Submitted by Wagamaga t3_yfhrm6 in technology
Comments
dfgooner t1_iu3hwih wrote
I think it’s as much a baked in part of society as it is the result of any policy. Like, when I was in Germany and Belgium in the summer, compared to the UK it was striking how little litter there was, especially on the sides of motorways and places like that.
dfgooner t1_iu3ibo2 wrote
That’s a good point about the relative ages of Europe and the US, perhaps that has something to do with it. The UK doesn’t quite have the same excuse!
Honestly, few things make me angrier on a daily basis than seeing litter everywhere. I just can’t get into the headspace of someone who thinks it’s cool just to chuck their crap on the floor.
mdielmann t1_iu69cy2 wrote
I had a coworker that would just toss his empty coffee cup on the ground on the way into work. He would literally pass 5 trash cans in the next 2 minutes, but I guess he figured that was too long to hold onto something he didn't need anymore.
[deleted] t1_iu3i5bn wrote
Yes! Same! European cities also have people who clean the streets too.
Granted we have that in the US, but I only see them on the roads and side of major interstates.
I don’t see much litter in the streets, but our sidewalks and roads are dirty if you compare them to some European cities.
I also believe since Europe is older than the US, they hold onto their old architecture and older roads so they care for them better.
Aim4thebullseye t1_iu52nrr wrote
I assume you didnt see Berlin (from someone living in Berlin)
Kindnexx t1_iu58xwt wrote
It’s also German culture in this case, Paris and Marseille give London a run for its money
Grainis01 t1_iu3vm5r wrote
It will turn out poorly for anything east of germany.
Our countries are poorer(median wage is about 1/3rd of median german wage), and even second hand electrics are atleast 40-50% more expensive than same year combustion.
And i dont see this trend reversing.
I will fuck up personal mobility for poorer countries, and especially disabled people on govt assistance, a properly modified car is already a luxury for most of them, it will be worse.
EU has one big problem with sweeping things like that for environment they base their decisions on countries where consumer can absorb the extra cost without much stress, but for 1/3rd of the union those changes are catastrophic to people.
For example as part of our EU agreement our country was supposed to "liberalize the electricity supply market", we did that and now we pay a price for KWh that is 10% higher than germany while our wages are 1/3-1/2 of theirs.
Sweeping changes in EU while in general are a good idea, they often fuck over the little/poorer countires.
aaOzymandias t1_iu3mewu wrote
Some parts of the EU, sure, others? Not so much. Last time I was in Rome and surrounding area it was a dump, with garbage and litter everywhere. The Baltic stats have been pretty good about being clean though.
[deleted] t1_iu3mtr4 wrote
Understandable, I was in turkey (not apart of the EU obviously) talking to a French guy and he said Paris is disgusting.
AaronThePrime t1_iu445lp wrote
They care for their cities and people no doubt, but I wouldn't say their environment. There's still a long way to go in terms of their energy dependency and relative overconsumption, so while the countries themselves don't produce much pollution, the real problem is what they import from other countries. Similar thing for the US, only they have both problems instead of just one.
Playingpokerwithgod t1_iu3ldjr wrote
I'm fine with this as long as they don't go after classic cars. I'll be damned if they come for my 69 Camaro.
Behe464 t1_iu3lyvy wrote
You just won't be able to buy new fosil fuel cars, thats it. Banning already bought cars would cause serious issues. Even 12 years from now, unless they plan to give them away for free.
Pegguins t1_iu3mfke wrote
Not sure about Europe but a while back in the UK there was a huge scheme where the government would give you a lot of money towards a newer car to get some really polluting hunks off the roads. Could do something like that I suppose.
Tedstor t1_iu43d4u wrote
The US had a ‘cash for clunkers’ program too. It was mostly to prop up the auto industry during the Great Recession, but also to get jalopies off the road too.
EnemyOfEloquence t1_iu47ter wrote
Nothing saves the environment like throwing sand into millions of perfectly usable cars engines that were already built.
