EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035(theregister.com)
theregister.com
EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035
https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/10/european_union_votes_to_ban_gasoline_cars/
241 comments
I'm seeing a lot of skepticism in the comments here, but electric cars are already superior to their combustion-driven ancestors in most ways. People want to buy them. (Sales are already limited by how fast car makers can increase manufacturing capacity.) What this will do is mostly limit how long car makers can milk their gas/diesel engine making capability.
People want to buy them, but can they afford them?
The mere amount of parts and assembly required for a gas vehicle versus the simplicity of an electric motor and battery makes me bet on the electric vehicle being cheaper in the long run.
When talking about electric, we tend to think of the expensive cars currently on the road in North America. They're expensive in large part because being electric is used as a premium feature.
Look at the cost of those cheapo chinese electric cars if you want to see how cheap electric cars can get. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2021/06/the-worlds-cheapest-ev-is...
Nobody's arguing for chinese deathtraps to be used on our roads, but a small car in the vicinity of a Kia Rio's price could exist, but it would have too many caveats at this point.
When talking about electric, we tend to think of the expensive cars currently on the road in North America. They're expensive in large part because being electric is used as a premium feature.
Look at the cost of those cheapo chinese electric cars if you want to see how cheap electric cars can get. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2021/06/the-worlds-cheapest-ev-is...
Nobody's arguing for chinese deathtraps to be used on our roads, but a small car in the vicinity of a Kia Rio's price could exist, but it would have too many caveats at this point.
Battery price (due to production cost and supply shortage) is the reason why BEV is expensive. Since battery is expensive, vehicle manufacturers should make car luxury to fill the price gap. Chinese tiny cars have very small battery. It's fine if market accepts such small cars.
Would they be expensive at high volume? There's obviously more resource contention for inputs like lithium but even in that case a larger market capacity would drive a lot of larger scale projects.
Yes, rates of purchase are quite high. Incentive schemes in the UK that make leasing very appealing mean people are getting electric company cars, this should then bleed into the second hand car market.
Do you think there will be a ban on combustion engines completely in the future? Hearing the engine roar is something I will miss.
I absolutely understand the appeal of ic cars, and (I assume), everyone will still be able to hear an engine roar at a race track or other private space.
Engines roaring in a city might be nice for some, but for most it's just noise pollution, particularly offensive noise pollution at that. The lack of noise will be a huge benefit to electric cars.
Engines roaring in a city might be nice for some, but for most it's just noise pollution, particularly offensive noise pollution at that. The lack of noise will be a huge benefit to electric cars.
Yep agree, countryside and private spaces will most likely be where ic cars live.
I’m in the other camp. The sooner we get rid of the assholes revving their engines the better.
I'm with you as well, in cities that is, but I should still be able to do it at a racetrack or the long country roads where I won't offend people.
Couldn’t agree more!
My grandfather thought the 'whoosh'[1] of a steam locomotive's cylinders was wonderful, and thought the diesel and electric locomotives that replaced them were 'soulless'.
But look at the filth they created! [2] (The shafts of light show how smokey it is in there).
His hobby was travelling round the country to see old steam trains running on preserved/heritage railways. That's fine, and fans of ICE cars will probably be able to watch races, drive on private roads/racetracks etc.
[1] https://youtu.be/UwfM8SNoMtk?t=448
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_Pancras_2_railway_stat...
But look at the filth they created! [2] (The shafts of light show how smokey it is in there).
His hobby was travelling round the country to see old steam trains running on preserved/heritage railways. That's fine, and fans of ICE cars will probably be able to watch races, drive on private roads/racetracks etc.
[1] https://youtu.be/UwfM8SNoMtk?t=448
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_Pancras_2_railway_stat...
[deleted]
Way too rushed... I don't think there is a clear roadmap for how the required infrastructure and supply chain will work. Definitely no clear understanding on the environmental impact of EVs. Did some pushy Tesla sales reps took senior EU politicians for some cool test rides? Sounds very much like it.
We are not in a planned economy, we don't need a 10-year plan for building national supply chains. We have to make sure our electricity infrastructure can cope, everything else can be left up to the market. After all the investment to build a fast charger is easy if you have a guarantee that the number of customers will increase dramatically.
>> everything else can be left up to the market.
Let's see how "the market" likes being unable to drive to their beach holidays without infrastructure.
>> After all the investment to build a fast charger is easy if you have a guarantee that the number of customers will increase dramatically.
Maybe, but there is no such guarantee. You can't solve everything by throwing money at it. Fast chargers/decent batteries remain elusive. So then building infrastructure is the only solution within the next 10-15 years. No way the EU can coordinate that fast.
Let's see how "the market" likes being unable to drive to their beach holidays without infrastructure.
>> After all the investment to build a fast charger is easy if you have a guarantee that the number of customers will increase dramatically.
Maybe, but there is no such guarantee. You can't solve everything by throwing money at it. Fast chargers/decent batteries remain elusive. So then building infrastructure is the only solution within the next 10-15 years. No way the EU can coordinate that fast.
> Let's see how "the market" likes being unable to drive to their beach holidays without infrastructure.
This is banning the sale, not the use. And trains exist in Europe.
This is banning the sale, not the use. And trains exist in Europe.
Airplanes are faster than trains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain ...err, Hy-prr-loup, Hy-prr-loup, Hy-prr-hrr-hpft...
And a cheetah is faster than a tiger. Sorry, I don't understand your point if you have one.
Not going to take a train when I can take a plane (which is not crazy expensive anyway). And as you know, planes are pretty polluting.
So not sure that ditching driving to your destination is a positive evolution.
So not sure that ditching driving to your destination is a positive evolution.
Do you live in Europe? Car trips and plane trips are not interchangeable over here. If people ditch their cars, they won't be taking the plane instead, they would only take planes for long distances. If they have those means, it's most likely they're already taking the plane for it.
Furthermore, short haul flights are being banned in Europe.
Furthermore, short haul flights are being banned in Europe.
I live in Belgium, and at least here that's not true at all. People drive to the south during holidays. South of France, Spain, Italy, ... . And people from the Netherlands do even bigger distances than that, mostly with their camper. And when they don't drive, guess what we/they use: not trains, airplanes. Ryanair is really cheap on some flights.
For myself, my wife is from Slovakia, so every year I drive at least once there (1200km). I can do that in 1 day with getting gas in the middle. My wife takes the plane with our youngest one. The reason I drive is because I take a lot of stuff, and want a big car there. If I wouldn't take the car (which sometimes happens), I take the plane, it's really fast. I don't want to imagine how long the train would take me, and how many times I have to switch...
For myself, my wife is from Slovakia, so every year I drive at least once there (1200km). I can do that in 1 day with getting gas in the middle. My wife takes the plane with our youngest one. The reason I drive is because I take a lot of stuff, and want a big car there. If I wouldn't take the car (which sometimes happens), I take the plane, it's really fast. I don't want to imagine how long the train would take me, and how many times I have to switch...
You can also do that trip in an electric car in a day. That's at least a 12 hour drive. Stopping at a charger for fifteen minutes can be done as part of the breaks you need to take anyway to drive safely and doesn't increase you travelime meaningfully.
I hope the ranges will still drastically increase. I need a big car, and I was already looking at the Mercedes EQV. It currently has an official range of 363 km. So that would mean 4 stops. But I have no idea how much you can charge in 15 minutes. During lunch I could probably do 30 minutes.
If you start full and arrive nearly empty you need to charge about 900km. The EQV charges at 5-7km/min@110kW so you need to charge for two to three hours during your trip. So you'd need only slightly longer than in a fossil car if you take the recommended ten minute breaks every hour of driving. (Given the charger network is sufficiently dense, which it currently isn't I suppose). There are already cars that charge at higher rates than 110kW. Teslas for example charge around 300km range in fifteen minutes at a supercharger.
Ryanair starts and lands really far from some destinations. So much so, that it would almost make sense to use that so called 9-Euro ticket for public transit instead, which is available in Germany at the moment.
Not carbon neutral air planes.
I strongly disagree. This is as close to planned economy as possible. Just that this time the planning organ is a weird hybrid mix of the private and public sector, technically very close to the official definition of of the word "fascism". A marriage of the multinational conglomerates and the globalistic supranational state-esque constructs like the EU.
Genuinely curious: What's the official definition of the word facism, and who gets to set it?
I did a surface-level search, and couldn't really find that one definition everybody seems to agree on. One commonality seems to be in having some kind of dictator, and I think that even if your view of the EU was correct, it wouldn't have much to do with a dictatorship.
[deleted]
We don't only have to build fast chargers. We have to build electrical power plants with an output equivalent to the energy stored in the fuel used by today's non EV cars.
Find sites, get permissions, build. That's a big race no matter the technology used by those power plants. I expect the 2035 limit to be relaxed or result in fewer car sales because we can't power them up.
Find sites, get permissions, build. That's a big race no matter the technology used by those power plants. I expect the 2035 limit to be relaxed or result in fewer car sales because we can't power them up.
> We have to build electrical power plants with an output equivalent to the energy stored in the fuel used by today's non EV cars.
You're mixing up power and energy there
You're mixing up power and energy there
> I expect the 2035 limit to be relaxed or result in fewer car sales because we can't power them up.
Good. We need fewer car sales. We need more non-car infrastructure.
We don't need an "output equivalent to the energy stored in the fuel used by today's non EV cars". What we need is fewer cars and more people on public transports and bicycles wherever it makes sense.
Less car trips. The current price of gas is already pushing people to take their car less and prioritize cheaper modes of transportation.
Fulfill the remainder of the demand with electric.
Good. We need fewer car sales. We need more non-car infrastructure.
We don't need an "output equivalent to the energy stored in the fuel used by today's non EV cars". What we need is fewer cars and more people on public transports and bicycles wherever it makes sense.
Less car trips. The current price of gas is already pushing people to take their car less and prioritize cheaper modes of transportation.
Fulfill the remainder of the demand with electric.
> Less car trips. The current price of gas is already pushing people to take their car less and prioritize cheaper modes of transportation.
Cheaper?. 100 miles on the train is more expensive [in the UK] than the fuel for the same trip. And that's before I put 4 people in the sodding car. Not to mention, my standard drive is barely serviced by public transport (requiring three changes and a significant detour). You can even amortise my car costs and I'm still way ahead in time, costs and convenience.
