Germany Moves To Ban ICE Vehicle Sales By 2030, Electric-Only From 2030 On

OCT 10 2016 BY MARK KANE 107

BMW i8 Protonic Dark Silver Edition special-edition model

BMW i8 Protonic Dark Silver Edition special-edition model

Interesting news comes from Germany, where the German Bundesrat (Federal Council) has passed a bi-partisan agreement to start the process to ban conventional (ICE) car sales in 2030, only zero emission cars could then be registered going forward if adopted.

German Bundesrat is a legislative body that represents the sixteen Länder (federal states) of Germany at the national level (wiki)

2030 is just ~13 years from now, so taking into consideration a more desired gradual move into zero emission driving, EV market penetration would have to deepen by ~7% from now on.  Not so gradual at all.

Although the mandate is not binding today for Gernmany, the Budesrat does have pull with the EU Commission, and part of the motion would see such legislation extended for the whole EU if adopted.

“If the Paris agreement to curb climate-warming emissions is to be taken seriously, no new combustion engine cars should be allowed on roads after 2030.” – Oliver Krischer,Greens party lawmaker told Spiegel (via Reuters)

In the wider EU, the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs could ultimately happen gradually through special tax policies which are dependent on emission level of the vehicles sold.  Both Norway and the Netherlands have floated similar propositions, but with an effective deadline of 2025.

source: Spiegel.de via Reuters/Gizmodo.com

Categories: General

Tags:

Leave a Reply

107 Comments on "Germany Moves To Ban ICE Vehicle Sales By 2030, Electric-Only From 2030 On"

newest oldest most voted

Fantastic news, hope it spreads to the rest of the EU

Heisenberghtbacktotherootsandnuts

It would be fantastic news if that was a binding mandate.

This is just lip service.

It is not going to happen.

(Luckily no one outside of Germany takes notice of that fact and maybe, just maybe some states will follow… Hehehe… )

I am therefore happy that GERMANY FINALLY BANNED ICE vehicles!

Who will be next?

Yes, and I hope the EU too will still be there in 2030! 😉

7% growth a year really doesn’t sound that impossible…I’m all for it!

It’s not 7% growth each year, it’s going from ~1% market share in 2016 to 8% market share in 2017 and 15% market share in 2018 and so on. So growth is rather

800% in 2017 (8%)
87% in 2018 (15%)
46% in 2019 (22%)
32% in 2019 (29%)
24% in 2020 (35%)
.
.
.

But to reach 95g Co2/km we will have to reach a market share of 25% for EVs in 2021 anyway or carmakers will have to pay high fines. That means the goal for 100% EVs in 2030 is not out of reach, but something like 60-80% would be more realistic.

Or a sustained 43% annual growth.

1.43^13≈105 times current sales volume, which as you say is about 1%. This is not factoring in possible growth of overall car market, so perhaps more like a 50% annual growth is needed.

That’s pretty big news. OTOH: at the rate EVs are developing there might not be much demand for conventional vehicles left 16 years from now anyway.

It’s not 16 years from now though, but only 13.

By 2030, the climate data will be so bad that cars will be the least of our worries. Ten years after WW II, my parents still had ration books, and cardboard tokens in a drawer. They had lived through a time when nobody could buy a new car. They weren’t being made. Once an existential threat is recognized, governments can move very fast.

But we live in a nation where half the people think that climate change is a Chinese or liberal hoax.

Those people are deplorable and likely irredeemable.

@Anon
There is absolutely nothing you can do to change their minds.

Unfortunate but accurate words from Mrs. Clinton.

Really? Unfortunate AND accurate? So you believe tens of millions of people are completely deplorable and irredeemable, as she put it? And further more, do you still intend to vote for her even though she clearly despises tens of millions of Americans who she may one day lead as President? You would vote for a leader who despises her own people?

Now that is truly unfortunate.

Rightofthepeople asked:

“…do you still intend to vote for her even though she clearly despises tens of millions of Americans…”

And do you intend to ever stop beating your wife?

There very clearly is one major candidate for President who really does despise tens of millions of Americans… or maybe even hundreds of millions.

Here’s a hint: His name is not “Hillary”.

U should vote for Trump if u want a ban on EVs!

I think Trump is a deplorable, supporting him brings into question your intelligence, and your own views on minorities and women, all of whom I feel have been terrifically wronged by Trump and his campaign.
In my view Hillary is the lesser of two evils, much lesser.

