France to end sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/france-petrol-diesel-ban-vehicles-cars-2040-a7826831.html

by rbanffy • 9 years ago

183 168 9 years ago

independent.co.uk

tyingq• 9 years ago

I assume this is limited to personal vehicles? Commercial trucks don't seem to be on a trajectory to meet this deadline.

Also curious if the electric grid in France is on some plan to accommodate this as well.

lmm• 9 years ago

The French grid has a substantial surplus, because they've got a sensible nuclear policy.

legulere4• 9 years ago

That does not have anything to do with nuclear power. France is a net-importer from Germany which is abolishing its nuclear power, while it is a net-exporter to Switzerland which has plenty of nuclear and water power: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Echg_int...

zuzun• 9 years ago

That's why you can count on the annual "France faces power shortage" article around November/December.

ea016• 9 years ago

The title is misleading: they announced a ban of the sales of new petrol vehicles by 2040 [0].

[0] (in french) http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2017/07/06/nicolas-hul...

foobarge• 9 years ago

Raising the price of gas in the mid 70s made it possible to get very sober vehicles, so this might work as well. Of course, it's far enough in the future that it can be canceled and amended enough to become useless. I do appreciate the move (India has a more aggressive target - 2030 - but the landscape is totally different.)

mtgx• 9 years ago

That's at least 10 years too late for sales of new cars, unless they means hybrid. I don't think any new car should be gas-powered after 2030. And Volvo is already doing it 11 years earlier. I guess they may change that goal later, and it could be just a "signal" that these governments are taking banning of gas-powered cars seriously, but at the same time they don't want the car makers to freak out.

lloeki• 9 years ago

it could be just a "signal" that these governments are taking banning of gas-powered cars seriously, but at the same time they don't want the car makers to freak out.

This is also a signal to consumers, as the government casts a definite vote of confidence towards electric vehicles, which may help drive EV sales up today, instead of making them freak out over a short deadline and reject EV out of it.

cjrp• 9 years ago

Volvo is already doing it 11 years earlier

They're not getting rid of petrol/diesel engines completely, since they'll still be selling hybrids.

polotics• 9 years ago

Typical politician promise for an event to happen long after their term is over...

tonyedgecombe• 9 years ago

They also like to take credit for an event that was probably going to happen anyway.

ogrisel3• 9 years ago

Sure but that will surely help make it happen significantly faster. Time is of the essence when it comes to decarbonification of the economy and climate change.

ogrisel3• 9 years ago

Laws often last much longer than elected politicians that passed the law. Car manufacturers need stable and long term guidance to get investors and banks to follow them.

blowski• 9 years ago

What's your suggestion then? Have politicians stay in power forever, or have politicians only pass short term laws?

mindcrime6• 9 years ago

What's your suggestion then?

Mine is "get rid of the politicians altogether".

nherment• 9 years ago

Our ecology minister Nicolas Hulot is a known French environmental activist. I wouldn't qualify him as the typical politician and I think most would agree.

He has been trying to influence our politics for some time now, from advising politicians, threatening to run for president unless environmental strategies get adopted, to refusing to become Ecology Minister without proper power (ecology minister has mostly been a powerless position with no real drive).

Him accepting to join the current government was a sign that he would be able to influence the country's environmental strategy. While it is probably too early to see if he will have the right impact, it is good to see him drive positive change.

While I would understand criticizing Nicolas Hulot's methods or his work at the ministry, his motivations are clearly the betterment of France's approach to ecology.

Blaming his policies as "Typical politician promise for an event to happen long after their term is over..." shows a clear misunderstanding of our minister and French politics.

agumonkey• 9 years ago

It's still a blurry futuristic target. Who knows what happens between now and 2040. Yet it's still a strong signal.

JPLeRouzic2• 9 years ago

Nicolas Hulot is a known French environmental activist, AND a politician and a media producer. He survived in politics much longer than most "écologistes" politicians.

I think French government decided to use more regulation and less funding (see les echos [0]). But as most regulations come from EU, its regulation power is quite limited as well, hence curious statements like this one by N. Hulot.