NB. I'd really like the railways and buses nationalised and heavily subsidised to support fixed costs based solely on bucketed crow flies distance, log scaled etc. But whilst they are the way they are - no way will I give up a car.
Cheaper?. 100 miles on the train is more expensive [in the UK] than the fuel for the same trip. And that's before I put 4 people in the sodding car. Not to mention, my standard drive is barely serviced by public transport (requiring three changes and a significant detour). You can even amortise my car costs and I'm still way ahead in time, costs and convenience.
NB. I'd really like the railways and buses nationalised and heavily subsidised to support fixed costs based solely on bucketed crow flies distance, log scaled etc. But whilst they are the way they are - no way will I give up a car.
> miles on the train is more expensive [in the UK]
This didn't use to be the case. UK trains were privatised and their costs have gone way up in the past few years.
Regardless, the UK is irrelevant to this discussion as we're talking about the EU.
This didn't use to be the case. UK trains were privatised and their costs have gone way up in the past few years.
Regardless, the UK is irrelevant to this discussion as we're talking about the EU.
The population is ageing. The idea that everyone will use bicycles is ableist nonsense.
Electric tricycles are safer for elderly people than even walking. They're far safer than having them drive a car.
Please put your finger on the word "everyone" in my comment.
What's ableist about saying we need more people using bicycles? Read carefully what was written above. More. bicycles. Nothing in there mentions that everyone needs to use a bicycle.
Are you saying we can never argue for more bicycle use because that's somehow ableist?
Are you saying we can never argue for more bicycle use because that's somehow ableist?
[deleted]
I don't get how everyone is acting like EVs increase energy demands. They are way more efficient than ICEs, it would even be better to switch to EVs and just burn gasoline in big turbine powerplants.
I can't see if you are being sarcastic or not but this is definitely wrong. Burning gasoline to move a car is much more efficient than burning gasoline to produce electricity transported to a charger to charge a car to move a car.
Uh...when was the last time you checked on the difference between the efficiency of small and large heat engines? A large Diesel engine is going to be vastly more efficient than a small one, for example:
> Passenger car diesel engines have energy efficiency of up to 41% but more typically 30% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency#Statistics)
> Low-speed diesel engines (as used in ships and other applications where overall engine weight is relatively unimportant) can reach effective efficiencies of up to 55%. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine)
Not to mention that a very large percentage of electricity for charging of vehicles is not going to come from fossil fuels in the first place, especially whenever charging can be planned (which is most of the time in Europe).
> Passenger car diesel engines have energy efficiency of up to 41% but more typically 30% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency#Statistics)
> Low-speed diesel engines (as used in ships and other applications where overall engine weight is relatively unimportant) can reach effective efficiencies of up to 55%. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine)
Not to mention that a very large percentage of electricity for charging of vehicles is not going to come from fossil fuels in the first place, especially whenever charging can be planned (which is most of the time in Europe).
Let's assume we go from 30% (low end of small engine efficiency according to first link) to 55% (high end for a Diesel engine according to the second article), so a little short of twice as efficient. What do you think is going to be the overhead of the conversion rate to electricity, electricity transportation ? Because if it is another 50% you lost all interest (but you built a plant and a float of cars and batteries in the meantime).
> Not to mention that a very large percentage of electricity for charging of vehicles is not going to come from fossil fuels in the first place, especially whenever charging can be planned (which is most of the time in Europe).
That's not what my parent and I are talking about. But I second that. Except I live in France and we are starting to have electricity cuts because we can't maintain our nuclear plants properly. So we are in a little bit more trouble than you might think.
> Not to mention that a very large percentage of electricity for charging of vehicles is not going to come from fossil fuels in the first place, especially whenever charging can be planned (which is most of the time in Europe).
That's not what my parent and I are talking about. But I second that. Except I live in France and we are starting to have electricity cuts because we can't maintain our nuclear plants properly. So we are in a little bit more trouble than you might think.
> What do you think is going to be the overhead of the conversion rate to electricity, electricity transportation ?
Well, for example transformers are ~98% efficient, AC lines lose around 7% per 1000 km. So with three transformers between you and the power plant and a ~300 km distance, you lose around 8% between the power plant and you.
> Because if it is another 50% you lost all interest (but you built a plant and a float of cars and batteries in the meantime).
No, not really. You're still not powering your cars purely from fossil fuels, so even 50% of losses would still be a win when it comes to minimizing fossil fuel emissions caused by road transportation. You'd only have to burn enough fossil fuels to cover whatever the non-fossil-fuel generators wouldn't be able to provide at any given time. But as I pointed out above, you almost certainly won't get 50% of losses.
> Except I live in France and we are starting to have electricity cuts because we can't maintain our nuclear plants properly. So we are in a little bit more trouble than you might think.
Nah, not really. France is in a great position to generate fairly substantial amounts of electricity from renewables with complementing the rest from nuclear power. Not to mention that I'd expect the EPR design to finally be sorted out after the initial units built. It's not like you'll need it tomorrow -- the transition to BEVs will take a considerable time. Even if sales of ICE cars actually stop in 2035, ICE vehicles won't disappear overnight. They'll only be gradually replaced for a decade or so.
Well, for example transformers are ~98% efficient, AC lines lose around 7% per 1000 km. So with three transformers between you and the power plant and a ~300 km distance, you lose around 8% between the power plant and you.
> Because if it is another 50% you lost all interest (but you built a plant and a float of cars and batteries in the meantime).
No, not really. You're still not powering your cars purely from fossil fuels, so even 50% of losses would still be a win when it comes to minimizing fossil fuel emissions caused by road transportation. You'd only have to burn enough fossil fuels to cover whatever the non-fossil-fuel generators wouldn't be able to provide at any given time. But as I pointed out above, you almost certainly won't get 50% of losses.
> Except I live in France and we are starting to have electricity cuts because we can't maintain our nuclear plants properly. So we are in a little bit more trouble than you might think.
Nah, not really. France is in a great position to generate fairly substantial amounts of electricity from renewables with complementing the rest from nuclear power. Not to mention that I'd expect the EPR design to finally be sorted out after the initial units built. It's not like you'll need it tomorrow -- the transition to BEVs will take a considerable time. Even if sales of ICE cars actually stop in 2035, ICE vehicles won't disappear overnight. They'll only be gradually replaced for a decade or so.
I can't judge on your numbers but just to point out that we were comparing gasoline plants + EV vs gasoline cars and I feel that the discussion is switching into NE plants + EV vs gasoline cars.
I also think that a lot of steel+copper+lithium and others are not taken into the equation to replace cars and manufacture more plants. Steel particularly consumes a lot of energy to produce. Uranium shortages are going to become a thing too especially with new demand from China.
Also I disagree with your optimism on french nuclear and renewable, having worked there and having friends working in EDF and also following various debates, political decisions, and news flow, we went from quite optimistic a few years back to more and more pessimistic about the whole thing. Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home. And the competency for nuclear has retired or seems to be going to China or elsewhere for counseling now.
I also think that a lot of steel+copper+lithium and others are not taken into the equation to replace cars and manufacture more plants. Steel particularly consumes a lot of energy to produce. Uranium shortages are going to become a thing too especially with new demand from China.
Also I disagree with your optimism on french nuclear and renewable, having worked there and having friends working in EDF and also following various debates, political decisions, and news flow, we went from quite optimistic a few years back to more and more pessimistic about the whole thing. Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home. And the competency for nuclear has retired or seems to be going to China or elsewhere for counseling now.
> but just to point out that we were comparing gasoline plants + EV vs gasoline cars and I feel that the discussion is switching into NE plants + EV vs gasoline cars.
Not sure what "NE plants" are (I'd understand that NG would be natural gas) but the point was that whatever liquid hydrocarbons you can put into a car can be used even more efficiently in a large scale facility. And if you intend to operate such plants, you don't need to crack oil into gasoline for them, so they wouldn't be gasoline plants, even if they were oil-fired.
> Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home
I've had a solar plant next to my home for years and I've had zero problems with it. I wouldn't have a problem with a nuclear plant either. (With wind power it's a moot point since the place where I live has zero useful wind for any potential turbine installation.)
Not sure what "NE plants" are (I'd understand that NG would be natural gas) but the point was that whatever liquid hydrocarbons you can put into a car can be used even more efficiently in a large scale facility. And if you intend to operate such plants, you don't need to crack oil into gasoline for them, so they wouldn't be gasoline plants, even if they were oil-fired.
> Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home
I've had a solar plant next to my home for years and I've had zero problems with it. I wouldn't have a problem with a nuclear plant either. (With wind power it's a moot point since the place where I live has zero useful wind for any potential turbine installation.)
> Well, for example transformers are ~98% efficient, AC lines lose around 7% per 1000 km. So with three transformers between you and the power plant and a ~300 km distance, you lose around 8% between the power plant and you.
That's not how it works because it's assuming a point to point connection for your use case. In reality there is the grid, and from everything I know transmission losses from whichever source to your socket over that grid average out to 50% best case, to about only one third reaching the destination. The latter for instance for electrified rail.
That's not how it works because it's assuming a point to point connection for your use case. In reality there is the grid, and from everything I know transmission losses from whichever source to your socket over that grid average out to 50% best case, to about only one third reaching the destination. The latter for instance for electrified rail.
Can me give you an example of such cases? Because where I live, the grid absolutely does not suffer such horrible losses. "50% best case" would be absolutely unthinkable here -- especially for purpose-built medium-voltage systems like electrical rail.
Since this isn't my area of expertise, no, I didn't bookmark them. Just looked into it repeatedly since the beginning of our transformation to renewable and sustainable energy here, since about 2008. I thought the same regarding losses and grid, but it seems like it is so with current technology.
I live (mostly) in Germany. But as I've said, when you zoom out and look into it, considering all that goes through and into it, it seems like it.
No matter where. ISTR tidbits from documentaries, many websites specializing in analysis, even wikipedia. Especially that rail thing, only one third from power plant reaching the locomotive is normal.
Let's put it this way: You have a model for your use case, a (mind) map. But the map is not the territory :-)
I live (mostly) in Germany. But as I've said, when you zoom out and look into it, considering all that goes through and into it, it seems like it.
