EU lawmakers approve effective 2035 ban on new fossil fuel cars

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/eu-lawmakers-approve-effective-2035-ban-new-fossil-fuel-cars-2023-02-14/

by huijzer • 3 years ago

75 174 3 years ago

reuters.com

heipei3• 3 years ago

It's going to be interesting to observe first hand how much earlier this will effectively take place, i.e. how much sooner folks will transition to only buying new EVs, because who wants to be the last person to buy a brand-new ICE just before 2035 except maybe some petrolheads.

It will also be interesting to see what this does to the used-car market in Europe, though I guess you can always sell used ICEs abroad minus their shipping cost.

Spivak• 3 years ago

I think you have it backwards and that late 2034 ICE cars are going to sell like hotcakes and the market for keeping used cars alive will thrive like we’ve never seen.

I really want to believe that local governments are going to have this ban light a fire under their ass and and actuality make EVs usable for the “rest of us” who have street parking and no chargers at work but they won’t and so like everything else in this world this ban will disproportionately affect low income folks.

Also governments will happily exempt themselves and their from their own laws once they realize that you can’t “just” replace busses and mail delivery with EVs and have to actually plan for it.

garblegarble2• 3 years ago

I think you have it backwards and that late 2034 ICE cars are going to sell like hotcakes and the market for keeping used cars alive will thrive like we’ve never seen.

I suspect the ever-increasing cost of fossil fuels will prevent such a thriving market in ICE repair being long-lived...

djaychela2• 3 years ago

Secondhand ICE cars will be on the road for their normal lifespan after the ban comes in. There will be some changes to the market in terms of pricing, but they won't be going out of common sight for another 15-20 years, I think.

bluGill7• 3 years ago

Some will be. However I think we will see a cliff. As ICE cars become less popular gas stations and the refineries supplying them will close. This will start happening when EVs have been 25% of the new market for 3 years, and accelerate when they have been 50% for 3 years. By the time EVs are 75% of the new market gas will start becoming expensive and so EVs will quickly jump to 98%, and people with ICEs will start to plan trips around where to get fuel. That last 1-2% will be some niches that cannot use an EV for some reason, and so they will lobby to reverse the law - but by then it will be too late for ICEs: a few years latter those with an ICE will special order fuel from the last refinery remaining in the world.

It will start slow: gas stations will be less profitable, but investors/banks will take time to catch on so they will be built in larger numbers than the numbers justify (if you are an investor take note: there is opportunity to make money in shorts if you get it right - I'm not an investor so I won't be playing this). Then they will all see reduced profitability. When pumps break or tanks fail inspection someone will decide the market doesn't justify the investment in fixing/replacing them an so they will close and they won't be replaced (the part already happens, but there is some other new station nearby to make it up)

The next part will accelerate as unprofitable gas stations go bankrupt. We will probably see some over correction in places as a corner than had 4 stations but can now only support 3 will see several go bankrupt at once, and then the one that just manages to hang on will be wildly profitable.

The last part will see us where gas is hard to get. If you have an ICE it is no longer a case of when the fuel gauge is low you stop for fuel, it is you know where the stations you use are and ensure you can get back to them. when on a road trip you plan around where gas stations are (much like EV cars have to now, but soon an EV will find chargers every 20 miles and so won't have to worry - some places already have EV chargers that dense)

Note that I said nothing about refineries. Many of them have better management and are watching this. At least some are already watching this and making plans to reduce size as it happens, between that and non-travel markets they will be okay for longer and probably can spin down their business. Watch out for the small ones: some of them are only running today because when they shutdown they have to cleanup decades of pollution - expect a bunch of "EPA superfund" projects around them.

I believe Norway is already close to the first mark above, and probably other countries. I expect to see it show up in data (that I have no clue how to access) soon.

seszett• 3 years ago

This isn't a ban on ICEs, just on new ones.

