Hacker News Reader

Comment by cultureswitch | Hacker News Reader

The timelines for ICE bans within a decade are ridiculous from a technology and market standpoint and terrible for the environment.

The best car technology is the one you don't use much. And we already have decades of cars in good enough condition to be driven weekly rather than daily.

EVs will barely scratch the surface of environmental issues with transportation. And they will create a new range of supply problems while also not solving traffic congestion issues that plague our cities.

It would be far more preferable to encourage people to use the same car for longer and especially to leave it in the garage when they can use other modes of transportation. Or, use car sharing rather than a personal car.

View on HN

I think you should read up on what ICE bans in countries where they are implemented actually means.

Hint: You can continue to use the ICE vehicle you bought in 2034 in the EU until infinity.

> You can continue to use the ICE vehicle you bought in 2034 in the EU until infinity.

Sure, if you can find fuel. By 2034 EVs will be enough of the market that gas stations are already closing (remember today new cars are 10 year old used cars, and there is every reason to think EVs will be half of all cars). There is still one on every corner, so you might not see this trend, but it will be in the statistics. By 2038 you will noticed it because many corners won't have a gas station at all. And of course the stations will already see this on the bottom line and will be less interested in replacing their pumps when the get old, and if they break they might just close that one island instead of fixing it. By 2045 fuel will be special order in most places.

Note that construction, freight, and other high energy use niches will still use a lot of fuel, so diesel will be available for a while longer. However those vehicles tend to use larger nozzles that won't fit in your diesel car. Gasoline will be hard to find - you can still make road trips, but you will need to plan your fuel stops like people plan EV charging today (on some roads you don't need to plan your EV charging, but there are others you must).

I dont see how in 10 years most cars will be evs, when the ev sales percentage is 12% as of now. Which equals to 9.5% of electric vehicles on the road today. The increase in ev sales is in the low single digits per year, the math just doesnt check out.

EVs are not expected to have a constant growth curve. With the expected ban of ICE EV will be the majority in a few years, and by 2034 few ICEs will be sold.

I do expect ICEs will be just under 50% of total cars, you could argue they are more like 55% of all cars, but it won't be 75%.

Another example of humans not understanding the exponential function

EV production increased by 5 million cars last year (most in China). Total ICE market is 65 million. ~10 years is a simple linear projection.

How much did total vehicle production increase in China last year?

They said something similar about radios and books quite a long time ago.

I'm afraid the problem of generating/transporting enough electrons to all places where cars, buses, trucks, need charging will not be solved completely within 10 years.

Turning gasoline into electrons is fairly straightforward. It doesn't make much sense for daily use, but for occasional corner cases (emergencies, backwoods, etc), it does. And corner cases are one of the big reasons people give against electric cars.

> Sure, if you can find fuel.

Of course you'll find fuel; ICE trucks aren't being banned. You can use their fuel.

Might be slightly inconvenient to have to drive to a depot once a month, but people will do it if the economics are right.

This assumes future regulations will allow you to do this. There are already examples of commercial fuels today that sell fuel only to commercial customers at a different rate.

See "red diesel" in the UK - its just plain ole diesel taxed differently for commercial use, but illegal for use in privately owned personal vehicles. It's dyed red to allow its use in private vehicles to be discovered from the discoloration of engine parts etc.

Personally I expect rules on what can be pumped into what will be different by 2045 in a lot of places, and while it might still be possible it may not be so simple.

> https://www.crownoil.co.uk/faq/red-diesel-questions-and-answ...

But that's the thing, the only difference is tax. It's pretty unlikely you'd be unable to just pay the tax for gas.

> See "red diesel" in the UK - its just plain ole diesel taxed differently for commercial use, but illegal for use in privately owned personal vehicles. It's dyed red to allow its use in private vehicles to be discovered from the discoloration of engine parts etc.

Maybe, but we're talking about the banning of ICE vehicles, not the banning of fuel.

I mean, "you won't find fuel because it will be illegal to possess it" is a substantially different argument from "you won't find fuel because no one will produce it anymore".

I don't think fossil fuels will ever get completely banned from private use. Think of all the old timer drivers.

> Maybe, but we're talking about the banning of ICE vehicles, not the banning of fuel.

