Hacker News Reader

Comment by heisig | Hacker News Reader

Guy from Germany here: No, we didn't change our mind on combustion engines. They are getting less popular every month, and even the German car companies have roadmaps that phase out the combustion engine well before 2035.

Here is my take on the situation: The problem is that the current government consists of three very different parties (which was the only viable option for forming a government without the conservative climate disaster that is the CDU/CSU). One of these three parties, the FDP, is currently losing popularity because they essentially promised that fancy technology will solve all our problems (take note HN!), but that bluff got called now that they are part of the government. The FDP is quickly losing voter support, and entered panic mode. Unfortunately, the only voter base they can quickly tap into are petrolheads and people that don't like when things get "verboten". The FDP runs the ministry of transport, and used that influence to stall legislation for the entire EU. The other parties cannot really object, or our government would fall apart.

I can only personally apologize to all other EU nations. A party with about 5% popularity is holding our government hostage.

The only positive thing is that these people cannot really decide about the law in 2035, only about the law today. I hope the climate movement will grow stronger, and those people and their policies will be history much sooner.

View on HN

> One of these three parties, the FDP, is currently losing popularity because they essentially promised that fancy technology will solve all our problems

No. They are losing support as their voter base is more right leaning but currently support a center left government. Tactically, that’s a tricky situation to be in.

And, no, they didn’t promise „fancy technology“ to solve all problems. They actively support monetary and regulatory climate change mitigations. However, as Germany’s only classical liberal party they want the government to take a mostly neutral stance on _how_ we mitigate climate change meaning technology decisions should be done by the private sector. That’s why they are actually in favor of carbon taxation and emissions trading (both of which happen to be already a reality for years in Germany) but don’t want the government to prohibit combustion engines.

While it is unclear what future role such engines play in private transport, there might be many niches where they are necessary: For generators, lawn mowers (because you don’t want to have a cable dangling next to rotating knives), agricultural machines and possibly trucks.

And that’s why I do think it is actually a reasonable point of view.

Fun thought exercise — do you want an electric lawnmower? Most people don’t for the same reason they don’t want an electric chainsaw, trimmer, etc.

They work well in small yards (very small), but Beyond that you’re talking multiple sessions of work as it charges.

Imo that’s the hurdle for green tech. Great for public transit which is consistent, but difficult for large land which is less developed. You want to leave both options available. Imo id use electric if I could, but I can’t where I’m at

Also, I think chargers are still an issue. One of my favourite tools is a Bosch screwdriver and the best feature it has is USB charging port. It's perhaps a bit special case as it doesn't require a huge battery nor great voltage, but it certainly makes it easier not to lose my mind when looking for yet another charger that will only charge that one special battery the drill came with.

You can get power tools with replaceable batteries. I do prefer electric tools because they don't need as much maintenance as a combustion engine and weight less but batteries are too expensive for this to be feasible for professional use indeed.

Electric mowers are probably more common than petrol in the UK.

They aren't battery powered but corded which makes them light and cheap. Not many people have lawns longer than 40m or so or whatever the extension cables max out as.

https://www.flymo.com/uk/products/lawn-mowers/

>Beyond that you’re talking multiple sessions of work as it charges

I actually prefer this. It forces me to take breaks, which prevents me from over-working myself when left to my own devices.

It also neatly defuses any toxic family expectations about not taking any breaks until the job is done. "Can't. Battery died." :)

This works great if you can do a lawn in 2-4 sessions. I agree you need something different for even larger lawns, but at that scale you're already looking at a lawn tractor or zero-turn (which can also be electrified).

I use a corded electric mower, for the same reasons another poster gave: they are very light, inexpensive compared to a ICE mower, and just go. They are fine for a 1000m2 block.

But if you have something bigger, then this works:

    https://egopowerplus.com.au/zero-turn-riding-mower-zt4204e-l/

I also have a corded air blower, battery driven weed trimmer, and battery chain saw. Granted, the battery versions are expensive and as heavy as their ICE counterparts. But they are quieter, and more reliable. If battery technology continues to improve (especially if LiS gets out of the lab), I'd say the end is neigh for small ICE engines.