Existing ICEs will likely stay on the road until the 2050s, they will eventually get banned from city centers but many ICEs are already banned (my previous car was banned in 2020 in my city, and my current one will be in 2027, for example) and the used-car market doesn't seem to have suffered much if at all.

heipei3• 3 years ago

No, I get that it's only new cars, but what I meant what was that the attractiveness of an ICE will rapidly diminish way before the cutoff date of 2035. As other comments have said, infrastructure might heavily favour EVs (gas stations, parking lots, residential parking, city bans, tax incentives), making ICEs much less attractive even if you can still technically own and drive them. For new cars, the models that are going to be sold over the next 12 years have already been developed, many car manufacturers have developed their last iteration ICEs, so except facelifts you can essentially just buy 12-year-old models in 2034/2035.

Put another way: Would you want to be the last guy to buy an Intel Mac if Apple had already announced their switch to ARM with all the changes that go along with it? Yes, you can still run it, yes there are still others who run it, but do you want to be the last holdout that buys that Intel machine right before the next Apple keynote finalising the switch?

lm28469• 3 years ago

how much sooner folks will transition to only buying new EVs

Won't happen until we get cheap EVs. Most people can't afford even the basic models (which are glorified golf carts and can't even do highway speeds)

saiya-jin2• 3 years ago

I believe its the same logic as with ICE - used electric car market needs to look similar to used ICE car market, pricewise. I can accept buying electric car say 6 years old with 90% battery capacity and usual wear and tear for half to 1/3rd of the price of new one.

But even though I can easily afford it, I will simply never pay those prices for new cars, ICE nor electric. They are ridiculous, never understood who buys them outright or via some not-so-smart payment regimes.

nemo44x2• 3 years ago

I’m guessing people will be stockpiling them. Used ICEs will probably retain lots of value for years after this mandate goes into effect. Especially when people figure out the electrical to their home doesn’t have enough to charge reliably.

bluGill7• 3 years ago

For a short time. However soon after they will discover that an ICE doesn't take to just sitting around for years. Not used seals start leaking. Lead-acid batteries need to be stored correctly or they discharge and fail. And other problems - all for a car that you don't use, and fuel is hard to find.

There will be a few niches that still use ICEs (but my guess is they get the law changed and one factory in the world provides all the vehicles that niche needs - this won't be the average car, but something setup for their niche, so they won't be interested in your stored car)

_edmb3• 3 years ago

Some countries and cities in Europe have put the ban in place well before 2035:

https://greencitizen.com/news/amsterdam-announces-a-ban-on-f...

Amsterdam by 2030, and the Netherlands as a whole is trying to do it by 2025.

edit: Fascinating to me that pointing out basic facts is worthy of downvoting.

bombcar3• 3 years ago

Vatican City State can't have more than few dozen vehicles, so it would cost at most a few million to be the first EU state to go completely fossil-fuel-free on their transport fleet.

Electrification of their railway station could be a cost, but it's so short you might be able to use a long enough train that the locomotive never enters the sovereign area.

eCa• 3 years ago

The Vatican isn’t in the EU.

AdamN4• 3 years ago

I upvoted you - HN is becoming more like /r/cars and Trumplandia every day and I'm not sure exactly what is going on.

TheLoafOfBread22• 3 years ago

People are getting older and more conservative.

petodo5• 3 years ago

People are downvoting you probably because even the article you link contradict nonsense you say:

your article:

"(City of) Amsterdam Announces A Ban On Fossil Fuel Vehicles From 2030"

you:

"And the Netherlands as a whole is trying to do it by 2025."

Last time I checked Amsterdam was in Netherlands.

_edmb3• 3 years ago

No contradictions anywhere. Indeed, Amsterdam is in the Netherlands. Amsterdam has passed a rule first, with the rest of the country trying to do the same and more aggressively.

