Germany looking to ban ICE's by 2030

Discuss: http://www.autoblog.com/2016/10/09/germany-ban-internal-combustion-engine-2030/

Eventually we will all be there. I think, that for some time, older vehicles will be grandfathered or have some sort of allowance.

Good luck. I can't see it happening.

It is interesting that at the same time, they are phasing out nuclear power at the same time.

Assuming that banning ICE's is to reduce greenhouse gasses, I wonder what the power grid generation plan is.

(neither of those are the issues I think will prevent 100% non ICE new cars sales)

I gather that the ban is just on new vehicle sales, so any MY 2030 would have to forego the sploding' dinos. But when new vehicles don't use traditional fuels, how long will it take before it's difficult to find someplace to fill up your ICE, and how much will it cost?

This timeline coincides with the autonomous vehicle timeline pretty well too so the majority of these non-ICE vehicles will likely be autonomous, which comes with additional potential issues.

alfadriver wrote: Good luck. I can't see it happening. It is interesting that at the same time, they are phasing out nuclear power at the same time. Assuming that banning ICE's is to reduce greenhouse gasses, I wonder what the power grid generation plan is. (neither of those are the issues I think will prevent 100% non ICE new cars sales)

They seem to be tying up quite a bit of money in solar: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-north-africa-light-europe-solar-power/

And since the Brexit, Germany is really the largest and most powerful member of the EU, so in theory these regs could spread to the rest of the EU.

Traffic circa 2030?

2030? That's hardly a ban, that's just closing the door behind them on the way out. By 2030, hardly anyone will want to buy a new ICE car over an EV, they'll be better all-around.

It will be interesting to see how they charge the EVs since they got spooked about nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster and decided to dump it for dumb emotional reasons right in the face of looming carbon caps...

Huckleberry wrote: Traffic circa 2030?

You left out the mad max style ICE cars chasing behind them, armed with machine guns.

Am I the only one who read ICE as "In Car Entertainment" before entering the thread?

I'm all for banning DVD players in every headrest and 10,000 Watt stereo systems.

I can see it happening in Europe but not here. We like our exploding dinos to much.

In reply to Fitzauto:

Would the auto manufacturers keep spending billions of dollars to develop vehicles with ICEs that they couldn't sell in one of the largest markets in the world though?

I don't think they'll have to ban them here. I think the market will take care of most of it on it's own.

The resolution is not legally binding, so it's all just tire smoke and rear view mirrors for the time being. One good breakthrough in battery or fuel cell technology, and they might be able to follow through on it. One good breakthrough in biofuels and it could completely unravel.

Driven5 wrote: One good breakthrough in biofuels and it will unravel.

A cheap and carbon-neutral fuel for ICEs wouldn't kill EVs but it might make ICEs hang around for another decade...EVs are also gaining on ICEs in power and have a massive, indelibe advantage in reliability - it will probably only increase over time as ICEs get more and more complex.

In this hypothetical scenario, at some point EVs and ICEs could have similar fuel costs and environmental impact, but the EVs would surpass ICEs in power (plus that solid wall of torque from 0rpm to redline) and even range while being far more reliable. How long would ICEs be competitive in that environment, especially when most drivers don't want their car to make any noise?

In reply to GameboyRMH:

I still see some massive issues with EV that will cause them to slow in the marketplace.

For sure, when combined with really fast charging (only 10x slower than gas), there will be some major reliability issues.

As for the power- at some point, the gain is pointless. Really- while power has gone up, noting how people drive- the nominal power range that most driver use has barely gone up. Which is still in the 10-50 hp range.

Unless some big things happen, and very soon, I just can't share your optimism for EVs.

Fuel cells, those can be more realistic relative to gas engines.

Liquid fuels rock.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: I still see some massive issues with EV that will cause them to slow in the marketplace. For sure, when combined with really fast charging (only 10x slower than gas), there will be some major reliability issues. As for the power- at some point, the gain is pointless. Really- while power has gone up, noting how people drive- the nominal power range that most driver use has barely gone up. Which is still in the 10-50 hp range. Unless some big things happen, and very soon, I just can't share your optimism for EVs. Fuel cells, those can be more realistic relative to gas engines. Liquid fuels rock.

There's no reason faster charging should decrease reliability, other than perhaps the inclusion of a battery cooling system where one might not have been needed otherwise.

I agree that power gains are pointless past a certain point, and will probably stabilize with the average car having 300-400hp - but now imagine the complexity and potential inefficiency of an engine that makes so much power. That's bad for reliability. EVs don't vary much in complexity between a Nissan Leaf and a Formula E car.

Big things will happen soon for EVs, probably multiple new battery types within the next 5 years that will make li-ion look like crap. These are already in development and some interesting new li-ion variants are going into production now.

