This was passed in the Bundesrat, and Gizmodo claiming it to be "the country’s top legislative body" is highly confusing.
Our parliament is called Bundestag. That's where virtually all legislation starts and is passed.
The Bundesrat is the council where the federal states are represented. It may start certain legislative measures, and it must approve some legislation (this ban of ICEs would probably be such a Bundesrat approval required law), but it is a minor player in Germany's legislation.
All the political action happens in the Bundestag which hasn't even debated it, yet.
Germany isn't the only country discussing this, Norway and the Netherlands are talking about it.
The upshot is really, if you want to meet 2050 climate goals, this is entirely rational and reasonable policy. Of course, reading the online comments, many many people are still in the camp: "Let's save the climate, but only at zero inconvenience!"
As all national and even some international media outlets have reported on it, we now have a discussion going. When talking electric cars nowadays, the focus is often on battery, range, Tesla and price, yet not about fundamentally replacing ICU cars anytime soon.
I doubt an actual law will come out of this in the next couple of years, but it should plant this seed of thought in people's minds - 2030 we really should produce the last ICU car.
Even if this doesn't happen this time, it -will- happen in the foreseeable future. While there may not be the technology and infrastructure in place that would be needed for mass adoption of EVs by just about everyone, if there's a legislative timeline in place, then it will get done. Look at the history of F1 - every time new rules have been put in place (limitation on engines, hybrids, etc) there's been a lot of moaning about how "impossible" the new rules are to live by, and every time the engineers come up with the goods; the recent fuel capacity and flow limits in F1 were initially difficult, and now they've led to engines with around 50% thermal efficiency - far ahead of road car engines.
I really hope that they do this, as we can't go on using fossil fuels forever. If there was a realistic affordable alternative for me to my current vehicle (a Renault Trafic van), then I'd take it. But there isn't at any price at the moment, let alone what I can afford. But there will be if this sort of legislation passes.
With headlines like these I sometimes wonder if it's just a PR piece to make nation X seem progressive (if you think of a nation as a brand).
Reality is that Germany is very conservative and the car industry is too strong in influencing politics to follow their interests.
This works particularily well because the policy-makers are very worried about unemployment - so much that they'd rather risk sacrificing our children's future.
There was a panel with Elon Musk and the German minister of economics, where the minister said something along the line of: We can't allow jobs to be lost, even if it means we're going to have to continue ruining our environment. (!)
So no, unfortunately nothing will happen in Germany, a country where subsidies for (partially) electric vehicles are available only since this year and are limited to sales prices below €60k, conveniently excluding the Model S.
I don't think the calculation has been made public but obviously that number was derived through a political process in the government. It is rumored that it was meant to be 40k in the first place, excluding almost all models.
Note that the 60k also excludes some German models such as the BMW i8 which would otherwise be eligible.
It is interesting how 60,000 excludes ONLY Tesla but excludes only some models from other companies. It's very difficult to not make the obvious conclusion on how that number was reached.
More stupid regulations and micromanagement. If you want people to cut down on co2, tax that. Don't dictate what the solutions should look like, that's what the Soviets did and they turned out well.
I don't know how you get downvoted on this. From my point of view you proposition is very rational.
Most of the industrial developments happen incrementally not overnight. Gradually setting the right incentives so consumers and suppliers find a satisfactory solution seems like the best outcome for everyone. I don't think any politician has a crystal ball to predict the future, the law seems to be just a populist proposal to gain votes.
Plus cars are not the only source of CO2 emissions.
No, GP is saying that instead of taxing carbon where people are free to choose how to minimize carbon emission (and how much to minimize), the proposal bans ICE engines.
But wouldn't it be much simpler to increase those taxes instead? Rather than dealing with each COx source on a case-by-case basis, just increase the cost of COx emissions and let the market and technology negotiate around the tax. If you can accurately price the external costs of X, and charge that, then the rest takes care of itself. Whether through decreased output of X, or through enough money coming from it to nullify its effects.
Taxes can create loopholes or outright frauds (VW diesel scandal?), what's the problem with the ban? No ICEs anymore, that's it, go for electrical or whatever isn't fossil-fuel based anymore.
Why do all of this juggling with taxes, pricing, etc. when you are a sovereign state and can just decide "no more"?
It's possible that ICEs may be fueled through carbon-neutral alternatives.