[0] https://www.lesechos.fr/economie-france/budget-fiscalite/030...

andmarios• 9 years ago

I would say this is atypical. Most politicians care about short-term decisions as this is the easiest way to win the next election, leading to huge problems —laws and processes ever-changing.

This is the way politicians should operate, legislate for the future.

tangue• 9 years ago

I wouldn't qualify him as a typical politician : https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/05/18/environmentalist-and-...

and the reasoning is worrying : if representatives won't project behind their term we won't do much as a society. Even a a simple highway takes more than a mandate to build (and let's not start about issues like global warming ...)

untog• 9 years ago

This is a good thing. Most politicians refuse to do anything that will have an effect beyond their term because it won't help them get re-elected. It's why infrastructure in the US is such a heap of crap.

jkingsbery• 9 years ago

The article doesn't say what fuel source charging stations will use.

contingencies• 9 years ago

If it's France, stats are (75%) it will be nuclear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

bgia• 9 years ago

They're bringing the amount of power generated through nuclear energy to 50% in the upcoming years. Chances are that in 2040 they'll be way under 50%.

ogrisel3• 9 years ago

Nuclear will be capped to 50% of France production. Coal will close. Natural gas is comparatively expensive in Europe. Large hydro is almost saturated (no more mountains).

So renewables (wind and solar) will have to grow as a mechanical consequence which is good because will get cheaper and cheaper and a large park of car batteries will give opportunity for large scale demand management and therefore help with the integration of new renewables.

France has long coasts to develop offshore wind, especially if floating offshore wind becomes a thing.

briandear• 9 years ago

Why wind and solar but not nuclear? Fields and field full of noisy and ugly windmills when nuclear requires far less land. Windmills and solar kill birds at a much larger rate than activists would seem to care about.

TonnyGaric• 9 years ago

Yeah.. The Netherlands will ban it 15 years before France.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/18/netherlan...

(Passed the lower house, just needs to pass through the Dutch senate to become legally binding)

cr18952• 9 years ago

The Netherlands will ban it 15 years before France.

Will is far, far too strong a word. This was a Labour (PvdA) initiative, and after the recent election PvdA is in shambles. They likely will not be a part of the (yet non-existing) coalition government. The main party to the coalition government (VVD) is opposed.

So we can fairly surely guess that this ain't happening.

phreeza• 9 years ago

Maybe easier to do for them because you can cross all of the Netherlands in a modern EV already?

jacquesm3• 9 years ago

A good percentage of the Dutch holidays in France or Spain and they take their caravan with them. That sort of trip will be hard on an EV.

I also wonder what kind of exception they intend to make for cargo transport because those vehicles (especially the smaller ones) are extremely price sensitive.

realusername• 9 years ago

This announcement goal is to change the mentalities and set a direction, people in this thread are taking it way too literally. The public (even the younger generation) currently thinks electric cars are a kind of joke, putting 2040 makes it far away enough that people will think it's possible to go into another direction. It does not matter if it can be done by 2030, the public would just dismiss the announcement as unrealistic.

alex_duf2• 9 years ago

It's ridiculous. ICE sales will drop long before that.

nmeofthestate• 9 years ago

That sounds like a reason why it's not ridiculous.

gruturo• 9 years ago

Quite the opposite. The fact that ICE sales are expected to drop long before that makes it a "safe" promise because it's happening anyway - a politician's dream - but it still has value: it is likely to cause further acceleration of the drop of ICE sales.

And that's good for the environment (doubly so in France, where a lot of electricity is not generated by carbon-emitting methods).

alex_duf2• 9 years ago

By ridiculous, what I meant is that it's a PR stunt.

If anything it signals to the auto industry "don't worry you still have time to produce combustion engines"

jonknee3• 9 years ago

Well that better be the case or else the ban of ICE would have no chance of succeeding!

csours• 9 years ago

Is there a site that tracks these initiatives? As pointed out here, the Netherlands has a similar plan, and I think Norway might. China has aggressive plans for the electric vehicle percentage.

Different states in the USA have different plans.

