Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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.

15

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/

1

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 ...

−17

DonQuixBalls t1_je3285c wrote

Replying to Sirisian (#2,432,384)

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.

10

warplants t1_je3jww7 wrote

Replying to ConfirmedCynic (#2,438,098)

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.)

8

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....

7

randomevenings t1_je4glha wrote

Replying to warplants (#2,438,435)

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

−1

randomevenings t1_je4go1b wrote

Replying to randomevenings (#2,443,380)

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.

1

colonize_mars2023 t1_je4jx0c wrote

Replying to ML4Bratwurst (#2,441,626)

>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.

3

Flaxinator t1_je4vklv wrote

Replying to randomevenings (#2,443,380)

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?

4

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.

2

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk&t=59s

−1

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.

1

disembodied_voice t1_je5lrt8 wrote

Replying to AppliedTechStuff (#2,447,522)

> 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.

5

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.

5

chatte__lunatique t1_je6gy76 wrote

Replying to AppliedTechStuff (#2,447,522)

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.

3

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.

1