EU agrees to ban sale of CO2-emitting cars by 2035 | DW Business
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 06. 2024
- Final approval was given on Tuesday for a law that will bring an end to the sale of vehicles running on CO2-emitting fuels by 2035, Swedish Energy Minister Ebba Busch announced.
Energy ministers from the 27 member states gave the go-ahead for the contested law which had been delayed for weeks by Germany's Transport Minister Volker Wissing.
A compromise was agreed between Brussels and Berlin on Saturday that will allow the sale of cars and vans that run on so-called climate-neutral e-fuels which use synthetic fuels produced with captured carbon.
Subscribe: czcams.com/users/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
#climatechange #fossilfuel #EU
I can smell unintended consequences incoming.
It will be worse than Mao's bird killing policy thinking it would solve the problem, it caused a draught instead.
EV can never replace petrol cars, especially for car lovers.
@M Al Screw EVs.
Unforseen consequences.
The very less resource of lithium has given rise to research on Aluminium, Sodium based fuel cells. Recent achievement done on Nuclear fusion technology is the primary tool to once for all FORGET the energy crisis our civilization was facing for decades. With the advent of outer EARTH mining doctrine, to mine valuable minerals from different objects in space is the step for the NEXT push of civilization.
Basically Porsche told Germany to object.
Good.
No, VolksWagen. The initials of the transport minister are not a coincidence.
Utter nonsense!
Porsche do have EV now.
@@cinpeace353they also lead the e-fuel technology innitiativs
Hilarious...good luck EU...people..tegular people cannot afford electric...nor is there going to be enough electricity to charge the millions of cars.
what is tegular people?
@@rowaystarco low and middle class, you rich prick. Those of us that clean your house, serve you mokaccinos, replenish the food in your fridge.
That's why synthetic fuels are so perfect. Nobody needs to swap their existing car or modify it in any way because the fuel is chemically identical to petrol!
Hooray for common sense!
It was always a complete nonsensical idea to expect all cars on the road to be EVs and just ban fuels outright.
Battery tech is simply not there yet and nobody wants to deal with their maintenence, just look up how much it costs to replace the batteries on a several years old Nissan Leaf or a Chevy Volt, there's no way the average consumer can afford that, and then there's the problem of dealing with the toxic waste of the old batteries...
Maybe in 50 years EVs will be viable for wide spread use and more accessible for the average consumer to purchase and maintain, but now and in 2035? Nonsense.
The common man would not be driving a car anymore if they went on like they did.
I think it is a really bad idea to force new technology on people when electric cars are this expensive.
And we all already know that if people didn't buy electric cars within a couple years they would pay allot more roadtaxes.
Car maintenance and petrol might be more expensive and there will be stricter car inspections aswell.
Petrol cars will probably be banned from entering city ringroads just like they did with diesel cars and people will end up paying huge fines when they get caught doing it anyway.
If they didn't force new technologies and let them enter the market naturally most of these problems wouldn't exist.
Germany and Italy did a great job stopping the unrealistic vision of the EU.
I think the EU is way to focused on cars specifically. Instead they should focus on transport as a whole.
We need way better public transport for the people who won't be able to afford driving.
Something tells me this won't go very well for Europe.
Is anything?
On the one hand, I'm glad that there is push back, as the scaling up of materials such as Cobalt, Lithium, and other rare earths is on a scale that is simply not realistic by 2035 and given that electric cars have scaled up, the supply chain is severely strained as battery capacity has not followed thus making electric vehicles much more expensive. This is a deep structural problem that is not going away soon. Multiple drive trains using multiple fuels need to be explored because transportation needs and reality on the ground can demand something different.
On the other, EU policy makers have a way of really making a farce out of climate policy. An example is the burning of wood pellets to generate electricity. While technically burning wood is renewable, there is NO ENFORCEMENT on regrowth of that wood to the extent that the new growth of wood equals the CO2 emission from the burning. US East Coast forests are being cut to supply EU wood pellets, but there is no accounting of regrowth, thus forests can be burned faster than they are regrown. A US land developer could cut down forests, sell them as pellets to the EU, then develop the land as residential/commercial property without selling pellets again. The EU claims a climate victory whereas a forest has been permanently wiped out. I have ZERO CONFIDENCE that such a delicate balancing act can be done, particularly when it is so tempting to literally ship the problem elsewhere.
