Comments
flappers87 t1_iu7ym3p wrote
Well hopefully this will bring the price of EV's down. Because right now you can buy a combustion car for a fraction of the price of an EV.
Plus, in some places in the EU, we need more infrastructure to support EVs. Every petrol station should have a charging station - which is not the case in many EU member states.
Braga_PT t1_iu85bm0 wrote
Thinking the same. I cannot afford an EV, not with this prices...
moses420bush t1_iu7k57f wrote
We need a govt funded trade in scheme
itsdankreddit t1_iu7ptah wrote
Why? This only applies to new car sales in the EU and hasn't been implemented in Australia.
Palimon t1_iu82v3a wrote
Threads like this are a reality check, people say they want to fight climate change, yet they lose their shit about any policy that would enforce it.
And that's on reddit that is very progressive compared to the general population.
But i hope this goes through even earlier.
ExParrot1337 t1_iu864bt wrote
Now that the deadline is set I would expect to see, in practice, all the major manufacturers will shift entirely to EV well ahead of it. They're not going to be running a factory making ICE vehicles the day before the ban goes into effect.
Now, every dollar they spend on R&D and plant for ICE is a dollar that needs a reeeeally short ROI to not be wasted. Young engineering talent will be as interested in working on them as young computer engineers are in punched cards. And if battery costs fall a little more, the cars will be outright cheaper to manufacture than ICE anyway so there is no incentive to keep building them for other markets either.
In summary, this is the final boot the industry needed, and I think ICE sales will dry up years before the actual deadline.
kuldan5853 t1_iuasxum wrote
Honestly, the main problem with EV adoption in Europe is the charging situation, not the cars themselves... We have way worse circumstances for at-home charging compared to the US for example.
cgernaat119 t1_iu7mtl5 wrote
How does this effect ag vehicles? Maybe it’s different there where the scale is smaller, but we’re a major breakthrough or 50 years conservatively from technology that can facilitate ag operations without diesel.
LessIndependence8983 t1_iu7oj25 wrote
Good luck getting the batteries required to support this move
itsdankreddit t1_iu7q7cq wrote
Battery factories don't take that long to come online.
kyogen25 t1_iu861we wrote
What about lithium mines?
gaypotato124 t1_iu87y50 wrote
Lithium and helium3(fusion reactors fuel) are the main reason why we want to go to the Moon.
MRYodastream t1_iu83v0j wrote
So people will drive in older cars instead? My car is from 2004 and i will drive it until it breaks.
BigBoyGoldenTicket t1_iu7qt39 wrote
This is the kind of tough a motion that’s needed. Not even close enough obviously
petergaskin814 t1_iu85agg wrote
The main prompt for getting rid of ice is the 50% reduction in emissions for ice vehicles compared to 2021 levels. It is going to cost a lot for car manufacturers to achieve this level.
autotldr t1_iu7nd4x wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot)
> The European Union has struck a deal on a law to effectively ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035, aiming to speed up the switch to electric vehicles and combat climate change.
> Negotiators from the EU countries and the European Parliament, who must both approve new EU laws, as well as the European Commission, which drafts new laws, agreed that car makers must achieve a 100 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2035, which would make it impossible to sell new fossil fuel-powered vehicles in the 27-country bloc.
> Volkswagen boss Thomas Schaefer this week said that from 2033, the brand would only produce electric cars in Europe.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: new^#1 car^#2 law^#3 vehicle^#4 per^#5
Magnon t1_iu7nibr wrote
Even though it seems a bit extreme, this is the kind of decision that needs to be made if we're going to curb the effects of climate change. Assuming we aren't too late on that, big changes have to happen, realistically as soon as possible.
Low-Public-9948 t1_iu8h2le wrote
Just start gifting new cars
[deleted] t1_iu92a21 wrote
[removed]
creativename87639 t1_iua3nz1 wrote
This is a good thing but they should really stabilize their electric grid first.
MacCoyFish t1_iu7xzyd wrote
something needs to happen with the batteries. when they needs changing its cheaper to buy a new car. who wants a second hand car that cant be used?
kr3w_fam t1_iu862zp wrote
all fine and dandy for richer countries....Poland will turn into Cuba.
