Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 243 posts

Re: EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

#161

Post by toyg »

WhoeverSomeone wrote: post #114
Hamcha wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't the used market eat them up? The existing infrastructure of gas station is realistically not going away until enough people have ditched their old vehicles, and cars are thankfully an industry where consumers still expect their cars to last 10+ years. Don't know what everyone else's experience is, but coming from a middle class family, my first car was a 1993 Ford Fiesta (which was ~20 year old at the ti…

> consumers still expect their cars to last 10+ years Much longer than that. I'm in my mid 20s in the UK, and I only know one person who drives a car that's less than a decade old, and she leases it. Everyone else has cars 1995-2011. Mine is a 2010 fiesta which I bought last year. The used car market is huge here.

Tbf, this has something to do with supply of right-hand drive vehicles being smaller than left-hand drive.

In a lot of the EU, the used-car sector has lost a lot of ground, particularly since governments figured that a cheap way to stimulate tax revenues is to pass emission rules, effectively forcing sales of new vehicles. We had a similar effect in UK (also powered by the rise of PCP), but the somewhat-constrained supply of new vehicles kept up prices of used ones.

Re: EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

#162

Post by Gravityloss »

A series plug in hybrid with 100 km range and a smallish range extender motor for long trips could be more environmentally efficient (and cheaper) for those who drive only a little and/or most of their kilometers in the city.

This way you would need to mine only a quarter of the materials for the billions of batteries. It's not immediately obvious it makes sense to create those batteries that would then sit on driveways for most of their life.

For taxis or sales reps, full electric, definitely!

Re: EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

#163

Post by koonsolo »

scrollaway wrote: post #156
koonsolo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airplanes are faster than trains.

And a cheetah is faster than a tiger. Sorry, I don't understand your point if you have one.

Not going to take a train when I can take a plane (which is not crazy expensive anyway). And as you know, planes are pretty polluting.

So not sure that ditching driving to your destination is a positive evolution.

Re: EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

#164

Post by toyg »

koonsolo wrote: post #151
sokoloff wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they follow through with this, I’d expect a 2034 ICE car will fetch a premium in 2036 rather than being unsellable. (Note that, contrary to the headline and contents in the Register article, the ban is only on the sale of new cars with ICE, not on the sale of used ICE cars.) There are plenty of cases where EVs are very good answers today. My wife’s ICE car is 17 years old and still going strong. If I fast forward…

That will also depend on cities still allowing them of course.

Actually I reckon it will depend on the countryside having alternative infrastructure. That's where things like range and charger availability really is critical. Cities already have public transport.

Re: EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

#165

Post by freemint »

vetinari wrote: post #76
guiriduro wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully, forceful policy can ensure it happens before environmental collapse and secondary effects like resource war achieve the same effects in less desirable ways. Fear of the latter should enable policymakers to be more ruthless about the former.

> before environmental collapse EU has less than 10% share in the CO~2 production. We are not going to make a difference even by going medieval today, and the rest of the world isn't going to care, especially as they will watch us to self-destruct.

Now do historic emissions, give all countries the right to develop and then the EU should very much cut it's future emissions for things to even out at all.

Re: EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

#166

Post by toyg »

wongarsu wrote: post #104
dhzhzjsbevs wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Translation: you've got twelve years to save for a Tesla ya dirty peasant.

Because everyone will buy the 2035 equivalent of a new Tesla Model 3 instead of a used Nissan Leaf?

Whatever you buy, you better save up for a new battery.

That's an issue with electric cars that has not really been solved, afaik. Most batteries will become useless at a rate that is not comparable to critical ICE engine parts, and they continue to be very expensive.

Re: EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

#167

Post by jimmytidey »

alexandargyurov wrote: post #158
neallindsay wrote: post #73

I'm seeing a lot of skepticism in the comments here, but electric cars are already superior to their combustion-driven ancestors in most ways. People want to buy them. (Sales are already limited by how fast car makers can increase manufacturing capacity.) What this will do is mostly limit how long car makers can milk their gas/diesel engine making capability.