The gasoline and diesel car ban in the Netherlands will start in the city of Amsterdam

Plenty of other info out there:

Dutch State Secretary for Infrastructure and Water Management has announced she is looking into options for banning combustion engines in lease cars in the Netherlands from as early as 2025.

https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-expat-news/new-eu-c...

mhandley• 3 years ago

https://archive.is/H0Uji

kneebonian• 3 years ago

I love bans like this that are 17 years out. It allows a politician to act like they are making a stand and doing something decisive when in reality they know they'll be long gone before having to actually ever have to deal with any of the consequences or actually implementing it.

estomagordo• 3 years ago

My man, this is 12 years away. Also, I don't think much of the implementation rests on the politicians?

2OEH8eoCRo02• 3 years ago

I'm in the US but if the US govt passed a ban on gas vehicles effective today, I'd be extremely upset. I love my car.

zirgs• 3 years ago

That ban is for new cars only. Existing gas cars won't go away any time soon.

esistgut• 3 years ago

It's not a ban on gas vehicles, it's a ban on new sales of gas vehicles. Your car would be perfectly fine.

bombcar3• 3 years ago

Good news, everyone! Almost every time a technology is banned, the old grandfathered in examples of that technology become higher value! You're car you love will become worth a bit more, as people will be incentivized to keep it running.

Loughla• 3 years ago

The only reason I would be upset, is that it appears to me that new EV's come loaded with software that I don't much care for. It appears that they are MUCH easier to track than a traditional ice vehicle.

Or am I incorrect?

cassepipe2• 3 years ago

And I'd love that you would stop emitting CO2 because you can't go anywhere without a one ton metal case so we are still able to grow food in twenty years from now.

mytailorisrich4• 3 years ago

It's 12 years out and this is a short time for the magnitude of the change.

The UK has enacted a similar ban that should come into effect 5 years earlier, in 2030, so in 7 years and at the moment my best guess is that this is going to be a bloodbath (and second hand petrol cars are going to become even more valuable) if it is not postponed. It requires gigantic investments and adaptation that are not happening, or are happening very, very slowly.

djaychela2• 3 years ago

Are you in the UK? That's not my take on what's happening - I've seen a big uptick in electric cars and charging infra in the last year or so. I've seen plenty of graphs that look like the UK would be mostly done with the transition to EVs for this segment by 2030 even if the ban wasn't coming into force - looks like a traditional sigmoid curve to me.

benevol• 3 years ago

There are several new energy sources about to "come online". It's just that mainstream does suppress the information about those.

AdamN4• 3 years ago

Even if what you say is true, wouldn't that still be an ok outcome? We're in a climate crisis and need to starkly reduce the number of carbon sources on the planet so if EV cars didn't get broad adoption and used petrol cars double in value (but no more of them are produced), that still seems like a good outcome. Obviously some players will lose but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

galangalalgol• 3 years ago

What are the laws like in the eu or uk for ev conversions? In the US it is mostly done on older lighter cars. Enough older that they are regulated differently from other vehicles. EV west for instance focuses on vw/Porsche vehicles that had that tiny magnesium air cooled engine.

hardware2win• 3 years ago

Uh, what is the other option?

Ban it in next 4 years?

im3w1l• 3 years ago

Two other options: Taxes that slowly ramp up until fossil fuel cars become unaffordable. Quotas for how many fossil fuel cars are allowed to be sold (bid on the right to sell one, pass on cost to consumer).

googlryas• 3 years ago

It also provides ample opportunity for a different regime to come in and extend or cancel the ban.

standardUser2• 3 years ago

What precise timeframe do you require to believe a policy is indeed a policy and not some elaborate ploy to trick and deceive you?

Havoc• 3 years ago

On the other hand it does have an impact in that it is functionally permanent.

Reversing it would require an active push for something that is unpopular

dashundchen5• 3 years ago

Auto manufacturers are definitely investing like this is going to happen. I can't remember when a major manufacturer announced new ICE platforms - it's almost exclusively EV or shared EV/hybrid platforms being introduced.

