Rumour Mill: Netherlands looks to ban all non-electric cars by 2025

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,973
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
@ Prizrak:
People adapt. It is how we have survived as a species. Either adapt or learn how to make your own gasoline(which would also be a case of adapting).
Yes people do adapt but the definition of progress is going forward not backward.
Yes, make it so! And please, do you honestly believe that BEVs are "by all accounts worse"? There is exaggeration and everything... but that claim is simply embarassing.
O'rly?
Issues with batteries:
Charge times
Unstable "fuel" - batteries are highly affected by ambient temperature, much more than dead dinos (I know its algae but dinos are cooler)
Extremely non-linear rate of consumption - HVAC makes a huge difference to real world "fuel" economy for BEVs. This makes it hard to estimate range correctly
Very limited lifespan - Batteries last about 8-10 years (currently) and are not cheap, that's a huge maintenance cost.
Power generation - fossil fuels are net positive energy storage, as in we put in less energy to get them than we get out of them, while batteries are a net negative since nothing is ever 100% efficient. How are we generating the power to store in the first place?

Additionally things you cannot do with a BEV right now: long distance cargo hauling, marine propulsion, railroad propulsion*, airplane propulsion**, power generation, construction, mining, farming, etc...

*Yes they are serial hybrids but they still use a diesel engine.
**Not sure if jets would be considered ICE but sure as fuck can't run on electricity.


I find it fascinating how much "from my cold dead hands" is going on in regards to certain issues...
I find it fascinating that you completely dismiss actual legitimate arguments. You also don't even bother reading certain arguments, as I already said BEVs can and do work for many people and that's great they can certainly keep and enjoy them but the topic is forcing
to use them is idiotic. They simply cannot fully replace ICE even for personal transportation in 10 or even 20 years.

See below:
BEV is simply nowhere near being good enough to replace ICE, not now not in 10 or even 20 years. There is plain no technology at the moment that could be used and if something new would come out today it would still take a better part of a decade to hit production. And that's just for batterie themselves not new cars that could utilize them.

Cars are insanely complex, look at how long platforms stay around for. S197 was built for 10 years before being replaced and there was no radically new technology required to develop the successor.
 
Last edited:

Cowboy

My name is Sheridan
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,805
It really depends on what metric you are using. How often do you drive more than 100 miles at a time?
It does not matter if you do it every day or once in 5 years, the point is that you need to be able and allowed to do it when you want to, 'freedom of movement' I think it's called, and it's a basic human right, forcing golfcarts on people takes away that right.
 
Last edited:

Cowboy

My name is Sheridan
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,805
Fine, in my case that would be 15-20 times a year, excluding longer holiday drives, again, 20 times, 1time, or 365 times, it does not matter......
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
19,254
Location
Michigan USA
Now extend that out to the range of most Tesla products, 200 miles. That is 100 miles in each direction, without recharging.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,617
Location
near Cologne
It does not matter if you do it every day or once in 5 years, the point is that you need to be able and allowed to do it when you want to, 'freedom of movement' I think it's called, and it's a basic human right, forcing golfcarts on people takes away that right.
You're talking as if planes, trains and buses don't exist. While I don't agree with banning conventional cars, I also disagree with your idea that our freedom of movement depends on the internal combustion engine.
 

Cowboy

My name is Sheridan
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,805
Now extend that out to the range of most Tesla products, 200 miles. That is 100 miles in each direction, without recharging.
Still doesn't matter, there will always be that guy who goes on a 1000 mile drive at the spur of the moment, he should have the right and ability to do so, if he does not it's a step backwards.

You're talking as if planes, trains and buses don't exist. While I don't agree with banning conventional cars, I also disagree with your idea that our freedom of movement depends on the internal combustion engine.
It does not depend on the internal combustion engine, it depends on our right to buy something that suits our travelling needs and desires, BEV aint it.
 