Hehe, ‘deplorable and irredeamable’..Yeah, count me in. But, I can’t vote Trump since he likes RUDY G.

As far as world wide coal use goes, ‘thermal’ coal generation will go from 1900 GW to 2400+ GW by 2040, per POWER magazine, a staunch AGW advocate, interestingly. Me, as several previous very lengthy posts have noted, I disagree with the polemic.

that’s not a particularly surprising forecast. third world countries need to significantly increase their power capacity, but they can’t afford the “cadillac” cutting-edge renewable energy solutions. coal fired power generation is a relatively quick way to increase capacity on a power grid.

Absolute amount might go up I suppose, while its percent of the total generation pie will go down.

We can hope that hope go down (and work towards that end), of course!

China has already started the decline of the coal consumption:

“IEEFA forecasts that China will install an additional 24 gigawatts (GW) of wind, 16 GW of new hydro, a record 6 GW of nuclear and another new record of 18-20 GW of solar (60% utility scale, 40% distributed rooftop solar) in 2016. With electricity demand forecast to grow by only 3-4% yoy (year-on-year) in 2016, this 65 GW of additional zero carbon electricity capacity will be more than sufficient to meet total demand growth, such that coal consumption is forecast to fall again in 2016.” (source: http://ieefa.org/record-wind-and-solar-installation-in-china/)

China broke two new records in 2015, installing a record 32.5 GW of wind in 2015, and a record 18.3 GW of solar in 2015 — both of which were higher than initial estimates. With coal dropping 30.4% yoy in 2015.
(http://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/06/china-renewable-growth-soars-fossil-fuel-use-declines/)

@ Spec
It is simply a rationalization for not changing their behavior. You can burn all the fossil fuels you want with no worries what so ever. All you have to do is deny AGW exists. Problem solved.

as some as those people “make america great again”, all of that will change…for the worse, unfortunately…

Mind blown.

Eh . . . I doubt that will happen. There is no way VW, BMW, and Mercedes are dropping ICE that fast.

Yeah, that is clearly wishful thinking.
Talk is cheap.

Given the facts that
– this is not a law but a motion to the European commission to ban sales EU-wide,
– the Bundesrat got the majority of the 16 states (they count not by individual political party membership, but every state has some votes that loosly represents the size and always is counted as the government of said state says) for this, so it was not only the green party but all of them
– Nothing potentially negative for German car manufacturers has been or will ever be allowed to be carried out by German government without the permission of said industry

one might come to the conclusion that the big 3 are actually secretly behind this move, but want to make damn sure that Germany does not go ahead alone so the ICE competition could register cars elsewhere in the EU and import as used ones. Also, they might want to save face in front of their stubborn ICE-loving customers. This way, they will not be blamed by their customers, because the EU takes the heat for the law (same situation as when lightbulbs (low margin) were banned, suddenly highly profitable LEDs became available everywhere).

they aren’t going to want to replace ICE vehicles without a way to replace them with zero-emissions equivalents.

aside from tesla, when it comes to zero-emissions vehicle technology, automakers are investing in both BEV and FCEV technology. indeed, toyota has largely bypassed BEV and is pretty much focused on FCEV. you will need FCEV to be able to replace ICEV’s

to the extent that this ban actually gets implemented, there will be clauses that will allow the effective date of the ban to be reevaluated and delayed depending on the state of zero-emissions technology. notwithstanding, the existence of a deadline does have the effect of “moving the ball forward” when it comes to zero-emissions vehicle production.

The german government is obeying the german carmakers, so that’s not going to happen.

But they will eventually have to drop off ICE or go bankrupt.
I think this day is a lot closer then 2030!

Pushing really hard on EVs WITH V2G would actually be a great way to help transform our grid to become clean. A large fleet of EVs that can be used by grid operators for storage and some grid draws would REALLY help the ability to deploy large amounts of solar PV and wind.

Eduardo Pelegri-LLopart

Yep. That may actually be the most viable path to full autonomous vehicles in the general roads – a switch to new EVs.

i don’t see the connection between autonomous vehicles and *EVs. why couldn’t you implement autonomous driving in an ICEV?

v2g makes little sense to me. if you need energy storage for a power grid, it would make much more economic sense to implement a dedicated energy storage system.

