I love bans like this that are 17 years out. It allows a politician to act like they are making a stand and doing something decisive when in reality they know they'll be long gone before having to actually ever have to deal with any of the consequences or actually implementing it.
It's 12 years out and this is a short time for the magnitude of the change.
The UK has enacted a similar ban that should come into effect 5 years earlier, in 2030, so in 7 years and at the moment my best guess is that this is going to be a bloodbath (and second hand petrol cars are going to become even more valuable) if it is not postponed. It requires gigantic investments and adaptation that are not happening, or are happening very, very slowly.
Are you in the UK? That's not my take on what's happening - I've seen a big uptick in electric cars and charging infra in the last year or so. I've seen plenty of graphs that look like the UK would be mostly done with the transition to EVs for this segment by 2030 even if the ban wasn't coming into force - looks like a traditional sigmoid curve to me.
Yes, I am in the UK. The number of charging points is not keeping up with the planned schedule and number of new EVs on the road. The issue of people who cannot charge at home is not being tackled. Perhaps the most important issue: The grid is not being upgraded and electricity production is not keeping up (matter made even worse by the push to also get rid of gas boilers in homes).
EVs are also still unaffordable to most, which is perhaps a blessing considering the above: Buying an EV is the 'easy' part.
Edit:
Grid is at capacity. There are many articles on that online from growing problems to connect new electricity sources to even potential restrictions on new homes [1].
Electricity production is not increasing. I believe peak production was reached in 2005 and since then nuclear plants have been decommissioned and renewables have not filled the gap.
So solve both issues is a big task to say the least. And then there's still the lack of charging points.
> The grid is not being upgraded and electricity production is not keeping up
Agreed. We need, charitably, a 25% increase in electricity generation, and we're not getting that. We're getting "(shouts) more wind turbines!!!" and "(whispers) we've just turned off a 250MW gas power station".
EVs are going to be biggest single "new user" of electricity in decades and are going to be a huge drag on the network.
> The grid is not being upgraded and electricity production is not keeping up.
Why do you believe this is the case?
I cannot see any evidence of this probpem, in fact. Octopus energy for example is very happy about using Evs to help balance the grid and their 'virtual powerplant'
The way I interpret that link to Octopus' website is simply that they over an off peak tariff to charge your EV at the best times for them, probably whenever there is excess electricity available. It does not say anything about using the EVs as storage. The "virtual powerplant" seems to be just a PR gimmick, which Octopus is very good at.
In amy case, that does not solve the issue of overall production or grid capacity.
> In amy case, that does not solve the issue of overall production or grid capacity.
Actually that could have done well (although I wouldn’t hold my breath + all sorts of logistics of reality can prevent the utility). If you have 100 MWh of car batteries charging during off peak, that’s extra capacity you can leverage during peak hours.
I do agree that in practice that won’t work out for all sorts of reasons (the comms and standards for that aren’t defined afaik + what happens if enough cars disconnect that suddenly you don’t have enough capacity and brownouts begin to shed load)
Many utilities are interested in using EVs as batteries for the grid. After all, typical EVs sold today have 60-100kWh batteries and are sitting parked the majority of the time. The idea is the utility would offer payment or incentive to use your battery and balance the grid.
The idea has been for a while, and is starting to come to wider testing with the finalization of Vehicle to Grid standards for the CCS charging standard.
Some other charging standards like Chademo already supported this usecase but aren't widely used in Europe or North America.
Of course, that most logical thing which owners of an expensive BEV will do, is joining a program where they can cycle out their expensive battery and come to discharged car at the morning.
I think it would depend on the implementation of the program, but if the incentive is right, people will join. Many utilities already offer voluntary curtailment programs and time-of-use incentives, and customers definitely respond.
Modern batteries with modern battery management systems are more durable than you think. Most things I've read expect a typical EV battery to retain usable capacity past the lifespan of the car itself, not to mention EVs typically have "hidden" capacity buffers against degradation.
I doubt any program would completely discharge a car, likely a program would involve a smart charger that would charge and discharge within a certain agreed upon window.
Look at the current residential demand response programs for an example. Details vary, but a quick search will show you a range of different programs.
Typically, utilities will announce incentive windows for peak periods ahead of time. Opt-in customers have thermostats that will respond to the peak program by reducing heat or cooling to an agreed upon temperature. The customer can override if they would like, but if they do they will lose the incentive.
Customers get a lower bill, utilities can save a lot shaving peak loads and avoid capacity problems.
As an BEV owner, there is no way in hell I would let incompetent utility company purposefully damage my battery, because they were too greedy to build their own storage.
