels could also be placed on the used land, which would rather power electric cars. If the NGO does not want to ban this motorization, it explains that ” if countries like Germany and Belgium are already discussing biofuel restrictions in response to this situation, the rest of Europe should do the same“.