Slashdot Mirror
Germany Calls For a Ban On Combustion Engine Cars By 2030 (engadget.com)
Germany gave the world the internal combustion engine, and now it is prepping to ban the amazing invention in the country. The country's federal council has passed a resolution to ban the ICE starting in 2030. From an Engadget report:The country's Bundesrat (federal council) has passed a resolution calling for a ban on new internal combustion engine cars by 2030. From then on, you'd have to buy a zero-emissions vehicle, whether it's electric or running on a hydrogen fuel cell. This isn't legally binding, but the Bundesrat is asking the European Commission to implement the ban across the European Union... and when German regulations tend to shape EU policy, there's a chance that might happen. The council also wants the European Commission to review its taxation policies and their effect on the "stimulation of emission-free mobility." Just what that means isn't clear. It could involve stronger tax incentives for buying zero-emissions cars, but it could also involve eliminating tax breaks for diesel cars in EU states. Automakers are already worried that tougher emission standards could kill diesels -- remove the low cost of ownership and it'd only hasten their demise.
They think only because ICE is running well in asia, they can continue to invest in ICE, and nothing into battery powered cars. Tesla might now produce cars whose quality is a joke compared to german cars (I've heard stories where rain enters the interior of the car), but they are determined to improve.
The only german car company which seems to have realized that it needs to start the switch now or it may be too late is mercedes with Mr. Zetsche. Mercedes is also the first car company which took Tesla seriously.
The Federal Council only represent the single states in Germany and cannot implement such law. This must be a national law or a EU law. While the move would be logical , it will not happen. The transport minister Dobrindt already ridiculed the intervention.
+1.
I call for a ban on meaningless future ban promises.
Have they thought of the implications this has on the trucking industry? Have they thought what this might do to low-income or fixed-income individuals who can't afford a car and suddenly left without transportation? Where is the electricity or energy to create hydrogen fuel going to come from now that they've banned nuclear and don't want fossil fuels? What will happen to the jobs of independent gasoline retailers and distributors and other people involved in that part of the economy? And what about the total cost of ownership for a vehicle with comparable range?
I understand that technology has lots of room to improve in this timeframe, but we need substantially better technology all around in order to make it viable to replace current combustion engines and we need to bring the full impact on the economy and on people in particular before we require that absolutely no vehicles are allowed to have combustion engines any more.
Stop asking fucking questions and just follow the rest of the sheep.
They have a coal-lection of solutions from a coal-ition of smart people.
The people who could make this actual law would never allow it. There will be a universal speed limit on the Autobahn (aka hell freezing over) before Germany bans combustion engines in cars.
For personal transportation the issue is and always will be recharging. Until we get 400kW chargers, it's kind of a step back in personal transportation. That is, basically until we get full-range (300mile / 500km) recharge times down to 15 minutes or less... boo.
Either that, or we lose the idea of personal ownership of transportation capital - which is what all the people talking about "but just Uber (or equivalent) the self-driving car when you need one, or take public transportation" are really espousing even if they don't know it.
As for trucking - that's a different issue, because the constraints are very different. You've got much larger vehicles so mass tolerances for batteries are different, duty cycles are different, and capital ownership is different.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
In which their largest automaker is subject to paying $14.7 BILLION in fines for cheating on emission standards. Perhaps this is Germany's attempt to make ammends?
This isn't banning ICE engines. Only new cars with them. Also, it won't happen this way. But it surely got people talking and the writing is on the wall anyway.
And a ban on bans
I'm from Germany and the headline is slightly misleading. We have a parliamentary system with two chambers: the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. The former is similar to the US House of Representatives (with the additional duty of electing our chancellor, as we don't directly elect the leader of our executive branch), whereas the second is similar to how the US senate used to be before the passing of the 17th Amendment. In this case, only the Bundesrat called for this (in a non-binding resolution), but there was massive criticism of this from the two largest parties (CDU/CSU and SPD) in the Bundestag that form the coalition of the current federal government. However, in order for the resolution to get a majority in the Bundesrat, some States governed by coalitions consisting of either CDU/CSU or SPD and another party will have had to have voted in favor it.
Also, I don't think EU Commission has the regulatory authority to institute this ban on its own, so if it tries to go forward with the ban, it will have to be in form of an EU directive, which has to be approved by both the EU Parliament and the EU Council. The latter consists of ministers of the governments of all EU countries - including the corresponding minister from the German government, which at least currently opposes this ban.
To me, this reads more like a symbolic gesture from the Bundesrat, so that politicians can pat themselves on the back ("yeah, we've done something about climate change") without actually doing anything, because they well know that this will not actually become law. I might be proven wrong on that, but at the moment I seriously doubt that this ban has a chance of becoming law within the EU - especially because the German government will oppose this. (The German auto industry is still heavily focused on combustion engines, and the infrastructure available for electric cars in Germany is abysmal compared to other places, especially parts of the U.S. such as California. Germany has this reputation of being at the forefront of renewable energies, and that's true if you're talking about power plants and solar panels on homes and the such, but compared to many other first world nations, when it comes to cars Germany is actually severely behind in terms of new forms of fuel; and the traditional auto lobby here is really, really strong.)
Have they thought what this might do to low-income or fixed-income individuals who can't afford a car and suddenly left without transportation?
Banning new ICEs doesn't mean the existing stock of cars with ICEs ceases to exist overnight.
And you seem to be overlooking the fact that Germany has a very extensive and very effective public transit system. I'd wager, if the Germans are anything like my other European colleagues, that many don't even own cars because they don't need to own a car. If you can't afford – or choose not – to own a car in Germany it doesn't mean you're trapped, not like it does here in the U.S.
Yes. Their Nazis are better not to mention aryaner than ours.
Even though this is unenforceable, it's a nice start.
We have a climate problem that is going to get worse if nothing changes according to the folks who actually study the issue.
This glut of cheap oil will not last - and there are several reasons for that.
These folks are thinking ahead. They are at least getting the bug in people's ears that changes will have to be made and it won't be such a shock when they do.
We the USA, OTOH, can't see beyond our own noses. We have this religious faith in free markets and capitalism. That's why we get caught with our pants down during oil shocks. Why we will get it them caught down again when the next one comes and when global climate gets worse.
The rest of the industrialized World is thinking ahead. And so is China. They will be prepared and will eat our lunch.
But we the US are just sitting in our chairs arguing among ourselves with talking points that were handed to us by our media.
There are some serious problems coming our way and no one is talking about them. We're just arguing with the same old bullshit talking points, arguing over distraction issues or just ignoring the real problems headed our way.
Have they thought of the implications this has on the trucking industry?
Last I checked, the trucking industry don't use cars, but if you ask Tesla, trucks are ripe for being fully electric and more more cost effective already.
Have they thought what this might do to low-income or fixed-income individuals who can't afford a car and suddenly left without transportation?
Yes - Europe already solved that problem decades ago - it's called public transport.
Where is the electricity or energy to create hydrogen fuel going to come from now that they've banned nuclear and don't want fossil fuels?
It doesn't really matter - even if you assume the worst case scenario (basically, just burn coal out your ears), it's still a way way more efficient scenario than every individual car having a shitty efficiency ICE in it.
First of all this is 14 years in the future which by no means qualifies to be described as "sudden". Despite that public transportation is well established and somewhat functional in Germany. No German really _needs_ a car for commuting.
2030. That's 15 years. Or into 'mature autodrive' by reasonable progress.
Anyone claiming to make predictions out that far - through electric cars going up a hundredfoldish in volume - (35% growth) needs to have massive caveats on that.
Secondly - this is Europe.
With limited exceptions, it's very dense, and driving long distances is considerably more involved. (though see above autodrive comment).
The tesla model 3 can be driven from one end of the UK to the other in 4 fills - and journies that take two are going to be rare for the vast majority of consumers.
Also, if you can do solar and wind to recharge, you've greatly reduced your net imports of oil.
Public transport? The nearest bus stop from me is EIGHT KILOMETERS away. If I don't have a car I'm not getting to go anywhere.