No matter where. ISTR tidbits from documentaries, many websites specializing in analysis, even wikipedia. Especially that rail thing, only one third from power plant reaching the locomotive is normal.
Let's put it this way: You have a model for your use case, a (mind) map. But the map is not the territory :-)
> Especially that rail thing, only one third from power plant reaching the locomotive is normal.
Link please. Because that would be a terrible performance figure for a high power system like that. Worst possible loss figures I've been able to find for our grid are 15% losses between the power plant and the plug, and that's including the losses in low-voltage distribution (400 V 50 Hz three-phase). Modern rail runs at 25 kV/50 Hz single-phase. 66% losses would be mind-boggling. As per [1], the expected losses for powering 25 kV rail are around 7% including conversion between transmission lines and the traction lines. So even including losses between the power plant and the conversion substation, they should definitely be significantly below 20%.
[1] https://vts.cd.cz/documents/168518/195369/3201.pdf/9a95e429-...
Link please. Because that would be a terrible performance figure for a high power system like that. Worst possible loss figures I've been able to find for our grid are 15% losses between the power plant and the plug, and that's including the losses in low-voltage distribution (400 V 50 Hz three-phase). Modern rail runs at 25 kV/50 Hz single-phase. 66% losses would be mind-boggling. As per [1], the expected losses for powering 25 kV rail are around 7% including conversion between transmission lines and the traction lines. So even including losses between the power plant and the conversion substation, they should definitely be significantly below 20%.
[1] https://vts.cd.cz/documents/168518/195369/3201.pdf/9a95e429-...
I'm thinking more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant
Gasoline engines in road-legal cars have about 20-35% thermal efficiency. Just making the engine bigger and not caring about engine weight (like in ships or power plants) allows you to bring efficiency up to about 55%. Electric motors (as used in electric cars) are about 90% efficient.
Of course you lose some charging and discharging the battery, in the charger itself and in transmission losses. But just eyeballing it it seems like the power plant should come out ahead as long as it isn't too far away.
Of course you lose some charging and discharging the battery, in the charger itself and in transmission losses. But just eyeballing it it seems like the power plant should come out ahead as long as it isn't too far away.
> Electric motors (as used in electric cars) are about 90% efficient.
But where is efficiency of electricity transmission, transformation, battery charging and battery discharging?
But where is efficiency of electricity transmission, transformation, battery charging and battery discharging?
Natural gas power plants are about 50% efficient. Transmission is about 95%. I believe transformer efficiency is also typically about 95%. Charge+discharge efficiency is also about 95%. Electric motors are about 85%. In total you end up with about 36%, which is at the upper end of the typical 25-35% efficiency of ICEs.
You can check the numbers yourself on https://climobil.connecting-project.lu, comparing the ICE and BEV version of the same car (e.g. Volkswagen e-up offers both) and choosing the country where you would charge the vehicle. Poland seems the only country where the ICE comes out ahead I think. Note that this also includes the emissions for the battery production.
(Good link!)
Also Latvia, Estonia and Malta. And Kentucky, West Virginia, Wyoming.
Also Latvia, Estonia and Malta. And Kentucky, West Virginia, Wyoming.
> Under current conditions, driving an electric car is better for the climate than conventional petrol cars in 95% of the world, the study finds.
> The only exceptions are countries such as Poland, where the electricity network is still mostly based on coal-fired power generation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electr...
> The only exceptions are countries such as Poland, where the electricity network is still mostly based on coal-fired power generation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2020/03/30/yes-electr...
One, power plants don't burn gasoline. Two, ICEs are incredibly inefficient, and burning natural gas in a powerplant and using the electricity to power an EV is absolutely more efficient.
It is not too rushed, we are only talking about new cars. It means you can buy an ICE car in 2034 and use it for another 12+ years (so nearly 2050 to drive without too much problems with an ICE car).
And we are talking, cars, not small buses, etc. You know that it will not have fundamental effects on the current trends if you look at the stocks of Shell, TotalEnergies, BP. They were basically not affected by the vote.
And we are talking, cars, not small buses, etc. You know that it will not have fundamental effects on the current trends if you look at the stocks of Shell, TotalEnergies, BP. They were basically not affected by the vote.
Don't worry this is a liveline - not a deadline. It will be postponed to 2045 and then 2055, etc
There definitely won't be a 1:1 replacement of petrol based car to electric. Public transportation will have to develop and drastic change in the way we move will be needed. The ban is coming too late if you consider the Paris agreement for a 1.5°C target of global warming is already on it's way to be missed.
I am somewhat curious what studies have been done to see if the electric grid in each region can handle what percentage of drivers using fast chargers and how many drivers will be able to charge at home and how many of them are charging off a large solar array whether it be their own or a farm connected to a local substation.
I do not know much about the grid capacity in the various regions of the EU. Here in the US our grid is often pushed to the brink causing mandatory shut-offs in some areas.
I do not know much about the grid capacity in the various regions of the EU. Here in the US our grid is often pushed to the brink causing mandatory shut-offs in some areas.
we now have a deep understanding of the environmental impact of EV and it is better on all criteria than fossil cars, there is tons of documentation available on internet showing it, and I know of reports for the French electricity transmission system operator and for the distribution system operator about infrastructure impact.
Electric buses with a battery size of Tesla already have proved themselves, rest will solve itself.
Better than nothing, but the date is a bit far away if we want carbon neutrality before (or even around) 2050. Cars have fairly long service times. Hopefully the market will phase out ICEs earlier than that except for niche uses.
There may be a faster fall-off than you'd think, because of feedback effects. Same way film cameras stopped being popular and then you couldn't get the films, or get them developed, so they got more unpopular, repeat until extinct. If fuel stations start closing down and you can't get the parts, it won't matter if fuel cars have decades of good service life ahead.
That is likely true for rich countries, but typically old cars get shipped to poorer countries where they continue to run for another decade or so. The infrastructure there will see good use for a while longer.
> where they continue to run for another decade or so
Or another 50 years. The modern western disposable culture isn’t global, although is certainly envied by many who don’t have it.
Or another 50 years. The modern western disposable culture isn’t global, although is certainly envied by many who don’t have it.
Of course some cars live essentially forever somewhere, but I think the fraction that passes the thirty year mark is rather small.
It's the oil infrastructure that will affect them, because it's global. If that goes away...
It won't go away, but there's good chances fuel gets a lot more expensive as production scales back.
Which is another feedback loop, high cost, shrinking demand, shrinking supply, rising cost.
Also oil has high fixed costs. Stations, tanker trucks, refineries. Fewer customers carrying them means they rise as a percentage of purchase price.
Also oil has high fixed costs. Stations, tanker trucks, refineries. Fewer customers carrying them means they rise as a percentage of purchase price.
Assuming you can easily get parts.
Yes, that's what I'm thinking too. It's a vicious circle (or maybe a virtuous one?) but once fuel stations start closing in droves it will become very impractical to own a petrol car.
That cycle will undoubtedly be slower for vehicles than cameras. Much larger, much more expensive population, covering a broader range of niche cases. I think very highly of my EV, but I'm not under the illusion that all fossil fueled vehicles will evaporate quickly. Certainly I expect another 10-15 years out of my 22-year-old truck.
A 22 year old van is already too old to be driven in many European cities.
For example, vans must be manufactured on 1 January 2007 or later to be used in Copenhagen. In July the date will become 1 January 2012 [1].
That doesn't yet apply to cars, and I think the truck counts as a car. It does apply in some cities in Germany, where the limit depends on the fuel -- petrol cars are often limited to 30 years (1992), diesel to 2007.
I expect these regulations to tighten as electric cars become widespread, and the various exemptions to become more stringent.
[1] https://miljoezoner.dk/en/regulations-and-vehicles/regulatio...
And https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/
For example, vans must be manufactured on 1 January 2007 or later to be used in Copenhagen. In July the date will become 1 January 2012 [1].
That doesn't yet apply to cars, and I think the truck counts as a car. It does apply in some cities in Germany, where the limit depends on the fuel -- petrol cars are often limited to 30 years (1992), diesel to 2007.
I expect these regulations to tighten as electric cars become widespread, and the various exemptions to become more stringent.
[1] https://miljoezoner.dk/en/regulations-and-vehicles/regulatio...
And https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/
Probably, but I still expect it to be slower than the film camera sunset. If memory serves, it took about a decade for film to evaporate once film camera sales were dominated by digital cameras. I think it'll take 2-3 decades for transportation electricity to do the same to petrol. It's unfortunate, then, that cessation of ICE car sales is so far away.
A petrol stations running costs are very low. They break even with 2% margins.
Even if they go away, a 2m^3 tank at home will last you for a year or more.
And if your typical full tank range of 500-600km is not enough, you can toss a few fuel cans in the trunk and travel across the continent without refueling.
The only way ICEs will go away is by hostile legislation, being regulated and taxed to death purely for ideological reasons, as is happening.
The only way ICEs will go away is by hostile legislation, being regulated and taxed to death purely for ideological reasons, as is happening.
Global warming is not an ideological reason. Neither is air pollution in densely populated areas.
> a 2m^3 tank at home
Err, what? I'm in Paris, I can't drill that kind of hole anywhere near my home. The article is about the EU; but I doubt most people can do that even in the US, except when you have a house in the middle of nowhere with lots of land around it.
Err, what? I'm in Paris, I can't drill that kind of hole anywhere near my home. The article is about the EU; but I doubt most people can do that even in the US, except when you have a house in the middle of nowhere with lots of land around it.
Not to mention: huge underground tanks of gasoline are a fire and explosion hazard. They are an environmental hazard if they leak or spill. They require building to safety codes. They require trained and skilled operation. They need to be to insured.
Purely ideological? What do you mean?
It's interesting to see how there are two top-level comments, one saying the date is too far away and the other saying that it's a short period for such a transition.
I guess both are true in some way - it's really challenging to decarbonise quickly, but we need even quicker, because we're way past reasonable in terms of the environmental situation.
I guess both are true in some way - it's really challenging to decarbonise quickly, but we need even quicker, because we're way past reasonable in terms of the environmental situation.
Electric cars are still ridiculously expensive, don't have the same range and features etc, why would I want one? I live in a cold place, cold isn't good for batteries and engines heat the car inside, with electric cars heating reduces the range drastically
We need to tell that to people in Norway where 85% of new cars are plugin vehicles.
