Germany and Italy blocks ICEV bans for 2035

[Lexus Owners Club]

Could we please get back on topic and also please bear in mind that although we all have differing opinions it does not require any abusive comments to be made
This post will be locked/deleted if this negative, off-topic discussion continues. Thank you

[Linas.P]

To help to get on track - there is actually update to this story: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-reaches-deal-with-eu-future-use-combustion-engines-2023-03-25/

Basically, EU has agreed to allow combustion engine cars to be made "if they run on e-fuels". Which let me just be very clear about it - means there will be NO BAN. I mean I can tell political shaite from the miles on and this is purest and slinkiest type of it. To be clear - I completely welcome this outcome as it is indeed in my interest and what I wanted to happen, however the agreement they have reached is clearly designed to mislead the public and set unrealistic expectations... on the good side - grass eating and cycling vegetables are very gullible so they will accept this as success and move on (not they already started demonstrating, so I think this has help to reach decisions quickly). But I want to be clear this may come back to bite us in the back side soon.

So let's unpack it - ICEVs will be allowed to be made if they run on e-fuels... That basically means no ban, because all and every ICEV can run on e-fuels, it is not a matter of engine technology, it is a matter of fuel technology. Even the Ford Model-T can run on e-fuel and even older cars... as well illustrated by this video (linked below). Now I have heard different quote form the agreement - and it is "the cars that ONLY can run on e-fuel will be allowed for sales". But the point remains the same - all ICE cars can run on e-fuel, so it will be mere marketing trick which going to say "this car should only run on e-fuel", no different to current statement "this care is designed to use premium fuel". Furthermore, there are no current plants to ban either diesel or petrol, because clearly even by 2035 there will still be millions of old cars needing to refuel, so combination of new cars which can run on both e-fuel and natural fuel, availability of both fuels for sale again just means that ban cannot be enforced in any way. And that is pretty much the EU proposal. 

The second video I wanted to post is kind of meme and to be fair I don't like Mr. Kennedy... nor his world views, but here he nails the nail on the head. It will cost $50 Trillion to make US carbon neutral and the impact on global warming is likely to be from negligible to none. Imagine what other things $50 trillion can do. Just think about. Build permanent base and move human race to permanent habitation of the Moon and probably Mars and there probably would still be change left for fusion rectors (estimated $1 Trillion for Moon mission and Mars is very Roughly estimated to be 10-20 times more challenging, not clear how much more costly), I am not even talking about mere things like eliminating ending hunger in the world. As well if divided equally it can end the poverty in the world, all world can have free education and free healthcare, and free public transportation for over 100 years. That is just FEW things we can do with $50 Trillion... and what vegetables want to do with it is just to turn US in dystopian carbon neutral grass eating country. Look - it is just money, but the opportunity cost of $50 Trillion is huge and I just can't see how spending it on "carbon neutral" is justifiable. And remember - that is just US alone, presumably EU would have to spend just as much if not more (double the population, higher costs - so I would assume 150 Trillion Euro to achieve the same)!

 

[Malc1]

On 3/26/2023 at 2:46 PM, Malc1 said:

Germany and Italy blocks ICEV bans for 2035

---

This is simply the header for this Post 

It's done, normal service will resume ...........  we can all go buy our V8s petrol head cars in 2035 ✌️

No need to worry about hydrogen power, nor EV power either .  irrelevance or not ...  PETROL is here to stay ( albeit E- focussed petrol, whatever that might be by 2035 ! )

Just my simple synopsis from yesterday . bit easier to read than the complexity above 🤩

Malc

[dutchie01]

Linas, i think there will be a clause in the agreement stating that "the car will switch off immediately if non E-fuel is detected.

[Linas.P]

10 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

Linas, i think there will be a clause in the agreement stating that "the car will switch off immediately if non E-fuel is detected.

