Submitted by Vucea t3_1253td5 in Futurology
Comments
Brutzelmeister t1_je46sbc wrote
The rich will make themselves enough exceptions that they won`t get hit too much by that. Supercars, yachts and so on....
boersc t1_je5dzst wrote
Who cares? Those few cars/yachts etc are not adding anything to the emisions. I know it's not a popular opinion, but it's the masses that count, not those happy few.
Detoneision t1_je5sbpv wrote
It matters if the masses abandon the climate game on the grounds that it is perceived as another space of injustice
Veastli t1_je5syxs wrote
12 years is a lifetime for technology.
By the time 2035 rolls around, the mandate won't be needed, as the problem will have largely fixed itself.
The reason? Cost.
The initial purchase price of EVs are on a downward arc. The initial purchase price of internal combustion vehicles are on a slight upward arc. Those arcs will cross within the next two years, three at most. And when those lines cross, the market will speak, customers will rapidly abandon internal combustion.
And EVs won't just be cheaper than ICE, they will continue to drop in price. Consider that the drivetrain of an EV has about 1% of the components of an ICE vehicle's drivetrain. This greatly reduces the component cost, the assembly cost, and the costs to manage the production and acquisition of all those unneeded components.
Most of an EV's cost are with its batteries, and batteries on an even steeper downward price arc than EVs themselves. Currently, most major auto-makers are on a mad rush to build as much battery capacity as they can, as rapidly as they can.
The reason EVs are generally so expensive today is because the automaker's limited battery capacity is being dedicated to the vehicles with the highest margins, luxury vehicles. Battery capacity is rapidly increasing, and as it does, batteries will be allocated to the auto maker's full product lines.
The auto-makers know that internal combustion is dead, as most have already abandoned internal combustion R&D. Meaning, the best ICE vehicles that will ever be made will be released in the next few years. After that, no improvements, ever. And once those divisions are shuttered, there will be no going back. The knowledge base will be lost to time.
TLDR - Internal combustion consumer vehicles will largely be gone by 2035, irrespective of these laws. Customers vote with their wallets, and as battery production rises to meet demand, EVs will soon be absolutely cheaper. Cheaper to buy, and much, much cheaper to operate. Not just lower fuel costs, but far lower maintenance costs with far greater reliability.
randomevenings t1_je2gi4j wrote
What will renters do?
Sirisian t1_je2pab1 wrote
They should be fine. The EU and countries have been changing building codes and requiring EV wiring in preparation for this in parking lots.
DonQuixBalls t1_je3285c wrote
Also street lamps in many places. The charging network is a lot more developed in Europe than in other parts of the world, with a variety of companies involved, and every car using the same charging standard.
mascachopo t1_je353k9 wrote
And also, a great number of apartments buildings have a parking where the chargers can be installed.
ConfirmedCynic t1_je3hxj5 wrote
Where will the power come from? Seeing how busy they've been shutting down power plants, that is.
warplants t1_je3jww7 wrote
Probably mostly wind and solar by 2035? As well as nukes in France? And gas to fill remaining gaps, if any. (And even if it was exclusively gas, it’d still be a huge win for reducing emissions compared to having ICEs in every car.)
randomevenings t1_je4glha wrote
Cars are very small percentage of the carbon released into the atmosphere One round trip of a container ship releases as much carbon in the atmosphere as all the cars in the United States for an entire year
Flaxinator t1_je4vklv wrote
The European Commission says cars and vans make up 14.5% of EU emissions, that's not such a small percentage.
That statement about the container ship doesn't sound correct, where are you getting that fact from?
randomevenings t1_je4go1b wrote
However it appears that the electrification of cars was always going to be the start of the electrification of everything else so this will drive the electrification infrastructure forward and battery technology forward that will allow the kinds of innovations that will lead to being able to offset a lot of that carbon would be released by heavy shipping and airliners.
I didn't know things were much better on the infrastructure front in Europe. I was always appreciative to Ellen musk for giving away the supercharger adapter patent because it did go on way to standardizing a type of socket or at least allowing for the compatibility of several different types so that there's not this walled garden so to speak and that's what we need because right now you could fuel up your car and any gas station well that should be essentially the same situation when it comes to the electrification of cars and it could have very well went the other way where you got Apple with the lightning cable and there was the juggling of USB standards for a while with the other phones.
Flaxinator t1_je4ws0n wrote
Synthetic fuels are such a cop out, it means that car manufacturer don't need to change the design of their cars and instead places the burden on the fuel supply system.
[deleted] t1_je2d533 wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_je2fb5v wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Vucea:
Countries in the European Union have approved a landmark law that will ensure all new cars sold from 2035 must have zero emissions.
Poland voted against the law, while Italy, Bulgaria and Romania abstained.
The agreement was delayed for weeks after Germany called for an exemption for cars running on e-fuels.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1253td5/new_cars_sold_in_eu_must_be_zeroemission_from_2035/je2adta/
[deleted] t1_je3gxna wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je45urf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je47p4t wrote
[removed]
boersc t1_je5f8gz wrote
While the push for evs might be a good one, it's timed completely wrong. At this time, we can't even generate enough green electricity to provide our basic needs and our electric backbone is completely full. Any extra electric consumption only leads to more coal to be burnt. We need to consume LESS electricity, not more. Maybe, MAYBE, if we have a superstrong electric backbone and an overproduction of green energy, we can start thinking of adding more by going EVs.