And yes, I'm in Germany. Please remember in all discussions about public transport that not everyone lives in the middle of a metropolis with everything they'll ever need within walking distance.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
No, not steam engines, Stirling engines. They burn far cleaner than IC engines, have similar performance, much better milage, and produce far less emissions than ICEs. Ford did some work on Stirlings during the arab oil embargos and I think that Phillips had some small stirling engines at one time.
Germany has a very extensive and very effective public transit system.
You misspelled "expensive", and how you got "effective" when you clearly aimed for "fragmented" is beyond me.
What about the whale oil industry, that is struggling to make a comeback? Is Germany worrying about all those whale oil workers? No they are not.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Not a single German citizen of working age lives rurally several kilometers away from the nearest bus stop or train station? Care to cite your sources on that?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Folks, chill. The ban is about emissions not ICEs. If you have an emission neutral ICE, you're good. Also they don't want to ban them entirely, they just want to ban new ones after 2030. Your ICE car from 2029 (if those still exist) is still allowed on the streets after 2030.
I see a good chance for this law to be mostly cosmetic if it passes Bundesrat, Bundestag and perhaps European Parlament.
If the experts are any bit of right, most new cars will be electric by then anyway.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
more imporrantly, what does the tidy bowl man have to say.
Will they be banning the import of used ICE cars, with odometers run forward on rollers or with faked forward readings that are essentially new?
Yep, that's European thinking for ya. Eh, what else is a bureaucrat for?
So then, what's going to replace all the lost revenue from gas taxes?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
My guess is it will lead to more cheating. All of the big ones in Germany have now been caught cheating on their emissions tests. All of them have been doing it since at least 2000.
What does that mean? It means a bunch of regulatory framework to help lock out competition, meaning less competition, meaning higher prices.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Where exactly do you live in Germany, somewhere on an 'Aussiedlerhof"? The infrastructure isn't that good in all the states. Especially those that suffered from the oppressive thumb of communism are still lagging behind more than a decade.
I've used to live in the 'outback' (Black Forest) of South-west Germany for a while and there was a bus every 30 minutes (tops 60 minutes), even for villages that were comprised of something like ten houses. And most of the time, public transport is on time.
I also suppose that those who call for a ban of ICE would also welcome financial incentives for electric cars and similar nonsense (subsidies are in my opinion a bad idea that will be exploited to no end).
Anyway, since the auto-mobile industry is probably the most important export industry for Germany, lobbyists from Porsche, Mercedes and of course VW will delay any such initiative by many years if it ever gets past the Bundesrat.
When you think about it, phasing out ICEs would bring a lot of good changes in the world. Forgetting about the global warming for a second, less ICE cars means less dependence on petrol and diesel, equals lower crude oil price == less money for sheikhs == less money to support Jihadists.
But we have Trump! he's pretty fucking close to hitler...
I think you got the wrong idea about transport in Europe. Many regions have excellent public transport, with a dense network of various modes of transport offering frequent service. But even here in the Netherlands with an extremely dense public transport network, there are few people who are happy (or able) to take public transport and not have a car. In the west part of the country, many trains and buses will be jam packed during rush hour, the railway company has trouble adding more cars to the trains and the track is almost at capacity even with state of the art signalling and routing in place. And public transport still doesn't handle a 10th of the number of people commuting by car. It certainly is a lot easier to get around without a car in Europe than it is in the US on average, but the idea that public transport can replace cars is just silly.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The nearest bus stop from me is EIGHT KILOMETERS away.
Eight km is only five miles. In America, we have driveways longer than that.
All the vehicles thus far called zero emissions simply shift their emissions elsewhere. Operating an EV emits plenty of pollution, it's just that the power plants which generate the electricity get blamed for emitting it instead of the owners who drive the vehicles. Even if you're getting your electricity 100% from renewables, there's still the emissions during construction, refining of the materials needed to build PV cells and wind turbines, maintenance, etc. Same goes for hydrogen-powered vehicles - their emissions come predominantly from the process of generating the hydrogen needed to power them, which from all the calculations I've seen thus far exceed the emissions from ICEs.
Right now, environmental policy is being driven by popularity and emotion. It needs to be replaced with a rational, mathematical approach. If you choose to drive a car from location x to location y, it will need to use a certain amount of energy. Generating that energy with an ICE creates a certain amount of emitted pollutants. Generating it with renewables creates a different amount and different types of pollutants. Same goes for steam, coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc. You don't get to draw a black box around just the car, blithely ignore what's needed to create what goes into the box, then irrationally proclaim that you've created a zero emissions vehicle.
And no, you cannot claim your EV is zero emissions because you installed solar panels on your house which you then use to recharge your EV. That's a gross misunderstanding of opportunity cost. The correct comparison in that case is how much emissions your activities would generate if you use the solar panels to recharge your EV, vs if you used the solar panels to offset your household electricity use and used a different type of car. The only way the solar panels can show up only on the EV side of the comparison is if you would not have installed solar panels if you didn't get the EV. That is almost never the case.
For the same reason, EVs are being powered almost 100% by coal and gas plants right now. The electrical demand prior to EVs was being supplied by coal, gas, nuclear, and renewables. Nuclear has not increased. We're increasing renewables pretty much as fast as we can, but that increase would've happened even if EVs didn't exist. So the extra demand for electricity caused by EVs is being filled by the most flexible electricity generation sources we have right now - coal and gas.
Stop trying to think of energy in terms of us (eco-car owners) vs them (dirty polluting ICE owners). Start thinking of it in terms of world-wide energy production and use.
Abbrevating Internal Combustion Engine as ICE everywhere when the ICE is the flagship German train, the Intercity Express.
Well done!
Nordfriesland, not far from the Danish border.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
For people on low incomes, EVs should be better. Prices on new ones will reach parity with ICE soon, and used ones will be more reliable and cheaper to run. There are fewer things to go wrong, no spark plugs, no exhausts, no emissions to worry about, no lubricants or liquids beyond the windscreen washer fluid. Even the brake pads get less wear.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You know you're on slashdot when you can see the "This."-style comments but not the comments they refer to.
Germany is being in a process of violent islamisation, a process led by current gov. They open borders policy will destroy German social systems even earlier than the original demographics would have done. So looking at this I rest with ease. Besides they will to come up with solutions to some problems first or the law will never be effective - fast charging/swap of batteries. Besides even if the proposal becomes a law and there will be no legal possibility to register a car with combustion engine then - this will apply to new vehicles. As said Germany thus me will have whole bunch of other problems by then but I still wonder where all these batteries are going to come from and what the green party members will say to environmental disaster that production and later disposal of all these batteries will cause. Plus they will still have to use some combustible material to produce electricity fed to these batteries. The way things are in Germany building of new power plants based on coal or oil is all but blocked by Greens. The side effect of that is that instead of having modern power plants with lesser env. footprint we have old power plants with old dirty and less effective technology. I am actually for some of the goals of Green party but I do not think any of these morons think their proposals through.
The nearest bus stop from me is EIGHT KILOMETERS away. If I don't have a car I'm not getting to go anywhere.
Well... why not? American here, but 8km does not seem far at all. It's a little outside handy walking distance, but almost negligible for bicycling distance. I commonly use mine for day trips up to 5 times that far without troubles, and our bicycle infrastructure is shit compared to yours.
To be fair,some people cannot do that due to physical disabilities or old age. Most people can though.
By setting a goal of 2030 it gives them to mandate to push for EV charging infrastructure. In some parts of Europe they are requiring local government to allow on-street charging for people who don't have driveways, for example.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In Slashdot circles, ICE formerly stood for "in-circuit emulator." How times have changed.
Your new fuhrer herr merkel is krazy
Citizen I warn you not to use abusive and divisive language again! The official term for rape by newcomers is intercultural exchange. Alternatively you can refer to this process as an enriching of the culture of the host country with diverse and colorful habits from afar.
If we catch you doing your hate-speech again a reeducation center will be the least that you can expect.
This is how Germany will regulate itself out of leadership in the Automotive Industry
Last I checked, the trucking industry don't use cars, but if you ask Tesla, trucks are ripe for being fully electric and more more cost effective already.
Because Tesla X is totally the best choice for pulling a trailer, right?
Yes - Europe already solved that problem decades ago - it's called public transport.