Shivetya• 9 years ago

just a few notes. this by no means a system entirely based around battery EV technology. there is still time for ample replacements of traditional combustion engines with fuel cells or similar. In many industries it is a near requirement.

I am still not a fan of battery technology with regards to transportation in its current state. nearly a half ton in weight to go less than three hundred miles, usually a lot less, in optimal conditions. Coupled with charge times that even the best are only down to an hour for a full charge.

the other initiatives he mentioned likely will get smacked by the WTO unless it morphs into some kind of environmental policy with ever changing rules about what is sustainable or not with regards to harvesting of crops. if anything it would require subsidies to nations who crops are deemed unacceptable.

unknown_apostle• 9 years ago

Platinum is a nice speculative play on your first note.

"Replace diesels with batteries on timeline x-y-z. Bam, just like that. Problem solved."

The platinum price has been dropping for many years, because Mr Market is thinking 5 steps ahead of where we actually stand with this. With above ground reserves likely dwindling, platinum has still managed to drop below gold again (and rhodium has dropped below platinum).

But batteries are not yet ready to take over everything. Diesels or at least combustion engines will keep improving for some time to come. In the meantime, plenty of room for alternatives like the discredited fuel cell, which can also use loads of platinum. (And on the supply side, you have the vulnerability that the country supplying 70% of the world's platinum is looking increasingly unstable.)

And for the record: I totally agree we should get rid of the combustion engine as soon as possible.

digitalshankar• 9 years ago

India to sell only electric cars by 2030.

sureshv• 9 years ago

I would be more impressed if they replaced diesel trucks since they are likely a larger contributor to air pollution in major Indian cities.

anovikov12• 9 years ago

That's too late! Doesn't even make sense. By 2040 they will be banned in nearly all developed world. Volvo doesn't plan to build any of them starting 2020 by the way (while they will still build mild hybrids, which are 80% ICE vehicles). Germany is planning a ban from 2030 and that seems spot on, by this time technology will be definitely up to it.

Doing it by 2040 is same as doing nothing, because gasoline cars will be clearly competed away by that time without any legislative action.

harryVic• 9 years ago

No they won't. Even the cheapest electric cars cost three to fours times as much as a cheap gas car in developing countries.

anovikov12• 9 years ago

That's now, this is because they are not massively produced yet.

Every high tech product follows a law that it gets 20% cheaper when volumes of production double, and electric cars make up about 1.2% of the market now. So, they are going to fell 3x by the time production volumes reach 36% of the current car production, or about 25% of then-current car production.

But, they will actually own the market before then because cost of owning and operating an electric car is much lower than comparable gasoline powered one.

Easy to see that this curve converges to 100% of market share with quite a bit of margin. At least 2x margin.

There is nothing inherently costly in producing an electric car. Transmission is simpler because it doesn't need a gearbox. It has much lower center of gravity due to heavy battery so little mechanical trickery is needed to make it stable on the road. Electric motor is much cheaper than a complex ICE which also requires a lot of service. Only stumbling block is the battery - and they are getting cheaper every month. Most of the existing cost of electric cars is due to low production volumes as they eat away market share - there is a limit on speed of market adoption as well as factory retooling and business acceptance of the fact that electric cars are the future - but these are just technicalities, there is absolutely nothing preventing making a $15,000 mass market Ford Focus-like electric car, if built in Ford Focus-like volumes, that is.

anonymfus• 9 years ago

So the main emission reduction will be from the much less number of cars produced and used. Almost all big cities in the world have plans to reduce the number of cars.

greeneggs• 9 years ago

Volvo doesn't plan to build any of them starting 2020 by the way

"Around 2024" is what they said yesterday.

"Volvo’s transition will be gradual. It plans to still produce existing models with conventional engines after 2019, but it will no longer introduce new models with the older technology. Depending on demand, Volvo will completely phase out cars powered solely by gasoline or diesel by around 2024."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/business/energy-environme...

anovikov12• 9 years ago

Thanks for clarification. That doesn't change whole picture though. By 2040, there won't be gas cars on sale in developed countries (and they will be a minority even in the developing ones).

rsync• 9 years ago

""Around 2024" is what they said yesterday."

