Anyone living in Germany with an EV should know pretty well that this is pretty much the case already anywhere in the country.
The incredible amount of HPC (> 150kW) chargers you can find even in the most remote rural areas in Germany is simply crazy, mostly thanks to the large amounts of german dealerships with HPC chargers (such as Porsche), gas stations like Aral with their own charging network, or even rest areas with IONITY or other providers... and lets not take into account Tesla SuC, as that would increase the number even more.
Yeah it isn't clear to me from the details currently available that this is much more than a PR stunt.
A quick Google tells me that Germany has around 15,000 petrol filling stations and already has around 90,000 public charging points.
Even if we assume that not a single petrol filling station has a charging point...and also assume that the not yet even proposed law is going to require a minimum of 2 charging points per station...that still only increases the supply by 30%.
We can all imagine variations on those parameters that make it look better or worse. Maybe they'll be required to have parity in numbers between petrol & EV pumps? But without anything concrete about the law, it is hard to know what there is to even discuss here yet.
Only about 7000 of those are HPCs (150kW+)[1]. This proposed law mandates at least 150kw per charge point, so it would more than triple the amount of HPC charge points.
In general, it makes a lot of sense to differentiate between slow chargers (usually AC, 11-22kW, installed at home, at work, in parking lots), DC fast chargers (50-100kw, often installed at grocery stores and similar) and HPCs (150kw+, often installed along highway corridors, enabling longer trips). They all serve different purposes.
Even if it only increases the supply by 30% it might be a massive help. The raw number isn't as important as the distribution. If all the charging stations currently are in hotspots, rural areas don't benefit from them. But rural areas have gas stations which this law will affect.
Funny that you're talking about Tesla. About 2 months ago, while I've been in Germany for about 2 weeks I've been in a shopping mall in sleepy Hamburg. Incredibly late shopping, because that fucking mall closes at 20:00. Imagine.
Took a shortcut through the parking spaces. Met two lost Danes in their Tesla, asking for the way to the chargers. Couldn't answer because I don't care about that stuff. As it happens, there ARE superchargers there, just not acessible after 20:00 because entry into the whole parking space is impossible, by turnpike/tollgate/barrier. Next SuC for HH at the Airport, or some car dealership in Norderstedt, about 10 to 12 km away from there. I know that now because I checked online, because I couldn't believe that. Just rechecked again, it's still shown as open 24/7 while in reality closed after 8 PM, and not open at all on sundays. Djörrmänny! I'm lovin' it! Aharrharrharr! Elende Schnarchnasen!
Can someone please explain to me, in an objective non political way what German leadership is actually doing in the last 3-4 years?
It seems like complete economic suicide to me, and they are just doubling down all the time. I can morally understand not using russian energy, but the consequences of this seem to have been completely ignored. Even worse, all nuclear has been shut down, doubling down on dependence on outside powers like the US, middle east, and france.
All this in the name of green energy, arriving at loads more coal production and political dependence. Plus now, every german older household is forced to change their heater, at a cost of 500bn-1tn euros over the next decade.
It's just worse and worse, the largest power in europe is basically destroying itself.
> Germany committing economic suicide will not save the planet.
Actually will make the situation worse, since Germany uses the taxpayers money to support many other countries around the World.. Less tax money, less money to share.
> It's also not going to persuade China and India to change course
Even worse: It will show other Countries that the right way to move forward is to be like China and India, instead of being like Germany.
China is doing a massive renewable buildup. Yes, they are also increasing fossil-based production, but that's because their renewable buildup can't quite keep up with total growth. China is persuaded, more than most others. (unfortunately India is a very different story)
Unless at some point we (meaning humanity) introduce a carbon tax based on how sustainable are the means of production of a country.
Another thing. China has more people that Europe and US combined and so does India. With your statement you are somewhat implying that we (European as Us citizen) have a right to pollute more per capita than Cinese and Indian citizens. I don't think that's fair.
> Another thing. China has more people that Europe and US combined and so does India. With your statement you are somewhat implying that we (European as Us citizen) have a right to pollute more per capita than Cinese and Indian citizens. I don't think that's fair.
So you've admitted China and India has more people, who want to consume more and produce more CO2 (don't make the mistake in thinking they are transitioning to renewables, they are adding them, but also adding shittons of coal power plants).
We have 2.3bn people that WANT to consume as much as the west per capita.
How is german economic suicide going to help? You bring down your own consumption for some moral reason, while completely ignoring what is happening in asia? How does that help anyone? It doesn't help the planet, it doesn't help yourself. The whole thing is some wierd suicidal virtue signalling. It makes no practical sense.
It's not that they directly WANT to consume as much, is that quality of life is tied to per-capita energy expenditure. Do you WANT to compromise on your comforts to go on-par with India's average quality of living?
> It's also not going to persuade china and india to change course.
Seeing how China essentially took over global PV market share from Germany and Japan and will cross 500GW installed this year, doubling that number by 2028, I think they were already persuaded years ago - it's just that ramping up production to the scale of a 1bln+ country takes time.
And they're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts - it's just cheaper this way.
Which would make more sense if they had not shutdown all their nuclear power stations, whilst still generating roughly 40% of their power with gas/coal power stations.
The shutdown was planned 3 years ago. The reactors were prepared for the shutdowns, maintenance was cancelled and also no new radioactive material was sourced for them. So, it was not easily possible to just revert the decision and just keep those reactors running. Even getting them back to a state, where they could be kept running longer would have taken several years.
They were EOL, I'm not sure what you expected them to do with them? I don't really care about whatever pro/anti nuclear stance you have, I think it's pointless to even discuss in the German context because that ship sailed years ago.
Prolong their lifetime like many countries constantly do? There are literally reactors from the 50s in operation, reactor life can be increased with maintenance and security improvements.
Didn't Germany just make a law that will cost 50 billion Euro and will - in the span of six years - save the CO2 that China puts out in a day. Brilliant decision.
Germany could shut down everything tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent. Not making a dent _and_ ruining your economy will not make anyone follow your lead either.
The unsupported part of your comment is the "ruining your economy" claim.
Did someone with connections to the fossil fuel industry tell you that Contracts for difference would do that? They seem to have worked well to provide cheap alternatives to fossil fuels via market based incentives in many other countries and industries.
You didn't explain why you think they'll be such a disaster in this instance? Do you actually have a reason for thinking so?