If you live in fairly populated areas, yes. It's a lot better than in the US - not a very high bar - but in rural areas you definitively want a car in Europe too. Even if you could say 80% of the problem is solved, 20% is very much unsolved.
It doesn't really matter - even if you assume the worst case scenario (basically, just burn coal out your ears), it's still a way way more efficient scenario than every individual car having a shitty efficiency ICE in it.
Maybe if you said emissions efficiency... from what I understand the higher production efficiency gets eaten up by converting combustion (momentum) to electricity, transport, charging losses, parasitic losses when it's not running and so on. The nice thing is that you could have other energy sources like solar, wind and other renewables but if you're just centralizing the fossil fuel consumption it's not much of a win at all.
I think it's possible to convert most people, most places to EVs like maybe 2/3 or 3/4. But I think trying to get rid of all of them is crazy, they have capabilities that would take massive advances to equal. Even the people who want to be greener rarely want to go backwards in standard of living.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Whale oil? Are you from Dunwall?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
For personal transportation the issue is and always will be recharging. Until we get 400kW chargers, it's kind of a step back in personal transportation. That is, basically until we get full-range (300mile / 500km) recharge times down to 15 minutes or less... boo.
Meh - I live in a country where I can do all my daily driving within a range of at most 90 km one way. Let's say 200 km for a roundtrip. Most electric cars already get that much mileage. For the holidays I have the option to spend the money I saved on fuel and hire a car at my destination. Over long distances this is already the most useful option. If I really want a roadtrip I can also hire the car for the roadtrip OR spend a few hours more while travelling and recharge. Tesla's network is already getting pretty good and it will recharge while I take a break. I take breaks every 400 km anyway right now, might as well make it every 300 km. It's not as if that's going to be a serious inconvenience.
I know the USA has much more empty space between travel points, but still. For most of the folks in the cities it shouldn't be a big deal to drive electric.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Will they be banning the import of used ICE cars, with odometers run forward on rollers or with faked forward readings that are essentially new?
Umm, any car with a manipulated odometer is already banned from import.
What was your point?
If you won't be able to register an ICE car, it really doesn't matter whether it's new or used. The used car market is going to take a hit.
It's already taking a hit locally: if you drive an older diesel engine you're going to get a fine in most inner cities in Germany and now increasingly in Holland as well. Resale value of 10 year old diesels isn't high anyway, though.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
South west of the republic look significantly different from the middle west and from the east. There are differences in wealth and demographics. These regions look like they were 3 different countries. Besides a use case for a single person looks significantly different than a person with a child or many children. There is no public transport that can help here even if you live in a city. Unless of course you can hire help (which would deal with the problem with own transportation).
As a counter proposal I would suggest to include the contraceptives to each batch of humanitarian aid especially to MENA countries. This will have bigger impact.
It's a bit different in Germany since Mercedes makes a lot of trucks... they have a *bit* more clout than whale oil workers.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
It's astonishing to see the success of one little car from a recently tiny American upstart having such an incredible influence on the world. Just that one car being so great has the largest union of nations in the world talking about banning all other cars. It's just very impressive. I suppose the Model S will go down as similar in influence to the Model T. Funny how similar the names are. I wonder if Elon concievably had that in mind.
commuting is not a reason I use car. Dealing with needs of my kids is.
Consider the problems that then get involved with basic facts of life, like getting groceries, picking kids up from school, visiting friends and family ... A bike works, sure, but it's slow. Those eight kilometers each way just to get to and from the bus stop can easily add a half hour transport each way.
For health reasons I am currently visiting a hospital that is approximately 120 km away every month or two. I've checked, I simply can't find a system of busses and/or trains that can get me there in the same day that I leave home. That is NOT useful public transport, at least from my personal perspective.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
That, plus the fact that this 2030 ban is all about cars, not trucks (from TFA).
You are welcome on my lawn.
I am known as the Fork of Dunwall.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You heard it here first, folks: The Islamic world is behind the conspiracy to get the world to stop using oil.
Sounds legit to me.
They Ban Ki Moon
You expect too much from people. In current climate in Germany you would have been called right wing radical for having a view that can be seen in opposition to the only allowed truth.
It were not Muslims! It were confused men! Muslims can't rape because that would be unislamic so rapers must be confused!
Perhaps you had better tell BMW, Citroen, Fiat, Ford Europe, Mercedes, Renault, Smart, Volkswagen, Porsche, Ferraro, and probably more.
Because every single one of them offer at least one commercial electric vehicle right now (yes, not all of those are German....)
Is it any surprise that the home of one of the leaders in car manufacture in Europe is pushing for new regulations to support the
car industry? or do you think these changes are not going to benefit them? Oh you innocent little kitten.
Any such regulation will come with nice fat tax breaks and incentives for the 'poor car makers', along with bumps in sales as people
buy 'the new thing', increased turnover in new vehicles (batteries have this nice short well defined lifespan, unlike those pesky
internal combustion engines, that despite efforts keep getting repaired by owners and lasting too damn long!)
"In 1798, John Stevens built the first internal combustion engine."
Power plants are much more efficient than cars at burning fuels. The math has been in this regard already... Elon Musk has given it much thought.
Was the article talking about cars or trucks?
And on that day that you didn't get a full charge in, and it super hot outside so you are running your car Air conditioner, and you get caught in a 3 hour traffic jam, you might be sweating it a bit.
Hillary is a lot closer to Hitler than Trump. She promotes "government-business partnerships" - that's Fascism. She's an accessory before and after the fact to murder. The main similarity of Hitler to Trump is that they're both nationalists.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Sure, why bother then? Oh, I know, because electric cars accept electricity, which can be generated from a variety of sources. But ICE cars can *only* accept petrol/diesel..
You've hand selected so many things, instead of taking a neutral standpoint. Some countries don't create energy by gas/coal. The world isn't exclusively the united states.
Kosher, even.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
How is "odometers run forward on rollers" manipulation? The wheels have actually turned that many times, though on a set of rollers rather than an actual road.
How is "odometers run forward on rollers" manipulation? The wheels have actually turned that many times, though on a set of rollers rather than an actual road.
Maybe because they were turned on a set of rollers rather than an actual road? And so don't reflect the actual mileage of the car?
Just a wild guess??
In France you've got the Peugeot 205 diesel. Small car from 20 to 30 year old with a relatively high resale value. Well, if it gets banned people will want a 206 diesel instead.
For personal transportation the issue is and always will be recharging. Until we get 400kW chargers, it's kind of a step back in personal transportation. That is, basically until we get full-range (300mile / 500km) recharge times down to 15 minutes or less... boo.
Not quite far enough for the Burke Developmental Road in Queensland, Australia.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
My daily driving in the US is all within 10 miles. However, it is cost effective (even as the sole occupant!) to drive over 6 hours for weekend getaways. And all of these locations have frequent bus and rail connections from my city, but they just cost too damn much. And a bus will never get you there faster than you can, simply because you're in the exact same traffic.
Oh, good. All our roads will be circular bumper-car tracks running around power plants. Of course, if you want to use the car for actual travel, you need to account for transmission line and transformer losses also. And battery losses, since charge-discharge cycles aren't 100% efficient.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The power plants burn the fuel much more efficiently, but the transmission losses are really killer.
Because Tesla X is totally the best choice for pulling a trailer, right?
No one was talking about the model X:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/mas...
Maybe if you said emissions efficiency... from what I understand the higher production efficiency gets eaten up by converting combustion (momentum) to electricity, transport, charging losses, parasitic losses when it's not running and so on. The nice thing is that you could have other energy sources like solar, wind and other renewables but if you're just centralizing the fossil fuel consumption it's not much of a win at all.
You understand wrongly. The transport, charging and parasitic losses are extremely small, and in fact, arguably smaller than with petrol vehicles anyway. Remember - oil needs to be distilled into petrol (a very inefficient process), then transported by road to filling stations (once again by petrol/diesel burning vehicles), also very inefficiently, and then pumped out of the ground by yet another petrol burning motor. Paying attention to electricity's distribution inefficiencies, but not paying any attention to petrol's transmission costs is disingenuous at best.
Maybe by then they will have a fully electric vehicle which has a range of 200 miles without stopping to recharge. I make a commute once a week for work that's a little more than that with barely any available parking not to mention charging stations.
