Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday July 07 2017, @06:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-have-methane dept.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40518293

France is set to ban the sale of any car that uses petrol or diesel fuel by 2040, in what the ecology minister called a "revolution".

Nicolas Hulot announced the planned ban on fossil fuel vehicles as part of a renewed commitment to the Paris climate deal.

He said France planned to become carbon neutral by 2050.

Hybrid cars make up about 3.5% of the French market, with pure electric vehicles accounting for just 1.2%.

It is not yet clear what will happen to existing fossil fuel vehicles still in use in 2040.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @06:48PM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @06:48PM (#536212)

    It's fine because by 2040 no one in France will be able to afford a vehicle.

  • (Score: 2) by jcross on Friday July 07 2017, @07:34PM (12 children)

    by jcross (4009) on Friday July 07 2017, @07:34PM (#536237)

    It's hard for me to believe, if things keep going the way they seem to be, that in 20 years gasoline vehicles will even make sense to sell in rich industrialized countries, or that most people there will be buying personal cars. I guess it's good to have a stopgap in place before the time comes and it's controversial, but my guess is that in 2040 this law will only be relevant for stopping the future equivalent of rolling coal enthusiasts or rich people with gasoline sports cars.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @07:57PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @07:57PM (#536247)

      Personal cars are for rich people with jobs.

      • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Saturday July 08 2017, @05:00AM

        by SanityCheck (5190) on Saturday July 08 2017, @05:00AM (#536429)

        In the (unfortunately near) future having a job will make you rich, everyone else will live on government subsidy, supplemented with "rich uncle" allowance, the one uncle in your family that has a job.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by julian on Friday July 07 2017, @08:20PM (2 children)

      by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 07 2017, @08:20PM (#536254)

      gasoline sports cars...

      ...will be getting lapped by electric sports cars in 2040.

      Antique petrol cars will just be a nostalgia indulgence.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday July 08 2017, @12:51AM (1 child)

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday July 08 2017, @12:51AM (#536335) Homepage

        Wishful thinking.

        Cars represent the uniquely American independence of the individual. Globalist fifth-columnists don't like that spirit, they like their good citizens to be as dependent on them as possible. And when you're forced to ride the bus to make a living in France, then you're open to being bombed by Muslims or having your head hacked off by some crazy Chinese. The ones in charge want to normalize that, so that eventually the citizenry will accept it as routine and not resist.

        They tell you cars pollute and to conserve resources as they import millions of unwashed hordes who have no concept of conservation, setting their whole kitchens on fire to cook a pack of ramen noodles and flooding a whole building to take showers. They tell you to give up your last shreds of individuality for the "greater good," which means remotely disabling your vehicle or even programming it to kill you if you don't toe the party line. And when they control your vehicle, then your ability to flee is nil unless you commandeer a battle tank or sneak under a fence on foot.

        That is not who Americans are. And to those who ridicule us, Fuck You.

        • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Saturday July 08 2017, @05:07AM

          by SanityCheck (5190) on Saturday July 08 2017, @05:07AM (#536431)

          Amen my friend. But there are many reasons in addition to free spirit why the automobile is the staple of American culture. For one thing in a country this vast, it be hard to live without it. Tiny European countries can get away with not having cars because you can cross those countries by train in mere hours. But American is a huge country and barely inhabited. Only other place with similar density would be Canada and Russia (And the land Down Under). But I digress, as as long as we have the other staple, guns, no one will take the cars from us.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:14AM (6 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:14AM (#536346) Journal

      It's hard for me to believe, if things keep going the way they seem to be, that in 20 years gasoline vehicles will even make sense to sell in rich industrialized countries, or that most people there will be buying personal cars.

      I don't see that at all. First, gasoline remains by far the highest energy density storage option out there because you neither have to store the oxidizer nor store the reaction products. My bet is that battery storage won't solve that in 20 years because they can't. That means that electric cars will continue to have the performance problems they currently have such as greatly reduced range (and degrading battery storage, another nasty problem that gas-powered vehicles don't have).

      Second, we also ignore that it would be easier to make a more efficient car engine than it would be to make higher density battery storage. For example, turbine engines already can greatly increase fuel efficiency, particularly when used in hybrid vehicles (which I do see as a natural evolution of the gasoline-powered vehicle). There are some issues, such as having trouble currently with variable power output, but everything has that problem.