Fine, but how do you propose that will work in practice? In the end of the day e-fuels are in principle same long carbohydrates chains as natural fuels. Sure - in the lab it is possible to tell which one is natural and which one is synthetic as later tend to be purer and more uniform in molecular structure. Although natural oil can be refined further as well if needed (it is same material in principle), the difference is only that with synthetic fuel that is what you get by default, but natural fuel would require extra step of refinement. As well e-fuels burns the same as natural fuels, so there would be no noticeable difference in emissions (in theory again synthetic fuel could burn better as it burns more uniformly), the difference is just that energy used to make e-fuels comes from renewable sources, but the end product is basically 99.99% same. So unless they propose to fit microscope and send the details to the lab after every refuel and you locked out of it whilst they are trying to figure out what fuel you put into it... there is no way to tell. And by the way if that fuel gets contaminated for any reason then you will be locked out of your car forever as nobody will be able to say if it is synthetic or natural.

In most simple terms they crated the biggest, widest and tallest backdoor in the ban that was possible. And what this means is that there are no ban on the engines anymore practically speaking, so it will all comedown to phasing out of the oil based fuels (something similar as to what happened with leaded fuel phaseout). I am fine with that in principle, except the point that it is basically a greenwash, but between that and dystopian communist rule I will take greenwash any day.

[dutchie01]

Something else is slowly coming to the surface, a topic that sends shivers through the automotive industry and that is not widely discussed yet. I will give some examples. This weekend was a referendum in Berlin where the 2.5 million inhabitants could vote on the question if climate neutrality should be brought forward from 2045 to 2030. This plan would cost an estimate 113 billion Euro. 35% of the people voted with a majority yes vote of 50.9%. Turnup is too low so nothing will happen but 35% on a question like that. Seems the topic is not interesting enough to even go vote? And Berlin is a leftwing city and then 50.9% yes on 35%? Also the latest poll in Germany shows decreasing interest in BEVs and Plug ins, down from 44 to 39% of respondents said yes to would you ever consider buying a BEV. And what are most heared arguments against? doubts about longevity people think petrolcars run for longer, purchaseprice, they are too expensive and lack of charging options. Hardly anyone is talking about the environment in favour or against it are all practical reasons. 

Another one, Holland. in 2025 all fiscal stimulation for BEVs will disappear. Bring in a survey and guess what? 40% of current electric car owners will return to Petrol.

So could this mean that interest in climate neutrality etc is much lower than everybody expects? Could all this be a high brow hobby of leftish intellectuals, the press, politicians? The boys and girls of stinky rebellion can continue gluing themselves to paintings and highways but what if nobody is interested?

What if you are the Volkswagen Audi group and have invested billions in BEV,s have designed and built new factories, will be turning out new electric cars every year every month almost, have halted development of diesel and petrol engines, and what, just what if people will not buy them??

[Linas.P]

18 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

Something else is slowly coming to the surface, a topic that sends shivers through the automotive industry and that is not widely discussed yet. I will give some examples. This weekend was a referendum in Berlin where the 2.5 million inhabitants could vote on the question if climate neutrality should be brought forward from 2045 to 2030. This plan would cost an estimate 113 billion Euro. 35% of the people voted with a majority yes vote of 50.9%. Turnup is too low so nothing will happen but 35% on a question like that. Seems the topic is not interesting enough to even go vote? And Berlin is a leftwing city and then 50.9% yes on 35%? Also the latest poll in Germany shows decreasing interest in BEVs and Plug ins, down from 44 to 39% of respondents said yes to would you ever consider buying a BEV. And what are most heared arguments against? doubts about longevity people think petrolcars run for longer, purchaseprice, they are too expensive and lack of charging options. Hardly anyone is talking about the environment in favour or against it are all practical reasons. 

Another one, Holland. in 2025 all fiscal stimulation for BEVs will disappear. Bring in a survey and guess what? 40% of current electric car owners will return to Petrol.

So could this mean that interest in climate neutrality etc is much lower than everybody expects? Could all this be a high brow hobby of leftish intellectuals, the press, politicians? The boys and girls of stinky rebellion can continue gluing themselves to paintings and highways but what if nobody is interested?

What if you are the Volkswagen Audi group and have invested billions in BEV,s have designed and built new factories, will be turning out new electric cars every year every month almost, have halted development of diesel and petrol engines, and what, just what if people will not buy them??