What you never hear is about initiatives on regrowing forests, increasing biomass density in urban areas, or even tackling pollution that are killing photoplankton in the worlds oceans - possibly the single largest absorber of CO2 - more than the Amazon Rain forest - but everyone is focused on cars - which is no more than 15% of the EMISSIONS part of the equation.
The more things change - the more they stay the same.
Pacing is key alright.
Exactly. Long story short, bureaucrats and politicians shouldn't be making decisions on things they know nothing about.
It almost like EU leaders are conducting preplanned economic suicide dressed as environmentalism.
I propose 12 cylinders, configured in a V, possibly aided by a pair of turbochargers.
You could've just said mental illness, would be shorter.
They're essencially just outsourcing carbon emissions to wherever those batteries are made
Tesla makes batteries in China Europe and US 😂
@@dxelson the top 10 nations producing battery metals for the EV Supply Chain:
China, Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Chile, Indonesia, Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Philippines
The most polluting part of making those batteries is clearly not happening in Europe.
@@dxelson but the lithium mining byproduct is uranium....wish we can send those uranium to you whenever you buy an EV.
A battery, said simply, is a container of energy. If you think the energy (and by so the CO2) necessary to make the battery is comparable to the total amount it would have stored after a lifetime, you clearly have problems. It's hundreds of times lower.
Don't forget the child slaves mining the cobalt for the lithium battery cathodes!
Yeah no need for combustion engines that can be serviced and maintained for 100 years. Let's get those O repairable batteries for 4 X the price. This makes so much sense.
Electric cars need less maintenance than thermal engines and fewer parts. Don't be ridiculous. It's only the battery that will be recycled. NASA uses the same electric motors to move rockets since the 60s. Essentially, a brushless electric engine is a close box.
People with $ will be able to afford new electric cars, poor people will not.
poor ppl will have beautiful wemens instead
That's why synthetic fuels are so perfect. Nobody needs to swap their existing car or modify it in any way because the fuel is chemically identical to petrol!
Hooray for common sense!
@@error404blah Synthetic fuels are less efficient with the estimate being about 4 times worse than batteries and very little improvement by 2050 .They are also created by combining CO2 with Hydrogen resulted from fossil fuel-based processes, which still produce emissions to a greater or lesser extent.
@@tinaandro1178 absolutely false!
@@error404blah ? Synthetic fuels are created by combining CO2 with Hydrogen and Low-emission hydrogen was less than 1% of global hydrogen production in 2021.From my knowledge the low-emission hydrogen production production grew but demand creation for it is lagging behind because there are no incentives so what part is false and based on what?
Rules for thee, not for me. -WEF
Just a technical mistake, synthetic fuels still emit CO2 at the same rate as fossil fuels. It's just that they are nett zero, because of their source and method of production.
"It's just that they are nett zero, because of their source and method of production."
Yet they require more energy and resources to produce. Biofuels are essentially trying to replicate in days what the Earth did on its own over millions of years.
@@wisenber Yep, so sad that all these smokescreens are believed.
@@bagpussmacfarlan9008 the ignorance lmao. you do realise alot of bio fuel production lines are hooked up to solar and wind right? now one may debate making solar and wind machines consume fuel but that's not the main focus
🙋🏾♂️ Because it's a lie.
Electric cars but no electric first responders vehicles or trucks. 🤔 "You will own nothing and be happy" Klaus Schwab. You all better repent. This is a setup for a one world government. Jesus Christ is coming back. Prepare for the rapture. 🙏🏾
And in wich is not zero emissions because the chemicals had to be transported and then pumped into trucks to be delivered.
There is no such thing as net zero.
Insanity!
sanitation
I don't believe e-fuels are going to be the norm. They will be the exception for sports cars and super cars for the rich. Just like you can still buy hay for a horse.
It's going to be highly problematic for logistics but this is a hard lesson in life European technocrats will have to learn first hand once we all land in 2035 harsh reality. Ain't gonna be pretty for sure.
