China Joins the Growing Movement To Ban Gasoline, Diesel Cars (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: China has become the latest country to publicly discuss plans to ban the production and sale of gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles. In July, both France and the UK published plans to phase out sales of conventionally powered vehicles by 2040. China will now add another nail to the coffin of the internal combustion engine. However, unlike the French or British plans, in this case there's no target date -- yet. The news comes from an automotive policy forum in Tianjin. China's vice minister of industry and information technology, Xin Guobin, said that his ministry has begun work on a timetable to phase out fossil fueled vehicles. The Xinhua news agency also reports that Xin told automakers they need to begin to "readjust their strategies" accordingly. For foreign car companies hoping to sell EVs in China, that will mean investing in the country, as imported vehicles come with stiff import duties attached.

Comments

'Alternative energy'

[Anonymous Coward]

..so, more rickshaws and fewer cars?

Re:'Alternative energy'

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Long-term, light electrically powered vehicles are probably the best choice from both the manufacturing cost perspective and the operating cost perspective. Both financially and environmentally. But chances are that in a future where all faster and heavier vehicles are obligatorily automated, even "traditional" larger vehicles could probably enjoy diminished resource expenditure by omitting safety features unnecessary in an environment without drunkards and tired people behind the steering wheel etc.

Re:'Alternative energy'

[ShanghaiBill]

..so, more rickshaws and fewer cars?

Electric rickshaws have been common in China for decades. There are dozens of models to choose from.

Re:'Alternative energy'

[Anonymous Coward]

While the case is quite clear about manufacturing and operating costs, I doubt that 1 million EV's could have escaped from Miami last week. They all would have gone 200 miles and needed a recharge. One million extension cords plugged into Disneyland would be quite the sight.

Re: 'Alternative energy'

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. What a shit hole.

taking a ride on one of those after you bribe a politician is fun, I guess.

In China nothing gets done unless money exchanged hands.

Re:'Alternative energy'

[BouncingBob]

Funny how one extreme use case is held up as an excuse for not changing things. Using the "200 miles" as a distance limit is telling, as it assumes that the technology will not improve at all, when it has already improved a great deal in the last decade.Charging technology is also improving greatly, it's ridiculous to assume that there won't be sufficient charging capacity installed as the number of electrics on the road increases.
Consider this - auto driving cars would be able to convoy to reduce energy usage, and smoother traffic flow from auto-driving vehicles would reduce slowdowns and jams. That alone will greatly improve evacuation efficiency. This technology is rapidly approaching market, any electric car produced in 10 years should be capable of this functionality.
So, instead of 10 hours on the road to go 200 miles, we have the scenario of 4 hours on the road, followed by an hour to charge, and then back on the road to go another 200 miles before the old-style cars would have made it to the first stop. (Though realistically we should see 300-400 miles between charges)

Re:'Alternative energy'

[Joce640k]

More gas for the USA!

Trumps's plan is working, America will be back in the 1950's again before we know it!

Re:'Alternative energy'

[harvey the nerd]

Works wonders on independent 3rd world air pollution sources, such as poorly maintained cars, and for authoritarian governments...

Re:'Alternative energy'

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, you could have one large 40-ton container truck running diesel generators and charging cars as they move along the road.

Venezuela will be happy about that

[jfdavis668]

Their oil dependent Allie will be happy to hear about that

Re:Venezuela will be happy about that

[Anonymous Coward]

Allie

You should have gone to school.

Re:Venezuela will be happy about that

[Anonymous Coward]

As if China could care less about Venezuela . . .

Re:Venezuela will be happy about that

[Anonymous Coward]

Maduro is concerned with not getting killed and having his corpse dragged through the streets of Caracas next year, he couldn't give two shits about some plan for 2040.

Re:Venezuela will be happy about that

[Anonymous Coward]

You should of gone to school.

FTFY

Re:Venezuela will be happy about that

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you did not.

Re:Venezuela will be happy about that

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'should' is possessive, so yes.

Re:Venezuela will be happy about that

[Anonymous Coward]

YFFT

FTFY

Re:Venezuela will be happy about that

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was possessive it would be 'should. So no.

Trump pumps his fist, yessss, coal cars finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Coal-fired cars are about to go bigly bigleague, stupid uuuge Gyna is playing right into my hands.

Different motive

[Anonymous Coward]

China gives rats ass about the global warming and the environment. This is about how US and European countries control the global oil reserves leaving China with crumbs. Do you think China wants to deal with countries like Sudan and other tin-pot dictators? This is about China gaining independence from the current status quo where they aren't able to compete.

Re:Different motive

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because it's their uuuge hoax! China, the land of tricksters and elaborate pranks. "Oooh, poisonous air and water, you got me Xi! Good wan!"

Re:Different motive

[DMJC]

This is why we should all be moving off oil. Let the Arab princes fight in their crappy sandpit. They can do it without our money and without our support. We can go back to working on more worthwhile pursuits like space travel.

Re:Different motive

[Archangel Michael]

The US is currently more or less self dependent for Oil, having larger reserves than most of the ME countries ... combined. We don't control the world like people think, OPEC does.

And it makes sense to cut resources you have to import (in China's and Europe's case) and not give money to people who want to blow you up for being an Infidel.I honestly wish them well.

The US will get there, when it is economically reasonable to do so. But unlike China, and some of the European countries, we do not have a centrally planned economy.

Re:Different motive

[fiannaFailMan]

The Saudis seem to have seen the writing on the wall, hence their recent moves (under their younger princes) to diversify their economy. More education, research, and (gasp) the levying of taxes.