The options for this vary, but electricity-to-fuel is one potentially promising alternative, and would address a few problems in one pass. Biofuels are often mentioned, but a rough feasibility analysis shows that this simply doesn't scale given net biomass potential and human appropriate (see "HANNP" and "photosynthetic ceiling").
Liquid hydrocarbons, for all their faults, are a very nearly perfect fuel: liquid at ambient temperatures (as well as above boiling and below freezing), reasonably non-toxic, proven storage stability for 100s of millions of years, utilisable in a tremendous range of power capacities, from a few watts to hundreds of megawats (an span of 8 orders of magnitude), an exceptionally high energy storage density by both volume and weight, readily containable, non-corrosive to a wide range of metals, ceramics, and plastics, combustion without ash, absent global balance characteristics almost entirely benign combustion products (CO2 and H20), and more. There's a reason the world went so bog crazy for them, and why they're the fuel of choice in our primary prime movers: diesel, gasoline, and gas turbine engines.
It's also quite difficult to conceive of alternatives to present fossil-fuel utilisation in specific areas: air travel, most certainly, quite probably large-scale shipping as well. Migrating away from fossil fuels in both areas would almost certainly mean far less, and certainly far more expensive, options for each. Land-based transport, mining, and construction also strongly favour hydrocarbon fuels. Trucks, trains, earth-moving equipment, and many construction vehicles are more easily accomodated with fuel-based movers than electric.
EVs have much higher drivetrain efficiencies and can benefit from regenerative braking, which effectively delivers about 2.5 to 3x the fuel equivalent of battery storage. Many of these benefits still aren't sufficient to address battery-driven trucking or rail. Electrified rail is possible (and common in Europe), but poses challenges at scales, ranges, topography, and business & financial conditions common to the US. That's not "it can't happen", but it's going to take some doing.
I don't doubt that the future of the fossil-fuel fed engines is limited. A very high tax on fossil hydrocarbon sources -- and I'm looking at rates well over $1,000/bbl -- could well, and likely should be part of that (there are externalities to fossil fuels other than CO2 emissions). But I think it's early to be striking down the internal combustion engine itself.
Just as a thought experiment, I'm trying to imagine what a non-diesel version of a Caterpillar D8 would look like, and where you'd be able to hide the batteries. I think you'd need much better batteries than what we've got now. It's hard to beat the energy density of diesel.
Keep in mind that a lot of construction and earth-moving equipment has substantial counterweights and center-of-gravity mass engineering. Replacing steel with battery doesn't imply a cost constraint.
I have my own doubts over the viability for long-lived battery-powered construction equipment. At the same time, running high-voltage power leads all over a construction site would be dangerous (it already is a hazard for carpentry and powering handheld equipment). A combination of modest battery packs and quick-charging stations might offer a fair mix.
Construction equipment spends a fair bit of time at or near idle power, mixed with high-load (mostly high-torque) power demands. This actually fits the capabilities of electric power fairly well. It's the storage capacity, cost, and damage risks which seem to argue against it.
A short search pops up this Catepillar D7E Electric Drive Dozer. Still diesel powered, but the drive train is fully electric. 'The engine is a turbocharged diesel—a 9.3-liter inline-six that makes 235 horsepower'
At 235 HP that's similar to the Tesla Model S. Though being fair the Model S's motor operates at a fraction of that most of the time.
Yeah. There are many other civilian industries where electric is simply a no go until batteries capacity is vastly more improved (which, admittedly is does, 8% year on year). Remote towns with limited infrastructure, woodland rangers, heavy industry patrol cars, rescue vehicles. The tried and trusted way of doing things with a very easy refuel process will be around for a long time to come after most ICE cars are off the roads.
I think it'll happen to a substantial degree. The automotive giants have put a lot of r&d into alternate energy sources and drivetrains - this has been looming on the horizon for decades.
I don't think they'll achieve an outright ban, but we probably will see a limit on capacity for ICE engines, and see them disallowed in trucks and other heavy vehicles - they account for a majority of emissions.
Market demand will take care of the rest, as I don't think there'll be much interest in new fossil cars once electric is cheaper and more powerful, which is happening as we speak.
Also, VW probably achieved a stonking own goal with the emissions scandal - many who bought "eco" cars thinking they were doing their bit have been let down, and the Germans are an environmentally conscious lot.