…have you never seen a battery-powered lawnmower?

There are other options than “fossil fuels” and “dangerous electric cords”.

You probably have misunderstood the law. It was supposed to ban fossil fuel cars and vans only. No trucks, buses, planes, diesel trains, ships or even lawnmowers. You can still use (and will probably have no choice but to use) fossil fuels or expensive e-fuels. (although i think buses and trains might already have laws about this).

The liberals wanted an exception for cars, where even most of the carmakers have pledged not to sell ICE cars. It's just nonsense.

> It was supposed to ban fossil fuel cars and vans only

You are right, of course. I knew that but my wording was a bit misleading:

>> but don’t want the government to prohibit combustion engines

That does not change the argument, however: The government should take a neutral stance, even when the private sector believes electric cars are the way to go.

> The liberals wanted an exception for cars, where even most of the carmakers have pledged not to sell ICE cars. It's just nonsense.

From another perspective prohibition of ICE cars is even more silly when most car makers actually don't want to build them anymore -- because this act then becomes merely a symbolic gesture and does not have any impact on the environment anyway. So another reason not to hate the FDP for its move.

Electric powered lawn mowers have been around since the early 1980s, largely replaced today by battery powered mowers.

My opposite take from Germany: electric cars still a niche, ICE as popular as ever, SUV's still the biggest growth segment, still plenty to catch up with the US, 2035 ban was never going to happen, just conveniently far off to allow for feel-good promises.

In Berlin people love to cruise around with electric scooters, dreaming of a co2-free future and maybe present. Early at dawn the scooters are collected by some polish guys in a dirty diesel van and taken outside town where they are fixed and charged with electricity from burning coal.

The FDP doesn't hold anyone hostage, and society is in consensus (in terms of its revealed preferences) about continuing to burn coal, gas, and oil far into the foreseeable future, while expressing the opposite preference, and while making ICE engines and cars for the rest of the world as well.

EDIT: as someone who doesn't drive, hates cars, and has a carbon footprint one tenth of the average green party voter.

I agree rich people needs to wakeup and figure out that they are utmost minority of the society and the poorer majority of society does not have money for expensive battery toys.

The answer to this is not “so we should keep wrecking the climate”. It’s “so we should make those battery options cheaper and more robust, at the expense of the rich people.”

The bike sharing program in my city has employees on electric bikes with enough space to carry six non electric bikes.

I don't know where you are implying they get their coal energy from. You can't get a contract like that. The electricity mix is roughly 50% renewables, 32% coal 9% gas, 7% nuclear power.

> Early at dawn the scooters are collected by some polish guys in a dirty diesel van and taken outside town where they are fixed and charged with electricity from burning coal.

Aw shucks, guess we should throw away the whole program and give up on electric vehicles then.

Seriously, the first part of this problem would literally be fixed by the policy we are discussing in this thread (banning internal combustion engine cars). The second problem - green energy mix - is valid and also needs to be fixed. But using it as an excuse NOT to use electric vehicles is just a silly chicken-and-egg framing of the issue. We need both green energy and electric vehicles. We won't have sustainable transport until both happen, and it doesn't really matter which happens first.

A survey by the Morgenmagazin[1] (morning TV show by the public broadcasters ARD/ZDF) showed that 75% are against the ICE ban, though. Even for those 35 and younger, only a third is in support.

IMO, it's too easy to just point the finger at the FDP. Yes, they do it because they are in a panic mode. But it's also really unpopular.

[1] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2023-03/deutschlandt...

Because the IC-Car companies are the source of germanys wealth and the tech-race reset that e-cars represented, does not favor german production culture. We suck at software, compared to eastern Europe. Even the politicians recognized this lack and desperately tried to "synthesize" a google/amazon/Facebook/ms from nothing. Resulting in the wirecard scandal. At the same time, the boomers are all entering retirement age, burdening the young generations with a huge tax load, while this younger generations are more mobile then ever.

