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.
EVs are also still unaffordable to most, which is perhaps a blessing considering the above: Buying an EV is the 'easy' part.
Edit:
Grid is at capacity. There are many articles on that online from growing problems to connect new electricity sources to even potential restrictions on new homes [1].
Electricity production is not increasing. I believe peak production was reached in 2005 and since then nuclear plants have been decommissioned and renewables have not filled the gap.
So solve both issues is a big task to say the least. And then there's still the lack of charging points.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/519f701f-6a05-4cf4-bc46-22cf10c7c...
Agreed. We need, charitably, a 25% increase in electricity generation, and we're not getting that. We're getting "(shouts) more wind turbines!!!" and "(whispers) we've just turned off a 250MW gas power station".
EVs are going to be biggest single "new user" of electricity in decades and are going to be a huge drag on the network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_(Great_Britain)#...
Why do you believe this is the case?
I cannot see any evidence of this probpem, in fact. Octopus energy for example is very happy about using Evs to help balance the grid and their 'virtual powerplant'
Charging ooint, yes, they are an issue
PS: this https://octopus.energy/press/octopus-energy-grows-uks-larges...
In amy case, that does not solve the issue of overall production or grid capacity.
Actually that could have done well (although I wouldn’t hold my breath + all sorts of logistics of reality can prevent the utility). If you have 100 MWh of car batteries charging during off peak, that’s extra capacity you can leverage during peak hours.
I do agree that in practice that won’t work out for all sorts of reasons (the comms and standards for that aren’t defined afaik + what happens if enough cars disconnect that suddenly you don’t have enough capacity and brownouts begin to shed load)
The idea has been for a while, and is starting to come to wider testing with the finalization of Vehicle to Grid standards for the CCS charging standard.
Some other charging standards like Chademo already supported this usecase but aren't widely used in Europe or North America.
Modern batteries with modern battery management systems are more durable than you think. Most things I've read expect a typical EV battery to retain usable capacity past the lifespan of the car itself, not to mention EVs typically have "hidden" capacity buffers against degradation.
I doubt any program would completely discharge a car, likely a program would involve a smart charger that would charge and discharge within a certain agreed upon window.
Look at the current residential demand response programs for an example. Details vary, but a quick search will show you a range of different programs.
Typically, utilities will announce incentive windows for peak periods ahead of time. Opt-in customers have thermostats that will respond to the peak program by reducing heat or cooling to an agreed upon temperature. The customer can override if they would like, but if they do they will lose the incentive.
Customers get a lower bill, utilities can save a lot shaving peak loads and avoid capacity problems.
For me, a personal vehicle is a depreciating asset that sits unused 98% of the time. I'd be better off with carshare if it existed in my city.
If the program also allowed me to use the battery as a home backup, I'd opt-in.
https://electrek.co/2023/02/09/tesla-powerwall-owners-made-5...
> those programs are going to become mandatory
I would say the jury is still out if it makes financial sence. Batteries lose capacity to aging even if you don't use them.
This is extremely speculative and if the government has appetite to make anything mandatory about cars, they would start by enforcing the speed limit electronically
Not at all.
The EVs' batteries are used as storage, which can help with intermittent electricity production but it implies two things assuming it can work at all:
1. enough electricity is produced overall,
2. the grid has the capacity to move all that electricity around.
These are the two issues I initially mentioned and using EVs' batteries as temporary storage solves neither.
Best case, we need to add an additional 10-30% electrical capacity in the UK by 2030. And that's exclusively for EVs. Never mind that as the economy grows it requires even more electricity for other industries.
And we're still squabbling (unscientifically) over nuclear (it's safe and it's green), and wind turbines (we really, really, need better storage).
Of course, charging stations, everywhere. My town of 100,000 has 20 public chargers that I know of, with I'd guess an average charging time of 30 minutes. Versus 10 petrol garages, with approx. 10 pumps, and a filling time of under 5 minutes. Arguably, we'd need 600 chargers to provide the same 'capacity' as 100 petrol pumps, if not more. Yes, people can charge from home. Some can't.
And the range problem. I personally drive 300+ miles in one journey a few times a month (relatives at the top of the country). I will not spend an additional hour at EV stations when my fossil fuel car can get me there on half a tank without stopping. Until the range problem is solved (600 miles on one charge, guaranteed), I'll be the last person to buy an EV.
ANd it's not the micro-effects of one country's policy that will do anything.
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.
Ban it in next 4 years?
Or am I incorrect?
"Tech" in a vehicle sells, and connected services like app based locks and remote starts are an easy subscription sell.
- Got cancer, which needs expensive treatment? Yep, that's a lot of CO2, go bite dust from below.
- Are you handicapped and need others to take care of you? Well time for traditions of ancient Sparta to return.
- Elderly people doing nothing, but emitting CO2. The moment people leave productive age, they should be facing wall.
The worst part is: you're literally admitting that you're not arguing against the idea itself, you're arguing against what you think they want to do next. It's impossible to make progress if the ideas themselves cannot be discussed.
Come again without a strawman.
- there is a direct connection between the ideas of "let's ban new ICE cars and replace them with EVs to reduce CO2 emissions" and "let's kill unproductives to reduce CO2 emissions"
- this is not because you believe ICEs to be necessary to let "unproductives" live, it's literally because there is no way to engage in dicussions or conversations on an ICE ban without this leading to "let's kill unproductives"
- even though you are admitting that you're employing the slippery slope fallacy, and although we can look at the real statistical effects of ICE vehicles on harm done to people, the inevitable slippery slope of "let's kill unproductives" means that a switch from ICE to EV will result in many more deaths than continuing with ICEs
Is this an accurate representation of your thinking? Your replies so far have not expressed actual ideas beyond logical fallacies (or even "no u"), and I'd be interested in whether this is really the extent of your thought or whether there is more that you know would put you into an even worse light.
Banning meat won't reduce emissions, it will just move them around into making fake meat.
Killing unproductives won't reduce emissions, because their bodies decompose and captured carbon will return back to atmosphere.
All this thread, including GP is pointless, because there is currently no solution for excess CO2 in atmosphere and every attempt to reduce it will only increase it (see carbon capture devices). Therefore there is no reason to restrict quality of life of average citizen.
I've learned that the best way to engage these discussions is to take your partner as seriously as they say they want to. You cannot counter these things with facts, as facts aren't their own basis. Instead you engage seriously and let themselves display the problems in their logic.
A big influence for me has been the streamer Vaush.
Reversing it would require an active push for something that is unpopular