Re:Different motive

[Archangel Michael]

I honestly wish them well.

For clarification sake only ... "them" refers to those that want to cut resource usage (China and Europe), not the people wanting to blow you up. ;) :-D

Re:Different motive

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is currently more or less self dependent for Oil, having larger reserves than most of the ME countries ... combined.

A factually deficient statement, since average oil reserves than most of the Middle Eastern countries (ill-defined as that is), tells you nothing about US consumption or production versus reserves. Also relies on people thinking most Middle Eastern countries are members of OPEC.

We don't control the world like people think, OPEC does.

Keep telling yourself that.

And it makes sense to cut resources you have to import (in China's and Europe's case) and not give money to people who want to blow you up for being an Infidel.I honestly wish them well.

Good point, that is why American should be boycotted.

The US will get there, when it is economically reasonable to do so. But unlike China, and some of the European countries, we do not have a centrally planned economy.

That's nice, but actually, the vehicles in the market are regulated, and there are many standards in place to control them because they interact with the public space, not the private. Same as any other functional country.

Of course, with President Orange Toupee in charge, he'd likely demand all vehicles install a Dukes of Hazard Dixie horn as a memorial to the saintly General Lee.

Re:Different motive

[MightyMartian]

I have a feeling that in a hundred years, the Arabian Peninsula will be covered in solar collectors, and they'll still be an energy superpower.

The fact is that everyone knows oil is doomed. At this point, the oil barons are more interested in eking out another couple of decades of profits before fossil fuels are put to bed for good. Watching the faux skeptics around here is like watching a meeting of flat Earthers, half of them knowing what they're saying is idiotic, but just unable to give up their pointless contrarianism.

Re:Different motive

[blindseer]

I also believe that in 100 years the Arabian peninsula will be covered in sheets of silicon, but for a different reason. They won't be photovoltaic but they'll still be forged with intense heat. The rest of the world will be better off though, living a life free from carbon dug from the ground. Also free from the energy superpowers in Saudi Arabia.

How would the people on the Arabian peninsula export this energy? Are they going to turn the sun into liquid hydrogen and ship that out or something? Arizona is just as big as the Arabian peninsula, closer to the people in the USA, Canada, and Mexico, and free from the endless wars in the region. I can make similar arguments for India, China, Russia, Brazil, or most any nation large and small.

Whatever energy source comes to replace oil is not likely to come from the Middle East. Whatever they have, except oil, the rest of the world also has plenty of access to. No one is going to have to go to the Middle East to get more of whatever that might be.

Re:Different motive

[that this is not und]

Very little oil from the Arabian Peninsula makes it into the US. The United States produces mostly all the oil it needs internally now.

Re:Different motive

[CrashNBrn]

Oil isn't going anywhere... until it's gone. A partial list of products made from petroleum (144 of 6000 items):

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like: Solvents, Diesel fuel, Motor Oil, Bearing Grease, Ink, Floor Wax, Ballpoint Pens, Football Cleats, Upholstery, Sweaters, Boats, Insecticides, Bicycle Tires, Sports Car Bodies, Nail Polish, Fishing lures, Dresses, Tires, Golf Bags, Perfumes, Cassettes, Dishwasher parts, Tool Boxes, Shoe Polish, Motorcycle Helmet, Caulking, Petroleum Jelly, Transparent Tape, CD Player, Faucet Washers, Antiseptics, Clothesline, Curtains, Food Preservatives, Basketballs, Soap, Vitamin Capsules, Antihistamines, Purses, Shoes, Dashboards, Cortisone, Deodorant, Footballs, Putty, Dyes, Panty Hose, Refrigerant, Percolators, Life Jackets, Rubbing Alcohol, Linings, Skis, TV Cabinets, Shag Rugs, Electrician's Tape, Tool Racks, Car Battery Cases, Epoxy, Paint, Mops, Slacks, Insect Repellent, Oil Filters, Umbrellas, Yarn, Fertilizers, Hair Coloring, Roofing, Toilet Seats, Fishing Rods, Lipstick, Denture Adhesive, Linoleum, Ice Cube Trays, Synthetic Rubber, Speakers, Plastic Wood, Electric Blankets, Glycerin, Tennis Rackets, Rubber Cement, Fishing Boots, Dice, Nylon Rope, Candles, Trash Bags, House Paint, Water Pipes, Hand Lotion, Roller Skates, Surf Boards, Shampoo, Wheels, Paint Rollers, Shower Curtains, Guitar Strings, Luggage, Aspirin, Safety Glasses, Antifreeze, Football Helmets, Awnings, Eyeglasses, Clothes, Toothbrushes, Ice Chests, Footballs, Combs, CD's & DVD's, Paint Brushes, Detergents, Vaporizers, Balloons, Sun Glasses, Tents, Heart Valves, Crayons, Parachutes, Telephones, Enamel, Pillows, Dishes, Cameras, Anesthetics, Artificial Turf, Artificial limbs, Bandages, Dentures, Model Cars, Folding Doors, Hair Curlers, Cold cream, Movie film, Soft Contact lenses, Drinking Cups, Fan Belts, Car Enamel, Shaving Cream, Ammonia, Refrigerators, Golf Balls, Toothpaste, Gasoline Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel.

From: http://www.ranken-energy.com/p...

Re:Different motive

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of those products are ALSO on the way out!