Some of them already are leaving, trying there luck in other countries, were the culture is less focused upon running things into the ground. So, the wish for the IC to stay alive, is nothing but nostalgia for the good times to stay alive. Strangling the future while dreaming of the past - a certain recipe for disaster.

Frankly, from the outside Germany looks like a strategic policy disaster since at least Merkel became Chancellor (energy, immigration, etc) but with hindsight, and without following closely, I'd say since Schroeder.

This ban on new ICEs in 2035 is not very realistic and is harmful to European industry, at least without a massive investment plan that does not seem to materialise anywhere. That's why there's pushback.

But there is worse: the UK has set the date for the ban at 2030 (because of course we can do better than the EU now that we are free..) and is doing even less to prevent that ticking timebomb from blowing up in everybody's face.

I think you're confusing politics in 2023 and politics in 2035.

The point of the ban is to focus people's minds (in particular car manufacturers) on transitioning to BEV vehicles, inducing a synchronized movement in that direction and promoting economies of scale. It gives companies building charging infrastructure and supply chains some confidence there will be a large market going forward.

In the event that it isn't practical, or is economically damaging, to ban ICE cars in 2035, of course the ban would be delayed or modified. It's not like the EU is going to damage its industry or economy in blind pursuit of a commitment in 2023. They say a week is a long time in politics; never mind 12 years.

Now that is not to say that it won't happen, quite the opposite. I think people will lose interest in ICE cars much earlier than 2035. What is overlooked in the debate today is that BEV cars will be much cheaper than ICE cars i the long run.

ICE cars are very complicated mechanical machines. BEV cars are much simpler to build and use less parts, and the parts that remain are more likely to be standardised and built at enormous scales, pushing prices down. It's quite likely, at least for the lower end of the market, that there will be a standard drive train (battery + motors + management systems) around which a variety of car shells are built.

People point to the high costs of BEV cars, and inputs like lithium, but they only help the transition. It's much harder to invest in building products that are cheap than those that are expensive. High prices promote investment and new players and in the future it creates more production which brings prices down.

It's handy to think about the BEV industry like you think about the technology industry, it's got a lot more in common with that than the ICE car industry. In 2035 ICE cars will be dismissed as obsolete by 99% of people and buying one would be like installing a spinning hard disk as your main drive instead of NVMe.

I think it's a bit naive to announce a ban and then to expect that everything will adjust itself.

There are huge supply chain challenges.

There are also huge infrastructure challenges. Charging stations, the whole grid, the whole electricity production capability that has to ramp up.

There must be tens of billions worth of investment driven by the state for all this to happen.

The car makers already announced that they will adjust. Just look up the plans of VW for example. They probably aren't as opposed as you might think.

That's only one part of the equation, as explained.

> BEV cars are much simpler to build and use less parts,

While this is true, I think it's irrelevant to the consumer that doesn't buy bottom-of-the-range cars.

The major reliability pain-points are in the turbo, the automatic transmission and the 4WD, all of which are optional in an ICE car.

Yet, the consumers are opting for the more complicated and less reliable cars which have turbo and auto transmissions (and, for SUVs, 4WD). If the consumers cared at all about the complexity and lack of reliability they wouldn't be choosing these options.

That consumers have, for ICE cars, chosen the less reliable and more complex drivetrain options, indicates, to me, that the simplicity of a full electric drivetrain is not a selling point.

> and the parts that remain are more likely to be standardised and built at enormous scales, pushing prices down. It's quite likely, at least for the lower end of the market, that there will be a standard drive train (battery + motors + management systems) around which a variety of car shells are built.

There's nothing about ICE engines that make them any less standardisable than EV drivetrains. If there was any advantage to manufacturers standardising on drivetrains, they would have done so by now. They haven't.

Drivetrain standardisation is first prize but it's not going to happen. Right now with ICE vehicles manufacturers are switching to a subscription for things like heated seats, remote-start keyfobs, etc. There's no way in hell that Toyota, BMW, et all are going to use a drivetrain that can be swapped out by the consumer for a non-Toyota/BMW/etc drivetrain.