I honestly doubt it sends shivers trough anyone's spines - I believe auto industry is step ahead of that, otherwise they wouldn't have been lobbying for reversal of the so useful ban which would have compelled everyone to switch to BEV. In the end of the day they realised it was exactly that "high brow hobby of leftish intellectuals, the press and politicians" and they were happy to play along whilst it granted them subsidies, tax breaks and sales. However as the date is looming closer and closer (and in the business strategy 2030-40 isn't that far), they realised that if plans were to go ahead they would go bust. 

The reality was always that climate neutrality was fringe idea, there were never majority in support of it... or at least not willing to sacrifice their freedoms and life-quality to achieve it. I must admit - that is where I stand, I am in principle supportive of environmental protection, if there is something obvious that can help I will do it, you know I am not burning tyres or dumping them to the bushes, and after picnic I pick-up my rubbish and take them away with me (and I am surprised how rare this is and how many people are happy to leave mess after themselves), BUT I am not planning to sacrifice anything important, especially for some far fetched goals of reducing 0.2C temperature increase which might happen 200 years after my children are dead. And all in all, all the steps I have taken to reduce the amount of waste I generate as a human I think is well above average, but even I cannot accept the sacrifice which would be required for carbon neutrality. And I think on the scale I would already be in that liberal/lefties sector. So I would imagine in the society as a whole support is even lower. 

This whole Greta and friends farce have very little support worldwide, they are a typical "screaming minority", they generate loads of noise but silent majority doesn't really care much about it. 

I think all this is just finally becoming clearer, but make no mistake - after gender politics and climate crisis, there will be some other fad which will take our attention away from real issues for 10 years. 

[Mr Vlad]

3 hours ago, dutchie01 said:

Linas, i think there will be a clause in the agreement stating that "the car will switch off immediately if non E-fuel is detected.

Yes Linas there was a bit of negatively towards the e-fuel only thing. Those opposing it came up with things like, what you said, how will it work? They mentioned that it could be like VW's diesel gate malarkey. That people with the E-fuel car would simply fill up with Petrol. 

Oh how stupid of folk slagging off a ruddy good idea because they didn't think of it.

[Linas.P]

38 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Yes Linas there was a bit of negatively towards the e-fuel only thing. Those opposing it came up with things like, what you said, how will it work? They mentioned that it could be like VW's diesel gate malarkey. That people with the E-fuel car would simply fill up with Petrol. 

Oh how stupid of folk slagging off a ruddy good idea because they didn't think of it.

I didn't mean to say e-fuel is bad idea.

What I am saying is that this in principle defeats the ban, because there is no way to check if you have e-fuel or not e-fuel. I guess in theory they could use similar system like "green" or "red" diesel, where diesel destined for farmers had a dye and was taxed differently and when people buy "e-fuel" only car they would have to only fill-it up with e-fuel or else get fine... but the whole point of the ban was to phase out what they believe was "dirty combustion engines", yet they now are saying - as long as it runs e-fuel it is fine (which is fine by me), but it is just kind of funny.

So in principle this is now turning from engine technology ban, to fuel source ban... which probably was right way of doing it in the first place, except there are no current plans to to ban natural fuels. 

Anyhow - from my point of view this is a WIN... how it turns out to be in the end I don't know, but the ICE ban is old news - not gonna happen. 

[Malc1]

On 3/12/2023 at 9:47 AM, Malc1 said:

I am however being very very serious about the NZ Gove absolute restrictions on cow output

now then guys  .  we are aware that running cars is but a tiny tiny element in the need to reduce emissions ......  you're all getting very uppity about e-fuels and non,  and now the mention of older cars running on leaded fuel substitutes ..  and that really is the norm and tiny,  coz there are so few left .  as will be the case with " ordinary " petrol fuelled cars too come 2035

NOW the cows generate some 15% of the unwanted CO2 stuff globally so why not find a way to " eat-up " all that cow generated CO2 by fuelling it into another generation of vehicle propulsion ?

FANTASY maybe, but maybe not .  it just takes some weird thinking scientist to develop the notion into reality  .  bit like the invention of the Hydrogen Combustion Engine maybe

who'd have thought !  .......  now then, where's my Lexus Ls700 and wot's it going to be run on ?

