Partially changed its mind. E-fuels (which is what Germany supports) are vastly inferior to e.g. EVs:
>While e-fuels might help prolong the life of the combustion engine in a zero carbon world, they remain relatively inefficient compared to battery technology — and are also significantly more expensive [...] Vehicles run on e-fuels consume five times more energy than a battery-powered EV, and will be around eight times more expensive to run per kilometer in the future, according to a study commissioned by the German Energy Agency.
So what if they are vastly inferior? As long as they don't contribute to greenhouse gas emission, let the people decide. If some people want to part with their hard earned cash, why do you care? If anything, this will make rich people a little bit less rich.
- the type of vehicle available to most of the population will be inferior compared to a universe without this investment
- companies have reasons to also use their fossil fuel investments longer
- companies have more reasons to lobby for weakening the requirements for E-fuels
It's not like this is happening in a vacuum - laws and investments have a big influence on which direction we go in. So far the capital class has managed to skirt many regulations regarding emissions (e.g. by "offsetting" emissions, or by lying about them). A lot of real harm has already been done, and this is an avenue that will inevitably continue this.
All of this may be true, but it will give (some) German car companies an excuse to keep their obsolete ICE production lines around a little longer than they would otherwise. And that will in turn slow down EV development and all the other natural tipping points that would wipe out the economic benefits of ICE cars in the first place.
In the end German industry will pay for it. Companies like BMW slow-rolled their EV rollouts back in the second half of the 2010s and as of 2022 they were being substantially outsold by Tesla in the US (not just in terms of their anemic EV sales, but across all types of vehicle) and European sales are getting eaten away as well. This is before Chinese EV competitors catch up and really start to compete. If you’re a European manufacturer and you’re not pouring all your resources into EV production then you’re already dead. This is a place where Europe really needs to step in and save their manufacturers from themselves.
As usual, those energy calculations are highly biased, and the way you can tell is that they don't have any error bars on those energy/expense ratios. They also don't include the costs relative to fossil fuel import and refining costs, another indication that it's not an honest analysis. E.g. long-distance transport in rural areas is probably going to be at least as cheap with hydrocarbon fuels as with EVs, while the opposite will be true in cities with robust electricity supplies, and so on.
Additionally, synthetic fuel allows balancing of production and demand of electricity, a major issue when you're relying primarily on sunlight and wind, i.e. exceess PV in the summer months can be converted to hydrocarbon fuels for use in the winter months. See also:
"Synthetic fuels in the German industry sector depending on climate protection level (2021)"
Of course, if Germany builds such a project out at scale, it'll greatly reduce demand for both Russian Siberian pipeline gas and fracked US LNG tanker gas, which probably accounts for CNN's negative view and biased presentation, as their top shareholders have major holdings in Exxon, Chevron and so on. I doubt Putin is thrilled about the idea, either.
I personally believe that they only tell you that this about E-fuels, even though everyone knows that those will be too expensive. What they are really looking for are ethanol or vegetable oil derived fuels that are likely much cheaper, especially once the capacity of 5-10% in todays E10 gasoline is freed due to drop in demand. They cannot tell you that because food prizes are high right now. But I would not be surprised at all if in 2035 there was a biodiesel version of Porsche's 911.
Oil will be fully depleted this century (probably earlier), Germany is playing with fire, they must be one the most egoist politicians I have ever seen..
The reason is simple but bit insidious - when there is enough "known reserves" of something, it is not economical to look for more. Once the amount of known reserves shrinks, it beings to be worth it and people start looking again. So it might always look like we have between two to five decades of oil or uranium or lithium or whatever.
Realistically, we will end humanity by burning oil a lot sooner than we will run out of oil.
I think they were talking about Germany. To paraphrase Norm MacDonald, “I don’t know if you’re a history buff or not, but in the early part of the previous century…”
We're extremely unlikely to ever "run out" of oil (or any useful resource) as it just gets more expensive to retrieve as it gets rarer. Eventually, it'll just become so expensive that only billionaires would use it for something like transport when there's cheaper alternatives.
Instead of banning technical solutions like ICE, we should enforce limits on the total emission from production to end-of-life of a vehicle. Another huge factor should be the ecological impact of a solution. From mining, refining to disposal.
The ecological crisis of our age is global warming. Clean mining is important, but it should not be the overriding factor. I agree that the total emissions from production to end of life are important, though
>The ecological crisis of our age is global warming. Clean mining is important, but it should not be the overriding factor.
As a Danish I was surprised to see so many adult Americans and Germans blame climate change on dirty streets and rivers in India and not the GHG emissions from developed countries (and our Chinese factories).
Or maybe it's willful ignorance to protect important GHG emission intensive industries in the US and Germany.
Nuance. The developed world is rapidly transitioning to clean energy and mobility while India and China are building GW of coal fired generation (but also deploying renewables at a quick pace). Everyone needs to move in the right direction, and all tools should be on the table to disincentivize carbon emissions (subsidies, tariffs, etc). I would like robust waste disposal systems adopted in the developing world so we stop filling the ocean with plastic (10 rivers in the world are responsible for the majority of ocean plastics), but I also understand that is not driving GHG emissions (which is the most pressing existential crisis for humanity imho).
Do you understand that we did the same to advance to the level of wealth and technology we have? The only way to stop China and India from doing the same is war. There is no way that telling billions of people that they can't have what we have wont be construed as an act of agression.
Yep, that’s is likely what will happen. There aren’t enough resources for everyone to live like the developed world, so resource contention will be an ongoing issue as we approach 10 billion people in 2100.
Edit: renewable energy will blunt this due to simply how much energy the sun throws on the earth every minute. Fertilizers, minerals, fauna reserves and replenishment rates are going to be a challenge.
I meant the weird focus on dirty streets, rivers and other non-GHG pollution in the developing world when it is GHG emissions from the developed world that is the most pressing existential crisis.
Maybe EV should sense the CO2 profile of current production in grid when it charges. And then increase internal counter until max value is reached. At this time it must immediately hard brick all the components present.
Over the long term, well-designed ICE is not much of a problem. In this context, well-designed means that the only emissions are CO2 and water, which is achievable with proper engineering of the exhaust system (feeding incompletely combusted gases back into the engine, and eliminating NOx and ozone production).
The real issue is the fossil fuel sourcing of the hydrocarbons that go into the cars, trucks, jets, rockets and ships, as well as into industrial production of ammonia, steel, and various materials. Ultimately all the hydrocarbon feedstocks will have to come from capture and reduction of atmospheric CO2 to methane, RP1 jet fuel, etc.
It's really inevitable - even if climate wasn't a concern, eventually fossil fuel reserves will be depleted and even before then, the costs for new tech will be lower than for old tech (witness the end of the steam engine).
However, for most transportation needs, electric vehicles will be the preferable option, with exceptions for international jet travel, long-distance bulk shipping, and rockets for space launches (due to the much higher energy density of chemical fuels relative to battery storage).
This will come a surprise to many but we’re a lot closer to peak oil than most people believe. Some of the latest research from scientists like Nate havens shows it’s happening within the next few years. Even she’ll has said their production peaked and will decrease 1 to 2 % per year
The fuel concerns in Ukraine right now and the precariousness of the EV in crisis situations has made me rethink an all-ev future. Fuel cells and hybrids using the type of hydrocarbons you mention, are starting to make much more long-term sense to me. Alternatively, we should basically force houses to be able to sustain themselves and charge at least the inhabitants' cars, while decoupled from the grid for indefinite periods.
I am talking about resiliency, so the point is the grid does not become a single point of failure for residential, industrial, commercial, and transportation. If you get trapped in a disaster zone because you can't charge, and the hybrid can add a couple gallons of hydrocarbons to move to safer ground, that matters. The best of all worlds would be plug-in hybrids which still have 100+ mile ev range, so that the hybrid part is mainly for emergencies.
If every single house and business had solar, then yes. But that is much less likely to happen than just upping the ev range on hybrids and using them very close to a backup solution, like a gas generator on a house.
Gas stations run on electricity, and in my personal experience none the of the ones in my area have generators.
I've got both an EV and a gasoline car. My EV is almost guaranteed to have 250 miles of range on the day of an emergency because it gets plugged in every night. OTOH my gasoline car might have 400 miles of range if I filled it up the day before, but it's just as likely to have 50 miles because it's sitting at an eighth of a tank.
An emergency evacuation also likely means traffic jams. An electric car goes further in low speed stop and go traffic than it does at highway speed. OTOH, a gasoline car can halve its range in stop and go traffic.
People with EVs in Ukraine have had big problems. One generator per 5k vehicles is not hard to do. It's not just about that one trip, but surviving long enough to actually be able to extricate yourself from a difficult situation. Traffic as you mentioned, and other very real dangers that mean you can't sit in traffic even if you wanted to. Sometimes you need to be able to move after waiting for an extended period of time in an isolated situation. etc.
>It's really inevitable - even if climate wasn't a concern, eventually fossil fuel reserves will be depleted and even before then, the costs for new tech will be lower than for old tech (witness the end of the steam engine).
If it is inevitable, it doesn't need to be forced by legislation. Forcing a change before the replacement tech is cost competitive will set us back and price people out.
The serious disadvantages for Germany of relying on fossil fuel imports should need no more explanations at this point, and part of the government's job is to pass legislation that improves the economic conditions for the German population, isn't it? It's no different from passing legislation on safety standards for automobiles, or regulations on banking that prevent criminal frauds and so on.
> Forcing a change before the replacement tech is cost competitive will set us back and price people out.
Except it will never be cost competitive if we keep subsidising fossil fuels (jet fuel for example is heavily subsidised to make air travel cheaper) and continue ignoring the indirect costs of the CO2 emitted when combusting said fossil fuels.
People should be allowed to make/buy sportscars with combustion engine. These alone don't move the needle of carbon emissions. Make trucks and average peoples car 100% electric and that's it.
The argument I hear on occasion is that appropriate use of sports cars (i.e. actual sport use) can be regulated to use synthetic fuels as the amount of fuel required is relativity small, and sports car owners/operators are generally wealthy enough to pay for the more expensive fuel (and willing to do so to keep their hobby/passion intact).
Koenigsegg with their hybrid powertrains makes that argument now and then and points out the parts of the perf spectrum/application space better served by the ICE due to the energy density of the fuel and what it does for weight.
In this context an EV sports car could actually have the worse CO2 footprint due to the high upfront costs during battery manufacturing and the low number of miles driven/short lifetime of a vehicle like this. It may never hit the "break-even" vs. a synthetic fuel powered ICE sports car, unlike your standard commuter car which - given good cell chemistries, reasonable battery size, a production location with a good energy mix and proximity to the location of use to avoid shipping emissions, all of which seem to be improving - can hit this reasonably easily now within average vehicle lifetimes.
