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.
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?
Something like this, I expect.
My uncle has a country place that no one knows about
He says it used to be a farm before the Motor Law
And on Sundays, I elude the eyes, hop the turbine freight
Too far outside the wire, where my white-haired uncle waits
Jump to the ground as the turbo slows to cross the borderline
Then run like the wind as excitement shivers up and down my spine
But down in his barn, my uncle preserved for me an old machine
For fifty odd years, to keep it as new has been his dearest dream
I strip away the old debris that hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta from a better vanished time
Ooh, fired up the willing engine, responding with a roar
Tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime
Wind in my hair
Shifting and drifting
Mechanical music
Adrenaline surge
Well-weathered leather, hot metal and oil
The scented country air
Sunlight on chrome, the blur of the landscape
Every nerve aware
Suddenly ahead of me across the mountainside
A gleaming alloy air car shoots towards me, two lanes wide
I spin around with shrieking tires to run the deadly race
It goes screaming through the valley as another joins the chase
Drive like the wind, straining the limits of machine and man
Laughing out loud with fear and hope, I've got a desperate plan
At the one lane bridge, I leave the giants stranded at the riverside
Race back to the farm to dream with my uncle at the fireside
Written by Peart, of course.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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.
The fact that you had to google that says more about you than it does lgw.
They would probably rent a generator pod (trailer) instead. Then again, this might just push companies to start developing of cars with an all-day driving range (say 800 miles per charge).
Of course, the misleading headline makes this story sound bigger than it is. The ban is exclusively on the sale of new cars, not on the sale of used cars, not on the use of existing cars, etc. I don't think that's likely to be a big deal by nine years from now.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
If I lived in a country where the soccer national team needed to carry their passports with them until the EU was founded so they could legally get the balls back that went outside the playing field...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Exactly!
If you don't at least know of Rush you can turn your nerd card in at the door...
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Wait... you don't know who Rush are?
Were you born on Earth?
Red Barchetta:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
From the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000, and 2010's They just did what is probably their last tour and are considered to be some of the greatest musicians of our time.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Amen to that.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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.
Nobody in Holland needs cars.
Unless you are actually employed or work as freelance consultant and happen to live outside the center of Amsterdam or Utrecht... The attitude displayed is an annoying one, mostly entertained by pseudo-intellectual hipsters who are still studying. Anyone who works as a consultant needs a car or has to face hours to commute (try Eindhoven-Utrecht if you don't live in the center, or Utrecht-Rijswijk, or Groningen-The Hague, or Nijmegen-Amsterdam, as several of my colleagues have to do).
I tried using the train when I lived in Eindhoven and worked in Utrecht for a while, when I didn't have my drivers license yet (never needed one when I was in my pseudo-intellectual hipster phase). Two hours for a single trip due was the rule, not the exception. And I had only a single destination then, not three, as is sometimes the case nowadays.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
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.
Free market doesn't always work the *best*; it supplies a specific set of advantages in each situation, some of which are *extremely* common. Much of the time, a regulated free market operates the best--in which case we can read "regulated" as "facilitated", a fact many lawmakers ignore. Radio spectrum bandwidth licenses are a strong example: without these, broadcast television and radio would be a chaos of noise and interference, and thus constantly exposed to expenses and risks, driving the price up or just making the business unviable. Contrast that with the early-1900s behavior of the U.S. Congress breaking up big telecom and railroad companies for no other reason than "they're big and we want to *create* competition" (the lessons learned here are why Congress hasn't divided up Comcast and Verizon for the simple crime of being too large).
I've frequently proposed that a combination of cheap energy and cheap methods to convert atmosphere to hydrocarbon (this is a thing today, but it's expensive) will eliminate the market for ground oil. Our current cheapest atmosphere-to-hydrocarbon method is biofuel; industrial methods will replace that when a non-hydrocarbon energy (nuclear, solar, orbital) becomes cheaper than oil *and* the efficiency of atmosphere-to-hydrocarbon conversion combined with such energy no longer exceeds the cost of ground-sourced oil.