People who don't understand that they are exchanging their battery life for few cents. Eventually word will spread out and those programs are going to become mandatory.
The original statement was - BEVs will overload the grid, this discussion shows oposite is the case - they are used to stabilise the grid.
> those programs are going to become mandatory
I would say the jury is still out if it makes financial sence. Batteries lose capacity to aging even if you don't use them.
This is extremely speculative and if the government has appetite to make anything mandatory about cars, they would start by enforcing the speed limit electronically
Even a naive calculation based on the total number of vehicles registered with the DVLA (including classic cars, buses, lorries, etc.) and the draw on the national grid, means we'd have to double the current generating capacity in the UK to charge all those vehicles at the same time. Admittedly, that's never going to be the case, but the number of car owners grows year on year.
Best case, we need to add an additional 10-30% electrical capacity in the UK by 2030. And that's exclusively for EVs. Never mind that as the economy grows it requires even more electricity for other industries.
And we're still squabbling (unscientifically) over nuclear (it's safe and it's green), and wind turbines (we really, really, need better storage).
Of course, charging stations, everywhere. My town of 100,000 has 20 public chargers that I know of, with I'd guess an average charging time of 30 minutes. Versus 10 petrol garages, with approx. 10 pumps, and a filling time of under 5 minutes. Arguably, we'd need 600 chargers to provide the same 'capacity' as 100 petrol pumps, if not more. Yes, people can charge from home. Some can't.
And the range problem. I personally drive 300+ miles in one journey a few times a month (relatives at the top of the country). I will not spend an additional hour at EV stations when my fossil fuel car can get me there on half a tank without stopping. Until the range problem is solved (600 miles on one charge, guaranteed), I'll be the last person to buy an EV.
What are the laws like in the eu or uk for ev conversions? In the US it is mostly done on older lighter cars. Enough older that they are regulated differently from other vehicles. EV west for instance focuses on vw/Porsche vehicles that had that tiny magnesium air cooled engine.
Even if what you say is true, wouldn't that still be an ok outcome? We're in a climate crisis and need to starkly reduce the number of carbon sources on the planet so if EV cars didn't get broad adoption and used petrol cars double in value (but no more of them are produced), that still seems like a good outcome. Obviously some players will lose but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Auto manufacturers are definitely investing like this is going to happen. I can't remember when a major manufacturer announced new ICE platforms - it's almost exclusively EV or shared EV/hybrid platforms being introduced.
Look at the sheer investment in lithium, batteries and electronic suppliers. Manufacturers are going full tilt into lithium supply contracts, battery factory joint ventures, motor and electronic components - almost every week theres a new announcement.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's hundreds of billions at this point between Europe, North America and Japan. That's not even counting China or India.
Two other options: Taxes that slowly ramp up until fossil fuel cars become unaffordable. Quotas for how many fossil fuel cars are allowed to be sold (bid on the right to sell one, pass on cost to consumer).
There are many cars on the road today that are 15 to 20 years old. There are some cars on the road older than that. Things do get more complicated with recent cars, which have more specialized computing, but you'll be able to burn repurposed dinosaurs for a very long time, regardless of restrictions on new sales.
The only reason I would be upset, is that it appears to me that new EV's come loaded with software that I don't much care for. It appears that they are MUCH easier to track than a traditional ice vehicle.
That's not inherent to EVs, that's just modern cars in general. Even 15 years ago, base trim ICE sedans from GM were coming with cell connected OnStar. It's inevitable that as the price came down other manufacturers would implement similar services.
"Tech" in a vehicle sells, and connected services like app based locks and remote starts are an easy subscription sell.
Good news, everyone! Almost every time a technology is banned, the old grandfathered in examples of that technology become higher value! You're car you love will become worth a bit more, as people will be incentivized to keep it running.
And I'd love that you would stop emitting CO2 because you can't go anywhere without a one ton metal case so we are still able to grow food in twenty years from now.
Are you not willing to live your life without your ICE car? Or why did you just make the jump from "let's ban technologies which produce too much CO2" to "let's kill unproductives"?
You act as if ICE vehicles bring no problems. If we keep relying on ICE vehicles, we literally kill people. We do not do that by switching to EVs. How does your slippery slope make sense when looking at the actual harm done?
The worst part is: you're literally admitting that you're not arguing against the idea itself, you're arguing against what you think they want to do next. It's impossible to make progress if the ideas themselves cannot be discussed.
And we're back to: would a ban on new ICE cars make you unable to breathe? Do you just need those fumes, without them your body is not able to process the oxygen?
And we're back to: would a ban on parfumes make you unable to breathe? Do you just need those fumes, without them your body is not able to process the oxygen?