I'm no expert on these arguments and it depends a lot on monitoring entire supply chains and monitoring use (e.g. the aviation industry does a lot of PR with SAFs and in reality they make hardly a dent there right now), but as an engineer I do find the "let's do the actual math and see what makes sense" mindset a good one.
Average transport ship doesn’t move the needle either.
My point is that the trick of narrowing the category under the consideration, and claiming (truthfully) that this category’s impact on emissions is trivial, is a trick that can be applied to anything, not only sport cars.
Crew ships and transport ships are pretty nasty. In the summer my island town of 15k gets 4 to 9 crew ships visiting. That is like and extra 4 to 9 million cars driving around all day. Sure, on a global scale the impact of a single ship doesn't account for much. But, it is orders of magnitude more than my driving. The focus of personal vehicle emissions is misplaced if the goal is to reduce overall emissions quickly. The focus should be of the worst emitters first.
I’d really like having a small electric car I can drive around home but electric cars and infrastructure has a long way to go before I’m willing to give up my hybrid.
A friend and I recently did a 2,000+ mile drive (round trip ~16 hours each). Stopping to charge would easily push the drive long enough we couldn’t safely do it, which means 4 days of travel instead of 2.
If I wasn’t using a gas car, I’d never been able to do the trip. None of the available alternatives were feasible, given the amount of stuff we had with us.
The infrastructure where I am (The Netherlands) is great as long as you can charge at home.
Germany is just backwards which is odd - they're a car country and EVs are faster and more efficient than ICE so it's surprising they've not already gone all-in.
And where I'm at I'd have to pull an extension cord from my electric stove out the window from the fifth floor to wherever within some 100m I found a free parking spot on the street.
Everything is feasible if there’s a real incentive. There’s an unrealistic expectation that somehow we must be able to keep the same level of “transport easiness” in the post carbon era. That just won’t be the case. We won’t be going back to pre-industrial levels, but we definitely will be going back a bit
In a post-carbon world, travel will be more expensive and I will not have the additional income necessary to travel as much as I do now.
That’s quite the opposite of feasible. Incentive doesn’t magically make more resources available to me. Incentive and resources don’t magically remove a person’s physical limitations.
Most of my long trips are about half that. Maybe six per year on average. Add two more of my company didn’t pay for a flight and rental car.
Typical weekly distance? I work from home. So maybe 200 miles per week now. Pre-pandemic, 500 miles per week. Which is why I’d like an electric car as my primary vehicle.
In total, I’ve averaged 12,000 miles per year over the last 9 years. One year was over 20,000.
There is also the issue of comfort which people tend to forget. I have back issues and all chairs are not created equal. I can sit in my car for 20 hours. I can’t sit anywhere else that long.
Doing a quick back-of-the-napkin calculation (well, awk in a terminal), I guess you could probably save 1/4 to 1/8 of your annual petrol cost if you were driving an EV.
If you currently drive a PHEV with a small 18 kWh battery, you are at least eliminating about half the vehicle's local emissions during the week.
All told, if you do 6 long trips each year ( 6 * 4400 km ), a PHEV would make the most sense.
Or, as I am sure you have considered, you could use a rental vehicle for your long annual trips. To really offset the cost of a large-battery EV, it makes a big difference to be able to charge at home (Level 2).
A large-battery EV saves money especially if one has the possibility to charge at home. Motorway charging takes time and can be expensive.
The cost of buying a used EV greatly exceeds the cost of fuel and maintenance for the remaining life of my car.
12,000 miles/40mpg = 300 gallons * $4 = $1,200. I’d estimate maintenance and parts are $700/yr average. (Last year is bumping this significantly.)
Let’s call total cost $2,000/yr, which is roughly $167 per month. I figure the car will run another 10 years. $20,000 is barely enough to start looking at used EVs.
The cost of a rental vehicle for long-distance travel would be much higher than owning my current car.
A rental would save the wear on your personal wheels, but no lunch is free. ^_^
In addition to whatever you would be paying for a used LBEV, you would likely need to budget a couple of thousand for a Level 2 charger and maybe an upgrade of your electrical panel. In the right circumstances, with whatever rebates are available in your jurisdiction, you might be able to concoct a good deal for yourself and get away from petrol in your daily life.
Knowing your financial equation is a sign of sanity. Cheers!
Top down economics like banning a whole industry never work. Solutions need to arise bottom up, its an emergent complex system requiering emergent solutions via voluntary desicions of all partys involved (end users,builders, etc). Let the market do its thing. I a generally against subcidies, but they would be a better carrot on a stick than an outright ban.
>Top down economics like banning a whole industry never work.
However, there have been many industries that have been modified by top-down bans. Asbestos, various pesticides and lead additives (fuel and paint) have been banned due to the harm that they caused and there's a strong case that ICE vehicles cause a lot of problems through their emissions.
Also forcing USB C and it’s going to work. People who don’t believe these nation station regs work are ignoring reality.
It’s about systems thinking and pushing in the direction for desired outcomes. There will always be leaks or drag, but usually in de minimis amounts. Banning ICE in 2035 forces supply chain reconfiguration today, hopefully done in a way that locks in the changes (similar to turning down coal plants and demolishing them).
I don't know any people who still use them (aside from lights that haven't broken yet). LED lights have become much cheaper since the ban, last much longer, and with the current energy prices they are probably much cheaper over their lifetime.
You mean like the ban on CFCs, incandescent light bulbs, plastic straws [1], etc.? Top-down bans work very well, they reward companies that were early movers towards better protection of the environment.
if demand is there for a product, human creativity will find a way to meet that demand. it always has done and it always will do. this is the true power of the markets. they’re excellent at solving demand-meeting problems. they’re not excellent at fixing humanitarian problems. the misunderstanding that free marketers extoll is that demand somehow strongly reflects humanitarian good, as if people’s desire to move quickly and eat tasty and wear fancy will lead to the overall health and wellbeing of the species. of course, some part of demand does reflect that desire. the problem is that it’s almost never enough and even when it is it takes too long to solve time-limited problems like climate change. demand (read: enough people) will finally care once it’s too late. once the results are already here
problems like this need fixing—quickly—and the idea that a ban is unfeasible is simply propaganda for vested interests. perhaps not directly extolled, but a result of the free-market propaganda machine of Friedman et al set up in the 70s and 80s to disseminate these ideas at all of our expenses
For as long as they don’t unfairly subsidize e-fuels and there is no cheating going on, i don’t care. The cost of it at present ids so high that i don’t expect them to play much of a role and if they come down in cost greatly it might actually be good for the environment.
2035 is way too close to be practical. Electrical infrastructure, charging stations, public transport and rail all need to be beefed up to make a full EV transition realistic. The increased expense and shorter lifetime of EVs is bad enough (but could plausibly be improved to near parity in a decade), making it near impossible to own a car without living in a house is another thing altogether.
It's only the sale of them. People keep their cars for 10-15 years. If we don't even stop selling them in 2035 they'll still be on the roads past 2050.
Moreover, there will be millions of new cars sold to holding companies in December 2034 and then sold as "used" in 2035-2040 with zero kilometers on them. Same things happened every time there was a new emissions regulation in EU.
Given all the loopholes and the lifespan of modern cars, I would say 2035 is ridiculously late and it should have been 2025 or 2030 at most.
Who is going to want to buy "new" ICE cars in Europe after 2035?
Gasoline sale is already plummeting by up to 30% a year some places in Norway. The people who drive the most are the first to convert to EVs since the economics make more sense for them, and newer cars get driven more than very old ones. So EVs will soon dominate the number of miles driven and thus the impact on fuel sale will be larger than you'd think.
By 2025 I think you'll start to see gas stations closing down in Norway. By 2035 you'll see the same across Europe. You'll still have gas stations here and there. But it's not going to be as close and convenient as it is now. Even just a few gas stations closing down will get people to panic about whether they'll have a local gas station in the near future. Who will want to buy a new ICE vehicle in that situation?
Sure, there will be some enthusiasts. But not enough that it's worth thinking about.
I think Norway is far ahead of other parts of the world, due to being rich and the tax structure around ICEs.
But I do wonder about the the gas stations. It is well known, that gas stations make most of their money on snacks and carwashes and random stuff you buy and not on the gas. Does that break down or will people in EVs still stop in gas stations to buy a snack? Maybe on roadtrips yes, on random visits no?
Will there be small shops selling snacks and coffee next to charging stations as well? Could gas stations pivot to being charging stations? (I guess not the inner-city ones, due to space, but the highway rest stop ones could).
That is true. The changes we will need to make will be significant. There is a change that some technology will cross the threshold of being the best-in-class or the-next-best-thing and the adoption will skyrocket. And those things might change very switfly.
Likely problem is with industries that are more difficult to electrify. Like aviation.
I don't know what it's like in the rest of the EU, but in Ireland there are entire neighborhoods where everyone is forced to park on already crowded streets overnight. Getting these people into electric cars with guaranteed access to power each day requires a radical change in infrastructure.
Or, it needs a re-think of human transportation in general. If people are forced to park on the street, that indicates to me that these people are living in neighbourhoods that were built before the car. Why not build public transportation that meets the needs of those people to reduce dependence on a cars?
2035 is for a ban of sales of new vehicles isn't it? That seems completely viable to me.
We're at well over 50% now and set to hit near 100% in 2025 here in Norway. We heard the same skepticism here over the years, so it's remarkable how easy the transition has been so far. Challenges, yes, but nothing too hard. Since we started the transition several years earlier some things have been much harder than it'll be for latecomers. When I got my EV 50kW was the fastest non Tesla charging option.
Since electricity is now billed by the hour, and smarter homes can eliminate high power peaks, there doesn't seem to be any big grid infrastructure upgrades needed.
Do you have any concrete numbers for EV lifetimes? I know some models have been problematic. With Nissan Leaf, which is a worst case scenario due to a very small battery with no cooling, yes you see the battery is basically useless for a car after 10+ years. But then you see quite a lot of cases of people buying a new battery to keep the car going. After all, the rest of the drivetrain can last far longer and with a new battery it's as good as new, or better (can get longer range). The old battery can be used for grid storage or the materials can be recycled. Both of those are already being done commercially. So I'm not sure I see any fundamental issues with the lifetime of EVs.
Since I was a kid, my biggest complain with generic comic book villains was always that "some dude out to destroy the world" is just too unrealistic.
Now as adult, I see that no, there are literally people who are trying to end humanity and destroy the world - not mad scientists or purple wizards from outer space, but climate deniers and pro-fossil fuel people.