Hahaha one more disastrous policy EU is taking. Surprised EU are not offing people yet bc of Co2 ❤😂
And the pollution these batteries create is awful .
Still not as bad as the pollution generated by the oil and gas industry.
@@PG-3462 wtf do you know?? they haven't the material to make the batteries, which don't last long, then they need a new battery.
on top of all of that there will never be a charging system capable of replacing speed of the traditional fuel pumps,
it's all bs.
@@PG-3462 😂
@@CatsFerDays The fact that your sole argument is an emoji tells me that you don't know much about what you're talking about and thus shouldn't give us your opinion.
@@PG-3462 its worse. Mining the minerals uses child slaves
Battery vehicles are good as long as the batteries are not built in my backyard. 😆😆😆
Pro tip: invest in horses.
and some elephants to incase they strom your saddle due to sudden inflation in costs of horses in the market.
2030: EU agree to extend ban sale of CO2-emitting cars by 2050
Me 2030: Surprised pickachu face
You and me both.
Yesterday: me noticing a video with advice to young people on how to choose their first car Today: me thinking to myself- Oh, just don't. Just forget the darn car, young generation. AI is going to drive it anyway, you won't be able to afford the fuel cost. Just get a bike dude. Or walk. Or buy yourself a horse.
Let's hope they decide to drop banning any car in the first place.
Fixing symptoms while keeping the real problem going (energy production and industry), it's not combustion cars that are the crucial issue in climate change lmfao.
We need more coal plants to power the battery cars.
No renewables are now the cheapest and fastest growing in the energy sector. Coal is dying.
Nuclear FUSION is the hottest stuff to implement.
This, while the rest of the world doesnt care about EU standards, this will only bring more struggles for the consumer.
The rest of the world decides for itself, if they want to die of pollution let it be that way, but when they destroy their own countries than they hop on boats to reach EU.
That's great but, what about all the private jets and airlines that burn more fossil fuels than vehicles?
Do they get a pass bc they're rich?
@@Elatenl What about personal jets?
For that we can do little since we can't afford problems whit planes.
The only solution Is replacing all medium/short distante plane routes whit High speed trains and the EU Is also promoting that.
@@Elatenl Sir James said private jets too. They are absolutely not public transport and is a massive waste. For planes the longer routes will have to use fuel for a while longer for sure. But short haul planes should be electric/hydrogen or replaced by high speed rail. A lot of flights have been replaced by rail travel in Europe already.
@@Elatenl I disagree, I didn't specifically mention it but, airlines include cargo planes that carry goods and military aircrafts that probably burn more fossi in one day than personal vehicles burn in a year..
This change has to include any form of transport that uses fossil fuels.
Airplanes are slowly switching to a mixture of bio fuels and hydrogen
Most petrol cars can run on ethanol after a remap or with a few mods and there is biodiesel currently sold at the pumps in Sweden so really not much different to now.
And i bet mods can also work other way around.
Why not replace the petrol engine with electric cell and battery? It would solve the emission problem. Biofuel, ethanol or whatever aren't reduce the pollution.
@@lawrencekling8598 "Why not replace the petrol engine with electric cell and battery?"
Is there enough electricity to handle that?
"so really not much different to now."
Except the cost of fuel will be higher and land growing food would be reallocated for fuel.
@@wisenber What do you think of battery for? One can recharge it by plugged in
What is the point if they will use even worst materials to make batteries and electric parts?
Because Lithium byproducts and electric motors won't create greenhouse warming.
cheap labor to mine those materials, for now. charging them? it will be followed by problems of disregarding those materials in future
@@quantuman100 you need just lithium? What about cobalt? Did looked to see how they are extracted? Or the countries with the most resources? The environment and social impact in those areas?
What are the worst materials? Batteries are mostly graphite.
@@quantuman100 there are other things man you need. Also ev are not good as you think
This is a lie. This won't happen.
Exactly! They will just extend this in 2040 eventually
already happening. I see more and more EVs every month. My next car will be electric too.
