Paris to ban all petrol and diesel cars by 2030

[Old Rocks]

It will never happen. Once they get close to that year and 99% of all vehicles still run on fossil fuels, they'll get ***** slapped back into reality.

And those stinking automobiles will never replace the horse, either. LOL You 'Conservatives' are so ******* stupid.

Cars didn't need government mandates to replace horses, it happened because the car was a superior product.

Electric Vehicles are not superior to ICE vehicles except in very limited situations.

Really? Now I suppose that you are going to tell me that you can make your own fuel for an ICE. And that your Corvette can beat a top end Tesla S to the speed limit. And haul 5 people around in comfort. Now that there are an increasing number of EV's at several price levels, you are going to see more and more people buying them. In five years, there will be batteries that will extend the range to the equal of the ICE's, out perform the ICE's, and charge almost as quickly as the ICE's can fill up. Range and cost are all that is preventing the EV from taking over the market.

 

[Old Rocks]

If the batteries are insufficient, the infrastructure should provide the means for an easy exchange at the former patrol stations. This could be faster than refueling.

How much do these batteries cost?

In an exchange system you will not own the battery.

I bought a car with an expensive battery included.

That´s not the point. Your car surely does not support a quick battery change, anyway. If cars and charge stations support the exchange, it will be a minute to do. There could also be a flat rate ensuring cheap driving. The hardest to convince of the environmental necessity will be coal rolling Americans who insist on their right to do bloody stupid things.

How are the battery stations going to recharge the depleted batteries?

The batteries will be connected to an energy supply. But it´s a non topic. You stop, eject the empty battery, get a full battery and you start.

Tesla already has a system for that.

 

[martybegan]

It will never happen. Once they get close to that year and 99% of all vehicles still run on fossil fuels, they'll get ***** slapped back into reality.

And those stinking automobiles will never replace the horse, either. LOL You 'Conservatives' are so ******* stupid.

Cars didn't need government mandates to replace horses, it happened because the car was a superior product.

Electric Vehicles are not superior to ICE vehicles except in very limited situations.

Really? Now I suppose that you are going to tell me that you can make your own fuel for an ICE. And that your Corvette can beat a top end Tesla S to the speed limit. And haul 5 people around in comfort. Now that there are an increasing number of EV's at several price levels, you are going to see more and more people buying them. In five years, there will be batteries that will extend the range to the equal of the ICE's, out perform the ICE's, and charge almost as quickly as the ICE's can fill up. Range and cost are all that is preventing the EV from taking over the market.

Then why does paris need to ban ICE's if electrics will take over via performance.

Also, I noticed you didn't reference charge times vs. gas fill times....

And of course, all your benchmarks assume non-uncomfortable temperatures that would require heating/cooling that drastically reduce the range of said electric vehicles.

What a fan-boi you are.

 

[Old Rocks]

An interesting move. The car manufacturers will be pleased of that goes through. On the other hand is that a necessity in the long turn, anyway. France has already the answer for the question where the energy for the increased demand should come from: Nuclear power plants.

Paris to ban all petrol and diesel cars by 2030

The timeline is too ambitious. This will end up getting repealed

Not at all. The timeline will work as the technology changes rapidly. You see, this is the holy grail in automotive sales. A rig that can out perform most ICE's, run at far less cost, requires much less maintenance, and is quiet and comfortable. At a reasonable price. The first company delivering that product will make a lot of money, and deservedly so.

 

[Old Rocks]

How are the battery stations going to recharge the depleted batteries?

The batteries will be connected to an energy supply. But it´s a non topic. You stop, eject the empty battery, get a full battery and you start.

The batteries will be connected to an energy supply.

Like a coal burning power plant?

For example.

But you said, "The hardest to convince of the environmental necessity will be coal rolling Americans who insist on their right to do bloody stupid things"

So your plan could lead to more coal usage. Right?

It´s still better when the polluters are out of town.
Making enough renewable energy sounds unrealistic, coal and gas are quite dirty and limited and nuclear energy is the most suitable solution. More efficient methods are being developed, in a few decades the country could be supplied by a few subterranean plants.

No, renewables are very realistic, and will deliver the electricity at a far cheaper price than nuclear without the build in hazards of nuclear.

 

[Old Rocks]

It will never happen. Once they get close to that year and 99% of all vehicles still run on fossil fuels, they'll get ***** slapped back into reality.

And those stinking automobiles will never replace the horse, either. LOL You 'Conservatives' are so ******* stupid.

Cars didn't need government mandates to replace horses, it happened because the car was a superior product.

Electric Vehicles are not superior to ICE vehicles except in very limited situations.

Really? Now I suppose that you are going to tell me that you can make your own fuel for an ICE. And that your Corvette can beat a top end Tesla S to the speed limit. And haul 5 people around in comfort. Now that there are an increasing number of EV's at several price levels, you are going to see more and more people buying them. In five years, there will be batteries that will extend the range to the equal of the ICE's, out perform the ICE's, and charge almost as quickly as the ICE's can fill up. Range and cost are all that is preventing the EV from taking over the market.