Depends on the price you get for regulation power that you unlock for the grid regulator.

Imagine you have already a car (BEV) with more than 60kWh usable and you allow the grid connector to use your upper 5kWh as long as it is plugged in. You get therefore 10ct/kWh for storing excess energy and 20ct/kWh for providing energy.

Would you do it?

Prices represent real paid prices in Germany in 2015. Prices where approximated using these figures: “In der positiven Minutenreserve (MRL) wurden 2014 insgesamt 287GWh abgerufen, während 327 GWh negative MRL notwendig waren” and “MRL im gleichen Jahr mit 106,0 Millionen Euro zu Buche schlug”
(https://www.next-kraftwerke.de/wissen/regelenergie)

what you describe ostensibly seems like a good deal, but i have learned that stuff is generally not free in this life. if the deal requires a commitment on my part that i have to make the car available for v2g power supply every day within a set time window, i would probably say: “no thanks”, because i would find such an obligation to be onerous. but i would expect that a power company would want some commitment on my part so that they can plan for how much power they will have. i find it hard to believe that a power company would extend such an offer where i would be free to connect to the grid any time i would feel like doing so.

Newsflash (to some, anyway): Tesla has NO interest in V2G and think its not economically worth pursuing. Too many differing local regs, to begin with, but there are other reasons as well.

Note to moderators (if any): do you think, just maybe, you could make this comment box any smaller? And by that, I mean bigger, of course. Second, am I supposed to be notified by email if and when someone replies to my comment? Why else would I have to submit it EVERY TIME?!

I view these bans which won’t take effect for 10+ years as more aspirational than realistic. There will be plenty of time to repeal such bans if it begins to look like auto makers will have a hard time complying.

with a 13 year window, if you are an auto manufacturer, you had better start making provisions to comply with the regulation in case you don’t succeed in getting it repealed. my sense is that people in europe don’t have the same amount of animosity toward regulation as you see among some people in the US.

in the US, it is so easy to “forum shop” to find some idiotic judge who will agree with your position, regardless of how ridiculous it might be. there is a large number of courts in the US and unfortunately a nontrivial number of judges in those courts are morons.

This isn’t at all a case of which country you live in. If your country’s economy is based on capitalism — that is, if it’s not a “communist” country — then the government can’t compel industries to sell products at a loss. A company which can’t make money on a product will quit selling that product, even if it means they have to go out of business.

And see the comment by “Some Guy”, above.

I have no doubts this would be possible… however, I don’t believe it will happen. The main issue seems to be market forces. In order for this to really happen, manufacturers would need to start pumping out EVs in all sort of form factors including SUVs, vans, pickups, etc.

you can overcome market forces with strong regulation. the problem in the US is that such efforts would get bogged down in partisan politics regardless of how sensible the underlying policy might be.

think about it, it is absolutely nonsensical that so many people in the US drive around in huge mega-vehicles that are far larger than what they actually need. you could curb these foolish “market forces” with a strong tax regime of co2 and gasoline taxes. good luck in getting such policies enacted in the US, though.

“the problem in the US is that such efforts would get bogged down in partisan politics regardless of how sensible the underlying policy might be.”

Partisan politics? How about freedom? Freedom tends to bog down these types of efforts, the ones you call sensible (you are of course entitled to your opinion, but that’s all it is). Freedom isn’t about what people “need” either. Once the government starts deciding what you do and do not “need” you are moving swiftly away from freedom and running into the arms of a dictatorship or fascism.

you may not realize this, but you are not “free” to do anything that you wish to do, or should you be. when the exercise of your “rights” has negative implications for other people; the exercise of your “rights” tends to get curtailed.

I don’t believe this will even be necessary. This new generation of EV’s (Bolt, 3 etc) are already pushing the convenience of ICE. In 5 more years there will be no advantage available to ICE and the market will shift very quickly.

Yup. That’s clearly where we’re headed. Just look at Tesla 3. Given a choice between something like it and gas cars, EV is clearly a superior choice. Like it or not, ICE makers will be forced to make compelling EV to compete.

But for the poor, used ICE may remain an option for a while longer. 2030 seems way too early.

This is great news. Go Germany!

