Hacker News Reader

Comment by _hypx | Hacker News Reader

In that scenario people will just keep their old cars for far longer than what the planners are imagining. Like Cuba which still operates cars from 60 years ago. The danger is then you have a society dominated by very outdated cars and a greatly reduced industrial base.

View on HN

Cuba has old cars because of US sanctions that killed their economy and couldn't import anything

Here it's different, purchasers have still access to cars, so when they need to change, they can change, and what's gonna be available is EVs, by the time they upgrade, infrastructure will be much different than what it is today

Doing it gradually is better, gives time to strengthen the grid network, gives enough time for innovations to come into the market, so people don't produce much tech junk and a recycling industry can emerge

The infrastructure may never materialize. Not to mention that the amount of EVs may never materialize, as they are hugely dependent on raw materials and can be subjected to OPEC-like embargos. It could easy turn into a vast market of used cars and very few new ones.

The infrastructure is already materializing. >50% of the 119k public charge points in NL were installed within the past 2 years, providing their services to 328k BEVs.

And if you don't ever want to wait for a charge, then you can often use public transit, or ride a bike.

You will need millions, and that includes a vast number of fast chargers plus grid upgrades.

it's mentioned that it's 0 emission cars

0 emission cars aren't just EVs

you have fuel cells too with hydrogen

by 2035, lot can happen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WeoeJyJmN4&t=455s

The saving grace is that there could be alternative options. But the law should allow for even more options, such as eFuels. The way it is written is not particularly open-minded or designed in a feasible way.

2035 is not very far off for the type of infrastructure changes needed. This will have be a landslide of investment, and it could all go to waste regardless.

So what you’re saying is there’s a huge business opportunity here for sweet government corrects Ava subsidies?

So we should stick with the cars that use raw materials that ARE dependent on OPEC embargos?

Did the alternative suddenly become banning all EVs? No, the alternative is to not ban any type of car. Unless everyone attempts an embargo all at once, you will have backup options in that case.

How can you have a backup for cars. If there was an embargo everyone can't suddenly have an ev and vice versa for combustion

The point isn't to be invincible. If you have a diversity of cars, any one kind of embargo will only harm a portion of your car market. If you mandate only one type of car, then an embargo can completely stop your ability to make new cars.

Again, if there was an embargo how would all the people who have gas cars suddenly get evs? It would take decades.

There will be some EVs in that scenario. Enough to tide things over. But in a world with only one option, anything that blocks that one option will destroy the whole car industry.

Oil blockades stop the fuel for existing cars. Lithium or whatever blockades stop new car or repairs of EVs.

That means people could still drive EVs even if there is an embargo because we'll always have power.

But oil blockades won't stop the production of new ICE cars. A battery-related blockage will stop new car production. That would be a big crisis for automakers.

So now your concern is for a specific set of businesses not people in general?

Again, the point is to not ban any kind of car as a redundancy. You've created an elaborate narrative of what you suppose your opponent is claiming. It is time to stop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com