It's in the consumers' best interest that the drivetrains be standardised, but it's in the manufacturers worst interest that the consumer have options.

Product's construction complexity is irrelevant and always was. What matter is usability convenience of the end product.

Apple's products are selling not because it is easy to make them, but because it is easy to use them.

As an owner of BEV, this is massive PITA of current generation of electric vehicles.

* They are more expensive than ICE

* If you can't charge at home, EV's are massively inconvenient to own, especially when you need to fight with half-assed applications to control charging. Why am I using Another Stupid App (tm) to charge, when I need NO app to get gas?

* Charging takes ludicrous amount time compared to taking gas.

* If you are forced to charge on fast DC chargers, EV's are also more expensive to run than ICE

>Product's construction complexity is irrelevant and always was.

From the post you replied to:

"What is overlooked in the debate today is that BEV cars will be much cheaper than ICE cars in the long run."

It's relevant because it relates to cost, which is your very first bullet point.

In the USA we're already moving toward mandating a simple credit card tap/swipe for payment. This should be done globally.

Your other issues are solved by adding more charging points, which we need anyway. If you have L2 chargers at your curbside/work/grocery store/movie theater/etc (where your car is parked anyway), the less you need to rely on costly and time-consuming L3 charging.

> It's relevant because it relates to cost, which is your very first bullet point.

This would hold water only if BEVs would be actually cheaper, they are more expensive than complex ICEs. So your whole thesis goes out of the window.

>> BEV cars will be much cheaper

> they are more expensive

Present tense vs. future tense. Please read more closely!

The (Wright's Law) trend of EV cost is quite clearly dropping below ICE vehicles. At their recent investor day, Tesla unveiled the first plausible engineering pathway to a $25k vehicle, ie equivalent to a $17k ICE car.

It's no great secret that currently the biggest problem with EVs is upfront cost. That's why the serious players are focused on precisely this problem.

> I can only personally apologize to all other EU nations. A party with about 5% popularity is holding our government hostage.

I can relate; we have the same in Norway, but I don't see it as a bad thing. Sure, it's an annoyance, but I would rather have those 5% a voice than none at all. Or else we'll run into the problem of having a few parties having too much power.

You are also right that this is just _today_; people change their mind, and it's a long time until 2035.

For the article itself:

Set aside the fantastical tabloid headline, it's important to notice that: "In a reversal that stunned many EU insiders, the German government decided to push for a loophole that would allow the sale of combustion engine cars beyond the 2035 deadline — as long as they run on synthetic fuels."

So, keep the combustion engine, but make it env-friendly.

I don't see a problem with it.

> So, keep the combustion engine, but make it env-friendly.

> I don't see a problem with it.

The problem is that the synthetic fuels require a huge amount of energy to produce. This decreases the quantity of carbon-neutral energy available for all other initiatives.

The problem is that it is impossible to create an engine that will run on synthetic fuels, but is guaranteed to never run on fossil fuels even if modified / hacked, because they’re chemically identical for all practical purposes. There might be some type of DRM-like solution, but given the economical incentives involved, that will be circumvented by car owners. The whole thing is an incredibly stupid idea and will probably lead to the ICE ban being ineffective.

Right, the way you solve this isn't by regulating the cars or their engines themselves (beyond certifying tested performance on synthetic fuels) - instead, you simply regulate the sales of petroleum derived fuel and only allow the sale of synthetic fuels.

In 2035 cars from 2015 will still exist and need to be fueled, let alone cars from 2034. And people driving 20 year old cars can't afford to spend 6x the price for synthetic fuels.

>can't afford to spend 6x the price for synthetic fuels

Exactly. This is why anyone with a functioning brain knows that Germany's e-fuel proposal is nothing but a climate bait and switch.

The cold hard reality is "electrification or bust." Germany is choosing bust, apparently!

This is bullish for Tesla (and also China's EVs). Germany's dysfunction is their opportunity.

Thank you for sharing this insight into the situation.