Last edited:

eizbaer

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
5,620
Location
Aachen, Germany
Car(s)
Seat Leon
YA RLY! :p
... I was simply complaining about how you are unable to see any benefit from BEVs (you did say "by all accounts"). I know there are certain drawbacks and issues, some of which might well be solved by 2025/2035, you never know.

Also again, no, the topic is not about banning all ICEs or jet engines. It's about banning diesel and petrol cars (the article quoted actually contradicts itself - first its all ICE vehicles, then diesel+petrol cars) from the roads. So all those things you cannot currently do with BEVs? Not affected anyway...

I will disregard the net-energy bullshit about batteries there... what kind of fucked up metric are you trying to mis-use here? You're comparing a primary source of energy (fossil fuels) to a means of energy storage. Apples and oranges handgrenades, totally different thing! All energy storage has to be inherently net-energy negative, you can't store energy without losing some of it in the process.

The rest of your issues:
- charge times: only an issue if you're constantly in a hurry and don't have an additional 15min for every 300km or so (most certainly less in the future)
- unstable: temperature is an issue, I'll give you that. I'm hopeful that with some research this can at least be mitigated somewhat...
- HVAC: with the amount of data being collected from vehicles and available about whether and so forth, it is not even that much of a challenge to estimate range correctly... only somebody actually has to do it properly (which is not really happening, true)
- limited lifespan: an ICE also has a limited lifespan. there have been people driving EVs for more than 200k km and discover less than 10% of their range being lost due to battery ageing. and that's with the mostly rather conventional pioneer batteries in the model S. Even current batteries should be doing better than that already... so no, I don't think this is an actual issue anymore, much less in 10 years time.
- again for power generation: BEVs actually have the potential to increase the amount of energy generated from renewable sources...

To put this in here once more (I think I made this point earlier): I'm only trying to say there are huge benefits to widespread BEV adoption. Forcing people towards them is definitely not the perfect approach, I'd much rather see EVs convince people by being a better product. And I am certain the day will come when they will do just that. It will, nonetheless, be interesting to see the Dutch suffer through this...

Still doesn't matter, there will always be that guy who goes on a 1000 mile drive at the spur of the moment, he should have the right and ability to do so, if he does not it's a step backwards.


disclaimer: intentionally being an ass here and disregarding the fact that only 30% of Germanys power comes from renewables and that pollution from ICEs is of course not harmful to anybody:
And he can do just that with a BEV as well, without polluting his surroundings and shortening the lifespan of the people around him!
 
Last edited:

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,617
Location
near Cologne
It does not depend on the internal combustion engine, it depends on our right to buy something that suits our travelling needs and desires, BEV aint it.
That's an extremely broad definition of "freedom" and I hope you didn't spend a lot of time on it.
 

Cowboy

My name is Sheridan
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,805
Freedom is a term that can never be interpreted to broad, or protected to doggedly....history has proven that time and time again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,973
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
It really depends on what metric you are using. How often do you drive more than 100 miles at a time?
Irrelevant, I have no place to charge and about 15 gas stations within 5 minutes of my house. Even if I only drive 5 miles a week I will run out of battery at some point. Also point me at an electric car that can replace my Subaru and NOT cost as much as a 7series. (for the record Outback was bought for 3500 and maybe has another 2K in maintenance/repairs in it over like 4 years).

- - - Updated - - -

You're talking as if planes, trains and buses don't exist. While I don't agree with banning conventional cars, I also disagree with your idea that our freedom of movement depends on the internal combustion engine.
All generally more expensive than driving, not to mention quite a bit less convenient than jumping into my car.
 

Mitchi

Sierras für alle!
DONOR
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
5,395
Location
Lüneburg
Can I please have a hydrogen fuel cell car that I fill up with hydrogen generated by using e.g. the "wind power" that is currently going to waste? :-| That might even reduce the need for load-balancing through pumped-storage hydroelectricity.
QFT.