Look at the sheer investment in lithium, batteries and electronic suppliers. Manufacturers are going full tilt into lithium supply contracts, battery factory joint ventures, motor and electronic components - almost every week theres a new announcement.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's hundreds of billions at this point between Europe, North America and Japan. That's not even counting China or India.

drumhead• 3 years ago

Who's going to be first to extend the deadline when they realise there isnt the infrastructure, generating capacity or desire from public for this?

akmarinov3• 3 years ago

This gives us enough time to start building out that infrastructure and generating capacity gradually until then.

geraldwhen3• 3 years ago

There is not nearly enough energy production in Europe for this unless the 240M car owners in Europe mostly all abandon their vehicles.

DoneWithAllThat• 3 years ago

No it absolutely does not. You need more like 50 years for that.

xiphias2• 3 years ago

Yup. Europe has 1 year to switch from gas to LNG its significant part of natural gas usage. Increasing the grid bandwidth by 50% is a much smaller change.

silvestrov2• 3 years ago

even if they extend the deadline it will then be much easier to add an extra tax on non-electric cars.

This will make it an competive advantage for car makers to switch over early.

TheLoafOfBread22• 3 years ago

That will only damage poor people, unable to buy EVs, subsequently voting for autocratic populists.

Robotbeat9• 3 years ago

We used to double generating capacity every year in the US for like 3 decades in a row. Electrification of vehicles increasing electricity needs by about 50%. But a ban on NEW fossil fuel vehicles would then take two decades to trickle down to all vehicles. So overall, there’s the better part of 3-4 decades to transition generating capacity.

concordDance2• 3 years ago

Wait, the US electrical generation capacity increased by a factor of a billion in 30 years?

I know industrialization was fast but was it really that fast?

Robotbeat9• 3 years ago

Should be a doubling every decade, not every year. (I’m unable to edit.)

ClumsyPilot4• 3 years ago

You know the old afage, the close the dealine looms, the more productivity increases.

If there are no deadlines, this will never get done

nbevans• 3 years ago

Quite a "u-turn" from the bloc which for two decades pushed (through regulation) dirty diesel engines as the solution.

thworp• 3 years ago

Yes but those engines did emit something like 30% less CO2 per km and in good conditions almost no nitrous oxide.

ben_w3• 3 years ago

Not from my perspective.

Petrol is 100 units of bad for CO2, diesel is (say) 95 units, batteries are perhaps 20, bicycles 5, good shoes and walkable neighbourhoods 1.

But petrol has cost ($ up front not TCO or non-CO2 pollution) of 20, diesel 22, batteries were 100 and are now 25, bicycles 1-2, and I'm not sure how to make even this level of wild guess for walkable neighbourhoods.

The reduction in cost of batteries is what's made this viable. Before this was viable, diesel was sill less bad.

yread• 3 years ago

That helped reduce NOx emmissions 7x times in 30 years

https://nitter.net/BM_Visser/status/1624717450297348096#m

cowl2• 3 years ago

Eh? They helpedd reduce the Emmisions of the system they were promoting for? Diesel is more CO2 friendly but much more polluting with NOx. This agressive push for a clearly inferior fuel (for this metric) is what raised the NOx emissions. They don't get bonus point for minimising an effect that was caused by that decision in the first place. And there are plenty of studies that show that real-life use of the Cars of whatever Euro-X standard does not match the laboratory results based on which they get those certifications in the first place. And not this was not something only for VW that caused the scandaaal, these tests are done with all the brands and outside of very limitied scenarios all produced more than the standard dictated.

jakear2• 3 years ago

I suppose if there's any place EV's make sense, it's the EU. Dense enough populations and prevalent enough trains that odds are you aren't going to find yourself on a 500 mile trip through the middle of nowhere.

Amusing to see American city slickers claim the same is true here.

cowl2• 3 years ago

|prevalent enough trains

Everyone keeps repeating this farce. No Trains are not prevalent enough. Those are prevalent only between major cities and do not offer a good service. (Most of trains in rush hours do not have enough capacity, are a health hazzard, heating or cooling does not work etc, on the otherside of the coin, outside of rush hours you have these trains run practically empty, total waste of Energy).