Diesel Fuel, Motor Oil, Cassettes, Shoe Polish, Panty Hose, Shag Rugs, Oil Filters, Movie film, Fan Belts, Shaving Cream... If the list were sorted by percentage of petroleum demand, I'm sure Diesel Fuel and Motor Oil would rank high -- and electric vehicles will eliminate those items.

I think demand for petroleum would drop to 25% of its current level when electric vehicles fill the markets around the world. Ships and trains might be the final holdouts...

Re:Different motive

[ShanghaiBill]

Arizona is just as big as the Arabian peninsula

You should learn to read a map. AP is more than 10 times the size of Arizona.

Re:Different motive

[careysub]

Very little oil from the Arabian Peninsula makes it into the US.

More or less true. In 2016 6.8% of all U.S. oil consumption was supplied by the Arabian Peninsula. Not a lot, but hardly nothing - it is 1/8 of U.S. imports.

The United States produces mostly all the oil it needs internally now.

In 2016 the U.S. produced 45% of the petroleum that it consumed, less than half. This is down slightly from 2015 (48%) when Saudi Arabia ramped up production, cut oil prices, and shut down U.S. exploitation of high priced tight oil.

A bit over half of our imports come from Canada and Mexico, and the rest mostly comes from OPEC.

Re:Different motive

[careysub]

The US is currently more or less self dependent for Oil, having larger reserves than most of the ME countries ... combined.

Rydberg Energy's most recent estimate has (using the estimate type most favorable to the U.S., which is the most speculative) finds the U.S. to have slightly less oil than Saudi Arabia alone. Throw in other Middle Eastern countries and it is well more than 2-to-1 to the U.S. disadvantage.

Re:Different motive

[blindseer]

Dammit, I missed a decimal place!

So what if it takes the area of India to get as much sun. (Did I get that right? Within 10% at least?) That solar energy is worthless if they can't ship it out somehow. Less than worthless if the rest of the world can get it from a closer and friendlier nation, connected by land. Mexico comes to mind for the Americas. (Yes, Mexico is like half the area of the Arabian peninsula but it's also not halfway around the world.)

It's not like there is a lack of land area between 30 degrees north and south on Earth. Middle East nations have a near monopoly on oil due to having a fairly unique access to this natural resource. If solar power replaces oil then they lose that monopoly. Europe (which has a voracious appetite for energy) might be connected by land to the Middle East which would make shipment of solar energy pretty trivial, no matter what form they ship it in, but Africa and Asia are just as close. (Yes, I can read a map. Africa is separated by water from Europe, so drop some wires and pipes in the water for that relatively short distance. It's been done before.)

Re:Different motive

[harvey the nerd]

Ships will do fine with LNG. If ocean harvesting of methane hydrate works out, huge supplies.

Re:Different motive

[Hognoxious]

That solar energy is worthless if they can't ship it out somehow.

Simple. Get two mirrors, and place them *exactly* parallel. Do I have to do all the thinking around here?

P.S. They go shiny sides *in*.

Re: Different motive

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that's still a co2 emitting fossil right?

Re:Different motive

[AmiMoJo]

It will be a long time before it becomes economically responsible for the US to move away from oil. It generates a lot of profit and tax revenue, and most of the costs are externalized to other people who don't matter and are easily fooled into thinking that it's good for them.

Re:Different motive

[dave420]

"We". You're not controlling this.

Re:Different motive

[AmiMoJo]

Look at IKEA. For all their faults, they manage to make cheap but good furniture out of materials like wood and cotton, which don't create landfill problems and which are sustainable. When they use plastic, they try to use as much recycled material as possible.

Just saying "we need oil to make model cars, curtains, yarn, pillows and folding doors" and therefore must consume all that is available is not even trying. No surprise from the Ranken Energy Corporation of course, but it's not like you can't make a lot of that stuff either out of other things or out of recycled plastic.

Is there really no way to manufacture a drinking cup without oil? How did people consume beverages before plastics were available?

Re:Different motive

[fiannaFailMan]

How would the people on the Arabian peninsula export this energy? Are they going to turn the sun into liquid hydrogen and ship that out or something?

Electricity is actually quite easy to move through cables.

Re:Different motive

[wyHunter]

I'm a human caused climate change skeptic, but I welcome new fuels and power sources. Sorry, your stereotypes are not universally true. However, the range IS a reasonable concern. I live 50 miles from the nearest supermarket and fuel station. It's quite easy to keep fuel in cans with stabilizer. Huge batteries for charging cars aren't yet an option when there's no power - a fairly common happening where I live. If we had batteries with really high energy density I'd welcome leaving internal combustion behind - maybe in another 20 years (It'll come when fusion does!).

Re:Different motive

[wyHunter]

That's good, because digging through that glass might be long term hazardous due to the radiation.

Re:Different motive

[Archangel Michael]

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Ene...

That is the report I was looking at.

What battery will be used?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not enough lithium in the earth to make enough batteries to replace everyones car with an EVs.
I'm really looking forward to HCCI engines (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition), such as Mazda's SkyActiv-X engine, taking over until better battery technology is invented using more available elements on earth.

Re:What battery will be used?

[ChrisMaple]

In the Earth's crust there is about 65 thousand tons of lithium per person now living. That seems like enough to me.

Re:What battery will be used?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are on the ground you are literally standing on lithium, you insensitive clod!

Re:What battery will be used?

[careysub]

A 2011 study found 39 million tons of economically recoverable lithium (at current prices). Allowing for an 80 kWH battery (Tesla's have 70, IIRC) EVs would use about 20 kg of lithium (this costs about $180). So this will build 2 billion EV cars (there are only one billion cars on Earth right now), or twice that if we go with 40 kWH batteries. So there enough lithium for a lot of vehicles.