Electric cars can run on average 100 km/h over 10 hours if you plan your trip well (and have a bit of luck with free spots on plugin stations). Apart from charging time I don't see where plugin vehicle is worse than ICE one when it comes to features.
Electric cars can run on average 100 km/h over 10 hours if you plan your trip well (and have a bit of luck with free spots on plugin stations). Apart from charging time I don't see where plugin vehicle is worse than ICE one when it comes to features.
> Electric cars can run on average 100 km/h over 10 hours
That's below highway speed here, and everything is at least twice the distance in America than you think it is. The nearest major city from me is 240km away, the second is 435km and it gets -34C here (the average in winter being about -10C).
It just isn't feasible if you aren't in a dense metro area and only ever use your vehicle to commute (which is by far not the case).
That's below highway speed here, and everything is at least twice the distance in America than you think it is. The nearest major city from me is 240km away, the second is 435km and it gets -34C here (the average in winter being about -10C).
It just isn't feasible if you aren't in a dense metro area and only ever use your vehicle to commute (which is by far not the case).
Average trip lengths in America are not that much longer than in Europe. On the rather rare occasions when you do several hundred kilometers in a single day, stopping for fifteen minutes to recharge every two hours or so doesn't increase travel time all that much. You have to take breaks anyway.
> Electric cars are still ridiculously expensive, don't have the same range and features etc, why would I want one?
Are you under the age of 65? Do you have children? Do you expect that you will ever have children?
If so, you want either an electric car or no car at all, in preference to a fossil-fuel-powered car, because you want the planet to remain hospitable for humans.
Are you under the age of 65? Do you have children? Do you expect that you will ever have children?
If so, you want either an electric car or no car at all, in preference to a fossil-fuel-powered car, because you want the planet to remain hospitable for humans.
That's exactly why they plan to either ban ICE or tax the hell out of them. Because society needs you to switch to electric, so they need to make you want one.
It's not fast enough to make electrics better, so we need to make ICE worse as well.
It's not fast enough to make electrics better, so we need to make ICE worse as well.
As someone in the American Midwest: LMAO. ICE cars are definitely not going anywhere anytime soon here.
There's an interesting issue with how expensive ICE cars will become to service and fuel when their number becomes smaller (2023 is meant to be the peak of ICE sales). The tipping point for replacement of horse drawn carriages with cars in large cities around the world came quite quickly - when the infrastructure became more expensive.
In 2035/2040 the majority of ICE car owners will be the less well off (plus those driving classic cars) - but they'll likely be paying much more for travel than those that can afford new electric cars.
In 2035/2040 the majority of ICE car owners will be the less well off (plus those driving classic cars) - but they'll likely be paying much more for travel than those that can afford new electric cars.
Well except that people who can afford used ICE today won't be able to afford used BEV tomorrow. It is like banning bread and telling them to eat cake.
"The law is not yet final. Wednesday's vote confirms the parliament's position for upcoming negotiations with EU countries on the final law."
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/eu-law...
>Raimondo noted: "The truth of the matter is that requires a lot of chips. The average electric vehicle has 2,000 chips in one car... one of the manufacturers said they're going to double their chip needs in the next five years. Probably the [combustion engine] car you drive now has hundreds of chips. The EV that we want you to buy over time has 2,000 chips."
I hear this repeated all the time. No you don't need hundreds of chips to build an ICE engine car, and no you don't need hundreds, let alone thousands, of chips to build an electric car. There's no technical reason electric cars need so many more chips than ICE cars.
The number of chips in cars is mostly due to the number of suppliers involved in building parts of the car separately.
I hear this repeated all the time. No you don't need hundreds of chips to build an ICE engine car, and no you don't need hundreds, let alone thousands, of chips to build an electric car. There's no technical reason electric cars need so many more chips than ICE cars.
The number of chips in cars is mostly due to the number of suppliers involved in building parts of the car separately.
What makes one think EVs are gonna have much more chips then a comparable ICE?
All those pumps, thousands of parts in the ICE, emissions control, transmission will become obsolete. Having a charging controller, an electric motor and battery monitoring is going to he a lot less complicated.
All those pumps, thousands of parts in the ICE, emissions control, transmission will become obsolete. Having a charging controller, an electric motor and battery monitoring is going to he a lot less complicated.
I know, and even in ICE the drivetrain is only a portion of the CPUs. Most do windshield wipers, seat adjustments, darkening mirrors, electronically adjustable mirrors, climate control, Infotainment and all the rest. There's no difference here in EVs.
If you have a combustion engine and want to change to electric, who will buy it from you? Or how do you get rid of your old car? There will be basically no demand in Europe.
Just wondering what will happen to all these existing cars, it’s nice to know new cars will be electric but what are people supposed to do with their current ones? Lot of them won’t be usable in cities due to low-emission zoning policies.
Edit: it’s a genuine question, I don’t understand the logistic behind it, other than driving your old car to Turkey and sell it there, which isn’t realistic for the millions of existing cars. I asked it a few times in the past but didn’t get satisfying answers.
Just wondering what will happen to all these existing cars, it’s nice to know new cars will be electric but what are people supposed to do with their current ones? Lot of them won’t be usable in cities due to low-emission zoning policies.
Edit: it’s a genuine question, I don’t understand the logistic behind it, other than driving your old car to Turkey and sell it there, which isn’t realistic for the millions of existing cars. I asked it a few times in the past but didn’t get satisfying answers.
I am willing to bet a beer that it's only for new cars. The article links to a description :
>In a plenary vote on Wednesday, MEPs adopted their position on proposed rules to revise the CO2 emissions performance standards for *new* cars and vans with 339 votes in favour, 249 against and 24 abstentions.
Many of the eu rules for cars are not retroactive. E.g I can use a old car without lighting for the number plate, even though new cars must have light on them.
>In a plenary vote on Wednesday, MEPs adopted their position on proposed rules to revise the CO2 emissions performance standards for *new* cars and vans with 339 votes in favour, 249 against and 24 abstentions.
Many of the eu rules for cars are not retroactive. E.g I can use a old car without lighting for the number plate, even though new cars must have light on them.
Yes, this only applies to new cars, not used cars. You will be able to sell and buy used cars after 2035 if this proposal comes into effect. Note that while the parliament of the EU has approved the proposal, it still needs approval from the council of ministers.
Yes, only new cars. I think it this could also mean the reverse for used cars: They get more expensive because everybody wants them and no new are produced.
Frankly that's what I'm expecting for aging electric or electronic (not computerized) ICE cars. There will be contexts where BEVs don't work out (farms, off road work, extremely cold climates etc) and humans will maintain an ICE car like a good old 4Runner, Land Cruiser, Jeep CJ5, Unimog and so on for those cases, appreciating in value as the supply of new comparables is gonna be slim to none.
We may even end up in a long term repair market like Cuba maintaining those 50s cars since they can't really get more.
BEVs will be for civilian city dwellers, but for those who have jobs that were once called essential workers, the ones where people suffer and maybe die if the job doesn't happen, ICE cars will still have a place just for their dependability under duress factor.
We may even end up in a long term repair market like Cuba maintaining those 50s cars since they can't really get more.
BEVs will be for civilian city dwellers, but for those who have jobs that were once called essential workers, the ones where people suffer and maybe die if the job doesn't happen, ICE cars will still have a place just for their dependability under duress factor.
Yes but ICE cars will get more and more expensive to operate as the infrastructure (repair shops and gas stations) disappear, and EU cities will totally ban them (they already start to restrict them).
All in all, in the EU you are quite pushed to get rid of your ICE car. I see this as a very good thing.
All in all, in the EU you are quite pushed to get rid of your ICE car. I see this as a very good thing.
Sure but that’s just this specific vote, the goal of the EU has been quite clear here, they want to eventually ban consumption engines.
If you keep a consumption engine you won’t have as many gas stations anymore and will not be allowed to circulate in some areas (low-emission zones, for example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crit%27air).
If you keep a consumption engine you won’t have as many gas stations anymore and will not be allowed to circulate in some areas (low-emission zones, for example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crit%27air).
Why wouldn't the used market eat them up? The existing infrastructure of gas station is realistically not going away until enough people have ditched their old vehicles, and cars are thankfully an industry where consumers still expect their cars to last 10+ years.
Don't know what everyone else's experience is, but coming from a middle class family, my first car was a 1993 Ford Fiesta (which was ~20 year old at the time) my dad bought me for dirt cheap. It used a very outdated fuel (petrol instead of diesel), didn't have any of the modern safety standards which are required by new cars and had fuel efficiency so bad it was outright banned within many city centers... but it still served me for years.
Don't know what everyone else's experience is, but coming from a middle class family, my first car was a 1993 Ford Fiesta (which was ~20 year old at the time) my dad bought me for dirt cheap. It used a very outdated fuel (petrol instead of diesel), didn't have any of the modern safety standards which are required by new cars and had fuel efficiency so bad it was outright banned within many city centers... but it still served me for years.
> consumers still expect their cars to last 10+ years
Much longer than that. I'm in my mid 20s in the UK, and I only know one person who drives a car that's less than a decade old, and she leases it. Everyone else has cars 1995-2011. Mine is a 2010 fiesta which I bought last year.
The used car market is huge here.
Much longer than that. I'm in my mid 20s in the UK, and I only know one person who drives a car that's less than a decade old, and she leases it. Everyone else has cars 1995-2011. Mine is a 2010 fiesta which I bought last year.
The used car market is huge here.
Not that much longer than that.
> The average age of a car at scrappage in 2015 reached 13.9 years, which is on a par with the 2014 performance. The lowest scrappage age, 13 years, was recorded in 2009, a result of government’s scrappage scheme. [1]
> Furthermore, the average age of a vehicle on the road has increased, from 6.8 years in 2003 to 7.8 recorded in 2015. This reflects both slower fleet renewal and the increased longevity of vehicles.
Looking at the statistics (veh1111.ods in data tables [2]), on 31 December 2021, 63% of cars were less than 10 years old. 86% were less than 15 years old. 96% were less than 20 years old.
[1] https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/sustainability/averag...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-s...
