Topic: No petrol/diesel car sales by 2035/ Reality or dream? - page 8. (Read 3567 times)

The problem is also that many people think the climate change issue is "it will be sometime in many decades" and "it won't affect me". But they don't realize that even if they stop all internal combustion engines at one moment, the problem will not be solved, because it has a huge "inertia" and even irreversible processes. When the majority of the population and producers realize this, and "money today will be loved less than grandchildren in the future", then there will be a qualitative change in the situation. Before that, it is difficult to count on global, systemic changes. Although the car industry is good - they set the trend and minimize the use of fuel by their products

Carbon emissions must be tackled at all levels. It is necessary to abandon cars with gasoline and diesel engines, because this is the call of the times. The climate on our planet is changing for the worse every year. If by 2035 there is still a need to temporarily use such engines, the plans will be adjusted. It's not a problem. The main thing is to get rid of them step by step. In any case, the refusal of which cars will occur unevenly in different countries due to a host of objective and subjective reasons. But we need to move in this direction in any case.

It's silly to talk about all countries....  Countries with predominantly poor populations, technologically backward countries, countries with totalitarian regimes - as a rule, they are also technologically backward or they are not interested in ecology and the environment - will definitely not move and will not invest in the development of infrastructure for electric cars. Therefore, the stated trends are for highly developed, progressive countries with a high standard of living and high environmental standards.

PS The example of deforestation is not correct. The fact is that even if you stop logging altogether, but do not reduce emissions, there will be no result. This is the "treat the manifestations, not the essence of the problem" approach.

And for information - 2 ratings.
By sources of carbon dioxide generation:
Energy 73.2%
Livestock, farming and forestry 18.4%
Industry 5.2%
Garbage 3.2%

5 countries that produce the most carbon dioxide:
China 13.5%
USA 5.7%
EU 4.1%
India 3.6%
Russia 3.1%

That really is a tricky question. Most of the pollution is generated among busy city streets (traffic jams and exhausts). But that has little to do with petrol or diesel cars, as this is imho a problem of bad, or better say wrong, road management. Have you heard that Germany has already banned petrol/diesel cars in some cities? That is what article names say, but in reality they just closed some streets for old cars (cars that dont have EURO5 or news exhausts standards). Imo, it is impossible to ban petrol/diesel cars, but it is possible to decrease their production.

LOL.. do you really believe that the governments around the world will be able to ban diesel-gasoline vehicles by 2035? What about the vehicles that are being manufactured right now? Are you going to say that these vehicles will be allowed on the road for only 11 years from now? These targets are very much unrealistic. Governments must explore more realistic options. A large part of the net carbon emissions results from the destruction of tropical rainforests, especially in countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and Congo. Slowing down this is more easier when compared to imposing a ban on gasoline vehicles.

You've voiced a valid point - one of the criteria for reducing the production and consumption of internal combustion engine vehicles is to reduce and/or make oil production more expensive. Fossil resources, as we know, are not infinite. To be more precise - there are not so many economically feasible deposits of them, for example, there are forecasts that they will be exhausted in about 50 years. Then there will remain either already explored but difficult to extract deposits, or it will be necessary to invest huge amounts of money in the search and development of new fields. In 50 years, I am almost certain that the world will start producing orders of magnitude more electricity (e.g. thermonuclear cold fusion), plus much more efficient energy storage systems (batteries) will be used on a mass scale. And if a battery with the volume of a classic gas tank will store energy for 3000 km, and the cost of 100 km will be equal to 1 dollar, then you will not care about the internal combustion engine.

To bad every single trend has an end. I dont know what really gonna force people to stop producing and using petrol/diesel cars. What is the worlds oil supply? Is the amount of oil that still can be gained calculated? Lack of oil is the only reason why people would switch to EV cars. Imo, many still consider EV as an expensive toy than a transport for daily usage and all needs. Possibilities that EV offer are still limited.

Zero-emission cars by 2035
The net zero goal is also referred to as carbon neutrality. State in which a country's emissions are compensated by the absorption and removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Absorption of emissions can be increased by creating more carbon sinks, such as forests. If the absorption and removal exceed the actual emissions, it is even possible for a country to have negative emissions (e.g., Bhutan). Global carbon neutrality is the only way to achieve the Paris Agreement target. So the banning of petrol and diesel cars by 2035 is a welcome approach, and we will wait and see if it becomes a dream or reality.