Bensemus t1_iu6re8q wrote
If you are switching to an EV it is better for the environment. While you are losing the pollution that went into making the car and you need to make the EV it’s still greener. This is because the vast majority of an ICE car’s pollution comes from using it. Basically only hybrids are efficient enough to bother keeping.
EnemyOfEloquence t1_iu6triz wrote
I'm not switching. I'm talking about making a car that exists, run longer/indefinitely.
Atilim87 t1_iu3oduv wrote
Netherlands (some cities) did the same thing with old diesel cars (pre 2000 cars).
But those old diesel cars were banned from entering the cities, however the cars in questions are so old that the compensation was worth more than the car itself often.
Daedelous2k t1_iu3prg1 wrote
Scotland is banning certain cars from entering big cities soon.
Professional_Drop555 t1_iu6pl5f wrote
It's usually with smaller cars, but there is a whole "hobbyist" platform out there were folks replace combustion engines with Eletric.
atchijov t1_iu8epl3 wrote
No. But at some point you may have issues with purchasing gas. Once demand drops, most of gas stations will switch to electric only.
Darkswords4 t1_iu43wtq wrote
I know it's sentimental so don't take this as anything but an impersonal remark but all those old cars need to go imo. I know it's a huge change but even making this ban take place in 13 years seems like way too much waiting, way too much thumb twiddling, and way too much opportunity for reversal only to then still have a gas car market for the next ten years.
Thisbymaster t1_iu4rz87 wrote
Why? You can replace the guts with electric with no issue and if you want the sound you can just put a speaker in it. Why should pollution spreading machines be allowed on the road when the whole point is they need to be removed?
Plumb121 t1_iu3oef8 wrote
Bugger, I was planning on buying a V12 Lamborghini on my 65th birthday.....
[deleted] t1_iu59exp wrote
[removed]
ClammyHandedFreak t1_iu3m3j1 wrote
We need to stop bleeding so much methane into our atmosphere as well as take measures like this with fossil fuel vehicles. The measly amount of greenhouse gas excreted when I drive less than 8 miles for groceries every 2 weeks is nothing compared to what industry is pumping out night and day every second at a dizzying rate. Methane is many times worse of a greenhouse gas when compared at scale to what is coming out of our cars.
The_Countess t1_iu3npom wrote
While its true that methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas then CO2, it also breaks down in our atmosphere within 20 years so there is no accumulative effect.
The CO2 you emit during your groceries shopping trip in contrast stays in the carbon cycle for hundreds or even thousands of years, contributing to climate change that whole time.
Also, many people drive a lot more then 8 miles every 2 weeks. And if you're just driving 8 miles every 2 weeks anyway just keep your old gas car. This isn't a outright ban.
The bottom line however is that we need to do all the things. complaining one measure doesn't fix everything is a BS distraction.
[deleted] t1_iu7wgaq wrote
[deleted]
defcon_penguin t1_iu3j8zm wrote
The market will take care of them before 2030. Once cheaper batteries and more affordable EVs are available, no one is going to buy ICE cars anymore. They won't have any value on the market for used cars
Tastypies t1_iu3th3y wrote
That's not entirely true. There will always be a market for sports car enthusiasts who want a lightweight car with an ICE, a manual gearbox and rear-wheel drive that can be modified with aftermarket parts. I know cause I'm one of them. If you don't believe me, look up the prices of old Supras, RX-7s and Skylines.
defcon_penguin t1_iu5nbdo wrote
You know right that EV vehicles have much more acceleration and stability than ICEs right? Or is it just the noise that you like?
Tastypies t1_iu62i9v wrote
It's about emotion, not logic nor numbers. There's something raw about ICE vehicles that EVs don't have. Btw I'm not against EVs, I think the shift towards EVs is good.
u9Nails t1_iu3slz6 wrote
Cheaper batteries, I hope. But I fully expect lithium rich countries to look at this news with dollar symbols in their eyes.