> Not making a dent _and_ ruining your economy will not make anyone follow your lead either.
Can you stop parroting the incredibly stupid line of "ruining your economy", please? It's extensively used by the oil industry lobby/propaganda to disparage any change that will affect their bottom line, you are (willingly or not) just repeating bullshit from lobbyists. And looking stupid while doing it.
Economic suicide would be continuing with business as usual and leaving all growth markets to the Chinese. What we’re trying to do is forcing companies who have grown fat on milking innovations from decades ago into adapting to the global market realities.
We're replacing coal, nuclear and fossil gas with solar, wind, and storage (in form of compressed air, batteries, and power2gas).
Once this has been completed, we're free from buying coal, uranium (Russia? Niger?), or gas and stop emitting large amounts of C02 due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Especially the "storage" part is really far in the future, certainly not by 2030 or so.
Also, you are becoming dependent on countries like China for solar panels and other non-free or semi-free countries for rare earths, lithium etc. The sun may shine for free, but no one escapes a thorough entanglement in global trade networks nowadays.
> Also, you are becoming dependent on countries like China for solar panels and other non-free or semi-free countries for rare earths, lithium etc.
Bought a 115Wp rated solar panel earlier this year, made in China.
For the foreseeable future (years, or 20y+ rated lifespan of such a panel), I can generate power from that panel without making ANY additional purchases.
At the end of that lifespan, market conditions will be very, very different from today.
How does that "make me dependent on China, etc"?
Any renewable installed = long-term, independent power generating capacity obtained. Regardless where initial materials came from.
Dependency is hitting gas station every day & not being able to move car when oil company fails to supply gas station. Long term investments like solar panels don't work like that.
While your whole post implicates that you are leaning to the conservatice spectrum, I will try to be as objective as possible.
Germany has been ruled by conservative governments for the last 16 years. These governments have hindered innovation (see German internet speeds for example) and lobbyists made sure that nothing changed in regards of mobility, energy, city building and whatnot.
The russian attack on Ukraine has made clear that dependency on foreign states is not a good idea and that we have to act on that swiftly. Acting swiftly comes with a cost for the moment for sure.
Energy prices are already falling though for example, renewables are being build, probably like never before, see [1] at the bottom, and dependency on fossil fuels is being reduced steadily.
That could have been done slowly over the last 16 years, but conservatice politicians were busy doing... I don't know what.
Nuclear is and was never a viable option. While fans of this technology are repeating it over and over, the German reactors were EOL. Also: The energy companies were only able to run those reactors because that has been subsidized in different ways.
The economic downturn is somewhat more complicated, I think.
Lots of companies have used the pandemic to rise prices. While that might have been a real issue due to logistics during the pandemic, right now it's only greedflation with companies rising prices "because they can". That hits companies as well as persons and leads to people being more frugal and results in the economic downturn.
The "downturn" also might be a more realistic view of the situation, as the current government is not that leaned towards pampering businesses and lobbyists as the former ones. Former growth is in parts the result of subsidizing, tax reductions, low interest rates etc. These are all valid measurements to boost an economy, but someone has to pay the price for that.
Now, there's also a price to pay for modernizing the country at a larger scale and businesses have to pay their share, too. I think that's only fair.
And do you think it's unobjective to think that the conservative governements of the past have missed to lay the foundations?
We're sitting on our slow copper cable internet, due to Helmut fucking Kohl in the late 80s. Since then nobody has made any effort to improve the infrastructure significantly.
Instead the Deutsche Post was privatized and now the Telekom has obviously no incentive to lay fiber for fast internet, especially in the rural areas, when they can milk their customers on the copper cables.
And that's just one example of how past governments have failed the people.
On the other hand it's just funny _how much_ the new government is said to have run this country against the wall after taking over. I'd love if they had done that much at all.
"Since then nobody has made any effort to improve the infrastructure significantly."
Isn't that actually a very bad result across the board? Except the far right, every single national party has been in German government since the 1980s. No one can dodge responsibility.
One could discuss if 7 years of SPD/Grüne with Schröder was enough for significant change (well, we did Hartz in that time, so something was done...) after and before 15/16 years CDU-led governments, but that's nitpicking.
But what is to be said is that the current government did not "ruin" the country. That has been started decades earlier and we are only now seeing the full extend of lack of innovation and modernization.
> We're sitting on our slow copper cable internet, due to Helmut fucking Kohl in the late 80s. Since then nobody has made any effort to improve the infrastructure significantly.
...
> Instead the Deutsche Post was privatized and now the Telekom has obviously no incentive to lay fiber for fast internet, especially in the rural areas, when they can milk their customers on the copper cables.
I live in a rural area and have Fiber glass, thanks the private competition. I guess you live in a big city, where is hard to roll-out such infrastructure in the necessary speed.
> Germany has been ruled by conservative governments for the last 16 years.
Olaf Scholz was vice prime minister, and finance minister in the last governments. So I guess he was as responsible for the last 16 years as Lindner is today?
You forgot to mention that he can't remember details about one of the biggest tax frauds in German history. Personally I don't think that he should be chancellor at all, but I guess we don't have many choices.
> Nuclear is and was never a viable option. While fans of this technology are repeating it over and over, the German reactors were EOL. Also: The energy companies were only able to run those reactors because that has been subsidized in different ways.
This is simply not true, German reactors were perfectly fine and could've continue operating for decades to come, shutting them down so early was a political decision. Currently Germany got rid of their cleanest source of electricity while still depending on fossil fuels. At some point it will become obvious that renewables are not enough not power a modern economy and Germany will either stick to gas or become dependent on it's neighbours to stabilise it's energy grid.
Nuclear energy made up only 6% of the total energy mix. I wonder why everyone is so obsessed with these 6%.
Also please tell me, how, starting from tomorrow, we can ensure that we handle the waste products of nuclear power generation safely and easily. Please don't come up with things "there are some reactors which can burn it". We don't have these reactors yet. They are in development, maybe there's a prototype somewhere, but nothing we can use. We need solutions that work right out of the box and right now.
If not, we have to store the waste for a looooooooooong time and who pays for that? The tax payers. For a long time, maybe hundreds if not thousands of years ongoing from now, who knows.