Absolutely agree with you. Paradigm shifts and global technology shifts, in the mass market, take decades.

And there are a lot of nuances, from economic nuances to mental perception. Do you know how long the world has been moving away from horse-drawn vehicles to automobiles? And there are still countries and regions that use horse-drawn carts, buffalo in the fields....
I am absolutely sure that mass transition will be limited to some countries with high standard of living, developed infrastructure, population living in the "future" (including concern about future ecology).

So the conversation is more about mass trend than about mass transition

I think the first step to switching from regular petrol cars to EV would take more than 10 years, as we first need to make changes in human minds and their vision of EV. A lot of people think that the only advantage of EV is that they pollute less than petrol or diesel. But many people still afraid of battery maintenance. They dont know how much it will cost, but a lot of people still are scared of used EV or hybrid cars. That is just a fact, many would not buy EV or hybrid cars because battery replacement cost "like 1/2 or 1/3" of a car.

The earth is ours and ours alone to habit, of which it is our duty to help protect it at all cost in other to make it conducive for us and our next generations yet unborn. So I'm very much happy with U.K move to help eradicate carbon emission into the atmosphere that have been proven to be harmful to our environment, which Elon Musk is already taking the lead role by producing electric cars who function wholly with the use of electricity. So for me, I think having a zero carbon emission vehicles is very possible before the year 2035 as projected, because not only will it be less harmful to our environment, but it will also be more convenient and more cheaper to operate due to the constant availability of electricity.

Small diesels suck. I remember Kia was making 1.1 CRDI engine for their small cars that had 75KM. Honestly, who would buy something like this?
Moms were using cars like that to take children to school and not knowing why the engine is choking due to too much carbon buildup. Diesels need to burn these buildups on longer trips or they'll slowly destroy themselves. Also, diesel cars burn more fuel when they're cold so driving short distances is not going to make you save money.

Yes, I also remember the times when there was a trend to buy diesel cars, under the idea “a kilometer is cheaper.” And there really was very little benefit. The second reason why they were taken was “they are more reliable and cheaper to maintain.”
But if he’s talking about a mid-priced electric car and a gasoline car, then the difference is more noticeable. You can simply calculate, for example, the annual savings. It is simple, for example, the daily average mileage - let it be 50 km. We count how many kilometers per year: 50*365 = 18,250 km/year. We take the price of gasoline per 100 km and the cost of charging per 100 km and get savings.
Battery maintenance - I agree, costs money, and for example for Tests it is not at all small. But if this is a middle-class car and it has a properly designed battery cooling system, then with such a mileage the issue of maintenance/replacement will not arise very soon. On the other hand, a classic car also has routine maintenance, as well as replacement of brake pads, oil seals, .... In a word, everything must be counted, but counted in comparable cars.

RS in 2009, friends who bought a Mercedes SL550, on order in Germany, came to Ukraine and were “a little surprised” that the navigation system did not have local adaptation. Let's go to the official service... The price for solving the problem is 4500 Euro Just for a new firmware of a different language package... and you're talking about the battery

It could be reality in some parts of the world but not all part. Like some African countries that lack technology advancement. African countries that produces crude oil will find it hard to accept such innovation or even ban inportation of such product, because they think the crude becomes useless to them. Were as it has been there source of lively hood and the wealth of the nation.

In my country youths have invented fueles generator, power supply with crude oil and many others, but they see it as a threat to there imported generator. And never sponsors them in any way. Curruption in Africa is the problem behind the the reason I said, it Will be reality is some parts of the world but not all.