      Third, gasoline need not come from fossil fuels. For example, anything that would make electricity vastly cheaper, will also make certain sorts of renewable gasoline vastly cheaper.

      Fourth, gasoline and its supposed problems are cheap. Countries that figure out how to remove polluting ICE vehicles from roads and deal with the modest effects of current climate change are going to do better IMHO than countries that force their entire transportation infrastructure into electric vehicles.

      France is welcome to prove me wrong. I just don't think they'll manage to and will instead be a great example to the rest of us as to what not to do.

      • (Score: 2) by jcross on Saturday July 08 2017, @03:10AM (5 children)

        by jcross (4009) on Saturday July 08 2017, @03:10AM (#536384)

        I agree with what you're saying about energy density and range, but I think the importance of that stat rests on some assumptions that may not apply for much longer. If you want to take a really long trip in a vehicle that you own, you probably want an ICE. But if your goal is to get from A to B in a private cabin as quickly as possible, current battery tech coupled with emerging self-driving tech might be able to do better.

        First of all, there's no need to take time charging if you can switch batteries or even just get into another car at a waypoint. Iirc Tesla has demonstrated doing 2+ battery swaps in the same time it takes to fill a gas tank. That should take care of the range problem unless you're traveling a long way from the electrical grid, which I think would mean nowhere in France. I haven't seen this discussed much, but if the car were computer driven, and especially if all cars on the road were, it could safely drive much faster than any human, while also minimizing g-forces with perfectly tapered deceleration on curves, even anticipating turns the car can't see yet. Extending range by forming a tight peloton on the highway or even linking together into bus-like vehicles. Seamlessly driving onto specialized train cars and taking high-speed rail for longer legs of the journey. Better streamlining because human visibility of the road is no longer needed. I could probably keep going but you get the idea.

        And far from being more expensive in a larger sense, my guess is it would be much cheaper. I don't have the exact figure, but fuel is not the bulk of the expense of a personal car in money or energy terms. I think more money/energy is spent building and maintaining a car than will be used in fuel over its lifetime given average driving habits. We currently have a massive fleet that spends the bulk of its time rusting in garages. Now, at times we may need a lot of cars at the same time, for example when commuting if everyone works 9-5. But imagine something like Uber Pool, but cheaper than you could possibly manage by driving yourself, and you could easily cut the number of cars by 3-6x just by making sharing convenient. Congestion would virtually disappear so everyone would spend less time commuting, and they would all skip the stress of driving and be able to do something relaxing instead. You can even maintain privacy by splitting the car into personal compartments. I can still imagine a few people insisting on a personal gas vehicle in this scenario, but not so many.

        I'm probably missing tons of stuff here, but my point is that even with current technology, the transit landscape could change so radically that figures of merit like energy density or fuel cost aren't nearly as important as they are now. All it takes is a little imagination.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 08 2017, @04:00AM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 08 2017, @04:00AM (#536402) Journal

          I agree with what you're saying about energy density and range, but I think the importance of that stat rests on some assumptions that may not apply for much longer. If you want to take a really long trip in a vehicle that you own, you probably want an ICE. But if your goal is to get from A to B in a private cabin as quickly as possible, current battery tech coupled with emerging self-driving tech might be able to do better.

          First of all, there's no need to take time charging if you can switch batteries or even just get into another car at a waypoint. Iirc Tesla has demonstrated doing 2+ battery swaps in the same time it takes to fill a gas tank. That should take care of the range problem unless you're traveling a long way from the electrical grid, which I think would mean nowhere in France. I haven't seen this discussed much, but if the car were computer driven, and especially if all cars on the road were, it could safely drive much faster than any human, while also minimizing g-forces with perfectly tapered deceleration on curves, even anticipating turns the car can't see yet. Extending range by forming a tight peloton on the highway or even linking together into bus-like vehicles. Seamlessly driving onto specialized train cars and taking high-speed rail for longer legs of the journey. Better streamlining because human visibility of the road is no longer needed. I could probably keep going but you get the idea.

          The thing is the advantages of self-driving and related technologies apply to gas-powered vehicles as much as they do to electric vehicles. Those advantages of gas-powered vehicles such as range and lower mass still apply. There's much less need for switching batteries or waypoints when your vehicle can just do several hundred miles in one trip. And just as you can automate a battery swap to get much faster turnaround speed, you can do the same with gasoline fueling. A lot of these supposed advantages of electric and self-driving vehicles only happen because no one has otherwise bothered to do it with the current gasoline technology due to the relative efficiency of the current processes compared to the current inefficiencies of the proposed new processes requiring a higher degree of automation in order to become competitive.