Please note that the 22 billion Euro from the energy providers are just for searching a place to store the waste, not the actual storage itself.
edit: Just to note it, because some people might not know this. The decision to phase out the nuclear reactors was made by Merkel and made into law by her government. It's not something the Green party came up with one morning in 2022.
Nuclear was responsible for 30% of electricity generation in 1990, a bit more than 6%. And yes, you just store the waste in geologically stable rocks, it's not rocket science, we store other types of radioactive or toxic waste and it's not that controversial. I wouldn't mind having one nearby... oh wait, there is one nearby, and literally nobody cares. It's this radiophobic fearmongering that made nuclear overly regulated and unnecessarily expensive. We have a planet to save yet the biggest economy in the EU is barely making a dent in it's CO2 emissions.
So, the Green party has been ruining nuclear energy (and the whole country!) since the 90s? What kind of comparison is this? Letting nuclear power phase out was decided in 2011, nuclear was already down to 18% then. What point are you trying to make?
I don't care who's been running Germany, never said anything about greens, I don't know why you're so obsessed about it. I only wanted to correct your statements about nuclear not being a viable option.
Where is this "fact" coming from? Coal is being phased out. Numbers for last year increased slightly, but that was due to gas, not nuclear shutdowns. For this year coal usage is on track to being at 2020 levels, which was an outlier year.
To be fair, Germany economy was already fucked, but the energy transition is accelerating the inevitable. Germany is the last of the industry-based economies in Europe and this while simultaneously being the country with the highest energy prices. That situation was never going to last. The energy prices will remain high for many decades even if a successful energy transition might bring them down eventually, so industry has been relocating outside of the country anyway. The transition to EVs has only made matters worse. A lot of German industry is being made redundant. And Germany in 2023 is still skeptical of the digital age and a service based economy. So yeah, the future is not bright either way.
But what the government is doing is partly ideology based and partly, I believe, the personal ambition of the economy minister himself. I think the American approach is much more sane and they will probably still end up being the global leaders of green energy tech.
There is a bit more nuance to this. The nuclear shutdown was a reaction to the changing sentiment regarding nuclear power after Fukushima (An overreaction in my opinion). It was decided to slowly phase nuclear power out (until 2020) and invest more in renewables. This was a rare occasion where basically all parties were happy. Greens because green and the rest because it made them look like listening to the popular mood at the time, with 80% being in favor [1].
Of course, as is tradition in the last decades, the law was done quickly, but the investing part was somehow forgotten. Instead, if investing in renewables, the reliance on Russian gas was increased (Insert joke about irony here).
Now it's 2021 and a new government is elected. Covid just ended and the war in Ukraine started. The nuclear plants are one-by-one shutting down, but the ones running are getting very costly extensions to have reserves. They are old, have not been maintained (because they were shutting down) and are too expensive, and energy companies don't want to keep them online anymore. The underinvestments so far take revenge. The reliance on Russia is now seen as a big mistake. In a years time, Germany changed that reliance (under a green minister's leadership, no less) by building LNG terminals and diversifying sources [2]. While still having the long-term goal of not getting in such a situation again.
However, Germany is extremely expanding wind and solar, with the goal of having 80% coming from renewable sources by 2030 [3].Right now, electricity pricing has nearly reached 2021 level and is continuing to fall. Gas is still higher but there is a big push for industries to change to hydrogen where possible.
> every german older household is forced to change their heater
Long term yes. If you need a new heater which can't be repaired, you need to get a heat pump. This will be subsidized. This will lessen outside reliance and be a part in taking climate action.
> It's just worse and worse, the largest power in europe is basically destroying itself.
I think that is a bit harsh. It's more that decades of ignoring problems and not investing have culminated in a bad situation. Neoliberalism has created immense investment bottlenecks, and Germany was lucky to survive that long. Now they have a lot of catching up to do. Which won't be easy, in no small part because Germany is not allowed to take on new debt (constitutional amendment) and raising taxes is a now go, because neoliberalism. So yeah..
> Plus now, every german older household is forced to change their heater, at a cost of 500bn-1tn euros over the next decade.
This is also simply not true. You are not allowed to install new heatings that burn gas or oil. Wood pellets, heat pump, etc, all allowed.
If you have a working heating, nobody is forcing you to rip it out. You are allowed to have repairs if it stops working. If it completely breaks down, there is also possibilities to get exemptions if i.e. a heat pump is not feasible. Maybe take a look at the actual law and not what some media is trying to read into the law.
I don't know if the oil industry's astroturfing is absolutely amazing or if people intentionally don't want to understand, but I swear every single legal step taken towards reducing our reliance on fossil fuels anywhere in the Western world is always filled to the brim with people misunderstanding what the law actually means.
But then it will lead to having less spare parts, less people learning the job of gas heater repair. You will kill the Market around Gas Heaters, you let the work force die and then you force indirectly people to move to heat pump. I have heat pump myself as long as solar energy, but I can see that even though it's true that nobody is forcing to, understanding how the market works, it is easier to see how it will be in the next years: We will just find people specialized in Heat Pump, it will be easier to install a new Heat pump than repair and maintain your older heater.
A fuel pump can fill up 6-7, maybe more cars in the time it takes to partially (say to 80% or so) fill up one electric car.
So how is that infrastructure going to work?
Edit: funny how few people are trying to comment on the '80% of gas stations shall have ev charging' and rather focus on alternatives to such gas stations, such as home charging, street side charging and what not. The article is about gas station charging, as is my comment.
How does that work for people who live in cities? I like electric cars - less moving parts, less noise, less cost maintaining and driving - but they are utterly useless to me because there is no way I can charge one. Hybrids are ok, though, I can charge in the rare case I'm actually parked near a charger.
I charge my car where it is parked, as I said above. Obviously the necessary infrastructure doesn't exist yet, but with EVs only making up a couple percent of the cars on the road that's not really a problem right now.
The problem is that many (most?) people won't be able to charge at home. Living in apartments, using public parking spaces. Owning an EV in that circumstance sucks.
Don't know where you live, but I'm seeing more and more public parking spaces and apartment parking lots with charging poles both in Netherlands and Germany.
True, but I think the solution to that problem is simply less cars. On-street parking it's a huge subsidy for car owners, if people had to prove that they own a parking space fewer people would have cars.
Most people buy cars because even in European cities public transport sucks, unless one lives right into the city center.