I still feel that when this electric car thing fails (not saying it definitely does!), engineers will go out and search ways for hydrogen fuel cell powered cars to work - decades after it should've come.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,973
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
YA RLY! :p
... I was simply complaining about how you are unable to see any benefit from BEVs (you did say "by all accounts"). I know there are certain drawbacks and issues, some of which might well be solved by 2025/2035, you never know.
Fair enough they are not worse by all accounts and even then depending on use cases.

Also again, no, the topic is not about banning all ICEs or jet engines. It's about banning diesel and petrol cars (the article quoted actually contradicts itself - first its all ICE vehicles, then diesel+petrol cars) from the roads. So all those things you cannot currently do with BEVs? Not affected anyway...
Even banning all ICE* cars (as in personal) is still moronic, give me a choice of propulsion and I'll choose what works for me. If I could get a BEV that does all the things I want and makes financial sense to me I would consider it, but don't force me into it. After all I doubt you would appreciate a mandate from the German government to only use Linux on your computer, even though there are many benefits to it.

*I'm ignoring fringe cases like LPG and such as they are just not that common.
I will disregard the net-energy bullshit about batteries there... what kind of fucked up metric are you trying to mis-use here? You're comparing a primary source of energy (fossil fuels) to a means of energy storage. Apples and oranges handgrenades, totally different thing! All energy storage has to be inherently net-energy negative, you can't store energy without losing some of it in the process.
I'm making a point that while fossil fuels are as you correctly pointed out
eizbaer said:
a primary source of energy
Batteries are not, so we still need some way of making the energy to put it into batteries. That means, in most cases, using fossil fuels as renewable energy is nowhere near where it needs to be and nuclear scares people.

The rest of your issues:
- charge times: only an issue if you're constantly in a hurry and don't have an additional 15min for every 300km or so (most certainly less in the future)
Or don't have a charger at home.

- limited lifespan: an ICE also has a limited lifespan. there have been people driving EVs for more than 200k km and discover less than 10% of their range being lost due to battery ageing. and that's with the mostly rather conventional pioneer batteries in the model S. Even current batteries should be doing better than that already... so no, I don't think this is an actual issue anymore, much less in 10 years time.
I believe Toyota gives you 8 years warranty on Prius battery (mileage is a little less relevant to batteries than simple age or rather number of cycles), so after that it's a crapshoot. You still don't know if it will get any better in 10 years and if they are as good as everyone says in 10 years people will buy them (if properly marketed).
- again for power generation: BEVs actually have the potential to increase the amount of energy generated from renewable sources...
As I already mentioned that hinges on people plugging in their EVs everytime they park and all parking spots having a charger. The former decreases convenience factor and the latter would be quite costly to build out and maintain, might actually cost more than it's worth.

To put this in here once more (I think I made this point earlier): I'm only trying to say there are huge benefits to widespread BEV adoption. Forcing people towards them is definitely not the perfect approach, I'd much rather see EVs convince people by being a better product. And I am certain the day will come when they will do just that. It will, nonetheless, be interesting to see the Dutch suffer through this...
This we agree on.
 

Mitchi

Sierras für alle!
DONOR
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
5,395
Location
Lüneburg
That's the conclusion that the Japanese car companies have come to as well - Toyota, Mitsu, Honda and Nissan all have apparently concluded that BEVs are not going anywhere and are now concentrating on FCEVs. Hyundai as well - in fact, Hyundai's FCEV is being mass produced and is available in certain areas of the US now - in one of the hottest segments:



https://www.hyundaiusa.com/tucsonfuelcell/index.aspx

The C/D review is worth reading too. http://www.caranddriver.com/hyundai/tucson-fuel-cell#
500 quid a month for a car with service and free fuel is AMAZING. Period. Seen one of these as a test mule in Hamburg, they're fantastic. Because they're a car ... as we know it.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
DONOR
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
3,996
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
As long as it doesn't have a Tesla badge and uses a fuel cell of some sort, I'm mostly cool with it. The sad thing is, battery tech will not have improved dramatically by that time. The only thing they can improve upon is the infrastructure.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,853
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
The rest of your issues:
- charge times: only an issue if you're constantly in a hurry and don't have an additional 15min for every 300km or so (most certainly less in the future)
Most people get pissed off if they run into a slow pump *now* that delays them 5 minutes. How much worse is it going to be when you have to stand around doing nothing and listening to angry people in line honk their horns at you for half an hour?