Did you see the comment I was responding to? Here’s what it said:
>Since I was a kid, my biggest complain with generic comic book villains was always that "some dude out to destroy the world" is just too unrealistic.
>Now as adult, I see that no, there are literally people who are trying to end humanity and destroy the world - not mad scientists or purple wizards from outer space, but climate deniers and pro-fossil fuel people.
This is laughably exaggerated. So yes, I’m “quibbling.”
This is such a great move! Let me explain. What you care about is not EVs. It is carbon neutrality. You actions should be geared towards that. Not EVs. They are just one way of getting there.
Having commercially viable e-Fuels would have a few advantages. You can keep your old car and be net-zero, sport cars would be a thing, you can decarbonize other types of transport which are more complicated to decarbonize than personal vehicles. Like maritime, airplanes, long haul tracking and so on. Its like killing many many birds with one stone.
At the momeny, the fact that ICE cars would be banned could be a red flag for new projects trying to push for e-Fuels as it limits their customer base. This is important because at the beginning they will be more expensive that crude-based products so you need to find a niche market where poeple are willing to pay premium for net-zero. I think that companies like Google, Apple and so on would be willing to pay maybe even 2x or 3x for the fuel if it guarantees true net zero (no offsets).
As for the efficiency. It is true that the e-Fuel based chain would be less efficient than all-electric but there is a way around it. Efficiency is mostly important to keep the costs low. If you need 1kWh on the output and the efficiency is 20% instead of 90%, you will need 5 kWh instead of 1.11 kWh on the input. But what if the input is next to free? Two ways of getting that. One is by having a surplus electricity which we will have a lot as we inevitably have much more installed capacity in solar than peak load. The other one is to build renewables where they work very well (like Mauritania for solar), produce e-Fuels on-site and than ship them globally. Economy of scale will allow you to decrease cost of e-Fuels dramatically.
It might seem like a long shot for you at the moment but I gave it a lot of thought and discussions and research and I think that this very realistic and very likely scenario.
PS: If you want to start a business in this area, let me know. I'd be very interested!
A dutch lawmaker in the article said that e-fuels still release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the EU were to accept Germany's loophole, then there would be a known avenue for vehicle fuel pollutants to continue to damage our environment. Given companies will always prioritize profits, if that loophole exists and they can re-use their infrastructure, naturally they will heavily invest in this area and continue polluting the world. What's the point to all these changes if we just shift from one mode of pollution to another?
Maybe the loophole should be to allow fuels that generate 0 carbon emissions (+ other rules) when combusted.
Are vehicles that use electric batteries instead of gasoline entirely pollution-free? Every such change is about shifting from one form of pollution to another. If your standard is zero pollution of any kind, the only solution is elimination of all humans.
E fuels can be 0 carbon. But they are still bad for air quality because of oxidizing Nitrogen during combustion. These Nitrous oxides then react in the atmosphere with other compounds (even terpenes from forests) then form the small particles (PM2.5) that we now know are deadly because they pass though all of our body barriers.
The way I see it is that efuels will eventually be there to satisfy the demand of legacy hardware in the transition period, and maybe a bit later for recreational purposes (aka for car collectors, racing etc).
They are not a permanent solution for our transportation energy needs.
The only way to get to carbon neutrality is to stop moving by anything but muscular or wind power. And by wind I mean sails, not wind turbine provided electricity.
We've got way enough need of electrical power for everything else, personal transportation should be done by muscle and sails assistance.
But this won't ever happen so goodbye carbon neutrality, climate is doomed and there is no way we can reverse what we have already done. The only question mark is how fast will we reach extinction of most animal species (including human) we currently know and how fast our quality of life and expectancy will degrade.
Anyone still operating a powered vehicle for personnal transportation, or considering purchasing one, be it EV or ICE, is commiting a crime against humanity and against his/her own children.
What about growing stuff closer to where they are going to be eaten.
Yeah, it’s not great for economy of scale, but let’s tap into the 30% of food we do produce and go to waste directly.
It seems like theirs is both low hanging fruits and actual mileniums of experience we can leverage in terms of growing food and feeding people without flying the output across the globe.
Edit : I missed you mention modern agriculture. That might be the issue here, those post WW2 technics are terrible for the mid-term quality of our soils. ( we see large % decline roughly 60 years after already )
While more work intensive methods using less intrants seems to be able to produce the same amount of food. ( cf : French research on permaculture, INRA and such )
The issue with those is that you need way, way more farmers.
I see that as a opportunity to address un-employment and vocational crisis. Nothing is bullshit about a job where you grown food. It’s foundation to everything.
> What about growing stuff closer to where they are going to be eaten
You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local
Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.
Very little food is air-freighted; it accounts for only 0.16% of food miles.
Many of the foods people assume to come by air are actually transported by boat – avocados and almonds are prime examples. Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate ... only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint. Even when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products.
Well we shouldn't be able to buy Mango in Sweden for a start.
There are things we take for granted that we shouldn't, like using AC all day long to live in barely liveable places by Irish descendants standard like in Texas or Arizona.
You will know if the presentation is honest if it comes bundled with a reasonably sized carbon tax. If it doesn't then the presentation is just weaseling people into supporting fossil fuels for the next decades.
(The article "smartly" doesn't go into that, what leads to the conclusion that it's a propaganda piece and the entire reasoning is a lie. But well, it's not very strong evidence.)
This is the fundamental thermodynamic-economic showstopper for e-fuel: it falls apart unless we assume a "free lunch" somewhere.
>Two ways of getting that. One is by having a surplus electricity which we will have a lot
That's not "free," it's just coming out of the pocket of the solar panel operator, in the form of lower utilization. But they wouldn't build those solar panels in the first place if the utilization is too low.
If you come up with a way to utilize that energy, then guess what? The operators of the solar panels are going to make you pay for it.
And why shouldn't they? They put up the investment, why should others make the money while they get completely cut out?
>The other one is to build renewables where they work very well (like Mauritania for solar)
Solar isn't free on Mauritania either. At best you're looking at, what, 30%? With some of that eaten up in shipping costs?
This can't achieve "next to free."
>and than ship them globally.
Global shipping is definitely not free. Boats are reasonably efficient, but as a shipper you have to eat the inventory cost during transit.
Unless you break either the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of economics, e-fuel is (inevitably!) woefully uncompetitive compared to electrification.
Unfortunately knowledge silos mean that few people notice this: the economists assume the 'magic' is somehow in the technology, and the science/technology people assume the 'magic' is in the economics!
Poor energy efficiency = high cost. There's no 'clever' way around it, sorry.
The recent IPCC reports are scary, and we're not doing nearly enough to stay within 1.5C warming.
Banning ICEs would be great, but will obviously get a lot of push-back from industry and people who don't have great alternatives. EVs have their own problems and can't scale fast enough - we need more options.
So countries considering ICE bans should invest as much as possible into public transit, denser urban development, and making bikes and ebikes more viable for more of the population. They should consider those critical, Manhattan-Project-style, investments and pour hundreds of billions into it if necessary.
Guy from Germany here: No, we didn't change our mind on combustion engines. They are getting less popular every month, and even the German car companies have roadmaps that phase out the combustion engine well before 2035.
Here is my take on the situation: The problem is that the current government consists of three very different parties (which was the only viable option for forming a government without the conservative climate disaster that is the CDU/CSU). One of these three parties, the FDP, is currently losing popularity because they essentially promised that fancy technology will solve all our problems (take note HN!), but that bluff got called now that they are part of the government. The FDP is quickly losing voter support, and entered panic mode. Unfortunately, the only voter base they can quickly tap into are petrolheads and people that don't like when things get "verboten". The FDP runs the ministry of transport, and used that influence to stall legislation for the entire EU. The other parties cannot really object, or our government would fall apart.
I can only personally apologize to all other EU nations. A party with about 5% popularity is holding our government hostage.
The only positive thing is that these people cannot really decide about the law in 2035, only about the law today. I hope the climate movement will grow stronger, and those people and their policies will be history much sooner.
The population is divided too. I see it in a couple forums that green energy is said to be too costly and the people in our country can‘t afford new cars and that more trust in new tech (decarbonization and fusion) is needed.
Change is needed but no one wants it. USA and China take no action and Germans are pissed they have to solve the problem. That‘s what people here are thinking.
I‘m just citing what I read, my own opinion is different. The problem is that people here don‘t feel like they are responsible which is the biggest problem.
Renewables and batteries are already winning. They need some deregulation, and we have to add some transmission capacity. The rest will probably solve itself.
The Biden admin put more than $350 billion dollars of subsidies into the 'green' movement in the U.S. for all sorts of initiatives -- while there is too little in nuclear I think it's disingenuous to say the US is taking no action
I think ultimately, action to reduce emissions by a significant amount means a lower standard of living if you're in a developed country and reducing expectations for a higher standard of living if you're in a developing country.
> I can only personally apologize to all other EU nations. A party with about 5% popularity is holding our government hostage.
I can relate; we have the same in Norway, but I don't see it as a bad thing. Sure, it's an annoyance, but I would rather have those 5% a voice than none at all. Or else we'll run into the problem of having a few parties having too much power.
You are also right that this is just _today_; people change their mind, and it's a long time until 2035.
For the article itself:
Set aside the fantastical tabloid headline, it's important to notice that: "In a reversal that stunned many EU insiders, the German government decided to push for a loophole that would allow the sale of combustion engine cars beyond the 2035 deadline — as long as they run on synthetic fuels."
So, keep the combustion engine, but make it env-friendly.
> So, keep the combustion engine, but make it env-friendly.
> I don't see a problem with it.
The problem is that the synthetic fuels require a huge amount of energy to produce. This decreases the quantity of carbon-neutral energy available for all other initiatives.
The problem is that it is impossible to create an engine that will run on synthetic fuels, but is guaranteed to never run on fossil fuels even if modified / hacked, because they’re chemically identical for all practical purposes. There might be some type of DRM-like solution, but given the economical incentives involved, that will be circumvented by car owners. The whole thing is an incredibly stupid idea and will probably lead to the ICE ban being ineffective.
Right, the way you solve this isn't by regulating the cars or their engines themselves (beyond certifying tested performance on synthetic fuels) - instead, you simply regulate the sales of petroleum derived fuel and only allow the sale of synthetic fuels.
In 2035 cars from 2015 will still exist and need to be fueled, let alone cars from 2034. And people driving 20 year old cars can't afford to spend 6x the price for synthetic fuels.
A survey by the Morgenmagazin[1] (morning TV show by the public broadcasters ARD/ZDF) showed that 75% are against the ICE ban, though. Even for those 35 and younger, only a third is in support.
