France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040

Started by cpzilliacus, July 06, 2017, 10:50:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

cpzilliacus

Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.


MikeTheActuary

How would cabs and ride-sharing function in an all-electric car market?

Takumi

Nice idea, but no way will it get done in that time frame.
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

Chris

These targets tend to be unrealistic. Norway had previously announced a 2025 target.

Germany set a target to get 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2020. Today they have 34,000 and presently approximately 1 out of every 100 new car sales are electric vehicles. So it's obviously they will not reach that goal at all.

Another problem with 'electric' cars is that in many countries they count the plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) as being 'electric' while they are often only capable of 15 - 25 miles of electric driving. In the Netherlands they stimulated the heck out of PHEV for a few years, with large amounts of PHEVs almost never being charged at all. That's a lot of lost tax revenue for no environmental gain. In the Netherlands around 90% of the 'electric' car fleet are PHEV and only some 10% is pure battery-electric.

SP Cook

The purpose of science is to discover what is possible.  It is delusion to believe that anything you wish was true can be made so by throwing money at it.  There are simply Laws of Nature that actual scientists understand. 

We now know that an electric powered car cannot be made practical (meaning at a reasonable price with the same performance/reliablity/features of real cars), nor can enough electricty be produced even if such a car could actually exist.  This is science. 

Basing public policy on delusion and wishful thinking is a receipe for disaster.


corco

Quote from: SP Cook on July 06, 2017, 11:39:26 AM
The purpose of science is to discover what is possible.  It is delusion to believe that anything you wish was true can be made so by throwing money at it.  There are simply Laws of Nature that actual scientists understand. 

We now know that an electric powered car cannot be made practical (meaning at a reasonable price with the same performance/reliablity/features of real cars), nor can enough electricty be produced even if such a car could actually exist.  This is science. 

Basing public policy on delusion and wishful thinking is a receipe for disaster.



We know that electric cars have made massive gains in practicality and affordability in the last twenty years. This is science and private sector innovation at its finest.

There are still issues with electric cars, and they have not yet matched internal combustion cars in affordability and performance, but 2040 is a long way off. This encourages the private sector to innovate and develop patents and make a lot of money. If that doesn't appear to be happening, 2040 is a long way off and France can revisit that target.

There's nothing wrong with encouraging innovation in a field where science has already proven that massive gains can be made in practicality and affordablity in a short period of time. Think about how far battery technology has come since 1994.

Electric cars may not be a panacea, I'm not deluded about that - until we figure out how to get most of our electric energy from non fossil fuel sources they have issues carrying out their intended purpose, and battery manufacturing is a messy process, but society is figuring this out, and has made scientifically indisputable gains in this area over the last 23 years, and there's no reason to believe further research won't yield similar gains.

If the ban were proposed in 2020 I would agree with you that this is delusional. 2040 is far enough out to be a soft target that can be modified if the optimists among us are wrong, while in the meantime encouraging innovation. And France is the perfect sized country to make this kind of play - companies will invest to remain competitive in France, but if it's not going well Ford isn't going to bankrupt themselves on research that you view as futile just to stay competitive in France.

Chris

Without huge market distortion consumers will not buy electric cars for now. Norway has a fairly high share of electric vehicles but this is due to extreme market distortion. Regular gasoline / diesel cars are taxed heavily while electric cars are almost tax-free. This means that a Volkswagen e-Golf will be cheaper than the regular VW Golf.

In Norway;
* you don't have to pay the registration fee (if applicable, a Tesla Model S would cost around $ 150,000 in taxes alone!)
* you don't have to pay the annual road tax
* you don't have to pay tolls (including congestion charges)
* you don't have to pay for parking
* you can use ferries for free
* you can use bus lanes

There are talks in Norway about reducing the incentives because they lose too much tax revenue. Some toll tunnels have a threatened viability due to the increasing share of motorists not having to pay tolls (in Norway, many tunnels and bridges are funded through user fees). Another problem is the overloading of bus lanes. During rush hour, Oslo bus lanes on freeways are almost as busy as the regular lanes. However congestion would increase dramatically if they would end this bus lane incentive.

briantroutman

The Guardian article is short on details: Is the proposed ban on all internal combustion engines or simply on non-hybrids?