Until they have an electric vehicle which can do that I can't consider them.
Germany, or at least its leaders, seems to have a national death wish. They've poured billions into renewal energy, only to find their industry becoming uncompetitive due to some of the highest electricity rates on the planet. They've let in a million plus immigrants, mostly young males with the German equivalent of a third-grade education and no knowledge of German or desire to learn it. Now they want to ban all combustion engines in a bit over a decade. How are they going to make luxury cars for the rest of us if they don't drive them themselves? Heck, how or they going to do anything? You can't build and repair roads, bridges and the like with little electric cars.
About two centuries ago someone noted that, "God has given to the English the kingdom of the sea," reflecting the then-power of the British navy, "and to the French the kingdom the land," because France had Europe's largest army." The remark goes on the note that God had given the Germans "the kingdom of the air."
No, the reference was not to an air force. None existed then. It was a reference to the German tendency to fall for strange and often destruction abstractions, or what others called "cloud cukoo land." We should never forget that the two horrors of the last century, Marxism and Nazism, were both German ideas. Others may have contributed to them, but it took Germans to turn them into systems.
Sad. There's a lot good to be said about Germans. If you want a machine built right, you turn to the Germans. But it's also right that, if you want a country to be run right, Germans are not a good choice.
That's roughly about how long it takes to fill up a car with gasoline, so that's the bar they need to hit to be just as useful. It doesn't matter how much money you save in the long run on gasoline by using an electric car if you live in an apartment that doesn't have outlets for each car so you can charge an EV at night.
Also, if a 300 second recharge was possible, then it would be feasible to drive anywhere as long as there was a charging infrastructure available, and any time spent charging would be no less inconvenient than periodic gasoline refills are right now.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Taxes are member state's business, the EU commission cannot create or standardize them.
OTOH, the EU commission can sue member states for taxes that would distort their beloved holy free market. Hence I understand the point here is to make sure EU commission would not fight taxes incentive against internal combustion engine.
After reading your first two sentences I was wondering if perhaps you had never heard of batteries. Now I suspect you're just over-stating the losses in charging Lithium-Ion batteries.
As for discharging, the energy efficiency of an electric "engine", including the battery and motors is about 95% when thermal and inductive losses are taken into account.
Compare this to a theoretical maximum of 46% of a gasoline engine, dictated by thermodynamics. Of course, this very generous scenario assumes instantaneous burn time (0 seconds), no heat loss through coolant and impossibly perfect exhaust valve timing. In the real world efficiencies of 25% to 30% are typical.
If you're willing to swap out your petrol ICE for a Wartsila 31 diesel engine you could stand a chance of approaching the world record of just over 50%. However you may need to weld some additional support struts to your car, as that engine is typically used in container ships.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
A while back, in WA state, Christine Gregoire's daughter wanted to outright ban the internal combustion engine, because "it's dehumanizing to women".
Right now, environmental policy is being driven by popularity and emotion. It needs to be replaced with a rational, mathematical approach.
I agree, but unfortunately such a thing is apparently not possible. We all hear the left especially sing the praises of science right up until science contradicts one of their cherished environmental beliefs. When that happens they promptly turn on the scientists, attacking them for being paid off by the fossil fuel industry or some other such nonsense without even a shred of proof. I'm not a scientist, just an ordinary citizen, but it appears to me that environmentalism has much more in common with religion than science.
No, they shift a FRACTION as many emissions elsewhere. Even if the entire electric grid burned coal, it would still be cleaner because large power generation is far more efficient than small-scale gasoline engines, and it's more practical to improve emissions on a few large power plants.
And EVs actually get charged late at night, when demand is lower and a larger percentage of grid electricity is supplied by sources that can't be entirely turned off, like large hydro, nuclear, even wind.
And coal is going away, thanks to both increasing pollution regulations, but mostly fracking. Natural gas is much cleaner than coal, and even gasoline, so EVs already provide the best of all worlds, and that only gets better as solar panels drop in price.
Sure you can. It's not very worthwhile to install a small amount of solar panels in a home, and the electric demands of EVs make it more economical. In addition, EV households switch to peak/off-peak billing, where their daily household needs are supplied by their solar panels while rates are high, then charging their EV after midnight when electric rates drop very, very low. That's both economical, and net-zero emissions, because your PVs offsetting peak-demand of yourself and perhaps your neighbors makes the grid more efficient and much less polluting.
Right now, EVERY policy is being driven by popularity and emotion. Economics, immigration, trade, security, etc. Why are you singling out environmental policies?
As you (and your neighbors) only have to BREATHE what's inside the "black box", it's perfectly reasonable to call it zero emissions, and ignore the distant emissions neither you nor almost any humans are forced to breathe.
That's complete and utter bullshit.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Down which how many cars drive every day? I suspect it's also not in Germany, or even in Europe, so its relevance to this story is marginal at best.
They won't if diesels aren't subsidised any more (although I don't think diesel passenger car drivers should necessarily carry the can for all the particulate pollution diesel trucks produce; that's a real problem for everyone, needing a solution right now. Maybe someone could convince Elon Musk to forget about Mars and deal with that one instead).
Germany has a very extensive and very effective public transit system. ..full of illegal immigrants to rob and rape those who are still stupid enough to ride it.
This has been illegal in countries all over the world for decades. It is done to misrepresent the amount of kilometres a car has actually travelled (whether less or in this case more) and is consider, generally considering fraud and has large fines or even prison sentences depending on country.
Some people don't like to be fucking proles, OK? If we can afford cars we'll use cars, and you can ride your bike to hell, you condescending prick.
The sad thing is that Merkel and her delusional ultra-liberals came up with he open-door policy thinking that grateful Muslims would come in and immediately start voting for them. They're going to realize all-too-late that liberals are going to be the first ones thrown off roofs when the Muslims eventually take over. It's almost sad to see people so delusional as to think that Islamists were going to support a party led by women, gays, abortion-supporters, etc. But they're going to find out the hard way that Muslims instead have a tendency to cut the heads off people like that. And that would almost be a funny ending if it weren't so fucking tragic.
The official term for rape by newcomers is intercultural exchange.
I thought it was "cultural misunderstanding". Shit, I just *knew* I should have downloaded the latest edition of the Newspeak updates last week.
While it is one of the more extreme examples Australia does have huge amounts of roads with very long distances between towns/fueling stops. Last year I drove up from Adelaide through cooper pedy to Uluru (constant stream of traffic, was surprised how busy that road is). it is common for hundreds of kilometres without refueling stops. even in my home town of Canberra a drive to Sydney and back (very common and I do that several time a month at least) is a 600km round trip. Australia is very unfriendly to limited range vehicles. But realistically that should become less of an issue in coming years as capacity and charge rates increase, or perhaps fuel cells.
Why would you want to run the odometer forward? I mean running it backward would make the car look less used, but forward?
cheaper too run? I think you are forgetting that a used battery on an EV will have a much shorter lifespan and depending on age of vehicle is likely to slug the owner for some hefty (as a percentage of car value) costs.
We've seen recent weather events take out an entire state's/country's entire electricity grid in one fell swoop (e.g.: South Australia just two weeks ago). Do you want emergency services to be able respond now, when you need them? Or will you be happy with "We'll get that electric ambulance out to you just as soon as we've charged it. The electricity provider says that they should have the power back on in three or four weeks."
Yep, technology won't work on one supercontinent road on a different freaking continent, so it's not mature enough to use anywhere
Such a stupid and troll answer. I ride the public transport every time I co e to Getmany on business. It's safe, clean and excellent. Some trips require me to rent a car, but most often I use the trains.
Muslims don't have the institutional power to rape. Therefore they can't be rapists.
In the example provided by the OP it was so that a new car could fraudulently be classified as a used/second hand car that would not fall under the new regulations if they were brought in.
A mandate like this should be supportive.
My gas powered vehicle that I purchased new, and invested in to keep running for the past ten years has cost me around 27000 dollars.
