this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
245 points (98.4% liked)
World News
32285 readers
843 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly; instead of trying to tighten emissions restrictions (perhaps beyond feasible levels?), the EU should have just moved this date closer...
Edit: I just realized: I wonder how the ban affects all the talk about synthetic and bio-fuels? Those are still based on internal combustion. Then again; although ideally CO2-neutral, they still emit NOx and particulate.
I run 100% biodiesel in a 1998 VW. IMO its a super-underrated solution, especially for folks who often need to drive long distances.
We shouldn't try to use it for 1:1 replacement of all current gasoline vehicles while changing nothing else, since it'd be a bad idea to devote that much farmland to growing fuel. What we should do, however, is transition the vast majority of driving to bicycles and rail, then use biodiesel for the niche cases left over.
Feel like a lot of these niche cases is logistics where the power is needed and no real viable alternative exists. Trucks, ships, and aeroplanes.
There are alternatives to diesel trucks, but from what I’ve heard they’re rubbish. Gas doesn’t perform that well, and is somewhat of a bitch to fuel, availability being an issue. They also don’t have as much range.
Electric isn’t even really a consideration since trucks just don’t have that much downtime, at least not the way it looks here. A standing truck is one that costs money, so the trucks run almost 24/7. Changing from spending 15-20 minutes fuelling once per day to 30-60 minutes fuelling 4-6 times per day just isn’t feasible.
We could try and force it, obviously. Have ships build sails again, add extra taxes on aeroplanes, and whatnot. When transport costs more, transporting will cost more, meaning anything that gets transported will cost more. The end result will be that everything will get that much more expensive.
On the contrary: freight trains are great! We just need to install pantograph wires on the tracks.
I was gonna mention that if you didn't. 'Course, nowadays it's more about computer-contolled kite sails than traditional one hung off masts.
Trucks. Trucks... Really? Freight train -> freight tram -> forklift.
~~Nuclear submarines~~
Capitalism.
This, already happens. You know that, right? I mean sure you might live in the US where people don't believe in safe schools, access to healthcare, or public transport, but in my country this is already a thing. Yet we still have some of the largest trucks in the entire world.
Why? Because while trains are great at transporting goods to larger hubs, and if a company, say Siemens or SSAB uses a lot of good they might construct their own hubs, smaller companies and individuals (like farmers) don't generally make the kind of money to buy their own forklifts, nevermind build their own train/tram tracks.
So the only option that remains on the table that's the right mix of environmentally friendly and economically viable is to cater to these individuals and companies using gigantic trucks. That is not like to change any time soon no matter how hard we wish that was the case.
Right. I'd be all for burning the system, executing those at the top, and starting over. While one can dream, that doesn't seem very feasible.
So how do we explain to everyone that the prices of food tripling is actually a good thing for them?
Nobody cares. Synthetic fuels are an illusion sold to you by lobbyists who think that keeping combustion engines around will create loopholes for burning more fossil fuels.
In absolutely no reality will there be ever space for something that wastes 56% of energy in fuel production, to then waste another 70% while using that fuel.
You then run into the issue of manufacturers not having enough time to roadmap/push prequels out the door. 2035 seems like a long time away, but realistically it’s 12 years. That’s just about enough time for a large manufacturer to push out a solid platform and ensure it’s good enough. Any less time and most legacy automakers probably wouldn’t make it.
Look at the i3 and i8 from BMW. The i3 first released in 2013. In those 10 years they barely managed to introduce a second generation of electric vehicles. Now I’ll admit they weren’t focussed on it, but development takes time.
I'm not sure it's even just that. If everyone tomorrow moved from a combustion engine to an EV we'd have a real problem. Because I think even if you turned every fuel station into a fast charging station with 2-3x the capacity they had for dispensing fuel (completely ignoring the cutover period where you WILL need to supply fuel too), you'd still end up with queues to charge because it takes sufficiently longer enough to pose a problem compared to just adding fuel. I'm not sure if there's been a solution suggested, aside from charging stations at home, work, supermarkets etc, which we have now but would need to be in every parking bay to meet the demand of every driver now in an EV. I'm then thinking of all the power needed to charge say 100 cars at the same time on fast charge. There's probably a lot of knock-on infrastructure change because of this.
On the other hand, people don't solve problems until they're actually a problem staring them in the face. Just look at climate change, it's now patently obvious things are changing fast and still the changes come at a glacial pace. I have little doubt the same will happen with EV charging.
This is the reason I expect this 2035 date to be pushed back in reality. I'm just not seeing enough earth moving now to make it a likelihood. I'll be happy to be proven wrong though in this case, I assure you.