Let me attempt to summarize your position, just so I don't misrepresent you in my replies:
- there is a direct connection between the ideas of "let's ban new ICE cars and replace them with EVs to reduce CO2 emissions" and "let's kill unproductives to reduce CO2 emissions"
- this is not because you believe ICEs to be necessary to let "unproductives" live, it's literally because there is no way to engage in dicussions or conversations on an ICE ban without this leading to "let's kill unproductives"
- even though you are admitting that you're employing the slippery slope fallacy, and although we can look at the real statistical effects of ICE vehicles on harm done to people, the inevitable slippery slope of "let's kill unproductives" means that a switch from ICE to EV will result in many more deaths than continuing with ICEs
Is this an accurate representation of your thinking? Your replies so far have not expressed actual ideas beyond logical fallacies (or even "no u"), and I'd be interested in whether this is really the extent of your thought or whether there is more that you know would put you into an even worse light.
Banning ICE and replacing them with EV won't reduce emissions at a first place. It will just move them around. Case and point: Germany.
Banning meat won't reduce emissions, it will just move them around into making fake meat.
Killing unproductives won't reduce emissions, because their bodies decompose and captured carbon will return back to atmosphere.
All this thread, including GP is pointless, because there is currently no solution for excess CO2 in atmosphere and every attempt to reduce it will only increase it (see carbon capture devices). Therefore there is no reason to restrict quality of life of average citizen.
Why are you suddenly switching to a different topic? You made pretty strong claims about bans on new ICEs will lead to "killing of unproductives". Are you admitting that you were deliberately hyperbolic and attempting to derail the conversation? Or do you seriously believe in your previous points?
I did not switched a topic, I showed you how pointless this thread is, because it does not matter what you do you can't reduce CO2. Everything is on point.
Am I understanding you correctly that your new point is "humanity can't influence the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere"? It's very different from the previous points, so I'd like your confirmation before engaging.
Oh man, thank you so much! I was never good at it myself, so this means a lot :)
I've learned that the best way to engage these discussions is to take your partner as seriously as they say they want to. You cannot counter these things with facts, as facts aren't their own basis. Instead you engage seriously and let themselves display the problems in their logic.
A big influence for me has been the streamer Vaush.
Good news, the current US administration is aware, and has committed many billions of dollars to make resources available, and presumably will continue to do so.
We used to double generating capacity every year in the US for like 3 decades in a row. Electrification of vehicles increasing electricity needs by about 50%. But a ban on NEW fossil fuel vehicles would then take two decades to trickle down to all vehicles. So overall, there’s the better part of 3-4 decades to transition generating capacity.
How is it not relevant? Growing electricity production by very large relative amounts in short periods of time has historical precedence if even greater relative and faster growth, and I would consider that pretty relevant when discussing such things.
Because it falls under the belief of things being able to grow exponentially forever. Just because something could double for 3 decades straight doesn't mean it can happen just as easily in the forth.
Yup. Europe has 1 year to switch from gas to LNG its significant part of natural gas usage. Increasing the grid bandwidth by 50% is a much smaller change.
The ban is just for new sales so the transition isn't a cliff, it will smear over at least an additional 10-20+ years (probably more like 30+) as the remaining gas cars slowly break down and electric cars become the main available option.
In the Us, we used to double electricity production every decade from the 1940s through the 1970s. Electrification only needs about 50% more electricity and it’ll take about 3-4 decades from now for all vehicles (new and old) to be electrified.
Most electricity growth happening in the west is variable renewable energy like wind and solar. That is not firm capacity and electrifying sectors like transport and heat will double, triple or quadruple electrical energy consumption.
Now, consider average wind speeds in a year like 2015 where for around six months, average wind speeds across north america were well below seasonal averages.
Electrification needs 50% more electricity? Complete nonsense.
Context was electrification of vehicles, and yes, we only need about 50% more for that. And it isn’t “complete nonsense.”
It takes about 10kWh to displace one gallon of gasoline (gasoline car gets around 30-40mpg, an electric car like a Model 3 gets 4miles per kWh). The US currently consumes about 575 GW electricity on average over a year. The US consumes about 369 million gallons of gasoline per day, which works out to about 154GW steady state average electricity. Increase that by, say, 10-20% to account for distribution and charging (not counting the fact that this is offset by electricity being delivered by wires and not by fuel trucks which need fuel themselves), and we’re at 32% of US electricity to displace all the gasoline we consume. Gasoline accounts for most transport fuel (diesel is about 128 million gallons per day in the US), so yeah, I’d say I’m pretty close to 50% of current electricity.