Adjunct to this eventuality, I have proposed that the Government will divert a small amount of EPA funding to operate their own production system for atmosphere-to-hydrocarbon. They'll stockpile this hydrocarbon as an energy source; much of it will go straight back into oilfields as a storage source, essentially putting it back in the bottle. That's a non-profitable atmospheric cleanup operation. The government can then sell that same stockpile back to liquid hydrocarbon producers in bad economic times, basically using a cost they've accepted as a funding source for Keynesian economics (in other words: instead of outlaying money to stimulate a depressed economy, taking debt and taxes, the government would *constantly* exercise an environmental program to recover lingering hydrocarbon emissions from the atmosphere, selling back part of the liquid hydrocarbon at a market-rate discount to source suppliers in lieu of cash outlay when an economic stimulus is needed).
So we have a long-term market solution to atmospheric CO2 emissions from hydrocarbon, as well as a long-term government solution to reverse the damage in a way which a market solution cannot (it's more effective at this process, although the market will produce a significant amount of plastics and oils along with burnable hydrocarbon). The government solution also interacts with the market when the market is strained, reducing market costs and supporting the market behavior in bad times.
If your goal is to reverse CO2 emissions at a given rate, a market solution can only do that with a sufficiently low rate. If your rate target is sufficiently high, a government solution is also non-viable, and you may need to select for a lower target. There's a point where a policy decision is viable (i.e. doesn't require significant taxes) and beyond market capacity (i.e. not profitable).
There are also examples such as healthcare, where at a given level of technology broad healthcare is non-viable; at a higher level of technology it is cheap as a market service and non-viable as a centralized service; and at a sufficiently high level of technology it is cheaper as a centralized service (e.g. single payer) than as a market service. Most political debates over government healthcare ignore these things, and only claim that someone, somewhere does it, and that it's either good (cheaper for Canada) or bad (waiting lists, real or imagined, whether or not the existing system has them or not). That is to say: the question of whether a Public Option would supply *better* healthcare *and* lower costs in America is never asked; the debates only point at Canada or the Netherlands
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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
This was from 'Moving Pictures', 1981 and probably their most successful album ever.
And the first one I ever bought. Going to have to go home and listen to it all again. On YouTube, because I only own it on cassette.
Nope, no sig
[citation needed]
Citation: https://rockhall.com/inductees...
Listen to Rush then.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
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.
Look at those awful diagrams. If Tufte were dead, he'd roll in his grave!
You may have a point. I don't know about musicians, but one of Niven's Laws is that "writers who write for other writers should write letters". And Louis B. Mayer (of MGM Studios) is said to have proclaimed "if you want to send a message, use Western Union."
I may not agree entirely with those sentiments, but it's a valid question: is someone writing (music, stories, screenplays, whatever) to entertain or to make an unpopular point? (It's easy to entertain if your message is one most will agree with -- although some still botch it.)
-- Alastair
300 mile batteries are a safety feature. After five hours non-stop on the road you need to pull over for 45 minutes to top up.
800 miles is 11 hours non-stop. I don't think that's even legal for commercial drivers in Europe.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I usually detest poetry but that was almost moving. :)
Well, vehicles are usually designed to move.
Ezekiel 23:20
What about motorcycles? Where do you buy petrol after all the cars are gone?
Good luck taxing cars at the border in the EU, where there are no border checks.
Dilithium, duh.
You don't?
Have you been to ether place? How about the USA west of the Mississippi outside LA?
We are talking about Europe.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
A company called "Zero" is building quite interesting electric motor bikes.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
14 Platinum Albums. 25 million albums sold in the US alone. That's for a band that was never really a mainstream band. Their tours were amazing.
And that explains the terrible public transport in US cities how, exactly? "Oh the nearest city is hundreds of miles away, so let's not bother funding our local buses or build tram infrastructure". Stop using that to excuse the pathetic state of public transport in the US. The problems will never be fixed if you just go "but we so biiiig!".
It's when you attack quickly, early in the game, usually with zerglings.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
For ever. As the demand won't double or tripple because of a few EVs
In parallel the coast countries are installing more and more wind power.
So most of the time we will have power surplus, and EVs ready to charge are very welcome to balance the (smart) grid.
BTW: energy prices are dropping since a few years.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
They have sold 25 million albums in the US alone.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2013.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.