Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Germany bans internal combustion engines by 2030


Recommended Posts

Wow!

http://gizmodo.com/german-lawmakers-vote-to-ban-the-internal-combustion-en-1787574000

german-lawmakers-vote-to-ban-the-internal-combustion-engine by 2030

The modern internal combustion engine first came from Germany and now Germany wants to put a nail in its coffin. The Bundesrat has passed a resolution to ban the ICE beginning in 2030.

...

“German regulations traditionally have shaped EU and UNECE regulations.”

Greens party lawmaker Oliver Krischer told Spiegel, “If the Paris agreement to curb climate-warming emissions is to be taken seriously, no new combustion engine cars should be allowed on roads after 2030.”

... Creating a tougher tax burden could encourage manufacturers to push electric vehicles into production sooner, rather than later.

Stunning ... 

We really are in a new era now.

By bye fossil fuels!

IMG_344020564434778.jpeg

Edited by jacee
Fix url, add pic
Link to post
Share on other sites

The law will be rescinded in 2029.

This is just pathetic posturing by religious zealots. 

For comparison: the Prius was introduced in 1997. It is 20 years later and it is still a bit player in the vehicle market.
Electric vehicles have a long way to go before they will be considered equal to a 1997 Prius in terms of capabilities.

If they follow the Prius rate of adoption there will still be a lot of ICE vehicles around 14 years from now.
There will still be a lot of ICE vehicles 30 years from now even under the most optimistic adoption scenarios. 

Anyone who thinks a law will change that is delusional.

Aside: Oil is 20% of Canada's exports. Beer is ~0%.
It makes no difference how many people make beer for Canadians to consume we need to exports to maintain our standard of living.
That means oil. No matter what you might think.
 

Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TimG said:

The law will be rescinded in 2029.

This is just pathetic posturing by religious zealots. 

For comparison: the Prius was introduced in 1997. It is 20 years later and it is still a bit player in the vehicle market.
Electric vehicles have a long way to go before they will be considered equal to a 1997 Prius in terms of capabilities.

If they follow the Prius rate of adoption there will still be a lot of ICE vehicles around 14 years from now.
There will still be a lot of ICE vehicles 30 years from now even under the most optimistic adoption scenarios. 

Anyone who thinks a law will change that is delusional.

There will clearly be a lot of ICE vehicles still on the road in 14 years, but I don't think it would be economically crippling to require all new vehicles sold starting in 2030 to be electric. As for capabilities... electric vehicles have all the capabilities of non-electric vehicles, today, aside from charging speed being slower than refueling speed and charging stations not being as widely available as gas stations. The prevalence of charging stations can be addressed through infrastructure funding and charging speed can be addressed by coming up with a new universal high-voltage high-current charging/connector standard. 

All that said, I myself don't think laws like this are necessary. Electric vehicles should be allowed to win market share based on their merits, rather than being forced on people. 

Edited by Bonam
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bonam said:

There will clearly be a lot of ICE vehicles still on the road in 14 years, but I don't think it would be economically crippling to require all new vehicles sold starting in 2030 to be electric. As for capabilities... electric vehicles have all the capabilities of non-electric vehicles, today, aside from charging speed being slower than refueling speed and charging stations not being as widely available as gas stations. The prevalence of charging stations can be addressed through infrastructure funding and charging speed can be addressed by coming up with a new universal high-voltage high-current charging/connector standard. 

All that said, I myself don't think laws like this are necessary. Electric vehicles should be allowed to win market share based on their merits, rather than being forced on people. 

My reading of the op is the Germans want to remove all ICE vehicles and do not want to limit it to new vehicles.
I agree that limiting it to new vehicles within the realm of plausibility but that is not what they are talking about.

Charging times and and refueling options is part of the 'capabilities' which are inferior to the 1997 Prius.
I did not say they could not be addressed just that when they are addressed we are talking about a long time to replace the current fleet (more than 14 years).

That said, I am not convinced that electric vehicles are equal to ICE in adverse weather conditions (e.g. using the heater or AC reduces range). It will take time to see whether these deficiencies can be adequately addressed.

I also agree that if EVs succeed on their own merits then they are a better option.
Trying to force them on people is not going to work.  

Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TimG said:

My reading of the op is the Germans want to remove all ICE vehicles and do not want to limit it to new vehicles.
I agree that limiting it to new vehicles within the realm of plausibility but that is not what they are talking about.

Charging times and and refueling options is part of the 'capabilities' which are inferior to the 1997 Prius.
I did not say they could not be addressed just that when they are addressed we are talking about a long time to replace the current fleet (more than 14 years).

That said, I am not convinced that electric vehicles are equal to ICE in adverse weather conditions (e.g. using the heater or AC reduces range). It will take time to see whether these deficiencies can be adequately addressed.

I also agree that if EVs succeed on their own merits then they are a better option.
Trying to force them on people is not going to work.  

