Slashdot Mirror
Netherlands Looks To Ban All Non-Electric Cars By 2025 (yahoo.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Politicians in the Netherlands have proposed a law which could put a ban on sales of diesel and petrol cars by 2025. A majority of the lower house in the Dutch parliament approved a motion where all fossil fuel powered cars -- including hybrids -- would be banned. Yahoo News further reports, 'While it's still unclear whether the proposal will pass and become law, the ambitious plan would involve car manufacturers getting on board to produce enough electric vehicles to meet demand. The latest electric cars have shorter charging times and longer ranges, benefits that emission-free car evangelists hope will help make them appeal to users of traditional petrol and diesel cars." More details on this here.
This will be interesting to see how this plays out...
A well known event that happens every year in Europe is when people from Belgium and the Netherlands pack their stuff in their cars and migrate through Germany to southern Europe. This pisses of the Germans as their autobahns are stock full of cars. .. how will they continue to do this with cars that only move a few hundred km between recharges?
find out where the failure points are. revise. retool. try again.
Or you can bike. Or you can skate on a canal in the winter. Nobody in Holland needs cars.
your argument is stupid and lazy.
Lots and lots of trucks.
Sounds like Dutch people will have to go to Germany just to buy a new car...
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
are you suggesting the poor should have an unlimited inalienable right to pollute?
When they have banned incandescent bulbs, people were hoarding them. Later regular, old fashion, tungsten bulbs reappeared but were no longer called light bulbs, but rather heating elements.
We have to assume they will hoard cars.
And those who want will find a way to circumvent every nonsensical law: there will be a lot of exceptions. Some already pointed out that if Dutch wants to travel to Spain or France, will they be required to rent a car? There is a reason free market works best.
Had we listened to the horse cart manufacturers 100 years ago, we could have, by law, had 50% of the households to keep a horse. Imagine all the streets covered with the horse manure..
A well known event that happens every year in Europe is when people from Belgium and the Netherlands pack their stuff in their cars and caravans and migrate through Germany to southern Europe. This pisses of the Germans as their autobahns are stock full of caravan-towing slow-moving cars. .. how will they continue to do this with cars that only move a few hundred km between recharges?
FTFY :)
Do they really think manufacturers will price their cars below market equilibrium? Is there a price ceiling on electric cars in the Netherlands?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Do what you are saying is that if it's not perfect it's not worth doing. I don't think we'll get very far with that attitude.
As it happens the Dutch are leading the way with renewables.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Here, we used this when they slapped 'luxury taxes' and 'gas guzzler taxes' on full sized sedans and station wagons. Everyone jumped in pickup trucks and SUVs. Once Congress recognized the unintended consequences*, they cancelled the taxes. But nobody switched back.
*They briefly tried raising the GVW needed to qualify as a truck. Enter the Lincoln Navigator and H2 Hummer. 'We'll raise it even more'. Manufacturers built vehicles based on the Kodiak chassis and similar. We can move up scale faster than Congress can write laws. Someone Photoshopped the next possible step and cooler heads prevailed.
Have gnu, will travel.
Most non-electric cars really suck at floating. It's not like they built them like the VW Beetle way back when. And water ingestion will kill the engine.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You didn't get the memo, did you?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Original title
The Netherlands Could Soon Ban The Sale Of Non-Electric Cars
Emphasis mine.
Slashdot title:
Netherlands Looks To Ban All Non-Electric Cars By 2025
This would mean retroactively banning all non-electric vehicles already on the road, and would incur dire constitutional consequences.
Given the development in batteries in only the past few years, I'd guess it's likely that by 2025 we'll have some new way of storing energy where lithium has been replaced with something else again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is not a "ban on all non-electric vehicles". According to TFA, it is a ban on the sale of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, with currently-owned vehicles grandfathered. Perhaps a market will emerge for coal-burning steam-engined cars.
TFA did not mention whether the ban will include the purchase and importation of gas/diesel vehicles from outside the Netherlands. Seems obvious that the only way to get all gas/diesel vehicles off the road and keep them off is to prohibit the sale of the fuel that keeps them going.