Shigsy89 t1_iu7may1 wrote
Ah yes, electric vehicles which charge from a grid predominantly fed by power stations burning fossil fuels. They also require scrapping of all existing vehicles which is incredibly bad for the environment. They also require new infrastructure to be installed globally (car charging points) which isn't exactly environmentally friendly. Their batteries are very heavy in relation to their size which gives them a very high carbon footprint when it comes to shipping them around the world. The same batteries have a very short lifespan compared to a diesel engines, are made from environment damaging chemicals and materials and are a disaster for the environment when it comes to disposing of them.
We should be investing in more sensible alternatives like biofuels, many of which are very much sustainable and don't require farmland e.g. seaweed. Many of them also work perfectly well with existing diesel engines, so no need for scrapping billions of cars or installing hundreds of millions of charging points. EVs are little more than a green-washing solution and not a real sustainable future for cars.
ComplexBus7725 t1_iu7qyu9 wrote
Sustainable biofuel is a pipe dream. You'd need to pretty much tear down every forest and cultivable land in the world in order to replace oil entirely, not to mention that wouldn't solve the pollution problem anyway. Also, unless you live in a country where the electricity is exclusively made from coal electric cars are always gonna end up better for the environment than combustion engines. And I say this as someone whose dream car is the CLK GTR.
Shigsy89 t1_iu7rso7 wrote
As I said, many modern biofuels don't require land usage. Focusing just on the combustion itself ignores all of the environmental damage and impact I mentioned above.
Jeramus t1_iu8cxsh wrote
Where does it say they will scrap existing vehicles?
EV lifetime emissions are lower than ICE vehicles even when the electricity comes from fossil fuels.
[deleted] t1_iu7yp7u wrote
[deleted]
santz007 t1_iu7w7fl wrote
What is the life of EV batteries?
flappers87 t1_iu7z4li wrote
My concern isn't the charging of the batteries, as with nuclear, wind and solar energy becoming more widely adopted - by 2035, most of the EU's power grid will be powered by sustainable green energy.
The batteries don't have a short life span either. Averaging around 10-20 years of usage. That's longer than most people have their combustion cars for before looking to change.
But even with that said, the lack of recycling of the batteries is a core problem. This is e-waste to the extreme. So we can only hope that by the time 2035 comes around, there will be more recyclable parts used in the batteries which will reduce that e-waste.
Biofuels are not sustainable. It would require tearing down massive amounts of land, which damages the ecosystem of the planet. Also, it's still burning. Burning anything causes damage to our o-zone layer.
You mention seaweed. Seaweed provides an important part to our marine ecosystem, providing homes and safe areas for young fish.
The future is nuclear. Nuclear energy needs more funding, more research and more study. Fusion is so close, and once that happens, we're a step in the right direction with proper sustainable energy and no e-waste.
LyptusConnoisseur t1_iu8ed7z wrote
Lithium batteries are being recycled due to expense of battery materials. Check out Redwood Materials among many companies recycling batteries.
widowhanzo t1_iu9q8of wrote
Thorium. It's safer, easier to produce, doesn't require enrichment, and doesn't leave dangerous waste like uranium does. But thorium can't be used for nuclear weapons, that's why the government doesn't fund it.
b0unce79 t1_iu82vln wrote
Once again someone being down voted for speaking the truth about ev's, surprised they didn't call you pro Russian on here!
Shigsy89 t1_iu8326i wrote
Yeah, not sure why. EVs are not a great choice for the long term.
AzamatBaganatow t1_iu7nwip wrote
Good luck with that I’ll keep driving gas powered
netz_pirat t1_iu7wha3 wrote
You mean, you'll build your own car from scratch and produce your fuel yourself? Because there won't be new gas powered cars at some point, no used ones at a later time, and with demand going down, gas stations will disappear as well...
Nononononein t1_iu8bpzs wrote
that will take a loooooooong time
netz_pirat t1_iu8eier wrote
Well, I guess about 7 years until most new cars are electric. 13 until all new cars are electric. I'd say 20 till most cars in Europe are electric. And in 30 years, the only ICE cars are young/oldtimers.
In the same time frame, most gas stations will disappear.
While that's still some time, it's still going to happen within my lifetime...
teethLessSanta t1_iu7sjqo wrote
An important note is that this only applies to new cars, old cars can and will still run on fossil fuel after 2035