If you follow the link in the OP it seems fairly clear they are talking about no NEW ICE vehicles on the roads after 2030, not getting all existing ones off the roads by then.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bonam said:

If you follow the link in the OP it seems fairly clear they are talking about no NEW ICE vehicles on the roads after 2030, not getting all existing ones off the roads by then.

I don't see how you get that from this:

Germany’s Spiegel Magazin reported this morning that the country’s top legislative body was able to reach a bi-partisan agreement that hopes to allow only zero-emission vehicles on EU roads in 14 years. 
 

Only allowing "zero-emission vehicles on EU roads" implies that all existing ICE vehicles are banned.

That said the putting the German through Google translate gives:

According to SPIEGEL information, the federal states do not want to allow new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 onwards

So I see your point.

Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. - Richard P. Feynman

You cannot legislate technological advancement.  If battery technology does not dramatically improve (to energy densities approaching that of chemical fuels), with improved safety (high density batteries tend to have significant fire risk, thus far), this will need to be rescinded.

Further, the source of the electricity must be on demand, so intermittent solar/wind won't work.  Without fossil fuels, the only option will be massive expansion of nuclear power.  Unfortunately for Germany, they have shuttered their nuclear plants.

It is much like the US government legislating the use of cellulosic ethanol in gasoline, even though no one has figured out how to make cellulosic ethanol at scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What percentage of our beer industry is foreign owned?

Internal combustion engines can run on non-fossil fuels as well, this eliminates some of the alternatives.

Besides vehicles, there are many other uses of internal combustion engines. A chainsaw for example. Yes, you have electric ones for home use, and potentially battery operated as well, but it will be a major challenge to build one for the forestry industry. Of course we can view this as the glass half empty, or focus on the problem and reap the rewards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With Germany abandoning nuclear power, where is the clean electricity going to come from to charge all these vehicles? Right now, hybrid Formula 1 cars are up to 50% thermally efficient so if you are charging your Tesla with power generated by a coal or oil fuelled power plant, you have a bigger carbon footprint than a Formula 1 car and almost the same as power from a natural gas fueled plant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wilber said:

With Germany abandoning nuclear power, where is the clean electricity going to come from to charge all these vehicles? Right now, hybrid Formula 1 cars are up to 50% thermally efficient so if you are charging your Tesla with power generated by a coal or oil fuelled power plant, you have a bigger carbon footprint than a Formula 1 car and almost the same as power from a natural gas fueled plant.

You knew that Germany buys tons of coal generated electricity from Poland, right?  And that Germany is the largest coal producer in Europe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Building the vehicles is the easy part. Vehicle technology will easily be that far by 2029. We could probably do it with existing technology. The major obstacle is where will their fuel (electricity) come from? There are about 300 million registered vehicles in the US and Canada. If they all became electric, where is the electricity going to come from to supply them?

 

Power generation is already the largest producer of greenhouse gasses with industry second and transportation third. Seems to me they are concentrating on the wrong issue. Gregor Robinson hasn't been spending a lot of time it Germany lately, has he?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Electric vehicles are the ultimate distributed grid energy storage. They can charge from the grid during off-peak hours and the grid could even draw energy back out of plugged in vehicles (within programmed limits that the owner sets) during peak hours. Most of the 9-5 work day is off-peak hours, so cars can charge while parked at people's workplaces while the sun is shining during mid day, and peak hours are right after people get home after work, when the grid could draw power from cars before they top off again during the night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Electric vehicles were in widespread use before ICE vehicles....ICEs replaced electrics.

I don't think so. The first internal combustion engines appeared nearly a century before electric vehicles, although it was hydrogen powered. Gasoline powered ICE also predate electric vehicles, but only by a couple of decades. There were electric streetcars about the time ICE vehicles started production, and they were more prevalent than ICE powered buses; perhaps that is what you are thinking about. Steam power of course predated all of this.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'widespread'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 6:33 PM, jacee said:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/the-electric-car-revolution-is-coming-but-not-until-2025-1.3115644

I think hybrids currently make a lot of sense in Canada, electric around town and gas on the highway.

I do think a huge change to electric is coming, in Germany and elsewhere.

There may be change coming, but as your article suggests that by 2027, electric vehs will only represent a 25 % of the market share....that means that 75 % of all vehs on the road will still be run by ICE......Not enough to drive the market in any direction.....German is making a claim that it will not be able to keep.....Besides do you really think that all the fossil fuel companies are going to just role over and die.....they are not going to try to protect their trillions of dollars of annual income......Shit by 2030 we will still be using coal....let alone fossil fuels.....

Edited by Army Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2016 at 8:11 PM, TimG said:

Aside: Oil is 20% of Canada's exports. Beer is ~0%.
It makes no difference how many people make beer for Canadians to consume we need to exports to maintain our standard of living.
That means oil. No matter what you might think.
 

Okay, so we simply need more people drinking more beer.

That'll also mean less people driving fewer cars and burning less oil.

Classic two-fer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...