Current gen battery technology was developed for laptop computers and has been going strong for decades.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I had to search for some time to get to a news article dated March 29, http://nos.nl/artikel/2095952-tweede-kamer-vanaf-2025-alleen-nog-duurzame-auto-s.html (in Dutch). In an article from last Friday, http://nos.nl/artikel/2099414-kamp-niet-alleen-duurzame-auto-s-vanaf-2025.html (in Dutch), the government indicated they do not want to get this in to law. So a ban is far from being imposed...
The OP's argument is basically, "They're making cars not pollute by getting energy from another polluting source, moving the can up the road," which is dumb because it assumes all sources of energy are equal. Large engines are more efficient that small ones: if your transmission loss doesn't exceed your efficiency gain by using a central power plant, electric cars pollute less. The problem of battery manufacture adds onto that, creating more complexity in determining which model is more polluting per mile. Deciding this is a foregone conclusion because the pollution output of each model is non-zero is foolish.
My big question is economics. If the cars cost more than other cars, it's because they take more total human labor to make. You're going to have to stop having something else, but keep having cars: you pay $30,000 instead of $20,000 for a car, that's $10,000 over the lifetime of the car (plus the maintenance and fuel differential) not spent on other things, which means we can't pay the people making those other things, which means they lose their jobs. The other side of this is using less fuel (even oil--the power plant uses less oil to make 300 miles of electricity than 300 miles of gasoline?) means you move consumer demand (money) off oil (causing layoffs at BP) and onto some other good (possibly electric car manufacture).
On the social end, you'll have people who can barely afford a car in their budget now; they must decide between a car, rent, and food.
This is why market people have such a hard-on for free markets (which isn't always a good thing): all of these particular problems vanish when electric cars actually cost less than gasoline cars. At that point, less human labor is involved, a smaller proportion of buying power is moving to pay for that human labor (i.e. the car itself--the output), and the difference moves to some other good (creating jobs in another sector). There's a period of time when the displaced labor is just flat out unemployed, which is why we have (need) welfare. Sometimes, this is also routed around by increasing the product package (e.g. cars today have a *lot* more tech in them than cars of the 50s, and cost about the same proportion of income--cars haven't gotten cheaper, but just better, containing *more* high-tech stuff requiring roughly the same total labor).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
"Although the beetle does definitely float, it will not float indefinitely". God, I love those things. Those indestructible air-cooled boxer engines, supposedly swappable with certain models made for Porsche.
But they are death-traps. That plate on the bottom at the beginning of the video, that forms the floor of the car, gives the car its stiffness and durability... unless an impact causes it to crack. Once it buckles, the cabin collapses and anything or anyone in the car gets squashed. Drive carefully, avoid accidents.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Yeah... No.
Lithium Ion batteries have been in production for 25 years and under development for 35 years. The progress has not been all that fast. If you compare it to the jet engine, space flight, or microprocessors it has been a very slow improvement from prototype to where we are now.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Maybe, but battery development is not one of the most dynamic fields out there. Most of the low hanging fruits aren't just there for the taking if you spend enough time on it. There's only so much you can do with the battery tech we have now, and new battery tech research is not really showing anything particularly revolutionary.
So, yeah, I believe they could make *enough* batteries by 2025 for general adoption. I just don't think those batteries will necessarily be able to support 400-800 miles. So you're going to continue to need at least hybrids for long distance travel.
Is that a problem for the Netherlands? Maybe not.
If man will be alive
electric car he must drive...
I went from middle class to poor to bicycle. Worked for me, and I received no incentives for it.
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
You touch my truck and you'll see why I have the gun.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
It's basically a two-part solution: you need to replace CO2 producing cars, and you need to replace CO2 producing power plants.
Electric cars are one half of the solution, and since not all power is generated by coal/oil, an improvement.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's easier and more cost effective to manage the emissions from a few power plants than it is to manage the emissions from millions of small engines.
your argument is stupid and lazy.
No actually it's not, well at least not entirely. The answer is zero emission vehicles (electric cars) are best suited to the west whereas gas powered cars are more suited to the east. This is due (see the article) by more states in the east relying on coal fired electric plants:
http://www.motherjones.com/env...
The data is 2014 so it's not that stale. I think the takeaway is that just because it's a zero emission vehicle is does not follow that it'll have a better impact on the environment. But you can read the article.
Not fast you say, I think you are looking at it wrong:
http://rameznaam.com/2013/09/2...
