German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine



  • http://gizmodo.com/german-lawmakers-vote-to-ban-the-internal-combustion-en-1787574000

    By 2030, and requires EU ratification. But it is likely that Germany will make the EU petrol and diesel free in 14 years. Norway is already ahead of the EU in this area.



  • @mlnews Eliminating it and stopping production are two different things. We didn't need laws to stop production of steam cars...



  • If electric cars really are better, and more cost effective (either by actually being more cost effective or though taxing are made so) then this will happen automatically.

    I'm not sure 14 years is enough time for all ICE vehicles to cease production, but maybe.



  • A question I have is - is electric really better for the environment.

    I haven't confirmed this, but I heard that that power plants needed to provide power for the electric buses now in use in San Francisco generates more pollination than the buses did.

    Of course, statements like that are easily slanted - i.e. the power plants could be producing 10 times as much usable power as the buses ICE were, and if true, then the statement is kinda meaningless.



  • @Dashrender said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    A question I have is - is electric really better for the environment.

    I haven't confirmed this, but I heard that that power plants needed to provide power for the electric buses now in use in San Francisco generates more pollination than the buses did.

    Of course, statements like that are easily slanted - i.e. the power plants could be producing 10 times as much usable power as the buses ICE were, and if true, then the statement is kinda meaningless.

    I've heard this argument as well, that by cutting out gasoline, and going all electric will cause the energy companies to consume more coal, or natural gas to meet the demand.

    And every time I hear the argument I wonder why any business person with enough capital invest (start) a clean energy company to offset this complaint.

    Seems like there is a huge market space for it.



  • I have no idea what the economics of clean energy solutions (solar, wind, ocean) are? Are they anywhere near in price competition with fossil fuels?

    As for solar and wind farms, I can understand the lack of desire to have those things as an eye sore.



  • Does is strike anyone as odd that no one is concerned about the toxic heavy metals that are in PV cells?



  • @Mike-Davis said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    Does is strike anyone as odd that no one is concerned about the toxic heavy metals that are in PV cells?

    Which metals are those? Did a search, didn't find anything.



  • @Dashrender said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    I have no idea what the economics of clean energy solutions (solar, wind, ocean) are? Are they anywhere near in price competition with fossil fuels?

    Don't need to be. They already have enough green power to power Europe. So cost effective or not, the money is spent and the power is there.



  • @scottalanmiller said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    Which metals are those? Did a search, didn't find anything.

    From wikipedia:

    With the exception of amorphous silicon, most commercially established PV technologies use toxic heavy metals. CIGS often uses a CdS buffer layer, and the semiconductor material of CdTe-technology itself contains the toxic cadmium (Cd). In the case of crystalline silicon modules, the solder material, that joins together the copper strings of the cells, contains about 36 percent of lead (Pb). Moreover, the paste used for screen printing front and back contacts contains traces of Pb and sometimes Cd as well. It is estimated, that about 1,000 metric tonnes of Pb have been used for 100 gigawatts of c-Si solar modules. However, there is no fundamental need for lead in the solder alloy.



  • @Mike-Davis said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    @scottalanmiller said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    Which metals are those? Did a search, didn't find anything.

    From wikipedia:

    With the exception of amorphous silicon, most commercially established PV technologies use toxic heavy metals. CIGS often uses a CdS buffer layer, and the semiconductor material of CdTe-technology itself contains the toxic cadmium (Cd). In the case of crystalline silicon modules, the solder material, that joins together the copper strings of the cells, contains about 36 percent of lead (Pb). Moreover, the paste used for screen printing front and back contacts contains traces of Pb and sometimes Cd as well. It is estimated, that about 1,000 metric tonnes of Pb have been used for 100 gigawatts of c-Si solar modules. However, there is no fundamental need for lead in the solder alloy.

    Right, that's a concern of cheap manufacturing, not of PV cells themselves. If you look at the IEEE, manufacturing is moving out of China to Europe and Japan and is expected to fix that. Your concern is Chinese manufacturing as a general thing, not of PV cells.



  • @scottalanmiller said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    @Dashrender said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    I have no idea what the economics of clean energy solutions (solar, wind, ocean) are? Are they anywhere near in price competition with fossil fuels?

    Don't need to be. They already have enough green power to power Europe. So cost effective or not, the money is spent and the power is there.

    OH? and well that's Europe, doesn't help the USA.



  • @Dashrender said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    @scottalanmiller said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    @Dashrender said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    I have no idea what the economics of clean energy solutions (solar, wind, ocean) are? Are they anywhere near in price competition with fossil fuels?

    Don't need to be. They already have enough green power to power Europe. So cost effective or not, the money is spent and the power is there.

    OH? and well that's Europe, doesn't help the USA.

    It's a thread about Germany.



  • @DustinB3403 said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    @Dashrender said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    A question I have is - is electric really better for the environment.

    I haven't confirmed this, but I heard that that power plants needed to provide power for the electric buses now in use in San Francisco generates more pollination than the buses did.