The_Countess t1_iu3oap8 wrote
I don't think it will go that fast. there will be a few challenges around charging at home or work being easier for some then others, and some niche cases were being able to refuel quickly is a significant advantage.
And some of the materials needed for batteries are also going up in price, offsetting some of the gains in battery tech.
Having said that yes, the transition is already starting and will be well under way before we hit 2035. But this legislation puts a dot on the horizon that the relevant industries can work towards (mainly the car industry, the grid and charging infrastructure builders)
defcon_penguin t1_iu3oza4 wrote
Battery cost going up is a temporary situation due to the production not ramping up fast enough to meet demand. That should only last a couple of years. For people that can't park in a garage, a weekly fast charge should be enough, no one is doing more than 500km per week, at least in europe. Fast charging networks keep on improving and they are catching up quite fast. Recharging times are also going down continously, and I can imagine that in 8 years they should be at least half of the current best. Innovation in battery is going very fast
optermationahesh t1_iu5e8v7 wrote
Not going to happen without a significantly improved charging infrastructure.
defcon_penguin t1_iu5n52z wrote
And do you think that 8 years are not enough to build it?
jawshoeaw t1_iu3kiek wrote
We’re just waiting on batteries at this point. The decision is already clear , electric transportation is superior in almost every metric
[deleted] t1_iu3how1 wrote
[deleted]
u9Nails t1_iu3n5mc wrote
California and China already are leaders in this area
CheapMonkey34 t1_iu3oeax wrote
Electrification yes. Carbon reduction? Not so much…
u9Nails t1_iu3p0c8 wrote
That's a different topic. In general, yeah, States are going about this wrong by forcing laws on consumers and are not focusing on commercial and industrial reduction nearly enough.
AaronThePrime t1_iu44k2d wrote
California has a very long way to go in terms of environmentalism, they barely even have public transit
Gry_lion t1_iu6q826 wrote
Hey! They project to spend $100 billion+ on high speed rail! Too... ummm... Merced?
[deleted] t1_iu3npil wrote
[deleted]
thebaron512 t1_iu4g36x wrote
EV are really not ready for prime time yet and not as environmental friendly as claimed.
lpalerider t1_iu3m17s wrote
Sweet. I should be dead by then.
gamingyee t1_iu3s8dz wrote
this is not a good thing
Andr-O-Mat t1_iu6jlhm wrote
In the EU’s case, this makes sense because they don’t have too bad of a climate, and because they have no oil sources anyway. In a place like Canada though, oil should be the better option not only because Alberta can supply, strengthens its economy in doing so, and because electric isn’t too efficient in our climate.
DiplomatikEmunetey t1_iu44tyy wrote
I suppose it's a chicken and an egg case, but will that be enough time to give countries to build out a whole infrastructure to support charging? Maybe some super battery will get invented by then, but so far it's just sci-fi.
Bensemus t1_iu6rpvh wrote
If the goal is never set it will drag on way longer. Better to set an aggressive goal now and get the ball rolling. The law can be repealed or extended if it turns out we are failing but if we are failing we will have much bigger issues.
Maerhun t1_iu5imkt wrote
I am losing track of all the European deadlines I have to miss. Agree with it though.
[deleted] t1_iu5sjsk wrote
[deleted]
marks1995 t1_iu66cqs wrote
How are they going to have the infrastructure in place to charge these cars? How do you generate power to charge these cars?
There is a lot involved here.