My wife told me about the Volvo announcement, and while that news sounded earth-shattering at first, I quickly realized that the company isn't ending production of internal combustion engines–rather, it's ending the production of vehicles that are powered solely by internal combustion engines.

In other words, there will be still be thousands of Volvos roaming the world burning millions of gallons of fuel, but their gasoline and diesel engines will be supplemented by electric motors, and they'll be averaging 31 mpg instead of 24. Hybrids have been common in the consumer market for nearly two decades now–Volvo's "big news"  amounts to an incremental improvement at best.

Likewise, if the French are merely driving hybrids that use 10 or 20% less gasoline (or diesel) than their non-hybrid counterparts, you can be sure France will be importing petroleum for many decades to come, albeit at a slightly slower rate.

US 89

Quote from: Chris on July 06, 2017, 12:09:51 PM
Without huge market distortion consumers will not buy electric cars for now. Norway has a fairly high share of electric vehicles but this is due to extreme market distortion. Regular gasoline / diesel cars are taxed heavily while electric cars are almost tax-free. This means that a Volkswagen e-Golf will be cheaper than the regular VW Golf.

In Norway;
* you don't have to pay the registration fee (if applicable, a Tesla Model S would cost around $ 150,000 in taxes alone!)
* you don't have to pay the annual road tax
* you don't have to pay tolls (including congestion charges)
* you don't have to pay for parking
* you can use ferries for free
* you can use bus lanes

There are talks in Norway about reducing the incentives because they lose too much tax revenue. Some toll tunnels have a threatened viability due to the increasing share of motorists not having to pay tolls (in Norway, many tunnels and bridges are funded through user fees). Another problem is the overloading of bus lanes. During rush hour, Oslo bus lanes on freeways are almost as busy as the regular lanes. However congestion would increase dramatically if they would end this bus lane incentive.

Yeah, it looks like Norway has gone so far with incentives that basically everyone has bought a hybrid. And the incentives (especially the bus lane one) are basically useless if everyone has a hybrid, and it ends up costing the government tons of money in taxes, fees, etc.

kalvado


SP Cook

Quote from: corco on July 06, 2017, 11:50:45 AM

We know that electric cars have made massive gains in practicality and affordability in the last twenty years. This is science and private sector innovation at its finest.

It is?  No.  It is market distortion via tax breaks as described in the posts about Norway.  It is about taxing regular people more so Elon Musk can get rich.   That is not "private sector" anything, it is croney capitalism.

Actually, the number of people without market distortion who would choose an electric car today is the same as 20 years ago.  Esentually zero.


As to the rest, I already understand that this is a dead end.  If you want to be "optimistic" and not believe that, what you should have said is this:

There are still issues with electric cars, and they MAY NEVER match internal combustion cars in affordability and performance, but 2040 is a long way off. This encourages the private sector to innovate and develop patents and make a lot of money, IF SUCH A THING CAN BE INVENTED, THE PURPOSE OF SCIENCE BEING TO DISCOVER WHAT IS POSSIBLE, SOME THINGS SIMPLY ARE NOT.

Electric cars may not be a panacea, I'm not deluded about that - UNLESS we figure out how to get most of our electric energy from non fossil fuel sources IF SUCH A THING IS POSSIBLE, IT MAY NOT BE... and believe further research COULD VERY WELL BE THE 21ST CENTURY'S VERSION OF ALCHEMY.

If the ban were proposed in 2020 I would agree with you that this is delusional. 2040 is far enough out to be a soft target that can be modified if the optimists among us are wrong, while in the meantime encouraging POSSIBLE innovation OR FORCING COMPANIES TO WASTE MONEY ON A DEAD END, WE DON'T KNOW.