A few km into the suburbs and hello to 1 - 2 hours transit time to come into the city center, with multiple connections, delays, dropped connections, stuffed with as much humans as possible, freezing in Winter, cooking in Summer,....
It's more varied than a couple here and there. It really depends on where you are living, and even which part of town in which town. In my german location I see 6 type two chargers from my balconies, most of time only two of them used. I think I'd have to rewind my cam feeds for very long to see all of them used. Don't know exactly, never watched for that, so far :-) There are at least 2 dozen other chargers in a walking distance of 2 to 3 minutes. And much more on many parking spaces of businesses a litlle farther away. In my stroboscopic flashes of memories from the times I visit, they've grown more and more over the last years. Still don't care, because in HH I usually walk, ride my bicycle, or take the fucking BUS &BAHN. In my other location I pose as the man in the high castle, and guzzle gas, as it should be. EV is inconvenient to me, you see?
Public chargers usually have very low power (e.g. 11kW), are as of now not common enough and typically limit the parking time to a few hours (that are not even sufficient to fully charge), requiring one to go back again and find another parking space after that (which, later in the evening/night, is even harder).
In addition, in many countries and charger networks, there’s often a surcharge past 5th hour or so plugging in, charged by the minute, resulting in a prohibitive cost overnight. So 11kW peak power times 5 hours times efficiency of .8-.9 gives you like a half of a recent Tesla Model 3 or Y battery capacity.
There is the separate question - should people in apartments with public parking spaces be incentivized to even own vehicles? (Talking about dense cities like mine, I'm in this situation) Currently EV seems to be an upper-middle class sort of thing - for people with houses.
I would venture a prediction that it will be exponential - we'll be seeing charging for EV's popping up everywhere, even in standard public parking spaces. It already is - I'm surprised how quickly it's happening.
> A fuel pump can fill up 6-7, maybe more cars in the time it takes to partially (say to 80% or so) fill up one electric car.
This is precisely my point with EV. Don't get me wrong, I WANT to buy EV, but the whole ecosystem is still not quite mature enough.
With my petrol car, I can turn up at a gas station with the tank near-empty and I can fill it up to full in 5 minutes, or 8 minutes tops if I'm "running on fumes".
Meanwhile if I turn up with an EV (any EV, even a Tesla on the superchargers) with 8–10% charge left, I need to sit in a godforsaken carpark twiddling my thumbs for 15–20 minutes and that ONLY gets me to 80% charge, if I wanted 100% charge (i.e. on-par with a full-tank on petrol) I'd be sitting there forever.
I'm not talking out of my head or from heresy. On a recent holiday I hired a top of the range EV and did a lot of driving as it was a road-trip type holiday. So I'm speaking from first-hand experience here. (And before the EV-fanbois come along, yes I did my homework, yes I spoke to friends who are EV owners before I left, so I was absolutely up-to-date on the latest "how to do it" for the exact car I rented).
So yeah, charging ABSOLUTELY needs to get to a point where it's on-par with "splash and dash" in the petrol world.
The related point is batteries. Clearly more mature batteries equals more range equals less need to charge. So that is another area ripe for more maturity.
> So yeah, charging ABSOLUTELY needs to get to a point where it's on-par with "splash and dash" in the petrol world
I don't think there's anyone in the world who wouldn't like this, and there are many people already working on it.
But I would say: you don't seem to be justifying the statement I've quoted. You're speaking from experience to say that filling up an EV from 0-100% is slower than an ICE vehicle, but everyone knows that. You're not saying why every EV needs this for everyone's case, aside from your use of capital letters.
The reality is that would be nice (or having a fusion reactor where I never have to fill up again would be nicer), but there are plenty of people and journeys that happen in ways that EVs could easily fulfil, and the zero to three journeys a year most people do that require a long uninterrupted haul across hundreds of miles might have to be planned a little differently, or might require the renting of an ICE car.
I'm afraid you are perfectly demonstrating my point that the pro-EV side contort themselves to extreme levels to try to justify the lack of maturity in EV.
The fact is: I own an ICE car. Whether I drive it 5 miles or 500 miles is irrelevant. I don't have to "plan a little differently" on my 500 mile journey. And I don't have to drive a different car on the 500 mile trip.
As I said at the start of my original post. I am on your side. I want to buy EV. But I suspect, like many others, I look at it objectively and I see that the technology is not quite mature enough. I've no doubt one day it will be, but not today.
In addition, there’s an immense mental burden on the driver from having to keep track of everything related to charging and planning your trip ahead. And battery capacity degrades over time, too. I have yet to find a reliable wear and tear figure to estimate when to sell the EV.
I'm just saying there's no point flat out stating that things must improve when a) for a lot of people they're good enough right now, and it's about effort invested vs additional numbers of people to reach, and b) real experts are already constantly working on this.
> ‘charging ABSOLUTELY needs to get to a point where it's on-par with "splash and dash" in the petrol world’
People will accept some increase in inconvenience on a particular metric if the product is a lot better on other metrics.
Look at mobile phones. Before the iPhone, all of them had a detachable battery. When Apple came out with a device with a glued-in battery, a lot of people were saying they would never ever buy a phone whose battery can’t be swapped out for a fresh spare.
The argument was same as yours: “I can’t possibly wait ten minutes to charge if the phone dies!”
Presumably 99.9% of those people now carry a smartphone with a fixed battery.
> Presumably 99.9% of those people now carry a smartphone with a fixed battery.
Your argument happily co-incides with the point I was making.
Smartphones have matured and are now at the point where you easily get a whole day's battery life, maybe a day and a half if you don't use it much. So who cares if the battery is glued in. (And as an aside, phones also charge a lot faster than they used to).
But today's smartphones are still nowhere near the convenience of a 2005 Nokia phone which could go several days on one charge, and you could also swap out the battery for a spare. Phones used to do so much less, and the software was optimized to conserve energy on those limited use cases.
Similarly EVs don't need to exactly reach the convenience of refueling, it just needs to be good enough in balance.
How does that analogy apply if you’re trying to justify that one should simply give up that “convenience,” which has just been a basic notion of car driving? In my view it’s rather an inconvenience. I’d rather not have to manage that concern at all. Instead, you suggest to accept an even worse alternative? Smartphones are capable of more, not less. EVs aren’t capable of more than an ICEV, which doesn’t hold up to an analogy.
