Why did manufacturers roll over so easy on abolishing diesel/petrol

[alfaromeo84]

As the title says, why did manufacturers roll over so easy on this, there was no fight back at all. Just curious.

[JohnBoy]

I'm guessing they view electric vehicles as a more profitable long term proposition?

[-alan-]

I don't think they did. As far as I can see there's not a hope in hell of countries in Europe collectively establishing a practical Europewide network of charging networks (if you get me) in the next decade or so. The electrical generation requirements alone would be a show-stopper, never mind the distribution chllenges.

IMO the manufacturers are playing a waiting game, being seem to support the EV aspirations / virtue signalling (or at least doing sufficient to avoid fleet penalties and levies for not doing so) - knowing full well that petrol, diesel and ICE/electric hybrid versions thereof have to be part of the future mix.

I could be wrong though

[Tristan]

It boggles the mind, when EVs are so utterly detrimental to the environment to build.

[Cold]

I don't think they did. As far as I can see there's not a hope in hell of countries in Europe collectively establishing a practical Europewide network of charging networks (if you get me) in the next decade or so. The electrical generation requirements alone would be a show-stopper, never mind the distribution chllenges.

IMO the manufacturers are playing a waiting game, being seem to support the EV aspirations / virtue signalling (or at least doing sufficient to avoid fleet penalties and levies for not doing so) - knowing full well that petrol, diesel and ICE/electric hybrid versions thereof have to be part of the future mix.

I could be wrong though

There is a theory among those who follow this kind of thing in detail that car companies like to advertise about their EVs but want to sell ICE. Which I think correlates nicely with your post.

I'm not sure it's possible to do wait and see beyond a certain point. If it's going to be EVs then manufacturers have to go full hog into it or someone else will eat their lunch. Like the Chinese or Tesla. I'm assuming a motivation behind the ban is to help manufacturers focus and spend their R&D on where it matters.

[Murakami]

It boggles the mind, when EVs are so utterly detrimental to the environment to build.

Exactly. I've wondered if manufacturers concentrated more on efficiency in engines than in-car technology and driver aids, would the consequences of long-term environmental damage be lessened.

[fortytwo]

It boggles the mind, when EVs are so utterly detrimental to the environment to build.

are there any sources for this - something Im genuinely interested in investigating

[jf_cole]

It boggles the mind, when EVs are so utterly detrimental to the environment to build.

But sure we all knew diesels werent the answer either, but the green agenda had us all piling into them. This is the new diesel. Run on not so clean electricity (for now, ish) and charging batteries that were awful for the environment to make and who knows how much use they will be after 15 years and how they will be recycled.

[Murakami]

But sure we all knew diesels werent the answer either, but the green agenda had us all piling into them. This is the new diesel. Run on not so clean electricity (for now, ish) and charging batteries that were awful for the environment to make and who knows how much use they will be after 15 years and how they will be recycled.

What's "the green agenda"?

[fortytwo]

so, some googling suggests that while EVs are more energy intensive to produce, the overall lifetime emissions are smaller with an EV than an ICE. The actual amount depends on things like where the EV is used, and how the energy to charge that is generated (fossil fuel elctricity vs renewables). One MIT article said 'it’s difficult to find a comparison in which EVs fare worse than internal combustion' ANother article suggested somewhere bteween 15-20k miles before the EV becomes more efficient.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-...s-powered-cars

[fortytwo]

This MIT study is based purely on emmissions during manufacturing, not the long-term negative effects of the mines or exploitation of the workforce. Nor does it consider the intensice use of more limited mineral resources.

any good sources on the long term negative effects of the mines or explpoitation of the workforce?

[davemx-5]

so, some googling suggests that while EVs are more energy intensive to produce, the overall lifetime emissions are smaller with an EV than an ICE. The actual amount depends on things like where the EV is used, and how the energy to charge that is generated (fossil fuel elctricity vs renewables). One MIT article said 'it’s difficult to find a comparison in which EVs fare worse than internal combustion' ANother article suggested somewhere bteween 15-20k miles before the EV becomes more efficient.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-...s-powered-cars

I remember reading previous research that was 15 years before they broke even with ICE. That's a big difference. What you're quoting is 2 years average mileage for an Irish user.

[Murakami]

any good sources on the long term negative effects of the mines or explpoitation of the workforce?

I deleted my post as we posted same article. There's a basic wiki article about mining: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...ects_of_mining

Any interest in large scale mining will lay clear that a large propertion happens in ceveloping countries with questionable workers rights. Mining for cobalt in DR Congo is estimated to use about 40,000 children in slave labour. Mining of lithium in Bolivia and Chile involves illegal encroachment onto native land, and the typical violent conflicts that follow.

All mining is detrimental to the environment, often causing soil degradation and biodiversity loss. Even here, the quarries that spatter parts of the country constantly break EPA guidelines and rules and cause havoc for chances to regain blanket bogland, etc. When finished with mines or quarries, companies are under no obligation to "fix" the holes or damage left behind. As much as I understand the need for these industries, the magnitude is something that is, along with many other industries (choclate, for example), hidden from the eye of the consumer.

[Tristan]

are there any sources for this - something Im genuinely interested in investigating

https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/...lectric-future

https://www.iea.org/data-and-statist...ventional-cars

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/...-reality-check
"The energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one barrel of oil."

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/06/22/...in-report.html




Oil is not the answer. But synthetic fuels and hydrogen might be, if they are developed.

[Murakami]

I think that one of the main things to remember in this and mentioned in the articles Tristan linkes, is the amount of water needed for all this mining and manufacturing. It's already becoming a twindling resource and all these increases in mineral demand are going to put more and more pressure on that resource, especially in areas where it's already scant.