Malc

[Mr Vlad]

Malc they've been trying to capture the CO2 cows emit for quite some time. But it's basically an impossible task unless all cows lived indoors only and that ain't ever gonna happen. 

Don't you worry. Your LS700 is not that far away.

[Las Palmas]

1 hour ago, Malc1 said:

now then guys  .  we are aware that running cars is but a tiny tiny element in the need to reduce emissions ......  you're all getting very uppity about e-fuels and non,  and now the mention of older cars running on leaded fuel substitutes ..  and that really is the norm and tiny,  coz there are so few left .  as will be the case with " ordinary " petrol fuelled cars too come 2035

NOW the cows generate some 15% of the unwanted CO2 stuff globally so why not find a way to " eat-up " all that cow generated CO2 by fuelling it into another generation of vehicle propulsion ?

FANTASY maybe, but maybe not .  it just takes some weird thinking scientist to develop the notion into reality  .  bit like the invention of the Hydrogen Combustion Engine maybe

who'd have thought !  .......  now then, where's my Lexus Ls700 and wot's it going to be run on ?

Malc

Alcohol. No - not for the driver. The car. Drunk cars on the road.

[Linas.P]

4 hours ago, Malc1 said:

now then guys  .  we are aware that running cars is but a tiny tiny element in the need to reduce emissions ......  you're all getting very uppity about e-fuels and non,  and now the mention of older cars running on leaded fuel substitutes ..  and that really is the norm and tiny,  coz there are so few left .  as will be the case with " ordinary " petrol fuelled cars too come 2035

NOW the cows generate some 15% of the unwanted CO2 stuff globally so why not find a way to " eat-up " all that cow generated CO2 by fuelling it into another generation of vehicle propulsion ?

FANTASY maybe, but maybe not .  it just takes some weird thinking scientist to develop the notion into reality  .  bit like the invention of the Hydrogen Combustion Engine maybe

who'd have thought !  .......  now then, where's my Lexus Ls700 and wot's it going to be run on ?

I need to correct you here - hopefully it will be useful information. 

First of all, cows/cattle of any sort - do NOT produce Co2 (well they do produce some by breathing, but this is not what we talking about here), they instead produce Methane and methane is 25 times more potent greenhouse gas than Co2. Secondly, farming in it's entirety produces ~16% of global emissions, so maybe that is what you mean by "cows" in very simplified form? In either case, when we look at emissions from the industry, then all the emissions are converted into "equivalent to Co2", meaning that methane emitted by cows is already within that 16% farming emissions number, cattle in particular will be like 1-2%, which ironically is about the same as the cars.

Now interestingly, unlike Co2 (inert gas) Methane is flammable and could be captured and used, and has been captured and used (just not from the cows, but from landfills) to generate heat and electricity. As well by burning Methane it is converted into Co2, which reduces the emissions by 25 times. Either way - transportation and agriculture are far from the biggest issues. 

I would reiterate that production of energy is ~25% and industry (manufacturing/building) is 40%, so that is where we want to start if we want to make most impact. And in the industry 90% of pollution is energy use and maybe 10% are the raw materials themselves. So if we get our energy clean and carbon neutral, then we can cut emissions right there by 25% + 36%, + another ~6% from home heating/cooling, and I am not even counting electric cars, or trains or street lighting etc. Now - 2/3rds of the issue or 67% is sizeable change and I would argue is worth the effort to tackle, hence I keep banking on about fusion energy. Renewables are not it, simply because for this saving to be achievable we need abundant energy, renewables themselves are first of all "low carbon", not "carbon neutral" and secondly they are scarce energy sources which requires as to reduce energy use and therefore cannot be used on large scale. Now obviously if we get fusion energy then emissions becomes moot point, we can simply capture carbon is we have abundant cheap energy, we can make those fancy synthetic fuels from biomass effectively in carbon neutral way, everything we make becomes carbon neutral so consumption cases being an issue etc. etc. And if this is where the money is going to go, then I would be fine with that, fine without NHS, fine without education, fine without roads being maintained until we get clean every, because that at least is going to be worth the sacrifice.  