Do you think there will be a ban on combustion engines completely in the future? Hearing the engine roar is something I will miss.

I absolutely understand the appeal of ic cars, and (I assume), everyone will still be able to hear an engine roar at a race track or other private space.

Engines roaring in a city might be nice for some, but for most it's just noise pollution, particularly offensive noise pollution at that. The lack of noise will be a huge benefit to electric cars.

Re: EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

#168

Post by arez »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #65
arez wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in 2015 it was agreed to let people in. Luckily we don't have gates that we open and close, but the countries in the EU agreed that this was a humanitarian crisis and decided to take some amounts of foreigners in.

>in 2015 it was agreed to let people in There was no common EU agreement to do that though. It was mostly Germany posturing for good PR and to try to save their ageing demographics and supplement their manufacturing sector which is dependent on imported cheap labor to stay competitive, as the cheap labor from the Eastern Block dried up. Denmark and other EU members chose to opt out from the refugee sharing scheme bac…

first you say there was no agreement and then you say there was a sharing agreement, how does this fit together?

Also germany needs some cheap labor but manufacturing isn't the main part, manufacturing is actually quiet expensive due to strong unions in germany especially in car manufacturing etc.

and yes, brexit happened also because of these things, but as you can see now, letting foreigners in doesn't need to be bad, it's more the other way around, you can't find truck drivers, bus drivers etc. anymore in the UK.

Re: EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

#169

Post by jhgb »

bionsystem wrote: post #144
jhgb wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh...when was the last time you checked on the difference between the efficiency of small and large heat engines? A large Diesel engine is going to be vastly more efficient than a small one, for example: > Passenger car diesel engines have energy efficiency of up to 41% but more typically 30% ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency#Statistics ) > Low-speed diesel engines (as used in ships and other applicatio…

Let's assume we go from 30% (low end of small engine efficiency according to first link) to 55% (high end for a Diesel engine according to the second article), so a little short of twice as efficient. What do you think is going to be the overhead of the conversion rate to electricity, electricity transportation ? Because if it is another 50% you lost all interest (but you built a plant and a float of cars and batteri…

> What do you think is going to be the overhead of the conversion rate to electricity, electricity transportation ?

Well, for example transformers are ~98% efficient, AC lines lose around 7% per 1000 km. So with three transformers between you and the power plant and a ~300 km distance, you lose around 8% between the power plant and you.

> Because if it is another 50% you lost all interest (but you built a plant and a float of cars and batteries in the meantime).

No, not really. You're still not powering your cars purely from fossil fuels, so even 50% of losses would still be a win when it comes to minimizing fossil fuel emissions caused by road transportation. You'd only have to burn enough fossil fuels to cover whatever the non-fossil-fuel generators wouldn't be able to provide at any given time. But as I pointed out above, you almost certainly won't get 50% of losses.

> Except I live in France and we are starting to have electricity cuts because we can't maintain our nuclear plants properly. So we are in a little bit more trouble than you might think.

Nah, not really. France is in a great position to generate fairly substantial amounts of electricity from renewables with complementing the rest from nuclear power. Not to mention that I'd expect the EPR design to finally be sorted out after the initial units built. It's not like you'll need it tomorrow -- the transition to BEVs will take a considerable time. Even if sales of ICE cars actually stop in 2035, ICE vehicles won't disappear overnight. They'll only be gradually replaced for a decade or so.

Re: EU vote to ban all sales of combustion engine vehicles by 2035

#170

Post by freemint »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #86
ranguna wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US led and coordinated US led US sanctions, not all sanctions are US sanctions. > The near abroad of the EU is not the EU, they are its neighbouring states. They are indeed EU neighbour states, but they are not EU member states.

You're really struggling with my use of the term "near abroad". Let me clarify again - I mean states that border EU member states, but that are not themselves EU member states.

The USoA by the same metric is also struggling suppressing drug cartels in Mexico, even though they have a war on drugs ongoing and it is a neighbouring country. Let's not get started about the USoAs capabilities of protecting their border.
Post reply on HN