IMO, it's too easy to just point the finger at the FDP. Yes, they do it because they are in a panic mode. But it's also really unpopular.
Because the IC-Car companies are the source of germanys wealth and the tech-race reset that e-cars represented, does not favor german production culture. We suck at software, compared to eastern Europe. Even the politicians recognized this lack and desperately tried to "synthesize" a google/amazon/Facebook/ms from nothing. Resulting in the wirecard scandal. At the same time, the boomers are all entering retirement age, burdening the young generations with a huge tax load, while this younger generations are more mobile then ever.
Some of them already are leaving, trying there luck in other countries, were the culture is less focused upon running things into the ground. So, the wish for the IC to stay alive, is nothing but nostalgia for the good times to stay alive. Strangling the future while dreaming of the past - a certain recipe for disaster.
Frankly, from the outside Germany looks like a strategic policy disaster since at least Merkel became Chancellor (energy, immigration, etc) but with hindsight, and without following closely, I'd say since Schroeder.
This ban on new ICEs in 2035 is not very realistic and is harmful to European industry, at least without a massive investment plan that does not seem to materialise anywhere. That's why there's pushback.
But there is worse: the UK has set the date for the ban at 2030 (because of course we can do better than the EU now that we are free..) and is doing even less to prevent that ticking timebomb from blowing up in everybody's face.
I think you're confusing politics in 2023 and politics in 2035.
The point of the ban is to focus people's minds (in particular car manufacturers) on transitioning to BEV vehicles, inducing a synchronized movement in that direction and promoting economies of scale. It gives companies building charging infrastructure and supply chains some confidence there will be a large market going forward.
In the event that it isn't practical, or is economically damaging, to ban ICE cars in 2035, of course the ban would be delayed or modified. It's not like the EU is going to damage its industry or economy in blind pursuit of a commitment in 2023. They say a week is a long time in politics; never mind 12 years.
Now that is not to say that it won't happen, quite the opposite. I think people will lose interest in ICE cars much earlier than 2035. What is overlooked in the debate today is that BEV cars will be much cheaper than ICE cars i the long run.
ICE cars are very complicated mechanical machines. BEV cars are much simpler to build and use less parts, and the parts that remain are more likely to be standardised and built at enormous scales, pushing prices down. It's quite likely, at least for the lower end of the market, that there will be a standard drive train (battery + motors + management systems) around which a variety of car shells are built.
People point to the high costs of BEV cars, and inputs like lithium, but they only help the transition. It's much harder to invest in building products that are cheap than those that are expensive. High prices promote investment and new players and in the future it creates more production which brings prices down.
It's handy to think about the BEV industry like you think about the technology industry, it's got a lot more in common with that than the ICE car industry. In 2035 ICE cars will be dismissed as obsolete by 99% of people and buying one would be like installing a spinning hard disk as your main drive instead of NVMe.
> BEV cars are much simpler to build and use less parts,
While this is true, I think it's irrelevant to the consumer that doesn't buy bottom-of-the-range cars.
The major reliability pain-points are in the turbo, the automatic transmission and the 4WD, all of which are optional in an ICE car.
Yet, the consumers are opting for the more complicated and less reliable cars which have turbo and auto transmissions (and, for SUVs, 4WD). If the consumers cared at all about the complexity and lack of reliability they wouldn't be choosing these options.
That consumers have, for ICE cars, chosen the less reliable and more complex drivetrain options, indicates, to me, that the simplicity of a full electric drivetrain is not a selling point.
> and the parts that remain are more likely to be standardised and built at enormous scales, pushing prices down. It's quite likely, at least for the lower end of the market, that there will be a standard drive train (battery + motors + management systems) around which a variety of car shells are built.
There's nothing about ICE engines that make them any less standardisable than EV drivetrains. If there was any advantage to manufacturers standardising on drivetrains, they would have done so by now. They haven't.
Drivetrain standardisation is first prize but it's not going to happen. Right now with ICE vehicles manufacturers are switching to a subscription for things like heated seats, remote-start keyfobs, etc. There's no way in hell that Toyota, BMW, et all are going to use a drivetrain that can be swapped out by the consumer for a non-Toyota/BMW/etc drivetrain.
It's in the consumers' best interest that the drivetrains be standardised, but it's in the manufacturers worst interest that the consumer have options.
Product's construction complexity is irrelevant and always was. What matter is usability convenience of the end product.
Apple's products are selling not because it is easy to make them, but because it is easy to use them.
As an owner of BEV, this is massive PITA of current generation of electric vehicles.
* They are more expensive than ICE
* If you can't charge at home, EV's are massively inconvenient to own, especially when you need to fight with half-assed applications to control charging. Why am I using Another Stupid App (tm) to charge, when I need NO app to get gas?
* Charging takes ludicrous amount time compared to taking gas.
* If you are forced to charge on fast DC chargers, EV's are also more expensive to run than ICE
>Product's construction complexity is irrelevant and always was.
From the post you replied to:
"What is overlooked in the debate today is that BEV cars will be much cheaper than ICE cars in the long run."
It's relevant because it relates to cost, which is your very first bullet point.
In the USA we're already moving toward mandating a simple credit card tap/swipe for payment. This should be done globally.
Your other issues are solved by adding more charging points, which we need anyway. If you have L2 chargers at your curbside/work/grocery store/movie theater/etc (where your car is parked anyway), the less you need to rely on costly and time-consuming L3 charging.
Present tense vs. future tense. Please read more closely!
The (Wright's Law) trend of EV cost is quite clearly dropping below ICE vehicles. At their recent investor day, Tesla unveiled the first plausible engineering pathway to a $25k vehicle, ie equivalent to a $17k ICE car.
It's no great secret that currently the biggest problem with EVs is upfront cost. That's why the serious players are focused on precisely this problem.
> The German car companies have roadmaps that phase out the combustion engine well before 2035.
Is VW CEO Oliver Blume aware of these roadmaps[1]?
> The FDP runs the ministry of transport, and used that influence to stall legislation for the entire EU. The other parties cannot really object, or our government would fall apart.
The german chancellor has the right to overrule every decision by a cabinet secretary and has done this recently to extend the lifespan of the last remaining nuclear power plants[2].
> One of these three parties, the FDP, is currently losing popularity because they essentially promised that fancy technology will solve all our problems
No. They are losing support as their voter base is more right leaning but currently support a center left government. Tactically, that’s a tricky situation to be in.
And, no, they didn’t promise „fancy technology“ to solve all problems. They actively support monetary and regulatory climate change mitigations. However, as Germany’s only classical liberal party they want the government to take a mostly neutral stance on _how_ we mitigate climate change meaning technology decisions should be done by the private sector. That’s why they are actually in favor of carbon taxation and emissions trading (both of which happen to be already a reality for years in Germany) but don’t want the government to prohibit combustion engines.
While it is unclear what future role such engines play in private transport, there might be many niches where they are necessary: For generators, lawn mowers (because you don’t want to have a cable dangling next to rotating knives), agricultural machines and possibly trucks.
And that’s why I do think it is actually a reasonable point of view.
Fun thought exercise — do you want an electric lawnmower? Most people don’t for the same reason they don’t want an electric chainsaw, trimmer, etc.
They work well in small yards (very small), but Beyond that you’re talking multiple sessions of work as it charges.
Imo that’s the hurdle for green tech. Great for public transit which is consistent, but difficult for large land which is less developed. You want to leave both options available. Imo id use electric if I could, but I can’t where I’m at
Also, I think chargers are still an issue. One of my favourite tools is a Bosch screwdriver and the best feature it has is USB charging port. It's perhaps a bit special case as it doesn't require a huge battery nor great voltage, but it certainly makes it easier not to lose my mind when looking for yet another charger that will only charge that one special battery the drill came with.
You can get power tools with replaceable batteries. I do prefer electric tools because they don't need as much maintenance as a combustion engine and weight less but batteries are too expensive for this to be feasible for professional use indeed.
Electric mowers are probably more common than petrol in the UK.
They aren't battery powered but corded which makes them light and cheap. Not many people have lawns longer than 40m or so or whatever the extension cables max out as.
>Beyond that you’re talking multiple sessions of work as it charges
I actually prefer this. It forces me to take breaks, which prevents me from over-working myself when left to my own devices.
It also neatly defuses any toxic family expectations about not taking any breaks until the job is done. "Can't. Battery died." :)
This works great if you can do a lawn in 2-4 sessions. I agree you need something different for even larger lawns, but at that scale you're already looking at a lawn tractor or zero-turn (which can also be electrified).
I use a corded electric mower, for the same reasons another poster gave: they are very light, inexpensive compared to a ICE mower, and just go. They are fine for a 1000m2 block.
But if you have something bigger, then this works:
I also have a corded air blower, battery driven weed trimmer, and battery chain saw. Granted, the battery versions are expensive and as heavy as their ICE counterparts. But they are quieter, and more reliable. If battery technology continues to improve (especially if LiS gets out of the lab), I'd say the end is neigh for small ICE engines.
You probably have misunderstood the law. It was supposed to ban fossil fuel cars and vans only. No trucks, buses, planes, diesel trains, ships or even lawnmowers. You can still use (and will probably have no choice but to use) fossil fuels or expensive e-fuels. (although i think buses and trains might already have laws about this).
The liberals wanted an exception for cars, where even most of the carmakers have pledged not to sell ICE cars. It's just nonsense.
> It was supposed to ban fossil fuel cars and vans only
You are right, of course. I knew that but my wording was a bit misleading:
>> but don’t want the government to prohibit combustion engines
That does not change the argument, however: The government should take a neutral stance, even when the private sector believes electric cars are the way to go.
> The liberals wanted an exception for cars, where even most of the carmakers have pledged not to sell ICE cars. It's just nonsense.
From another perspective prohibition of ICE cars is even more silly when most car makers actually don't want to build them anymore -- because this act then becomes merely a symbolic gesture and does not have any impact on the environment anyway. So another reason not to hate the FDP for its move.
Thank you for sharing this insight into the situation.
I wouldn't worry about it too much though (besides, if we all go around apologizing for our governments we'd never have time to do anything else). I read a convincing argument that even a small percentage of total car sales being electric, along with a fairly high degree of belief that they might be banned in the future, would be enough to drastically reduce the second hand market price for gas cars in a short time frame. And since a large amount of new car sales are the weirdos who feel like they have to buy a new car every year or two, part funded by the sale of their old one, this will have a snowball effect and make the adoption of electric cars rise at a huge rate within the next few years, regardless of legislation.
My opposite take from Germany:
electric cars still a niche, ICE as popular as ever, SUV's still the biggest growth segment, still plenty to catch up with the US, 2035 ban was never going to happen, just conveniently far off to allow for feel-good promises.