So if I can't drive that anymore, then a 27,000 version of an electric vehicle should show up on my door step and we exchange keys. If the vehicle isn't as well built or purpose suited then additional money should be paid to me for the loss of use (jeep wrangler - handles fantastically in the snow). If the vehicle doesn't perform exactly to my former vehicle expectations (like fueling time) I should be recompensed at my job rate for the extra time it takes to fuel up.
Otherwise, the gubment can piss off.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Wouldn't that need fake documents that showed the car being manufactured earlier than the cutoff date instead of the distance the car has traveled.
>Prices on new ones will reach parity with ICE soon
Your planet sounds nice.
+1 Underrated.
In Canada, we have driveways longer than some US city main streets.
some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
all depends entirely on the regulations. e.g. some countries have restrictions on importing new cars so a new car becomes a second hand car, doesn't matter the manufacture date, it only matters that you aren't importing a new car. But imports also regularly use fake documents, VIN's etc to bring in used cars anyway. The simple form of the regulation might be "thou shalt not sell new ICE based cars in Germany".
We all need to go green instantly!(tm) In the country where I live (Canada) they have tried this. First ban coal powered electricity, and natural gas powered power plants (must be greeeen), and cars are bad, and trucks. Bad, bad, bad! And then the price of electricity takes off like a roman candle, and we need more electricity (for our Greeenmobiles), at the exact same time that we have shut down the non-green power plants. And we don't have the power distribution infrastructure for powering all those cars (a typical old-fashioned gasoline burning car had about 150 horsepower, it might look weak and useless, but the electric greeenmobile might only have 50 horsepower. Quick calculation, 50 horsepower at 746 watts per horsepower is 37.3 kW, or 37300 watts. A typical house will use 2000 watts, so you need 18.6 times as much electricity for a much less powerful electric car). Solar panels really don't work at night, and if you live in northern climates, you really are at a disadvantage between Sept. 21 and Mar. 21, with exceptionally poor results on Dec. 21. Wind chargers are good when the wind blows. There is a massive disconnect between the 'green pushers' and physics. We really need nuclear plants in every city to substitute oil. It doesn't emit carbon. It might not be as greeeeeen as they like, but its foolhearty to suggest anything else. Gasoline has 33.41 kWh/gal. So a 5 gallon can of gasoline can produce 167.05 kW for 1 hour. It has a higher energy density than any other fuel, except nuclear fuel.
That ends up depending entirely on the wording of the legislation. mind you faked documents for imported used vehicles is hardly a new thing. It comes down to the usual thing of whether those implementing any laws/legislation have a good think about the ways the less scrupulous people will use to work around them.
You sound like someone that's never been outside the city. There are vast tracts of land that not only have to be driven but also land that needs to be plowed, tended and harvested.
You know where all your food comes from and where you send your trash.
Doing these things requires power at levels that batteries just cannot sustain and infrastructure that nobody is going to pay for, or have the time to build.
It took the United States 240 years to build the infrastructure we have now. Not just the 14 years left until 2030.
2030 has been conditioned into us as a futuristic date by popular culture at the start of this millennia and possibly even earlier. it's time to stop trying to make grandiose predictions or expecting a utopia as that time approaches.
You can determine how much has been built in any country during that time, and use that as a basic model for how long it might take looking forward. How many major important changes in the infrastructure have you seen in the last 15 years? What makes you think anyone will pay to plow up fully serviceable roadways, railways etc, and then pay to have the new infrastructure laid down? Do you really think someones going to pay for that, and then have it done, within the next 15 years?
You're delusional of you think yes.
If everything is going to be powered like electric buses in the city lets just imagine how vast nets of high amperage power grids will be hung over farms, and worry later how damage or deterioration will occur or be repaired.
Now If you will excuse me, I am going to party like it's 1999
It doesn't really matter
Is the quote that wants everyone to disregard physics and believe in his or her fantasy regarding what people will *do* regardless of what OP *wants*.
Here, let me just set my batteries on file while I plow hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland at 2 miles an hour.
Recall that Tesla has to be talking about pickup trucks. Semi's are allowed to weigh up to 88,000 pounds on US highways. You would need a load full of batteries just to move that at highway speeds.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Whatever. But FYI, the road in question is only one state wide, and not even at the state's widest point.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Actually Australia has a LOT of roads where the technology won't work or is not viable for. But regardless yes it doesn't mean it can't work in Europe where those problems don't exist.
I suspect it's also not in Germany, or even in Europe, so its relevance to this story is marginal at best.
You may not be aware (and it's okay, it's kind of local news) that as of the end of next year, Australia won't have a car industry.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
If I really want a roadtrip I can also hire the car for the roadtrip
This stupid argument comes up every time range is mentioned. You *won't* be able to hire a long-range car for your vacation because everyone else is also trying to hire a car for their vacation. If the rental companies keep enough cars for 90% of the population that only gets used twice a year they'll have to raise rates far beyond what you are prepared to pay.
It's a stupid argument, and you should feel silly for using it!
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
They don't want white MMMAALLLEESSS to beable to disrupt their cunt utopia via petrol bombs.
Your general message is sound, however I think your numbers might be quite off. For instance in the Paris region, 44% of the commuting is done by public transportation, and 43% by car. I'd be surprised if it was so different in industrialized areas of the Netherlands (I've been there a few times, and as you say, the trains are packed full).
Have they thought of the implications this has on the trucking industry?
Probably they did.
Have they thought what this might do to low-income or fixed-income individuals who can't afford a car and suddenly left without transportation?
Yes they probably did. Even if the question shows only that you didn't read the article properly.
Where is the electricity or energy to create hydrogen fuel going to come from now that they've banned nuclear and don't want fossil fuels?
With those two options discarded, obviously has to be in renewable sources.
What will happen to the jobs of independent gasoline retailers and distributors and other people involved in that part of the economy?
Probably those jobs will be made obsolete. The guys who put whale oil in the street lamps will be happy to have someone to chat.
And what about the total cost of ownership for a vehicle with comparable range?
What about it? Is there a specific objection or just FUD?
Why should anyone in Germany or elsewhere frame the comparison using the criteria of 2016 (well, 1966) when the law is about not building new ICE vehicles from 2030 onwards? The transition from ICE to electric is not about getting a car like you can buy today, but better ("a faster horse"). It's about getting a car that does not produce the emissions that petrol/diesel do. It will look different and drive different. The maintenance is different. The range and re-fuelling are different. Parking, owning and self-driving might work in different ways as well.
The auto industry is huge and very sophisticated, they will figure out how to be competitive, and someone will have to be the first to cannibalise their ICE sales. Germany is the HQ of many of the important european car manufacturers, they will do well to lead this transition otherwise some competitor will be taking sales from them.
Diesels are not and were never subsidised. The fuel is taxed a bit less, but there is no subsidy and in many countries, road tax for a diesel car is much more than for a petrol car.
Moreover, I am not so sure diesel trucks are dominant in particulate emissions. To begin with, most particulates in the air are not due to traffic. Even eliminating all traffic would only reduce particulates in the air by 10-25%, depending on the location. Farming, industry and, in some regions, domestic heating, are larger contributors. In some cases, there are still some cost effective measures that can be taken to reduce emissions at the source.
Modern diesels already emit fewer particulates from the exhaust than from tyre wear. Changing the drivetrain technology can reduce, but not by much. Even in passenger cars, diesels already emit fewer particulates than petrol cars. This will probably change in a few years when petrols will be held to the same standard and manufacturers will start introducing particulate filters to petrol cars. Two of the largest manufacturers, VW and Daimler, have already announced that they will do that starting next year.
Transitioning to electric vehicles can reduce particulate emissions, but the benefits are easily overstated. In some cases, the additional weight of electric cars actually increases tyre and road wear emissions by more than is saved by not having an exhaust pipe. There are other sources that have more potential in reduction and if we really want to tackle traffic-induced particulates, we should probably focus on tyres and road surfaces.
I know the USA has much more empty space between travel points, but still. For most of the folks in the cities it shouldn't be a big deal to drive electric.
That empty space is a real issue. When I was in college, it was 350 miles (560 km) between there and home, and this was a state college. I regularly made the trip on long weekends and holidays. No electric car sold today that I'm aware of has such a range.
These days, my longest round trip is about 120 miles, so an electric car would makes sense. In fact, my next car will very likely be electric. But my fear is that overzealous advocates will neglect to take others' needs into consideration. Just because one person's lifestyle works without a car or with a range-limited e-car doesn't mean its practical for everyone.
Also, consider that car rentals will be in peak demand during holidays, so you'll have to reserve far in advance and pay a premium, just like you do for holiday flights.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
When I drive my Ampera (German Opel badged version of the Chevrolet Volt) in Germany people slow down their cars to look at it. Tiny Holland has twice as many EV's as the big neighbor Germany.
This 'law' is just wishful thinking.
You have all missed one the really important factors driving the ban. Inner City and Suburbs prices will jump, as those cities and inner suburbs become a lot cleaner without the infernal combustion engine polluting the crap out of them. At a quick punt, ignoring the counter impact of underwater front properties, those values good double and in the US where inner suburbs devalued, increases even further. Developers with inner city and suburb properties will be screaming for the ban. People fail to realise how much cleaner and more breathable cities will be and the impact that will have on property values and investment, people will be demanding healthier cities and that guarantees the end of the infernal combustion engine.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
> The country's federal council has passed a resolution to ban the ICE starting in 2030.
ICE or InterCity Express is the german equivalent of the french TGV and the japanese shinskansen bullet-train network. Banning ICE means even more cars on the road, be them fossil fuelled, battery ellectric or hydrogen-cell electric.
By the way, In my country Hungary, the german multi-national industrial giant Bosch installed a very large automotive systems engineering R&D base in the capital city Budapest in a rust zone. They demaned that the adjacent (literally 80 meters) and extremely busy railway station KoKi must be left to deteriorate and then closed up for danger of structural collapse, so that their employees don't have to see steel wheel public transport and thus become more "auto-motivated". (The official recruiting motto of Bosch car systems is "Are you automotivated?")
Everyone goes on a road trip the same day in the USA? Can you let me know which day it is so I can avoid the traffic jams?
Another option would be an auxiliary battery trailer for the Australian market.
The model already being used by a number of major European manufacturers of electric vehicles is to have a monthly battery fee based on typical mileage and then free battery pack replacements. Granted that makes EVs less cheap on a monthly basis, and there is an opportunity cost relative to the payments, but there is also so sudden capital payment. I would expect that for the used market similar mechanisms would be available, as well as opt outs, much as there is a secondary market for extended car warranties that cover elements not otherwise covered by manufacturer's warranties (e.g. some German cars warrant against rust for 30 years).
The price on cars like the Renault Zoe are already not much more than the ICE equivalents, although the range (120 miles in optimal conditions for the extended range version) won't suit everyone. It's not unreasonable to expect closer to parity in a decade or so, plus range improvements. TCO is also important, of course
s/driveways longer/butts wider/
If the demand is there then they'll match it, because that means profit. You're judging them on current rentals, if more people rented they'd stock more cars.
The numbers were a bit off but not that much: cars (driving and riding) account for almost 75% of traffic in the Netherlands by kilometer, public transport is 11%. Biking / walking is another 11%, and 5% "other", whatever the hell that is. Source. Looking at commuters, around 5% of them take the train to work as opposed to 60% going by car (no numbers for other modes of public transport but it's likely not a large amount given the earlier stats)
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
No, 'climate change'. Which is ALWAYS meant to be taken to mean "catastrophic man-made global warming', even though clearly it doesn't mean that. It means 'the climate is changing', which it always is, and always has been. The whole thing is a ridiculous scam, and it's only happening because too many people are so stupid and lazy that they can't be bothered to spend an hour reading an opposing point of view.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
And that's assuming that such long range vehicles even exist in sufficient numbers for the Rental Agencies to maintain even small fleets of. If ICE is banned in Europe this article claims Germany is pushing for, then manufacturers are going to stop making ICE engines. You can't rent what isn't being manufactured and sold.
I can't say I've every hired a car for vacation or dove a long road trip. Your fallacy is that everyone has an identical vacation in an identical area at the same time.
THAT is silly.
Centralised generation is not efficient and causes less pollution even under a worst case scenario of an oil fired power plant. You wrote a lot of text only to be wrong in the premise.
I do not think any of these morons think their proposals through.
I'm willing to bet some of these morons use paragraphs, and therefore make a better impression as a thinker than you do.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
when the Muslims eventually take over.
Hmmmmmm turns out something you accept as a given, is actually not going to happen. Oops.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I can't say I've every hired a car for vacation or dove a long road trip. Your fallacy is that everyone has an identical vacation in an identical area at the same time.
THAT is silly.
Due to school holidays, the majority of people take their vacations at the same time. This is not a fallacy, it's a fact. It's why vacation spots have a separate off-peak rate, because, well, "off-peak" literally means "not during peak demand". You appear to be making the somewhat stupid argument that there is no peak period for vacationing. Like I said, that's a stupid argument, and you should feel stupid for making it.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Fire me a link. One that isn't Breitbart. Cos that it a big whack of bollocks there. There's a reason why the russians and ISIS want trump, and it's not because he's good.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It won't affect them because it won't happen.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
What is an emission neutral ICE? I don't think I have ever seen one.
entropy happens
According to VW all their cars are already emission neutral *Coughs*
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Halal, perhaps?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Zero emission cars are not necessarily zero emission. If you are producing all the electricity with solar or wind you are getting closer. An internal combustion engine is not going to be zero emissions unless you figure out how to hydrogen properly and safely. Crash impact could make a rather nasty bomb out of a pressurized hydrogen tank. Electric cars also have battery disposal issues right now. How do you dispose of lithium ion batteries without pollution. Also the ingredients seem to be a finite material as well. I don't see the internal combustion disappearing as fast as the predictions say.We are still in the infancy of all this technology, and to just declare something is over with because you want it to be isn't reality.We have been dealing with internal combustion engines for 100 years and it probably is time to move on, but we have a way to go. Mass transit on the ground in the U.S. might help a lot. I've always thought Aircraft have been a false economy. There is a need for some sort of high speed rail system transcontinental. Traveling around in cramped quarters at 45000 feet just doesn't appeal to me anymore. If I don't get clear across the United states in 4 hours I can live with that. I particularly like the idea of a system of a mag lev buried in the ground in a tube with low wind resistance at high speed. Expensive yes, but it is close to being a system that could be high speed as well as low emissions.
Considering how large a section of the Islamic world is reliant on oil exports to fund their economies, this seems like an odd choice of thing to do.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The muslim population in Europe has been growing rapidly, both through unrestricted immigration and high fertility rate. Meanwhile 40% children under 5 in Germany have migratory background. Since there are no mechanism to stop this process the outcome is obvious. Remember - SJWs like you will the first victims of islamisation. While they will be cutting off your head you will have enough time to assure yourself it isn't happening.
There is the BMW i8 too.
Nothing more to add.
Carry on.
Don't be so incomplete; It's not just Putin endorsing Trump. You're making it sound like the only country that likes Trump is Russia.
North Korea has endorsed Trump too!
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Sure - Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving.
You're welcome!
For personal transportation the issue is and always will be recharging. Until we get 400kW chargers, it's kind of a step back in personal transportation. That is, basically until we get full-range (300mile / 500km) recharge times down to 15 minutes or less... boo.
I'm pretty sure, if the car manufacturers had until 2030 to solve the problem and then ICEs got cut off they could solve the problem. Battery tech has improved immensely the last 10 years and continues to do so. Give us another dozen years, and give the auto-makers REAL motivation and they'd have this licked.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
In Wales we have some town names longer than Canadian Highways.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
What about the whale oil industry, that is struggling to make a comeback? Is Germany worrying about all those whale oil workers? No they are not.
I've always thought the ocean had too many whales in it. We should be harvesting whales to stop global warming.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I imagine it would have to be one attached to a solar power grid. (although technically emissions were used in the creation of that solar power grid).
Germany's electric system is very heavily centered on renewables, but even they aren't emissions neutral.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Goats.
can accelerate GEREXIT at some point.