As they always say. Please don't give volvo any credit or publicity for issuing the same old "three of four years from now we will have some more bolted-on hybrid models and some electric-clown-car[1] that nobody wants."

BMW and Audi and Merc (and now Volvo) can just recycle these press releases every few years - nothing changes but the three-years-off date.

[1] BMW i3, Merc B class ...

Skunkleton2• 9 years ago

From TFA:

Depending on demand, Volvo will completely phase out cars powered solely by gasoline or diesel by around 2024.

They aren't killing gas engines, they are just moving to Hybrid drive trains.

valueprop• 9 years ago

In related news, USA plans to stop using coal by 2300

mnglkhn22• 9 years ago

2040 is a long time away from now! It is a bet made that by then there will be no need to rely on diesel for transport trucks. It looks more like virtue signaling at the moment.

d_e_solomon2• 9 years ago

What started off as a clever way to win arguments has become a lazy put down. It’s (Virtue Signaling) too often used to cast aspersions on opponents as an alternative to rebutting their arguments. In fact, it’s becoming indistinguishable from the thing it was designed to call out: smug posturing from a position of self-appointed authority.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/20/virtue...

mnglkhn22• 9 years ago

:) you might be correct. My point is that showing up in 2017 to tell how great you're going to be in 2040 does not have any practical reason other than to make nice for the moment of today.

I would love to hear your argument as to why you think this is something newsworthy and relevant.

The underlying message was in fact to show that the French respect the Paris agreement, whereas US just pulled out of it.

So, what better way for the new French president and his administration to show how great they are at promising 23 years into the future?!

TheGirondin• 9 years ago

Pretty meaningless when, thanks to capitalism, all new cars will be electric long before that date arrives.

cm2187• 9 years ago

Well, electric cars are technically superior when the range / time to charge problems have been solved. Less noise, less pollution in cities, faster accelerations. They will replace gas cars like CDs replaced Vinyl.

Spivak• 9 years ago

Electric cars are technically superior once all the problems that make them inferior to petrol cars are solved.

Not exactly a glowing recommendation.

twothamendment2• 9 years ago

Isn't Sony going to start making vinyl again?

kartan• 9 years ago

Pretty meaningless when, thanks to capitalism, all new cars will be electric long before that date arrives.

With a lot of help of public funding for research, development, and adoption.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_incentives_for_plug... * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-has-tw... ...

Helmet3• 9 years ago

I'm at a loss here. Why is this authoritarian decree being cheerleaded on this site?

jonknee3• 9 years ago

Because this is hackernews and not libertariannews?

ekianjo3• 9 years ago

Arent hackers all about changing the world by themselves instead of relying on Ultimate State powers?

Helmet3• 9 years ago

Completely ignoring for a moment the parallels and long established links between hacker/tech culture and libertarianism, you don't need to be seasteading, Ayn Rand worshipping Peter Thiel protégé to see something wrong with the idea that the State outright banning a product that contemporary society uses every single day, that many people need to survive for which there are currently no affordable and/or reasonable alternatives. Sure, maybe in 20 years battery tech will have improved to the point where cost won't be an issue and maybe we will have charging stations everywhere, or maybe not, maybe the innovation plateaus as happens often.

My point is, these things are unknowable and uncertain and the state should stop issuing these authoritarian decrees and let the technology catch up and work itself out and then maybe we can collectively as a democratic society vote on and decide what we want the laws to be in 2040.

msla2• 9 years ago

Because a number of us recognize that market failures, and pollution is a prime example, are best solved by entities outside the market, such as governments, and that a doctrinaire approach to governing is antithetical to solving problems.

gtt• 9 years ago

I admit I don't know much about economy, but how do we identify market failures? Do we have better information processing process than the market? This is honest question, not trying to nitpick or something.

vkou3• 9 years ago

Because the climate doesn't care what form of government you have. Because the free market has consistently, and utterly failed to price in the cost of pollution. Because people will not do the right thing that will inconvenience them.