This is a bizarre point to make? Regulation of fuels and regulation or bans of ICE vehicles would obviously go hand in hand (it already does today!), if ICE vehicles were to be banned as discussed here. You can't have combustion without fuel... Controlling who can pump gas would be hugely important to the introduction of any hypothetical ICE ban.

My point also is not that fuel may be banned - it's that the regulations governing the pumps may be different than today, and that there is international precedent for this. If combustion really is largely relegated to commercial trucking by 2045, I'd be honestly shocked if the rules governing the pumps didn't change too in a lot of places.

look at the vast difference in fuel laws pretty much everywhere between today and the 1970s if inspiration required - remember we used to be able to buy leaded fuels?

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead

I mean, come on.

Infinity might be a long time, but we had fuel stations when there were 25% of the cars on the road that there are now.

There are around 25-50 petrol stations within 30 mins drive of me.

There is no reason to believe that it will be impossible to fuel your car until ICE cars become collectors' items.

In the very most remote areas, maybe.

And the very remote areas that may have just 1 gas station are also least likely to have high EV penetration until the absolutely tail-end of the ICE-era.

I'm sure this will happen. But I think your timeline is way faster than it will happen.

I highly doubt gasoline will be hard to find in most places by 2045; I'd expect a lot fewer fueling stations, but I think even at 10% of the station count, gasoline will still be convenient and easy. And, if gasoline is less convenient, you can always use gas cans to extend your range. They're not too expensive, and not too inconvenient (epa 'anti-spill' nozzles that make it hard to fill without spilling not withstanding); long term storage is problematic, but if you're regularly using it, no big deal. Most gasoline powered vehicles have at least a 300 mile range, and it's not hard to find vehicles with a larger range.

Yeah, if 80% of gas stations close, I probably wouldn't even have to change my route to get gas. I pass...I think 7 on the way to the grocery store.

I live in a bedroom community of a major city. There are about 25,000 people in my town and there are 7 gas stations. There could be a single station in town and it would still not be inconvenient. Some basic math implies that this one station would be as viable a business as it is today even if only 14% of the vehicles on the road use gasoline. I would be shocked if there are fewer ICE powered cars on the road than that in 2035.

I pass multiple stations when I leave town to get to work. Where I work looks like here ( home ) from a station density point of view.

For longer trips, you may be right that you may have to plan. But there could be very few ICE cars on the road before one station every 400 km ceases to be profitable. And, unlike electric, nothing is stopping me from filling up a gas can before hitting a leg I am really worried about.

I cannot see “lack of stations” being a problem for ICE for a long time.

The cost of fuel could be a thing I guess but, if demand drops faster than supply, the economics of that do not really make sense.

Also, if I am somebody that uses a vehicle “once a week”, is this really the car I am going to take on a 1500 km trip through unpopulated areas? I cannot rent or borrow an EV for that trip?

What you are suggesting seems to be that ICE vehicles are going to end up being errand vehicles for farmers, or the old truck hooked up to the boat to go fishing once a month. Or that people that live and work locally need them for the occasional errand. For the latter use case, where I live at least, just the insurance cost would incent me to replace such a vehicle with a ride share subscription even now.

I think it is going to stay viable to run an ICE vehicle for a long time yet. I also expect fewer people will want to.

This announcement has the potential to push things like Teslas to 1000 km of range. What happens when it hits 2000 ikm ( over 1300 miles ). What are you going to want to head out of town in?

10 years from now, people that can afford it will have all gone EV. People who cannot will drive their ICE until it needs a major repair. And then they are going to go EV.

In my country (Poland) gas stations get more income from selling other things, mainly alcohol, because unlike other vendors they can stay open overnight. Margins on gasoline are extremely thin already. It makes sense for them to stay open regardless of the demand for actual gasoline.

ICE bans apply to sales of new cars. It will take another 20 years or so after a ban before most of the existing stock of ICE is actually replaced.

It will be faster than you think, mostly because gas stations will be closing and so the inconvenience of fueling you car will cut that tail of - except for niches where EVs are particularly bad.

Right because ICE trucks will also magically stop existing /s

If you're the only gas station in an area, raising prices should be a better strategy than closing.