If you come to big cities in China, like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, nearly 1/3 of the cars are ev, and the energy cost of electricity is just 1/10 of the oil price per kilometer
Impressive, very nice. Now let's talk about banning coal
We would be already on the way out of coal if someone didn't like to play hoi4 a big too much.
Well tell that to GB, Germany and China. How else do you plan on powering EVs that is sustainable.
Make sure we get retraining on building a fire in our cave when the power is gone.
@@Andrew-zv4fm i literally told that to them
Wouldn't it make more sense to convert all gas vehicles to hybrid, immediately, than it would to get rid of them? Half of the emissions come from making a new car in the first place.
No point in arguing with communist central planning. The western Europe economy is disintegrating anyway.
And most of the CO2 emissions come from building EVs.
Just restructure cities like Amsterdam. Reduce car uses by making it harder to drive and easier to bike.
Fossil fuels are bad, not internal combustion engines.
Does that include coal-derived Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuels?
You can easily electrolyte water to fuel a car or truck - I run a 1999 Ranger on HHO gas and have for years, using a generator under the hood. Electric vehicles, especially in rural areas, are NOT practical, given today's price gouging by electric utilities, lack of range of the vehicles, no charging stations any where and exctremely high cost of said vehicles. BTW I live is Southeastern Kentucky USA. I built the Ranger from several junkyard wrecks. It has the 2.5 Liter 4 cylinder engine with 223000 miles on the engine.
I agree with HHO , it works ! I installed the water 4 gas version in 2008 and used it as a gas supplement in my 1600 automatic toyota corolla for 4 years. SAved a lot of money in fuel costs and turned out to be beneficial for the engine as well.
EV cars are just silly
Why are they allowing a CHINESE fully owned plant?!? That just SCREAMS of political favors through the roof!!!
Some politicians got greased.
What we need are EV BATTERIES that DON'T POLLUTE when they are MADE!!!!
EV Cars take 6 years to ACTUALLY become carbon neutral. BIG UPFRONT carbon waste
Nothing will best petrol or diesel for the next 500 years.
How good can going electric be if the government has to get involved.
Dumb statement predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of modern economics. What part of your nation industry do you think your government isn't involved in? What, do the billions of dollars of subsidies, tax cuts, breaks, and exemptions in the fossil fuel industry suddenly not exist? Is the modern fossil fuel industry as profitable and extant as it is, as a consequence of it's own economics and not massive government interference and the establishment of an OPEC pricing cartel, all of a sudden? Are the tax breaks and capital gains exceptions etc afforded to investors who allocate capital toward dividend-earning and price-appreciating assets suddenly non-existent and unreal because it contradicts your preconceived notion of how wealth and profit work? Clearly not. Whether or not a government props up or actively prevents particular industries from succeeding is *literally one of the fundamental purposes of a bourgeoisie state within a capitalist society: manipulating economics and business interests for the perceived benefit of 'the nation'.* Every single capitalist state does this, and frankly the extent to which they do it is a function of their wealth and economic power: America is the nation most active in manipulating, subsidizing, and contorting it's own economics for the benefit of already established, massive corporations, and ensuring that every other nation in the world contorts their own industrial policy for the benefit of American shareholders through the exercise of unmatched hegemonic imperial military-industrial power.
If your argument really is "government intervention = bad", well, I hate to break it to you, but it's *capitalism itself* that is ensuring the government intervention, and doing so *in favour of capital interests* with zero thought or consideration for its impact on any individuals other than the rich and wealthy magnates at the top of said shareholder hierarchies.
Battery production is worse for the environment than running a Diesel car for years (2-5 depending on where your lithium is from) …not to mention that a Diesel can potentially run for a million kilometers, while an electric car battery will be useless after an average of 8 years due to capacity degradation. Additionally it’s important to note the massive effect temperature and weight have on the range of an electric car. Making them useless for towing, longer trips or harsh weather (which is more commonplace due to global warming). This is what you get when politicians and reporters make government policy and not engineers.
EV's are actually far better for the environment, and lets not forget the damage to our air quality caused by ICE cars, especially diesels. New battery tech will outlive the car, and Norway nearly 90% of new car sales are EV. And just in case you didn't know. Norway is not known for being warm.
