This could be pivotal for ICE

[Nosevi]

Over the past few years I've argued on here there's a possibility that efuels could somehow break through and put an end to the vision many have of a near future with nothing but electric vehicles. Think I first mentioned it here but I've bleated on about it quite a few times:

https://www.clubscuderia.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?60609-Is-this-the-answer&highlight=

Several have disagreed saying the forward drive towards 100% EV is inevitable regardless of arguments about cost of new vehicles and infrastructure, as well as the extremely relevant argument that efuel powered vehicles are in fact greener than EVs. It's a bit like touch screens in cars or autonomous ubers - some just can't help but see all new tech as better. :wink3:

Anyway, some may have been watching developments in Europe who arguably lead the charge to ban ICE and who have now done a massive U turn, agreeing that ICE vehicles can be sold after 2035 as long as they run on efuel. I don't think you can underestimate the importance of this, not only does it allow ICE vehicles to continue to be made and sold, it gives a massive incentive for the automotive sector to start following Porsche and invest in efuel production.

Be interested in opinions but this could be a huge moment.

https://www.realclearenergy.org/art..._may_be_rejecting_the_ev_kool-aid_892594.html

 

[A348W]

Common sense, or otherwise known as reality will eventually prevail.

EV is part of the solution, it certainly is not The solution. There isnt enough electricity for everyone to drive an ev, let alone capacity in the infrastructure system, nor will there ever be and thats just Uk, other countries? and thats before we get to natural resources required to make batteries. our brain dead politicians and dim civil servants just pandering to the lobbyists and latest “trend”, to the detriment of everything else.

autonomous cars; dont get me started…will people accept software deciding who dies? a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

the only reason current government hasn’t followed the eu is they know its the next government that will have to make this decision, as such they can take the high ground as they know they are unlikely to be in office.

efuels make a lot of sense. infrastructure is there already and builds on proven ice technology. but wont be lead by uk as ev is the only answer!!!

planet is buggered anyway at least as far as from man made influence; eg they have just bulldozed about 100 acres of good arable land at a local motorway junction to build 1/2 dozen 250,000 m2 plus warehouses. how many ev miles; once they actually provide a net benefit to the environment (70,000 miles according to volvo) do we have to drive to compensate for the tons of emissions from the concrete and trucks etc for the warehouses; not to mention what are they storing that didnt need storing last year…growth!!! be fascinated to hear how a world based on growth is compatible with environmental sustainability? note none of the warehouses have any form of renewable energy, eg solar panels on the roof!!! they are doing similar not far away! and another site approved just up
the m5!

 

[Nosevi]

I think reality has just prevailed, at least as far as the EU are concerned, which is why I think this is a pivotal moment. I doubt the UK won't follow when they look at the alternatives:

1 - A monumental infrastructure change requiring 'upgrading' the national grid to support charging of millions of EVs, the infrastructure required to allow charging of all these EVs at services etc, provide charging of EVs to everyone who has 'on street parking', the requirement for everyone to buy EVs and the inevitable loss of freedom for people where that doesn't work, and the loss of fuel revenue receipts which currently bring in about £25 Billion a year.

2 - Start looking at ways to scale efuel production and have every new car as well as all old cars drive around carbon neutral while avoiding the harm to the environment that battery production causes especially in terms of the water courses around where the raw materials are mined, something the EV lobby conveniently ignore.

My argument has always been about personal freedom - EVs only work for certain sectors of society, mainly relatively well off town and city dwellers, they don't work as well in other settings so many people would lose at least some freedom if 100% EV is eventually forced on them. But there's another extremely compelling argument - cost. The cost of going 100% EV for both the country and the individual is huge. It's also pointless given the alternative.

Hats off to the EU for finally seeing sense. That's a sentence I've not often used :laugh:

 

[Kyodo]

Wise words both. I think we all agree that EV's are part of the solution but it's finally great to see some sense, that they are not the total solution.

 

[mon the fish]

Agree with all Pete's points, but the loss of fuel tax revenue is easy enough for them to fix - road pricing, or some kind of meter on chargers/apps.

The big issue I see that hasn't really been touched upon is that I think the rush to EV will actually increase car ownership. People will see that the EV is great for the local stuff, not so much for the longer trips; hence I think they may hedge their bets and run two cars, where previously one ICE car did everything they needed.

When I was young, my mum didn't drive and we had one car. One EV wouldn't have fitted around our needs, even assuming a better charging infrastructure than today. Dad would have had to have two cars, or we would have had to accept that we weren't going to visit relatives as often due to the hassle

 

[Nosevi]

Agree with all Pete's points, but the loss of fuel tax revenue is easy enough for them to fix - road pricing, or some kind of meter on chargers/apps.

The big issue I see that hasn't really been touched upon is that I think the rush to EV will actually increase car ownership. People will see that the EV is great for the local stuff, not so much for the longer trips; hence I think they may hedge their bets and run two cars, where previously one ICE car did everything they needed.

When I was young, my mum didn't drive and we had one car. One EV wouldn't have fitted around our needs, even assuming a better charging infrastructure than today. Dad would have had to have two cars, or we would have had to accept that we weren't going to visit relatives as often due to the hassle

Your point about simply charging EV users with road pricing or metering on charging points so the electricity used to charge your car is more expensive than that used for other things to account for the loss of fuel duty is a good one, but there is one minor catch - they haven't done that to this point. It'd be a brave government (and I've yet to come across one) who would tell everyone they had to drive an EV and then at a later date start charging a tax on the electricity to drive one. I really don't think they could, or to be more precise would, ever do that.

I agree about EVs being a useful addition to having an ICE car and that may well be the route we go down eventually - an EV charged off our own solar panels (if we get them) for local running about, an ICE vehicle for longer journeys. I'm not in any way against EVs, I am against people being forced to buy them when perfectly good alternatives exist.