By then people who need fuel will know to special order it. Because if you are the only one selling gas that means someone lives in a less dense area that can't get fuel at all. Either that or you have competition, they are just not across the street and so you have to keep prices low enough people won't drive the extra miles to your competition.

Spare parts and maintenance are likely going to be a problem first for ICE owners, rather than fuel availability. Who would be crazy enough now to invest in (and maintain) a factory for producing ICE-specific parts? Parts and skills for ICE will become scarcer and more expensive, making a new EV look economical to ICE owners in very short time. It has already been a few years now where it has been uneconomical not just to build a new fossil fuel power plant, but also to continue operating them due to maintenance costs. I'd suggest the same thing with ICE vehicles--it becomes easier/cheaper to run an EV rather than an old ICE quicker than people may usually assume.

The investment in parts is already made. All they need to do is not scrap the tooling. Until the car the part went to is 15 years old that isn't worth doing as you will make more from selling parts than from the cost of storing the tooling. Common parts like filters will be around for much longer. Parts that rarely break will have the tools destroyed sooner, but with millions of ICE cars on the road there will be a lot of needs for parts even if the need is less than today.

The biggest cost of producing parts is making the tooling to mass produce them. Manufactures will retool to produce other stuff once they have enough of a given part, but if there's a shortage (or they think there will be one soon) they'll bring the old tooling out of storage and set up the line again. It's common for auto companies to supply new parts for decades after a car is made.

Heck, Mazda makes new parts for the original Miata.[1] While the first generation Miata is a recognizable car, it's not very popular. A total of 433,000 were produced. Maybe half are still on the road today. That may sound like a lot, but twice as many Ford F-150s are sold every year. If it's profitable to keep making parts for 200,000 vehicles, it's going to be a long time before most ICE cars run into shortages.

1. https://news.mazdausa.com/2019-10-28-Mazda-Expands-U-S-MX-5-...

It seems reasonable that most gas stations will add fast charging stations no? And then maybe add a coffee shop or quick food place that you can spend money at and be the real source of revenue for these locations.

Its not going to be a cheap or painless conversion, but there is absolutely a path forward for most gas stations I think.

some of them. I think most will drop fuel completely, some will turn into stores where local buy milk or something, but many will close completely as not needed since people charge at home.

In denser areas charging will move to mall like areas where people will get out of the car for longer. Gas stations are not generally not setup for people to hang out for 30 minutes, they don't have enough space for people to park that long. They are setup for use the bathroom, grab a snack and get out. Most people charging will want to get groceries or other supplies they are getting anyway (which is to say since they can't charge at their apartment they are going to look for places to shop where they can recharge)

In rural areas (truck stops) are more setup for spending more time. They often have small restaurants already so you can eat inside. They are more general purpose stores and often serve the locals as the place to buy things between trips to dollar general or the city. They have more parking (land is cheap so they will buy more if needed), so there is place to put in all the needed EV chargers. Plus they get a lot more customers who are on trip so long they couldn't charge at home.

It's an interesting problem. Aside from the toxic cleanup issue when decommissioning the underground fuel tanks or an attached service garage, the layout of a traditional gas station is also limiting. Unlike a modern truck stop off a major highway, the majority of urban stations have a small footprint optimized for road access and throughput, but not simultaneously lingering customers.

Even without the pump islands, there isn't much room for customer parking. These stations are often situated at corners with multiple driveways, small parking areas, and no adjacent street parking. Unless you can merge adjacent parcels for redevelopment, these small stations may only be able to support a convenience store, coffee shop, drive-through food stop, or some other quick turnaround. They don't have the right layout to support lots of simultaneous customers unless they are arriving on foot or by mass transit instead of personal vehicles.

Probably not, people charge at home or apartment and start everyday with 300 miles of range. No need to ever visit a charger unless you're on a long trip.

That combined with bigger stores like 7-Eleven, CVS, Walmart, etc.. adding their own charging stations will kill most gas stations.

I dont know, but London is pushing very agressively towards that goal.

I am not sure if its a good idea, nothing seems to be a good idea in London, but the congestion charge and the newer diesel charges surely add up.

And predictably, some of the worst usual suspects are exempt.

Only ~50% of households in London own a car anyway. And that number is tilted towards households in the outer suburbs that aren't subject to the congestion charge https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-12-how-many-cars-a...