New things are always on the horizon
a production electric car can travel 600 miles on a charge and recharging takes no more than five minutes. Beat the efficiency of my pre-scandal TDI.
In other words, Shipstones.
This not a ban yet. It is a request of the lower house to the government. The government is not really obliged to follow this request. Ofcourse it should take the request seriously, but if the government finds it is (totally) inpractical it does not implement this request. This request is not important enough to let the government fall.
PLEASE!!!! ENOUGH ALREADY with headlines that make factually inaccurate over-dramatized claims.
RTFA.
They're actually NOT banning all non-electric cars in 2025, they're just stopping the sale of any new gas/diesel cars.
Nobody's going to touch your truck or for that matter my Suburban... but what's your plan for when we can no longer afford to drive them??
Plus, with the current grid system and the rise of intermittent renewable energy sources, any cheap and scalable way of producing efficient batteries would make you the richest man on Earth in a short period of time.
The barriers towards this goal seem to be physical, not just technological.
I have a close friend who lives south of Amsterdam. While he doesn't need a car every day he does need it a few times a week, because as you get outside the major cities it starts to be come pretty inconvenient to use mass transit depending on what you are doing. Even though the Netherlands are a small country they are still the size of a smaller US State - most citizens in most states would not be well off without a car, much less one with more limited milage and very long refill times.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
supposedly swappable with certain models made for Porsche.
Supposedly?! I take it you're unfamiliar with the Porsche 912 and 914...
Look at those awful diagrams. If Tufte were dead, he'd roll in his grave!
I am die hard motorcyclist...
I haven't seen any development of electronic motorcycles (because... duh, my motorcycle beats the crap outta ur fusion in mpg), but how does this bill handle that?
I was actually looking at relocating to the netherlands, but if I can't ride my bike, fuck that
Doubtless, Royal Dutch Shell will still have no problem selling oil to everyone else.
Proverbs 21:19
So, are you saying that removing the source of CO2, CO, NOx (ICE cars) and replacing them with EVs won't improve pollution?
What is the "largest problem" other than CO2, CO, NOx ?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
As it happens the Dutch are leading the way with renewables.
Leading the way? What have you been smoking? The Dutch are near the bottom of the pit for renewables, only Malta and Luxembourg fare worse in the EEU.
This proposal (which won’t be turned into a law, the government doesn't support it and nobody likes its enough to impeach the government over it) is a bad case of windowdressing by politicians that do not dare to take measures that do matter (and cost money).
All nations need to get off of fossil fuels. Again, people in northern Europe lead the way. And despite the advantage of being a small nation battery power is difficult in cold regions. Batteries simply hate cold weather. Yet it can be done and the Netherlands is leading the way. Less educated nations will drag their feet as they always do. Yet our planet does not have the time to educate the Luddites.
Supposedly?! I take it you're unfamiliar with the Porsche 912 and 914...
I'd heard about it, but never seen a Beetle retrofitted with a Porsche engine in the flesh. Insane horsepower for such a car!
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
One problem. That is ten year old data. What has been happening during that time. If you look at the storage per $100 you would see the graph is relatively flat.
The study I saw shows that even in the dirtiest coal-burning states, total CO2 from an electric vehicle is roughly equivalent to a 40 MPG gasoline automobile.
That's actually a very good result, it shows that converting fleets today to electric power would reduce their carbon footprint, even if the grid does not get cleaner. But coal is rapidly getting phased out in favor of natural gas and renewable energy, so that "40 MPG" equivalent is going to improve over time.
You touch my truck and you'll see why I have the gun.
Please, it's bad enough looking at your truck. I don't want to see that tiny penis too.
Seriously, California is considered one of the largest buyers of cars. In fact, they are MUCH bigger than the netherlands.
So, what would happen if CA was to say that no more ICE vehicles to be sold OR imported into California starting in 2025?
And if you are caught living in CA with an ICE vehicle, then said vehicle will be confiscated and you serve time.
I suspect that CA is big enough that car makers will have little choice but to join in on making viable vehicles. And if other nations join in, that just forces everything over faster.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
My big question is economics. If the cars cost more than other cars, it's because they take more total human labor to make.