In Berlin people love to cruise around with electric scooters, dreaming of a co2-free future and maybe present. Early at dawn the scooters are collected by some polish guys in a dirty diesel van and taken outside town where they are fixed and charged with electricity from burning coal.
The FDP doesn't hold anyone hostage, and society is in consensus (in terms of its revealed preferences) about continuing to burn coal, gas, and oil far into the foreseeable future, while expressing the opposite preference, and while making ICE engines and cars for the rest of the world as well.
EDIT: as someone who doesn't drive, hates cars, and has a carbon footprint one tenth of the average green party voter.
I agree rich people needs to wakeup and figure out that they are utmost minority of the society and the poorer majority of society does not have money for expensive battery toys.
The answer to this is not “so we should keep wrecking the climate”. It’s “so we should make those battery options cheaper and more robust, at the expense of the rich people.”
The bike sharing program in my city has employees on electric bikes with enough space to carry six non electric bikes.
I don't know where you are implying they get their coal energy from. You can't get a contract like that. The electricity mix is roughly 50% renewables, 32% coal 9% gas, 7% nuclear power.
> Early at dawn the scooters are collected by some polish guys in a dirty diesel van and taken outside town where they are fixed and charged with electricity from burning coal.
Aw shucks, guess we should throw away the whole program and give up on electric vehicles then.
Seriously, the first part of this problem would literally be fixed by the policy we are discussing in this thread (banning internal combustion engine cars). The second problem - green energy mix - is valid and also needs to be fixed. But using it as an excuse NOT to use electric vehicles is just a silly chicken-and-egg framing of the issue. We need both green energy and electric vehicles. We won't have sustainable transport until both happen, and it doesn't really matter which happens first.
Hey, thanks for the insight neiboors.
It was indeed a bummer that this disposition got squash.
But to be honest I would have been surprised otherwise.
Even if we don’t have the same addiction to cars as our US friends, European do like the convenience too.
I hope this come back to the table soon, I feel it’s looming indeed.
And hopefully this time politics align. It’s also likely that in 2 years Germany will be on board but France not anymore or some schenanigans like that.
> people that don't like when things get "verboten".
And there are reasons for that. I think cars which make use of renewable energies would “win” regardless whether we ban combustion engines or not. But I have a problem with bureaucrats who make a deep cut in the way we live without having a public discourse about the topic first. We did not have any public discourse about this topic (this is also a failure of the opposition; the CDU should've pushed the topic); and there were only a few articles in niche magazines like the ADAC. Basically, the whole topic was buried with spin techniques.
Maybe you are old enough to remember when the very same bureaucrats decided to remove trams from cities without asking the population. The reasoning was that we need more space for cars. I'm seeing a similar thing here, as the politicians now act like they have the foresight of which technology will win: EVs will win. Not hydrogen. Not synthetic fuels. No, EV must be the winner. And by cutting off the other technologies, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'd like to see experts from the different industries actually being incorporated in this decision-making instead. Make the law technology neutral and only provide a technological framework. Let the producers of hydrogen cars, synthetic fuel cars and EVs compete against each other. Don't micromanage.
I would find it very possible for hydrogen and then synthetic fuels to find their places too, but as I said: when you cut this off too early, we will never see what's possible.
A different thought: There are probably many indirect effects on EVs too, which make it hard to say how much CO2 each technology is producing over a long time span. We should tackle energy production too; because an EV which drives with coal-produced electricity is useless too. The progressive parties like SPD and the Greens are totally failing here. I remember when Germany was the leader in solar and PV technology, circa 2012. Good times.
A slight correction: FDP is the fourth largest power in Bundestag with slightly more than 10% votes it got in the last federal elections, and what is happening here is not called taking the goverment hostage but a governing party excercising its influence using the instruments given by the parliamentary democracy.
well... 10% votes with only 75% (60mio) people eligible to vote and 76% people voting makes ~6% support of actual voting people. And this was in 2021. I don't think they have that much support anymore.
And while they are "just" exercising their power, they also do so by going against the coalition agreement they signed before, while being obviously influenced by VW/Porsche guys. I'm not sure there is much democracy left in this case anymore.
As a fellow European - don't apologize, I thank you!
We all know the problems with planned economy, and governmental bans are some of the worst examples of that.
Instead, government should support development of alternative technologies, and when those technologies are better, they will naturally take over.
We shouldn't risk another massive failure like Europe's (and Germany's in particular) "green policy" that involved ignoring energy reliability, shunning nuclear, and ended up with Germany restarting coal power plants.
>Instead, government should support development of alternative technologies, and when those technologies are better, they will naturally take over.
I presume "naturally" is a euphemism for "subsidize the R&D, privatize the profits." I am shocked (shocked!) that a company might favor this option. ;)
The big problem in your example is a government choosing winners and losers by technology. Instead, a carbon tax should be used to tell us what to achieve (lower greenhouse emissions) and let the market decide the most cost-efficient way.
Another simple option is actually taking into account all (or at least most) market conditions when drafting regulation / market rules. E.g. going beyond instantaneous price of energy (which unfairly favours solar) but instead incorporating grid stability as well.
Also I don't understand your point about "subsidising R&D but privatising the profits". If the government wants something to happen, surely they should pay for it? (In this case, development of EV.) And as we know, private industry is more efficient at doing stuff than governments, so surely it's better to let private industry do the R&D, rather than sink the same (or more, as usual with government projects) amount of money into R&D but get worse outcomes.
>If the government wants something to happen, surely they should pay for it?
If an industry is profiting by pushing the cost of their pollution onto society, surely the polluting industry should pay for it?
These (heavily subsidized) profits are not "owed," in reality it's the polluters who are the debtors here.
Here's a friendly reminder, since companies are constantly trying to flip this script around:
Companies serve at the whims of civil society, not the other way around. Society generously allows these companies to exist, not the other way around.
It's not our job to come to these car companies, hat in hand, and bargain for them to please mister please sir please don't destroy our planet! Instead, it's their obligation to not destroy the planet.
If companies prefer not to invest having a future business, they're welcome to cease existing in that future. We call this creative destruction, and it's essential to make room for newer and better companies to take their place.
I’m 100% certain that the vast majority of the population wants cheap, efficient, reliable, fast, private means of transportation. Companies (both car and oil) are just serving that want.
But since we agree they're just serving a need, maybe let's not pretend that this automatically gives them the God-given right to destroy the planet[0], and that the regulators are being unfair by taking it away?
You might re-read my post above. I cleaned it up a bit, so maybe my intent is more clear now.
[0] if it helps, substitute the phrase "other people's property" here
I don't think so. The majority is mentally either in or getting ready for more economic hardship and electric vehicles are either expensive or just not practical or both. We don't have even remotely enough charging stations which turns using your car into some kind of optimization problem nobody wants to deal with. I'm talking about people not owning a house who don't have a place to charge always at their disposal - the majority. The combustion engine is going to have a comeback and if it is superseded by a transportation option then it's going to be public transportation or maybe even bicycles.
No idea if this data is accurate, but according to this VW sells just about as many cars to China as total cars sold in Germany.
Curious, what affect would these laws have on EU car manufacturers that generate the majority of their profits outside the EU? I believe GM sells more cars in China than the US now as well.
194 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 268 ms ] thread>While e-fuels might help prolong the life of the combustion engine in a zero carbon world, they remain relatively inefficient compared to battery technology — and are also significantly more expensive [...] Vehicles run on e-fuels consume five times more energy than a battery-powered EV, and will be around eight times more expensive to run per kilometer in the future, according to a study commissioned by the German Energy Agency.
- the type of vehicle available to most of the population will be inferior compared to a universe without this investment
- companies have reasons to also use their fossil fuel investments longer
- companies have more reasons to lobby for weakening the requirements for E-fuels
It's not like this is happening in a vacuum - laws and investments have a big influence on which direction we go in. So far the capital class has managed to skirt many regulations regarding emissions (e.g. by "offsetting" emissions, or by lying about them). A lot of real harm has already been done, and this is an avenue that will inevitably continue this.
In the end German industry will pay for it. Companies like BMW slow-rolled their EV rollouts back in the second half of the 2010s and as of 2022 they were being substantially outsold by Tesla in the US (not just in terms of their anemic EV sales, but across all types of vehicle) and European sales are getting eaten away as well. This is before Chinese EV competitors catch up and really start to compete. If you’re a European manufacturer and you’re not pouring all your resources into EV production then you’re already dead. This is a place where Europe really needs to step in and save their manufacturers from themselves.
Additionally, synthetic fuel allows balancing of production and demand of electricity, a major issue when you're relying primarily on sunlight and wind, i.e. exceess PV in the summer months can be converted to hydrocarbon fuels for use in the winter months. See also:
"Synthetic fuels in the German industry sector depending on climate protection level (2021)"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266695522...
Of course, if Germany builds such a project out at scale, it'll greatly reduce demand for both Russian Siberian pipeline gas and fracked US LNG tanker gas, which probably accounts for CNN's negative view and biased presentation, as their top shareholders have major holdings in Exxon, Chevron and so on. I doubt Putin is thrilled about the idea, either.
More info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35315102
The reason is simple but bit insidious - when there is enough "known reserves" of something, it is not economical to look for more. Once the amount of known reserves shrinks, it beings to be worth it and people start looking again. So it might always look like we have between two to five decades of oil or uranium or lithium or whatever.
Realistically, we will end humanity by burning oil a lot sooner than we will run out of oil.
Earth population will double by 30 years, so oil consumption will more than double to accommodate with the need of even more energy than before
Your perception of oil reserve is based on your needs today, rather than by projection
Oil is not an infinite resource, you need to think tomorrow
And that's without taking into account pollution, it'll more than double, earth size won't double, so what's gonna happen you think?
We can do like germany with this example, or we focus on something future proof
Maybe you missed it but some country somewhere near Germany decided to start a war. ;)
As a Danish I was surprised to see so many adult Americans and Germans blame climate change on dirty streets and rivers in India and not the GHG emissions from developed countries (and our Chinese factories).
Or maybe it's willful ignorance to protect important GHG emission intensive industries in the US and Germany.
https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-renewables
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-renewables
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-percentage-change-...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plas...
(American)
Edit: renewable energy will blunt this due to simply how much energy the sun throws on the earth every minute. Fertilizers, minerals, fauna reserves and replenishment rates are going to be a challenge.
The real issue is the fossil fuel sourcing of the hydrocarbons that go into the cars, trucks, jets, rockets and ships, as well as into industrial production of ammonia, steel, and various materials. Ultimately all the hydrocarbon feedstocks will have to come from capture and reduction of atmospheric CO2 to methane, RP1 jet fuel, etc.