The "lithium reserve" estimate is very soft (on the upper end). Unlike oil it is not intensively exploited so many worldwide resources are likely undiscovered or underestimated. And as is true of many resources, modest increases in price will likely greatly expand the reserves. We can afford to spend more for that 20 kg of lithium.

BTW, there is also enough platinum for about 2 billion Mirai type hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Re:What battery will be used?

[harvey the nerd]

So the other 7 billion people can wait to thumb a ride...

Re:What battery will be used?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Earth's crust there is about 65 thousand tons of lithium per person now living. That seems like enough to me.

To be fair when combustions engines started you could have said the same about oil .....

Re:What battery will be used?

[Hognoxious]

The reason you can't say that now might be due to the fact that once you burn the oil, it's gone. CMIIR, but I think lithium batteries can be used more than once.

Re:What battery will be used?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it can be represented with a 16-bit integer too!

65 thousand tons ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:What battery will be used?

[Maritz]

Batteries get recharged numerous times. Oil gets burnt. Not the right comparison.

Re:What battery will be used?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you can't say that now might be due to the fact that once you burn the oil, it's gone. CMIIR, but I think lithium batteries can be used more than once.

Citation Please!

Re:What battery will be used?

[xtronics]

You do realize that oil gets burnt to recharge those batteries - and to manufacture them??

Probably not - most people don't think very deep - just parrot the PC stuff.

Anyway - batteries have this thing called a cycle life - you can with a bit of math -- or rather just simple arithmetic - calculate the cost of delivering the total power of the battery over it's life time -- it is twice that of ICE power... and that assumes the cost of the electricity to charge them is zero - which it isn't - and assumes one can't figure out that most of the electricity used to charge them comes from carbon based fuel.

The cost of the batteries is kept down by not noticing the use of slave labor to mine it.

So this is irrational.

Anyway - here is the real answer you are looking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

2040?

[93 Escort Wagon]

That's a nice, far-away target date that lets people feel good about themselves without actually having to do anything. Plus there's plenty of time to extend the deadline when it eventually approaches (or just quietly ignore it at that point, given there are likely no enforceable deadlines or penalties associated with the plan).

Re:2040?

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But this is China.

They will just change the laws as they see fit, and enforce it. If they choose too.

Re:2040?

[Applehu Akbar]

That's a nice, far-away target date that lets people feel good about themselves without actually having to do anything.

That is what would happen if it were Europe or the US. But we're talking about a country whose government is as studded with engineers as ours is with lawyers.

Re:2040?

[slack_justyb]

That's a nice, far-away target date that lets people feel good about themselves

Maybe

without actually having to do anything

Oh do not confuse good vibes with actual industry. The lithium market is really getting competitive and China stands to earn a lot in the export of raw materials. China pretty much is in some ratio promoting clean cars and the fact they want to make a lot of money on this resource that they sit on. If you're cynical, I guess you could call that ratio as 10/90 or if you are optimistic you could say it is 50/50, but one cannot just say clean cars without also saying China pumping up a new industry and hoping to cash in.

Plus there's plenty of time to extend the deadline when it eventually approaches

True, but investors don't like to wait. Look at ETF and it's prices over the last year. It's gone from ~$20 to ~$38 with an increase in investment of about $41 million this year alone. They've very much indicated that come 2025~2030 they intend to see some of that initial investment pay off. Now will that amount to anything? No, investors aren't gods and they can't make a government that actively refuses to switch, switch. But they are busy little bees at times.

Either way, it is still a monumental task to do what these governments say they want to do. However, thinking that there's no pressure for them to do that is folly at best.

Re:2040?

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains this, then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ

Re:2040?

[ChrisMaple]

Their engineers are just as good at engineering as our lawyers are.

Re:2040?

[that this is not und]

Political Engineers, who belong to a cadre-based political party.

Re:2040?

[blindseer]

Is that because they send so many engineering students to the USA to learn or in spite of it?

Re:2040?

[Dutch Gun]

China is not a western democracy. You may recall that they're not shy of implementing what we would consider draconian, even brutal measures to solve a perceived problem. Do you recall China's population problem, and how they dealt with that? At the moment, their country is drowning in air pollution.

I'm not saying this admiringly, as this is simply the manifest power of an authoritarian government, and not something we should seek to emulate (speaking of the means, not the end). I'm willing to bet there's a good chance China will follow through with their promises here. It's not for some noble or abstract reason like "saving the planet." They've got a severe pollution problem that's affecting *everyone's* health - including the party elite. As such, there's a very high motivation to solve this issue.

Re:2040?

[Hadlock]

It's a major piece of public policy, yes it doesn't cost anything (today) but it puts China firmly on the pro side of the Paris climate agreement. China is either #1 or #2 in nearly any statistic that matters, people are going to pay attention to this, and companies are going to have to take this in to account when designing tooling for cars, maybe not today, but certainly in 10 years. A lot of tooling that gets built is run for 20+ years.
 
There's going to be a big shift in designing cars as 100% gas or hybrid electric to "must be designed to be electric only" here in the next 10 years, and nobody wants to get stuck with hundreds of millions of dollars in tooling that can only make a banned product. As soon as you start producing cars capable of running electric-only, you might as well offer them in electric-only because... why not? Initiating a ban, no matter how far out, is going to push businesses to start making the necessary investments now, which is only going to accelerate electric vehicle adoption.