Battery-electric vehicles are better able to flexibly adjust use of electricity during time of day than other large electric loads like air conditioning (which tend to be used en masse at the same time of day with little flexibility) that drove much of the growth in electricity demand when we were doubling electricity production every decade, so I’d say we’re pretty well off overall.
So what’s the need for histrionics about “complete nonsense”?
I don't even where to begin with an "analysis" like this. First, your units are wrong. You've confused power with energy. The US consumes around 4,000 terawatt hours of electrical energy per year. That is 4,000,000 gigawatt hours.
The rest of this calculation, like the original claim, is complete nonsense. EVs will easily double or triple electrical energy consumption.
Nope, I used correct units. 4TWh/year (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-elect... not 4000TWh) is a unit of power (energy per unit time) and is about 475GW average. Hour and year are both units of time so those units cancel out with a unitless factor of 8760 (roughly, as there are leap years, etc).
I didn’t make mistakes in my calculation (except using 575GW in my calculation instead of 475GW), EVs won’t require drastically more power on average (again, gasoline displacement requires about 30% more electricity, as I showed).
I think what you’re discounting is the effort it would take to increase energy output in Europe (my original statement) by 50%. It’s not happening. Energy production is flat or down for the past 30 years. Flat or down.
Europe will not build nuclear power plants so there is no hope of meeting the energy needs of a fully electric car population.
If Europe refuses to build anything, then yeah, I agree with you. But that’s true in general. Their old stuff will eventually collapse if they lose entirely the ability to build new, and this is irrespective of electric cars.
But there’s tons of historical precedent for scaling up electricity production. Nuclear, of course, but solar and wind are new additional options that are even faster to install (with large scale battery helping back nuclear, wind, and solar, due to the scale up of battery manufacturing capacity for electric cars). (Solar is a challenge for Northern Europe, which is worse than 90% of the world’s population when it comes to solar power.)
Seems very unlikely it'd take 50 years to double the number of power plants. Yes, things take a lot longer now than in the 50s, but it's still at most a decade to build one unless its nuclear. And it can be substantially sped up if there's a pressing need.
It's going to be interesting to observe first hand how much earlier this will effectively take place, i.e. how much sooner folks will transition to only buying new EVs, because who wants to be the last person to buy a brand-new ICE just before 2035 except maybe some petrolheads.
It will also be interesting to see what this does to the used-car market in Europe, though I guess you can always sell used ICEs abroad minus their shipping cost.
Existing ICEs will likely stay on the road until the 2050s, they will eventually get banned from city centers but many ICEs are already banned (my previous car was banned in 2020 in my city, and my current one will be in 2027, for example) and the used-car market doesn't seem to have suffered much if at all.
No, I get that it's only new cars, but what I meant what was that the attractiveness of an ICE will rapidly diminish way before the cutoff date of 2035. As other comments have said, infrastructure might heavily favour EVs (gas stations, parking lots, residential parking, city bans, tax incentives), making ICEs much less attractive even if you can still technically own and drive them. For new cars, the models that are going to be sold over the next 12 years have already been developed, many car manufacturers have developed their last iteration ICEs, so except facelifts you can essentially just buy 12-year-old models in 2034/2035.
Put another way: Would you want to be the last guy to buy an Intel Mac if Apple had already announced their switch to ARM with all the changes that go along with it? Yes, you can still run it, yes there are still others who run it, but do you want to be the last holdout that buys that Intel machine right before the next Apple keynote finalising the switch?
Secondhand ICE cars will be on the road for their normal lifespan after the ban comes in. There will be some changes to the market in terms of pricing, but they won't be going out of common sight for another 15-20 years, I think.
Some will be. However I think we will see a cliff. As ICE cars become less popular gas stations and the refineries supplying them will close. This will start happening when EVs have been 25% of the new market for 3 years, and accelerate when they have been 50% for 3 years. By the time EVs are 75% of the new market gas will start becoming expensive and so EVs will quickly jump to 98%, and people with ICEs will start to plan trips around where to get fuel. That last 1-2% will be some niches that cannot use an EV for some reason, and so they will lobby to reverse the law - but by then it will be too late for ICEs: a few years latter those with an ICE will special order fuel from the last refinery remaining in the world.
It will start slow: gas stations will be less profitable, but investors/banks will take time to catch on so they will be built in larger numbers than the numbers justify (if you are an investor take note: there is opportunity to make money in shorts if you get it right - I'm not an investor so I won't be playing this). Then they will all see reduced profitability. When pumps break or tanks fail inspection someone will decide the market doesn't justify the investment in fixing/replacing them an so they will close and they won't be replaced (the part already happens, but there is some other new station nearby to make it up)
The next part will accelerate as unprofitable gas stations go bankrupt. We will probably see some over correction in places as a corner than had 4 stations but can now only support 3 will see several go bankrupt at once, and then the one that just manages to hang on will be wildly profitable.