- unstable: temperature is an issue, I'll give you that. I'm hopeful that with some research this can at least be mitigated somewhat...
Ah, hoping. Well, it's been almost 200 years and trillions of dollars spent by all parties including governments on unlimited defense research budgets and it still hasn't been licked, sooo.... Yeah, keep hoping. But don't hold your breath for it.

- HVAC: with the amount of data being collected from vehicles and available about whether and so forth, it is not even that much of a challenge to estimate range correctly... only somebody actually has to do it properly (which is not really happening, true)
Which seems to indicate it's a bit more of a challenge than you think.

- limited lifespan: an ICE also has a limited lifespan. there have been people driving EVs for more than 200k km and discover less than 10% of their range being lost due to battery ageing. and that's with the mostly rather conventional pioneer batteries in the model S. Even current batteries should be doing better than that already... so no, I don't think this is an actual issue anymore, much less in 10 years time.
Erm, yeah, it's still an issue for LiPoly batteries. Also, unless there's been a mass market BEV I'm not aware of, almost all the 'electric vehicles' that have hit 200K (I'm assuming that's kilometers for reasons that will become clear in a sec) have actually been hybrids where there's been a gas motor running and propelling the vehicle for much of that time.

- again for power generation: BEVs actually have the potential to increase the amount of energy generated from renewable sources...
They also have the potential to cause more fossil-fuel based generation to be created instead - as their numbers increase, the more constant a demand they will make on the grid. The one thing renewables (except hydro) have proven is that they generally cannot be relied on to produce a steady baseline of power - and that when they do produce power it will be when it's least needed (no matter when it's called upon.)

- - - Updated - - -

You're talking as if planes, trains and buses don't exist.
No Fly List. No Ride List.

What was that again?
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,175
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
And how do you propose to compensate the owners of the cars being drained for the charge-discharge cycles you're stealing from them?

For that matter, say you start draining the cars in an area to charge a newcomer. Then someone comes out to go somewhere, notices his car is down, and goes to top up... Now you have double the charging demand, repeated as often as someone comes out to go someplace and decides he or she should charge to have the max available range.

On top of that, you *still* have to recharge the cars you stole charge from. You still have to get that power from somewhere, a power Ponzi scheme doesn't work without outside input.
Do you even read?

You ask about compensation for cycles... In the post right above yours I outline two options, I'm sure there are more.
How much an individual car gives to the grid at any given time varies. Driver at work? Give a lot. Working day about to end soon? Make sure enough juice is there. Driver on vacation? Sell all the capacity. Etc etc, countless options.
As for a Ponzi scheme with no outside input, you apparently didn't read again. My post has a figure how much net input you need.
As for the idea of a Ponzi scheme for power, people build pumped storage plants just for this. Buy cheap energy, pump water, lose a few percent, sell expensive energy by dumping water through turbines. Those businesses aren't crazy. There is a market for grid stabilisation today, and this market will grow with more intermittent renewable generation, and it will grow with proliferation of fast car chargers.