I wouldn't worry about it too much though (besides, if we all go around apologizing for our governments we'd never have time to do anything else). I read a convincing argument that even a small percentage of total car sales being electric, along with a fairly high degree of belief that they might be banned in the future, would be enough to drastically reduce the second hand market price for gas cars in a short time frame. And since a large amount of new car sales are the weirdos who feel like they have to buy a new car every year or two, part funded by the sale of their old one, this will have a snowball effect and make the adoption of electric cars rise at a huge rate within the next few years, regardless of legislation.

> The German car companies have roadmaps that phase out the combustion engine well before 2035.

Is VW CEO Oliver Blume aware of these roadmaps[1]?

> The FDP runs the ministry of transport, and used that influence to stall legislation for the entire EU. The other parties cannot really object, or our government would fall apart.

The german chancellor has the right to overrule every decision by a cabinet secretary and has done this recently to extend the lifespan of the last remaining nuclear power plants[2].

[1]: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/volkswagen-oliver-blume-be...

[2]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richtlinienkompetenz#Bundeskan...

> Is VW CEO Oliver Blume aware of these roadmaps?

Apparently he isn't :D (see below) but what can you expect, he seems to be new on his job.

(2021:) https://insideevs.com/news/516552/volkswagen-exit-ice-europe... (2022:) https://www.motor1.com/news/591948/mercedes-vw-ok-ice-ban-20...

This article also adds a bit more context to Blumes opinion: https://insideevs.com/news/658291/evs-and-ice-vehicles-on-ef... No clue if it is true though.

> They are getting less popular every month

I don't think so. The majority is mentally either in or getting ready for more economic hardship and electric vehicles are either expensive or just not practical or both. We don't have even remotely enough charging stations which turns using your car into some kind of optimization problem nobody wants to deal with. I'm talking about people not owning a house who don't have a place to charge always at their disposal - the majority. The combustion engine is going to have a comeback and if it is superseded by a transportation option then it's going to be public transportation or maybe even bicycles.

A slight correction: FDP is the fourth largest power in Bundestag with slightly more than 10% votes it got in the last federal elections, and what is happening here is not called taking the goverment hostage but a governing party excercising its influence using the instruments given by the parliamentary democracy.

well... 10% votes with only 75% (60mio) people eligible to vote and 76% people voting makes ~6% support of actual voting people. And this was in 2021. I don't think they have that much support anymore.

And while they are "just" exercising their power, they also do so by going against the coalition agreement they signed before, while being obviously influenced by VW/Porsche guys. I'm not sure there is much democracy left in this case anymore.

The population is divided too. I see it in a couple forums that green energy is said to be too costly and the people in our country can‘t afford new cars and that more trust in new tech (decarbonization and fusion) is needed.

Change is needed but no one wants it. USA and China take no action and Germans are pissed they have to solve the problem. That‘s what people here are thinking.

> people in our country can‘t afford new cars

This is about _new_ cars, so you don't have to replace your old car with a new car once this goes into effect.

Also, this is 12 years from now. Do you remember how the EV industry was in 2011?

The US and china are the major producers of electric cars.

I‘m just citing what I read, my own opinion is different. The problem is that people here don‘t feel like they are responsible which is the biggest problem.

Renewables and batteries are already winning. They need some deregulation, and we have to add some transmission capacity. The rest will probably solve itself.

The Biden admin put more than $350 billion dollars of subsidies into the 'green' movement in the U.S. for all sorts of initiatives -- while there is too little in nuclear I think it's disingenuous to say the US is taking no action

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/30/2022-climate-recap-whats-in-...

>Change is needed but no one wants it.

I think ultimately, action to reduce emissions by a significant amount means a lower standard of living if you're in a developed country and reducing expectations for a higher standard of living if you're in a developing country.

As a fellow European - don't apologize, I thank you!

We all know the problems with planned economy, and governmental bans are some of the worst examples of that.

Instead, government should support development of alternative technologies, and when those technologies are better, they will naturally take over.

We shouldn't risk another massive failure like Europe's (and Germany's in particular) "green policy" that involved ignoring energy reliability, shunning nuclear, and ended up with Germany restarting coal power plants.