The last part will see us where gas is hard to get. If you have an ICE it is no longer a case of when the fuel gauge is low you stop for fuel, it is you know where the stations you use are and ensure you can get back to them. when on a road trip you plan around where gas stations are (much like EV cars have to now, but soon an EV will find chargers every 20 miles and so won't have to worry - some places already have EV chargers that dense)
Note that I said nothing about refineries. Many of them have better management and are watching this. At least some are already watching this and making plans to reduce size as it happens, between that and non-travel markets they will be okay for longer and probably can spin down their business. Watch out for the small ones: some of them are only running today because when they shutdown they have to cleanup decades of pollution - expect a bunch of "EPA superfund" projects around them.
I believe Norway is already close to the first mark above, and probably other countries. I expect to see it show up in data (that I have no clue how to access) soon.
The economies of gas stations will be interesting to watch for sure. Given that they already make only a few cents of profit per gallon sold, their main source of profit is probably all the additional things (pizza and beer at 2am or on Sundays where everything else is closed here in Germany). Couple that with the fact that EV owners will spend more time at a station due to charging times, the switch to EV might honestly drive up their profitability quite substantially. And once you can get rid of pumps you just eliminated maintenance of moving/pumping machinery, fire hazards, regular visits by fuel trucks, and probably a lot of other things I'm not even aware of.
I'm not saying I'm right on any of these, but I'm really curious to see how this plays out. There's gonna be some "wow, I didn't think that would happen" moments along the way.
It will happen but this story lacks that electrifying trucks is slower. Big gas station will remain and possibly gasoline become far expensive than diesel?
I think you have it backwards and that late 2034 ICE cars are going to sell like hotcakes and the market for keeping used cars alive will thrive like we’ve never seen.
I really want to believe that local governments are going to have this ban light a fire under their ass and and actuality make EVs usable for the “rest of us” who have street parking and no chargers at work but they won’t and so like everything else in this world this ban will disproportionately affect low income folks.
Also governments will happily exempt themselves and their from their own laws once they realize that you can’t “just” replace busses and mail delivery with EVs and have to actually plan for it.
>I think you have it backwards and that late 2034 ICE cars are going to sell like hotcakes and the market for keeping used cars alive will thrive like we’ve never seen.
I suspect the ever-increasing cost of fossil fuels will prevent such a thriving market in ICE repair being long-lived...
But the question is, why are fossil fuels going up? It's because governments and large corporations are openly hostile to the industry and are trying to kill investment. If you work for exon, would you bother to look at oil exploration that pays off in 10 years? Nah, but that's the goal artificially increase the price, make fossil fuels suck more than ev. So the goal is not to make EVs better, it's to make fossil fuels worse. The real losers are the little people.
Exxon and the like are watching this. They will continue to drill, but they are already trying to predict how this will play out to ensure that they have enough wells to supply whatever demand there is in 10 years, while getting the best price from those that are left. They know the writing is on the wall for fuel customers - but there are other customers they have plus collectors.
Note that I did not say they will predict this correctly, only that they are trying to.
It's a resource that both producers and consumers know has a limited lifespan, and upon which a lot of consumers are totally dependent. There's every reason for OPEC nations to raise prices as high as they can to extract the most revenue possible before the source disappears. They know that as every year passes, the world's dependence on them diminishes.
I’m guessing people will be stockpiling them. Used ICEs will probably retain lots of value for years after this mandate goes into effect. Especially when people figure out the electrical to their home doesn’t have enough to charge reliably.
For a short time. However soon after they will discover that an ICE doesn't take to just sitting around for years. Not used seals start leaking. Lead-acid batteries need to be stored correctly or they discharge and fail. And other problems - all for a car that you don't use, and fuel is hard to find.
There will be a few niches that still use ICEs (but my guess is they get the law changed and one factory in the world provides all the vehicles that niche needs - this won't be the average car, but something setup for their niche, so they won't be interested in your stored car)
Cuban's still use cars from the 1950s. An entire ecosystem springs up around it. I don't think it will be a big deal. Eventually they will phase out except for wealthy people and collectors (sort of like horses today) but I have to imagine they will be pretty common for the next 15-20 years after the ban. I expect a lot of people to buy them leading up to the ban as well.