> The average age of a car at scrappage in 2015 reached 13.9 years, which is on a par with the 2014 performance. The lowest scrappage age, 13 years, was recorded in 2009, a result of government’s scrappage scheme. [1]
> Furthermore, the average age of a vehicle on the road has increased, from 6.8 years in 2003 to 7.8 recorded in 2015. This reflects both slower fleet renewal and the increased longevity of vehicles.
Looking at the statistics (veh1111.ods in data tables [2]), on 31 December 2021, 63% of cars were less than 10 years old. 86% were less than 15 years old. 96% were less than 20 years old.
[1] https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-topics/sustainability/averag...
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/vehicle-licensing-s...
Tbf, this has something to do with supply of right-hand drive vehicles being smaller than left-hand drive.
In a lot of the EU, the used-car sector has lost a lot of ground, particularly since governments figured that a cheap way to stimulate tax revenues is to pass emission rules, effectively forcing sales of new vehicles. We had a similar effect in UK (also powered by the rise of PCP), but the somewhat-constrained supply of new vehicles kept up prices of used ones.
In a lot of the EU, the used-car sector has lost a lot of ground, particularly since governments figured that a cheap way to stimulate tax revenues is to pass emission rules, effectively forcing sales of new vehicles. We had a similar effect in UK (also powered by the rise of PCP), but the somewhat-constrained supply of new vehicles kept up prices of used ones.
ICE cars are going to get banned from city centers at some point.
In Europe, just because of rumors that city centers plan to ban diesel cars their sales have already dropped and manufacturers are phasing down production. When that kind of talk happens to all ICE nobody around a city will want one.
In Europe, just because of rumors that city centers plan to ban diesel cars their sales have already dropped and manufacturers are phasing down production. When that kind of talk happens to all ICE nobody around a city will want one.
The article doesn't make it clear, but they are banning the sale of new ICE cars. The secondhand market will continue, although I certainly would expect the value to reduce.
Diesel cars have already seen this happen, with current and expected future restrictions on them being used in cities.
Diesel cars have already seen this happen, with current and expected future restrictions on them being used in cities.
If they follow through with this, I’d expect a 2034 ICE car will fetch a premium in 2036 rather than being unsellable. (Note that, contrary to the headline and contents in the Register article, the ban is only on the sale of new cars with ICE, not on the sale of used ICE cars.)
There are plenty of cases where EVs are very good answers today. My wife’s ICE car is 17 years old and still going strong. If I fast forward to 2039, she’d equivalently be driving a 2022. In 2045, 10 year old ICE cars will still be readily available and I think quite usable.
There are plenty of cases where EVs are very good answers today. My wife’s ICE car is 17 years old and still going strong. If I fast forward to 2039, she’d equivalently be driving a 2022. In 2045, 10 year old ICE cars will still be readily available and I think quite usable.
Crushed and recycled, presumably.
A new ICE car bought today will be usable for over a decade. Of course, the whole point is to make combustion vehicle purchases unappealing, and telling people their resale will be close to nothing helps with this!
I assume people will sell theirs for export to the countries outside of EU. Having bought a new car last year with internal combustion - I'm OK to lose a few thousands by 2035 if this means that there are no more internal combustion cars in use.
The primary reason I bought non-electric car is insufficient infrastructure, bills like this will fix the infrastructure problem.
Edit: to answer the question in the edit. 13 years is enought of heads up for any new cars. I'd expect a pretty significant drop off in new car sales by 2030 as few people would like to be forced to get rid of their 5 year old car by 2035.
The primary reason I bought non-electric car is insufficient infrastructure, bills like this will fix the infrastructure problem.
Edit: to answer the question in the edit. 13 years is enought of heads up for any new cars. I'd expect a pretty significant drop off in new car sales by 2030 as few people would like to be forced to get rid of their 5 year old car by 2035.
It's only a ban on the sale of new cars.
By 2035 any car manufactured today would be at least 13 years old. My oldest car is 20 years old, and worth basically one tenth - at best - it's purchase price (probably less).
So realistically, old car stock will spend another couple of decades being driven till it's dust, and then it'll be gone. But this is a move which does need to happen soon, since you can reasonably expect another 2 decades of the vehicles on the second hand market after implementation.
So realistically, old car stock will spend another couple of decades being driven till it's dust, and then it'll be gone. But this is a move which does need to happen soon, since you can reasonably expect another 2 decades of the vehicles on the second hand market after implementation.
It's only for new cars and in 2035, buyers have 12 years to see it coming and make informed decisions during that period.
Translation: you've got twelve years to save for a Tesla ya dirty peasant.
Because everyone will buy the 2035 equivalent of a new Tesla Model 3 instead of a used Nissan Leaf?
Whatever you buy, you better save up for a new battery.
That's an issue with electric cars that has not really been solved, afaik. Most batteries will become useless at a rate that is not comparable to critical ICE engine parts, and they continue to be very expensive.
That's an issue with electric cars that has not really been solved, afaik. Most batteries will become useless at a rate that is not comparable to critical ICE engine parts, and they continue to be very expensive.
Tesla batteries show remarkably little degradation. Batteries are expected to last the whole life of the vehicle.
That's not really all that different from an ICE car. Every ICE car I've owned becomes overly costly to maintain after 200k miles or so, with a resale/scrap value of a couple grand at most.
Why would you absolutely need to sell your car? Just don' buy an EV and run your car until its worth 0.
"Lot of them won’t be usable in cities due to low-emission zoning policies.",Yeah lots of talk about that previously but I don't think this will happen for _new_ cars. Also lots of places outside of cities.
"Lot of them won’t be usable in cities due to low-emission zoning policies.",Yeah lots of talk about that previously but I don't think this will happen for _new_ cars. Also lots of places outside of cities.
The last mass-market ICE vehicles of 2035 won't be your beloved V8 muscle cars. Increasingly tight noise and pollution limits already make it hard to make an appealing ICE car.
The last ICE cars will be mostly crappy econoboxes for people who can't afford a battery. And they will still have stupid touchscreens and phone-home software because that's dictated by fashion and profit margins, not the powertrain.
The last ICE cars will be mostly crappy econoboxes for people who can't afford a battery. And they will still have stupid touchscreens and phone-home software because that's dictated by fashion and profit margins, not the powertrain.
E.U. is expected to have their oil production declining by 2030[1] so it's not like they have that much of a choice anyway.
[1] https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/eu-oil-depletion-2030...
[1] https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/eu-oil-depletion-2030...
The EU's oil production has long been declining, and it's quite laughable anyway, an order of magnitude smaller than the US's (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php..., https://yearbook.enerdata.net/crude-oil/world-production-sta...). We almost completely rely on imports.
While I'm happy about initiatives like this for environmental reasons, I'm sure their real reasons have a lot to do with the EU not having oil in a context where it's going to grow increasingly expensive, and not so much with environmental concerns.
While I'm happy about initiatives like this for environmental reasons, I'm sure their real reasons have a lot to do with the EU not having oil in a context where it's going to grow increasingly expensive, and not so much with environmental concerns.
Sounds like today is the worst day to sell my 1.6l diesel, but tomorrow will be worse.
No really. Any semiconductor shortage will see the value of existing second hand cars on the road shoot up. Especially those with fewer electronics and high reliability.
In fact, the most desirable second hand cars (in Europe at least) are those form around mid '00s, as they had enough electronics to be relatively fuel efficient and safe, but still be reliable enough to not get you dragged to the dealership because one of the million electronics on board of the cars of today decided to have a bad day (modern cars a reliability nightmares, making out of warranty repairs super expensive, basically pushing people to old cars).
In fact, the most desirable second hand cars (in Europe at least) are those form around mid '00s, as they had enough electronics to be relatively fuel efficient and safe, but still be reliable enough to not get you dragged to the dealership because one of the million electronics on board of the cars of today decided to have a bad day (modern cars a reliability nightmares, making out of warranty repairs super expensive, basically pushing people to old cars).
This is good from an environmental perspective, if (and that is a big if) the electricity is generated from clean sources.
The societal implications are worrisome. Electric vehicles tend to track and surveil their "owners", fast charging is centralized and can be tracked as well.
We have seen how far dystopian regimes like Trudeau's are willing to go. Instead of freezing the bank accounts using enabling laws, he could also shut off the grid or exclude specific vehicles. Mandatory kill switches for vehicles will come in handy as well.
I'm sure the army and police armored vehicles for population suppression will still have combustion engines.
The societal implications are worrisome. Electric vehicles tend to track and surveil their "owners", fast charging is centralized and can be tracked as well.
We have seen how far dystopian regimes like Trudeau's are willing to go. Instead of freezing the bank accounts using enabling laws, he could also shut off the grid or exclude specific vehicles. Mandatory kill switches for vehicles will come in handy as well.
I'm sure the army and police armored vehicles for population suppression will still have combustion engines.
All vehicles, no matter how old, or what form of propulsion, are tracked via the ANPR systems which have been built over the last three decades.
This is certainly true in Europe, though I understand that those networks aren't as mature in the USA yet (anecdotal, and I could be very wrong about that).
I've yet to hear about any vehicles with 'kill switches'. Is there any evidence of this, or is it just a possibility?
This is certainly true in Europe, though I understand that those networks aren't as mature in the USA yet (anecdotal, and I could be very wrong about that).
I've yet to hear about any vehicles with 'kill switches'. Is there any evidence of this, or is it just a possibility?
A reality since at least 2009: OnStar remotely disabled the gas pedal... https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/10/onstar-g...
It's even good from an environmental perspective if electricity is not all low emissions. In fact, even with the current energy mix in germany, with a large portion of coal.
ICEs are very inefficient at converting gas to movement, so the per-km emissions almost always favor EVs, independent of power generation. So if the manufacturing gets greener (which will hopefully be sufficiently the case by then), it doesn't matter.
ICEs are very inefficient at converting gas to movement, so the per-km emissions almost always favor EVs, independent of power generation. So if the manufacturing gets greener (which will hopefully be sufficiently the case by then), it doesn't matter.
I've not heard of Canada having a dystopian regime, can you elaborate what you mean by that?
OP is likely referring to the current government using emergency powers to order banks to freeze the accounts of protestors. The government has also (re-) introduced legislation to require platforms to regulate social media posts, as well as taken several other positions the perceived wisdom of which depends greatly on one's politics.
