This only makes sense if they’re reviewing the ban to enforce it even earlier.
Otherwise the market is gonna make the decision for them well within 10 years.
The gap between ICE and EVs is already extremely pronounced and EVs still have room to improve and also get a lot cheaper.
And as ICE vehicles lose numbers, while EV numbers rise, the economies of scale cost advantages that ICE vehicles have will start working the other way, especially since ICE vehicles are far more complex with a much more intricate and far reaching supply chain that will be greatly affected by the failure of a few key, often very small, suppliers.
This seems to say the opposite? While electrified drivetrains are used in fossil fuel vehicles, from what I can tell the reasoning behind this is still weak EV demand.
So the european car industry can coordinate and not destroy itself in a prisoners dilemma where they all try to defect by going slow to maximise short term profits.
2035 is a massive "screw you, stop being poor" for Eastern and Southern members of the EU where the electrical infrastructure is weak in many parts. EVs need to get 1/3 of the price they are now to be viable in those markets where people buy Dacias, Fiats or Seats.
Without massively improving the infrastructure, it is just shooting both the industrial members by killing a well developed product class and the private individuals who cannot buy cheaper budget ICE vehicles. I am all for developing this infrastructure as green as possible. Trying to force it in this short of a timespan is just stupid.
What you are suggesting is a Vimes' Boots approach to keeping those countries poor.
You don't have enough money to buy the cars with lower TCO that you can fuel with renewables installed in your own country, or at worst from EU neighbours?
Instead you need to buy the "cheap" ICE car and then pay again and again and again to import fuels and somehow you have the money for that?
Plus, has anyone who actually runs a grid in that country suggested EVs would be a bad thing? Generally they welcome them as they help bring costs down by using off peak power. So you've shot yourself in another foot by falling for this propaganda.
Older apartment buildings don't get to use home charging. There is shit ton of them. Without home charging, EV's suck, including financially, as it ends up being more expensive than fossils. Electricity prices in most of Europe not cheap.
I didn't suggest that Eastern EU should stay with ICEs forever. I just argued that 2035 is too early of a deadline.
Infrastructure for importing and processing fossil fuels has been organically developed and it is there everywhere. The European grid and the EV charging stations aren't.
Chinese manufacturers can make cheap cars however many poorer EU countries have actual car factories in them and we probably don't want to close those either.
So either EU Car companies will buckle and make actually affordable cars and EU energy companies get economic incentives and legal help to cut through the bureaucracy of each member state or we stay with ICEs longer. Similarly many landlords in EU countries need to be incentivized to install chargers. Most working class people rent in EU now. Without home charging EVs have less economic incentives.
Without making economic and legal arrangements, forcing poorer countries to buy more expensive cars that cannot be charged is the stupid decision here.
ZeroGravitas explained it abstractly higher up in the discussion, but:
Suppose that we don't make a law banning it eventually. So some invest, others don't, deciding instead to focus on their current capabilities. In twenty years we've had an industry transition: everything's electric, those manufacturers died but made a lot of money, which was for the most part not invested in electric car development, but in other industries-- maybe in AI, maybe in something else.
Meanwhile, if we don't do this and instead make a law banning it eventually the manufacturers have no choice. They have to invest in EVs. This means that they will abstain from further developing ICEs and focus, probably, on batteries and electric motors. They can't just run the business for the now to produce dividends to invest in other industries but have to maintain their industry and develop it so that it remains relevant two decades from now.
So it's a social choice: dividends to invest in other industries or the industry existing in the future, and the political decision is the industry existing in the future. I assume that any industry preference for the other path, i.e. disappearing/winding down while paying out dividends has to do with the present relatively (to the zero-interest rate days anyway) high interest rates.
I feel like I only hear this argument after people voted with their vote and somebody doesn't like the result.
That said, not really opposed to continuous raising of ICE / gas tax until it's undesirable since that's how it works a lot of the time for something not immediately dangerous (i.e. C4 is banned, Cigarettes are taxed).
Discussion point 1: exactly how many decades do we want to be dependant on imported energy?
This only makes sense if they’re reviewing the ban to enforce it even earlier.
Otherwise the market is gonna make the decision for them well within 10 years.
The gap between ICE and EVs is already extremely pronounced and EVs still have room to improve and also get a lot cheaper.
And as ICE vehicles lose numbers, while EV numbers rise, the economies of scale cost advantages that ICE vehicles have will start working the other way, especially since ICE vehicles are far more complex with a much more intricate and far reaching supply chain that will be greatly affected by the failure of a few key, often very small, suppliers.