Asking people to exhange their 1 hour commute for a 2.5 hours (each direction) public transport is not a solution.

But the main problem is that not everyone need to move between major cities where these trains are prevalent. I drive one hour to get to work. there are no Train lines there. While that distance is doable with an EV, it makes you nervous, there is effectivly zero infrastructure build for EVs outside of Major cities and I know fully well that the infrastructure will not be ready by 2035.

EU has put the cart before the horse. They should have first mandated the building of the infrastructure and I am sure more people will adopt the EVs. Meanwhile more incetivising of Hybrid Cars should be in place.

ben_w3• 3 years ago

EU is as variable as the US for such things, but with more languages and currencies and the police may ask to see your ID when crossing borders (happened to me twice in recent years when leaving France, with the border inspection on the train itself, even though I've also gone across the French-German-Swiss borders on bike without even a signpost in all cases).

We've got the Blue Banana region[0] which is well connected, and western Europe more broadly, but if there's a way to get from Berlin to Athens only by train I don't know how to find it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Banana ironically straightened by Brexit

jakear2• 3 years ago

EU is as variable as the US for such things

Eh... not really. The population density across the entire EU is 3x that of that of the US. The only countries in the EU with a lower population density than the US average are Estonia, Latvia, Sweden, and Finland. Of those, the lowest is Finland, with 41 people per sq. mile. There are 11 US states with lower density than that, including Alaska, with 1.6 people per sq. mile.

This is where the cliche of Germans coming to the US to park out in the middle of nowhere and look at nothing with no one around comes from. Not a thing in the EU! And if it is, you'll be cold.

That said, my only claim was "if there's anywhere they'd work, it's the EU". If not even the EU is suitable, well that's that.

Kon-Peki2• 3 years ago

Modern automobiles are so durable that they can last almost indefinitely with maintenance. There's a lot of evidence, especially with demographic projections, to suggest that all the cars that will ever be needed (in the EU) have already been produced.

Think about steel. Very little steel is now produced from raw materials. 95% or more of steel production is recycling. Cars will be the same. Want to get into a growth industry? Start investing in businesses that go far beyond normal car repair and will be able to refresh an old car to feel new again, especially car interiors and tech.

coffeebeqn• 3 years ago

Seems like dismantling the hundreds of millions of ICE cars for valuable parts and materials should have some money to be made.

Even better if some of them can be converted - but that might be too difficult

AdamN4• 3 years ago

That already happens. Basically every car gets recycled, even if it's just for raw materials.

saiya-jin2• 3 years ago

Nobody would pay for such maintenance, it would end up costing more than new cars. Checking every valve, bolt, tube, sealing etc. Metal parts get fatigue. Plastics and sealants get weird chemical reactions over time. You would end up with same looking car without most of original components, and that's ridiculously expensive proposition.

Since we talk about systems comprised of at least few thousands of pieces, and failure of most will degrade usability/safety of the car or render it unable to drive, I can't agree with some of your statements. Recycling of course is a valid point but those are not same cars.

Also its trivial for bureaucracies to tax older more polluting cars to hell... people are sensitive to costs. And older cars do pollute more.

Kon-Peki2• 3 years ago

Nobody would pay for such maintenance, it would end up costing more than new cars

And what if new cars aren't available? Like if some crazy European technocrats pass a law?

Somebody is going to make a lot of money off this; it clearly won't be anyone from HN.

bluGill7• 3 years ago

There is a lot on a modern car that won't last without expensive maintenance. You can keep it going down the road, after 10 years you learn to live with a few broken body parts, wear on the seats, and electronics that don't work. That all could be fixed - but it is cheaper to just buy a brand new car (the type of people driving a car that could either cannot afford a new car, or are too cheap to buy one). I've seen collector cars restored to better than factory new, but it the car was cheaper new (inflation adjusted) than the restore costs. Or more likely the costs were about the same as factory new, but the person doing the restore did it for himself and counted labor costs as zero.

