RE: Final EU vote on 2035 engine phaseout delayed
Discussion
EV are not the full answer because the battery making process isn't green at all, Open cast mines are poisoning the land and the toxic lakes they created for Lithium processing kill everything, then there is shipping and road transport costs to the atmosphere from diesel pollution....And the important one is, No country can support a fully electric EV network because no country makes enough power by a considerable amount to run cars and houses.
VR6 Eug said:
EV are not the full answer because the battery making process isn't green at all, Open cast mines are poisoning the land and the toxic lakes they created for Lithium processing kill everything, then there is shipping and road transport costs to the atmosphere from diesel pollution....And the important one is, No country can support a fully electric EV network because no country makes enough power by a considerable amount to run cars and houses.
But they can make enough electricity for fuel-making processes that are vastly less efficient, yes that makes perfect sense.....Latest data suggests only 1.27 children and 3.3 kittens die per EV battery, this is pretty good, no?
To start with: I have a total prejudice against EVs.
Anyway,
EU parliament voted last month for zero Emission on new cars and light vehicles from 2035 (in the EU).
The vote was 340 yes and 279 no.
Putting that draft into law, a majority of the member states have to agree.
Italy, Poland and Bulgaria say NO. Germany says now to abstain from voting.
Fine for me, that’s democracy. Currently, the bill has not the needed majority.
Anyway, let the UK start with zero emission in 2030 and opinions in Europe will change immediately. Even if a law is passed. Five years is a long time to react.
Sorry, its like with Brexit, the worst EU sceptics love the EU now – or did someone follow? Even LePen, hahahahha...
Anyway,
EU parliament voted last month for zero Emission on new cars and light vehicles from 2035 (in the EU).
The vote was 340 yes and 279 no.
Putting that draft into law, a majority of the member states have to agree.
Italy, Poland and Bulgaria say NO. Germany says now to abstain from voting.
Fine for me, that’s democracy. Currently, the bill has not the needed majority.
Anyway, let the UK start with zero emission in 2030 and opinions in Europe will change immediately. Even if a law is passed. Five years is a long time to react.
Sorry, its like with Brexit, the worst EU sceptics love the EU now – or did someone follow? Even LePen, hahahahha...
Wab1974uk said:
I bet the British government stick to their 2030 deadline
If anyone other than the Tories get in, I’m pretty sure they’ll try to meet it. However I honestly can’t see it happening as we just haven’t got our ducks in a row and never will.Instead they’d rather blow billions on a pointless HS2 project that benefit’s virtually no one - and you can guarantee it’ll be way over budget (original £33 billion now up to £71 billion and counting and expected to cost over £100 billion - and that’s just for Old Oak Common [not Central London] to Birmingham).
Off topic but HS2 was misnamed. It will help lots of people by freeing up capacity on the main lines. It's not the few minutes it'll save that matter.
The fact the hybrids are available until 2035 seems to be ignored by so many too. At least 3 posters have mentioned 2030 as EVs only, and been corrected.
The fact the hybrids are available until 2035 seems to be ignored by so many too. At least 3 posters have mentioned 2030 as EVs only, and been corrected.
The UK situation is very different certainly to Germany.
We have a lot to gain (both economically and in terms of energy security) by increasing our proportion of renewable energy using our unique geographical advantages. Clinging to straws such as synthetic fuel or green hydrogen is just a distraction.
Whether a few enthusiasts still get to drive their treasured ICE vehicles is a very small part of the bigger discussion.
The only justification for continuing with hybrids beyond 2035 would be if the infrastructure for full BEV had not been put in place. I doubt that the hybrids will have much soul though.
We have a lot to gain (both economically and in terms of energy security) by increasing our proportion of renewable energy using our unique geographical advantages. Clinging to straws such as synthetic fuel or green hydrogen is just a distraction.
Whether a few enthusiasts still get to drive their treasured ICE vehicles is a very small part of the bigger discussion.
The only justification for continuing with hybrids beyond 2035 would be if the infrastructure for full BEV had not been put in place. I doubt that the hybrids will have much soul though.