It already is happening at major suppliers. https://press.zf.com/press/en/releases/release_94080.html#:~...
This seems to say the opposite? While electrified drivetrains are used in fossil fuel vehicles, from what I can tell the reasoning behind this is still weak EV demand.
To say nothing of increasing operating costs (most strikingly at the pump given less demand).
The market deciding for something, is better than forcing it by law; and if you think this will surely happen, why do we need the law then?
So the european car industry can coordinate and not destroy itself in a prisoners dilemma where they all try to defect by going slow to maximise short term profits.
More classic short-termism by the West, more of the same why their lunch gets eaten further and further by China.
2035 is a massive "screw you, stop being poor" for Eastern and Southern members of the EU where the electrical infrastructure is weak in many parts. EVs need to get 1/3 of the price they are now to be viable in those markets where people buy Dacias, Fiats or Seats.
Without massively improving the infrastructure, it is just shooting both the industrial members by killing a well developed product class and the private individuals who cannot buy cheaper budget ICE vehicles. I am all for developing this infrastructure as green as possible. Trying to force it in this short of a timespan is just stupid.
What you are suggesting is a Vimes' Boots approach to keeping those countries poor.
You don't have enough money to buy the cars with lower TCO that you can fuel with renewables installed in your own country, or at worst from EU neighbours?
Instead you need to buy the "cheap" ICE car and then pay again and again and again to import fuels and somehow you have the money for that?
Plus, has anyone who actually runs a grid in that country suggested EVs would be a bad thing? Generally they welcome them as they help bring costs down by using off peak power. So you've shot yourself in another foot by falling for this propaganda.
Older apartment buildings don't get to use home charging. There is shit ton of them. Without home charging, EV's suck, including financially, as it ends up being more expensive than fossils. Electricity prices in most of Europe not cheap.
I didn't suggest that Eastern EU should stay with ICEs forever. I just argued that 2035 is too early of a deadline.
Infrastructure for importing and processing fossil fuels has been organically developed and it is there everywhere. The European grid and the EV charging stations aren't.
Chinese manufacturers can make cheap cars however many poorer EU countries have actual car factories in them and we probably don't want to close those either.
So either EU Car companies will buckle and make actually affordable cars and EU energy companies get economic incentives and legal help to cut through the bureaucracy of each member state or we stay with ICEs longer. Similarly many landlords in EU countries need to be incentivized to install chargers. Most working class people rent in EU now. Without home charging EVs have less economic incentives.
Without making economic and legal arrangements, forcing poorer countries to buy more expensive cars that cannot be charged is the stupid decision here.
[flagged]
You are approaching this conversation as if a violent battle and assume bad intent. No more responses.
This is only a problem if trade barriers force it to be a problem; average EV prices in China have already dropped below average ICE vehicle prices.
Dacia Spring is probably viable in those markets, and I think we actually intend for them to stop being poor.
Why don’t we let the market decide? Let people vote with their money
ZeroGravitas explained it abstractly higher up in the discussion, but:
Suppose that we don't make a law banning it eventually. So some invest, others don't, deciding instead to focus on their current capabilities. In twenty years we've had an industry transition: everything's electric, those manufacturers died but made a lot of money, which was for the most part not invested in electric car development, but in other industries-- maybe in AI, maybe in something else.
Meanwhile, if we don't do this and instead make a law banning it eventually the manufacturers have no choice. They have to invest in EVs. This means that they will abstain from further developing ICEs and focus, probably, on batteries and electric motors. They can't just run the business for the now to produce dividends to invest in other industries but have to maintain their industry and develop it so that it remains relevant two decades from now.
So it's a social choice: dividends to invest in other industries or the industry existing in the future, and the political decision is the industry existing in the future. I assume that any industry preference for the other path, i.e. disappearing/winding down while paying out dividends has to do with the present relatively (to the zero-interest rate days anyway) high interest rates.
Sure, let's bring back leaded gas, too, and let people vote with their money on whether they want that. Asbestos shingles, too - why not?
> Let people vote with their money
I feel like I only hear this argument after people voted with their vote and somebody doesn't like the result.
That said, not really opposed to continuous raising of ICE / gas tax until it's undesirable since that's how it works a lot of the time for something not immediately dangerous (i.e. C4 is banned, Cigarettes are taxed).
All for it.
Step #1 put a price on the currently unpriced externalities for fossil fuels. Starting with the pollution they put into the air whenever they operate.