Then why does paris need to ban ICE's if electrics will take over via performance.

Also, I noticed you didn't reference charge times vs. gas fill times....

And of course, all your benchmarks assume non-uncomfortable temperatures that would require heating/cooling that drastically reduce the range of said electric vehicles.

What a fan-boi you are.

Tell me, old man, the cell phone of ten years ago is equal to the one of today? LOL Technology marches on, whether you approve or not.

 

[Old Rocks]

For example.

But you said, "The hardest to convince of the environmental necessity will be coal rolling Americans who insist on their right to do bloody stupid things"

So your plan could lead to more coal usage. Right?

It´s still better when the polluters are out of town.
Making enough renewable energy sounds unrealistic, coal and gas are quite dirty and limited and nuclear energy is the most suitable solution. More efficient methods are being developed, in a few decades the country could be supplied by a few subterranean plants.

It´s still better when the polluters are out of town.

Pollution is fine if you can outsource it?

nuclear energy is the most suitable solution.

Environmentalists who say CO2 is the worst thing ever, say nuclear is worse.

"
Environmentalists who say CO2 is the worst thing ever, say nuclear is worse."

Some, not all.

Most. That's why you never hear any environmentalists pushing nuclear to reduce CO2.

Not at all. The reason is that the technology of the renewables has become cheap enough that fossil fuels and nuclear will be priced out of the market. And the renewables do not have the hazards that are inherent in nuclear.

 

[OldLady]

An interesting move. The car manufacturers will be pleased of that goes through. On the other hand is that a necessity in the long turn, anyway. France has already the answer for the question where the energy for the increased demand should come from: Nuclear power plants.

Paris to ban all petrol and diesel cars by 2030

So much for the anti-climate change crowd's argument that no other country was going to do anything, anyway.

 

[martybegan]

It will never happen. Once they get close to that year and 99% of all vehicles still run on fossil fuels, they'll get ***** slapped back into reality.

And those stinking automobiles will never replace the horse, either. LOL You 'Conservatives' are so ******* stupid.

Cars didn't need government mandates to replace horses, it happened because the car was a superior product.

Electric Vehicles are not superior to ICE vehicles except in very limited situations.

Really? Now I suppose that you are going to tell me that you can make your own fuel for an ICE. And that your Corvette can beat a top end Tesla S to the speed limit. And haul 5 people around in comfort. Now that there are an increasing number of EV's at several price levels, you are going to see more and more people buying them. In five years, there will be batteries that will extend the range to the equal of the ICE's, out perform the ICE's, and charge almost as quickly as the ICE's can fill up. Range and cost are all that is preventing the EV from taking over the market.

Then why does paris need to ban ICE's if electrics will take over via performance.

Also, I noticed you didn't reference charge times vs. gas fill times....

And of course, all your benchmarks assume non-uncomfortable temperatures that would require heating/cooling that drastically reduce the range of said electric vehicles.

What a fan-boi you are.

Tell me, old man, the cell phone of ten years ago is equal to the one of today? LOL Technology marches on, whether you approve or not.

If I want to use a razor phone I still can, no one is forcing me to to switch to the newer models.

 

[martybegan]

The batteries will be connected to an energy supply. But it´s a non topic. You stop, eject the empty battery, get a full battery and you start.

The batteries will be connected to an energy supply.

Like a coal burning power plant?

For example.

But you said, "The hardest to convince of the environmental necessity will be coal rolling Americans who insist on their right to do bloody stupid things"

So your plan could lead to more coal usage. Right?

It´s still better when the polluters are out of town.
Making enough renewable energy sounds unrealistic, coal and gas are quite dirty and limited and nuclear energy is the most suitable solution. More efficient methods are being developed, in a few decades the country could be supplied by a few subterranean plants.

No, renewables are very realistic, and will deliver the electricity at a far cheaper price than nuclear without the build in hazards of nuclear.

Except when it's dark out, raining, or calm.

 

[Old Rocks]

A list? What a silly request. But the tide is turning a bit on this front, as more environmental groups come to the support of nuclear power, with this shift primarily driven by concerns about climate change. Even the Greenpeace director changed his stance. Over time, even more will come into the fold. That doesn't mean nuclear plants will suddenly be built, and nobody appears to want to build them and take responsibility for them. heck, we tried giving away free money and government backed loans to people to build them ....no takers. Maybe that will change over time, too.

Interesting read:
An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy

Professor Barry W. Brook, Chair of Environmental Sustainability, University of Tasmania, Australia. barry.brook@utas.edu.au

Professor Corey J.A. Bradshaw, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide, Australia. corey.bradshaw@adelaide.edu.au

A list? What a silly request.

Because you can't think of any either.

yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"... not rational thinking. yes it's a silly request, as I am not demanding you take my word for it.

Yes, the environmental community -- at the very least, those who speak for the major organizations -- is moving toward supporting nuclear power, due to the climate change crisis. it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.

yes, that seems to be a favored tactic of self-soothing on here... "Provide me list of links, or it's false"...

You think some support nuclear. Good for you.