I don't know what things are like in the US or Canada but I'm a privacy-conscious European EV owner and realistically don't feel that I've been forced to make any compromises.
The car's connected features like remote unlocking are completely optional and easy to live without.
Fast charging data, as far as I can tell, are only centralized within my payment provider, similar to how it would be if I were to use a debit/credit card to buy fuel.
I trust the EU and my country's government not to introduce dystopian measures like mandatory kill switches.
The car's connected features like remote unlocking are completely optional and easy to live without.
Fast charging data, as far as I can tell, are only centralized within my payment provider, similar to how it would be if I were to use a debit/credit card to buy fuel.
I trust the EU and my country's government not to introduce dystopian measures like mandatory kill switches.
What you say about electric cars is also true for new fossil cars.
Older ones too. If anything, newer cars are getting more secure in this, because if laws like GDPR. Many cars don't even really wipe data when you do a 'factory reset'. They just don't show it anymore, but if you get to the source data, you can still see it. Think about that next time you sell your car.
You have to fight again and again to enforce GDPR. GDPR certainly did not make ISPs more honest. In fact, Vodafone (in Europe) has just announced that they will track all connections, assign each customer a supercookie (on their side) and sell out the paying customer to advertisers.
I don't think this would have happened in Europe in 2005.
I don't think this would have happened in Europe in 2005.
Hmm, now in 10 years vote to move this date forward? Or will the 2034 be year with most combustion engine vehicles ever sold in EU?
> now in 10 years vote to move this date forward?
You're assuming you'll be able to vote on the issue.
The EU isn't a particularly democratic system, and even assuming that the question will be asked of politicians and not simply implemented by non-elected bureaucrats, being able to poll the entire voter base on an issue such as this one is damn near impossible in the current system.
Also, last time an actual EU-wide referendum was implemented, the results were basically ignored because the outcome didn't suit the bureaucrats.
You're assuming you'll be able to vote on the issue.
The EU isn't a particularly democratic system, and even assuming that the question will be asked of politicians and not simply implemented by non-elected bureaucrats, being able to poll the entire voter base on an issue such as this one is damn near impossible in the current system.
Also, last time an actual EU-wide referendum was implemented, the results were basically ignored because the outcome didn't suit the bureaucrats.
[deleted]
This will be a huge disaster, I work for one of the largest car manufacturers in the world and everyone is shitting their pants. Germany the leading "pseudo-green" energy country can't even produce enough green energy for 10% of currently existing electric cars, there's no way on earth to have enough for a electric-car-only scenario til 2035. What are these politicians thinking? The only way they can make this work is by going full YOU VILL OWN NOTHING mode and cancel private property as we know it.
you are talking nonsenses : 1,4 million EV in Germany with 15kWh/100km and 15000km/year so using 3,15 TWh a year and producing 160 TWh of renewable electricity in 2021
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country
https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=fr&c=DE...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country
https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=fr&c=DE...
> What are these politicians thinking?
That what they vote on can simply be. Politicians don't like to think logistics. They exist in another realm, above the common man.
> The only way they can make this work is by going full YOU VILL OWN NOTHING mode and cancel private property as we know it.
Correct. That's been the elite's plan for a long time now, and they're open about it.
That what they vote on can simply be. Politicians don't like to think logistics. They exist in another realm, above the common man.
> The only way they can make this work is by going full YOU VILL OWN NOTHING mode and cancel private property as we know it.
Correct. That's been the elite's plan for a long time now, and they're open about it.
A series plug in hybrid with 100 km range and a smallish range extender motor for long trips could be more environmentally efficient (and cheaper) for those who drive only a little and/or most of their kilometers in the city.
This way you would need to mine only a quarter of the materials for the billions of batteries. It's not immediately obvious it makes sense to create those batteries that would then sit on driveways for most of their life.
For taxis or sales reps, full electric, definitely!
This way you would need to mine only a quarter of the materials for the billions of batteries. It's not immediately obvious it makes sense to create those batteries that would then sit on driveways for most of their life.
For taxis or sales reps, full electric, definitely!
Still too late.
I was hoping for 2030-2032 target since it would look like a quick win for environmentmental targets
India and China: lmao thanks for the free money.
Like really, am a European but feels like this is just "giving up"
Also I'm curious how this will play out with the huge economic disparity between the member states (eg Luxemburg vs Bulgaria). People can't afford new cars let alone new electronic cars.
Like really, am a European but feels like this is just "giving up"
Also I'm curious how this will play out with the huge economic disparity between the member states (eg Luxemburg vs Bulgaria). People can't afford new cars let alone new electronic cars.
Bulgarian here, mentioned in a lower thread as well, it will mean the richer states just export their old (modern) combustion engine cars to the Eastern countries.
Curious what you mean by "giving up" though?
Curious what you mean by "giving up" though?
People who use private planes to fly around voting on these kind of stuff. Democracy huh...
Unlike US senators, 99% of EU parliament MEPs don't have the means for private planes (or even to charter them regularly).
Now you know how it feels when the government takes your tax money that you earned from a job to which you commuted by bike and gives it to motorists so they can buy EV's that will then clog the city through which you are cycling.
Always someone to blame.... this is a positive step.
Always someone to blame.... this is a positive step.
I wonder how realistic that is. That’s a huge shift to make in only 13 years. I guess we’ll see!
It isn't. In about 5-10 years we will see a big push to delay that deadline, or even quietly shelve it. The industrial sector in particular is nowhere near switching, and they are critical - by and large, distribution relies on rubber, and that rubber is not going to be electric in 10 years time.
What does rubber mean in this context?
The deadline is for cars and light commercial vehicles, not for heavy goods vehicles, which is what industry uses for nearly all distribution.
The deadline is for cars and light commercial vehicles, not for heavy goods vehicles, which is what industry uses for nearly all distribution.
Hopefully, forceful policy can ensure it happens before environmental collapse and secondary effects like resource war achieve the same effects in less desirable ways. Fear of the latter should enable policymakers to be more ruthless about the former.
> before environmental collapse
EU has less than 10% share in the CO~2 production. We are not going to make a difference even by going medieval today, and the rest of the world isn't going to care, especially as they will watch us to self-destruct.
EU has less than 10% share in the CO~2 production. We are not going to make a difference even by going medieval today, and the rest of the world isn't going to care, especially as they will watch us to self-destruct.
You think radical policy is limited to internal? What happens if I don't trade with you unless you verifiably stop cutting down your rainforest? If I exclude your organisations from import unless they achieve some audited environmental standards, adopt EVs etc. Being a rich trading bloc like the EU can certainly have important and deliberate externalities.
Now do historic emissions, give all countries the right to develop and then the EU should very much cut it's future emissions for things to even out at all.
Long term deadlines are there to be a problem to handle for future politicians, not those currently in power.
The EU is the most unintentionally hilarious confederation. It's completely inside out.
Coordinate foreign affairs? Nope
Able to police external borders? Nope
Credible military deterrence in its near abroad? Not even remotely
But banning IC engines, mandating dongle size, and giving the world cookie popups? You bet!
Coordinate foreign affairs? Nope
Able to police external borders? Nope
Credible military deterrence in its near abroad? Not even remotely
But banning IC engines, mandating dongle size, and giving the world cookie popups? You bet!
I think you find it hilarious because you misunderstand its purpose its a bit like me laughing at the US federal government because it can't even put consistent marriage or abortion laws in place across the country.
The EU's roots are as a common trading block - it is built around the foundation of a single market, removing barriers to trade across countries. A common defense policy isn't part of that, external borders are nominally a matter for those countries - it is internal borders that the EU is centrally concerned with.
Common connectors for phones, clearly falls within the ambit of a seamless internal market, internal combustion engines too - given that the countries have adopted similar positions on climate change and want the market to reflect that.
Cookie popups were a stupid industry innovation designed to try and circumvent EU data privacy rules.
The EU's roots are as a common trading block - it is built around the foundation of a single market, removing barriers to trade across countries. A common defense policy isn't part of that, external borders are nominally a matter for those countries - it is internal borders that the EU is centrally concerned with.
Common connectors for phones, clearly falls within the ambit of a seamless internal market, internal combustion engines too - given that the countries have adopted similar positions on climate change and want the market to reflect that.
Cookie popups were a stupid industry innovation designed to try and circumvent EU data privacy rules.
> t is built around the foundation of a single market, removing barriers to trade across countries.
Somewhat ironically, that's also the basic principle enshrining the primacy of the US federal government - rules for interstate commerce.
The main difference between the US system and EU system is that one was effectively built top-down, and the other bottom-up. At some point, they will likely reach a similar equilibrium, with US states becoming more and more independent and EU states less and less so.
Somewhat ironically, that's also the basic principle enshrining the primacy of the US federal government - rules for interstate commerce.
The main difference between the US system and EU system is that one was effectively built top-down, and the other bottom-up. At some point, they will likely reach a similar equilibrium, with US states becoming more and more independent and EU states less and less so.
> with US states becoming more and more independent
I can only dream.
I can only dream.
I see it as inevitable. As population grows even in remote areas, the system will have to accept that certain issues are unreconcilable at federal level. Chances are you already know what those issues are, but the list can only grow.
Moving the blame from the EU data privacy rules to literally everyone else is frankly just ridiculous.
Your honour I hold it was not my client who did wrong, but the person who made the law banning murder in the first place.
Yes, well, maybe this particular regulation introduced in 2018 has the moral universality of murder or maybe it’s just a bad regulation.
Really could be either way.
Really could be either way.
Ha okay fair point on how much people ethically rate the actions people are trying to ban/regulate here, but the EU aren't creating convoluted cookie pops forcing anyone to do anything. Those people are part of that literally everyone else you're proposing.
Unless your point is the legislation didn't go far enough? I didn't personally read it that way.
Unless your point is the legislation didn't go far enough? I didn't personally read it that way.
Really the point is that while the intentions are reasonable, leaders must be judged by outcomes. It is necessary but not sufficient for leaders to do the right thing. They must also achieve the right outcome. This is a harsh rule and requires commensurate power to be fair (which is why we don’t apply it in all aspects of life) but it is both fair and necessary when applied to leaders.
Now, I believe this and you’ll find this belief implicit in much of the criticism of the EU regulatory directives but a reasonable person might disagree.