> I need to sit in a godforsaken carpark twiddling my thumbs for 15–20 minutes
You don't use the bathroom or buy coffees? With a family, that'll kill your entire 20 minutes. Food or sleep will kill even more time.
And why the heck would you sit in your car while waiting? If you're driving in your car all day, a 10 minute walk every 3 hours will do wonders for your sanity and health. There's a reason commercial drivers are required by law to take a 30 minute break every 4 hours.
I'm not the GP, but I've driven a lot through western Europe, including Germany. There's two break patterns when driving a gasoline powered vehicle that I'd really miss if I had an EV:
1) More frequent but short breaks, e.g. literally a 3-4 minute break every hour. Just enough to fill up the tank, for someone to run into the bathroom etc.
2) If doing a long break (e.g. lunch with the family) do a 2-3 minute stop at a gas station before orafter, but for the stop itself drive 5-10 minutes off the main road to unwind somewhere for an hour on more.
E.g. I was recently driving through the Rheine valley, and had lunch with this view, which is a 10 minute drive from the closest gas station: https://goo.gl/maps/VVXTWQDkc2F48UHe8
If I had an EV I'd have been stuck with the family in some uninviting car park at that gas station instead, and instead of a nice lunch having to pick through overpriced gas station fast food options.
I totally understand your #2. My long drives are across Canada, and between Ottawa and Winnipeg (2200km) it's all relatively unpopulated Canadian Shield so it's rare to find a stop that isn't well treed. Most of the superchargers on the route are in "towns" with populations of about 10 and pleasant environments.
Re #1: I find that those types of stops happen at the beginning of trips. If you're only an hour or two into your trip when you need to grab gasoline, you grab it quick. But with an EV you should be charging at home or at your hotel overnight, so you start out with a full battery and don't need a charge until about 4 hours in. Once you're 4 hours into a driving day, you want to stop for more than 3 minutes.
Yeah, it definitely depends on the country. For western Europe in general the reason to stop at a highway gas station is because you're looking to go-go-go. If you're willing to do a 10-15 minute detour off the highway there's almost always both cheaper gas, and a much more pleasant place to stop.
With that in mind I think we've been optimizing the charging infrastructure in Europe for something that worked well in North America.
Since you are going to need a bit of a longer stop I'd think it would be equally if not more important to ensure that there's fast chargers at every restaurant & attraction that's a short drive from the highway, rather than blindly copying what works for gasoline powered vehicles.
Re #1: I didn't mean to do short pit stops because you need to, but, and particularly with kids of a certain age, getting them out of the car to walk around for 5 minutes every hour might work much better than a similar 15 minute break every 3 hours, etc.
Which is still a big advantage of combustion, since fueling itself takes 1-2 minutes you can more easily pick which stop is the rarer longer stop.
It's either Rhine or Rhein. The town of Rheine is not near the Rhine at all, nor in some valley to speak of. It's all rather flat, with only some small hills here and there ;-)
I rented an EV for vacationing this summer, as I don't have a car. The experience was horrendous, compared to gas. In France anyway.
Need to fill up gas? Go to any gasstation, fill up, pay by card. Requirements: a car and money.
Need to fill up EV? Find a charging point with your exact plug. Learn about different plugs, different namings for the same things, very confusing. Then, you cannot simply fill up. You must first download an app, create an account, hook up your creditcard to that account, use the app to scan the QR on the station, fill up and pay by card. Even if you are not required (by french law) to open an account, you are charged more by $chargingcompany if you do not.
Requirements: a phone with camera and internet connection, creditcard, the correct cable, downloaded and configured app
For this consumer, this is a huge step backwards in usability.
Yeah, I don't understand that the lawmakers in Europe have allowed this horrible situation to develop. Every EV charger should be required to just tap your credit card and start charging. I don't care if they also have their own cards with accounts and some sort of subscription *additionally*. But the accountless payment with just a card should definetly be a requirement on all chargers.
I don't like the idea of charging my EV at a gas station, but I do like the idea of forcing anyone and everyone connected with fossil fuels to be help fix the problem they created.
Electrification of transport is one of the key solutions to climate change (and urban air pollution).
The people running gas stations are not only attracting mobile pollutors to the location they occupy, they're leaking poisons into the air, earth and water locally as well as profiting from the sale of fossil fuels to be burned.
> Electrification of transport is one of the key solutions to climate change (and urban air pollution).
That's we are going to see in the long run. It is disputed that the e-cars have a smaller footprint than for instance modern small diesel motors (calculating the amount of km you can drive with + production chain).
There is always an Aikido guy.. It is disputed, if you compare the whole production chain, the life time of a battery, how do you generate clean energy to support it (nobody will believe the aikido expert, that without nuclear energy just with solar and wind, we are able to supply the energy demand in Germany, etc)
118 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 265 ms ] threadThe incredible amount of HPC (> 150kW) chargers you can find even in the most remote rural areas in Germany is simply crazy, mostly thanks to the large amounts of german dealerships with HPC chargers (such as Porsche), gas stations like Aral with their own charging network, or even rest areas with IONITY or other providers... and lets not take into account Tesla SuC, as that would increase the number even more.
A quick Google tells me that Germany has around 15,000 petrol filling stations and already has around 90,000 public charging points.
Even if we assume that not a single petrol filling station has a charging point...and also assume that the not yet even proposed law is going to require a minimum of 2 charging points per station...that still only increases the supply by 30%.
We can all imagine variations on those parameters that make it look better or worse. Maybe they'll be required to have parity in numbers between petrol & EV pumps? But without anything concrete about the law, it is hard to know what there is to even discuss here yet.
In general, it makes a lot of sense to differentiate between slow chargers (usually AC, 11-22kW, installed at home, at work, in parking lots), DC fast chargers (50-100kw, often installed at grocery stores and similar) and HPCs (150kw+, often installed along highway corridors, enabling longer trips). They all serve different purposes.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/germany-added-35-more-ele...
It seems like complete economic suicide to me, and they are just doubling down all the time. I can morally understand not using russian energy, but the consequences of this seem to have been completely ignored. Even worse, all nuclear has been shut down, doubling down on dependence on outside powers like the US, middle east, and france.
All this in the name of green energy, arriving at loads more coal production and political dependence. Plus now, every german older household is forced to change their heater, at a cost of 500bn-1tn euros over the next decade.
It's just worse and worse, the largest power in europe is basically destroying itself.