--

I call this the "man on the moon" theory.  The quasi-religious faith that "if they can put a man on the moon, then ...."  The blind idea that anything can be invented.  The use of words like "until" or "when"  when the proper word is "IF".  If being the biggest word in the world.


AsphaltPlanet

Another argument may be that since France has nationalized heath care, and diesel fuel consumption has a real effect on local air quality, which in turn has a very real effect on people's health, there may be a very real financial incentive from a health care perspective to move away from a fuel that has such a real negative implication to local air quality.

I know diesel is much, much cleaner than it was in days past, but it's worth noting that diesel exhaust contains a much more significant amount of airborne particulate relative to gasoline exhaust.
AsphaltPlanet.ca  Youtube -- Opinions expressed reflect the viewpoints of others.

Chris

France has one of the highest shares of diesel fuel for passenger cars in Europe. Diesel has a major advantage and that is lower fuel consumption. Diesel engines also tend to last longer. This is also the problem, you regularly see 20+ year old diesel cars in France, which are really polluting compared to recent model diesel cars - even with the Volkswagen scandal in mind.

Diesel exhaust can be cleaned by spraying AdBlue - known as DEF in North America - into the exhaust system. It is considered by far the most effective way to reduce emissions from diesel vehicles. It has long been standard in the trucking industry, but only recently manufacturers started to apply AdBlue / DEF into passenger cars, usually the larger models.

AsphaltPlanet

It's true that diesel particulate filters can very significantly reduce particulate emission from diesel engines, however they only work when the fluid is maintained per manufacturer specifications, and fluid replacement is expensive.  Moreover, DPF systems reduce the power output of vehicles as the car has to produce extra power to push the exhaust through the filter. 

I'm not really writing this from the perspective of being against diesel, but it's really easy to manufacture a pollution control equipment that can be easily circumvented by the user later.
AsphaltPlanet.ca  Youtube -- Opinions expressed reflect the viewpoints of others.

Avalanchez71


Chris

France does not generate much electricity with coal. Most of its electricity is generated by nuclear power (75%) and hydro power (16%).

JJBers

*for Connecticut
Clinched Stats,
Flickr,
(2di:I-24, I-76, I-80, I-84, I-95 [ME-GA], I-91)

kalvado

Quote from: Chris on July 06, 2017, 03:33:55 PM
France does not generate much electricity with coal. Most of its electricity is generated by nuclear power (75%) and hydro power (16%).
Good question is what would be in a mix by 2040. Many older reactors are getting old, and as far as I understand new construction is somewhat slow. There is a worldwide massive dislike to nuclear power as well..
Until ITER is extremely successful, those electric cars may need to carry a set of sails and emergency pedal-actuated generator (also known as "bicycle")

Brandon

Quote from: corco on July 06, 2017, 11:50:45 AM
We know that electric cars have made massive gains in practicality and affordability in the last twenty years. This is science and private sector innovation at its finest.

There are still issues with electric cars, and they have not yet matched internal combustion cars in affordability and performance, but 2040 is a long way off. This encourages the private sector to innovate and develop patents and make a lot of money. If that doesn't appear to be happening, 2040 is a long way off and France can revisit that target.

The biggest problem with electric cars, and one that no one from any side really addresses, is recharge time.  Right now, they best they can do is a 10 minute Tesla supercharger recharge good for a mere 100 miles more.  Who wants to stop every 100 miles for 10 minutes?  By contrast, a diesel fuel or gasoline vehicle can be fueled in as little as five minutes to a full "recharge" (in mine that's another 350-400 miles).  I'll have to go use the washroom before that's done.  But I can go through a 100 mile electric vehicle recharge in as little as an hour and twenty minutes at 75 miles per hour.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

kalvado

Quote from: Brandon on July 06, 2017, 05:30:38 PM
Quote from: corco on July 06, 2017, 11:50:45 AM
We know that electric cars have made massive gains in practicality and affordability in the last twenty years. This is science and private sector innovation at its finest.