It’s my understanding that existing ICE cars would not be affected. If you purchased a new ICE in 2029, you’d be able to drive it until the wheels fall off. In 2030 you couldn’t buy a new ICE, but could purchase a used 2029 or earlier model. This in a sense phases out petrol cars.

This is a prime example of the kind of “Moon Shot” move we need.

But I can’t help but fear the backlash we will feel in the US from one party who will use this as a line of attack on anything green.

If you equate EV with green, there will be backlash. Equate EV with kick-ass car, and there isn’t much to get upset about. In argument for EV, I mock anti-EV folks for equating EV with green. “So you’re going to skip far quicker SparkEV, because it’s green?”

This is why I love Tesla drag race videos. This ain’t no Zap cars from yesteryears.

Doesn’t this guy realize what fuel a Tesla uses?

I don’t think it’s Tesla’s fault that coal mines are getting shut down. He’s picking a fight with the wrong guy and should shut up about it and maybe even call for more electric vehicles and more electricity.

They realize that EV’s are a first step to home solar.

They see that Tesla is now getting serious about doing to home solar what they have done to the electric car industry.

They know they lose in the long term if Tesla succeeds with their new direction of making solar and EV’s hugely popular.

/begin sarc
Besides, everybody knows from the documentary movie Thank You For Smoking, that the “Merchants of Death” AKA “The MOD Squad” always have to stick together. You don’t see the oil industry attacking coal for how many deaths coal caused, do you? It would ruin their dinner parties.
/end sarc (I think?)

EVs and residential solar are a terrible match. Cars are out at work, school or shopping during the day when PV output peaks. Cars are at home in the early evening when PV output is dying and residential demand is peaking.

Houses are the last place we should be putting panels. House installations are more than twice as expensive as utility scale, and they’re much less efficient due to poor siting and alignment. We want our panels out in the community where their daytime output can drive office, commercial and industrial usage, with excess going to the EVs in their parking lots. You can even go a step further and have the cars drive home, plug in and use some of that stored daytime juice to meet the early evening residential peak.

Great things are possible with solar (and wind) but we need to stop subsidizing stupidity via net metering and such.

Who died and made You King? I’ll spend my after-tax money as I Please.

Feel free to cover your roof with panels. I’m not suggesting residential PV be banned, merely that it stop being subsidized via ITC and net metering. Society needs to focus subsidies where they do the most good, and that’s clearly not residential PV.

ON the contrary, Net Metering is not a ‘subsidy’, other than being profitable to the utility itself since people having solar panels generate electricity when the daily demand is higher, thus relieving generation. These solar panel owners also have a high percentage of EV’s, which greatly increase usage which is very beneficial to the longevity of the central station, after midnight.

This is other than the minority of Tesla owners who are cheap-skates and charge during the day at Superchargers when Elon Musk has repeatedly told them to charge at home, by so doing they are not hogging the most expensive and hardest to supply electricity.

Profitable for utilities? Say EVERYONE net metered to zero. You claim the utilities, with zero revenue and tons of expenses for grid maintenance and 4pm-8am generation, would drown in profits?

LOL.

We can get solar to 75% of the mix in the SW US via utility scale PV and daytime EV charging, at rates at or below current tariffs. Try to do that with net metered rooftop. It doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

I’m not living in a dreamworld. I’m living in the real world, where NetMetering is limited by statute to 1% of customers in a given class.

The reality is that there are lots of utilities in the USA, with lots of different rules. There is not a nationwide rule limiting net metering to 1% of anything.

http://www.publicpower.org/files/PDFs/USElectricUtilityIndustryStatistics.pdf

Publicly Owned Utilities……….. 2,013 ……..60.9%
Investor-Owned Utilities …………. 189 ………5.7% Cooperatives…………………………. 877 …….26.5%
Federal Power Agencies ……………..9 ………0.3%
Power Marketers (mostly Texas). 218 ………6.6%

**************

Generation (in thousands of MWHs)

Publicly Owned Utilities…….. 411,168 ……9.9%
Investor-Owned Utilities … 1,601,563……38.7% Cooperatives…………………… 207,202 ……5.0%
Federal Power Agencies ….. 266,441 ……6.4%
Non-Utility Generators…… 1,647,449 …..39.9%

You are unaware that in NY State, there most certainly is.

ffbj said:

“Tesla is a Fraud–Robert Murray:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coal-mining-boss-tesla-is-a-fraud-2016-10-10

I, ummm… hope you posted that only to point out how absurd coal industry propaganda is? 😕

Well Cry your heart out since coal fired generation is increasing from 1900 GW in 2014 to 2400+ in 2040. You’ll be around 85 or 86 then, and you won’t care about it too much longer after that..