Why? Why??
Recent german industrial production data for reference: https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1699687261808263594
You can’t keep kicking the can down the road forever.
Germany committing economic suicide will not save the planet. It's also not going to persuade china and india to change course.
Actually will make the situation worse, since Germany uses the taxpayers money to support many other countries around the World.. Less tax money, less money to share.
> It's also not going to persuade China and India to change course
Even worse: It will show other Countries that the right way to move forward is to be like China and India, instead of being like Germany.
Another thing. China has more people that Europe and US combined and so does India. With your statement you are somewhat implying that we (European as Us citizen) have a right to pollute more per capita than Cinese and Indian citizens. I don't think that's fair.
So you've admitted China and India has more people, who want to consume more and produce more CO2 (don't make the mistake in thinking they are transitioning to renewables, they are adding them, but also adding shittons of coal power plants).
We have 2.3bn people that WANT to consume as much as the west per capita.
How is german economic suicide going to help? You bring down your own consumption for some moral reason, while completely ignoring what is happening in asia? How does that help anyone? It doesn't help the planet, it doesn't help yourself. The whole thing is some wierd suicidal virtue signalling. It makes no practical sense.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=CHN~DEU
Seeing how China essentially took over global PV market share from Germany and Japan and will cross 500GW installed this year, doubling that number by 2028, I think they were already persuaded years ago - it's just that ramping up production to the scale of a 1bln+ country takes time.
And they're not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts - it's just cheaper this way.
The train is LONG gone and it's economic and political suicide to start now.
The whole "WhY DoN'T yOu BuIlD nUclEaR" is ignoring the large delays and over budget projects of modern reactors.
They were EOL, I'm not sure what you expected them to do with them? I don't really care about whatever pro/anti nuclear stance you have, I think it's pointless to even discuss in the German context because that ship sailed years ago.
Germany could shut down everything tomorrow and it wouldn't make a dent. Not making a dent _and_ ruining your economy will not make anyone follow your lead either.
Did someone with connections to the fossil fuel industry tell you that Contracts for difference would do that? They seem to have worked well to provide cheap alternatives to fossil fuels via market based incentives in many other countries and industries.
You didn't explain why you think they'll be such a disaster in this instance? Do you actually have a reason for thinking so?
Can you stop parroting the incredibly stupid line of "ruining your economy", please? It's extensively used by the oil industry lobby/propaganda to disparage any change that will affect their bottom line, you are (willingly or not) just repeating bullshit from lobbyists. And looking stupid while doing it.
Once this has been completed, we're free from buying coal, uranium (Russia? Niger?), or gas and stop emitting large amounts of C02 due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Especially the "storage" part is really far in the future, certainly not by 2030 or so.
Also, you are becoming dependent on countries like China for solar panels and other non-free or semi-free countries for rare earths, lithium etc. The sun may shine for free, but no one escapes a thorough entanglement in global trade networks nowadays.
Bought a 115Wp rated solar panel earlier this year, made in China.
For the foreseeable future (years, or 20y+ rated lifespan of such a panel), I can generate power from that panel without making ANY additional purchases.
At the end of that lifespan, market conditions will be very, very different from today.
How does that "make me dependent on China, etc"?
Any renewable installed = long-term, independent power generating capacity obtained. Regardless where initial materials came from.
Dependency is hitting gas station every day & not being able to move car when oil company fails to supply gas station. Long term investments like solar panels don't work like that.
While your whole post implicates that you are leaning to the conservatice spectrum, I will try to be as objective as possible.
Germany has been ruled by conservative governments for the last 16 years. These governments have hindered innovation (see German internet speeds for example) and lobbyists made sure that nothing changed in regards of mobility, energy, city building and whatnot.
The russian attack on Ukraine has made clear that dependency on foreign states is not a good idea and that we have to act on that swiftly. Acting swiftly comes with a cost for the moment for sure.
Energy prices are already falling though for example, renewables are being build, probably like never before, see [1] at the bottom, and dependency on fossil fuels is being reduced steadily.
That could have been done slowly over the last 16 years, but conservatice politicians were busy doing... I don't know what.
Nuclear is and was never a viable option. While fans of this technology are repeating it over and over, the German reactors were EOL. Also: The energy companies were only able to run those reactors because that has been subsidized in different ways.
The economic downturn is somewhat more complicated, I think.
Lots of companies have used the pandemic to rise prices. While that might have been a real issue due to logistics during the pandemic, right now it's only greedflation with companies rising prices "because they can". That hits companies as well as persons and leads to people being more frugal and results in the economic downturn.
The "downturn" also might be a more realistic view of the situation, as the current government is not that leaned towards pampering businesses and lobbyists as the former ones. Former growth is in parts the result of subsidizing, tax reductions, low interest rates etc. These are all valid measurements to boost an economy, but someone has to pay the price for that.
Now, there's also a price to pay for modernizing the country at a larger scale and businesses have to pay their share, too. I think that's only fair.
[1]: https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Dossier/erneuerbare-energie...
And do you think it's unobjective to think that the conservative governements of the past have missed to lay the foundations?
We're sitting on our slow copper cable internet, due to Helmut fucking Kohl in the late 80s. Since then nobody has made any effort to improve the infrastructure significantly.
Instead the Deutsche Post was privatized and now the Telekom has obviously no incentive to lay fiber for fast internet, especially in the rural areas, when they can milk their customers on the copper cables.
And that's just one example of how past governments have failed the people.
On the other hand it's just funny _how much_ the new government is said to have run this country against the wall after taking over. I'd love if they had done that much at all.
Isn't that actually a very bad result across the board? Except the far right, every single national party has been in German government since the 1980s. No one can dodge responsibility.
One could discuss if 7 years of SPD/Grüne with Schröder was enough for significant change (well, we did Hartz in that time, so something was done...) after and before 15/16 years CDU-led governments, but that's nitpicking.
But what is to be said is that the current government did not "ruin" the country. That has been started decades earlier and we are only now seeing the full extend of lack of innovation and modernization.
> Instead the Deutsche Post was privatized and now the Telekom has obviously no incentive to lay fiber for fast internet, especially in the rural areas, when they can milk their customers on the copper cables.
I live in a rural area and have Fiber glass, thanks the private competition. I guess you live in a big city, where is hard to roll-out such infrastructure in the necessary speed.