          • (Score: 2) by jcross on Saturday July 08 2017, @12:28PM (3 children)

            by jcross (4009) on Saturday July 08 2017, @12:28PM (#536506)

            I still think self-driving tech mitigates the disadvantages of electric cars, and there are some real advantages in other areas. For instance, if I had to manage the maintenance of a fleet of vehicles in near-continuous use with minimal breakdowns and downtime, I think I'd rather it be a fleet of electrics. There are fewer moving parts and components can be made more modular, for example you can put the motors right behind the wheels, so the whole assembly can be swapped out if needed with just a plug connecting it to the chassis. Modern gas engines have become fairly reliable, but whenever anything does go wrong (and it often will on a car driving 20 hours a day), they're a real pain in the ass to maintain. Then you have the emissions, which I'd personally rather not be breathing. Electrics are quieter both inside and outside the cabin. Maybe these are small things, but I think the market will speak for itself when the time comes. Think about it this way: currently the super-rich seem to hire a limo or employ a personal driver because they can afford it. Do they give a shit what's under the hood? Subtract the expensive driver and I imagine most people will want that. Once the bulk of vehicles are owned by the likes of Uber, the market will be tuned to the demands of fleet management, and all the chicken/egg problems of charging or battery-swapping will be much easier to solve.

            Also, this range obsession doesn't make much sense to me in places like France. If I'm taking a long trip there, I can't think of a reason not to take a train, and if cheaply hired cars can drop me off at the station and take me wherever I need to go at the other end, why would I want to go through the expense, hassle, and danger of driving myself all that way? If you're used to how transit works in the USA, then sure, gasoline is king, but only because our passenger rail system has deteriorated to developing-world quality. Scratch that, it's worse: I've ridden on Indian trains and they're pretty decent. And yes, a lot of trains are diesel-electric hybrids for all the range reasons you're talking about. I'm just predicting that personally owning and driving a gas-powered car won't be what the French market wants anyway in 20 years.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:35PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:35PM (#536523) Journal
              On the maintenance issue, sure, electric vehicles have advantages in some areas and drawbacks in others. Lower range, battery life issues, and higher weight per axle will impact maintenance and operational complexity in the other direction.

              Also, this range obsession doesn't make much sense to me in places like France. If I'm taking a long trip there, I can't think of a reason not to take a train, and if cheaply hired cars can drop me off at the station and take me wherever I need to go at the other end, why would I want to go through the expense, hassle, and danger of driving myself all that way?

              Why do that hassle when you can just take a cheaply hired, self-driving car for the entire ride, start to finish? No need for waypoints or hopping transportation modes. As to safety, let us keep in mind the most dangerous parts of your outlined trip are the end points which you handled by car anyway. As I noted before, gasoline-powered vehicles also benefit from self-driving automation. It doesn't make sense to compare electric self-driving to gasoline non-self-driving, where most of the alleged virtue of the former comes from the self-driving aspect rather than the electric vehicle aspect.

              My view here is that most mass transit fails hard when it comes to the most common mode of transportation in the world - point to point. Most people want to go to specific places when they take a trip. Self-driving vehicles help fix that, but electric versus gasoline is almost an afterthought in comparison. I can see various subtle nuances that give advantages which might make one choice better than the other in certain circumstances (particularly, pollution control), but I think the supposed advantages of electric are exaggerated. It certainly doesn't make sense to pick winners and losers decades in advance in such a situation.

              • (Score: 2) by jcross on Saturday July 08 2017, @04:10PM (1 child)

                by jcross (4009) on Saturday July 08 2017, @04:10PM (#536556)

                As you say it's a complex set of tradeoffs. I guess we'll see!

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 08 2017, @10:26PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday July 08 2017, @10:26PM (#536665) Journal
                  As an aside, you wrote:

                  Maybe these are small things, but I think the market will speak for itself when the time comes.

                  Here, the France government deciding to kill hydrocarbon vehicles in twenty years is not an example of the market speaking. Fortunately, there's more to the market than just France, but it's worth noting that it's kind of empty to talk of the market while governments have put their thumbs on the scale.