>Instead, government should support development of alternative technologies, and when those technologies are better, they will naturally take over.

I presume "naturally" is a euphemism for "subsidize the R&D, privatize the profits." I am shocked (shocked!) that a company might favor this option. ;)

The big problem in your example is a government choosing winners and losers by technology. Instead, a carbon tax should be used to tell us what to achieve (lower greenhouse emissions) and let the market decide the most cost-efficient way.

Yeah, carbon tax is also my best idea.

Another simple option is actually taking into account all (or at least most) market conditions when drafting regulation / market rules. E.g. going beyond instantaneous price of energy (which unfairly favours solar) but instead incorporating grid stability as well.

Also I don't understand your point about "subsidising R&D but privatising the profits". If the government wants something to happen, surely they should pay for it? (In this case, development of EV.) And as we know, private industry is more efficient at doing stuff than governments, so surely it's better to let private industry do the R&D, rather than sink the same (or more, as usual with government projects) amount of money into R&D but get worse outcomes.

>If the government wants something to happen, surely they should pay for it?

If an industry is profiting by pushing the cost of their pollution onto society, surely the polluting industry should pay for it?

These (heavily subsidized) profits are not "owed," in reality it's the polluters who are the debtors here.

Here's a friendly reminder, since companies are constantly trying to flip this script around:

Companies serve at the whims of civil society, not the other way around. Society generously allows these companies to exist, not the other way around.

It's not our job to come to these car companies, hat in hand, and bargain for them to please mister please sir please don't destroy our planet! Instead, it's their obligation to not destroy the planet.

If companies prefer not to invest having a future business, they're welcome to cease existing in that future. We call this creative destruction, and it's essential to make room for newer and better companies to take their place.

I’m 100% certain that the vast majority of the population wants cheap, efficient, reliable, fast, private means of transportation. Companies (both car and oil) are just serving that want.

No disagreement there.

But since we agree they're just serving a need, maybe let's not pretend that this automatically gives them the God-given right to destroy the planet[0], and that the regulators are being unfair by taking it away?

You might re-read my post above. I cleaned it up a bit, so maybe my intent is more clear now.

[0] if it helps, substitute the phrase "other people's property" here

Hey, thanks for the insight neiboors. It was indeed a bummer that this disposition got squash. But to be honest I would have been surprised otherwise.

Even if we don’t have the same addiction to cars as our US friends, European do like the convenience too.

I hope this come back to the table soon, I feel it’s looming indeed.

And hopefully this time politics align. It’s also likely that in 2 years Germany will be on board but France not anymore or some schenanigans like that.

You wish you had a 49.3, right ? right ? /s

> people that don't like when things get "verboten".

And there are reasons for that. I think cars which make use of renewable energies would “win” regardless whether we ban combustion engines or not. But I have a problem with bureaucrats who make a deep cut in the way we live without having a public discourse about the topic first. We did not have any public discourse about this topic (this is also a failure of the opposition; the CDU should've pushed the topic); and there were only a few articles in niche magazines like the ADAC. Basically, the whole topic was buried with spin techniques.

Maybe you are old enough to remember when the very same bureaucrats decided to remove trams from cities without asking the population. The reasoning was that we need more space for cars. I'm seeing a similar thing here, as the politicians now act like they have the foresight of which technology will win: EVs will win. Not hydrogen. Not synthetic fuels. No, EV must be the winner. And by cutting off the other technologies, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'd like to see experts from the different industries actually being incorporated in this decision-making instead. Make the law technology neutral and only provide a technological framework. Let the producers of hydrogen cars, synthetic fuel cars and EVs compete against each other. Don't micromanage.

I would find it very possible for hydrogen and then synthetic fuels to find their places too, but as I said: when you cut this off too early, we will never see what's possible.

A different thought: There are probably many indirect effects on EVs too, which make it hard to say how much CO2 each technology is producing over a long time span. We should tackle energy production too; because an EV which drives with coal-produced electricity is useless too. The progressive parties like SPD and the Greens are totally failing here. I remember when Germany was the leader in solar and PV technology, circa 2012. Good times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com