And they’ll cry when Chinese EVs will dominate the European market.
Germans had 100 years head start in car manufacturing, the best R&D they could come up with was subscription seat heaters.
Most of the Chinese auto industry started through joint ventures with European companies.
If I were to buy a car I wouldn’t buy Chinese. BUT, if the European ones want to play like this I’d start considering changing that stance
Why is allowing vehicles running on alternative fuels that have 0 emmissions a bad thing? Why are we all hell bent on pursuing EVs, inisisting that’s the solution and just ignoring all their downsides?
Because there are no feasible alternative fuels that aren’t better used elsewhere.
Why is allowing vehicles running on alternative fuels that have 0 emmissions a bad thing?
They need many times the amount of renewable energy to make than just driving on electricity directly, they will not exist in sufficient quantities and be prohibitively expensive. Still, the former German government negotiated for an exception for e-fuels only cars and I’m pretty certain that will come so some more idiots can be tricked into buying one before they check the prices and availability for these fuels.
Why are we all hell bent on pursuing EVs,
We are not. New vehicles will not be allowed to emit CO2 (or be fined), that’s all.
ignoring all their downsides?
Nobody is.
I don’t think innovation in the space is bad.
But I do think its complicated by distinction between where the energy comes from, how we get it, and how its stored.
We are largely pursuing electricity, which although imperfect, has the advantages:
- inertia of electric cars
- we already have an (imperfect) distribution system
- the source of that power can be changed.
distribution & competition
Gas has huge market share in part due to the fact it has a huge distribution system in place. If we use hydrogen, or something else, then scaling up production, getting it where it needs to be, and having the right new/clean equipment to get it into your car all has to be worked out.
If we have multiple competing technologies, then the user base is fragmented, and its difficult to trust that you will reliably find energy for road trips outside your normal stomping ground.
We have electricity almost everywhere, and many modern cars can be charged slowly even via 120VAC. So IMO it is the most likely candidate to compete vs gas, but would be invigorated by minimizing competition to encourage scaling fast chargers as “the choice”.
source of power
Electricity & batteries are (and store) the energy used, but where the power comes from is a different matter. Some places may source it entirely from renewable energy, some may source it from coal, or gas, etc. With electricity as the medium, we can phase from non-renewable to renewable as we improve. The ability to not care where power came from is quite powerful. If you have an alternate fuel that is 0% emissions, the electric cars can also benefit from it. All of that can happen behind the scenes with end users none the wiser.
imperfect
Electricity is far from perfect. The grids are probably undersized for fullscale use. Conversion, tranamiasion, and storage of electricity leads to Significant losses. Cold temperature impacts the battery. Mining for batteries, battery disposal/renewal etc. There’s a lot wrong.
But it’s what we’ve got so far that seems like it has the potential to break the stranglehold that gas has, and would still allow for innovation in where the energy comes from.
Because alternative fuels are bullshit accounting and multilevel green washing. Any type of combustion motor takes more parts to build and wastes 60-75% of the input energy as heat. Most of what you put in your gas tank just makes wasted heat.
if you don’t consider fuel transport emissions, I don’t see what’s the problem with classifying cars that run on renewable gasoline/diesel to have zero emissions.
No vehicle has zero emmissions due to manufacturing, for maintenance etc. The electricity is not zero emmissions either. First of all, it’s not 100% renewable and second, even if it was we’d at least have emmissions for manufacturing and maintenance of solar cells, turbines etc.
Furthermore, emmissions is not only CO2. There’s also microplastics and - in case of combustion engine cars - you still have harmful substances when burning the (hypothetically existing) e-fuels.
BEVs aren’t perfect, but the overall energy required during the lifecycle is significantly lower. And energy in this context more or less equals harm to the environment.
From my perspective, no form of transport should be labeled zero emmissions, but if we allow that label it should be only granted to the most efficient options per sector which is BEVs for cars.
There are also lakes of used oil and mountains of parts ICE generate while on the road.
Agree, but if you live next to a highway, zero emissions means you’ll be healthier. So in that way the label makes sense.
While “less sick” is technically “healthier”, if you live near a highway you really should be thinking in terms of degrees of sickness, because that thing will be harming you. Also, consider how your life expectancy is being reduced considerably thanks to vehicle noise, which is barely different between ICE and EVs at highway speeds
And they don’t count oil mining, and in that famous white paper by Volvo every asshole quotes but didn’t read, they compare carbon costs of EVs to ICE if the motor and transmission metals in ICE are excluded.
Anything burning something cannot have zero emissions.
