When the ban hits the price of second hand ICE cars will explode. This will mean in practice that a lot of people will not be able to afford a car any more. Now this might be a feature, not a bug, depending on how you look at it.
When the ban hits the price of second hand ICE cars will explode. This will mean in practice that a lot of people will not be able to afford a car any more. Now this might be a feature, not a bug, depending on how you look at it.
EVs are already cheaper and better, they're only going to get more so. Business cost savings will drive the transition.
e-fuels will be a big thing for long distance air travel and similar tech for chemical feedstocks but everyone else has better options already.
There will be lots of used BEVs in the market in 12 years from now. Nobody knows how electricity production will look like in 12 years, but it seems like there will be more and more renewables. Distribution grids might change somewhat in 12 years, too. People don't need to charge BEVs everyday, also nobody knows how public charging infrastructure will look like in 12 years, so no problems for people in "old apartment buildings".
Lots of speculation, little information.
Maybe not - but in the UK we know how long it takes to flood a valley for pumped hydro storage, or to build a new nuclear plant, or to roll out new equipment to people's homes (like smart meters) - More than 12 years.
So we don't know what electricity production will look like - but we surely know what it won't look like.
Maybe. Yet I still think setting a hard clear deadline is a good thing, even if it ends up getting delayed in the end. It creates clear goals and focusses what we want to work towards, rather than a vague "in the future we'll be able to solve things, somehow".
And who knows ... lots of things can be possible with sufficient pressure.
The purpose of setting a deadline is not to achieve a specific thing at the nominated date, but to establish bounds on the timeline for activity. We know well that unbounded schedules fail to motivate action; so we set a boundary and then compromise on what is delivered over the resulting interval.
The 2035 deadline is a forcing function. It exists to frame discussion and to instill a sense of urgency.
ICE bans are already taking effect in cities across Europe. Viable transportation alternatives already exist for people in these cities. As the bans become more common place, the pain points will be identified and resolved.
Twelve years is a long time. The world has changed a lot since 2011.
We are not being led by serious people.
"affordable cars" is way below "habitable planet" in my prio list.
I really don't get those "pro e-fuel arguments" if I'm supposed to forget that we're talking about luxury sports cars.
So apart from subsidizing the purchase price which already happens widely, perhaps the government should provide cheap loans for people who don't have the initial capital to buy an EV.
Also, There are signs we've already hit the peak for conventional oil. This report [1] claims that by the 2030s Europe will see its access to oil reduced by 10-20%. So running an ICE car will only go up from here. There's good reasons to assume the costs of EVs will only go down.
Wrt to the grid, the french grid operator RTE published a study [2] saying that they estimate that by 2035 there will be 15.6 million EVs on the road, a bit half of the 38m total cars on french roads today. The study says this would represent 8-10% of today's electricity consumption and would pose no danger to the stability of the grid. About 2 million new cars are sold here every year, so after 2035 the percentage would go up by 1% every year to 20% or so. A challenge but definitely feasible.
1: https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/oil-what-are-the-risk... 2: https://www-rte--france-com.translate.goog/actualites/develo...
Thing is that there is more than 50% people in EU who has no place to charge at home, because they are living in apartments. SO they will be charging on expensive Fast DC chargers. It will be more expensive than owning an ICE and also massively less comfortable because you will be waiting on car to get charged, thus wasting your time.
You typically have less car ownership in cities though...
Why should it be even the case? Why should employer pay for building chargers, maintaining it and paying bills?
The EU banned incandescent light bulbs and apart from minor whinging there's been no real problems. This is a bigger version.
CFL's were progress, right?
Rural Europe is a disaster if you don't have a your own transport, as either there is no public transport, or it's atrocious (eg. 2 buses a week in some places).
"Europe" is a big place with lots of differences so I can't generalize to the entire continent, which includes places I've never even been to, but quite a few places could almost entirely eliminate car ownership within a matter of years if they wanted. Whether that's desirable in the first place is something I'll leave for everyone to decide for themselves, but it really is just a question of "want" rather than "can".
I'm not excited by the current number of cars either, don't get me wrong. It just saddens me the working class has to pay the price, again.
Less pollution, less disease, less war, less imports, cheaper transport, higher standard of living. Its a win win win win and you have to have your head deep in far right conspiracy nonsense to believe otherwise.