I prefer 'Deut-schit'.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
And how do you use electricity to fuel an ICE?
entropy happens
It is a fallacy because in Germany, school holidays start on a different day or even month in each state, precisely for this reason.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
8 km is eminently bike-able, I don't see the problem
It is not that Putin likes Trump, but more like Putin dislikes Hillary Clinton. A few years ago she basically stated that Putin is a soulless prick and he retorted that Hillary is a brainless bimbo.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
several km is eminently bike-able, you don't get into trouble till you get 10+ km away from nearest public transit
(yes having to bike several km is definately a pain, but it's not a no-go)
Oh... nevermind. :)
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It is a fallacy because in Germany, school holidays start on a different day or even month in each state, precisely for this reason.
And yet they all break for christmas within a two day period - according to the timetable.
In this case, you're factually wrong. The argument that one will be able to hire a car for a vacation only works when most people don't hire a car for the vacation. When everybody has a short-range car, the argument breaks down pitifully. It's a stupid argument.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
For personal transportation the issue is and always will be recharging. Until we get 400kW chargers, it's kind of a step back in personal transportation. That is, basically until we get full-range (300mile / 500km) recharge times down to 15 minutes or less... boo.
Spoken like someone with no experience of owning/using an electric vehicle.
For the vast majority of vehicle usage you don't need 300 miles of range, and you certainly don't need 15-minute recharge times. You need enough range to get to and from work, plus a bit for running errands, etc. And you need to be able to recharge overnight. There's no need for fast recharge times, you just need your car to be full every morning, and to have enough range to last until it's time for you to sleep.
Obviously, you also need to be able to plug the car in while you sleep, and I understand that for many apartment-dwellers that's currently a problem. It's far from an insuperable problem, though, it just requires that charging infrastructure be deployed to wherever it is that you park your car.
Where fast charging and long ranges are needed is for long-distance trips. There are various solutions for that, including networks of fast chargers (like Tesla's) or alternative means of long-distance travel (e.g. flying, or trains, assuming we ever make train travel usable in the US again -- which I think may happen. Car-carrying trains with vehicle chargers, anyone?), or ICE vehicle rental, or EV battery swaps, or...
Personally, I usually rent a car for long trips. It's convenient, and cheap.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
[Use of rollers] is done to misrepresent the amount of kilometres a car has actually travelled
"Travel" relative to what? The earth is rotating around its core, revolving around the Sun, and revolving around the galaxy's center. When a car is run on rollers, the odometer accurately measures how far the car has traveled relative to the surface of the rollers. If "travel" is motion relative to the earth, then why doesn't being carried on a car carrier trailer count?
Cite a source for how "travel" is defined, and I'll take it into account in my reply.
Rollers or road, the wheels have still turned that many times, and the odometer is still accurately measuring this. Aren't fuel consumption tests done on rollers as well?
Cite a source for how "mileage" is defined, in particular the effects of importing a used car from a country with a different definition, and I'll take it into account in my reply.
The main reason Putin wants Trump instead of Hillary is and I quote "at least he'd be willing to talk"
(there's vid of the conference where he said that on youtube, can't be assed to find it right now)
Trump is on record (first debate, got remarkably little attention) as having a firm 'No nuclear first strike'
Something neither Hillary nor Obama are willing to commit to
He's also on record as 'we can get along with the russians', while hillary is of the opinion we can just dictate to the russians
The main reason Hillary is more dangerous then trump is that she actively wants and pursues regime change. ,we saw, he died' with regards to khadaffi)
1) she actively voted for the invasion in Irak
2) she actively orchestrated the regime change in libya (there's vid on youtube with her gloating that 'we came
3) she advocated for millitary support for the rebels (including ISIS) in Syria, thus being party responsible for the current out-of-control situation in Syria, where we are closer to a shooting war with Russia then any time since the cuban missile crisis.
4) she is on record as saying "if I become president we *will* invade Iran", and "I want a more muscular foreign policy"
Trump on the other hand wants to get rid of the whole regime-change approach, he wants to focus on America instead.
So yeah, while neither Hillary nor Trump will be good presidents ... Hillary is way more likely then Trump to start WWIII
I would assume that if the fuel is carbon-neutral then so is the ICE.
I believe you (or maybe I) misunderstood what umghhh was getting at, which is understandable given the way he expressed it. My interpretation was that he thinks the "Islamification" of Germany will have a negative impact on either their ability or desire to advance no-ICE technology sufficiently to make a ban politically possible.
For personal transportation the issue is and always will be recharging. Until we get 400kW chargers, it's kind of a step back in personal transportation. That is, basically until we get full-range (300mile / 500km) recharge times down to 15 minutes or less... boo.
Five-minute [or less] recharge could be done if the batteries were mounted in drawer-like banks. You get to the recharging station, pull off a bank and insert other. The station owner do the recharging. Don`t know why Elon Musks of the world didn`t come up with such a simple idea.
no wouldn't, no more than you need a car load of batteries to move a car.
and quit pretending electric tractors don't already exist.
and there's plenty of room for electric in the heavy machinery world too, where most of the vehicles don't use the engine to move, but rather to pressurize a hydraulic system which does the actual work of moving the wheels/treads.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
That would be a first then. Historically the Islamic world has been a nett exporter of technological advance to the West.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
They did, Tesla even had a pilot program for swapping batteries at some of it's supercharger stations. But it didn't work out for some reason.
That would be a first then. Historically the Islamic world has been a nett exporter of technological advance to the West.
There is no doubt that during the Dark Ages, Islamic scholars made a lot of contributions to science and technology, both by preserving ancient Greek texts and by their own study and experimentation. It is more difficult to make a case for the Islamic world's advancement of technology in the last 700 - 800 years or so.
You do realize that mileage is not what makes a car new or used right?
You can buy a used car with 10 miles on it or a new car with 20,000 miles on it. What makes a car used is being sold and regustered or titled to someone other than a dealer or reseller.
Your plan would just make the cars less valuable, but it wouldn't make them used.
I would hope they would add an exception for natural gas powered vehicles for use-cases where pure electrics don't fit.
Hopefully by 2030 these use cases are few, but I imagine that some would still exist.
NGV's are a good compromise as they produce less carbon than gas, and virtually none of the other nasties that have to be filtered out with catalytic converters, urea, etc..
The only reason that programme existed was to tap into subsidies available for such programmes. See for example this analysis.
Theses people don't seem to understand that we will run out of rare earth metals super quick with all those electric cars and that those metals are 10x harder to find and extract than oil.
Be careful on your local rentals and read the rental agreement before you pick up your car. In the US, Sixt offers attractive rental rates, but adds a large surcharge on local renters (those without an itinerary showing they are flying in or out of the area during the rental period) if they take the car out-of-state. Several people that I know have rented from them and were unaware of the policy. I only found out when I went to the pick up my pre-paid rental and informed them that I would be driving the car in Canada (which is what you are supposed to do). The surcharge was for driving the car out-of-state, not just out-of-country. And it would only be charged if Sixt found out you drove out-of-state. One hugely annoying thing related to this is that Sixt is one of the rental car companies that Hotwire works with and Hotwire doesn't tell you which company rental is with until after you pay.
In Germany, the date of school holidays varies between federal states.
There are these things called trains. You can go a long way with a minimal carbon footprint, yes even the diesel electric ones.
America has this well kept secret called Amtrak. But shhh, dont tell everyone otherwise using the train will be like trying to fly, vs 30 minute check-ins, no annoying security/TSA, leg roooooooom, free scenery out the window.
I see you've never been to Europe.
+1. We should also define a sunset date for combustion-based furnaces used to heat homes and buildings. We need the "Heat without Fire" provided by heat pumps -- preferably geothermal heat pumps. bob wyman
An ICE running on bio-ethanol/diesel or hydrogen would be emission-neutral.
Due to school holidays, the majority of people take their vacations at the same time.
We have this amazing thing where supply and demand push people out of peak times, countries stagger school holidays, heck where I live even states stagger the holidays. If what you were saying is such a huge issue it would be impossible to run a hotel.
It's not.
While we're at it you could try reading the first part of my sentence. I know there was a typo in it, but surely you're able to realise that I wasn't pointing out staggered times but rather that the vast majority of people don't drive on vacations.
You appear to be making the somewhat stupid argument that there is no peak period for vacationing. Like I said, that's a stupid argument, and you should feel stupid for making it.