Olaf Scholz was vice prime minister, and finance minister in the last governments. So I guess he was as responsible for the last 16 years as Lindner is today?
This is simply not true, German reactors were perfectly fine and could've continue operating for decades to come, shutting them down so early was a political decision. Currently Germany got rid of their cleanest source of electricity while still depending on fossil fuels. At some point it will become obvious that renewables are not enough not power a modern economy and Germany will either stick to gas or become dependent on it's neighbours to stabilise it's energy grid.
Also please tell me, how, starting from tomorrow, we can ensure that we handle the waste products of nuclear power generation safely and easily. Please don't come up with things "there are some reactors which can burn it". We don't have these reactors yet. They are in development, maybe there's a prototype somewhere, but nothing we can use. We need solutions that work right out of the box and right now.
If not, we have to store the waste for a looooooooooong time and who pays for that? The tax payers. For a long time, maybe hundreds if not thousands of years ongoing from now, who knows.
Please note that the 22 billion Euro from the energy providers are just for searching a place to store the waste, not the actual storage itself.
edit: Just to note it, because some people might not know this. The decision to phase out the nuclear reactors was made by Merkel and made into law by her government. It's not something the Green party came up with one morning in 2022.
Where is this "fact" coming from? Coal is being phased out. Numbers for last year increased slightly, but that was due to gas, not nuclear shutdowns. For this year coal usage is on track to being at 2020 levels, which was an outlier year.
Source: https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE...
Don't know why you say we rely on France or even the US and the middle east?
[1]: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/denmark-germany-sign-ag... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/where-does-germany-s...
But what the government is doing is partly ideology based and partly, I believe, the personal ambition of the economy minister himself. I think the American approach is much more sane and they will probably still end up being the global leaders of green energy tech.
Bullshit. You can get a new contract for 30 Cent/kWh right now. That's the same price as in 2017 [1].
[1]: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Wirtschaft/Preise/Publikat... Page 47
Of course, as is tradition in the last decades, the law was done quickly, but the investing part was somehow forgotten. Instead, if investing in renewables, the reliance on Russian gas was increased (Insert joke about irony here).
Now it's 2021 and a new government is elected. Covid just ended and the war in Ukraine started. The nuclear plants are one-by-one shutting down, but the ones running are getting very costly extensions to have reserves. They are old, have not been maintained (because they were shutting down) and are too expensive, and energy companies don't want to keep them online anymore. The underinvestments so far take revenge. The reliance on Russia is now seen as a big mistake. In a years time, Germany changed that reliance (under a green minister's leadership, no less) by building LNG terminals and diversifying sources [2]. While still having the long-term goal of not getting in such a situation again.
However, Germany is extremely expanding wind and solar, with the goal of having 80% coming from renewable sources by 2030 [3].Right now, electricity pricing has nearly reached 2021 level and is continuing to fall. Gas is still higher but there is a big push for industries to change to hydrogen where possible.
> every german older household is forced to change their heater
Long term yes. If you need a new heater which can't be repaired, you need to get a heat pump. This will be subsidized. This will lessen outside reliance and be a part in taking climate action.
> It's just worse and worse, the largest power in europe is basically destroying itself.
I think that is a bit harsh. It's more that decades of ignoring problems and not investing have culminated in a bad situation. Neoliberalism has created immense investment bottlenecks, and Germany was lucky to survive that long. Now they have a lot of catching up to do. Which won't be easy, in no small part because Germany is not allowed to take on new debt (constitutional amendment) and raising taxes is a now go, because neoliberalism. So yeah..
[1] https://www.infratest-dimap.de/fileadmin/_migrated/content_u... [2] https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilung... [3] https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/schwerpunkte/klimasch...
This is also simply not true. You are not allowed to install new heatings that burn gas or oil. Wood pellets, heat pump, etc, all allowed.
If you have a working heating, nobody is forcing you to rip it out. You are allowed to have repairs if it stops working. If it completely breaks down, there is also possibilities to get exemptions if i.e. a heat pump is not feasible. Maybe take a look at the actual law and not what some media is trying to read into the law.
So how is that infrastructure going to work?
Edit: funny how few people are trying to comment on the '80% of gas stations shall have ev charging' and rather focus on alternatives to such gas stations, such as home charging, street side charging and what not. The article is about gas station charging, as is my comment.
If you've got parking spaces where cars are parked for hours then you've got lots of opportunities for installing DC and AC chargers.
How does that work for people who live in cities? I like electric cars - less moving parts, less noise, less cost maintaining and driving - but they are utterly useless to me because there is no way I can charge one. Hybrids are ok, though, I can charge in the rare case I'm actually parked near a charger.
With curbside charging, and wireless charging will be convenient once that's rolled out. No cables, just park over the charging plate.
It's not like wireless phone charging. It's very efficient:
https://insideevs.com/news/340478/120-kw-wireless-charging-p...
https://witricity.com/newsroom/blog/what-is-efficiency-how-d...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1gaNO9nj0
Where do you 'slow charge' your car when you're the average German renter (i.e. more than half the population).
But irrespective of that, what does that have to do with charging times at fuel pumps?
https://www.destatis.de/Europa/EN/Topic/Population-Labour-So...
We only charge our EV at home unless going on a long range trip.
For the few occasions we do charge on the road, I have no problems waiting a bit longer to charge than it would take to pump gas into a tank.
Is the only time of the day where police and civil police (ordungsamt) seem to close their eyes to what is clearly a violation of proper parking.
A couple of chargers here and there, hardly help.
A few km into the suburbs and hello to 1 - 2 hours transit time to come into the city center, with multiple connections, delays, dropped connections, stuffed with as much humans as possible, freezing in Winter, cooking in Summer,....
https://ubitricity.com/en/charging-solutions/ac-lamppost/
I see it as something entirely solvable considering that even a heavily used car spends most of its time parked.
What if it's parked up blocking the charging point? This hand waving away the central problem is common. Let the eat cake.
I would venture a prediction that it will be exponential - we'll be seeing charging for EV's popping up everywhere, even in standard public parking spaces. It already is - I'm surprised how quickly it's happening.
This is precisely my point with EV. Don't get me wrong, I WANT to buy EV, but the whole ecosystem is still not quite mature enough.
With my petrol car, I can turn up at a gas station with the tank near-empty and I can fill it up to full in 5 minutes, or 8 minutes tops if I'm "running on fumes".