@@thewatcher5822 Please provide data or any figures which highlight EVs being better in the long term. They are a new technology only being implemented in the past 2 years on an industrial scale, resulting in a lack of data. Older Tesla’s for example on average last 6-8 years ( feel free to check customer support websites) before you need to buy a new battery pack which can cost upto 20-30,000 dollars ( the value of a new car). Additionally most Sulfates and nitrates which impact air quality come from heavier fuels used in large trucks not cars. Cars on average account for approximately 8% of all emissions. If you want to fix general air quality you need to regulate the use of heavy fuels in trucks and cruise ships for example. ( Banning the 8 largest cruise liners, like the harmony of the seas, would save as much on emissions as a small country, like Croatia , going carbon neutral). Moreover EV sales in Norway are usually to people who commute around cities , not in the countryside or to individuals like farmers who need to transport heavier loads. Additionally this trend is a new one, lasting only the past 2-3 years, again not providing enough data to come to the conclusion that EVs work in the long term. The future should be a combination of EVs in urban areas, and internal combustion in the countryside and certain industries. Negating a concept (internal combustion) which has served humanity more than a century stifles innovation, and will harm individual people and the economy. All avenues must be explored and developed to prevent upcoming climate challenges, not just technology which is trendy at the time ( just like hydrogen fuel cells were in the the early 2000s.)
@@karlosamardzic4780 There have been many studies highlighting how much better EV's are. I am not going to speak for older Tesla's, but just check out the million mile battery to see where EV's are heading. Diesels destroy air quality by emmiting PM2, finr particulate matter that is capable of entering our bloodstreams through the lungs, causing all sorts of medical conditions, including affecting brain development.
ICE is the biggest polluter in our towns and cities, and are the easiest to tackle. There are plenty of moves being made to clean up other transport. Including shipping and aviation.
EV sales in Norway I repeat make up nearly 90% of new car sales. That is new car sales, any car now sold in Norway is basically EV.
I agree all relevant technology should be developed to tackle climate change. EV's will play their part in that, as will be renewables, storage systems. more efficient heating systems etc, and of course moving away from fossil fuels.
The problem was never the car or it's engine, only the fuel.
So please stop calling them "fossil fuel cars". Just say the ban is on fossil fuels.
Because there is no difference in a car that uses petrol vs synthetic fuels. No modifications necessary to run on the stuff. They can even be mixed.
yes but the catalyzer ?
But they are not banning fossil fuel.
there are no batteries that are produced sustainably nor cruelty-free
Agreed …. But should we stop innovation in this sector? Do you know how exponentially different batteries are today than 5 years ago ? Less materials are used and the designs will get better over time …. Nuclear and fusion are the future of energy and that would still mean an electric car world
@@UnbrokenWillll innovation is great, but right now replacing fuel with batteries is just replacing one problem with another... i'm also typing this message on a phone with a battery, so i'm hoping science will find ways to reduce waste and improve how recyclable it is
@@sasavukelic the only way to improve is to innovate and not shun battery technology. Even with fusion or nuclear we would still need batteries for energy…. Right now batteries are made with slave labor and unsustainable resources…. But in the last 4 years new forms of batteries have changed significantly in resources used and production. Nuclear diamond batteries are in the early stage of understanding… new methods thy don’t use cobalt are being developed…. Batteries are here to stay we just need a better understanding of everything encompassing this tech , from efficiency to manufacturing to source materials
@@sasavukelic in the beginning of production batteries pollute more than fossil fuels 100% but over the course of years batteries are more efficient and will pollute the environment less than carbon emissions. Right now the electricity used in electric cars still comes form fossil fuels until we change that . And currently there isn’t enough cobalt in the entire world for everyone to have electric cars … new battery tech has to be innovated using sustainable materials… more research and development is needed
You need oil and gas to produce batteries
Production of synthetic hydrocarbon is even worse for greenhouse gasses.
The mass production of these is essentially millions of cars moved from road to factory plant.
No it's not. The production of synthetic fuels can be completely carbon neutral.
Right now, Porsche and ExxonMobil have a synthetic fuel production facility in Patagonia that is 100% powered using wind farms.