- - - Updated - - -

They also have the potential to cause more fossil-fuel based generation to be created instead - as their numbers increase, the more constant a demand they will make on the grid. The one thing renewables (except hydro) have proven is that they generally cannot be relied on to produce a steady baseline of power - and that when they do produce power it will be when it's least needed (no matter when it's called upon).
Ubiquitous bevs aren't the problem, they're the solution. Charge when renewable power is abundant and cheap. Discharge when renewable power is scarce and expensive, ???, profit.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,853
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
So where does all the extra power come from to make all the hydrogen that will power these? Hydrogen power is just another way to store energy, but it is somewhat less efficient at doing it. Not to mention all the other little problems of availability and infrastructure.
As calvinhobbes pointed out, you could put your wind farms to use making hydrogen through electrolysis and simply adapt the existing fueling station infrastructure to distribute it. Wind farms turn out to suck at baseline generation but using them for this would be an excellent adaptation well suited to the nature of wind generation. You can also use solar (which is also inconsistent) to do this.

Further, you're not limited to just one method for generating hydrogen. If you have no surplus water to be used in electrolysis but you have lots of natural gas, you can use the steam methane reforming process to convert CH4 into 4H2. Since this is a process similar to an oil refinery, the natural gas provides both the raw materials to be refined as well as the fuel for the refinery. Another method currently being used is gasification, where heat is applied to biomass in a controlled O2 environment to produce methane that is then run through the steam reforming process.

Current methods in R&D to produce hydrogen include:

Photo-electro-chemical reforming: Solar concentrators and semiconductors make hydrogen from water (not electrolysis).
Renewable liquid reforming: Alcohol or biodiesel derived from biomass reacts with steam to make hydrogen.
Nuclear high temp reforming: Nuclear reactor waste heat is used to make electrolysis more efficient.
High temp thermochemical: Solar concentrators split water without the application of electricity.
Biological: Some microbes emit hydrogen as part of their natural processes, which can be harvested.

Another interesting point: It's actually as cheap to make hydrogen as it is to make fossil fuels for the most part, sometimes even cheaper. The primary cost driver in hydrogen is transportation and storage, which can cost in excess of ten times the production cost, mostly due to the low volumes at current. Should this pick up, then the price will come way down as storage and transport solutions will be mass produced.

- - - Updated - - -

Suspended licence and the need for one in the first place.

Ball's in your court. ;)
You can appeal your license suspension, you can get an occupational or 'hardship' license.

You cannot appeal being listed on the No Fly List. Once you are on it, good luck getting off it.

Your turn.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you even read?

You ask about compensation for cycles... In the post right above yours I outline two options, I'm sure there are more.
How much an individual car gives to the grid at any given time varies. Driver at work? Give a lot. Working day about to end soon? Make sure enough juice is there. Driver on vacation? Sell all the capacity. Etc etc, countless options.
Driver at work? Here's noon, driver decides to go out to lunch and run some errands on the lunch hour... and the car's at 40%, plus it's really hot out so it's more like 20% usable with the airconditioning on... Oooh, I guess you're not going anywhere today.

As for a Ponzi scheme with no outside input, you apparently didn't read again. My post has a figure how much net input you need.
You'd still need significant net input at all times, enough to require massive new non-renewable generation and grid reconstruction. We had people promising that the wind farms we put up in Texas would obviate both and they had similarly nice figures to back them up.

They lied. We're having to install large numbers of peaking/backup natural gas plants and massively upgrade the grid.

As for the idea of a Ponzi scheme for power, people build pumped storage plants just for this. Buy cheap energy, pump water, lose a few percent, sell expensive energy by dumping water through turbines. Those businesses aren't crazy. There is a market for grid stabilisation today, and this market will grow with more intermittent renewable generation, and it will grow with proliferation of fast car chargers.
Pumped storage plants are interesting but only if you already have the resources for hydropower on some scale in the first place. If you don't, you can't use them. And again, that's only deferring things - even pumped storage runs out.


Ubiquitous bevs aren't the problem, they're the solution. Charge when renewable power is abundant and cheap. Discharge when renewable power is scarce and expensive, ???, profit.
"A high pressure dome has formed over the South today, wind speeds are negligible and will remain so for the next two weeks as the temperatures climb."

So, what do you do when the renewable power is not abundant or cheap because there's no wind to drive the generators and your water reservoir is low because you've either exhausted it or there's a drought, hm?
 
Top