[Las Palmas]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

I need to correct you here - hopefully it will be useful information. 

First of all, cows/cattle of any sort - do NOT produce Co2 (well they do produce some by breathing, but this is not what we talking about here), they instead produce Methane and methane is 25 times more potent greenhouse gas than Co2. Secondly, farming in it's entirety produces ~16% of global emissions, so maybe that is what you mean by "cows" in very simplified form? In either case, when we look at emissions from the industry, then all the emissions are converted into "equivalent to Co2", meaning that methane emitted by cows is already within that 16% farming emissions number, cattle in particular will be like 1-2%, which ironically is about the same as the cars.

Now interestingly, unlike Co2 (inert gas) Methane is flammable and could be captured and used, and has been captured and used (just not from the cows, but from landfills) to generate heat and electricity. As well by burning Methane it is converted into Co2, which reduces the emissions by 25 times. Either way - transportation and agriculture are far from the biggest issues. 

I would reiterate that production of energy is ~25% and industry (manufacturing/building) is 40%, so that is where we want to start if we want to make most impact. And in the industry 90% of pollution is energy use and maybe 10% are the raw materials themselves. So if we get our energy clean and carbon neutral, then we can cut emissions right there by 25% + 36%, + another ~6% from home heating/cooling, and I am not even counting electric cars, or trains or street lighting etc. Now - 2/3rds of the issue or 67% is sizeable change and I would argue is worth the effort to tackle, hence I keep banking on about fusion energy. Renewables are not it, simply because for this saving to be achievable we need abundant energy, renewables themselves are first of all "low carbon", not "carbon neutral" and secondly they are scarce energy sources which requires as to reduce energy use and therefore cannot be used on large scale. Now obviously if we get fusion energy then emissions becomes moot point, we can simply capture carbon is we have abundant cheap energy, we can make those fancy synthetic fuels from biomass effectively in carbon neutral way, everything we make becomes carbon neutral so consumption cases being an issue etc. etc. And if this is where the money is going to go, then I would be fine with that, fine without NHS, fine without education, fine without roads being maintained until we get clean every, because that at least is going to be worth the sacrifice.  

Very many points here that show you know what you talk about. I will not control all the things you mention here as I suppose you have them from reliable sources and one thing I know very much is correct. Green energy producers are not at all green. Windmill wings are made from extremely no good things and cannot be reused after they no longer are up to the task. They can be burned and produce more energy, but need very expensive filters in order not to pollute more that they have done good in their life-time. Solar cells also have rather limited life where they are producing enough to keep going. More or less same problem as with windmills. Polluting to reuse. Fusion is perfect, but not really ready yet and we cannot wait till it gets ready to reduce polluting our planet.

I am against nuclear power plants as they have a left over that is highly dangerous very many years and some terrorists like radioactive material. But right now I can see no other source of energy that can provide what we stupid people think we cannot live without. Nuclear plants deliver more energy than needed very much of the time they are running and that energy can be used to produce energy that can be stored. Not in batteries as we do not have material enough on the planet to make all the batteries needed and worse, batteries are not fit for long time storing. Hydrogen could be produced from that energy and hydrogen can be stored as long as needed, and transported either in containers or pipeline. A hydrogen heated house is tested in Britain https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-hybrid-heating/8551577/?awt_a=1jpsU&awt_l=IFzTR&awt_m=gSB6tjZ24u5DlsU – fuel-cells could of same energy source be used to give the electricity needed = 0 pollution from the house.

Fuel-cell trucks are delivering stuff several places and so far with good results. Electro motors are less complicated to build than combustion engines and if brushless will last very long and only bearings will be worn out. Hyundai and Toyota have combustion engines running on hydrogen and only problem so far is that the fuel line to the engine in Toyota racing car leaked and caused a fire. There are technological issues that must be fixed, but with the knowledge we have today they are easily fixed when we put our minds to it.

0 pollution is not possible but if the CO2 only come from living creatures breathing the will be annulled by trees unless we kill the bees and therewith most of the plants. Meaning: we have to stop behaving the way we do today.