Re:2040?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only about 22 years away. Lifetime of most cars is about 15 years, well maintained can easily go 22 years. Any shorter and they risk upsetting car owners when the regulations for inner city traffic goes zero-emission cars only.

Re:2040?

[Gussington]

That's a nice, far-away target date that lets people feel good about themselves without actually having to do anything.

China went from the equivalent of the 16th century to the 21st in about 30 years. They are the most doingest government in human history. Sure they have a lot of internal issues too, but doing stuff isn't one of them.

Re:2040?

[harvey the nerd]

The copying-est one also.

Re:2040?

[drinkypoo]

I'm willing to bet there's a good chance China will follow through with their promises here.

There is, but not because China is special. It's because odds are good that by 2040 there will be vanishingly few non-EVs produced. That's why the date they picked is meaningless non-news.

Re:2040?

[thegarbz]

given there are likely no enforceable deadlines or penalties associated with the plan

You are writing from an American perspective. There is a plan in place. The deadlines and penalties will be decided when people don't meet the plan, and they will be severe or will require a lot of bribing otherwise.

China is nothing if not good on following through with their promises, and this is directly in line with the strategy that they are already adopting to become the dominant EV producer and market in the world.

Re:2040?

[thegarbz]

Their engineers are just as good at engineering as our lawyers are.

Their engineers are among the best in the world. We should know, we trained them.

Don't conflate cheap construction practices, and built to the lowest cost products with incompetent engineering.

Re:2040?

[Gussington]

The copying-est one also.

True, but the tech already exists so they don't need to invent anything to achieve the goal.

In retaliation ...

[JaneTheIgnorantSlut]

... the US will ban all automobiles that get more the 15 MPG.

Re:In retaliation ...

[GLMDesigns]

Hey. In 20-30 years electric vehicles will make gasoline vehicles obsolete. No one in the US, or anyplace else, will be buying ICE cars if electric is cheaper and better. This is a feel good law. It makes the fools feel like governments are "doing something."

Re:In retaliation ...

[HornWumpus]

Yep. Also note if the trends don't bear out, they will extend the life of IC engines as long as they need to.

Meaningless propaganda.

Re:In retaliation ...

[avandesande]

Fortunately if electric makes serious inroads on ICE engines I should be able to get gas for 1$ a gallon and extend the usefulness of my current car another couple of decades.

Re:In retaliation ...

[blindseer]

What if they get it wrong? I mean if electric vehicles are the future then just let it happen, no need to force it along with bans and subsidies.

We saw this with the CFL bulb subsidies. The government would give large rebates for people to buy CFL lighting but the bulbs are crap. They take 20 minutes to "warm up", interfere with IR remotes (that nearly drove me batty until I figured out that the lamp was what kept the TV remote from working), can't handle the heat of being in a closed fixture (who lights their house entirely with floor lamps and chandeliers?), and contain toxic mercury (broken bulbs happen, and in places like where our children sleep and where we prepare their food). Not long after LED lights came out and they are awesome. They light up immediately, don't interfere with remote controls, and don't burn themselves out if in a common light fixture. They aren't perfect, for example they still have a "funny" color to them, but they are getting better. Does anyone even buy CFLs anymore now that LEDs are just as cheap?

If not electric vehicles then what? I don't know, but as I recall few people saw LEDs coming to market as quickly as they did. What if the claims of algae based diesel fuel becomes a reality? Are we still going to ban internal combustion engines? Maybe ethanol gets real cheap because we found a new way to make it. Maybe we get synthesized hydrocarbons from wind and wave powered factories.

As inefficient as an internal combustion engine might be that inefficiency becomes largely irrelevant if the means to produce, store, and transport the fuels becomes "green", cheap, and plentiful. If algal fuels become viable then we aren't using electricity to produce it, it comes from the sun. If we can convert sun power to motive power by algae more efficiently than through photovoltaic panels and batteries then banning internal combustion engines is a problem.

Let's not repeat past mistakes.

Re:In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're sayinbg when the facts change some people change their minds. Pitty you're too stupid too.

Re:In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey. We've had electric lights for at least 100 years, but candles and oil lamps haven't gone anywhere.

Re:In retaliation ...

[that this is not und]

Does anyone even buy CFLs anymore now that LEDs are just as cheap?

I predict that the same jackasses who demanded that we switch to CFL lamps will become the loudest proponents of banning them, and not just banning them, setting up hazardous disposal teams to remove them.

They, of course, have a certified Hazardous Waste Disposal company they could suggest.

Re:In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we get synthesized hydrocarbons from wind and wave powered factories.

Synthesized hydrocarbons generated by your butt-hole

Re:In retaliation ...

[blindseer]

I remember seeing some CFL bulbs on the shelf that advertise "reduced mercury content". Hmm, so you're saying they still contain mercury? Isn't mercury bad for you? Even in "reduced" amounts? No thanks.

I'll use the CFL bulbs I have until they burn out because that's a sunk cost but I won't buy more. This is especially true now that I've seen the real life lifespan of these bulbs, I have incandescent bulbs that lasted many times longer.

Also, wouldn't be just as "green" if we used LED (or even incandescent) lights powered from wind or solar?

Dear Senator,
Fix the problem at the source, don't mandate that I buy a lower quality bulb. Let people build some nuclear power plants already. Don't mandate nuclear power. Don't subsidize it. Just let people do it.

Re:In retaliation ...

[David_Hart]

As inefficient as an internal combustion engine might be that inefficiency becomes largely irrelevant if the means to produce, store, and transport the fuels becomes "green", cheap, and plentiful. If algal fuels become viable then we aren't using electricity to produce it, it comes from the sun. If we can convert sun power to motive power by algae more efficiently than through photovoltaic panels and batteries then banning internal combustion engines is a problem.