I believe its the same logic as with ICE - used electric car market needs to look similar to used ICE car market, pricewise. I can accept buying electric car say 6 years old with 90% battery capacity and usual wear and tear for half to 1/3rd of the price of new one.
But even though I can easily afford it, I will simply never pay those prices for new cars, ICE nor electric. They are ridiculous, never understood who buys them outright or via some not-so-smart payment regimes.
No contradictions anywhere. Indeed, Amsterdam is in the Netherlands. Amsterdam has passed a rule first, with the rest of the country trying to do the same and more aggressively.
> The gasoline and diesel car ban in the Netherlands will start in the city of Amsterdam
Plenty of other info out there:
> Dutch State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management has announced she is looking into options for banning combustion engines in lease cars in the Netherlands from as early as 2025.
Vatican City State can't have more than few dozen vehicles, so it would cost at most a few million to be the first EU state to go completely fossil-fuel-free on their transport fleet.
Electrification of their railway station could be a cost, but it's so short you might be able to use a long enough train that the locomotive never enters the sovereign area.
Vatican is not even in the Eurozone. Just because it use euro it doesn't make it in eurozone, there are plenty of countries which are using euro without being eurozone members.
This is impossible, surely? Or do they only care about the running of the car, and not it's manufacturing? If so, that's just incredibly dumb. The CO2 required to manufacture EVs is significantly higher than ICE (like 40-60% higher)[0]. Unless manufacturing moves away from fossil fuels, first, this will massively accelerate the amount of CO2 we release, and we won't see any reduction for a decade or more (partly depends on the lifecycle of the batteries). And you won't see a NET reduction for many decades, due to the front-loading of the CO2 premium in manufacturing EVs Vs ICE.
This is crazy.
We cannot consume our way to a fossil fuel free world. We need to invent and build clean energy sources, and low carbon manufacturing.
Yes, BEVs have higher manufacturing emissions but study after study finds lifetime emissions are substantially lower. This holds even on coal heavy electric grids, it just takes longer. For instance this article talks about a study that found it takes 1.5 years in the US for a BEV to "pay off" its higher manufacturing emissions vs 6 years in China because of its dirtier manufacturing and electricity.
Of course these studies are looking at averages. If you drive a 10 year old Honda Civic and only go 500 miles a year, you aren't going to be saving the environment by buying an electric Hummer.
Modern automobiles are so durable that they can last almost indefinitely with maintenance. There's a lot of evidence, especially with demographic projections, to suggest that all the cars that will ever be needed (in the EU) have already been produced.
Think about steel. Very little steel is now produced from raw materials. 95% or more of steel production is recycling. Cars will be the same. Want to get into a growth industry? Start investing in businesses that go far beyond normal car repair and will be able to refresh an old car to feel new again, especially car interiors and tech.
Nobody would pay for such maintenance, it would end up costing more than new cars. Checking every valve, bolt, tube, sealing etc. Metal parts get fatigue. Plastics and sealants get weird chemical reactions over time. You would end up with same looking car without most of original components, and that's ridiculously expensive proposition.
Since we talk about systems comprised of at least few thousands of pieces, and failure of most will degrade usability/safety of the car or render it unable to drive, I can't agree with some of your statements. Recycling of course is a valid point but those are not same cars.
Also its trivial for bureaucracies to tax older more polluting cars to hell... people are sensitive to costs. And older cars do pollute more.
The vast majority of people will buy and use an EV. By the time this law comes into force EVs will be so dominate it will be obvious that gas stations are closing (they may become EV fueling stations, but no gas pumps).
A few people will have a niche that EVs can't fill. They will probably get the law changed for their niche, but by then it will be too late for ICEs, even if the law is reversed they won't be coming back.
> A few people will have a niche that EVs can't fill.
'Niche' like at least 1/3rd of the EU population who live in flats without any EV infrastructure?
Even taking the realities of infrastructure out of the equation, most people are going to vote with their wallets and I really don't see EVs gaining majority adoption until the costs of buying an operating an EV drop significantly to at least match ICE cars.
That is something that is solvable with some investment. I'm thinking niche like driving to the North Pole. there are probably a few other weird ones (and some of them will be debated as if they should be or not)
Most machines can last indefinitely with maintenance. The other day I used a printing press that was two hundred years old, was in basically continuous operation for much of that time, and is still used daily, today.
Cars have two obvious problems from a long-term maintenance standpoint: the steel chasis, which is protected from rust by paint. That will absolutely and inevitably rust. The second is that people don't understand maintenance. They'll happilly sit next to a machine that's screaming audibly for lack of oil, and think nothing of it. That's not something that will get better in the future.