[Linas.P]

35 minutes ago, Las Palmas said:

Very many points here that show you know what you talk about. I will not control all the things you mention here as I suppose you have them from reliable sources and one thing I know very much is correct. Green energy producers are not at all green. Windmill wings are made from extremely no good things and cannot be reused after they no longer are up to the task. They can be burned and produce more energy, but need very expensive filters in order not to pollute more that they have done good in their life-time. Solar cells also have rather limited life where they are producing enough to keep going. More or less same problem as with windmills. Polluting to reuse. Fusion is perfect, but not really ready yet and we cannot wait till it gets ready to reduce polluting our planet.

I am against nuclear power plants as they have a left over that is highly dangerous very many years and some terrorists like radioactive material. But right now I can see no other source of energy that can provide what we stupid people think we cannot live without. Nuclear plants deliver more energy than needed very much of the time they are running and that energy can be used to produce energy that can be stored. Not in batteries as we do not have material enough on the planet to make all the batteries needed and worse, batteries are not fit for long time storing. Hydrogen could be produced from that energy and hydrogen can be stored as long as needed, and transported either in containers or pipeline. A hydrogen heated house is tested in Britain https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-hybrid-heating/8551577/?awt_a=1jpsU&awt_l=IFzTR&awt_m=gSB6tjZ24u5DlsU – fuel-cells could of same energy source be used to give the electricity needed = 0 pollution from the house.

Fuel-cell trucks are delivering stuff several places and so far with good results. Electro motors are less complicated to build than combustion engines and if brushless will last very long and only bearings will be worn out. Hyundai and Toyota have combustion engines running on hydrogen and only problem so far is that the fuel line in the  Toyota engine leaked and caused a fire. There are technological issues that must be fixed, but with the knowledge we have today they are easily fixed when we put our minds to it.

0 pollution is not possible but if the CO2 only come from living creatures breathing the will be annulled by trees unless we kill the bees and therewith most of the plants. Meaning: we have to stop behaving the way we do today.

I very much agree with you here - wasted nuclear energy can be used to produce clean Hydrogen, that is 100% true. I think the only thing you need to consider is that it would as well be more efficient to then burn that Hydrogen during the peak demand on site, to produce more electricity rather than distributing it for transportation. Now sure - both could be true at the same time, smaller countries (especially island) can even build nuclear stations for sole purpose of generating clean Hydrogen. The key problem as always is not how clean and environmentally friendly it is but economic, there are simply cheaper way to heat our homes, to run our cars etc. etc. and if there is not return on investment it doesn't get done. That is sad reality.

As well did you know why wind turbine blades are such a big issue? One would think composite blade could last for 100s of years... isn't it? Well the issue is again economic! The blades would indeed last very long time, but the land is expensive and the land suitable for windfarms is limited, so what ends-up happening, the windfarm operators ends-up demolishing old wind turbines to build newer and larger ones in their place. As horrible as it is - that makes economical sense, the bigger turbine my pollute more, especially considering that to build it the older, smaller turbine which was by the time already carbon neutral had to be demolished, but the profit, the subsidies, the saving on the tax, the saving on the insurance makes it financially worth it. It is economies of scale thing, they could keep the wind turbine running for 100s of years with relatively low maintenance (especially on-shore ones) and after some years in operation they could become carbon neutral (i.e. when output of their electricity exceeds the amount of carbon emitted to build them), but this never ends-up happening because within 5 years there are economical reasons to upgrade them.

For the same reason wind and solar farms are half as climate friendly as they are claiming to be, because they always estimate full service life when making perditions, but they rarely stay installed for their entire service life. And indeed as you mentioned - turbine blades at the moment are landfill only, same for most of solar panels... and all because of blind profits. 

[Malc1]

2 hours ago, Las Palmas said:

we kill the bees

then wot about the honey for my morning porridge  ?

Next you'll be saying i can't have a banana either !

When will this nonsense end ....  cancel farming ( oats ) and my porridge  .....  kill off the bees for my honey and damnable about the bananas, there's bound to be summat against those too

Malc

[toffee_pie]

speaking of bees my manager at work makes the best of honey - cant beat home grown produce