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

221–230 of 243 posts

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

#221

Post by AbrahamParangi »

propertymagnate wrote: post #123
AbrahamParangi wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, well, maybe this particular regulation introduced in 2018 has the moral universality of murder or maybe it’s just a bad regulation. Really could be either way.

Ha okay fair point on how much people ethically rate the actions people are trying to ban/regulate here, but the EU aren't creating convoluted cookie pops forcing anyone to do anything. Those people are part of that literally everyone else you're proposing. Unless your point is the legislation didn't go far enough? I didn't personally read it that way.

Really the point is that while the intentions are reasonable, leaders must be judged by outcomes. It is necessary but not sufficient for leaders to do the right thing. They must also achieve the right outcome. This is a harsh rule and requires commensurate power to be fair (which is why we don’t apply it in all aspects of life) but it is both fair and necessary when applied to leaders.

Now, I believe this and you’ll find this belief implicit in much of the criticism of the EU regulatory directives but a reasonable person might disagree.

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

#222

Post by namlem »

breadloaf wrote: post #202
wongarsu wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gasoline engines in road-legal cars have about 20-35% thermal efficiency. Just making the engine bigger and not caring about engine weight (like in ships or power plants) allows you to bring efficiency up to about 55%. Electric motors (as used in electric cars) are about 90% efficient. Of course you lose some charging and discharging the battery, in the charger itself and in transmission losses. But just eyeballing i…

> Electric motors (as used in electric cars) are about 90% efficient. But where is efficiency of electricity transmission, transformation, battery charging and battery discharging?

Natural gas power plants are about 50% efficient. Transmission is about 95%. I believe transformer efficiency is also typically about 95%. Charge+discharge efficiency is also about 95%. Electric motors are about 85%. In total you end up with about 36%, which is at the upper end of the typical 25-35% efficiency of ICEs.

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

#223

Post by namlem »

hoseja wrote: post #142
bionsystem wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see if you are being sarcastic or not but this is definitely wrong. Burning gasoline to move a car is much more efficient than burning gasoline to produce electricity transported to a charger to charge a car to move a car.

I am not actually being sarcastic. It's unbelievable but small ICEs are really that bad.

Why do you think they need such large cooling systems?

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

#224

Post by jhgb »

bionsystem wrote: post #191
jhgb wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I can't judge on your numbers but just to point out that we were comparing gasoline plants + EV vs gasoline cars and I feel that the discussion is switching into NE plants + EV vs gasoline cars. I also think that a lot of steel+copper+lithium and others are not taken into the equation to replace cars and manufacture more plants. Steel particularly consumes a lot of energy to produce. Uranium shortages are going to be…

> but just to point out that we were comparing gasoline plants + EV vs gasoline cars and I feel that the discussion is switching into NE plants + EV vs gasoline cars.

Not sure what "NE plants" are (I'd understand that NG would be natural gas) but the point was that whatever liquid hydrocarbons you can put into a car can be used even more efficiently in a large scale facility. And if you intend to operate such plants, you don't need to crack oil into gasoline for them, so they wouldn't be gasoline plants, even if they were oil-fired.

> Nobody seems to want a nuclear plant, or a solar/wind power field next to their home

I've had a solar plant next to my home for years and I've had zero problems with it. I wouldn't have a problem with a nuclear plant either. (With wind power it's a moot point since the place where I live has zero useful wind for any potential turbine installation.)

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

#225

Post by fomine3 »

philistine wrote: post #207
ciupicri wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People want to buy them, but can they afford them?

The mere amount of parts and assembly required for a gas vehicle versus the simplicity of an electric motor and battery makes me bet on the electric vehicle being cheaper in the long run. When talking about electric, we tend to think of the expensive cars currently on the road in North America. They're expensive in large part because being electric is used as a premium feature. Look at the cost of those cheapo chines…

Battery price (due to production cost and supply shortage) is the reason why BEV is expensive. Since battery is expensive, vehicle manufacturers should make car luxury to fill the price gap. Chinese tiny cars have very small battery. It's fine if market accepts such small cars.

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

#226

Post by adrianN »

packetlost wrote: post #199
Sankozi wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to tell that to people in Norway where 85% of new cars are plugin vehicles. Electric cars can run on average 100 km/h over 10 hours if you plan your trip well (and have a bit of luck with free spots on plugin stations). Apart from charging time I don't see where plugin vehicle is worse than ICE one when it comes to features.

> Electric cars can run on average 100 km/h over 10 hours That's below highway speed here, and everything is at least twice the distance in America than you think it is. The nearest major city from me is 240km away, the second is 435km and it gets -34C here (the average in winter being about -10C). It just isn't feasible if you aren't in a dense metro area and only ever use your vehicle to commute (which is by far no…

Average trip lengths in America are not that much longer than in Europe. On the rather rare occasions when you do several hundred kilometers in a single day, stopping for fifteen minutes to recharge every two hours or so doesn't increase travel time all that much. You have to take breaks anyway.

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

#227

Post by adrianN »

koonsolo wrote: post #197
scrollaway wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you live in Europe? Car trips and plane trips are not interchangeable over here. If people ditch their cars, they won't be taking the plane instead , they would only take planes for long distances. If they have those means, it's most likely they're already taking the plane for it. Furthermore, short haul flights are being banned in Europe.

I live in Belgium, and at least here that's not true at all. People drive to the south during holidays. South of France, Spain, Italy, ... . And people from the Netherlands do even bigger distances than that, mostly with their camper. And when they don't drive, guess what we/they use: not trains, airplanes. Ryanair is really cheap on some flights. For myself, my wife is from Slovakia, so every year I drive at least o…

You can also do that trip in an electric car in a day. That's at least a 12 hour drive. Stopping at a charger for fifteen minutes can be done as part of the breaks you need to take anyway to drive safely and doesn't increase you travelime meaningfully.

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

#228

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

koonsolo wrote: post #147
scrollaway wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's see how "the market" likes being unable to drive to their beach holidays without infrastructure. This is banning the sale, not the use. And trains exist in Europe.

Airplanes are faster than trains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain ...err, Hy-prr-loup, Hy-prr-loup, Hy-prr-hrr-hpft...

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

#229

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

koonsolo wrote: post #197
scrollaway wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you live in Europe? Car trips and plane trips are not interchangeable over here. If people ditch their cars, they won't be taking the plane instead , they would only take planes for long distances. If they have those means, it's most likely they're already taking the plane for it. Furthermore, short haul flights are being banned in Europe.

I live in Belgium, and at least here that's not true at all. People drive to the south during holidays. South of France, Spain, Italy, ... . And people from the Netherlands do even bigger distances than that, mostly with their camper. And when they don't drive, guess what we/they use: not trains, airplanes. Ryanair is really cheap on some flights. For myself, my wife is from Slovakia, so every year I drive at least o…

Ryanair starts and lands really far from some destinations. So much so, that it would almost make sense to use that so called 9-Euro ticket for public transit instead, which is available in Germany at the moment.

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

#230

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

jhgb wrote: post #169
bionsystem wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

That's not how it works because it's assuming a point to point connection for your use case. In reality there is the grid, and from everything I know transmission losses from whichever source to your socket over that grid average out to 50% best case, to about only one third reaching the destination. The latter for instance for electrified rail.

Post reply on HN