Ban on new thermal cars in 2035: Germany changes its mind!

[Christophe]

When I told you it was not sustainable for the economy...

MEPs are really on another planet...especially the "greens" (of earth)...

achso.jpg (81.88 KiB) Viewed 905 times

[NCSH]

When I told you it was not sustainable for the economy...

MEPs are really on another planet...especially the "greens" (of earth)...

achso.jpg

The question of the day could be: "on which planet are they?"
If it is not the Earth, nor Venus (I would have noticed it), which one?
Are they even in the solar system?

This morning, on LCI, a little subject about 2035, with the salient element: 11% of German GNP linked to transport and heat engines.

For the past few days, all the anti-non-fossil synthetic fuel jackals have been unleashed on Twitter since the German Minister of Finance questioned the principle of the 2035 ban.

Another piece of information you may have missed, the subsidy supports the e-fuel sector with €1.9 billion to be spent by 2026!

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/ge ... ln-package

For the moment, the Germanic world is advancing alone in this direction; it is only waiting for our support, if not financial (we have no more money: everything goes to save "whatever the cost" our "dear electro-nuclear industry"), at least moral.

[Christophe]

I only see one possible: the planet Décons, in the Déschieur system!

LCI talks about it:

[Forhorse]

Seen as it started, in 2035 there may be more people to buy cars (thermal or not...) so ultimately what does it matter?
Money first, for the rest we'll see if we have time...

[NCSH]

Official confirmation: tomorrow, during a historic European Council, Europe could stop the infernal mechanics (sic) which aimed to ban the sale of cars and light commercial vehicles with thermal engines in 2035.

Subject only to the possibility of the use of synthetic fuels, and I would add, non-fossil fuels, the institutional mechanism is jammed thanks to last-minute maneuvers at the initiative of the Italians and especially the Germans, supported by Bulgarians, Poles, ...

It would be wise for the other European countries with significant automotive industrial activity (Spain, Slovakia, Czechia, and France), in accordance with their positions during the negotiations since 2019, to support this historic vote.

This, according to the Germans, is to offer consumers/users of light vehicles the choice of several solutions according to their needs, provided that they are carbon neutral. And not to confine ourselves exclusively to a systematic electrification of uses, largely rejected by car manufacturers; especially since the 2035 timetable is untenable. This will make it possible to avoid toppling from top to bottom an industrial activity which employs several million Europeans.

As for the possible quantities, dates and costs of these future synthetic fuels, I refer you to my website and to the discussions that have taken place previously: Recycling of CO₂ synthetic fuel.

[NCSH]

Whoops ! ! ! ! !

It's not for tomorrow, but postponed to an unknown date...

Moreover, I forgot Hungary and Romania among the countries with significant automotive industrial activity.

The suspense will therefore continue.

[sicetaitsimple]

I copy here what I wrote a few days ago (24/02) on another thread ("nuclear power continues in the world"):

As already explained, a hypothesis of total replacement of the fleet of private vehicles and a significant share of light commercial vehicles would lead in France to an increase in consumption of around 100TWh compared to its current value, which has been almost stable for at least 10 years of the order of 450TWh.
It's still not the sea to drink, and indeed the ENR could do a good part of the job, especially since a cessation of sales in 2035 means a totally electric park beyond 2050.
Personally, I don't think this 2035 target will be met, or even that it is really desirable. There is also a "review clause" planned for 2026. But I don't think it's electricity production that will be the sticking point.

We'll see....But with "e-fuels", the rating will be much higher than a hundred TWh...

[Christophe]

Except that (I think) you are thinking on an annual average and not during peak periods...

So your 100 TWh (equivalent to a dozen 1.4 GW reactors) will actually require much more production capacity than these 10 reactors...

Or else you have to pass a law that requires companies to install PV and provide charging stations...to all their employees!

[sicetaitsimple]

Except that (I think) you are thinking on an annual average and not during peak periods...
So your 100 TWh (equivalent to a dozen 1.4 GW reactors) will actually require much more production capacity than these 10 reactors...
Or else you have to pass a law that requires companies to install PV and provide charging stations...to all their employees!

I didn't say it was easy, I said "It's still not the sea to drink (100 more compared to 450), and indeed the ENR could do a good part of the job,".
Of course, this presupposes technological (V2H, V2G), regulatory and "societal" developments, such as the "right to take" in the workplace that you mention (even if it does not concern, by far, everyone, it is still necessary to have private parking for employees...).

But this is nothing, in my opinion, compared to the quantities that would be necessary for the mass production of "e-fuels". We wouldn't be talking about 10 reactors....

[Christophe]

Except that e-fuel does not pose any temporal concerns...is that even their only advantage?