It's really inevitable - even if climate wasn't a concern, eventually fossil fuel reserves will be depleted and even before then, the costs for new tech will be lower than for old tech (witness the end of the steam engine).
However, for most transportation needs, electric vehicles will be the preferable option, with exceptions for international jet travel, long-distance bulk shipping, and rockets for space launches (due to the much higher energy density of chemical fuels relative to battery storage).
If every single house and business had solar, then yes. But that is much less likely to happen than just upping the ev range on hybrids and using them very close to a backup solution, like a gas generator on a house.
I've got both an EV and a gasoline car. My EV is almost guaranteed to have 250 miles of range on the day of an emergency because it gets plugged in every night. OTOH my gasoline car might have 400 miles of range if I filled it up the day before, but it's just as likely to have 50 miles because it's sitting at an eighth of a tank.
An emergency evacuation also likely means traffic jams. An electric car goes further in low speed stop and go traffic than it does at highway speed. OTOH, a gasoline car can halve its range in stop and go traffic.
If it is inevitable, it doesn't need to be forced by legislation. Forcing a change before the replacement tech is cost competitive will set us back and price people out.
Except it will never be cost competitive if we keep subsidising fossil fuels (jet fuel for example is heavily subsidised to make air travel cheaper) and continue ignoring the indirect costs of the CO2 emitted when combusting said fossil fuels.
Koenigsegg with their hybrid powertrains makes that argument now and then and points out the parts of the perf spectrum/application space better served by the ICE due to the energy density of the fuel and what it does for weight.
In this context an EV sports car could actually have the worse CO2 footprint due to the high upfront costs during battery manufacturing and the low number of miles driven/short lifetime of a vehicle like this. It may never hit the "break-even" vs. a synthetic fuel powered ICE sports car, unlike your standard commuter car which - given good cell chemistries, reasonable battery size, a production location with a good energy mix and proximity to the location of use to avoid shipping emissions, all of which seem to be improving - can hit this reasonably easily now within average vehicle lifetimes.
I'm no expert on these arguments and it depends a lot on monitoring entire supply chains and monitoring use (e.g. the aviation industry does a lot of PR with SAFs and in reality they make hardly a dent there right now), but as an engineer I do find the "let's do the actual math and see what makes sense" mindset a good one.
My point is that the trick of narrowing the category under the consideration, and claiming (truthfully) that this category’s impact on emissions is trivial, is a trick that can be applied to anything, not only sport cars.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_shipp...
A friend and I recently did a 2,000+ mile drive (round trip ~16 hours each). Stopping to charge would easily push the drive long enough we couldn’t safely do it, which means 4 days of travel instead of 2.
If I wasn’t using a gas car, I’d never been able to do the trip. None of the available alternatives were feasible, given the amount of stuff we had with us.
Germany is just backwards which is odd - they're a car country and EVs are faster and more efficient than ICE so it's surprising they've not already gone all-in.
That’s quite the opposite of feasible. Incentive doesn’t magically make more resources available to me. Incentive and resources don’t magically remove a person’s physical limitations.
That's about 4400 km. How often do you do such trips?
And if you discount such trips, what is your typical weekly distance travelled by passenger car?
Typical weekly distance? I work from home. So maybe 200 miles per week now. Pre-pandemic, 500 miles per week. Which is why I’d like an electric car as my primary vehicle.
In total, I’ve averaged 12,000 miles per year over the last 9 years. One year was over 20,000.
There is also the issue of comfort which people tend to forget. I have back issues and all chairs are not created equal. I can sit in my car for 20 hours. I can’t sit anywhere else that long.
If you currently drive a PHEV with a small 18 kWh battery, you are at least eliminating about half the vehicle's local emissions during the week.
All told, if you do 6 long trips each year ( 6 * 4400 km ), a PHEV would make the most sense.
Or, as I am sure you have considered, you could use a rental vehicle for your long annual trips. To really offset the cost of a large-battery EV, it makes a big difference to be able to charge at home (Level 2).
A large-battery EV saves money especially if one has the possibility to charge at home. Motorway charging takes time and can be expensive.
The cost of buying a used EV greatly exceeds the cost of fuel and maintenance for the remaining life of my car.
12,000 miles/40mpg = 300 gallons * $4 = $1,200. I’d estimate maintenance and parts are $700/yr average. (Last year is bumping this significantly.)
Let’s call total cost $2,000/yr, which is roughly $167 per month. I figure the car will run another 10 years. $20,000 is barely enough to start looking at used EVs.
The cost of a rental vehicle for long-distance travel would be much higher than owning my current car.
In addition to whatever you would be paying for a used LBEV, you would likely need to budget a couple of thousand for a Level 2 charger and maybe an upgrade of your electrical panel. In the right circumstances, with whatever rebates are available in your jurisdiction, you might be able to concoct a good deal for yourself and get away from petrol in your daily life.
Knowing your financial equation is a sign of sanity. Cheers!
However, there have been many industries that have been modified by top-down bans. Asbestos, various pesticides and lead additives (fuel and paint) have been banned due to the harm that they caused and there's a strong case that ICE vehicles cause a lot of problems through their emissions.
It worked and the world is a better place because of it.
It’s about systems thinking and pushing in the direction for desired outcomes. There will always be leaks or drag, but usually in de minimis amounts. Banning ICE in 2035 forces supply chain reconfiguration today, hopefully done in a way that locks in the changes (similar to turning down coal plants and demolishing them).
Regulation has done wonders in many cases where the market just can't adjust for externalized costs and dangers well enough.
For example, should DDT have not been banned but eliminated through a "bottom up" process?
[1] https://business.gov.nl/running-your-business/environmental-...
problems like this need fixing—quickly—and the idea that a ban is unfeasible is simply propaganda for vested interests. perhaps not directly extolled, but a result of the free-market propaganda machine of Friedman et al set up in the 70s and 80s to disseminate these ideas at all of our expenses
Given all the loopholes and the lifespan of modern cars, I would say 2035 is ridiculously late and it should have been 2025 or 2030 at most.
Gasoline sale is already plummeting by up to 30% a year some places in Norway. The people who drive the most are the first to convert to EVs since the economics make more sense for them, and newer cars get driven more than very old ones. So EVs will soon dominate the number of miles driven and thus the impact on fuel sale will be larger than you'd think.
By 2025 I think you'll start to see gas stations closing down in Norway. By 2035 you'll see the same across Europe. You'll still have gas stations here and there. But it's not going to be as close and convenient as it is now. Even just a few gas stations closing down will get people to panic about whether they'll have a local gas station in the near future. Who will want to buy a new ICE vehicle in that situation?
Sure, there will be some enthusiasts. But not enough that it's worth thinking about.
But I do wonder about the the gas stations. It is well known, that gas stations make most of their money on snacks and carwashes and random stuff you buy and not on the gas. Does that break down or will people in EVs still stop in gas stations to buy a snack? Maybe on roadtrips yes, on random visits no?
Will there be small shops selling snacks and coffee next to charging stations as well? Could gas stations pivot to being charging stations? (I guess not the inner-city ones, due to space, but the highway rest stop ones could).
Likely problem is with industries that are more difficult to electrify. Like aviation.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.
We're at well over 50% now and set to hit near 100% in 2025 here in Norway. We heard the same skepticism here over the years, so it's remarkable how easy the transition has been so far. Challenges, yes, but nothing too hard. Since we started the transition several years earlier some things have been much harder than it'll be for latecomers. When I got my EV 50kW was the fastest non Tesla charging option.
Since electricity is now billed by the hour, and smarter homes can eliminate high power peaks, there doesn't seem to be any big grid infrastructure upgrades needed.
Do you have any concrete numbers for EV lifetimes? I know some models have been problematic. With Nissan Leaf, which is a worst case scenario due to a very small battery with no cooling, yes you see the battery is basically useless for a car after 10+ years. But then you see quite a lot of cases of people buying a new battery to keep the car going. After all, the rest of the drivetrain can last far longer and with a new battery it's as good as new, or better (can get longer range). The old battery can be used for grid storage or the materials can be recycled. Both of those are already being done commercially. So I'm not sure I see any fundamental issues with the lifetime of EVs.
Now as adult, I see that no, there are literally people who are trying to end humanity and destroy the world - not mad scientists or purple wizards from outer space, but climate deniers and pro-fossil fuel people.
>Since I was a kid, my biggest complain with generic comic book villains was always that "some dude out to destroy the world" is just too unrealistic.
>Now as adult, I see that no, there are literally people who are trying to end humanity and destroy the world - not mad scientists or purple wizards from outer space, but climate deniers and pro-fossil fuel people.
This is laughably exaggerated. So yes, I’m “quibbling.”
Having commercially viable e-Fuels would have a few advantages. You can keep your old car and be net-zero, sport cars would be a thing, you can decarbonize other types of transport which are more complicated to decarbonize than personal vehicles. Like maritime, airplanes, long haul tracking and so on. Its like killing many many birds with one stone.
At the momeny, the fact that ICE cars would be banned could be a red flag for new projects trying to push for e-Fuels as it limits their customer base. This is important because at the beginning they will be more expensive that crude-based products so you need to find a niche market where poeple are willing to pay premium for net-zero. I think that companies like Google, Apple and so on would be willing to pay maybe even 2x or 3x for the fuel if it guarantees true net zero (no offsets).
As for the efficiency. It is true that the e-Fuel based chain would be less efficient than all-electric but there is a way around it. Efficiency is mostly important to keep the costs low. If you need 1kWh on the output and the efficiency is 20% instead of 90%, you will need 5 kWh instead of 1.11 kWh on the input. But what if the input is next to free? Two ways of getting that. One is by having a surplus electricity which we will have a lot as we inevitably have much more installed capacity in solar than peak load. The other one is to build renewables where they work very well (like Mauritania for solar), produce e-Fuels on-site and than ship them globally. Economy of scale will allow you to decrease cost of e-Fuels dramatically.
It might seem like a long shot for you at the moment but I gave it a lot of thought and discussions and research and I think that this very realistic and very likely scenario.
PS: If you want to start a business in this area, let me know. I'd be very interested!
Maybe the loophole should be to allow fuels that generate 0 carbon emissions (+ other rules) when combusted.
The way I see it is that efuels will eventually be there to satisfy the demand of legacy hardware in the transition period, and maybe a bit later for recreational purposes (aka for car collectors, racing etc).
They are not a permanent solution for our transportation energy needs.
We've got way enough need of electrical power for everything else, personal transportation should be done by muscle and sails assistance.
But this won't ever happen so goodbye carbon neutrality, climate is doomed and there is no way we can reverse what we have already done. The only question mark is how fast will we reach extinction of most animal species (including human) we currently know and how fast our quality of life and expectancy will degrade.
Anyone still operating a powered vehicle for personnal transportation, or considering purchasing one, be it EV or ICE, is commiting a crime against humanity and against his/her own children.
What about carbon capture?
But saying I need a car because ... shouldn't be fixed by buying said car but by fixing the reasons we say we need it.
It seems like theirs is both low hanging fruits and actual mileniums of experience we can leverage in terms of growing food and feeding people without flying the output across the globe.
Edit : I missed you mention modern agriculture. That might be the issue here, those post WW2 technics are terrible for the mid-term quality of our soils. ( we see large % decline roughly 60 years after already )
While more work intensive methods using less intrants seems to be able to produce the same amount of food. ( cf : French research on permaculture, INRA and such ) The issue with those is that you need way, way more farmers.
I see that as a opportunity to address un-employment and vocational crisis. Nothing is bullshit about a job where you grown food. It’s foundation to everything.
You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local
Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.
Very little food is air-freighted; it accounts for only 0.16% of food miles.
Many of the foods people assume to come by air are actually transported by boat – avocados and almonds are prime examples. Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate ... only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint. Even when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
Great resources, too.
At this point, I think we should do both of course. Eating food that make sense, and growing it locally when it’s sensible.
For instance olive and wallnuts would replace avocado and almond in my particular location.
There are things we take for granted that we shouldn't, like using AC all day long to live in barely liveable places by Irish descendants standard like in Texas or Arizona.
Desires for Homo Sapiens to be the one species in all of time that never goes extinct are epitomizing selfishness.
Watch out old man, your days are numbered.
Growing plants is also significantly less efficient than synthesizing the starch directly in a bioreactor.
You will know if the presentation is honest if it comes bundled with a reasonably sized carbon tax. If it doesn't then the presentation is just weaseling people into supporting fossil fuels for the next decades.
(The article "smartly" doesn't go into that, what leads to the conclusion that it's a propaganda piece and the entire reasoning is a lie. But well, it's not very strong evidence.)
This is the fundamental thermodynamic-economic showstopper for e-fuel: it falls apart unless we assume a "free lunch" somewhere.
>Two ways of getting that. One is by having a surplus electricity which we will have a lot
That's not "free," it's just coming out of the pocket of the solar panel operator, in the form of lower utilization. But they wouldn't build those solar panels in the first place if the utilization is too low.
If you come up with a way to utilize that energy, then guess what? The operators of the solar panels are going to make you pay for it.
And why shouldn't they? They put up the investment, why should others make the money while they get completely cut out?
>The other one is to build renewables where they work very well (like Mauritania for solar)
Solar isn't free on Mauritania either. At best you're looking at, what, 30%? With some of that eaten up in shipping costs?
This can't achieve "next to free."
>and than ship them globally.
Global shipping is definitely not free. Boats are reasonably efficient, but as a shipper you have to eat the inventory cost during transit.
Unless you break either the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of economics, e-fuel is (inevitably!) woefully uncompetitive compared to electrification.
Unfortunately knowledge silos mean that few people notice this: the economists assume the 'magic' is somehow in the technology, and the science/technology people assume the 'magic' is in the economics!
Poor energy efficiency = high cost. There's no 'clever' way around it, sorry.
Banning ICEs would be great, but will obviously get a lot of push-back from industry and people who don't have great alternatives. EVs have their own problems and can't scale fast enough - we need more options.
So countries considering ICE bans should invest as much as possible into public transit, denser urban development, and making bikes and ebikes more viable for more of the population. They should consider those critical, Manhattan-Project-style, investments and pour hundreds of billions into it if necessary.
Here is my take on the situation: The problem is that the current government consists of three very different parties (which was the only viable option for forming a government without the conservative climate disaster that is the CDU/CSU). One of these three parties, the FDP, is currently losing popularity because they essentially promised that fancy technology will solve all our problems (take note HN!), but that bluff got called now that they are part of the government. The FDP is quickly losing voter support, and entered panic mode. Unfortunately, the only voter base they can quickly tap into are petrolheads and people that don't like when things get "verboten". The FDP runs the ministry of transport, and used that influence to stall legislation for the entire EU. The other parties cannot really object, or our government would fall apart.
I can only personally apologize to all other EU nations. A party with about 5% popularity is holding our government hostage.
The only positive thing is that these people cannot really decide about the law in 2035, only about the law today. I hope the climate movement will grow stronger, and those people and their policies will be history much sooner.
Change is needed but no one wants it. USA and China take no action and Germans are pissed they have to solve the problem. That‘s what people here are thinking.
This is about _new_ cars, so you don't have to replace your old car with a new car once this goes into effect.
Also, this is 12 years from now. Do you remember how the EV industry was in 2011?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/30/2022-climate-recap-whats-in-...
I think ultimately, action to reduce emissions by a significant amount means a lower standard of living if you're in a developed country and reducing expectations for a higher standard of living if you're in a developing country.
I can relate; we have the same in Norway, but I don't see it as a bad thing. Sure, it's an annoyance, but I would rather have those 5% a voice than none at all. Or else we'll run into the problem of having a few parties having too much power.
You are also right that this is just _today_; people change their mind, and it's a long time until 2035.
For the article itself:
Set aside the fantastical tabloid headline, it's important to notice that: "In a reversal that stunned many EU insiders, the German government decided to push for a loophole that would allow the sale of combustion engine cars beyond the 2035 deadline — as long as they run on synthetic fuels."
So, keep the combustion engine, but make it env-friendly.
I don't see a problem with it.
> I don't see a problem with it.
The problem is that the synthetic fuels require a huge amount of energy to produce. This decreases the quantity of carbon-neutral energy available for all other initiatives.
Exactly. This is why anyone with a functioning brain knows that Germany's e-fuel proposal is nothing but a climate bait and switch.
The cold hard reality is "electrification or bust." Germany is choosing bust, apparently!
This is bullish for Tesla (and also China's EVs). Germany's dysfunction is their opportunity.
IMO, it's too easy to just point the finger at the FDP. Yes, they do it because they are in a panic mode. But it's also really unpopular.
[1] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2023-03/deutschlandt...
Some of them already are leaving, trying there luck in other countries, were the culture is less focused upon running things into the ground. So, the wish for the IC to stay alive, is nothing but nostalgia for the good times to stay alive. Strangling the future while dreaming of the past - a certain recipe for disaster.
This ban on new ICEs in 2035 is not very realistic and is harmful to European industry, at least without a massive investment plan that does not seem to materialise anywhere. That's why there's pushback.
But there is worse: the UK has set the date for the ban at 2030 (because of course we can do better than the EU now that we are free..) and is doing even less to prevent that ticking timebomb from blowing up in everybody's face.
The point of the ban is to focus people's minds (in particular car manufacturers) on transitioning to BEV vehicles, inducing a synchronized movement in that direction and promoting economies of scale. It gives companies building charging infrastructure and supply chains some confidence there will be a large market going forward.
In the event that it isn't practical, or is economically damaging, to ban ICE cars in 2035, of course the ban would be delayed or modified. It's not like the EU is going to damage its industry or economy in blind pursuit of a commitment in 2023. They say a week is a long time in politics; never mind 12 years.
Now that is not to say that it won't happen, quite the opposite. I think people will lose interest in ICE cars much earlier than 2035. What is overlooked in the debate today is that BEV cars will be much cheaper than ICE cars i the long run.
ICE cars are very complicated mechanical machines. BEV cars are much simpler to build and use less parts, and the parts that remain are more likely to be standardised and built at enormous scales, pushing prices down. It's quite likely, at least for the lower end of the market, that there will be a standard drive train (battery + motors + management systems) around which a variety of car shells are built.
People point to the high costs of BEV cars, and inputs like lithium, but they only help the transition. It's much harder to invest in building products that are cheap than those that are expensive. High prices promote investment and new players and in the future it creates more production which brings prices down.
It's handy to think about the BEV industry like you think about the technology industry, it's got a lot more in common with that than the ICE car industry. In 2035 ICE cars will be dismissed as obsolete by 99% of people and buying one would be like installing a spinning hard disk as your main drive instead of NVMe.
There are huge supply chain challenges.
There are also huge infrastructure challenges. Charging stations, the whole grid, the whole electricity production capability that has to ramp up.
There must be tens of billions worth of investment driven by the state for all this to happen.
While this is true, I think it's irrelevant to the consumer that doesn't buy bottom-of-the-range cars.
The major reliability pain-points are in the turbo, the automatic transmission and the 4WD, all of which are optional in an ICE car.
Yet, the consumers are opting for the more complicated and less reliable cars which have turbo and auto transmissions (and, for SUVs, 4WD). If the consumers cared at all about the complexity and lack of reliability they wouldn't be choosing these options.
That consumers have, for ICE cars, chosen the less reliable and more complex drivetrain options, indicates, to me, that the simplicity of a full electric drivetrain is not a selling point.
> and the parts that remain are more likely to be standardised and built at enormous scales, pushing prices down. It's quite likely, at least for the lower end of the market, that there will be a standard drive train (battery + motors + management systems) around which a variety of car shells are built.
There's nothing about ICE engines that make them any less standardisable than EV drivetrains. If there was any advantage to manufacturers standardising on drivetrains, they would have done so by now. They haven't.
Drivetrain standardisation is first prize but it's not going to happen. Right now with ICE vehicles manufacturers are switching to a subscription for things like heated seats, remote-start keyfobs, etc. There's no way in hell that Toyota, BMW, et all are going to use a drivetrain that can be swapped out by the consumer for a non-Toyota/BMW/etc drivetrain.
It's in the consumers' best interest that the drivetrains be standardised, but it's in the manufacturers worst interest that the consumer have options.
Apple's products are selling not because it is easy to make them, but because it is easy to use them.
As an owner of BEV, this is massive PITA of current generation of electric vehicles.
* They are more expensive than ICE
* If you can't charge at home, EV's are massively inconvenient to own, especially when you need to fight with half-assed applications to control charging. Why am I using Another Stupid App (tm) to charge, when I need NO app to get gas?
* Charging takes ludicrous amount time compared to taking gas.
* If you are forced to charge on fast DC chargers, EV's are also more expensive to run than ICE
From the post you replied to:
"What is overlooked in the debate today is that BEV cars will be much cheaper than ICE cars in the long run."
It's relevant because it relates to cost, which is your very first bullet point.
In the USA we're already moving toward mandating a simple credit card tap/swipe for payment. This should be done globally.
Your other issues are solved by adding more charging points, which we need anyway. If you have L2 chargers at your curbside/work/grocery store/movie theater/etc (where your car is parked anyway), the less you need to rely on costly and time-consuming L3 charging.