Let's not repeat past mistakes.

The combustion engine, no matter what fuel it runs on, isn't going anywhere. There will always be instances where people need to go places or do things that require fast refueling using a portable energy dense substance in the middle of nowhere. That just isn't solar or batteries. For example, there is no way that anyone is going to own a boat that requires a week to charge using solar just to go from one side of a lake to another. And, yes, I'm talking about the 30% or so of things that we do that occurs nowhere near charging stations or even where they would be feasible. It could be that we end up using a renewable fuel source for these ICE engines, it just won't be electric.

Re: In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why repeat current mistakes?

CFLs were practical for lamps in the 1970s. The patents were filed. Demonstration products existed. Extant Light bulb companies didn't want to invest in new factories. Then the patents expired. And a Chinese company started marketing.

The subsidies and phase out came later, and when it comes to LEDs more public money was invested in funding those developments than you may realize. Mostly to keep patent encumbrances from hindering development.

The mercury was always overwrought hysteria. You had more injury risk from falling while changing a bulb than from the mercury. Which was all over the place anyway in the big tubes in stores and offices.

ICE are being regulated due to the tailpipe, not the pump, so no, no, they won't last, nor will any of your solutions impact it.

Might have rid ourselves of the TEL, a far worse disaster, but you can't change the rest. Unless you have a unicorn.

Re: In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let people build a nuclear plant? Even dumber than usual.

Risks of operation aside, just the transmission connections alone require miles and miles of public rights of way.

The fact is, nobody would invest in a single solitary reactor without a guaranteed purchaser. And the continued failures at reactors today show a lack of concern that requires constant oversight. Which means you need large reactors, not basement ones.

So you need tens of billions in commitment. Or we can spend fewer billions getting you better bulbs that use less energy, last longer, and light better. Not that you care, being blind.

Which leaves us billions for options that do work, such as solar, wind, and improving other technology. Like home building. Insulation works very well at saving power.

Nuclear has failed, you had your chance, it has some utility, but you might as well plan on Mr. Fusion.

Re:In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Algal fuels will never become viable. There's way more than just Sun involved. Spectacular growth rate is all algae has got going for it. It's all trouble and show stoppers from there. First problem- separating algae from the water it grows in. Solve that and you'll be a rich man. Don't say centrifuges- those don't scale past pilot scale.

Re:In retaliation ...

[R3d M3rcury]

Fortunately if electric makes serious inroads on ICE engines I should be able to get gas for 1$

Not necessarily. What will end up happening is that they'll just pump less oil and make less gasoline so that they can keep the price up.

No, I would think the price of gasoline will go up, not down, because there will be fewer customers, eliminating some of the "economy of scale."

Re:In retaliation ...

[Gussington]

I mean if electric vehicles are the future then just let it happen, no need to force it along with bans and subsidies.

So your argument is that subsidies don't work, despite every major boost in human progress being funded in someway by subsidies?

Re:In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they get it wrong? I mean if electric vehicles are the future then just let it happen, no need to force it along with bans and subsidies.

Problem is that we have ignored emissions. This means that you are allowed to use an ICE without collecting the emissions.
That by itself is a huge subsidy that people tend to ignore since they've always been allowed to do that.
We can either subsidize non-emissive vehicles or ban vehicles from emitting.
We went for the first alternative since the other would cause so many problems.

Re: In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are talking about reactors from the 1950s. How about we avoid all the mess and build something newer. Something from the 1970s. A technology abandoned for 40 years because it was worthless for making weapons. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, or LFTR (pronounced "lifter").

https://www.geek.com/science/f...

If you are going to talk about future advancements in lighting and windmills from billions in research then lets put some of that into nuclear power. You might be amazed at what it can do if only people let it happen.

These thorium people don't want money, just permission. So it costs the government nothing but shutting up about how things can't be done and watch them get things done. The article is about the Dutch doing this but if you look then you will see China and India doing this too. Japan might be involved as well, once they clean up the mess from their failed molten sodium experiment.

Re:In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

With synthetic fuels the emissions are not ignored, they are collected at the fuel synthesis plant. Think about it. The fuel is burned, the exhaust gases go into the air, and in the next rain the water and CO2 is washed out to sea where it's collected into the factory again to make more fuel. The circuit is closed. No new carbon, so long as the process is powered by something carbon free, like wind, wave, sun, geothermal, or nuclear.

Why would the people buy the synthetic fuel instead of the petroleum? Make it cheaper than any petroleum and people will not even think of anything else. Can it be made cheaper? Sure, it's just a matter of time.

Re:In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

CFLs are kinda the Betamax of that field (except LEDs weren't ready, so it's not entirely fair). The technology which fits that niche in low-emission vehicles is hydrogen: close, no cigar. Now the market has settled on batteries, it's time to drive adoption.

Re:In retaliation ...

[thegarbz]

What if they get it wrong? I mean if electric vehicles are the future then just let it happen, no need to force it along with bans and subsidies.

If you remove all government intervention and let the free market decide anything you end up with anarchy. Remember the present situation is not a result of any free market.

What will happen if you don't force it along? The same thing that happens when a company which doesn't care about anything but profit produces the cheapest thing for people who don't care about the environment, and who then go crying when they can't see the end of the street through the smog.

We saw this with the CFL bulb subsidies.

