It's 12 years out and this is a short time for the magnitude of the change.

The UK has enacted a similar ban that should come into effect 5 years earlier, in 2030, so in 7 years and at the moment my best guess is that this is going to be a bloodbath (and second hand petrol cars are going to become even more valuable) if it is not postponed. It requires gigantic investments and adaptation that are not happening, or are happening very, very slowly.

What are the laws like in the eu or uk for ev conversions? In the US it is mostly done on older lighter cars. Enough older that they are regulated differently from other vehicles. EV west for instance focuses on vw/Porsche vehicles that had that tiny magnesium air cooled engine.

Are you in the UK? That's not my take on what's happening - I've seen a big uptick in electric cars and charging infra in the last year or so. I've seen plenty of graphs that look like the UK would be mostly done with the transition to EVs for this segment by 2030 even if the ban wasn't coming into force - looks like a traditional sigmoid curve to me.

Yes, I am in the UK. The number of charging points is not keeping up with the planned schedule and number of new EVs on the road. The issue of people who cannot charge at home is not being tackled. Perhaps the most important issue: The grid is not being upgraded and electricity production is not keeping up (matter made even worse by the push to also get rid of gas boilers in homes).

EVs are also still unaffordable to most, which is perhaps a blessing considering the above: Buying an EV is the 'easy' part.

> The grid is not being upgraded and electricity production is not keeping up.

Why do you believe this is the case?

I cannot see any evidence of this probpem, in fact. Octopus energy for example is very happy about using Evs to help balance the grid and their 'virtual powerplant'

Charging ooint, yes, they are an issue

What do you mean by using EVs to balance the grid? How is drawing more power from it balancing it?

Many utilities are interested in using EVs as batteries for the grid. After all, typical EVs sold today have 60-100kWh batteries and are sitting parked the majority of the time. The idea is the utility would offer payment or incentive to use your battery and balance the grid.

The idea has been for a while, and is starting to come to wider testing with the finalization of Vehicle to Grid standards for the CCS charging standard.

Some other charging standards like Chademo already upported this but aren't widely used in Europe or North America.

Of course, that most logical thing which owners of an expensive BEV will do, is joining a program where they can cycle out their expensive battery and come to discharged car at the morning.

I think it would depend on the implementation of the program, but if the incentive is right, people will join. Many utilities already offer voluntary curtailment programs and time-of-use incentives, and customers definitely respond.

Modern batteries with modern battery management systems are more durable than you think. Most things I've read expect a typical EV battery to retain usable capacity past the lifespan of the car itself, not to mention EVs typically have "hidden" capacity buffers against degradation.

I doubt any program would completely discharge a car, likely a program would involve a smart charger that would charge and discharge within a certain agreed upon window.

Look at the current residential demand response programs for an example. Details vary, but a quick search will show you a range of different programs.

Typically, utilities will announce incentive windows for peak periods ahead of time. Opt-in customers have thermostats that will respond to the peak program by reducing heat or cooling to an agreed upon temperature. The customer can override if they would like, but if they do they will lose the incentive.

Customers get a lower bill, utilities can save a lot shaving peak loads and avoid capacity problems.

As an BEV owner, there is no way in hell I would let incompetent utility company purposefully damage my battery, because they were too greedy to build their own storage.

Fair enough, these types of programs are opt-in for a reason. I definitely would consider it if the price is right.

For me, a personal vehicle is a depreciating asset that sits unused 98% of the time. I'd be better off with carshare if it existed in my city.

If the program also allowed me to use the battery as a home backup, I'd opt-in.

I was skeptical as well, but enough people have signed up that it works. Our personal opinion doesnt matter.

People who don't understand that they are exchanging their battery life for few cents. Eventually word will spread out and those programs are going to become mandatory.

The original statement was - BEVs will overload the grid, this discussion shows oposite is the case - they are used to stabilise the grid.

> those programs are going to become mandatory

I would say the jury is still out if it makes financial sence. Batteries lose capacity to aging even if you don't use them.

This is extremely speculative and if the government has appetite to make anything mandatory about cars, they would start by enforcing the speed limit electronically

> The original statement was - BEVs will overload the grid, this discussion shows oposite is the case - they are used to stabilise the grid.

Not at all.

The EVs' batteries are used as storage, which can help with intermittent electricity production but it implies two things assuming it can work at all:

1. enough electricity is produced overall,

2. the grid has the capacity to move all that electricity around.

These are the two issues I initially mentioned and using EVs' batteries as temporary storage solves neither.

It's a lot more than a few cents. This guy made $550 for delivering 297 kWh of electricity over a one year period.

https://electrek.co/2023/02/09/tesla-powerwall-owners-made-5...

So do it for 32 more years to have money for a new battery. As I said, few cents.