Now, I believe this and you’ll find this belief implicit in much of the criticism of the EU regulatory directives but a reasonable person might disagree.
I think you've been watching too much Fox. The EU is almost totally within NATO, so when you're using the word 'deterrence', and 'near abroad', you're not talking about defensive deterrence. You're talking about the ability to project hard power. That's something most EU citizens have no interest in.
When you're talking about 'policing external borders', you're both ignorant of the reality (EU power projection in the 'near abroad' has led to the non-EU states in the periphery stemming migrant flows), and you're again, arguing the EU is lacking something most of its citizens do not want. The vast majority of arrivals in the EU have legitimate claims to asylum, and human rights are a more important value than having proper paperwork.
The regulation stuff is what the EU is supposed to do. The whole elevator pitch of the EU is you get all the economic integration without the political integration. So banning IC engines, establishing standards, that kind of stuff, is part of the program. That's why a disparate set of nations that often hate eachother all want to be part of the same union.
When you're talking about 'policing external borders', you're both ignorant of the reality (EU power projection in the 'near abroad' has led to the non-EU states in the periphery stemming migrant flows), and you're again, arguing the EU is lacking something most of its citizens do not want. The vast majority of arrivals in the EU have legitimate claims to asylum, and human rights are a more important value than having proper paperwork.
The regulation stuff is what the EU is supposed to do. The whole elevator pitch of the EU is you get all the economic integration without the political integration. So banning IC engines, establishing standards, that kind of stuff, is part of the program. That's why a disparate set of nations that often hate eachother all want to be part of the same union.
You must be living under a rock:
Coordinate foreign affairs? => Yes (e. g. Russia sanctions)
Able to police external borders? => Yes, Frontex
Credible military deterrence in its near abroad? => When was the last time anyone attacked an EU country?
Coordinate foreign affairs? => Yes (e. g. Russia sanctions)
Able to police external borders? => Yes, Frontex
Credible military deterrence in its near abroad? => When was the last time anyone attacked an EU country?
> Credible military deterrence in its near abroad? => When was the last time anyone attacked an EU country?
I'd say it's more down to NATO membership than anything from the EU
I'd say it's more down to NATO membership than anything from the EU
>Able to police external borders? => Yes, Frontex
That hasn't really worked in practice though, as illegal migrants discovered that if you sail a boat towards EU borders and intentionally sink it when Frontex tries to intercept, then they're obliged to rescue and take you to Europe, instead of sending you back for trespassing without a visa, meaning anyone could exploit this loophole to enter Europe illegally.
That's hardly an effective border protection.
That hasn't really worked in practice though, as illegal migrants discovered that if you sail a boat towards EU borders and intentionally sink it when Frontex tries to intercept, then they're obliged to rescue and take you to Europe, instead of sending you back for trespassing without a visa, meaning anyone could exploit this loophole to enter Europe illegally.
That's hardly an effective border protection.
If they don't have a legitimate claim to asylum, they can be sent back.
The problem is, the vast majority do, and since that right stems from fundamental human rights, you can't simply remove it. That, and the better angels of european conscience remember that it was our grandparents, and the governments they elected, who turned away the jewish refugees seeking asylum from the Nazis.
Sadly, since the apple never falls all that far from the tree, there is always a lot of support for making it practically impossible for refugees to claim the protections that are enshrined in the core principle of the EU. So, that's why people are attempting dangerous sea crossings.
The problem is, the vast majority do, and since that right stems from fundamental human rights, you can't simply remove it. That, and the better angels of european conscience remember that it was our grandparents, and the governments they elected, who turned away the jewish refugees seeking asylum from the Nazis.
Sadly, since the apple never falls all that far from the tree, there is always a lot of support for making it practically impossible for refugees to claim the protections that are enshrined in the core principle of the EU. So, that's why people are attempting dangerous sea crossings.
Coordinate foreign affairs? => Yes (e. g. Russia sanctions)
US led and coordinated
Able to police external borders? => Yes, Frontex
Famously ineffective in 2015.
Credible military deterrence in its near abroad? => When was the last time anyone attacked an EU country?
The near abroad of the EU is not the EU, they are its neighbouring states.
US led and coordinated
Able to police external borders? => Yes, Frontex
Famously ineffective in 2015.
Credible military deterrence in its near abroad? => When was the last time anyone attacked an EU country?
The near abroad of the EU is not the EU, they are its neighbouring states.
> US led and coordinated
US led US sanctions, not all sanctions are US sanctions.
> The near abroad of the EU is not the EU, they are its neighbouring states.
They are indeed EU neighbour states, but they are not EU member states.
US led US sanctions, not all sanctions are US sanctions.
> The near abroad of the EU is not the EU, they are its neighbouring states.
They are indeed EU neighbour states, but they are not EU member states.
You're really struggling with my use of the term "near abroad".
Let me clarify again - I mean states that border EU member states, but that are not themselves EU member states.
Let me clarify again - I mean states that border EU member states, but that are not themselves EU member states.
The USoA by the same metric is also struggling suppressing drug cartels in Mexico, even though they have a war on drugs ongoing and it is a neighbouring country. Let's not get started about the USoAs capabilities of protecting their border.
in 2015 it was agreed to let people in. Luckily we don't have gates that we open and close, but the countries in the EU agreed that this was a humanitarian crisis and decided to take some amounts of foreigners in.
>in 2015 it was agreed to let people in
There was no common EU agreement to do that though. It was mostly Germany posturing for good PR and to try to save their ageing demographics and supplement their manufacturing sector which is dependent on imported cheap labor to stay competitive, as the cheap labor from the Eastern Block dried up.
Denmark and other EU members chose to opt out from the refugee sharing scheme back then, denying to take them in, and this was also one of the main factors that violently triggered Brexit as lots of brits feared the idea of having to be obliged to take in unwanted people just because that's what Germany was suggesting to other members.
All it did was create dissident among EU members and help break up the EU.
There was no common EU agreement to do that though. It was mostly Germany posturing for good PR and to try to save their ageing demographics and supplement their manufacturing sector which is dependent on imported cheap labor to stay competitive, as the cheap labor from the Eastern Block dried up.
Denmark and other EU members chose to opt out from the refugee sharing scheme back then, denying to take them in, and this was also one of the main factors that violently triggered Brexit as lots of brits feared the idea of having to be obliged to take in unwanted people just because that's what Germany was suggesting to other members.
All it did was create dissident among EU members and help break up the EU.
first you say there was no agreement and then you say there was a sharing agreement, how does this fit together?
Also germany needs some cheap labor but manufacturing isn't the main part, manufacturing is actually quiet expensive due to strong unions in germany especially in car manufacturing etc.
and yes, brexit happened also because of these things, but as you can see now, letting foreigners in doesn't need to be bad, it's more the other way around, you can't find truck drivers, bus drivers etc. anymore in the UK.
Also germany needs some cheap labor but manufacturing isn't the main part, manufacturing is actually quiet expensive due to strong unions in germany especially in car manufacturing etc.
and yes, brexit happened also because of these things, but as you can see now, letting foreigners in doesn't need to be bad, it's more the other way around, you can't find truck drivers, bus drivers etc. anymore in the UK.
> manufacturing is actually quiet expensive due to strong unions in germany especially in car manufacturing etc.
Except that not all industries are unionized so workers' exploitation is rampant, especially in low margin, low wage industries like fruit and vegetable picking, meat, hospitality, etc. where most of the migrant workers end up. The exploitation of migrants during Covid was even documented on DW.
Through work, I once had to vist one of the biggest meat plants in Germany, and nearly half the workers were Polish, and the other half Romanian. I asked them if they're unionized, they said 'no'.
Q.E.D.
Except that not all industries are unionized so workers' exploitation is rampant, especially in low margin, low wage industries like fruit and vegetable picking, meat, hospitality, etc. where most of the migrant workers end up. The exploitation of migrants during Covid was even documented on DW.
Through work, I once had to vist one of the biggest meat plants in Germany, and nearly half the workers were Polish, and the other half Romanian. I asked them if they're unionized, they said 'no'.
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D, lol :D manufacturing vegetables and meat? I'm talking about cars, screws, machine. Nobody manufactures vegetables or meat :D but you mean packaging, ok, but germany is not big in that either, that's only some but mostly for the domestic market
> banning IC engines, mandating dongle size, and giving the world cookie popups?
Am I meant to think that: banning one of the biggest contributors to climate change, lessening walled gardens and e-waste, and giving us more control of our own data are bad things?
Am I meant to think that: banning one of the biggest contributors to climate change, lessening walled gardens and e-waste, and giving us more control of our own data are bad things?
They are if you drink the megacorp coolaid. There's so much opinion making going on by companies that have a lot to lose from this stuff. Remember when Facebook said that GDPR would mostly hurt small businesses that use Facebook for targeted ads? That one didn't really stick, but those types of stories are getting people to defend corporate interests even though they have no real reason to.
- foreign affairs are mostly coordinated with each state, not so much with the EU as a whole
- They police their borders sadly quiet heavily, if you think about pushbacks in greece and the whole frontex operation.
- EU is not a military alliance and doesn't have an army, even though they thought about it. So most states rely on their own army and NATO.
- So why do they care about IC engines, dongle size and cookie? Because the EU is about trading policy, consumer rights, privacy, worker rights and much more.
Is it inside out for you because you misunderstood what's it's role is maybe?
- They police their borders sadly quiet heavily, if you think about pushbacks in greece and the whole frontex operation.
- EU is not a military alliance and doesn't have an army, even though they thought about it. So most states rely on their own army and NATO.
- So why do they care about IC engines, dongle size and cookie? Because the EU is about trading policy, consumer rights, privacy, worker rights and much more.
Is it inside out for you because you misunderstood what's it's role is maybe?
> "Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
> "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> "Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Since the EU started out as an economic union, it seems on the contrary very logical that its priority is regulating the market rather than military considerations.
Cooperation on military and foreign affairs is developing though, so I think you are just misinformed on the EU and its purpose.
Cooperation on military and foreign affairs is developing though, so I think you are just misinformed on the EU and its purpose.
I understand how the EU started and its purpose. I Just find it a bizarre way to integrate inside out, by aligning internal economic policies.