Me, I've been putting my money where my mouth is and buying nice houses on busy noisy roads. They'll still be busy in ten years, but quiet and no longer polluted - and once driverless tech is firmly in, congestion and density go away too.
The roads will not be much quieter. At 35km/h the rolling noise of the tires is louder than a modern combustion engine. In Germany a lot of new roads are paved with so called "whisper pavement" that reduces this noise but it will take decades until all roads are paved that way and on very buys roads it will not have much of an impact.
When you're talking about city roads where three hundred trucks sit every hour at the lights outside homes, engines rumbling, the difference will be huge.
Also, tyre noise is high frequency, easily blocked by windows and walls. Engine noise is low frequency, and makes your dishes rattle in the cupboard.
Either way, no skin off my nose, the fewer agree with me the lower these properties are priced.
A century and a bit ago living on the bank of a canal would have been seen as madness. Now it's desirable.
It is surprisingly difficult to find an English source for this.
[1] shows on page 3 a significantly higher tire noise for 50 kph (+8 dbA) but doesn't show lower speeds than 50 kph.
[2] is in German and from the Austrian Federal Environment Agency and states that for cars build after 1996 25 kph is the point where the tire noise takes over at a steady speed and at 50 kph when the car is accelerating.
Thanks! The various components of tire noise are interesting.
One other thing that came to my mind is that tire noise is usually concetrated in the high frequencies, whereas some cars, especially trucks, emit very low-frequency noises. The latter penetrate walls and windows much more easily.
Of course tire noise won't go away with electric cars, but in my opion there's a vast underestimation of how much quieter roads and cities could be without combustion engines.
Even if it's 60 km/h that won't help you much, as the average street in a German city has a speed limit of 50 km/h, and driving 70 km/h only gets you a 35€ ticket, so many people drive 60-70 and pay the odd ticket.
Also, with truly autonomous vehicles, travel speed would likely be increased in order to maximize capacity - like it's done with trains, where both speed and minimum distance are chosen for maximum capacity.
with autonomous vehicles you do not need to increase speed to gain capacity, you can already reduce the safety distance since the vehicles have a much lower reaction time than humans.
And energy efficiency decreases with higher speeds due to air resistance, so saving energy (reducing load on the grid from charging) is also a competing concern.
Trucks and heavy vehicles are a small percentage (<3%) of all vehicles, at least in the U.S., and are far more efficient than cars. Banning ICEs in cars first would have a much bigger impact on both noise and pollution.
The government had a 1M EVs on road target (in 2010?) by 2020. The current number of EVs and hybrids on road are 50,000. Early this year, the German cabinet had approved incentives - 4000 Euros subsidy for EVS, 3000 for hybrids. 300M to be spent on electric charging stations.
I think there is a good chance this could be reached unless the auto lobby does not come and plays spoil sport.
It would never be retrospective. If you own a car made before a certain time in the UK, you don't even need to pass the basic safety tests. Stuff like this gets grandfathered in, and as long as the new supply is closed down, it'll sort itself out fine long term. No need for rapid change at huge cost to everyone.
Agreed, it's unlikely to be retrospective on the federal level. But I assume cities are free to introduce no-emission zones once electric cars hit the mainstream. The existing Umweltzonen (low-emission zones) in Germany are retrospective, they don't make exceptions for cars that are older than the law (except for antique cars).
The German gov't also subsidised the renewal of older cars in 2009 with 2500€ per citizen, so that's another model that could be of interest to lobbyists. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umweltprämie
Of course, that won't work out for the German industry if everyone buys a Tesla.
It's bound to happen sooner or later. Banning ICE seems like overreaching, a more sensible approach is just making sure fuel taxes for those cars are high enough that buying one isn't economically sensible. Even today that might be as low as 2-3€/liter.
_(EUR_per_kWh)_YB16.png){kind=link}
This was passed in the Bundesrat, and Gizmodo claiming it to be "the country’s top legislative body" is highly confusing.
Our parliament is called Bundestag. That's where virtually all legislation starts and is passed.
The Bundesrat is the council where the federal states are represented. It may start certain legislative measures, and it must approve some legislation (this ban of ICEs would probably be such a Bundesrat approval required law), but it is a minor player in Germany's legislation.
All the political action happens in the Bundestag which hasn't even debated it, yet.
And IMO it is doubtful that it will.