If I start dumping my soda cans in the trash bin, the City of Seattle will fine me. Instead of complaining about authoritarians, I put them in the recycling bin. No, you won't be personally rewarded for every correct decision you make. Society doesn't owe anyone a gold star for not doing the wrong thing.

nostromo• 9 years ago

Actually, that law in Seattle that allowed trash collectors to rummage through your trash was ruled unconstitutional under the state constitution as a violation of privacy.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/judge-seat...

That aside, I think a smarter solution is taxing the actual thing you don't want (carbon in the air via a carbon tax) rather than second order things (gasoline cars).

It's much more effective. For example, if your Tesla is being powered by coal, you're doing almost nothing for the environment by switching to electric. So we need to set up the incentives thoughtfully, rather than being reactionary.

oh_sigh2• 9 years ago

You don't need the free market to factor in the externalities of ICE pollution. If we are into government decrees, why doesn't the government just decree that you can drive whatever you want, but if you drive an ICE you will pay for your externalities? I'd imagine if gas was priced at it's true cost(including externalities), the switch to electric would be much easier.

mindcrime6• 9 years ago

I'm at a loss here. Why is this authoritarian decree being cheerleaded on this site?

It wasn't always like this. At one time there were a LOT more of traditional hacker-mindset types here, the ones who held to ideals like:

    Mistrust authority.

    Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative.

    Promote decentralization.

But things have shifted over the past few years and authoritarian / big government ideas have gained a lot of currency here. I attribute it to something like the "Eternal September" phenomenon. As more and more new users flood in, the percentage of old-skool "hackers" who hold to those ideals falls.

Caveman_Coder• 9 years ago

Yeah, its only by casual observation, but I've noticed the same trend. I remember when our community was about the tech and anti-authoritarian rabble-rousing in general. Nowadays its like our community is more interested the percentages and genders of the community and ROI/productivity/disruption/etc of the latest and greatest chat app that will be gone in a few years...

oblio• 9 years ago

Oooooor, HackerNews has become more international and as a result has moved further left since as far as political axes go, the US is to the right of almost any other country on this planet, especially among the developed ones ;)

Analemma_4• 9 years ago

Again, see my reply to ekianjo. The idea that "old-school hackers" were all libertarians and that the "hacker ethos" always consisted of the three things you mentioned above is mostly a myth that certain people are determinedly trying to turn into fact by rewriting history.

For instance, see ESR's rewrite of the Jargon File, which was condemned and disavowed by the actual old-school hackers precisely because it injected so much libertarian thinking where previously there was none.

fooker• 9 years ago

Sort of the same reason as to why you can not ride a horse on the freeway.

ousta• 9 years ago

actually i don't care at all about the climate and want to drive my vintage car. Rich people will still be able to pollute much more than me by flying in their planes.

wavefunction• 9 years ago

I'm cheering it because people can't be trusted with the responsibility of their freedoms.

francisofascii• 9 years ago

Because fossil fuel consumption is synonymous to a computer program that heats up server components and gobbles up finite system memory without relinquishing it ever again. Sometimes you do want a sys. admin to put a stop to stuff like that.

jotjotzzz• 9 years ago

Why is this even news? This is similar to not doing anything and letting time pass-by. Where's the urgency? Most of the polar ice caps will have been melted by then.

jabl• 9 years ago

Well, if (big IF ?!) Tony Seba is right, it'll all be over by 2030 anyway for traditional ICE cars (private ownership of ICE cars to be replaced by fleets of autonomic electrically powered taxis): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0

vxNsr• 9 years ago

Speaking of electric, how efficient are those solar panels on the top of some priuses? Is there any way of getting to the point of them having a significant impact on the battery charge? Is Tesla thinking of adding this sort of thing to their cars?

greglindahl6• 9 years ago

The energy produced rounds to zero - didn't Toyota use it to power a fan to reduce interior heating when the car was parked in the sun?

bohegeek• 9 years ago

now that's as courageous as banning propeller-driven aircraft for commercial long distance flight by 1970...

France to end sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040

Related Stories