Depends if a political party breaks Uniparty ranks and decides the lunacy (not just agenda 2030) will stop if they get into office.
If such a thing happened and said party gained millions of votes next GE, entirely possible because there's no conservative (small C) party any more and millions have no one to vote for, plus another GE due before 2030, anything could happen.
The threat of them losing seats/power is what the electorate has in their power, you won't get any joy from either tory or lab, they're 100% committed to the agendas whatever the cost.
What the EU does makes not a scrap of difference to us, for the time being we arn't inside the EU though that may well change.
If such a thing happened and said party gained millions of votes next GE, entirely possible because there's no conservative (small C) party any more and millions have no one to vote for, plus another GE due before 2030, anything could happen.
The threat of them losing seats/power is what the electorate has in their power, you won't get any joy from either tory or lab, they're 100% committed to the agendas whatever the cost.
What the EU does makes not a scrap of difference to us, for the time being we arn't inside the EU though that may well change.
Nomme de Plum said:
Anything that diverts R&D budgets from EV development is really short-temism.
An ICE is already a ridiculously inefficient form of propulsion. Why try to prolong it?
What happens when in a decade or two we find those synthetic fuels are not all good for the environment both in production and maybe even exhaust gases.
How much energy will be consumed producing these fuels?
Sums up why it's a non starter.An ICE is already a ridiculously inefficient form of propulsion. Why try to prolong it?
What happens when in a decade or two we find those synthetic fuels are not all good for the environment both in production and maybe even exhaust gases.
How much energy will be consumed producing these fuels?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d0MPg7DxbY
And as for carbon capture from the air. Global Thermostat have been contracted to supply the partly Porsche funded venture in Chile to make synthetic fuel. The top man at Global Thermostat has applied for numerous patents on the subject and every one is very energy intensive, and his first patent was filed 16 years ago but the whole carbon capture idea is still in the 'development' stage.
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-eisenber...
GT9 said:
The issue is one of end-to-end efficiency for the renewable electricity route.
Using the same electricity to power an electric car gets you something like 5 times further down the road, possibly even more.
How do you square that circle for something like this being available to the 'the masses'?
I can't see how such a limited supply of fuel can be available to anything other than just a handful of new ICE cars produced after some future date, and at a significant premium over regular fuel.
Even the most aggressive growth plans only deliver enough for about 1% or 2% of cars on the road.
How do you decide who gets the unicorn juice? is it done by a raffle?
Agree with all that. It's not going to be for the masses. Porsche obviously understand this. It will only be for a very small % of cars. How do you decide who gets anything? Price elasticity of demand. What % of drivers will be willing to pay $10 a liter? 1%?Using the same electricity to power an electric car gets you something like 5 times further down the road, possibly even more.
How do you square that circle for something like this being available to the 'the masses'?
I can't see how such a limited supply of fuel can be available to anything other than just a handful of new ICE cars produced after some future date, and at a significant premium over regular fuel.
Even the most aggressive growth plans only deliver enough for about 1% or 2% of cars on the road.
How do you decide who gets the unicorn juice? is it done by a raffle?
I wish people understood what synthetic fuels were for. And how expensive they are going to be.
They are not going to provide a future for any kind of mass market ICE, they just aren't. Best case they are always going to be directly linked to the cose of electricty. As electricity gets more expensive, so will synthetic fuels. That doesn't mean they have no place - they do - but primarily for stuff like air craft.
And for rich guys that want to keep their classic GT2RS running.
But for 'normal' car enthusiasts wanting to buy modern ICE cars? No way.
They are not going to provide a future for any kind of mass market ICE, they just aren't. Best case they are always going to be directly linked to the cose of electricty. As electricity gets more expensive, so will synthetic fuels. That doesn't mean they have no place - they do - but primarily for stuff like air craft.
And for rich guys that want to keep their classic GT2RS running.
But for 'normal' car enthusiasts wanting to buy modern ICE cars? No way.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff