Germany Preps For Electric Car Quotas, Despite EU Floundering On The Subject

3 months ago by Mark Kane 39

2017 Audi A3 Sportback e-tron

The topic of plug-in electric vehicle quotas in Europe continues to pop-up, as hard benchmarks could be used to step-by-step transform plug-in market share/control CO2 to desired levels with guaranteed results.

Plug-in electric car registrations in Germany – July 2017

Officially, the EU has denied rumors about any pending quotas, but the German environment ministry believes that the European Commission will soon propose them nonetheless.

In Germany, a new election is due up in September, so we are unlikely to hear of any further developments between now and then, but all bets are off for the Fall.

“An electric car quota is likely to be unpopular among the ranks of the ruling CDU/CSU government, which faces a new election in September. German Green lawmaker Oliver Krischer has warned that Berlin would end up diluting whatever plan the Commission comes up with.

CSU transport spokesman Ulrich Lange highlighted that: “Only half a year ago we introduced a purchase premium for electric cars. Fresh demands for enforced quotas are just hectic actionism.” He said improving and expanding the charging network is more important.

But a spokeswoman for the environment ministry, which is run by the Social Democrats (SPD) – the junior partner in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition – said that without quotas, the EU could miss its carbon dioxide emissions targets.”

One of the reported problems in Germany is that, although consumers are increasingly turning away from the diesel, a study shows that on average, Germans expect EVs with over 450 km (280 miles) range and 30 minutes fast charge, which is hard to meet in the near-term, at least in an affordable way.

source: Euractiv

Tags: , , , , ,

39 responses to "Germany Preps For Electric Car Quotas, Despite EU Floundering On The Subject"

  1. Alaa says:

    Good boys.

  2. Benz says:

    German election results are coming soon.

    It could go both ways.

    Let’s hope for a result that will be in favour of the environment.

  3. MaartenV-nl says:

    And those 450km they expect are not NEDC.
    They expect to hit the Autobhan and drive 450km at 130kmh.
    Check out the Tesla range predictor what battery size is required.

    1. Another Euro point of view says:

      Yes I eagerly wait cars with autopilot to buy myself my first EV. My enthusiasm for sailing make me drive from Luxembourg to the Netherlands with my car (350 km) full of things for the boat. I don’t mind go to “EV style” speeds on the highway as long as the car drive itself and I can read a book or surf the net otherwise I have no time to loose and 130 kmh is a little on the slow side of my driving habits.

  4. notting says:

    Also with much moe EVs, Germany will miss the CO2 targets because of the electricity. In other words: Other EU countries will probably meet that CO2 targets (or miss them less) by producing much nuclear waste – different than in Germany where that nuclear waste problem was reduced but defining shutdown dates for nuclear power plants. So far for helping the environent 🙁

    notting

    1. speculawyer says:

      Yeah, Germany should prioritize shutting down coal plants. They had a big (understandable) panic due to Chernobyl. But they should slow down that phase out since their nukes are much more reliable than that terrible Chernobyl plant and the coal is spewing massive amounts of CO2.

      They need to keep building onshore & offshore wind and perhaps some natgas plants. I think they are loathe to build natgas plants because that will increase reliance upon the Russian bear. How about more hydro? Tidal energy?

      Solar isn’t so good due to their geography.

      1. trololo says:

        What about Fukushima ? German nuclear power plants may be reliable but if they are not maintained correctly, a disaster could occur. Cutting costs on maintenance to improve margin, that is one of the causes, not to say the main cause, of Fukushima disaster. And that is exactly what is done in France, this cumulated with aging plants, not meant to last above 30 years.
        A disaster could also happen too when there is not enough water to cool the plant. It almost did a few years ago in France.

        1. Don Zenga says:

          First we will shut down the dirty coal and oil fired power plants, then we will look at nuclear.

          Global warming is a very serious problem. And rising oil consumption could soon create a shortage and fast rising oil prices.

          1. Robert Middleswarth says:

            Pipe Dream. Oil isn’t going to run out. The only way it is going away in my life time is if we phase it out.

            1. alohart says:

              Oil won’t run out, but the remaining oil will be so expensive to extract and refine that it will be too expensive to burn for fuel.

              1. john Doe says:

                Yeah.. and we need it to make plastics..
                Most of the interior in an EV is made by oil based plastics.

                1. Mikael says:

                  We don’t need fossil oil for plastic. Plenty of solutions for biobased plastics, synthetic plastics and more importantly a reduction in plastic use which is rarely good no matter the manufacturing source material.

                2. Gerry says:

                  Inform yourself John,the plastics in my BMWi3 are not from fossil oil,but made from castor oil derived from sustanable sourced castor nuts from India ,another brand using castor plastics is Toyota..

      2. Mark.ca says:

        Nuclear is all nice and good unless the radioactive waste has to be stored in your back yard… this is not an energy option worth considering as long as the waste problem is not addressed. You are trading CO2 for something much worse.

        1. TomBrown says:

          Of course renewables are the long term solution. Unfortunately nuclear for now seems to beat out coal- at least we can store the nuclear waste in designated sites while the rest of the entire planet isn’t affected. We are already at too high a CO2 level in the atmosphere and each day these fossil fuels get burned our situation worsens. Remember, even high atmospheric CO2 affects our oceans’ ecosystems via acidification and increased temperature. More burning = unsustainable.

        2. Another Euro point of view says:

          Agreed that Nuclear is not really a long term option but as regards my/your backyard. A year of nuclear waste per person in for example France that produces most of its electricity through nuclear is a few grams. For comparison CO2 production in average per US citizen is 15 tons. So I would be willing to exchange for example your few nuclear waste grams you could have in your back yard against my 15 tons of CO2.

        3. Mikael says:

          The waste “problem” is not a problem. Even if it were a problem it would be a simple and
          much less acute problem.

          The used fuel can be used as fuel for the next generation reactors (and there are a few reactors online today that can use old fuel and make it harmless).

          Nuclear is one of the best and cleanest energy sources and will play a part now and in the future.
          Anyone against nuclear is against the environment. The worlds environment, my environment, your environment and our kids environment.

          Get real and get on the train to a better tomorrow.

          1. super390 says:

            Is that the bulls***that was used to steamroll all rational arguments against Hinkley Point C?

          2. Asak says:

            Nuclear may play a role now, but it has no role in the future. It’s completely uneconomical. All of the waste arguments and safety arguments are moot, because it just is too expensive and it is a dead man walking for that reason alone.

        4. Windbourne says:

          Too much issue is made about nuke waste. Right now, we have over 100,000 tonnes of nuke waste. we could ‘burn up’ 80-95% of this with SMRs, and then have 20,000-5,000 tonnes of waste that is safe in less than 300 years. So ppl trying to point to nuke waste as issue are simply creating an issue out of nothing.

      3. notting says:

        No, the currenct nuclear power plant shutdown was a reaction to Fukushima (ok, similar problems in the past could also had some additional effect).

        There’s also an other big problem: Most of the wind electricity is produced in the north. So the north has like too much and the south too few (wind) electricity. They plan to build a new big power line, but there’re many “environmental protectionist” who don’t want to have forest killed for that etc. They want that cable in the ground – which will make building and maintenance very expensive and energy consumptive because for everything ground has to be removed and put back again (instead of walking there with binoculars and climb up if neceassary or flying over it with a helicopter).

        notting

    2. john Doe says:

      There is a plan to build a better grid infrastructure between Denmark and Germany.
      Denmark has a lot of surplus energy is periods of high wind.
      A storage solution, and a possibility to export the extra energy to Germany would be a win/win situation.
      As it is now, they are removing wind turbines in Denmark, and sell them to other countries due to little profit even though they are placed in an area of high wind.
      Larger wind turbines are so competitive, that the smaller and older ones are not profitable any more. The risk of high maintenance cost on an older wind turbine result in sale of these wind turbines. They are not always replaced by a new one – as the cost so get a new turbine up and running is high (compared to when they install several in one area).
      A feed in incentive, in Denmark – or export of the electricity to Germany would be a way to keep the wind turbines in use for years.
      Denmark can export the electricity to Norway too, through one of the sub sea cables, but electricity is cheap in Norway – so they will profit more if they export it to Germany.

      Germany are also importing natural gas from Norway (about 108 billion m2 pr year), through 3 pipelines.

      Germany has an impressive solar and wind industry that together with batteries (for load balance)produce more electricity then ever.
      I have almost never travelled to Germany without seeing the custom trailers with the absolutely massive wind turbine blades.
      I’m sure many of these comes from Vestas in Denmark – but they are installed in Germany.
      They also have domestic companies like Siemens that makes wind turbines.

      In 2015 Norway and Germany decided to have a high capacity sub sea power cable between the two countries. It has a 1400 megawatt capacity, that is ment to be a two way “connection” where Germany can export “wind power” to Norway – which can use it, or store it in hydro dams.
      And Norway can export electricty to Germany when they have a surplus.
      In reality this will result in higher prices for the Norwegians, as we have a surplus – which results in cheap electricity.
      But for Germany it will give more, and cheaper electricity.
      It is being installed by a special ship from Naxans (which also makes the 50 000 tonn cable). It will be in operation in 2020.

      I think Germany is capable of stopping with coal and “nukes” in a few years. But it will be a longer transition period.
      But they way renewables are taking off, electricity will not be a problem.

      See this for renewables – made in Germany:

      That is from 2014, and they will reach the 2020 goals years ahead of the plan.
      Kind of like a commercial, but gives a qucik overview of what’s going on… back then.
      The speed has gone up since then.

      This old house had a program on how it affects houses in Germany:

      As for EVs, it’s not for everyone yet. But a large number of people can use an EV for at least one of their cars.
      There is no EV that can handle range and autobahn speed like an ICE vehicel yet.
      I think even in Germany 20-25% could be pure EVs in just a few years. The rest could be some kind of hybrid.

      In Norway the tax/incentive mix in unique, and with a max speed of 110 (100 or slower most places) range is not affected as much.

      I think when the giants like the VW group and Daimler comes with volumes, there will be a global demand.
      By then I expect GM, Ford, Toyota and others also will offer several models, and hopefully they will all have solid state batteries.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Using more nuclear power isn’t merely good for the environment; it’s absolutely great!

      Not only do nuclear power plants generate zero CO2 and zero air pollution during operation, but the volume of nuclear waste generated is truly minuscule compared to fossil fuels. Orders of magnitude less!

  5. Dave86 says:

    Wow. Interesting that given Germany is much smaller than the USA, Germans want 280 miles of range and a fast charge time 30 minutes.

    I just googled it: Germany is somewhat smaller than the state of Montana, and somewhat larger than the state of New Mexico in terms of size (square miles or sq km).

    1. Mark.ca says:

      Indeed interesting…i mean they are on an isolated island so where would you use your extra range?

      1. trololo says:

        (n_____n)

    2. notting says:

      And what are the range expectations for an EV as primary vehicle in the USA? I thought the average milage in the USA is much higher than in Germany?

      Please correct me if necessary:
      – Very many Germans are living in a rented flat or condominium. In other words: Like no chance to charge at home (-> very different to the USA).
      – Far fewer Germans are traveling by plane when the distances are longer within the country, since the country is much smaller (very different to the USA). So they often travel by car, since traveling by train is just cheaper if you a) book very early without any time flexibility or b) are using the train quite often (you can pay for special subscriptions to get a discount of 25%, 50% or 100%).
      – But: Germans are (nearly?) world champion in vacation traveling 🙂
      Like most other EU citizens, they may travel within nearly all EU countries. I think you can even travel even more far in one direction without leaving the EU than inside the USA.

      notting

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I can’t speak from personal experience, having never driven in Europe, but what is reported by Europeans is that their weekday daily average driving distance is less, but their weekend driving distance is more.

        In other words, Europeans tend to take weekend trips more than we Americans do, and a lot of those involve road trips.