This would hold water only if BEVs would be actually cheaper, they are more expensive than complex ICEs. So your whole thesis goes out of the window.
> they are more expensive
Present tense vs. future tense. Please read more closely!
The (Wright's Law) trend of EV cost is quite clearly dropping below ICE vehicles. At their recent investor day, Tesla unveiled the first plausible engineering pathway to a $25k vehicle, ie equivalent to a $17k ICE car.
It's no great secret that currently the biggest problem with EVs is upfront cost. That's why the serious players are focused on precisely this problem.
Is VW CEO Oliver Blume aware of these roadmaps[1]?
> The FDP runs the ministry of transport, and used that influence to stall legislation for the entire EU. The other parties cannot really object, or our government would fall apart.
The german chancellor has the right to overrule every decision by a cabinet secretary and has done this recently to extend the lifespan of the last remaining nuclear power plants[2].
[1]: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/volkswagen-oliver-blume-be...
[2]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richtlinienkompetenz#Bundeskan...
Apparently he isn't :D (see below) but what can you expect, he seems to be new on his job.
(2021:) https://insideevs.com/news/516552/volkswagen-exit-ice-europe... (2022:) https://www.motor1.com/news/591948/mercedes-vw-ok-ice-ban-20...
This article also adds a bit more context to Blumes opinion: https://insideevs.com/news/658291/evs-and-ice-vehicles-on-ef... No clue if it is true though.
No. They are losing support as their voter base is more right leaning but currently support a center left government. Tactically, that’s a tricky situation to be in.
And, no, they didn’t promise „fancy technology“ to solve all problems. They actively support monetary and regulatory climate change mitigations. However, as Germany’s only classical liberal party they want the government to take a mostly neutral stance on _how_ we mitigate climate change meaning technology decisions should be done by the private sector. That’s why they are actually in favor of carbon taxation and emissions trading (both of which happen to be already a reality for years in Germany) but don’t want the government to prohibit combustion engines.
While it is unclear what future role such engines play in private transport, there might be many niches where they are necessary: For generators, lawn mowers (because you don’t want to have a cable dangling next to rotating knives), agricultural machines and possibly trucks.
And that’s why I do think it is actually a reasonable point of view.
They work well in small yards (very small), but Beyond that you’re talking multiple sessions of work as it charges.
Imo that’s the hurdle for green tech. Great for public transit which is consistent, but difficult for large land which is less developed. You want to leave both options available. Imo id use electric if I could, but I can’t where I’m at
They aren't battery powered but corded which makes them light and cheap. Not many people have lawns longer than 40m or so or whatever the extension cables max out as.
https://www.flymo.com/uk/products/lawn-mowers/
I actually prefer this. It forces me to take breaks, which prevents me from over-working myself when left to my own devices.
It also neatly defuses any toxic family expectations about not taking any breaks until the job is done. "Can't. Battery died." :)
This works great if you can do a lawn in 2-4 sessions. I agree you need something different for even larger lawns, but at that scale you're already looking at a lawn tractor or zero-turn (which can also be electrified).
But if you have something bigger, then this works:
I also have a corded air blower, battery driven weed trimmer, and battery chain saw. Granted, the battery versions are expensive and as heavy as their ICE counterparts. But they are quieter, and more reliable. If battery technology continues to improve (especially if LiS gets out of the lab), I'd say the end is neigh for small ICE engines.There are other options than “fossil fuels” and “dangerous electric cords”.
The liberals wanted an exception for cars, where even most of the carmakers have pledged not to sell ICE cars. It's just nonsense.
You are right, of course. I knew that but my wording was a bit misleading:
>> but don’t want the government to prohibit combustion engines
That does not change the argument, however: The government should take a neutral stance, even when the private sector believes electric cars are the way to go.
> The liberals wanted an exception for cars, where even most of the carmakers have pledged not to sell ICE cars. It's just nonsense.
From another perspective prohibition of ICE cars is even more silly when most car makers actually don't want to build them anymore -- because this act then becomes merely a symbolic gesture and does not have any impact on the environment anyway. So another reason not to hate the FDP for its move.
I wouldn't worry about it too much though (besides, if we all go around apologizing for our governments we'd never have time to do anything else). I read a convincing argument that even a small percentage of total car sales being electric, along with a fairly high degree of belief that they might be banned in the future, would be enough to drastically reduce the second hand market price for gas cars in a short time frame. And since a large amount of new car sales are the weirdos who feel like they have to buy a new car every year or two, part funded by the sale of their old one, this will have a snowball effect and make the adoption of electric cars rise at a huge rate within the next few years, regardless of legislation.
In Berlin people love to cruise around with electric scooters, dreaming of a co2-free future and maybe present. Early at dawn the scooters are collected by some polish guys in a dirty diesel van and taken outside town where they are fixed and charged with electricity from burning coal.
The FDP doesn't hold anyone hostage, and society is in consensus (in terms of its revealed preferences) about continuing to burn coal, gas, and oil far into the foreseeable future, while expressing the opposite preference, and while making ICE engines and cars for the rest of the world as well.
EDIT: as someone who doesn't drive, hates cars, and has a carbon footprint one tenth of the average green party voter.
I don't know where you are implying they get their coal energy from. You can't get a contract like that. The electricity mix is roughly 50% renewables, 32% coal 9% gas, 7% nuclear power.
Aw shucks, guess we should throw away the whole program and give up on electric vehicles then.
Seriously, the first part of this problem would literally be fixed by the policy we are discussing in this thread (banning internal combustion engine cars). The second problem - green energy mix - is valid and also needs to be fixed. But using it as an excuse NOT to use electric vehicles is just a silly chicken-and-egg framing of the issue. We need both green energy and electric vehicles. We won't have sustainable transport until both happen, and it doesn't really matter which happens first.
Even if we don’t have the same addiction to cars as our US friends, European do like the convenience too.
I hope this come back to the table soon, I feel it’s looming indeed.
And hopefully this time politics align. It’s also likely that in 2 years Germany will be on board but France not anymore or some schenanigans like that.
And there are reasons for that. I think cars which make use of renewable energies would “win” regardless whether we ban combustion engines or not. But I have a problem with bureaucrats who make a deep cut in the way we live without having a public discourse about the topic first. We did not have any public discourse about this topic (this is also a failure of the opposition; the CDU should've pushed the topic); and there were only a few articles in niche magazines like the ADAC. Basically, the whole topic was buried with spin techniques.
Maybe you are old enough to remember when the very same bureaucrats decided to remove trams from cities without asking the population. The reasoning was that we need more space for cars. I'm seeing a similar thing here, as the politicians now act like they have the foresight of which technology will win: EVs will win. Not hydrogen. Not synthetic fuels. No, EV must be the winner. And by cutting off the other technologies, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'd like to see experts from the different industries actually being incorporated in this decision-making instead. Make the law technology neutral and only provide a technological framework. Let the producers of hydrogen cars, synthetic fuel cars and EVs compete against each other. Don't micromanage.
I would find it very possible for hydrogen and then synthetic fuels to find their places too, but as I said: when you cut this off too early, we will never see what's possible.
A different thought: There are probably many indirect effects on EVs too, which make it hard to say how much CO2 each technology is producing over a long time span. We should tackle energy production too; because an EV which drives with coal-produced electricity is useless too. The progressive parties like SPD and the Greens are totally failing here. I remember when Germany was the leader in solar and PV technology, circa 2012. Good times.
And while they are "just" exercising their power, they also do so by going against the coalition agreement they signed before, while being obviously influenced by VW/Porsche guys. I'm not sure there is much democracy left in this case anymore.
We all know the problems with planned economy, and governmental bans are some of the worst examples of that.
Instead, government should support development of alternative technologies, and when those technologies are better, they will naturally take over.
We shouldn't risk another massive failure like Europe's (and Germany's in particular) "green policy" that involved ignoring energy reliability, shunning nuclear, and ended up with Germany restarting coal power plants.
I presume "naturally" is a euphemism for "subsidize the R&D, privatize the profits." I am shocked (shocked!) that a company might favor this option. ;)
The big problem in your example is a government choosing winners and losers by technology. Instead, a carbon tax should be used to tell us what to achieve (lower greenhouse emissions) and let the market decide the most cost-efficient way.
Another simple option is actually taking into account all (or at least most) market conditions when drafting regulation / market rules. E.g. going beyond instantaneous price of energy (which unfairly favours solar) but instead incorporating grid stability as well.
Also I don't understand your point about "subsidising R&D but privatising the profits". If the government wants something to happen, surely they should pay for it? (In this case, development of EV.) And as we know, private industry is more efficient at doing stuff than governments, so surely it's better to let private industry do the R&D, rather than sink the same (or more, as usual with government projects) amount of money into R&D but get worse outcomes.
If an industry is profiting by pushing the cost of their pollution onto society, surely the polluting industry should pay for it?
These (heavily subsidized) profits are not "owed," in reality it's the polluters who are the debtors here.
Here's a friendly reminder, since companies are constantly trying to flip this script around:
Companies serve at the whims of civil society, not the other way around. Society generously allows these companies to exist, not the other way around.
It's not our job to come to these car companies, hat in hand, and bargain for them to please mister please sir please don't destroy our planet! Instead, it's their obligation to not destroy the planet.
If companies prefer not to invest having a future business, they're welcome to cease existing in that future. We call this creative destruction, and it's essential to make room for newer and better companies to take their place.
But since we agree they're just serving a need, maybe let's not pretend that this automatically gives them the God-given right to destroy the planet[0], and that the regulators are being unfair by taking it away?
You might re-read my post above. I cleaned it up a bit, so maybe my intent is more clear now.
[0] if it helps, substitute the phrase "other people's property" here
I don't think so. The majority is mentally either in or getting ready for more economic hardship and electric vehicles are either expensive or just not practical or both. We don't have even remotely enough charging stations which turns using your car into some kind of optimization problem nobody wants to deal with. I'm talking about people not owning a house who don't have a place to charge always at their disposal - the majority. The combustion engine is going to have a comeback and if it is superseded by a transportation option then it's going to be public transportation or maybe even bicycles.
Just tells me its ok to buy a new disel coz it will be supported at least fir the next 50 years or so. Cheaper and higher comfort.
[I'm just pointing out that your sense of the word "ok" does not mean harmless, but without foreseen inconvenience to yourself.]
ummmm, that is NOT how the EU works.
No idea if this data is accurate, but according to this VW sells just about as many cars to China as total cars sold in Germany.
Curious, what affect would these laws have on EU car manufacturers that generate the majority of their profits outside the EU? I believe GM sells more cars in China than the US now as well.