I remember how people were used to buy small diesel cars because they were more economical than petrol, but in reality they never get that economy. The difference in consumption between, lets say 1.3-1.6l diesel and petrol is hardly noticeable. It might be only 1-2l per 100km. How many kilometers people cover in city traffic per year? 7-10k? The difference is only around 100-200l per year, while the price of fuel is nearly the same right now. In money equivalent that is less than 400 EUR per year, while new diesel cars cost 2-5k more than petrol. So by the time that economy appears, people already sell the car. With EV, the price is often higher than a diesel. So by the time EV owner starts to get that economy, imo he will be forces to do some maintenance with battery. Which makes me think that this whole tricks isnt about money, but about ecology, which is a huge topic of discussion also.

you're so mistaken if you think electric cars aren't fast, they have potential to overtake current fastest petrol based engine, even tesla already prove that, moreover the reason many car enthusiasts are still staying with sport car that are based on petrol is because the sound, very niche but thats what seeking, they want the sound of engine, which of course if one is environmentally conscious enough they would disregard that sound for the sake of betterment of the environment.
I think in the future there will be many super car based on electric vehicle that coming up, the potential is there, it just needs good infrastructure first and also more advancement in the battery sector and it will be golden.
also there's reason why car manufacturer like BMW has slowly but sure developing their own electric vehicle technology because they know its the future, regardless of many things that still needs to be discussed.

Natural gas burns cleanly at least but its a fair point that most electric production is via normal carbon based fuels.   Most of China runs off coal powered electric which has ruined the climate in many cities to the point of lower life spans.   That is all true but I still would argue electric cars will continue to increase as a trend and it could be linked to the source of power as mentioned.
  A large factor with renewables of any kind is they dont tend to produce on demand. Solar is tied to the daylight, wind is weather based, hydro power also can be weather based.   All renewables have improved greatly in efficiency and batteries also are advancing, at what point is it useful beyond the basic idea of being an alternative.  I think electric cars are likely to success in line with something basic like Solar efficiency.  If we take the giant gains made in solar power efficiency if the same were true of electric cars, we can be certain they will be a large percentage of transport in future.
    Not everything beyond the horizon is clear but if solar gains are a trend and can relate to the usage of that power, we see that trend continue is a fair conclusion.

I agree, if the diesel/petrol cars are emitting more pollution and contributed to it. There's also the side effect of having more batteries and electric cars.
People just don't see this because all they think that it's cleaner, safer, and economical. But if they will look at it, the system and design of the car just actually changed but with its environmental impact, they're also different but the affection of it to it is also there negatively.

Speaking about Tesla's top speed or simply with electric powered vehicles? Then watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpLRQdB76fw
https://www.way.com/blog/what-is-the-fastest-tesla/


Tesla Car Model    Top Speed    Acceleration (0-60 mph)    Torque (lb-ft)    Horsepower (HP)
Model S Plaid    200 mph    2.0 sec                            1,050 lb-ft         1,020 hp
Model S           155 mph    2.4-2.5 sec                    310 lb-ft         778 hp
Model 3           162 mph    3.5 sec                            302 lb-ft         450 hp
Model X           155 mph    3.8 sec                            487 lb-ft         670 hp
Model Y           135 mph    4.6 sec                            376 lb-ft         384 hp
Source: https://www.way.com/blog/what-is-the-fastest-tesla/

These numbers are insane.People would really be just skeptical when it comes to battery or simply the maintenance or simply with the charging stations.

I'll start with not the main thing, but where I agree absolutely - DESIGN. Or rather ANTI DESIGN  That now design departments of many automakers create, for this we should be punished Fiat Multipla is very attractive against their background
Well here only on trends can be written off, as nobody forbids manufacturers to make more sane, even ascetic design, and it does not require super expenses. In a word, the question is more philosophical....

The second question is what is an "expensive/inexpensive car".
Now on the market there are many electric cars in the price range from 15,000 to 35,000 dollars. In general, they are no different from cars of the same class with internal combustion engines. I agree - 10 years ago the difference was noticeably greater, with not a very large range of electric cars. Now everything you want - from compact city cars to "parket crossovers". And not a few models in the above range.

Yes, the only thing I will confirm is that yes, in a noticeable number of countries there are still problems with the infrastructure to service electric cars. And there is a whole layer of countries where people drive one car for 20-30 years, simply not being able to buy a new one....

PS About the "unique design" - let me remind everyone of the boom of the world car industry in 1950-1960, there were a lot of "amazing" designs at that time too