123xyz321Z t1_iu672sk wrote
That’s convenient. They won’t have any gas by 2030.
therealzombieczar t1_iu3m3wh wrote
poor farmers and ranchers... they'll be driving the same vehicles for decades on end, having to fix those things endlessly...
also, hope everybody likes lithium in their water... (heres hoping they get hydrogen fuel sorted out...
jamrealm t1_iu68c33 wrote
Tractors and farm equipment aren’t included in this. Farmers will be fine.
therealzombieczar t1_iu6x0nw wrote
pickup trucks and vans?
waterbed87 t1_iu76nyx wrote
Ford Lightning? Others to come? Electric school buses are coming, I’m sure vans will still be a thing.
therealzombieczar t1_iu7fva7 wrote
cost per mile plus longevity is of huge importance to agriculture as they have lots of miles to cover carrying heavy loads over rough terrain without high wattage available...
waterbed87 t1_iu7ic6t wrote
And the electric truck from Ford in 2022 has 240 miles of range, considering how much they've improved in just the last ten I imagine by 2035 they will be exponentially better. 12 years is a long long time in the tech world.
therealzombieczar t1_iu7j4gx wrote
it doesn't when towing/hauling or off road...
iv shoped these things, the tech isn't there... the battery replacements alone would set most ag into the red...
the improvements are happening fast, but as with most tech there's a burst and then it slows down, as you get closer to real physical limitations of a technology the harder it is to improve...
al;so very little of lithium batteries are actually recycled...
waterbed87 t1_iu7jvya wrote
The tech isn't there, today. With some countries banning fossil fuels in cars the technology will continue to improve drastically over the coming years and charging stations will become as common as gas stations. I agree that Lithium Ion isn't great but we're working on replacements for those too.
2035 is a long ways away, have some faith in the technology catching up. All you're really doing is being pessimistic presuming the tech has gotten as good as it's going to get, I promise you that's not the case.
therealzombieczar t1_iu7ky42 wrote
i just don't think batteriie driven vehicles is applicable in many scenarios...
why not just push for higher mpg?
diesel hybrids would work great for rural work, carry tons of millage and torque, get bio diesel tax breaks and bam carbon nuetral, more so than electric vehicles in many countries...
but out right banning ice is like banning gravel roads because they suck in the city...
i have the most hope for nuclear generated hydrogen, but i'm pretty alone on that it seems...
waterbed87 t1_iu7ll04 wrote
I'd love to see higher MPG but unless someone forces them to do it automakers have no incentive to do it. I believe Obama had gotten some passed to force them to invest in more efficient vehicles but Trump cancelled them so here we are, now everyone is all-in on electric what do you do.
I think electric vehicles will become completely different animals by time ICE is getting phased out and if it's not up to certain jobs I'm sure exceptions will be made so farmers can still do their jobs until the technology catches up. I personally believe by 2035 we'll both be in awe at how far the tech has come but time will tell.
therealzombieczar t1_iu7n35r wrote
the only reason electric vehicles exist as a consumer product is lithium batteries... which were invented in the 70's...
the governments can and do put a minimum average mpg on manufacturers, and that's all they need to do. picking a winner before theres competition is idiotic(and very typical of bureaucrats)
ice ban effectively bans hydrogen combustion/turbine... but i bet it doesn't ban steam driven...
waterbed87 t1_iu7ndxe wrote
Look unless you can jump to 2035 and tell me how wrong I was this is a pretty pointless discussion at this point. I've agreed the tech isn't there and our primary difference is I believe it will catch up and you assume it won't. Time will tell nothing left to be said. If ICE is still required for certain working conditions it's not like the EU or other governments are going to go 'tough shit guess we all starve', exceptions will be made.
But as I said, I think we'll be in awe of what 2035 electric vehicles are like compared to 2022 ones and it's well known that Lithium Ion isn't the solution forever which is why huge investments are being made in alternatives.
therealzombieczar t1_iu7nzoi wrote
my point is with the exception of digital/virtual tech nothing improves that fast...
the electric car was first in circulation in the 1920's...
however hydrogen, bio diesel and ethanol are all refuelable with a much higher energy density than batteries. and that is unlikely to change.
still have high hopes for hydrogen fual cell..
waterbed87 t1_iu7on48 wrote
It does improve that fast. In 2010 the Tesla Roadster got 240 miles of range and it's performance was 0-60 in 4s. In 20202 the Tesla Model S gets 400 miles of range and 0-60 in 2s Double or Nearly doubled in both metrics. I'm confident by 2035 there will be electric trucks with like 500+ miles of range and like 200-250 towing which will be comparable to ICE and if fast charging takes 20 minutes today it will probably take like 10 by then.