I find it interesting that your Heroine, Mrs. Clinton, via the recently released Wikileaks, has told big donors she is in favor and when in gov’t helped facilitate horizontal hydrofracking.

If she is elected, I wouldn’t expect any exceptional greeness from her, since she got $300,000 for the speech where she said she loves it.

Bah..Coal is declining dying industry it will take a long time but by all metrics it’s falling and falling fast…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-08/global-coal-consumption-headed-for-biggest-decline-in-history

Yup, I’d trust bloomy over industry publications that take into account new plant orders.

Rather like everything here written, such as, its impossible for the upcoming BOLT to have a 60 kwh battery, or impossible for it to be made in any quantity, or impossible for it to hit its EPA rating, when every GM product to date far exceeds it. OR like, the new volt ‘couldn’t possibly’ go 50 miles.. Right, it goes 53, except people go further.

Why else?

The good thing of such a law would be that it gives clarity. 13 years means just two car generations. It would mean car companies could stop their investments in ICE-related research and production facilities and redirect it to clean technologies. That is a huge amount of money, that will bring costs down fast.

It will also will suddenly bring more clarity for companies and organisations who are working on charging technologie and infrastructure. And the chicken and egg situation will be terminated, where infrastructure builders wait for the car makers and vice versa.

This is exactly where government can play an important role, for the benefit of the population, while leaving the ins and outs to the market.

I know this is needed but at the same time I don’t think they should make it a crime to drive a gas powered car. In that this will hit low income people the hardest in that they are the ones who can’t buy a new car.

I much rather prefer a system like the United States were the 200 mile range cars coming to market on the free market are the driving forces of buying a new EV’s.

What I would do differently is first repeal all fossil fuel tax breaks.

Actually, lowest income folks don’t buy brand new cars, and won’t be the ones buying brand new EV’s in 2030 any more than they buy brand new cars today.

So the question of affordability comes down to cost of fuel and the price of used EV’s vs. the price of used ICE cars by 2030. I don’t see any sign at all that either of those will be more expensive than buying a used gas car and gasoline.

Not gonna happen…

It absolutely will happen and so will a carbon tax at about the same time that the really nasty effects of Global Warming are hitting home like Florida going under water.

But in any case, EVs and Renewable Energy will win regardless because they will soon be the cheapest options and in many cases already are from a TCO perspective.

That’s not to say that die-hard Trump supporters/Conservatives/Libertarians won’t keep buying huge ICE trucks and SUVs just to try and prove a point but EVs will triumph anyways just based on economics.

Germany, home of the Autobahn. I just don’t see EVs capable of constant high speed and long distances by 2030…

Maybe a large % of their cars will be EVs by then but banning new ICE sales altogether I don’t see happening by then.

When I test drove a 2013 Nissan Leaf it had a very easy time getting up to freeway speeds at 60 or 70 miles on hour. The only thing stopping me from going 80 or 90 in it was the speed limit on the freeway. The leaf also had a much better time handling the stoplights in my area then the other cars I had. This in turn made me really makes me want to own one.

Wait, so you are actually saying you believe (as a result of Global Warming) that Florida, the entire state, will be underwater in 13 years? Seriously?

Thanks for the laugh. Tell Al Gore hello from me!

I never said 13 years and I never said the whole State you right-wing troll, that was your bias shining through.

You might want to stop watching Faux News and Trump rallies and start educating yourself a little.

Here are some links you might want to look at for starters since Florida as a very low lying State lying on very porous limestone bedrock certainly feels the effects of Global Warming sooner and more intensely then other States as the recent Hurricane shows:

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/florida.shtml

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/news/floria-and-the-rising-sea

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/477014145/rising-seas-made-this-republican-mayor-a-climate-change-believer

Anyways, have fun while it lasts in your Trump-like alternate universe where physics and facts don’t matter