@@error404blah Until I see their reaction mechanism and source for these ingredients, I'll believe you.
After all, you can check all this information in their patents listed on WIPO for their synthetic diesel and they use sulfur compound catalyst in the high heat of over 350Celsius in their reactor to make it.
Not to mention the amount of palm trees require.
And in some places, using biodegradable products allows big corporation to get away and skewing ing carbon footprint data by not including deforrestation.
Not if you use clean sources.
They will produce synthetic gasoline and diesel from hundreds of millions of tons of German brown coal just like the Germans did during World War 2.
To expect a chinese factory will respect the environmental norms in other country is a joke!!
All companies go with local regulations. You worry too much.
Thank you pitin for helping the world to get off of the product you produce. All one of them.
So ICE cars will be sold after 2035. Fossil fuels will be sold after 2035.
So what's preventing you from putting more fossil fuel into your car made after 2035? Even if it's made for ethanol, it can probably still take E95.
the thing is efuel uses so much more power to produce unless you own a top end hyper car no one will be able to afford it - even with full production the price is looking at x5 the current fuel and that's before any tax.
That should be solved once production and use scales up.
@@error404blah nope the figure I have seen is not going scale well plus using 5 times more power - oil refining normally lists you in the top 3 of power users in the country and like I said the EU and countries will tax it as well
@@error404blah "That should be solved once production and use scales up."
It's matter of physics, not scale. A unit of gas or oil will always be more energy dense than the raw ingredients for biofuels.
The government should not regulate this. Free market does. If it uses a lot of electricity then the price will be higher and it will be not competitive. The electric cars require batteries, lithium rare metals etc, Which comes to the price of a car. In the end, free market is self-regulating system. And government should not interfere. The goal is to reduce CO2 emissions. Both solutions are fine.
@@MysliusLT the free market doesn't care about external costs, that's why these things need to me regulated. Or would you like that some factory polluting the air without restrictions where you live? Because there's no free market incentive for them not to
WILL NOT WORK. 😂
What about co2 emitting electricity. Ban that aswell
Renewables are now the cheapest and fastest growing in the energy sector. The grids will only ever get cleaner.
What a rubbish!!!! Then you provide me with an free electric car if you want me to drive it..!!!! I barely paying my bills, now you are forcing me to buy electric car....
In the end, this exemption for "green" liquid fuels is not going to make that much difference. It's just not going to be possible to produce such fuels in sufficient quantities to enable ICE to be much of the market. To the degree that such cars are still produced in 2035, we could see an interesting spectacle, as new cars fill up with e-fuels, while old cars fill up with POGAD (Plain Old Gasoline And Diesel).
no chance
The efuels exception doesn’t make much sense, it just seems like an excuse to keep selling petrol vehicles. The whole exotic cars excuse seems extremely weak, they could just apply for an exception and get subjected to even more taxes.
I think a hard cut-off date is better than stretching it with the German exception.
For how long is the German exception with e-fuels? That also needs a hard cut-off date.
Why?
@@1966Birger because i like the germans more this way. Cuted-off
Not gonna happen. Ever.
Note the comment with over 400 likes. This is how the right-wing makes it appear they are far more popular than they are in reality. Comments on this channel rarely ever get even 100, and certainly not when the only other highly liked comments are in the 20's.
Nationalize the fossil fuel industry
Why do we do this to ourselves? We’ve lost our minds.
To survive
Why did it take so long to make such a necessary decision? Have we lost our minds?
Because technocrats in Brussels have disconnected completely from harsh reality in which most citizens of Europe live, especially now? Looks like Parisians were right after all about how to talk to politicians about imposing too strict new legal obligations on society. A day ago European would marvel at people in Israel and what the current upheaval is all about. My lucky guess is that in near future people in Israel will marvel an similar events in Europe wondering what it's all about. Let's remind ourselves of this day and this decision when it comes to this. IN my humble view as for Brussels- less of free Viagra and more contact with regular citizens and taxpayers highly adviseable therapy against such decision-making process.
@@tomlxyz How?
All them caravan towing Dutchies on the Autobahn now driving BEVs, no problems with refulling. Good to see that the BEVs still have environmentally friendly central locking, infotainment and remote boot operation.