    Of course, statements like that are easily slanted - i.e. the power plants could be producing 10 times as much usable power as the buses ICE were, and if true, then the statement is kinda meaningless.

    I've heard this argument as well, that by cutting out gasoline, and going all electric will cause the energy companies to consume more coal, or natural gas to meet the demand.

    And every time I hear the argument I wonder why any business person with enough capital invest (start) a clean energy company to offset this complaint.

    Seems like there is a huge market space for it.

    Efficiencies of scale. It's takes less work to produce a Joule of energy at a highly efficient power plant them it does for a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. It's also easier to monitor and maintain the power plant then the fleet of ice vehicles. Granted electric vehicles still require maintenance but drastically less, to be almost insignificant, then what we have now.



  • @coliver said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    @DustinB3403 said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    @Dashrender said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    A question I have is - is electric really better for the environment.

    I haven't confirmed this, but I heard that that power plants needed to provide power for the electric buses now in use in San Francisco generates more pollination than the buses did.

    Of course, statements like that are easily slanted - i.e. the power plants could be producing 10 times as much usable power as the buses ICE were, and if true, then the statement is kinda meaningless.

    I've heard this argument as well, that by cutting out gasoline, and going all electric will cause the energy companies to consume more coal, or natural gas to meet the demand.

    And every time I hear the argument I wonder why any business person with enough capital invest (start) a clean energy company to offset this complaint.

    Seems like there is a huge market space for it.

    Efficiencies of scale. It's takes less work to produce a Joule of energy at a highly efficient power plant them it does for a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. It's also easier to monitor and maintain the power plant then the fleet of ice vehicles. Granted electric vehicles still require maintenance but drastically less, to be almost insignificant, then what we have now.

    So what does it take to get the fleet of business vehicles swapped over long before we worry about consumers?



  • There's another factor which is rarely discussed in the public: Storing power, a major problem with regenerative energy. I've heard rumors about plans from Tesla and others to use car (and truck / bus / home) batteries at a large scale to store power.



  • @thwr said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    There's another factor which is rarely discussed in the public: Storing power, a major problem with regenerative energy. I've heard rumors about plans from Tesla and others to use car (and truck / bus / home) batteries at a large scale to store power.

    Storing power is an issue because of classic energy storage, or acid based batteries.

    Their heavy, extremely toxic, and difficult to recycle properly. Lithium batteries are to expensive at any massive scale to store that kind of power.

    Now what might work (at massive scale) is like with what they do today. Each home owner has a basic battery bank in their home, that charges during the day and then expends during non-peak conditions. Putting energy into the grid, but you'd think that you'd still need a constant uptick of power generation, not just a feed.



  • Whatever happened to the fly wheel? magnetically suspended, other than the wheel breaking free (so it's inside a near destruction proof room) there's little risk. Nothing toxic, etc. You pour energy in to spin it up, and siphon energy off which slows it down.

    There was talk of trying to put these in cars, but they would be pretty dangerous and you would have to have an automated way to swap out fly wheels, you don't just walk into 7-11 and grab one off the self, you pull into a service slot, and a machine would have to change it.

    OK so no go for cars - but what about city level power?



  • @Dashrender said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    Whatever happened to the fly wheel? magnetically suspended, other than the wheel breaking free (so it's inside a near destruction proof room) there's little risk. Nothing toxic, etc. You pour energy in to spin it up, and siphon energy off which slows it down.

    There was talk of trying to put these in cars, but they would be pretty dangerous and you would have to have an automated way to swap out fly wheels, you don't just walk into 7-11 and grab one off the self, you pull into a service slot, and a machine would have to change it.

    OK so no go for cars - but what about city level power?

    They are not new but I can only assume the ratios are not their for the cost equations yet.

    For those wondering what he is talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

    A similar story is thermal depolymerizaiton: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
    Completely not a new concept, but not cost effective yet.



  • @Dashrender said in German Governments Moves to Eliminate the Internal Combustion Engine:

    Whatever happened to the fly wheel? magnetically suspended, other than the wheel breaking free (so it's inside a near destruction proof room) there's little risk. Nothing toxic, etc. You pour energy in to spin it up, and siphon energy off which slows it down.

    There was talk of trying to put these in cars, but they would be pretty dangerous and you would have to have an automated way to swap out fly wheels, you don't just walk into 7-11 and grab one off the self, you pull into a service slot, and a machine would have to change it.

    OK so no go for cars - but what about city level power?

    NASA uses kinetic energy storage on most of their spacecraft. I've read some energy companies using massive kinetic energy storage systems suspended by magnets in a vacuum but I don't think it was cost effective.



  • All the green energy won't do any good if it can't get to where it's needed. Yes, we could put 3 2000 acre sites in Mexico, Australia, and Africa that would produce enough power for the entire world. Problem is, we can't transport it nearly far enough. The revolution we need isn't a green revolution, but is a transportation revolution.

    Also, modern nuclear plats are perfectly safe, but don't produce fissile material. Guess how many of them we have? (No prizes for the correct answer 😛 )


Log in to reply