The way I interpret that link to Octopus' website is simply that they over an off peak tariff to charge your EV at the best times for them, probably whenever there is excess electricity available. It does not say anything about using the EVs as storage. The "virtual powerplant" seems to be just a PR gimmick, which Octopus is very good at.

In amy case, that does not solve the issue of overall production or grid capacity.

> In amy case, that does not solve the issue of overall production or grid capacity.

Actually that could have done well (although I wouldn’t hold my breath + all sorts of logistics of reality can prevent the utility). If you have 100 MWh of car batteries charging during off peak, that’s extra capacity you can leverage during peak hours.

I do agree that in practice that won’t work out for all sorts of reasons (the comms and standards for that aren’t defined afaik + what happens if enough cars disconnect that suddenly you don’t have enough capacity and brownouts begin to shed load)

> The grid is not being upgraded and electricity production is not keeping up

Agreed. We need, charitably, a 25% increase in electricity generation, and we're not getting that. We're getting "(shouts) more wind turbines!!!" and "(whispers) we've just turned off a 250MW gas power station".

EVs are going to be biggest single "new user" of electricity in decades and are going to be a huge drag on the network.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_(Great_Britain)#...

Even a naive calculation based on the total number of vehicles registered with the DVLA (including classic cars, buses, lorries, etc.) and the draw on the national grid, means we'd have to double the current generating capacity in the UK to charge all those vehicles at the same time. Admittedly, that's never going to be the case, but the number of car owners grows year on year.

Best case, we need to add an additional 10-30% electrical capacity in the UK by 2030. And that's exclusively for EVs. Never mind that as the economy grows it requires even more electricity for other industries.

And we're still squabbling (unscientifically) over nuclear (it's safe and it's green), and wind turbines (we really, really, need better storage).

Of course, charging stations, everywhere. My town of 100,000 has 20 public chargers that I know of, with I'd guess an average charging time of 30 minutes. Versus 10 petrol garages, with approx. 10 pumps, and a filling time of under 5 minutes. Arguably, we'd need 600 chargers to provide the same 'capacity' as 100 petrol pumps, if not more. Yes, people can charge from home. Some can't.

And the range problem. I personally drive 300+ miles in one journey a few times a month (relatives at the top of the country). I will not spend an additional hour at EV stations when my fossil fuel car can get me there on half a tank without stopping. Until the range problem is solved (600 miles on one charge, guaranteed), I'll be the last person to buy an EV.

Even if what you say is true, wouldn't that still be an ok outcome? We're in a climate crisis and need to starkly reduce the number of carbon sources on the planet so if EV cars didn't get broad adoption and used petrol cars double in value (but no more of them are produced), that still seems like a good outcome. Obviously some players will lose but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

> We're in a climate crisis

ANd it's not the micro-effects of one country's policy that will do anything.

There are several new energy sources about to "come online". It's just that mainstream does suppress the information about those.

My man, this is 12 years away. Also, I don't think much of the implementation rests on the politicians?

On the other hand it does have an impact in that it is functionally permanent.

Reversing it would require an active push for something that is unpopular

What precise timeframe do you require to believe a policy is indeed a policy and not some elaborate ploy to trick and deceive you?

Uh, what is the other option?

Ban it in next 4 years?

Two other options: Taxes that slowly ramp up until fossil fuel cars become unaffordable. Quotas for how many fossil fuel cars are allowed to be sold (bid on the right to sell one, pass on cost to consumer).

So you will again damage your voting base without offering a way out (Expensive ICE or expensive BEV?) and give populists ability to raise up.

It also provides ample opportunity for a different regime to come in and extend or cancel the ban.

I'm in the US but if the US govt passed a ban on gas vehicles effective today, I'd be extremely upset. I love my car.

It's not a ban on gas vehicles, it's a ban on new sales of gas vehicles. Your car would be perfectly fine.

Until it breaks/crash and the repair won't be economical.

There are many cars on the road today that are 15 to 20 years old. There are some cars on the road older than that. Things do get more complicated with recent cars, which have more specialized computing, but you'll be able to burn repurposed dinosaurs for a very long time, regardless of restrictions on new sales.

Good news, everyone! Almost every time a technology is banned, the old grandfathered in examples of that technology become higher value! You're car you love will become worth a bit more, as people will be incentivized to keep it running.

The only reason I would be upset, is that it appears to me that new EV's come loaded with software that I don't much care for. It appears that they are MUCH easier to track than a traditional ice vehicle.

Or am I incorrect?

That's not inherent to EVs, that's just modern cars in general. Even base trim ICE sedans from GM were coming with cell connected OnStar 15 years ago, it's inevitable that as the price came down other manufacturers would implement. "Tech" in a car sells and connected services like app based locks and remote starts are an easy subscription sell.

Not all EVs are Teslas, and as sibling comments say, even current ICE vehicle seem to be loaded with connectivity options.