It’s probable that Europe will do this, with effect somewhere between 2025 and 2030, and this will help drag the U.S. to do the same soon thereafter. From a technical standpoint, it’s already obvious that BEVs could do the job, perhaps supplemented by Volt-like PHEVs where gas miles are only needed for longer distance journeys and those miles are the exception. European governments and the public believe in the reality of climate change, so making this shift would be like banning the cheaper incandescent bulb in favor of CFLs and LEDs. The climate change rationale is buttressed by a national security and economic imperative, given Europe’s far greater reliance on imported oil from volatile regions. Most of the increased number and variety of electric vehicles spurred by a coming European ban would also be available in the U.S., and at much lower price differences to ICE counterparts due to the cost reductions brought by mass production. This would have a salutary effect on adoption rates in the U.S. Even without a U.S. ban, few straight ICE vehicles likely would be sold in the U.S. once the public gets a taste of EVs.

one problem in the US is that the development of sensible energy and environmental policy is paralyzed by partisan politics.

Greenhouse gas emissions:
Transportation: 13%
Animal agriculture: 18%

Methane is 25-100x more destructive than CO2. But nobody dare go up against the livestock and agriculture industry.

Hey, what about Chic-fil-a? 🙂

one thing that might help is if people wasted less food.

It is proposal with little chance to become a law, just like many fake “ICE will be banned by ..” announcements before. It shows some political will to support zero-emission cars but no more than that.

Geez.

Nobody can use Google Translate this days?

It’s NOT a law.
It’s NOT binding.
It’s NOT for germany.

All they did was make a resolution that European Council should take those actions.

Its simply call for action that is non binding for anybody.

Its the same blunder as those news about ban on ICEs in Norway….

I think zzz is onto something. The Bundesrat doesn’t really wield much power, it’s like the German version of the UK House of Lords, except that in this case its members are actually less “distinguished” than the Bundestag’s (Bundestag is the main parliament).

However, seems like legislation can start in the Bundesrat, and then the Bundestag votes on its own version. And also seems like its power is rising vs. previous generations.

More Germany-savvy people, please correct if wrong.

it’s equal to the Bundestag and not comparable to the Upper House in the Uk. however you are right, it’s far from being a law at this point and unlikely will become one.

a ban on conventional ICEs does not necessarily mean BEV and FCEV unless there is information elsewhere specifically stating that cars sold after 2030 must be zero emissions (which would exclude current PHEVs).

as others have noted, a ban on new sale of ICEs means that ICEs will be on the road until the middle of the 21st century. still, putting a ban on the sale of new ICEs is an important step.

germany tends to be pretty far ahead of the US when it comes to the environment. for example, in germany, building codes require the use of triple glazed windows, which are at least 50% more energy efficient than double glazed windows. so i guess this move by germany means that you won’t see a similar ban in the US until at least 2040 or 2050.

First, to avoid misunderstanding like we had with the supposed Dutch and Norwegian bans that turned out to be completely wrong, I verified German-language sources, like Der Spiegel. The news item is correct in itself. However, I’m skeptical it will really come to pass: 1) Acc. to Spiegel article is such that the Bundesrat is asking the EU for an EU-wide law, not an independent German law. 2) That makes sense — I’m pretty sure EU agreements are such that German (or any specific country’s) law wouldn’t be able to forbid EU or German citizens to drive in Germany a car registered elsewhere, so a single-country law wouldn’t be very effective. 3) The Spiegel article raises the point that a clear ban with a long timeline wouldn’t necessary be something the automakers would fight tooth and nail on, if they thing they a big image problem. If it’s EU-wide and affects all carmakers, local and importers, it’s not so bad for them — they are guaranteed sales for EVs, and have good reason to increase investment and gradually kill off their ICEs. Not otherwise, however — The German carmakers wouldn’t be happy, and their lobby is very significant in Germany.… Read more »

+3!

Heisenberghtbacktotherootsandnuts

Did I miss the comment about the VW cheating device? Clever engineers will simply hide the combustion parts under a plastic cover and pretend that it is absolutely normal for any electric car to make that noise and to stink. Gasoline will by then be called :

Shell E-power, the liquid electrifier!

It will take ten years before people will find out that nothing changed…

Sounds like a totalitarian statement. Just let market forces happen organically as the technology advances. There’s room for all types of vehicles.

Sure, as long as you can guarantee zero emissions.

There’s no such thing as ZERO emissions, even with a Tesla.

+1

How about zero automobile tail-pipe emissions? Better?

Not necessarily.

How about “lowest possible life-cycle emissions”?

