Germany bans the internal combustion engine

brokcanadian

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
So this just in...Germany has voted to ban the internal combustion engine by 2030 (13 years from now) seems likely they've solved the sprinter problem

I don't expect North America to follow, but it has interesting consequences to the rest of the world if the EU follows...we're all mostly driving Euro style vans now

And I thought all I had to worry about was self driving vans

Oh here's the link
Germany to Ban Internal Combustion by 2030
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Another knee jerk reaction to a knee jerk reaction. If they are really serious about the environment then only metals mined by equipment using non-internal combustion engines, zero emissions metal processing and zero emissions electricity could be used in the manufacture of cars and batteries.

If the EU goes along with this I bet they don't ban the export of vehicles with internal combustion engines to markets outside the EU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brokcanadian

brokcanadian

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
That would be a silver lining...I'm actually worried they'll stop improving the diesel vans in favor of the silly electrics though

Can you imagine adding 1000 lbs of battery and running out after 300 miles? o_O
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
The internal combustion engine will die all on its own without having to ban it or making a martyr out of it. Also, these things have a funny way of backfiring, i.e., the law of unintended consequences kicks in when we meddle too much. All laws, no matter how benign they may appear, have unintended consequences. No simple regulation or legislation to fix a complex problem has ever fixed a complex problem, and is always rife with unintended consequences. When San Francisco banned plastic shopping bags, immediately after the ban was implemented emergency room admissions experienced a sharp uptick for E. coli, salmonella and other bacterial infections. The rate of infections has remained at the same elevated level since the ban was introduced. Nearby counties have not seem the same rise in infections, but other towns who have banned plastic bags have. The San Francisco bag ban has resulted in a 46 percent increase in food-born illness deaths (5.5 more deaths per year).

People put meat and vegetables in the same reusable shopping bags, which is the reason for the spread of the bacteria. That and the fact that 97% of reusable shopping bags are never washed. Washing will kill the bacteria, but then again the hot water and detergent causes more environmental damage than the plastic bags do.

We didn't have to ban the highly polluting horse and buggy for the automobile to take over. We didn't have to ban BetaMax for VHS to take over. We didn't have to ban records for CDs to take over. We don't need to ban internal combustion engines for electric cars to take over. It will happen on its own, and with natural, manageable consequences, rather than whoops unintended ones.

The US has the most electric vehicles on the road, but in terms of percentage of vehicle registrations, its only 0.8 percent. Norway and Sweden have far fewer electric vehicles, but they have on the order of about 38% of all registrations. But it's California, where the most electric vehicles reside, where the unintended consequences are beginning to show up. People think electricity comes from a wall socket, but it comes from a power plant. An average house might only draw 2 kilowatts of power at times of peak demand. In comparison, a new electric vehicle on a dedicated circuit could draw 6.6 kilowatts, and up to 20 kilowatts in the case of an optional home fast charger for a Tesla Model S. That's like adding 3 or 4 houses to the neighborhood's electrical grid. The grid isn't designed for that. Several electric cars on one street have caused a blackout for the neighborhood.

Electric companies are scrambling to update the infrastructure, but of course the upgrades aren’t being paid for by the electric car owners, but by all rate payers. Some utilities are even offering special discounts to electric vehicle owners. In effect, the traditional car owners are subsidizing the often wealthier EV owners. I wonder if the liberal tree huggers had that in mind.

Electric vehicles may reduce some drawbacks of gas-powered cars, but they create a new set of environmental and economic problems. There are no easy solutions, only trade-offs. There is no free lunch.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
I kind of agree with Turtle. Natural evolution will determine the demise of this engine... By today's direction the combustion engine has almost outlived its usefulness ... Old clunky and filthy
 
  • Like
Reactions: TDave

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Old clunky and filthy.

You or internal combustion engines ?

Thought maybe you picked a new signature.
Combustion engine
Used fossil fuels and they can't take the stink out
They couldn't take the crap out of the horse and it's gone .... The engine will be gone one day... Just not right now.....
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Trains are the first electric driven items.... Huge generators power electric motors that power the train...
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
The internal combustion engine will die all on its own without having to ban it or making a martyr out of it. Also, these things have a funny way of backfiring, i.e., the law of unintended consequences kicks in when we meddle too much
Exactly! The proposed banning of internal combustion engines is a knee jerk reaction to a previous knee jerk reaction of promoting diesel engines with a tax break.


People think electricity comes from a wall socket...
It does, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere in this thread that magic is involved before it reaches the wall socket.

Electric companies are scrambling to update the infrastructure, but of course the upgrades aren’t being paid for by the electric car owners, but by all rate payers. Some utilities are even offering special discounts to electric vehicle owners. In effect, the traditional car owners are subsidizing the often wealthier EV owners. I wonder if the liberal tree huggers had that in mind.

Electric vehicles may reduce some drawbacks of gas-powered cars, but they create a new set of environmental and economic problems. There are no easy solutions, only trade-offs. There is no free lunch.
I also wonder if the liberal tree huggers consider where and how the lead and other rare metals come from for electric car batteries.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Trains are the first electric driven items.... Huge generators power electric motors that power the train...
Well, yes and no. The first known electric car of any kind was 1828 by a Hungarian. In 1834 a Vermont blacksmith came up with a small electric car that he ran on an electrified circular track. In 1835 the first car powered by non-rechargeable batteries was developed in The Netherlands. The German Flocken Elektrowagen of 1888 is regarded as the first real electric car of the world, because it had a reasonable range and thanks to the invention of lead acid batteries it could be recharged.

The first electric locomotive of any kind was invented in 1837, invented by a Scottsman, using basically the same non-rechargeable batteries as the 1835 car. But it could only haul 6 tons for a distance of a mile and a half. In 1840, based on the electrified track of 1834, a patent in London was issued for an electrified third rail for railroad trains (a similar patent was issued in the US in 1847). These early trains, even the ones on electrified rails, were used for short distances, mainly to move material in and out of mines (no coal soot or steam). Further advancements were made in 1879 with a 300 mile circular track using a third rail that carried passengers. Then it evolved to longer lines, overhead trams, and subways and tunnels. In the 1890s locomotives found their groove with AC electricity.

Basically, the same technological evolution that happened with electric cars was also immediately applied to trains. And while trains might not technically be the first electrified vehicles, they certainly were better to exploit the technology more efficiently and longer term.

Electric cars were very popular beginning with that Flocken Elektrowagen in 1888 up until about 1920. Electricity was really the most preferred method for automobile propulsion, as it provided a level of comfort and ease of operation that could not be achieved by the gasoline cars, nor the pollution of coal-fired steam engines. Back then everything was better electrified. Electricity was the Bluetooth of its day. But advances in internal combustion technology that enabled a much greater range, and along with a growing petroleum infrastructure and faster refueling times reversed the benefits of electricity. On top of that, Ford's mass production lowered the price of a gasoline automobile to half that of an electric vehicle. By 1930 there weren't really any electric cars to speak of.

But now, thanks to the advances in battery technology, the high price of gasoline, and the same environmental concerns of 130 years ago, the same thing will happen to the gasoline car that happened to the electric car. Nobody had to pass a law in the early 1900s to get rid of electric vehicles, it just happened. They don't need to pass a law to ban internal combustion engines, either.

For trains, I would expect that the population centers like the northeast corridor will expand their electrification, but I don't see much electrification for long distance trains. I would think those would continue with diesel-electric locomotives for many years to come (diesel engines turn the alternators which power the electric motors that drive the wheels).
 

Moot

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
All modern freight and Amtrak locomotives are driven by electric motors but the environmentalist don't like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OntarioVanMan
Top