TheLoafOfBread22• 3 years ago

Unless (like during communism in my country) you don't have money on a new car, so you are keeping 20-30 years old car running by self-maintaining it every weekend.

pasabagi2• 3 years ago

Most machines can last indefinitely with maintenance. The other day I used a printing press that was two hundred years old, was in basically continuous operation for much of that time, and is still used daily, today.

Cars have two obvious problems from a long-term maintenance standpoint: the steel chasis, which is protected from rust by paint. That will absolutely and inevitably rust. The second is that people don't understand maintenance. They'll happilly sit next to a machine that's screaming audibly for lack of oil, and think nothing of it. That's not something that will get better in the future.

eldaisfish3• 3 years ago

Machines with controlled explosions inside them do not last indefinitely. A printing press and an internal combustion engine are not remotely the same from a maintenance standpoint.

skeletal88• 3 years ago

Rust is a major problem for northern countries, cars that would otherwise work ok for long just.. rust through if the body was not properly manufactured

closewith• 3 years ago

Modern automobiles are so durable that they can last almost indefinitely with maintenance.

This is so far from the truth it must be satire? Unless by maintenance, you mean the complete replacement of engine, accessories, drivetrain, electrics, electronics, interior, frame/subframes/chassis/body, suspension, wheels, fasterners, etc. Ie every part.

Maybe the mirrors in the sun visors can be used indefinitely. Everything else will wear out.

standardUser2• 3 years ago

This doesn't match with reality. People like new cars with new safety standards and new technology. Old cars will get perpetually more expensive to fuel and maintain. Fuel standards will become stricter and those old cars will require testing and modifications (as is already the case).

I have no doubt the hobbyists will find a way to keep their old cars as they always have. The rest of us don't want to be wasting our time and money keeping a 30-year-old car in decent condition.

TheLoafOfBread22• 3 years ago

those old cars will require testing and modifications (as is already the case).

No they don't, that's not the case. Example: Skoda Octavia 1 TDI does not have DPF and nobody is retrofitting DPFs into those cars.

TheLoafOfBread22• 3 years ago

Will get eventually reversed when politicians figure out that it is so easy for populists to grab votes of poor people just by pointing on expensive EVs.

Isinlor2• 3 years ago

Nobody will remember about it in few years. The same was with cap and trade system.

TheLoafOfBread22• 3 years ago

If you think dumb energy exchange in EU, then people never ceased to be salty about it and it was major driver of energy prices, thanks to the fact, that this stupid system is pricing by the most expensive power plant - which were gas power plants.

petodo5• 3 years ago

In before these politicians will be voted out and new politicians will reverse this nonsense majority of people doesn't want, but politicians ignore majority of voters.

DrBazza4• 3 years ago

I hope the same EU lawmakers have mandated a huge building programme of nuclear power, wind turbines, solar and storage to keep up.

And demand that range hits comparable petrol distances in the same time scale.

Of course they haven't.

dividedbyzero2• 3 years ago

The French have, but in all likelihood any new nuclear capacity is going to go online way too late and cost way too much. Flamanville has a delay of 11 years, Olkiluoto construction is turning 20 this year and is still in evaluations. All have colossal cost overruns too. Nuclear is pretty dead in the water right now in that it's currently not possible to actually get them built.

DrBazza4• 3 years ago

The US have approved modular nuclear. But might be too little too late for Europe. And it’s nimby approach to certain things. Especially protectionist France. Can’t imagine they’d ever give a nuclear contract to anyone other than EdF

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-approves-design-n...

goatsneez• 3 years ago

I would be of opinion that by 2035 the gasses to liquid fuels transformation of CO2 + CH4 from the atmosphere (using SE) will overtake the electrification idea of today. The liquid fuels are here to stay, not necessarily for the entire chain of transportation system, but for a significant portion of it (and certainly for humanty's ever larger scope of war efforts which cannot run on electricity).