Regardless this is still pointless, I really don't want to argue about hypotheticals. Time will tell, if the tech doesn't catch up ICE will stick around to fill in the gaps until it does. If something better than Electric comes along we'll see a shift to that instead eventually. The world isn't going to end because ICE gets completely or mostly phased out.
rickymourke82 t1_iu3teq2 wrote
By 2025 they’ll abandon the all EV course and say hybrid is the way to go. Because it is. If we go all EV, what happens in a deep freeze or hurricane type event when the power is out for several days? We know we are going to get more of these extreme weather events, we gonna really paint ourselves in a corner? Governments are the biggest problem. I wonder how much CO2 is released making movies and shows? Everybody gets on their favorite social media app to bitch about the climate while standing in line for their $8 coffee. Got the CO2 burned in the supply chain as well as the massive amount of diesel burned to build that tiny little building you get your daily fix from. It’s our spending habits we need to take the most drastic changes with. Hybrid vehicles take care of us at the individual level. That’s not where the most drastic changes are needed.
aintbroke_dontfixit t1_iuayy5o wrote
> If we go all EV, what happens in a deep freeze or hurricane type event when the power is out for several days?
The same as an ICE vehicle, once it runs out of fuel it ain't going anywhere. If the power is out for several days then the petrol station isn't going to have power to run the pumps to fuel your car. If the temperature is too low then fuel freezes, especially diesel.
whynotyeetith t1_iu3j7k5 wrote
the end of an era a sad day for the car community but a better day from climste activists, now if only ev production was cleaner and sustainable that gas
[deleted] t1_iu3s87v wrote
[deleted]
rosesandtherest t1_iu4vgxs wrote
That’s at least 5 years too late
usr_redacted t1_iu5vnpl wrote
Personally think 35 is too far off, and it should be a phased ban from 2030
Ban larger less fuel efficient ICE cars first, complete ban by 2035.
AyBruhBee t1_iu3ivnz wrote
Powered by 100% natural Russian coal 👍
The_Countess t1_iu3o0w0 wrote
Even if the EU grid was 100% coal fired that would STILL be less polluting then ICE cars. That's how inefficient ICE cars are.
annualburner202209 t1_iu3k18h wrote
I bet they love this in Northern Scandinavia where electric cars are almost useless.
_rb t1_iu3ktt2 wrote
There are plenty of electric cars in northern Norway.
Blag24 t1_iu3nwr8 wrote
In Norway Battery Electric Vehicles made up 77.7% of new car sales in September.
annualburner202209 t1_iu3q1xz wrote
Norway is a long country. Unless you can show that the percentage is same in the north, it's worthless to throw that statistic around.
GoMeegoGo t1_iu3kj2u wrote
Why??
u9Nails t1_iu3nu4h wrote
The battery chemistry favors the same conditions that humans prefer.
Cold regions, that are Worlds famous for skiing, will not like the pure electric adoption laws. The cars will continue to work, but at a reduced range. (Think 10% less.)
annualburner202209 t1_iu3qv28 wrote
Low population density, long distances to everything, infrastructure, no service nearby, batteries and electronics don't work well in those temperatures...etc
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu3l2vr wrote
They don't do well in cold temps. It's an issue that a lot of the auto industry is now looking at.
Edit: so absolutely none of you dumbfucks read articles or work in the auto industry.
Pegguins t1_iu3mmgc wrote
You mean like Norway, Iceland and Sweden. Which are cold basically everywhere during winter, and have the highest per capita ownership of electric cars already?
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu3modq wrote
Maybe read the article?
Pegguins t1_iu3n32v wrote
Maybe you should because it literally just comes down to "you use the heating when it's cold so think about your maximum range and charging" which is no different to a petrol car during summer with AC
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu3nftv wrote
Here's another quote in the article where they're speaking to the American Chemical Society....