There are still issues with electric cars, and they have not yet matched internal combustion cars in affordability and performance, but 2040 is a long way off. This encourages the private sector to innovate and develop patents and make a lot of money. If that doesn't appear to be happening, 2040 is a long way off and France can revisit that target.

The biggest problem with electric cars, and one that no one from any side really addresses, is recharge time.  Right now, they best they can do is a 10 minute Tesla supercharger recharge good for a mere 100 miles more.  Who wants to stop every 100 miles for 10 minutes?  By contrast, a diesel fuel or gasoline vehicle can be fueled in as little as five minutes to a full "recharge" (in mine that's another 350-400 miles).  I'll have to go use the washroom before that's done.  But I can go through a 100 mile electric vehicle recharge in as little as an hour and twenty minutes at 75 miles per hour.

Discussed many times with most obvious options  of quick battery swap (and many ways of battery ownership by different parties) and marketing electric car as mostly commuter car. I can see some in-between options added into the mix.
It is not a show-stopper, it is just another problem which may need to be addressed at some point

vdeane

Keep in mind that policy makers are not envisioning people going into their garage, getting into their electric car, driving to another metro, and refueling like a gas car of today.  They are envisioning something more like this:
You decide to travel to another metro area, so you grab your phone and open the Uber app and summon a self-driving ride hailing vehicle.  The vehicle arrives at your door a few minutes later, and you get in, potentially alongside other travelers headed in the same direction if you didn't pay extra for a private car.  Instead of looking at the scenery, the windshield is full of ads, and you spend most of the time on your phone looking at Facebook and Netflix.  When the car maxes out its range, it pulls into a charging station, where you get out and transfer to another car which was summoned there waiting for you.  That car then brings you to your destination, and drives off to fetch someone else or recharge once you get out.

Quote from: SP Cook on July 06, 2017, 11:39:26 AM
The purpose of science is to discover what is possible.  It is delusion to believe that anything you wish was true can be made so by throwing money at it.  There are simply Laws of Nature that actual scientists understand. 

We now know that an electric powered car cannot be made practical (meaning at a reasonable price with the same performance/reliablity/features of real cars), nor can enough electricty be produced even if such a car could actually exist.  This is science. 

Basing public policy on delusion and wishful thinking is a receipe for disaster.


Where are you getting this from?  Science has shown nothing of the sort.  On the contrary, continuing gains in affordability, recharge time, and range are happening with each new model of electric car.  Many countries, China included, are having great success with renewable energy.  There is nothing to suggest that we have hit a wall that will halt development on these fronts.

2040 is nearly 25 years from now.  25 years ago, the internet was virtually unrecognisable.  And 25 years before cars dominated the transportation scene, they were but a toy for the wealthy, unreliable, limited by law to a speed of 5 mph, and required four men carrying flags to walk alongside the car to warn pedestrians and horses out of the way.  Around that time, scientists were proclaiming that everything that ever would be discovered had already been discovered; 25 years later, Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's Theory of Relativity made them look like fools.  Now, there are things that science has shown are simply beyond our capabilities given our current understanding of the universe (such as faster than light travel).  Electric cars are not one of them.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Brandon

Quote from: kalvado on July 06, 2017, 05:53:13 PM
Quote from: Brandon on July 06, 2017, 05:30:38 PM
Quote from: corco on July 06, 2017, 11:50:45 AM
We know that electric cars have made massive gains in practicality and affordability in the last twenty years. This is science and private sector innovation at its finest.

There are still issues with electric cars, and they have not yet matched internal combustion cars in affordability and performance, but 2040 is a long way off. This encourages the private sector to innovate and develop patents and make a lot of money. If that doesn't appear to be happening, 2040 is a long way off and France can revisit that target.