Yes we did. People the world over reduced their energy consumption. The introduction of a product with obvious downside caused a big shift in R&D and as a result we now have excellent LED bulbs to thank for it. LEDs wouldn't have replaced the incandescent in the USA without any government intervention, but they had a lot of incentives to beat out CFLs.

and contain toxic mercury (broken bulbs happen, and in places like where our children sleep and where we prepare their food).

I'd be more worried about getting hit by a meteorite, no..... having my children get hit by a meteorite while they sleep. That is really scary. If on the other hand you do fear 2.5mg of mercury breaking ... lets say once per year in the vicinity of your children, I suggest you never ever eat fish, and certainly not in the recommended weekly levels recommended for healthy people.

What if the claims of algae based diesel fuel becomes a reality? Are we still going to ban internal combustion engines? Maybe ethanol gets real cheap because we found a new way to make it. Maybe we get synthesized hydrocarbons from wind and wave powered factories.

Aside that you're failing to see the problem of burning things with carbon in the name, algae won't become a reality as there is little need or incentive to increase R&D. ... Unlike say LEDs when the incandescent ban was announced and CFL still showed many ugly downsides.

Maybe this ban will actually spur some R&D for alternatives.

Re:In retaliation ...

[swb]

For example, there is no way that anyone is going to own a boat that requires a week to charge using solar just to go from one side of a lake to another.

Check out the Greenline hybrid -- supposedly it can make about 4 knots solely off the solar panels covering the salon and somewhat faster (9 knots?) for a number of hours off battery alone. It also has a single diesel which uses some kind of clutch mechanism to run as a generator, turn the prop shaft or both. I'm guessing they run the generator as a motor when running off electric power.

I boat on an inland lake (as do millions of other Americans) and most of the time we don't go that far -- maybe 10 miles in a day, usually with a long period spent at anchor swimming and lounging, and our use pattern is really common. I think an electric setup or probably some kind of hybrid setup would totally be practical. The distances we have to travel don't make running at planing speeds very useful, it's like 4-5 times the fuel consumption for 2 times the speed improvement.

So I think for this category of boating, an all-electric boat would almost be practical. We have 30A shore power for charging and if the range on batteries was only 20 miles at about 9 knots (roughly hull speed without planing) it would be more than adequate. It'd probably make sense to have a generator option for battery charging or running in ICE-electric mode. Plus electric motors would make propulsion simpler, we could eliminate the need for a transmission to step down shaft speeds or provide reverse gearing.

Our boat has twin gasoline 350s, so there's a lot of space and weight bearing, probably more than enough to have a 10kw generator and batteries.

Re:In retaliation ...

[thegarbz]

Hmm, so you're saying they still contain mercury? Isn't mercury bad for you? Even in "reduced" amounts? No thanks.

Sure is. Oxygen is bad for you in reduced amounts or increased amounts too. You know how to get more mercury in your body than inhaling the paltry 2.5mg that is in a CFL? Eating fish. Don't eat fish if you're afraid of mercury, unless you understand science, doses, and concentrations.

You know as I type this I am sitting in an enclosed room with 40 fluor tubes each with roughly 20x the concentration of mercury in them as that scary CFL in your house. We have been doing this since the 70s. ... actually maybe it is bad, it would certainly explain the low level of critical reasoning people are capable of nowadays.

Re:In retaliation ...

[AmiMoJo]

Are the 167,000 charging stations they built also "meaningless propaganda"?

https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

This is just a small part of their massive push towards EVs. A push that is not only cleaning up their environment, but allowing their manufacturers to become the world leaders in EV technology. They are getting the patents, selling the busses and cars while western manufacturers dick around with hybrids and compliance cars.

Re:In retaliation ...

[b0bby]

They have a real problem with pollution, which is why it's a ban on sale of ICE vehicles. Algae based diesel fuel, while possibly being carbon-neutral, still pumps out crap into your cities, which is what they seem to be most concerned about.

Also, they may well be trying to get their EV industry jumpstarted while the big Western automakers are still dithering.

Re:In retaliation ...

[GLMDesigns]

Calculus was funded by subsidies?
Telescopes were funded by subsidies?
Determining Longitude was found by a government prize.
The steam engine was funded by subsidies?
How about the cotton gin?

No. Somethings, at sometimes were aided by subsidies.

how about all those companies and ideas that were subsidized that didn't pan out.
How about all the government corruption that occurs as a DIRECT RESULT of subsidies.

Re:In retaliation ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Also note that if the trends happen quicker they will shorten the life too. Still helpful to all involved to know what the likely outcomes will be. If you ever ran a business or were any kind of investor, you would understand these things.

Re: In retaliation ...

[MercTech]

Nuclear remains the second cheapest form of electrical power generation but requires a huge capital outlay to build. Nuclear generated electrical power is dying off in the U.S. because the standards changed over a hundred time from proposal to operation making the initial capital outlay way too high. Other countries license and approved design then come in and do an inspection before starting up.

Re:In retaliation ...

[MercTech]

You do realize that electric motors are, at best, 28% efficient. And, the same for electric generators. Burning the fuel to create mechanical energy close to the end use is always more efficient.

And, there were LED lightbulbs on the market a decade before U.S. retailers had a clue about them. CFL lightbulbs were a real non starter because they wouldn't fit in older light fixtures. Add in the annoying 60hz flicker and they are fully reviled by a huge plurality. Even with the CFL rebates, who wants to replace every light fixture in the house with a skewed spectrum flickering CFL?

Re:In retaliation ...

[Gussington]

Calculus was funded by subsidies?

Newton was funded externally so yes.

Telescopes were funded by subsidies?