Ah, but exactly what is that labor being spent on? At the moment, Tesla vehicles cost more than other cars because they take more total human labor to make, because some substantial fraction of that labor is busy building a car factory and a battery factory. These are temporary expenses that will end, and relatively soon, in economic terms. Also, there is more human labor involved in building the battery packs than there will be in the future. Handling millions of 18650 batteries is a solution just crying out for automation. Robots excel at manipulating millions of identical things.
There is no reason to believe that electric vehicles will always cost more than internal combustion vehicles, and many reasons to expect they will not. Electric motors are manufactured entirely by robots, and are far simpler than modern internal combustion engines. Battery packs will be manufactured entirely by robots, if they aren't already. (I know that other grid-scale energy storage companies using batteries still build packs by hand. I don't know what Tesla does.) Finally, a battery manufacturing plant is smaller, cheaper, easier to build, easier to manage, and easier to contain environmentally than an oil refinery. To say nothing of the fact that mining for lithium is cheaper, safer, and less politically fraught than extracting oil.
I believe that the vast majority of Slashdot readers will see a time when a battery electric vehicle capable of 300 miles per charge sells for $12,000USD, and it's a car people want to buy.
Well, for starters, 1) zero emissions in cities means cleaner cities and fewer people with respiratory health problems, and 2) money doesn't go to wacky religious people who just happened to be born in an oily place.
Ezekiel 23:20
You're going to have to stop having something else, but keep having cars: you pay $30,000 instead of $20,000 for a car, that's $10,000 over the lifetime of the car (plus the maintenance and fuel differential) not spent on other things, which means we can't pay the people making those other things, which means they lose their jobs.
On the other hand, with Dutch gasoline prices (six dollars per gallon, I think), those extra $10k would be offset by the savings in fuel costs after the first 200000 kilometers (assuming mediocre 20 kWh/100 km for cheaper electric vehicles and $0.2/kWh of electricity cost).
Ezekiel 23:20
I believe that the vast majority of Slashdot readers will see a time when a battery electric vehicle capable of 300 miles per charge sells for $12,000USD, and it's a car people want to buy.
I'd be happy for a decent $1k electric scooter/moped. (Or maybe if an autonomous electric pod service appears in the future, I won't need any vehicle at all. Why bother?)
Ezekiel 23:20
Market size is a potent incentive for R&D. If everyone needs a car-trunk-sized battery instead of a cell-phone-sized battery, suddenly there's a lot more money to be gained by successfuly inventing new stuff.
Ezekiel 23:20
This sounds, for lack of a better word, stupid. How do we know what type of automobile will be the most efficient and environmentally friendly? How about a series hybrid that burns bio-generated liquid fuel in a super-efficient external combustion engine, powering electric motors to drive the wheels? The Dutch government can't possible know which technology to choose and any attempt will destroy any chance to find out.
2) Yes, with Saudi Arabia threatening to destroy the world economy over 9/11 legislation, perhaps it's those countries that have made the effort to switch to electric vehicles that will be insulated from the shock-wave.
Dilithium, duh.
Definitely not a problem for the Netherlands. The whole country is roughly the size of the state of Maryland. Driving end to end in a Tesla might require about 45 minutes worth of recharging at the superchargers (which already have national coverage there and there are still more coming online this year).
The Netherlands has few options for renewable energy.
That is nonsense, look at this: https://www.google.de/maps/pla...
Need hints how to interpret it?
They'll need to invest in nuclear No, why should they?
or import more power from other countries. What would be wrong if they would?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It costs a lot more to operate a big truck or SUV for sure. Still it's a matter of priorities. I find lots of other places to save money. Someone asked me what I'd do when gas went to 5 dollars a gallon and I replied "buy it."
That's surely not in the Netherlands.
Re-read what I said.
I said that you could not register any more ICE vehicles. IOW, you still continue with what you have. THe only ones that would be confiscated would be those that were illegal in the first place. And yes, when you live in a state, your car is supposed to be registered/licensed there. So the ONLY ones that would object, are the criminals.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I see that map you linked to, but I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make from it. Of course, Holland is famous for windmills.....
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Give me a hint.
And more importantly, you reduce local pollution where people actually live.
The filtering on coal plants can be made much more effective than any sort of filtering on a car, because it doesn't have to be lightweight and mobile.
Eat the rich.
Go on - show us your graph where this is the case. Surely you have one, otherwise you'd not make such a claim...