I haven't heard of any country that wants to ban existing ICE cars.

The urban greens in the previous Swedish government coalition wants to ban fossil-based petrol from being sold starting 2030 - which economically speaking is kind of the same thing.

not if existing ICE vehicles can be sold -- unless they can't, that'd be an incredible waste

Maybe the ban should have specifically stated that all ICE cars must be convertible to EV ten years before the expiry date. DIYers are doing it all the time but not with newer cars as they are too locked down and complicated.

How is that the same thing?

Every ounce of oil coming out of the groud and getting burned ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere. Banning that has nothing to do with ICEs.

You can run an ICE on synthetic fuels. It's not as energy-efficient but only half the efficiency from a renewable source is still better than "full" efficiency from a fossil source. If you _really_ must use an ICE, there will be a way. It won't be cheap, but it's your choice. There is no human right for cheap ICE fuel.

It’s more or less the same thing because if your fuel price doubles you’re going to scrap that car and buy an electric.

Nobody is forcing you to do so, it just doesn’t make much sense to keep driving that ICE. When everybody is making that decision parts and maintenance will be more expensive and harder to come by too - accelerating the transition.

IIRC it was discussed as closer to a 3x price jump (but don't quote me on that).

"Half the efficiency" is highly optimistic. Afaik making synfuels loses about 70% of the energy and then you burn the stuff in an engine that is at best 40% efficient. Meanwhile EVs have >70% wind turbine to wheel motion efficiency.

You can do better than that if you use the waste heat from thermal plants. Both for hydrogen production and co2 capture.

Do you have any papers about this? How much better is it? How much waste heat is available that can't be used for something better?

I'm not disputing any of that. It's just that in an EV you currently drive around over half a ton of battery with you on your 20 miles a day commutes. That's highly inefficient as well. You need energy to drive it around, you need a bigger car to house it, better safety systems to prevent that solid fuel bomb from going off, you need to source its raw materials, manufacture it, recycle it.

Imagine saving all of that for a much smaller battery (say, 100 miles range) which is enough for 45+ weeks of the year, and then for the rare case of driving further than that you bring gasoline with you, with its vastly superior energy density and thus range. Only for those few trips. It can well be super expensive, but who cares, it's only for that rare trip to the grandparents or the skiing resort. And then you don't need to care much about the bad end-to-end efficiency. After all, you don't care about that when taking a plane to Hawaii either, do you?

Currently, plug-in hybrids tend to just be used as gasoline cars because people are lazy and don't charge every night. There are gas stations everywhere, fuel is cheap, and you are used to filling up gas anyway. But once gasoline prices spike to 3x-5x because it's synthetic fuels, the dynamic will change, fewer gas stations around, the reduced economies of scale lead to further price hikes and boom, everybody will use their plug-ins mainly as EVs. Which is what I'm describing above. Which could outperform pure EVs because you don't need a 500 miles EV range anymore, you can make do with 100 miles.

If you want the same car to run 100 miles on battery and have the option to fuel it with synfuels you need to lug around useless drivetrain most days. The better option is to just rent a car with sufficient range for the long trip you want to make.

Or build public transit for the commute and don't use a car at all.

I'm personally on board with rentals for the occasional long trip or using and building out public transit. But most people are not. Especially not in NA.

I understand the drivetrain argument. What about a simple generator to recharge the battery on the go? Like the original BMW i3 had. That one didn't take off, but likely in part because it was ugly, too small to be practical, and the gas prices still being very low.

I don't know enough about generators to dismiss that design, it might make sense for some use cases.

Exactly. The answer to the problems of ICE cars are not EV cars. It's boring stuff like trains, public transportation, or walkable urbanism.

It's particular ironic in China, where >50% of their domestic energy production is apparently from coal. That being said, it could improve metro air quality a large degree because I'm guessing coal power plants aren't built in downtown Beijing.

China's CO2 intensity is about 550g/kWh currently (and falling rapidly). An EV takes about 15kWh/100km. That's less than 90g/km. About as much as a Prius.

I don't really see what CO2 has to do with the point I am making. It's massively better for air quality to have the coal burnt at a distant powerplant than to have a car burning coal (or fossil fuels) in downtown Beijing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com