We should be focusing on the (life cycle) emissions, not any one particular technology.

No need to limit the possibilities.

Not only do I think this will happen, I won’t even be that hard. I am much more confident of the feasibility now that I see what GM has achieved with the Bolt. This is just the start of what will soon look like a stampede. There will be accommodations to preserve the legacy of ICE cars (in the form of special tax, or perhaps an offset mechanism), but by and large all cars after 2030 (or not long after that) will be BEVs.

I can easily see EU ban ICE cars before 2030, and I expect it too. It might not be needed, though, as Europeans are already used to 2 -3 time the price for gas compared to the US. Therefore, the point when it no longer makes economic sense to buy a gas car do not seem that far off.
Yes, European governments will likely protect our car industry, but there will be time for the industry to adapt. As soon as most companies have a non ICE alternative I suspect resistens will fade quite quickly.
Europe wants to get rid of oil- dependens too.

Electricity in Germany also costs 3x as much as in the US. And Germany gets a higher percentage of electricity from coal than the US.

It’s unfortunate this article left out the other part of the story, which is the impact on the supply chain and employment brought up by Reuters.

The assertion is that electric cars require less parts and simpler assembly, therefore an all electric future will result in fewer suppliers and less employment. Hard to argue with that point.

Whilst we all agree with and want the benefits of electric transportation, this issue has the potential to become political, especially in a place like Germany.

Looking back at the US auto bailout, it was clearly stated at the time the main purpose was not so much to save GM, but to prevent the disruption and job losses in the massive supply chain industry behind GM, Ford & Chrysler. So the US is not immune to this kind of issue either.

Any comprehensive move to ban ICEs would have to address the politics and economic impact of the issue because all those surplus people in an all-EV auto industry are potential voters that are simply not going to just “go away”.

“Hard to argue with that point.”

Not at all. EVs cost more because labor costs in their supply chain are HIGHER. That’s indisputable.

It’s possible the EV supply chain involves more non-German than German labor and is thus a negative for German employment. It’s certain the EV supply chain involves different types of laborers, so there would be losers as well as winners among German employees and unions. The losers will tend to oppose the initiative.

It is very much disputable. I claim that EVs are way overpriced, which in part is because of small series, part because of government incentives and part because of trendiness.

Look at the Renault Zoe for example. Buying the car *without* battery is more expensive than an equivalent gas car. Why is that? It’s an empty shell of a car, it shouldn’t cost more to make just because it’s an EV. The electric motor, inverter and controller cost less to make than a combustion engine. The reduction gear is much simpler than a 4-speed manual gearbox and therefore cheaper. The rest of it is pretty much the same as any other car.

+1 Industrial electric motors are very cheap and although the more advanced motors are less cheap, the motor-controller-gearbox in an EV is cheaper than ICE-manual/automatic gearbox. When mass produced, an EV should be much cheaper. The only part that makes an EV more expensive is the battery. You pay for (part of) the fuel in advance. In my opinion, the “fuel” is battery + electricity.

If they can overcharge for EVs and collect excess profits, why do they build so few?

EVs need many unique parts besides batteries. The entire drive train and braking system are custom. HVAC, cooling, power steering, instrumentation and structure are all different. The suspension has to handle completely different loads.

In equivalent volumes these EV-specific parts might cost the same. But they’re built in the thousands while gascar parts are built in millions. The supply chains just aren’t at the same level of efficiency yet.

Not going to happen, fossil fuel industry will squash this initiative.

Is California next? Would not surprise me.

Lets hope the German Govt funds and pushes out a very large charging infrastructure, or we will all be going no where fast. Currently within walking distance of my home, there are 6 charging sockets, and 2 of those are reserved for Drive Now car sharing, and one has been out of action for 6 months.

We alos need a common charging system. Someone worked out that if you had all the charing cards in Germany, it would cost circa €100,000 per year in standing costs before you even charged a watt!

Common billing system I mean by common charging system!

If technology improves at it’s current pace, a ban will not be necessary, the market will move to EVs on it’s own. EV’s will be too compelling an offering vs gasoline vehicles.

+1 At present, ICE-fans are brainwashed by a very persistent culture around the ICE that romanticize it. Things like exhaust noise are brought as desirable f.e. And the mechanical movement of pistons in cilinders with all the valves involved sold as “high tech”.