GuB-42• 3 years ago

Technically, we are already there.

All cars sold today are able to run on biofuels: ethanol for gas cars, vegetable oil for diesel.

It is not manufacturers fault if people put fossil fuel in them...

Of course, I am being sarcastic, but while electric and hydrogen cars seem to be the obvious response, I don't see biofuels being unacceptable (and I've seen several mentions of net CO2 in articles).

331c8c71• 3 years ago

All cars sold today are able to run on biofuels: ethanol for gas cars, vegetable oil for diesel.

Cars adapted to E10 or E15 won't run on pure ethanol. You can probably run diesel cars on vegoil but I expect problems cause it's more viscous. Talking about Europe here, not LatAm or Brazil.

Eddy_Viscosity2• 3 years ago

Are they likewise mandating the construction of the infrastructure needed to handle all the vehicle charging?

pier252• 3 years ago

Very bold move but if they don't provide clean electricity for those electric cars it won't change anything as far as emissions go.

12 years to transition the EU to clean electricity and increase grid capacity is going to be quite a challenge.

arrrg• 3 years ago

Why does that have to happen at the same time?

It should, obviously, but even today (with not so great energy mixes) electric cars do better than gas cars from an emissions point of view (even if looking at the whole life cycle).

Electric cars are energy mix agnostic and you try to frame that as a disadvantage but it actually is not, quite the opposite. They are one puzzle piece that enables change and without which change is not possible.

I don’t get arguments like yours.

Obviously we always have to do much, much more. We have to massively push individual cars out of densely populated areas and turn them into an option that is not fun at all to use there. We have to upgrade public transport. We have to better our energy mix. Buildings have to become more efficient on a massive scale. Energy intensive industrial processes have to transition to ways of doing things that can at least be plausibly made CO2 (equivalent) neutral like hydrogen. And and and. Doesn’t mean that all of this has to or even can happen at the same time.

pier252• 3 years ago

Why does that have to happen at the same time?

Well because the grid capacity has to increase rapidly to satisfy the demand of electric cars and then some.

If the EU countries are going to invest into new energy infra during this decade, it better be clean considering the whole point is to reduce emissions.

This massive investment probably won't happen again in generations and it would be pretty stupid to have to rebuild the energy grid.

and you try to frame that as a disadvantage

I'm happy with the transition to electric cars. Not sure where you're getting that idea from.

I don’t get arguments like yours.

What argument? That the EU will need more electricity very soon? That's a fact.

irthomasthomas• 3 years ago

This is impossible, surely? Or do they only care about the running of the car, and not it's manufacturing? If so, that's just incredibly dumb. The CO2 required to manufacture EVs is significantly higher than ICE (like 40-60% higher)[0]. Unless manufacturing moves away from fossil fuels, first, this will massively accelerate the amount of CO2 we release, and we won't see any reduction for a decade or more (partly depends on the lifecycle of the batteries). And you won't see a NET reduction for many decades, due to the front-loading of the CO2 premium in manufacturing EVs Vs ICE.

This is crazy.

We cannot consume our way to a fossil fuel free world. We need to invent and build clean energy sources, and low carbon manufacturing.

[0] "The emissions from Materials production and refining of the ICE are roughly 40 per cent less than for the BEV" https://www.volvocars.com/images/v/-/media/project/contentpl...

thinkcontext• 3 years ago

Yes, BEVs have higher manufacturing emissions but study after study finds lifetime emissions are substantially lower. This holds even on coal heavy electric grids, it just takes longer. For instance this article talks about a study that found it takes 1.5 years in the US for a BEV to "pay off" its higher manufacturing emissions vs 6 years in China because of its dirtier manufacturing and electricity.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/the-lifecycle-emissions-of-elect...

Of course these studies are looking at averages. If you drive a 10 year old Honda Civic and only go 500 miles a year, you aren't going to be saving the environment by buying an electric Hummer.

EU lawmakers approve effective 2035 ban on new fossil fuel cars

Related Stories