Slow down folks. There is no law proposal trying to ban gas powered cars. For you dutch reading folks. This is where this rumour comes from: http://www.pvda.nl/data/sitema... This is the energy vision of 1 political party, the PVDA (or dutch social democratic party). It was presented on march 16. Other political parties are having great fun with it, because this energy vision is clearly ludicrous. A couple of points even more outlandish than the electric car idea: -- All coal fired electric plants will close within 10 years -- All newly built houses will get heat exchangers and solar panels instead of traditional central heating.
Like cars that use air pressure, fuel cells, nuclear?
It's an useless motion. It has already been rejected by the Home Secretary as unrealistic, so now the wording is being changed to "intention" rather than an outright ban. It's also unrealistic because The Netherlands are part of the EU, which means any cars sold in the member states are legal. Therefore a ban would have to be done EU-wide, which will never work because of the car lobby and the bureaucracy in Brussels.
Aluminium actually. should have about 3 times the energy density as lithium based batteries.
Look at the coast.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The windmills right now are mostly "traditional" ones used for pumping water.
The coast line right now is pretty empty, Netherlands produces not much wind power. If they would place off shore wind plants there, they could power half Europe.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In Brazil, alcohol fueled vehicles are pretty common (in fact, people prefer then for the lower fuel price). The vehicle price is the same of gas only models. In Japan I know there are hydrogen powered taxis. The price however is very high even with government incentive.
But both of them offer instant "charge", instead of an eletric car. And in the alcohol case, we have the facilities to build those cars right now.
Do they have a plan for how to deal with all the batteries that will get replaced each year? Are there recyclable batteries suitable for use in an electric car? Other than that I believe consolidating pollution to a single-source, in this cases the power company producing the electricity used to charge the batteries, is a good thing. It is far easier to manage, filter, capture the pollution from one source than it is from a million sources.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
The problem with saying something is "a solution just crying out for automation" is it quickly proclaims "there is not a simpler way to do this that we have yet invented" and then proclaims "there must of course be a simply way to make a robot to do this complex task, which we already know how to put into practice." In other words: We'll use magical imaginary technology because magical imaginary technology doesn't exist.
There is no reason to believe that electric vehicles will always cost more than internal combustion vehicles
There is also no reason to believe they will either A) be cheaper than combustion vehicles in 2025 (see: Hard drives getting cheaper as SSDs get cheaper); or B) become cheaper and not naturally displace the more-expensive ICE. The only reason to pass such a law as this is to force a change in a market where a new product is more expensive than an old; and in the case that the new product is in fact cheaper, you eliminate the old product as competition, which means a rent-seeking market might simply add profit margin (this always drains away slowly; you would only stretch out the process).
There's no economic advantage to passing a law like this.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
That was literally the next sentence in the paragraph you quoted.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
A factor of 10 over 15 years take a look at CPUs over the same time.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Holland generates the vast majority of its power from fossil fuels -- nuclear is only 3.5% and the renewables target is only 14%.
Your "argument" us stupid, lazy and fact free.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
No it isn't. Holland has extremely low renewable energy production.
You are an ill-informed fucking moron.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The only reason I have a truck is b/c there are some things you're not going to put in the back of your kid hauler. The only time it moves is when it's hauling wood/concrete/dirt or construction material. I'm not one of those guys that tows a uhaul trailer behind my lifted truck b/c I can't get the dishwasher that high off the ground.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
If you look at the storage per $100 you would see the graph is relatively flat.
A clarification. I meant the graph you referenced which is relatively flat after 2001.
What I am mainly pointing out is that an article that is out of date by ten years is probably not relevant in a technology that only took off 30 years ago.
You mean the wind farms they have, which account for about 5% of their energy usage?
Yes, 100 BHP (biggest 4-cyl 914 was the 2.0L) would be fun in a lightweight car like the Bug. Probably 0-60 in 8-9s. My old 66 had a 0-60 time >20s.
The 914 itself was around 12s 0-60 with the "big" 2.0L.
> Politicians in the Netherlands have proposed a law
and it will never get voted into actual law... at least not for 2025.
No, I mean the wind farms that they could build there but have not yet.
The argument of the parent was: Netherlands can not go for renewables as it has "no options".
Also the could build tidal plants. Or the new underwater current plants. Perfect location for the later, good location for the former.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.