As was Galileo

Determining Longitude was found by a government prize.

As were the global explorers

The steam engine was funded by subsidies?

A lot of it yes...

How about the cotton gin?

Probably. I don;t know anything about it, but I highly doubt it was completely void of external financial and government assistance

No. Somethings, at sometimes were aided by subsidies.

Maybe, but to get any major piece of technology mainstream some external public assistance was required.

how about all those companies and ideas that were subsidized that didn't pan out.

Nothing is life is free, but the concept of subsidies generally produces a net benefit to society.

How about all the government corruption that occurs as a DIRECT RESULT of subsidies.

As above. Like Venture Capital, there's all sorts of sins associated with it but the practice still produces a net gain overall.

Re:In retaliation ...

[GLMDesigns]

Newton was most definitely not subsidized. Having a job is not (necessarily) a government subsidy and in his case it most definitely was not.

Didn't even read the rest.

Re:In retaliation ...

[david_thornley]

Newton's government job was intended as a sinecure, a way of paying him money without imposing responsibility on him. People were surprised when he took the job seriously.

Re:In retaliation ...

[GLMDesigns]

He got that job (head of the mint) long after the development of calculus and the laws of thermodynamics. He was already about 60 and his work on optics, thermodynamics, calculus was done while in his 20s and 30s.

There was no government subsidy for the development of optics, calculus or any of his work.

At the end of his life he was given well paid positions to honour him and hopefully that a man of his intellect could solve the counterfeiting problem.

Re:Trump pumps his fist, yessss, coal cars finally

[avandesande]

Correct!
Using methane as a hydrogen donor you can reform coal into gasoline.

gas cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean they will stop making them for other areas as well?

Re:Trump pumps his fist, yessss, coal cars finally

[MountainLogic]

And I thought education was the answer to every problem. Sending coal to Reform School must be the answer. - See what I did there. - Never mind.

GOOD!

[Gravis Zero]

Even if my own federal government is sticking it's head in the ground, it's good to see that some nations are beginning to take our global situation seriously. A shift in the structure of power will occur when nations actually take our situation seriously.

Re:GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good, this means there will be lower demand for oil and the price will be cheaper for gas. Forget electric vehicles they cannot compete with 20c gas!

Re:Trump pumps his fist, yessss, coal cars finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Christmas come early! Kids into the mine, grab as much as you can! Wages shmages!

Re:Trump pumps his fist, yessss, coal cars finally

[ChrisMaple]

But the coal has to want to reform.

China's Leaders are Engineers...

[Yergle143]

...and the United States is ruled by attorneys whose sole purpose in this world is to pollute it with paper.

Re:China's Leaders are Engineers...

[kristofer.vesi]

And Tesla now makes papers, made of batteries, so you can use them as battery banks...

World's Largest Producer of Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

World's Largest Producer of Batteries Pushes to Ban non-Battery Powered Vehicles. More at 11.

Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of when California passed the Zero Emissions Vehicle law that required 2% of all cars sold after 1998 to be electric. Remember how that turned out? Same thing here.

Re: Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Every country in the world recognizes global warming and is trying to cut emissions and switch to lesser polluting options whether it is LED bulbs or electric cars.....Even countries like China and India whose poor population ( more than 50 percent) hardly get three decent meals a day, are doing their bit becoz they see the danger in not doing anything. But America, led by business owners..Aka Donald Trump will see more Americans suffer from hurricanes and other shit than do anything about it. America is no longer a country who anyone looks up to...... SAD

Woo hoo!

[PPH]

Wood gas vehicles when? I hear they are pretty popular in Best Korea. Perhaps there is an opportunity for some technology interchange there.

Engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

Their engineers are just as good at engineering as our lawyers are.

China must have hired an enormous pile of lawyers to make the world's #1 and #2 supercomputers. Meanwhile the U.S.'s much superior engineering is not even third.

"We're number four! USA, USA, USA! We're number four!"

Re:Engineers

[harvey the nerd]

The US is somewhat tired of computer wanker waving for 50+ years. We solved the practical problems of life, and a lot of made up ones...

If you have half a brain, you now own a supercomputer to solve problems that would be illegal to export 20 or 30 years ago.

Re:Engineers

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is somewhat tired of computer wanker waving for 50+ years.

Right, the US doesn't care anymore about a win in supercomputers. They banned the sales of Intel's top computer chips to China for altruistic reasons, not because they wanted to cripple Chinese efforts to build even faster supercomputers, no sirree.

(Oddly enough, the Chinese reacted to the Intel ban by somehow making the Sunway TaihuLight the #1 supercomputer by far, using their own undoubtedly inferior chips.)

But the US doesn't care about winning, really and truly, cross my heart, which is why Obama started the National Strategic Computing Initiative (NSCI) at about the same time as the Intel ban.

(Even more oddly, all the efforts funded by NSCI seem to be years behind their Chinese rivals, probably because US engineers are so much better.)

ironic or illiterate?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'should' is possessive, so yes.

WTF?! This is a joke, right? You do understand the perfect tenses are formed with the verb 'to have,' eg. You should have gone to school, not with the preposition 'of.' Of course you do!

imagine if

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if the also joined the civilized world in treating animals humanely.

Re:Trump pumps his fist, yessss, coal cars finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea ... that's not half as funny and/or cute as you think it is.

Those pesky citizens....

[MercTech]

Yep, can't have those pesky citizens having a method to travel around that doesn't require fourteen kinds of permission. Just ignore the fact that electric vehicles just mean more emissions somewhere else.