Machines with controlled explosions inside them do not last indefinitely. A printing press and an internal combustion engine are not remotely the same from a maintenance standpoint.
Your point seems reasonable, but what's the part that actually breaks? There are lots of examples of ICEs that are over a hundred years old and still in use.
Presumably the engine block would work-harden over time, but it's already very hard and brittle, so I don't see what the problem would be there.
Rust is a major problem for northern countries, cars that would otherwise work ok for long just.. rust through if the body was not properly manufactured
This doesn't match with reality. People like new cars with new safety standards and new technology. Old cars will get perpetually more expensive to fuel and maintain. Fuel standards will become stricter and those old cars will require testing and modifications (as is already the case).
I have no doubt the hobbyists will find a way to keep their old cars as they always have. The rest of us don't want to be wasting our time and money keeping a 30-year-old car in decent condition.
> Modern automobiles are so durable that they can last almost indefinitely with maintenance.
This is so far from the truth it must be satire? Unless by maintenance, you mean the complete replacement of engine, accessories, drivetrain, electrics, electronics, interior, frame/subframes/chassis/body, suspension, wheels, fasterners, etc. Ie every part.
Maybe the mirrors in the sun visors can be used indefinitely. Everything else will wear out.
There is a lot on a modern car that won't last without expensive maintenance. You can keep it going down the road, after 10 years you learn to live with a few broken body parts, wear on the seats, and electronics that don't work. That all could be fixed - but it is cheaper to just buy a brand new car (the type of people driving a car that could either cannot afford a new car, or are too cheap to buy one). I've seen collector cars restored to better than factory new, but it the car was cheaper new (inflation adjusted) than the restore costs. Or more likely the costs were about the same as factory new, but the person doing the restore did it for himself and counted labor costs as zero.
Unless (like during communism in my country) you don't have money on a new car, so you are keeping 20-30 years old car running by self-maintaining it every weekend.
Sure, because you are not counting the cost of labor. Or maybe because labor is dirt cheap where you live. Most people reading this are in a country where labor is not cheap. Even in places where labor is cheap, in general the cost is going up.
Will get eventually reversed when politicians figure out that it is so easy for populists to grab votes of poor people just by pointing on expensive EVs.
If you think dumb energy exchange in EU, then people never ceased to be salty about it and it was major driver of energy prices, thanks to the fact, that this stupid system is pricing by the most expensive power plant - which were gas power plants.
I would be of opinion that by 2035 the gasses to liquid fuels transformation of CO2 + CH4 from the atmosphere (using SE) will overtake the electrification idea of today. The liquid fuels are here to stay, not necessarily for the entire chain of transportation system, but for a significant portion of it (and certainly for humanty's ever larger scope of war efforts which cannot run on electricity).
All cars sold today are able to run on biofuels: ethanol for gas cars, vegetable oil for diesel.
It is not manufacturers fault if people put fossil fuel in them...
Of course, I am being sarcastic, but while electric and hydrogen cars seem to be the obvious response, I don't see biofuels being unacceptable (and I've seen several mentions of net CO2 in articles).
> All cars sold today are able to run on biofuels: ethanol for gas cars, vegetable oil for diesel.
Cars adapted to E10 or E15 won't run on pure ethanol. You can probably run diesel cars on vegoil but I expect problems cause it's more viscous. Talking about Europe here, not LatAm or Brazil.
Petrol is 100 units of bad for CO2, diesel is (say) 95 units, batteries are perhaps 20, bicycles 5, good shoes and walkable neighbourhoods 1.
But petrol has cost ($ up front not TCO or non-CO2 pollution) of 20, diesel 22, batteries were 100 and are now 25, bicycles 1-2, and I'm not sure how to make even this level of wild guess for walkable neighbourhoods.
The reduction in cost of batteries is what's made this viable. Before this was viable, diesel was sill less bad.
Eh? They helpedd reduce the Emmisions of the system they were promoting for?
Diesel is more CO2 friendly but much more polluting with NOx.
This agressive push for a clearly inferior fuel (for this metric) is what raised the NOx emissions. They don't get bonus point for minimising an effect that was caused by that decision in the first place. And there are plenty of studies that show that real-life use of the Cars of whatever Euro-X standard does not match the laboratory results based on which they get those certifications in the first place. And not this was not something only for VW that caused the scandaaal, these tests are done with all the brands and outside of very limitied scenarios all produced more than the standard dictated.
It should, obviously, but even today (with not so great energy mixes) electric cars do better than gas cars from an emissions point of view (even if looking at the whole life cycle).
Electric cars are energy mix agnostic and you try to frame that as a disadvantage but it actually is not, quite the opposite. They are one puzzle piece that enables change and without which change is not possible.