I think the total nightmare of storing and transporting hydrogen could keep fuel cell vehicles from taking off by itself. That's a whole infrastructure that doesn't exist at all right now and is a bigger headache than any that has existed before (since hydrogen escapes through solids and embrittles metal containers). Most hydrogen produced today is a fossil fuel byproduct as well, so the overall environmental benefit is currently theoretical.

No reliability issues? Do you realize how much voltage and current is required to charge for a nominal 200 mile range in 10 min?

The cooling system required to deal with that would be really big. Hundreds of volts and hundreds of amps- enough to melt dirt (and I have seen that done with electricity).

How does that not come with the same charging and battery issues that Samsung is dealing with right now?

I don't see it happening and I'm pro-electric. Too much has to change, too quickly.

alfadriver wrote: No reliability issues? Do you realize how much voltage and current is required to charge for a nominal 200 mile range in 10 min? The cooling system required to deal with that would be really big. Hundreds of volts and hundreds of amps- enough to melt dirt (and I have seen that done with electricity). How does that not come with the same charging and battery issues that Samsung is dealing with right now?

You're assuming that we're putting that much energy into a present-day li-ion battery, which would indeed end in a fireball almost as quickly as boosting the engines in the Wright Brothers' plane.

For a different type of battery, the waste heat from the charging process could be manageable, or even negligible - a graphene supercapacitor might take it like it's no big deal.

In reply to alfadriver:

Been in Bavaria for the last 2 weeks. I've seen 2 nuclear plants but WAY more solar farms and windmills. The train track borders of many farm fields are filled with solar arrays (as are a lot of roofs of the farm a rural structures) and windmills are all over the mountain ridges. I dont know why nantuket got their underwear in a wad. Wind farms are Cool stuff.

GameboyRMH wrote:

alfadriver wrote: No reliability issues? Do you realize how much voltage and current is required to charge for a nominal 200 mile range in 10 min? The cooling system required to deal with that would be really big. Hundreds of volts and hundreds of amps- enough to melt dirt (and I have seen that done with electricity). How does that not come with the same charging and battery issues that Samsung is dealing with right now?

You're assuming that we're putting that much energy into a present-day li-ion battery, which would indeed end in a fireball almost as quickly as boosting the engines in the Wright Brothers' plane. For a different type of battery, the waste heat from the charging process could be manageable, or even negligible - a graphene supercapacitor might take it like it's no big deal.

I don't care what kind of batteries they are- the energy being put into them is actually capable of turning dirt into glass. I just don't see anything capable of dealing with that kind of electrical energy absorption without massive issues.

And even then, it's 1/10 the speed of filling up you gas tank.

In reply to itsarebuild:

Cool as they may be, going 100% EV's is still a big load to the system. Especially when they would probably be going away from Coal at the same time (since that's the point of EV).

Oh don't get me wrong. I don't see 100% EVs as there are only a handful in service here now. I see more in Atalanta every day than I've seen here in 2 weeks.

My only point was that I don't see nuclear plants phasing out as an issue here. All EV would change that but as many have said... Good luck with that....

I'm all for it. I hope it happens, but it does seem a tad aggressive. Don't see it happening here because too many will cling to their ICE a lot longer.

Germany's knee jerk regarding nuclear was dumb. Other than Chernobyl, there hasn't been a meltdown in 30 years. Fukushima only became a problem due to a poorly positioned plant in a seismicly unstable area.

Whilst renewable energies are important, a capable backup needs to exist. Just ask the people of South Australia what happens when a major weather event decides to take out your renewable Power generation when there's no plan b. Just last week 95% of the state was blacked out.

Now to ev's. They are at this stage very much a false economy. The electricity they use comes from.... Oh yeah, coal or nuclear in most cases. That in itself isn't a major drama in small concentrations. But imagine if every vehicle in our current lives was electric. The current electrical infrastructure and power generation would be grossly inadequate. So you have to up Power generation and build a new grid.... Heaps environmentally friendly.

How about batteries? We're not talking simple and easy to recycle lead acids here. as others have said, the battery systems will have to evolve massively to make ev's the norm. So a large environmental impact to make the things, then due to complexity, a costly and potentially dangerous process to reclaim/refurb or recycle them.

I don't doubt that we're moving towards a cleaner and more environmentally sustainable future, and the importance of doing so. but it will take time And a lot more than just electric transport to save the day.

Really!? and what do they hope to actually accomplish? One good volcanic eruption spits out more greenhouse gasses than all of the cars in the world. I think they should introduce a referendum to ban volcanic eruptions and bean burritos. Because we all know methane is a much worse green house gas than CO2.