That ban is for new cars only. Existing gas cars won't go away any time soon.

And I'd love that you would stop emitting CO2 because you can't go anywhere without a one ton metal case so we are still able to grow food in twenty years from now.

No. My choice of gas vehicle doesn't affect you.

That's just not true though. Using fossil fuels affects everyone around you.

You can make it broader and start getting rid of anyone who is emitting too much CO2:

- Got cancer, which needs expensive treatment? Yep, that's a lot of CO2, go bite dust from below.

- Are you handicapped and need others to take care of you? Well time for traditions of ancient Sparta to return.

- Elderly people doing nothing, but emitting CO2. The moment people leave productive age, they should be facing wall.

I'm pretty sure replacing an heavily polluting ICE car with an EV in the span of 17 years(!!) isn't comparable to letting people die from disease, no?

It is 12 years and most people does not have resources to do it.

Good news, the current US administration is aware, and has committed many billions of dollars to make resources available, and presumably will continue to do so.

Well, but this whole debate is about EU.

Are you not willing to live your life without your ICE car? Or why did you just make the jump from "let's ban technologies which produce too much CO2" to "let's kill unproductives"?

Slippery slope. Today it is cars, tomorrow it is meat, next month it is unproductives.

You act as if ICE vehicles bring no problems. If we keep relying on ICE vehicles, we literally kill people. We do not do that by switching to EVs. How does your slippery slope make sense when looking at the actual harm done?

The worst part is: you're literally admitting that you're not arguing against the idea itself, you're arguing against what you think they want to do next. It's impossible to make progress if the ideas themselves cannot be discussed.

No we don't. With this logic even breathing is killing people.

And we're back to: would a ban on new ICE cars make you unable to breathe? Do you just need those fumes, without them your body is not able to process the oxygen?

And we're back to: would a ban on parfumes make you unable to breathe? Do you just need those fumes, without them your body is not able to process the oxygen?

Come again without a strawman.

Let me attempt to summarize your position, just so I don't misrepresent you in my replies:

- there is a direct connection between the ideas of "let's ban new ICE cars and replace them with EVs to reduce CO2 emissions" and "let's kill unproductives to reduce CO2 emissions"

- this is not because you believe ICEs to be necessary to let "unproductives" live, it's literally because there is no way to engage in dicussions or conversations on an ICE ban without this leading to "let's kill unproductives"

- even though you are admitting that you're employing the slippery slope fallacy, and although we can look at the real statistical effects of ICE vehicles on harm done to people, the inevitable slippery slope of "let's kill unproductives" means that a switch from ICE to EV will result in many more deaths than continuing with ICEs

Is this an accurate representation of your thinking? Your replies so far have not expressed actual ideas beyond logical fallacies (or even "no u"), and I'd be interested in whether this is really the extent of your thought or whether there is more that you know would put you into an even worse light.

Banning ICE and replacing them with EV won't reduce emissions at a first place. It will just move them around. Case and point: Germany.

Banning meat won't reduce emissions, it will just move them around into making fake meat.

Killing unproductives won't reduce emissions, because their bodies decompose and captured carbon will return back to atmosphere.

All this thread, including GP is pointless, because there is currently no solution for excess CO2 in atmosphere and every attempt to reduce it will only increase it (see carbon capture devices). Therefore there is no reason to restrict quality of life of average citizen.

Why are you suddenly switching to a different topic? You made pretty strong claims about bans on new ICEs will lead to "killing of unproductives". Are you admitting that you were deliberately hyperbolic and attempting to derail the conversation? Or do you seriously believe in your previous points?

Wow I really admire how cool minded and topic focused you've remained in the whole thread. I wish I can do that one day.

Oh man, thank you so much! I was never good at it myself, so this means a lot :)

I've learned that the best way to engage these discussions is to take your partner as seriously as they say they want to. You cannot counter these things with facts, as facts aren't their own basis. Instead you engage seriously and let themselves display the problems in their logic.

A big influence for me has been the streamer Vaush.

I did not switched a topic, I showed you how pointless this thread is, because it does not matter what you do you can't reduce CO2. Everything is on point.

Am I understanding you correctly that your new point is "humanity can't influence the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere"? It's very different from the previous points, so I'd like your confirmation before engaging.

This is a ridiculous and unproductive line of reasoning and argumentation. Be serious.

Auto manufacturers are definitely investing like this is going to happen. I can't remember when a major manufacturer announced new ICE platforms - it's almost exclusively EV or shared EV/hybrid platforms being introduced.

Look at the sheer investment in lithium, batteries and electronic suppliers. Manufacturers are going full tilt into lithium supply contracts, battery factory joint ventures, motor and electronic components - almost every week theres a new announcement.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's hundreds of billions at this point between Europe, North America and Japan. That's not even counting China or India.