I am making no such argument. But I do feel stupid, especially after trying to reply to someone who has shown an inability to read english.
And yet they all break for christmas within a two day period - according to the timetable [schoolholidayseurope.eu].
Holy shit now you think that Germans go on vacation over Christmas, and futhermore think this is somehow a peak period.
This IS a stupid argument.
Nope, just live here, never been.
Oh you're talking about the road trip thing? You know it's cheaper for me to fly for 30min than it is to pay fuel in the car even when carpooling right?
Oh come now, some of the greatest contributions to fields like astronomy in that era came from the Islamic world, and the arab world as a whole has a history of contribution stretching back much further - the antikithera device was almost certainly made by Arabs - they are the only people who conceivably knew how to make clockwork that long ago. And Islamic scholars and inventors were still major contributors to technological and scientific progress until at least the end of the Ottoman empire (that was at the start of world war one).
The pattern didn't really change until after world war 2 in fact - and America carries most of the blame for that, the rest is carried by the former Soviet Union. It was their proxy wars that fully destabilized the region and their puppet dictators that crushed the Islamic world's long history of evidence based research, seperation of religion and science and technological excellence.
When you institute theocracy - that's what happens. The British had started the trend in the final phases of colonization between the world wars - but it was America and Russia who finished the job of destroying a 4000 year history of scholarship, science, engineering and sceptic thinking and the worst part is the people who did it didn't even care about the region - there was nothing there they really wanted (it's oil riches were mostly not even discovered yet) - they just cared about one-upping each other through proxy wars around the world.
The same thing happened in Africa - one of the things that most hurt post-colonial states was being host to wars between soviet backed and us backed forces fighting the cold war's bloodiest battles for them.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
This stupid argument comes up every time range is mentioned. You *won't* be able to hire a long-range car for your vacation because everyone else is also trying to hire a car for their vacation. If the rental companies keep enough cars for 90% of the population that only gets used twice a year they'll have to raise rates far beyond what you are prepared to pay.
It's a stupid argument, and you should feel silly for using it!
Okay: I feel silly :)
But not that much. What is very likely going to happen is an increase in range and number of charging points in the near future, at the same rate as the sale of electric cars, to the point where it's not going to actually be an impediment to long road trips. But yeah, there are going to be a few years where there will be a lot of friction between supply and demand. So let's assume I can't hire a car: in that case I just plan a longer trip to my destination. My parents used to drive a VW beetle that took 3 days to get to the south of France, at top speed. We just drove during the day, then camped somewhere. Some of the best memories are from those little campings in the hill with a steam train running through at sunset, or in the Italian mountains. It's not a problem if that's once again going to be the norm. In Europe we have rather long holidays.
In the US and elsewhere this may be a real problem though. But only until chargers and capacity increase enough.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
That empty space is a real issue.
It certainly is. Several times a year, I make a 1500-mile (each way) trip. I do it in two days, so spending several hours recharging an electric car every few hundred miles is out of the question, and much of the trip is in empty parts of the country where it's hard enough to find gas stations, let alone charging points. There's no practical mass-transit option; the nearest public airport is 135 miles away.
When I go to visit my daughter and her family, it's an 800+ mile drive. I can fly, but she's 100 miles from a major airport. So the mass-transit-or-fake-taxi argument doesn't work there, either. (Not that I'll use a fake-taxi service anyway, but that's a different argument.)
I have family members living in parts of New England where private cars are really the only means of long-distance transportation available - full stop.
None of this will have changed by 2030.
On the other hand, I've never bought a German car, and haven't been chomping at the bit to do so. I might have been interested in the output of Mercedes, BMW, etc. prior to, oh, 2000 or so; but these days it seems like all their models are full of moronic infotainment devices with idiotic user interfaces, and there's little to distinguish them from their competitors.
It's already solved. There are electrics on the market with 300 mile range, and if you need more range, you can always tweak the designs to sacrifice something in favor of more batteries.
That doesn't mean that a 300+ mile electric car built with today's capability would be a great idea, it's just that it is possible to build one if you really had to. The question of whether anyone can afford that car is also up in the air, and you can't just assume that "if they have till 2030 the'll figure it out." Maybe they will, or maybe it's not possible. You should not make legislation based on technology that you speculate will probably exist someday.
German government actively promoting external combustion engines?
I'm all for that...
Electric tractors for hobby-farms yes. Not for serious agriculture. No way in hell.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Have they thought what this might do to low-income or fixed-income individuals who can't afford a car and suddenly left without transportation?
Yes - Europe already solved that problem decades ago - it's called public transport.
F to that. While don't I and my disabled partner just use the non existent disabled public transport... oh wait it does not exist. Buses, trains, most cars, especially all electric cars available in australasia are not able to cater for our mobility problems, nor access needs. In fact they pose an immense health risk (the kind that leaves you in hospital for months) and never have access to the work, super, or medical locations (like hospitals). While having a million dollars to spend on flash electric designs and refits would be nice we are taking out bank loans to pay for food. So take your ableist hand and shove it right up your a hole and then stick it in your mouth. Removing parking funnily enough does the same. Imagine if you are trapped in a cell because you have no access to the outside... But then again even prisoners get food, medical and do not have to work 8-7 jobs. Being disabled is living hell. It is made infinitely worse by picks like you.
Average human walking speed is 5 km/h so GP is looking at around 3 hours of walking time a day. Do-able but certainly not desirable, particularly if there are steep hills involved, or if GP has some kind of health condition, or if the weather is shit.
While don't I and my disabled partner just use the non existent disabled public transport... oh wait it does not exist. Buses, trains, most cars, especially all electric cars available are not able to cater for our mobility problems, nor access needs. In fact they pose an immense health risk (the kind that leaves you in hospital for months) and never have access to the work, super, or medical locations (like hospitals). While having a million dollars to spend on flash electric designs and refits would be nice we are taking out bank loans to pay for food. So take your ableist notions that magically all disabilities and access needs will be magically cured with electric PT. Removing parking funnily enough does the same. Imagine if you are trapped in a cell because you have no access to the outside... But then again even prisoners get food, medical and do not have to work 8-7 jobs. Being disabled is living hell. It is made infinitely worse by ppl like you.
Does that airport have car rentals? In my not-so-humble opinion, you're kind of doing it wrong.
Sigh. You don't say which airport you're referring to, so let's assume it's the shorter trip. (For the longer one rental is an even worse option, for reasons I shall not go into now.)
Drive to local airport (as that is the only economically feasible option). Park car, at $20-$30 / day. Fly to remote airport. Rent some crap vehicle similar to my car, but much less pleasant, for a week at $400 or so. Drive over a hundred miles to destination. Reverse process for return trip.
Essentially the same amount of time spent in transit, but with the additional benefits of commercial air travel, which these days is only slightly less pleasant than outpatient surgery sans anesthesia. Oh, and the "local" airport with reasonably-priced flights to this particular destination is about 90 miles from home, so I still have 25% of the total driving distance. But it's far more expensive, so there's that.
Yes, that's so much better. You're a genius.
That would be awesome ! never again hearing stupid ban ideas. The key is to make something better and all people would note alone to that, that idea of banning sounds like from Trump's head
Have they thought what this might do to low-income or fixed-income individuals who can't afford a car and suddenly left without transportation?
Yes - Europe already solved that problem decades ago - it's called public transport.
While don't I and my disabled partner just use the non existent disabled public transport... oh wait it does not exist. Buses, trains, most cars, especially all electric cars available are not able to cater for our mobility problems, nor access needs. In fact they pose an immense health risk (the kind that leaves you in hospital for months) and never have access to the work, super, or medical locations (like hospitals). While having a million dollars to spend on flash electric designs and refits would be nice we are taking out bank loans to pay for food. . So take your ableist notions that all disabilities and access needs will be magically cured with electric PT in a puff of eco friendly smoke. Removing parking funnily enough does the same. Imagine if you are trapped in a cell because you have no access to the outside... But then again even prisoners get food, medical and do not have to work 8-7 jobs.
Europe also solved this problem years ago. I have relatives who are disabled, and too poor to afford a car. The state bought them one, and kitted it out with the relevant equipment to allow them to use it.
The first of many, i hope :-)