Live data from Hacker News

EU approves effective ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035

theverge.com

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: EU approves effective ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU is only creating a golden decade for far right. Just watch.

That is all that the far right have, unsubtle threats of violence to try to get people to obey by fear.

No. People are going to vote for populist parties which will promise easy solutions, which are usually also right from the center. No violence necessary.

Re: EU approves effective ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035

#32
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those changes won't just happen as a result of EV adoption, but they can if we push for them. Call your (especially local) elected officials.

Yes they won’t be just because of it, but I think it’ll be a very influential factor

I think that's unlikely. EVs aren't much different from ICE cars in operation, and they have the same large space requirements.

Unless you include e-bikes of course, in which case sure. But electric cars have most of the same problems with regards to encouraging sprawl, danger to pedestrians/cyclists, etc.

If we want changes it's gonna have to be a conscious effort to reshape our built environment.

Re: EU approves effective ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you would like to make a LongBet [1], I'm willing to take the other side and wager $1000 (to a charity of the winner's choice) that EVs move full speed ahead, hydrogen dies except possibly for trucks and niche use cases, and that range extenders are never deployed in material quantities. The Tesla Model Y is currently the best selling vehicle in Europe, and fully electric cars made up 16 percent of total registrat…

> Tangentially, hydrogen is just an expensive, low density battery. Toyota is learning this the hard way [4] [5]. That's not even hydrogen's worst problem. Hydrogen's worst problem is that it would need a distribution network set up. EV charging works because the electrical grid already existed, chargers just need to be plugged into it. Meanwhile, for hydrogen, you would need to transport liquid hydrogen all over the…

> Hydrogen's worst problem is that it would need a distribution network set up.

Yes, slowly supplement and convert the gasoline and diesel distribution network to H2. We already have a LPG distribution network. Currently the only company offering H2 in the EU is Linde Gas. But that will change. The EU MPs want H2 stations every 100 km and charging stations every 60 km. Without this infrastructure EVs and H2 powered vehicles will not get enough traction to replace the current vehicle fleet.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20221014IP...

Re: EU approves effective ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035

#34
Germany currently has the highest energy prices in the world. It seems seriously insane to suggest banning IC cars before you have a concrete plan to have any kind of sufficient energy supply. How do you cope with tens of millions of EVs charging every night?

Also, if there is no enormous breakthrough in the next decade in battery technology, car ownership will become a luxury for the rich.

(I use public transport daily, by the way. And it is absolutely disgusting, overfilled and obnoxious. Absolutely hate it.)

Re: EU approves effective ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035

#35
All major car manufacturers already set earlier dates to phase out their ICE production. This announcement has basically no impact.

I also don't buy the argument that this is going to be a problem energy- or grid-wise. It's 12 years out and the grid has to change anyway. If it doesn't until then, then it will be the least of our problems.

Re: EU approves effective ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035

#36
post #35

All major car manufacturers already set earlier dates to phase out their ICE production. This announcement has basically no impact. I also don't buy the argument that this is going to be a problem energy- or grid-wise. It's 12 years out and the grid has to change anyway. If it doesn't until then, then it will be the least of our problems.

The regulatory target date and the goals of the industry are not unrelated. It is unsurprising the laws are set to change after the dates the major players in the industry claim they can achieve the new regulatory standards.

And i don't think it has no impact, my trust that any car manufacturer would even consider this, leave alone see it to the end, without such regulation, is very limited.

Re: EU approves effective ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035

#37

Germany currently has the highest energy prices in the world. It seems seriously insane to suggest banning IC cars before you have a concrete plan to have any kind of sufficient energy supply. How do you cope with tens of millions of EVs charging every night? Also, if there is no enormous breakthrough in the next decade in battery technology, car ownership will become a luxury for the rich. (I use public transport da…

or fix the cities? wfh, better public transport, incentivize local business, e-bikes, etc

individual cars are not going to solve anything, ev or ic or whatever

Re: EU approves effective ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035

#39
The question I haven't seen answered is how electric cars ever attain reasonable resale values.

The car I have owned and driven for years now cost me less than $1000, minimal maintenance, it's done 30,000 miles.

I don't think that a usable 100kWh lithium battery, alone, with no car attached, is ever going to depreciate to $1000 ($10 per kWh). As far as I know, the wholesale price of the metal itself is more than that.

The idea seems to be that loads of people just get priced out of driving entirely. So what happens to them? Are they all supposed to move out of all of the suburbs into urban housing that doesn't even exist yet?

It's not a matter of charging infrastructure, the viable replacement cars are going to cost 5x what they currently do as far as I can tell.

Re: EU approves effective ban on new combustion engine cars from 2035

#40
As someone who was initially very excited about the switch to EVs, a lot of the incentives to push towards EV ownership were seen as good in my eyes. However, as a car enthusiast, the full swing towards banning anything but EVs is an overreaction and something I am very upset about. I know Europe is still wary after the diesel fallout, and they're reticent to try anything else. But this is repeating the same mistake of the diesel regulations in that they're putting all of their eggs in one basket.

The manufacturing of batteries is going to be a problem if all vehicles are EV. That includes small personal transportation like motorcycles, large personal transportation like cars, and public transportation like buses. There are charging concerns as well. Currently Europe is struggling to generate enough power using non-fossil fuel sources to even keep running. If the electrical demands go up by 1.5x due to mass EV adoption as has been predicted, then Europe's going to have to turn to power rationing until they can build out the necessary infrastructure. And I don't think that's going to go over well with the population.

There's also the research that indicates that internal combustion motive engines in personal transport like cars, boats, and motorcycles have a comparatively negligible impact on greenhouse gases and airborne toxins in the modern age. The numbers dropped dramatically throughout the 1980s and then again in the 2010s, driven by CAFE (Corporate Average Fleet Emissions) standards in the U.S. and Euro 1 through 6 in Europe. I used the word comparatively earlier, because industry is the main contributor. Industries such as steel manufacturing, power generation, air transport, and farming are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gasses, while industries such as plastics manufacturing, ocean transport, and underground resource extraction are the biggest contributors to airborne toxins. There's been a lot of regulatory movement to restrict motor vehicles, but very little for industrial level problems. Bunker fuel, which is almost entirely sulfurous tar fuel oil, has been the standard for large container ships since the 1940s. Only in 2020 was there a global agreement to reduce the sulfur content in bunker fuel used by ships. Meanwhile there has been absolutely no substantial progress on the four major types of aviation fuel that are used. High octane kerosene jet fuel, low octane kerosene jet fuel, unleaded aviation gasoline, and leaded aviation gasoline. Aviation fuel is the only type in the U.S. that's still allowed to contain tetraethyl lead. Airliners continue using high octane kerosene jet fuel, while the military, farmers, and even wildfire firefighting teams continue using leaded aviation gasoline. Regulators continue squeezing the collar ever tighter on cars while airplanes get away with poisoning their maintenance crews and the people they fly over.

My personal conclusion has been that diversification and control of industrial emissions seems to be the solution, not concentration in EVs. Certain engines such as the Wankel and diesel will certainly have to die as the power/emissions ratio for them is atrocious. But Atkins cycle engines for example can work on hydrogen. For other engines pure E100 ethanol, while having about the same carbon dioxide output as and lower energy density than gasoline, is viable via compression ratio increases. Compression ratio increases also tend to create more drivetrain power output, so it's not really a mechanical loss. Ethanol's also renewable. The issues are that hydrogen is expensive to create and contain in pure enough form to be used as fuel, and ethanol requires large amounts of industrial farming that contribute to greenhouse gasses.

Post reply on HN