Meanwhile if I turn up with an EV (any EV, even a Tesla on the superchargers) with 8–10% charge left, I need to sit in a godforsaken carpark twiddling my thumbs for 15–20 minutes and that ONLY gets me to 80% charge, if I wanted 100% charge (i.e. on-par with a full-tank on petrol) I'd be sitting there forever.
I'm not talking out of my head or from heresy. On a recent holiday I hired a top of the range EV and did a lot of driving as it was a road-trip type holiday. So I'm speaking from first-hand experience here. (And before the EV-fanbois come along, yes I did my homework, yes I spoke to friends who are EV owners before I left, so I was absolutely up-to-date on the latest "how to do it" for the exact car I rented).
So yeah, charging ABSOLUTELY needs to get to a point where it's on-par with "splash and dash" in the petrol world.
The related point is batteries. Clearly more mature batteries equals more range equals less need to charge. So that is another area ripe for more maturity.
I don't think there's anyone in the world who wouldn't like this, and there are many people already working on it.
But I would say: you don't seem to be justifying the statement I've quoted. You're speaking from experience to say that filling up an EV from 0-100% is slower than an ICE vehicle, but everyone knows that. You're not saying why every EV needs this for everyone's case, aside from your use of capital letters.
The reality is that would be nice (or having a fusion reactor where I never have to fill up again would be nicer), but there are plenty of people and journeys that happen in ways that EVs could easily fulfil, and the zero to three journeys a year most people do that require a long uninterrupted haul across hundreds of miles might have to be planned a little differently, or might require the renting of an ICE car.
I'm afraid you are perfectly demonstrating my point that the pro-EV side contort themselves to extreme levels to try to justify the lack of maturity in EV.
The fact is: I own an ICE car. Whether I drive it 5 miles or 500 miles is irrelevant. I don't have to "plan a little differently" on my 500 mile journey. And I don't have to drive a different car on the 500 mile trip.
As I said at the start of my original post. I am on your side. I want to buy EV. But I suspect, like many others, I look at it objectively and I see that the technology is not quite mature enough. I've no doubt one day it will be, but not today.
I'm just saying there's no point flat out stating that things must improve when a) for a lot of people they're good enough right now, and it's about effort invested vs additional numbers of people to reach, and b) real experts are already constantly working on this.
People will accept some increase in inconvenience on a particular metric if the product is a lot better on other metrics.
Look at mobile phones. Before the iPhone, all of them had a detachable battery. When Apple came out with a device with a glued-in battery, a lot of people were saying they would never ever buy a phone whose battery can’t be swapped out for a fresh spare.
The argument was same as yours: “I can’t possibly wait ten minutes to charge if the phone dies!”
Presumably 99.9% of those people now carry a smartphone with a fixed battery.
Your argument happily co-incides with the point I was making.
Smartphones have matured and are now at the point where you easily get a whole day's battery life, maybe a day and a half if you don't use it much. So who cares if the battery is glued in. (And as an aside, phones also charge a lot faster than they used to).
EV needs to go through the same maturity process.
Similarly EVs don't need to exactly reach the convenience of refueling, it just needs to be good enough in balance.
You don't use the bathroom or buy coffees? With a family, that'll kill your entire 20 minutes. Food or sleep will kill even more time.
And why the heck would you sit in your car while waiting? If you're driving in your car all day, a 10 minute walk every 3 hours will do wonders for your sanity and health. There's a reason commercial drivers are required by law to take a 30 minute break every 4 hours.
1) More frequent but short breaks, e.g. literally a 3-4 minute break every hour. Just enough to fill up the tank, for someone to run into the bathroom etc.
2) If doing a long break (e.g. lunch with the family) do a 2-3 minute stop at a gas station before orafter, but for the stop itself drive 5-10 minutes off the main road to unwind somewhere for an hour on more.
E.g. I was recently driving through the Rheine valley, and had lunch with this view, which is a 10 minute drive from the closest gas station: https://goo.gl/maps/VVXTWQDkc2F48UHe8
If I had an EV I'd have been stuck with the family in some uninviting car park at that gas station instead, and instead of a nice lunch having to pick through overpriced gas station fast food options.
Re #1: I find that those types of stops happen at the beginning of trips. If you're only an hour or two into your trip when you need to grab gasoline, you grab it quick. But with an EV you should be charging at home or at your hotel overnight, so you start out with a full battery and don't need a charge until about 4 hours in. Once you're 4 hours into a driving day, you want to stop for more than 3 minutes.
With that in mind I think we've been optimizing the charging infrastructure in Europe for something that worked well in North America.
Since you are going to need a bit of a longer stop I'd think it would be equally if not more important to ensure that there's fast chargers at every restaurant & attraction that's a short drive from the highway, rather than blindly copying what works for gasoline powered vehicles.
Re #1: I didn't mean to do short pit stops because you need to, but, and particularly with kids of a certain age, getting them out of the car to walk around for 5 minutes every hour might work much better than a similar 15 minute break every 3 hours, etc.
Which is still a big advantage of combustion, since fueling itself takes 1-2 minutes you can more easily pick which stop is the rarer longer stop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheine
Here's the Reuters original:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/germany-launch-mass...
Need to fill up gas? Go to any gasstation, fill up, pay by card. Requirements: a car and money.
Need to fill up EV? Find a charging point with your exact plug. Learn about different plugs, different namings for the same things, very confusing. Then, you cannot simply fill up. You must first download an app, create an account, hook up your creditcard to that account, use the app to scan the QR on the station, fill up and pay by card. Even if you are not required (by french law) to open an account, you are charged more by $chargingcompany if you do not.
Requirements: a phone with camera and internet connection, creditcard, the correct cable, downloaded and configured app
For this consumer, this is a huge step backwards in usability.
I hope the EU steps in and solves this.
lawmakers in Europe don't drive. They normally get their private jet already "recharged".
https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/new-energies/europe/article/f...
What you mean?
The people running gas stations are not only attracting mobile pollutors to the location they occupy, they're leaking poisons into the air, earth and water locally as well as profiting from the sale of fossil fuels to be burned.
That's we are going to see in the long run. It is disputed that the e-cars have a smaller footprint than for instance modern small diesel motors (calculating the amount of km you can drive with + production chain).
They're doomed no question, this will only speed it up.