        It might be difficult to find figures for an apples-to-apples comparison between European and American drivers. Reported statistics are usually on a per-capita basis, or on the basis of licensed drivers. Given Europe’s much better mass transit system, it’s not surprising that Europeans depend more on mass transit than we Americans do.

        I think a true apples-to-apples comparison would be on the basis of how far the cars themselves are driven in a year, rather than the drivers. I don’t know if those statistics are available.

    3. Mikael says:

      The distance that people actually travel is longer. Normal trips between Münich, Berlin, Hamburg and Köln are 600-800 km one way or 1200-1600 km round trip.

      And they do it at much higher speeds.

      Most of the US will be satisfied with range and charge speeds before most of Germany.

      1. trololo says:

        Could you explain what is the meaning of “Normal trips”.
        I can understand such long travels for vacation or visiting family, but not in a daily basis.
        Few people want to go back in term of car range but with people health in mind, could we accept to go a little bit slower ?

        1. Mikael says:

          Normal in the sense of something that can happen and happens sometimes. Visiting relatives, having business in those cities and stuff like that.

          Even if the US is larger it is also in some ways more concentrated to either one of the coasts or often to your own state.

          München – Hamburg is much more likely than for example a US cross country road trip.

          Anyway… it is not surprising that the Germans will have some of the highest demands in the world for their cars.

          For the US the big challenge is not really for the cars and their range and charging but for the towing and their large heavy vehicles.
          That is a though demand, but a different one compared to the Germans.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            The importance of towing is exaggerated in forum discussions. In terms of percentages, very few cars (or light trucks) are seen towing on the American highways. I’d say it’s easily less than 1% of all vehicles on the roads, aside from semi trucks which are pretty common.

            A lot of people want a car/truck able to tow. But that doesn’t mean they’re using them to tow all that often.

      2. vadik says:

        I nd that, plus Germany is the least centralised country in EU, not a typical case of a huge capital city where most driving is done intra muros, but a network of middle sized cities joined by beautiful autobahns.

    4. Windbourne says:

      Ugh, Dave. Where do you live? Do u have any idea of how big our Western States really are?

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        What’s your point?

        He said that in terms of area, Germany is smaller than Montana and larger than New Mexico. That is correct. U.S. western States are about the size of European countries.

        Population-wise, of course, the comparison is very different. Other than California, those large western American States are rather sparsely populated as compared to European nations. Especially Montana!

        Population density of Germany: 235 per square mile

        Population density of Montana: 6.5 per square mile

  6. speculawyer says:

    If Germany decided to make a big EV push, it could be the great place to do V2G experimentation. They have a very heavy renewable-powered grid and with a large fleet of controllable EVs, they could use those EVs to store electricity when there is excess and provide some when there is a shortage.

  7. ffbj says:

    German car makers are foundering partly due to their arrogance. Though evidence to the contrary continued to mount they doggedly stuck to what had always worked before.
    The successful, for a decade, cheating software meant they could continue to sell their highly polluting vehicles, with no consequence.

    Now the chickens have come home to roost, and despite all their protestations to the contrary, they are not prepared, technically, financially, nor psychologically, for the coming ev revolution.

    1. Martin T. says:

      Spot on, Germans have wasted much time to date and now they are in the Crapper. Will be interesting to see how they cope with the reduced factory labor. This is the reason they avoid the unpalatable EV future that awaits them with out any doubt – just look at any major city and how clean diesel has Nox the Air. German engineered EV’s can we trust them? Makes me shudder at remembering all the past German car makers comments. Their heart is simply not in it. They would much prefer to churn out the same old tarted up crap – so reality is going to bite them in the butt.

  8. Don Zenga says:

    I don’t know how their quota’s will be.
    Mostly it will be designed to help the plugins sold by VW, MB and BMW (15 – 30 km AER) rather than the fast rising electric vehicles.

    But in France, it’s a different scenario, its the EVs like Zoe and Leaf that lead the sales.

    Keep an open eye on this.

Leave a Reply