The biggest problem with electric cars, and one that no one from any side really addresses, is recharge time.  Right now, they best they can do is a 10 minute Tesla supercharger recharge good for a mere 100 miles more.  Who wants to stop every 100 miles for 10 minutes?  By contrast, a diesel fuel or gasoline vehicle can be fueled in as little as five minutes to a full "recharge" (in mine that's another 350-400 miles).  I'll have to go use the washroom before that's done.  But I can go through a 100 mile electric vehicle recharge in as little as an hour and twenty minutes at 75 miles per hour.

Discussed many times with most obvious options  of quick battery swap (and many ways of battery ownership by different parties) and marketing electric car as mostly commuter car. I can see some in-between options added into the mix.
It is not a show-stopper, it is just another problem which may need to be addressed at some point

At this point, it doesn't make an electric car attractive.  The battery swap thing seems like a sick joke, IMHO.

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 11:05:51 PM
Keep in mind that policy makers are not envisioning people going into their garage, getting into their electric car, driving to another metro, and refueling like a gas car of today.  They are envisioning something more like this:
You decide to travel to another metro area, so you grab your phone and open the Uber app and summon a self-driving ride hailing vehicle.  The vehicle arrives at your door a few minutes later, and you get in, potentially alongside other travelers headed in the same direction if you didn't pay extra for a private car.  Instead of looking at the scenery, the windshield is full of ads, and you spend most of the time on your phone looking at Facebook and Netflix.  When the car maxes out its range, it pulls into a charging station, where you get out and transfer to another car which was summoned there waiting for you.  That car then brings you to your destination, and drives off to fetch someone else or recharge once you get out.

That's not a future I want to be a part of.  Too much control in someone else's hands.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

SP Cook

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 11:05:51 PM
Where are you getting this from?  There is nothing to suggest that we have hit a wall that will halt development on these fronts.


Umm, the history of the world since Day One.  Science is about finding out what is true, not about "envisioning" something you wish were true.  It is pretty clear that electric cars don't work.  It is yet more clear that the science ficiton of a self-driving car doesn't work. 

For everything you can list that someone invented (discovered to be true) I can list 10000 things that someone did not invent, because these things cannot exist.  In other words science proved these not to be possible.  Not everything you wish was true can be made true.  Somethings just are not possible.  Like practical electric cars, self-driving cars, and so-called "renewable" energy.


Max Rockatansky

I don't see the viability in 23 years for something like this to happen.  Electric cars still cost a substantially larger amount new than the internal combustion counterparts, they don't have the range, nor are they built to last.  That's the dirty little secret to electric and hybrid reliability, you do have to replace the batteries after a certain period of time or number of miles.  That is something that isn't cheap either, I wonder what the going rate on replacement batteries for smaller cars like the Bolt and Left actually these days?  Realistically though, this is more likely to happen in a smaller country in such a short time period where the infrastructure could be built up quicker to support electric.  A country like the US or Canada likely is never going to become completely reliant on electrics given the sheer size vs range compared to internal combustion given the massive size compared to smaller European countries.  Really I think electrics are going to be stuck in the realm of the urban commuter here in the US until the range and price of purchase drops considerably.

hotdogPi

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 07, 2017, 08:37:20 AM
I don't see the viability in 23 years for something like this to happen.  Electric cars still cost a substantially larger amount new than the internal combustion counterparts, they don't have the range, nor are they built to last.  That's the dirty little secret to electric and hybrid reliability, you do have to replace the batteries after a certain period of time or number of miles.  That is something that isn't cheap either, I wonder what the going rate on replacement batteries for smaller cars like the Bolt and Left actually these days?  Realistically though, this is more likely to happen in a smaller country in such a short time period where the infrastructure could be built up quicker to support electric.  A country like the US or Canada likely is never going to become completely reliant on electrics given the sheer size vs range compared to internal combustion given the massive size compared to smaller European countries.  Really I think electrics are going to be stuck in the realm of the urban commuter here in the US until the range and price of purchase drops considerably.

France (and most of western Europe) is more evenly spaced in population than the United States; while major cities still exist, there are few areas with almost no people.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.