Just a moment...
europe.autonews.com
    • BlaubarschmannEnglish
      4·
      4 months ago

      Yeah that may be. Another reason could be that they just don’t care what technology will be used in 2035, they just NOW want to get people’s votes and thus try to please them with these decisions and take away the common (but irrational) fear that people cannot drive their beloved combustion cars in the future. Doesn’t matter if electric cars will be cheaper and better by then through market mechanisms alone despite any regulatory requirements. But right now, conservative voters don’t want a ban on IC cars, so this is what conservative parties decide

      • OoopsEnglish
        1·
        4 months ago

        But right now, conservative voters don’t want a ban on IC cars, so this is what conservative parties decide

        Yet the same conservatives advocated for EVs a decade ago… until they started to take off. Then the same ones where actually the source of those anti-EV sentiments being spread everywhere.

        So, no… they don’t do what the voters want. They intentionally and very obviously manipulated voters into wanting this.

    • OoopsEnglish
      2·
      4 months ago

      the idea is to keep fossil drivetrains in the market under the pretense of fueling them with E-Fuels from 2035 on and then using “the normative power of the factual” (cause E-Fuels won’t be available in the necessary amounts) to just continue importing oil until whenever.

      Congratulation… Unlike the majority you understand their goals.

      They did the exact same thing with electricity production: Talking about renewables then sabotaging grid improvements and extensions while artificially making energy storage unviable via massive double taxation. Then they started slowing down renewables while arguing that the grid can’t handle more and it also makes no sense when we really, really need to burn coal to keep the lights on.

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    4 months ago

    Efuels make sense for some things

    • Mechanical equipment that cannot be quickly transitioned to electricity in the short term (thankfully there’s not actually much stuff like that)

    • Flights (where the size and weight of batteries are an issue, hydrogen planes are a ways off and have their own issues)

    • Some motorsports where batteries would die quick and the added weight massively compromises racing.

    • People in the future keeping classic cars on the road (remember that this is only a tiny amount of miles/km traveled in total, and wouldn’t use up a great deal of fuel)

    But for general road cars? No. Efuels are a terrible idea, and doomed to fail.

    All it would do is take up huge amounts of land that could be used more productively, cost waaay more than electricity, provide worse performance than electricity, be less reliable and need more performance than an electric powertrain, and still come out being worse for the planet than electric cars.

    Fuel companies need to accept that carbon fuels will become increasingly niche. They’re in denial.

    • OoopsEnglish
      5·
      4 months ago

      No it’s not doomed to fail. This would imply the actual plan is to operate cars on efuels. But it isn’t. In reality it’s just straight out desinformation meant to get people buying combustion engines now, and scrap the EV plans later when -totally surprisingly- the majority rejected EVs because they are brain-washed into believing that they are optional.