I don’t get arguments like yours.
Obviously we always have to do much, much more. We have to massively push individual cars out of densely populated areas and turn them into an option that is not fun at all to use there. We have to upgrade public transport. We have to better our energy mix. Buildings have to become more efficient on a massive scale. Energy intensive industrial processes have to transition to ways of doing things that can at least be plausibly made CO2 (equivalent) neutral like hydrogen. And and and. Doesn’t mean that all of this has to or even can happen at the same time.
Well because the grid capacity has to increase rapidly to satisfy the demand of electric cars and then some.
If the EU countries are going to invest into new energy infra during this decade, it better be clean considering the whole point is to reduce emissions.
This massive investment probably won't happen again in generations and it would be pretty stupid to have to rebuild the energy grid.
> and you try to frame that as a disadvantage
I'm happy with the transition to electric cars. Not sure where you're getting that idea from.
> I don’t get arguments like yours.
What argument? That the EU will need more electricity very soon? That's a fact.
I suppose if there's any place EV's make sense, it's the EU. Dense enough populations and prevalent enough trains that odds are you aren't going to find yourself on a 500 mile trip through the middle of nowhere.
Amusing to see American city slickers claim the same is true here.
Everyone keeps repeating this farce. No Trains are not prevalent enough. Those are prevalent only between major cities and do not offer a good service. (Most of trains in rush hours do not have enough capacity, are a health hazzard, heating or cooling does not work etc, on the otherside of the coin, outside of rush hours you have these trains run practically empty, total waste of Energy).
Asking people to exhange their 1 hour commute for a 2.5 hours (each direction) public transport is not a solution.
But the main problem is that not everyone need to move between major cities where these trains are prevalent.
I drive one hour to get to work. there are no Train lines there.
While that distance is doable with an EV, it makes you nervous, there is effectivly zero infrastructure build for EVs outside of Major cities and I know fully well that the infrastructure will not be ready by 2035.
EU has put the cart before the horse. They should have first mandated the building of the infrastructure and I am sure more people will adopt the EVs.
Meanwhile more incetivising of Hybrid Cars should be in place.
EU is as variable as the US for such things, but with more languages and currencies and the police may ask to see your ID when crossing borders (happened to me twice in recent years when leaving France, with the border inspection on the train itself, even though I've also gone across the French-German-Swiss borders on bike without even a signpost in all cases).
We've got the Blue Banana region[0] which is well connected, and western Europe more broadly, but if there's a way to get from Berlin to Athens only by train I don't know how to find it.
Eh... not really. The population density across the entire EU is 3x that of that of the US. The only countries in the EU with a lower population density than the US average are Estonia, Latvia, Sweden, and Finland. Of those, the lowest is Finland, with 41 people per sq. mile. There are 11 US states with lower density than that, including Alaska, with 1.6 people per sq. mile.
This is where the cliche of Germans coming to the US to park out in the middle of nowhere and look at nothing with no one around comes from. Not a thing in the EU! And if it is, you'll be cold.
That said, my only claim was "if there's anywhere they'd work, it's the EU". If not even the EU is suitable, well that's that.
I think population density misses a lot of important detail.
The general absence of people in Alaska or Lapland isn't as important as the willingness to take a 5 hour journey (car or train) to get to e.g. some nice mountain climbing for a weekend.
But the mediterranean coast is seen as a desirable holiday destination, not sure what the comparable destination is in the USA despite it resembling California central valley and coast.
Can people make the journey they want to those places in a low-carbon way? Sure, so long as it's Barcelona or northern Italy. Athens, not so much.
In before these politicians will be voted out and new politicians will reverse this nonsense majority of people doesn't want, but politicians ignore majority of voters.
The French have, but in all likelihood any new nuclear capacity is going to go online way too late and cost way too much. Flamanville has a delay of 11 years, Olkiluoto construction is turning 20 this year and is still in evaluations. All have colossal cost overruns too. Nuclear is pretty dead in the water right now in that it's currently not possible to actually get them built.
The US have approved modular nuclear. But might be too little too late for Europe. And it’s nimby approach to certain things. Especially protectionist France. Can’t imagine they’d ever give a nuclear contract to anyone other than EdF
It remains to be seen how that will go. Pro-nuke people were pretty stoked for Olkiluoto/Flamanville/Hinkley Point too and that didn't work out so well despite being a much more proven technology and form factor. I think it's way to soon to consider SMRs a solution to demand for green energy, right now it's more like a big experiment with highly uncertain outcome.
#/media/File:UK_historical_net_electricity_supplied.svg){kind=link}