Cars were a bad idea.
As realistic as banning slave trade by the Congress of Vienna. 2035 is around ~12 years. Where are the supply chains and which European companies is making so many cars?
Even EU abides by highest standards of eco protection law, how about member countries of South-South cooperation (SSC)? They are poor countries.
More horses and donkeys could help..... methanol nethanol, othanal, pothanol
The people who will need ICE cars are the ones who can't afford EVs.
EVs will be cheaper over time. But with how many gimmicks they throw on them not soon enough.
Plus I wonder how people in apartments without driveways or who park on streets will charge them. Cables all over the sidewalks?Will energy costs go up? Just so many issues.
I somehow feel like by 2035 this will be too little to late
Why do you want to cut carbon emissions? She doesn't even talk about hydrogen as a fuel. There are a lot of variables here.
Praise the efuels, and the discovery of capturing plants energy
They say to make efuel takes x5 more electricity to make.... let's put that into context - today if you list all countries' electricity users running a petrochemical refinery station comes normally in the top 3 (dependent on the country sometimes the top 5) of electricity users... so this last throw of gas and oil companies what to use even more electricity power?
" today if you list all countries' electricity users running a petrochemical refinery station comes normally in the top 3"
Yet the number of BTU exceed the amount going in. However, there is little dispute that the biofuels require more costs and resources to produce.
Who are 'they'?
@@bartandaelus359 Boffins
Been watching Extrapolations on Apple and it’s like watching a Prophecy slowly come true
I hope "e-fuels" will keep ICEs going for car enthusiasts and motorsport, driving only electric is boring.
I hope ya’ll like walking. Or you could burn a even more diesel to upgrade your electrical grid. How are those coal power plants with the carbon emissions since you don’t have enough nuclear to cover the base load?
Already got my bicycle ready for when my petrol car roadtax gets too expensive lol
So the poor countries will have no cars now? Sweet.
What does not emitting CO2 from the car itself have to do with emitting less CO2 in general?
We extract fossil fuels from the ground, that's stored CO2 accumulated over millions of years. For example, if you capture CO2 and use it to make fuel (with renewable sources), the net CO2 in the atmosphere would not change
@@antoniousai1989 are you ok ? ofc it will drop drastically in that case
@@antoniousai1989 We need that CO2 to prevent global C3 photosynthesis from shutting down.
@@gregorymalchuk272 ROFL, how much CO2 do you think we can capture? We burned fossil fuels for 200 years and we barely increase it. The CO2 emitted is significant for climate change but is in no way comparable to the total amount there is in the atmosphere.
@@antoniousai1989 Could you explain why you think that climate change is an urgent problem? Like, because it hurts people, right?
So how much fossil fuel is used to mine cobalt and lithium for your EVs’ batteries?
🤫
any company who is starting to build a lithium battery plant that wont be open until 2028 is crazy. By 2030 we wont even be using lithium anymore.
every thing will be
BANNED
The EU has agreed this , but changing all the fuel infrastructure and increasing the electric generation capacity ( non oil based) will be another question , and maybe not attainable . Only cities could be viable for the change to all electric . Can Rail , aviation , Road transport be changed and at what cost and time scale . The EU is not realistic and the politicians are totally unaccountable for the problems and mess they create
greens dont have 50%+ across eu.
Why not just release the patents? it seems so much easier than ICE or EV's. I want either an ICE car with the best possible carbeurator. I know there are really good carbeurator patents sitting on the shelves. Also I want to know how Stan Meyers ran his car on water before he was poisoned. There are many better possibilities but no one is paying mainstream media to talk about them
humans riding/using the cars emit CO2 (so the vehicle becomes CO2-emitting).... will those be banned as well?
New technologies in battery design and materials will make this entire post a non-story.
Oh come on german ! You still using coal for electricity .. not the best coal but the worst coal … 😂😂😂😂
OLD GUY SAID GERMAN SHOULD COME OUT SAY USA DID IT +WHO?
E-Tarded
That's the human race
Hopefully everything will be walkable so you can find anything you need by simply walking to it, right Germany?