"When the battery is used to power a car (discharge mode), lithium ions move out of the graphite anode and cross the electrolyte toward the cathode....lithium atoms that are intercalated in the graphite are oxidized at the anode, which leaves free electrons behind that can travel through an electric circuit.” An electrolyte, by the way, is a gel or liquid that can basically carry electric charge via ions. When the temperature is cold, these chemical reactions are slowed in both directions."
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu3nbb9 wrote
"During colder temperatures, EV batteries do not charge as fast, are less efficient, and will be more affected by electric functions within the car like heating, regenerative braking or seat warming. Why is this the case? Unlike a typical combustion engine-powered car, an EV relies on a battery."
Again... learn to read the article before angrily responding and looking incredibly stupid.
Pegguins t1_iu3ozk0 wrote
Maybe you should read again. Its not saying they don't work, but that you need to think about it in cold weather. The battery charges slower, and heating etc puts additional requirements on the battery supply but the article literally says it's not a particularly big deal you just need to factor that in and not aim to drive the stated maximum distance without a charge. Again exactly like a petrol car with AC...
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu4d9f4 wrote
I literally never said they don't work. You cannot read. I said they have issues, which are outlined in the article. What a joke.
Bensemus t1_iu6rwk2 wrote
Issues that are easily mitigated.
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu6s13g wrote
They're still issues that are actively being worked on in the industry.
The_Countess t1_iu3oxeg wrote
That's already a solved problem by warming up the battery before use.
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu4dejg wrote
Seeing as that's not the case with EVs from Tesla, Ford, Peugeot, etc.... the problem is not solved yet.
mdielmann t1_iu6a1zz wrote
Lol talking about people not reading the article and you didn't even get to the end of the title.
I live near one of the coldest cities in the world, EVs are more common all the time, and one user said he sees about a 10% drop in range due in the winter. That means that if I bought a brand-new EV and never parked it indoors that it would go from a 500 km range to 450 in the winter. I can live with that. Even with a slow charger, it should be back at full every day before we leave home.
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu6nc8z wrote
Really... so you want to say I didn't read and then you agree with me that there are issues (ie a 10% drop in efficiency)... yeah, you're not very smart....
mdielmann t1_iu6r5f6 wrote
No, I'm saying a 10% drop isn't an issue.
To clarify, where I live it is recommended to not get below 25% fuel remaining, preferably not below 50%, in the winter. Low fuel levels can lead to frost in your tank and then to frozen fuel lines. So this would be a positive impact in my region.
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu6s3vg wrote
Then thank God you don't build cars. Jesus, you're dumb.
mdielmann t1_iu7jgkv wrote
So I'm dumb because I've experienced this before, or I'm dumb because the mechanic said this was the problem? Just trying to clarify.
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu7l8dt wrote
You're dumb because I'm a quality engineer that has access to the data on this problem lol
mdielmann t1_iu7ohsq wrote
And yet you don't understand the risks of driving an ICE car under extreme cold conditions. I'm not saying you don't have a job in this market, but this situation isn't exactly unheard of. Sometimes the drawing board and real-world experience don't match up.
iPlayWithWords13 t1_iu7pm5l wrote
The risks of driving a vehicle with a combustion engine vs an electric engine in extreme cold is significantly less. The propulsion systems in EV are more prone to failure where as with an ICE, as long as you give the car ample time to warm up, you're fine.
Flaihl t1_iu3kvlf wrote
This is 13 years in the future. Compare electric vehicles from 13 years ago to those today.
Ertaipt t1_iu3rfhu wrote
You couldn't be more wrong, considering that Norway is the leading country in Europe with EV adoption
annualburner202209 t1_iu3yz2v wrote
Northern Scandinavia, as already discussed. Norway is a long country.
[deleted] t1_iu3h9md wrote
This is interesting. I’d love to see how this turns out for the EU if I’m still alive.
I’m jealous about how they care for their environment. I just came off a one month vacay there and appreciated how they care for their land and such.