MatoKoukku t1_je68rrq wrote
It’s 2035, 12 years from now. Countries like Norway have been leading the pack today.
There’s plenty of opportunities in biogas etc with existing tech.
D_StoGG t1_je7kcpi wrote
I dont worry about all this shit related to ICE ban. I guess that somehow we get "eco" fuel, use some creative maths like "car produces 100 co2, plant consume 100 co2 while growing therefore this e fuel is eco friendly ". Not to mention electric cars are a fucjing joke in terms of range and price.
AppliedTechStuff t1_je51epy wrote
Zero emissions if and only if you draw a box around the vehicle and say, okay, from this point forward, zero emissions, from this vehicle.
Ignoring the fossil fuels needed:
- To generate its electricity
- To drive the massive mining vehicles needed for batteries and steel
- To fuel the ships bringing minerals and batteries from China
- For all the plastic components
- For all the steel components
If you do some digging you'll learn that until a EV reaches 125,000 miles or so, its carbon footprint is no different than a Dodge Ram 2500.
But here's the rub. Most EVs will need a new battery before then, resulting in even more of a carbon footprint.
EVs are silly. They're pure hype.
Hybrids are what the world needs. They actually have a lower footprint than that Dodge Ram.
But go on pushing this error.
disembodied_voice t1_je5lrt8 wrote
> If you do some digging you'll learn that until a EV reaches 125,000 miles or so, its carbon footprint is no different than a Dodge Ram 2500
Actual lifecycle analyses put the breakeven point closer to 21,300 miles.
>But here's the rub. Most EVs will need a new battery before then, resulting in even more of a carbon footprint
As per the above lifecycle analysis, even if you were to double the battery production to account for a full battery replacement, electric cars would still have a far lower lifecycle carbon footprint than gas cars would.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk&t=59s
The video description for that TEDx (read: not TED) talk establishes that it has been flagged by TED themselves for violating their content guidelines against bad science.
AppliedTechStuff t1_jefp2ha wrote
Interesting... 21,000 vs. 125,000. Thanks. (Another source to consider.)
chatte__lunatique t1_je6gy76 wrote
Hybrids aren't what the world needs, either. We need to design cities so that most people don't need a car at all. And that means trains, buses, metros, trams, bikes or ebikes (which make far more efficient usage of lithium than EVs do), high- and mid-density development rather than single-family homes, and walkable neighborhoods. Car-centric development is completely unsustainable regardless of what's powering the car.
AppliedTechStuff t1_jefoef1 wrote
If you like cities, live there.
Me, and many like me, view cities as nice to visit maybe twice in a decade, but we have no desire to live like that.
colonize_mars2023 t1_je2mj6l wrote
Europe is delusional and all they will achieve is crashing their own economy, which, granted, will actually reduce their emissions.
But I somehow doubt people will like it very much. Populists are already having a field day, and the green poverty just barely started biting ...
DonQuixBalls t1_je322u5 wrote
Most places in western Europe have efficient, effective, and affordable public transportation. Car ownership in the EU is around 0.53 per resident.
boersc t1_je5emd2 wrote
I don't think the quality ot public transport in Hungary, Latvia or Romania has anything to do with their low car density.
Grayson81 t1_je4ad5n wrote
It’s kind of ironic that someone calls themselves “colonise Mars” but thinks that going from 30% to 100% of new car sales being electric in 13 years is too intimidating and ambitious.
[deleted] t1_je4jeyu wrote
[removed]
ML4Bratwurst t1_je44w4o wrote
EVs are already cheaper and are still getting cheaper. Whole combustion cars get bigger and more expensive
DontLetKarmaControlU t1_je4c9aq wrote
EVs are expensive af like twice the price. I am not saying it to prove some point wheteher this is a good idea or not but rather to state a current state of affairs in poland.
Frankly i don't think we have much choice anyway sooo
ML4Bratwurst t1_je4jpwq wrote
The Tesla model 3 costs less than 40k€
DontLetKarmaControlU t1_je4k2fc wrote
yeah like i said twice the price of a 'normal' car
ML4Bratwurst t1_je4nrqz wrote
Lol You don't get a car like a Tesla for 20k. Maybe a small ugly car
DontLetKarmaControlU t1_je4owaz wrote
right, hence my point
ML4Bratwurst t1_je4pgzu wrote
You can also get an ugly small EV for 20k just saying
DontLetKarmaControlU t1_je4vn9s wrote
I can't unfortunately, and noone here can as they cost 2x
ML4Bratwurst t1_je4wm15 wrote
Whatever you bright candle
[deleted] t1_je4y8ar wrote
[removed]
ML4Bratwurst t1_je4pei7 wrote
What a stupid sticking comparison. Then you could say that ICE vehicles cost ten times as much as ICE vehicles because super sport cars exist
colonize_mars2023 t1_je4jx0c wrote
>EVs are already cheaper and are still getting cheaper
That is true. And they will.
But you seem to be forgetting one tiny detail - you need electricity generation to power EVs, and Europe HATES any construction of power plants, idiots as they are.
Sure there are some cool-looking wind turbines in german seas and few flacks of solar, but that won't power up a continent in winter. Not even close.
Vucea OP t1_je2adta wrote
Countries in the European Union have approved a landmark law that will ensure all new cars sold from 2035 must have zero emissions.
Poland voted against the law, while Italy, Bulgaria and Romania abstained.
The agreement was delayed for weeks after Germany called for an exemption for cars running on e-fuels.