Hahaha one more disastrous policy EU is taking. Surprised EU are not offing people yet bc of Co2 ❤😂
@@NDSMD well we know Americans, Chinese and Russians don't mind; living in cities that give you Asama, Mercury in baby formula, poisoned water, carcinogenic foods...
The list is long.
What about all the nuclear fallout, can that be used as a way to charge batteries?
Just asking…
Its not very encouraging buying electric car - infrastructure is not there, neither portable replaceable battery developed.
Ireland ☘️
No new combustion plant will come in eu
This is just wonderful! There is still hope for the combustion engine, thanks germany
i see combustion engines as primitive as coal steam trains
@@Alan-cl2ix they are not currently tho. If they were then we all would drive alternatives.
But we don't bc the alternative is not as universally practical for a large range of people from different economic backgrounds as ICE cars are.
The benefits of an E-Motor does not currently outweigh the cons of the battery, weight and charging. If ICE cars are primitive then EVs or alternatives would do everything better just like modern trains are better at everything a steam engined locomotive can do. But this is not the case yet, and might not ever be the case unless battery technology reaches a sort of boom in advancement. But by the time it will, combustion cars will become better too.
@@Alan-cl2ix That comment just shows how little you actually know about the topic. But as always, the minority with the least knowledge is always the one screaming the loudest.
@@Alan-cl2ix the sound generated by a BMW M8 is far superior than an EV. Ev's are in overall good if manufacturing-production of electricity for these cars-disposale of used batteries are sorted out. But if the production of good carbuerator with more proper consumption of fuel is matched with the advent of synthetic fuel, it will allow the manufacturers to not RE-Design the engine it has to run those wheels. At the end, a customer will prefer a car with less maintenance cost it will require to fine tune it's performance.
We don't need to replace all the ICE cars with EVs, we need is to use less cars... more car sharing systems, etc...
basicly banning poor people from buying car
hydrogen is the way forward
It really isn't.
The materials to make the batteries for the electric cars runs out in 2034 so perfect timing! 😂 enjoy walking!
What materials are those?
Synthetic fuel will keep older cars on the road,Im fine about that because I cant afford a Hybrid or Electric car anyway....
The plan for people like you is not to drive a car. Everything else is fairytales.
One question: if I buy an fossil fuel car in 2035, would I be able to sell it later, let’s say 5 years later in 2040?
Lol, worry about it in 2035. You make planning to buy a car more serious than buying a home.
@Alex Pokrandt cars are not the most crucial issue for the climate crisis. It's energy production that's the issue and production/industry.
The majority of CO2 regarding vehicles is done by busses, Trucks and Semis...
If 20% of the population keeps driving combustion engines past 2035, that by itself won't be the reason why there hasn't been any change in the climate crisis. It's mostly energy production, industry and central heating and AC cooling that pushes global warming.
Y'all greenis are dramatic af.
You could sell it but who will want a petrol car by then?
Soon I will have my electric Tank😅
by 2035 Electic price will be more expensive then fuel :D
I dont know what synthetic fuels they have in mind but for instance coal liquefaction generates large amounts of CO2 and would be no better then using fossil fuels. Im all for leaving the world a better place then I found it, but this is all about control.
Nooo, this is all about the profit margin of massive companies; the same companies responsible for us arriving at this situation in the first place. Frankly, this politicking by Germany should be considered what it actually is: a crime against humanity; specifically, a crime against all future generations.
No, that is not what they intend to use. Google e.g. Porsche efuel chile, where they use wind power to generate synthetic fuel out of the CO2 already in the air. It requires eneregy, of course, but on the other hand it doesn't matter if they produce a lot one day and nothing the next day, which is why we cannot rely on wind power as a base for the electricity grid.
Good luck with that! What is this? Star Trek?
The EU strikes again.
Companies like Opel and other scammers will 'test' if the CO2 emission is within limits.... :) :) :)
Earth is already on track to doom, so better trying new things if we want to change that even if it seems dangerous!!!
If synthetic fuel is still cheaper than electric, I'll take the engine noise because I like fun.
why do you want to kill your cash cow ,,,,....parts ...all the jobs will go
please dont put yourself in another gas crisis europe smh