The cynic in me thinks it thrives because it's a bureaucrat and civil service wet dream. I feel like the hardcore pro-european people must feel this deep down and be deeply ashamed that - in 2022 - they are still completely reliant on the US security umbrella despite their increasing edge (on paper at least) over their neighbouring "rival".
The cynic in me thinks it thrives because it's a bureaucrat and civil service wet dream. I feel like the hardcore pro-european people must feel this deep down and be deeply ashamed that - in 2022 - they are still completely reliant on the US security umbrella despite their increasing edge (on paper at least) over their neighbouring "rival".
How about GDPR, obligatory warranty periods, and other consumer protections? Also, there are things like Schengen which are not the same as EU. I always felt like EU is a citizen-centric union while USA is a business-centric union. Also, EU is progressing slowly with integrating various aspects of governing while trying to respect individuality of separate countries.
Well, yeah. If you put it like that.
And they will vote until they vote correctly.
So about the Ship of Theseus..
Bad news for Ferrari et al.
I doubt it. Most likely the EU will have concessions in place to protect the local high-value, small volume, performance & luxury halo-brands like Ferrari, Lambo, Bugatti, Pagani, etc.
A lot of their multi millionaire customers value that these cars have several moving parts that go bang on dead dinosaur juice, causing them to go vroom when you hit the gas pedal while making loud crackling and popping sounds from the exhaust, as the several pistons ramp up to over 8.000 RMP, so they will pay a premium for that in an all electric world (just look at the failure of electric motorcycles in the west).
A lot of their multi millionaire customers value that these cars have several moving parts that go bang on dead dinosaur juice, causing them to go vroom when you hit the gas pedal while making loud crackling and popping sounds from the exhaust, as the several pistons ramp up to over 8.000 RMP, so they will pay a premium for that in an all electric world (just look at the failure of electric motorcycles in the west).
I hope that will also means the motorcycle sector. It's a niche, it's already very efficient, and despite efforts the electric versions are nowhere near feature parity.
Ferrari is welcome to produce non-combustion vehicles. If Porsche can upset the purists by making an SUV (it's been a while but there was some outrage about basically getting in to the minivan market) then Ferrari can make an EV.
Ferrari are also making a SUV - presumably influenced by the success of the Lamborghini SUV.
Well if Porsche can do it, they can try at least! Their logo is a horse, the next one might be a dirty old combustion engine lol
The elites will not be deprived of their toys. They'll surely make some exception for cars they like using.
How many USB-C connectors does it take to charge a car?
(Originally sarcastic, but now I'm actually curious.)
(Originally sarcastic, but now I'm actually curious.)
About 100
The whole of Europe including the Eastern block? Good luck by 2035
As per tradition, Germany and beyond will switch to electric and the diesel/gas cars will flood the Easter European markets.
If they're cheap and good we'll buy them :) Germans make *some* great cars
Meh, German cars are good as long as you're within the warranty/lease period. Out of warranty, I wouldn't touch any modern German car. Japanese brands tend to be more reliable.
Yeah, fair enough, same with washing machines and fridges. Toyota are good, old Land Rovers from about 1998 to early 2000s were built to last - now, not so much. The good thing is we can see which modern cars weren't built to last and not buy them :)
German cars aren't what they used to be. I know because my wife owns a Made in Germany Volkswagen that breaks a lot more often than my other car, a US-made Hyundai.
I'm interested in the US-made car market. I don't know much but something on my todo list to learn. I've heard good things about the US making good cars
Tldr we taught the Japanese how to make quality cars back in the day, they took those lessons and refined them further and further.
Meanwhile the US car companies got stuck with Harvard Business School MBAs doing value engineering and badge engineering that nearly sank the US car companies in the 70s and 80s vs the Japanese competition in terms of reliability and TCO.
So the US can make a few good cars for things like commercial adjacent vehicles, but mostly we play catch up to Japan IMHO.
Meanwhile the US car companies got stuck with Harvard Business School MBAs doing value engineering and badge engineering that nearly sank the US car companies in the 70s and 80s vs the Japanese competition in terms of reliability and TCO.
So the US can make a few good cars for things like commercial adjacent vehicles, but mostly we play catch up to Japan IMHO.
Thank you, sums it up really nicely.
By far the worst car I ever owned was a US built BMW!
Private jets will still be allowed and they'll still export gas-guzzling Ferraris to Saudi Arabia and Moscow.
Whatever spins the wheel
Incredibly stupid decision.
Anyway, only EV i'm willing to use is the one disconnected from internet.
Anyway, only EV i'm willing to use is the one disconnected from internet.
So I guess that leaves my country a little under 15 years to get out of the EU. Manageable.
Most EU countries (Germany, France etc) already have plans to phase out sales of ICE by 2035 anyway.
This is an interesting guessing game. What country could it be?
You must be thinking that automotive will suffer from this, this leaves France and Germany on the table. Arguably, a lot of the sector is spread across the EU, but this spread is facilitated by the common market itself.
Since France has basically endless opportunities arising from its "carbon neutral" power generation, are you thinking of Germany?
You must be thinking that automotive will suffer from this, this leaves France and Germany on the table. Arguably, a lot of the sector is spread across the EU, but this spread is facilitated by the common market itself.
Since France has basically endless opportunities arising from its "carbon neutral" power generation, are you thinking of Germany?
Romania, and while we certainly benefited economically from entering the EU (even though on a societal level the discussion is a lot more complicated, a lot of small and medium towns are now basically deserted) this type of measures that might make sense for wealthier Germany and France are certainly regressive for countries like mine. To put it more simply, we're too poor for this "eco" green-washing that is imposed on us from Brussels.
I guess we could all make our bags and move to wealthier Germany and France, I mean, those of us that still decided to remain here, but that would be bad for our society at a national level (see the previous point about empty towns).
I guess we could all make our bags and move to wealthier Germany and France, I mean, those of us that still decided to remain here, but that would be bad for our society at a national level (see the previous point about empty towns).
The economic challenge I understand, but how is this greenwashing? Transportation is one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions.
Why?
The EU probably needs to worry more about what they are going to power their vehicles for the next few years at least since they don't want to use Russian Oil.
EU doesn’t use oil to run it’s electric grid.
There is enough Natural Gas production in the EU + UK to cover electricity production. It’s home heating that needs imported gas.
There is enough Natural Gas production in the EU + UK to cover electricity production. It’s home heating that needs imported gas.
With rapeseed oil :)
Environment aside, this is not realistic with just aim to ban combustion engines.
You need to fund groundbreaking infrastructural changes at national level.
The last mile of logistics channels will not work with mythical electric trucks. Those does not exist because they make no sense. So how are we going to flow all those goods to markets?
You need to fund groundbreaking infrastructural changes at national level.
The last mile of logistics channels will not work with mythical electric trucks. Those does not exist because they make no sense. So how are we going to flow all those goods to markets?
Interestingly, the "large-haul trucks" seem to be excluded from the deal (it is discussed separately.) [1]
I would say that the _very last mile_ of delivery (especially inside city centers) is properly covered by EVs (French Postal Service is claiming to have "the largest fleet of EVs in the world" [2].) Those vehicles have predictable routes, reasonnable usage hours, and a relatively small radius of travel; a battery of 100km or range, recharged at night, seems like a good fit.
It's of course _much_ trickier for the kind of trucks that cross over Europe to ship veggies. I would not be surprised if those get to use fossil fuels a bit longer (maybe with higher efficiency requirements, higher proportion of plant-based fuels, incentives to go for H2 even if it does not make _complete_ environement sense, etc...)
[1] https://www.liberation.fr/economie/transports/interdiction-d....
[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/04/08/la-poste-...
I would say that the _very last mile_ of delivery (especially inside city centers) is properly covered by EVs (French Postal Service is claiming to have "the largest fleet of EVs in the world" [2].) Those vehicles have predictable routes, reasonnable usage hours, and a relatively small radius of travel; a battery of 100km or range, recharged at night, seems like a good fit.
It's of course _much_ trickier for the kind of trucks that cross over Europe to ship veggies. I would not be surprised if those get to use fossil fuels a bit longer (maybe with higher efficiency requirements, higher proportion of plant-based fuels, incentives to go for H2 even if it does not make _complete_ environement sense, etc...)
[1] https://www.liberation.fr/economie/transports/interdiction-d....
[2] https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/04/08/la-poste-...
The literal last mile is the easiest part, actually. Electric trucks with a range of 300km are already widely available, and that's more than enough for local use.
Besides, in Europe there are pretty stringent rules about driving times already. You need to take a 45-minute break every 4.5 hours, which at 90 kmh is every 400 km. You can split that into a 15-minute break and a 30-minute one, requiring an even shorter range. Meanwhile, Germany is trialing overhead wires on highways, which would allow for an even more reduced range.
The way I see it, the truck isn't the problem: building the charging infrastructure is.
Besides, in Europe there are pretty stringent rules about driving times already. You need to take a 45-minute break every 4.5 hours, which at 90 kmh is every 400 km. You can split that into a 15-minute break and a 30-minute one, requiring an even shorter range. Meanwhile, Germany is trialing overhead wires on highways, which would allow for an even more reduced range.
The way I see it, the truck isn't the problem: building the charging infrastructure is.
> Electric trucks with a range of 300km
I have to do it, but citation is needed. A quick googling and all i see is announcements of future truck. Tesla truck that are more cost efficient than trains available as early as 2018 are almost ready for 'production.
> The way I see it, the truck isn't the problem: building the charging infrastructure is.
Hmmmm, I wonder if you could rephrase that... 'You need to fund groundbreaking infrastructural changes at national level.'
I have to do it, but citation is needed. A quick googling and all i see is announcements of future truck. Tesla truck that are more cost efficient than trains available as early as 2018 are almost ready for 'production.
> The way I see it, the truck isn't the problem: building the charging infrastructure is.
Hmmmm, I wonder if you could rephrase that... 'You need to fund groundbreaking infrastructural changes at national level.'
> I have to do it, but citation is needed
Volvo have been selling electric trucks for over 2 years now: https://www.volvotrucks.co.uk/en-gb/trucks/alternative-fuels...
Volvo have been selling electric trucks for over 2 years now: https://www.volvotrucks.co.uk/en-gb/trucks/alternative-fuels...
Even though the headline says "vehicles", the ban is only for cars and vans. As far as I know, it doesn't affect trucks (or buses, tractors, etc.)