I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear.

it' s a simple fact, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why it throws you into a tizzy.

Why do you feel their supposed evolution would throw me into a tizzy?
If they finally got a clue, it would be a first.
Their current hysterical idiocy amuses me.

"I'll know they're serious about CO2 when they finally do support nuclear."

Which, of course, is just an absurd standard you contrive in a backward think to somehow justify goofy stuff you plan to say in the future.

The idiocy of environmentalists and scientists amazes you, eh? Well, that settles it. We need to book speaking engagements for you at every major scientific environmental and scientific society on the planet, so that you can educate them all.

Which, of course, is just an absurd standard

CO2 is gonna destroy our civilization.....kill all the animals and all the people.....

Okay, let's build more nuclear power plants

We can't do that, they're too dangerous......

There is an absurd standard here, it's not mine though.

Why the **** should we build more nukes? Their electricity is very expensive. And they are very expensive to build. And have never lived up to their promises. In the meantime, solar and wind are being installed by giga-watt in first, second, and third world nations. Solar and wind only require a grid as infrastructure. No pipelines and railroads required, just a location with wind, or sunshine. As the grid scale batteries come online, both will be 24/7 for power. No nukes needed.

 

[Old Rocks]

The batteries will be connected to an energy supply.

Like a coal burning power plant?

For example.

But you said, "The hardest to convince of the environmental necessity will be coal rolling Americans who insist on their right to do bloody stupid things"

So your plan could lead to more coal usage. Right?

It´s still better when the polluters are out of town.
Making enough renewable energy sounds unrealistic, coal and gas are quite dirty and limited and nuclear energy is the most suitable solution. More efficient methods are being developed, in a few decades the country could be supplied by a few subterranean plants.

No, renewables are very realistic, and will deliver the electricity at a far cheaper price than nuclear without the build in hazards of nuclear.

Except when it's dark out, raining, or calm.

Working on being stupid? Even as we post, grid scale batteries are being installed in many systems. As more people get into that business, and the competition comes online, then we will see wind and solar as 24/7 sources of power. That will work, even in the home, as there are now reasonably priced homes battery storage systems for sale.

Tesla is sending hundreds of Powerwall batteries to Puerto Rico — here's how the rechargeable battery works

And a taste of the future;

Nature Power 1,800-Watt Indoor/Outdoor Portable Off-Grid Solar Generator 240 Emergency Kit-40413 - The Home Depot

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

An interesting move. The car manufacturers will be pleased of that goes through. On the other hand is that a necessity in the long turn, anyway. France has already the answer for the question where the energy for the increased demand should come from: Nuclear power plants.

Paris to ban all petrol and diesel cars by 2030

The timeline is too ambitious. This will end up getting repealed

Not at all. The timeline will work as the technology changes rapidly. You see, this is the holy grail in automotive sales. A rig that can out perform most ICE's, run at far less cost, requires much less maintenance, and is quiet and comfortable. At a reasonable price. The first company delivering that product will make a lot of money, and deservedly so.

Which won't be available by 2030

 

[Skull Pilot]

Relying too much on electricity is going to lead to problems.

What happens when a CAT5 hurricane or a tornado wipes out all those windmills you people want? Losing power will be bad enough but losing all transportation will be even worse.

I mean if you need an ambulance don't you want it to be able to get to you if the power is out for days or weeks?

 

[Old Rocks]

Power Plant Type Cost
$/kW-hr
Coal $0.11-0.12
Natural Gas $0.053-0.11
Nuclear $0.096
Wind $0.044-0.20
Solar PV $0.058
Solar Thermal $0.184
Geothermal $0.05
Biomass $0.098
Hydro $0.064
Adapted from US DOE2
Renewable Energy Sources: Cost Comparison

Renewables cheaper right across the board.

 

[martybegan]

For example.

But you said, "The hardest to convince of the environmental necessity will be coal rolling Americans who insist on their right to do bloody stupid things"

So your plan could lead to more coal usage. Right?

It´s still better when the polluters are out of town.
Making enough renewable energy sounds unrealistic, coal and gas are quite dirty and limited and nuclear energy is the most suitable solution. More efficient methods are being developed, in a few decades the country could be supplied by a few subterranean plants.

No, renewables are very realistic, and will deliver the electricity at a far cheaper price than nuclear without the build in hazards of nuclear.

Except when it's dark out, raining, or calm.

Working on being stupid? Even as we post, grid scale batteries are being installed in many systems. As more people get into that business, and the competition comes online, then we will see wind and solar as 24/7 sources of power. That will work, even in the home, as there are now reasonably priced homes battery storage systems for sale.

Tesla is sending hundreds of Powerwall batteries to Puerto Rico — here's how the rechargeable battery works

And a taste of the future;

Nature Power 1,800-Watt Indoor/Outdoor Portable Off-Grid Solar Generator 240 Emergency Kit-40413 - The Home Depot

Then again, why the need for laws banning other types, or declarations by governments about banning other types?

When they put inline the grid scale battery big enough to power NYC for a week or so without further inputs, get back to me.

 

[Old Rocks]

Relying too much on electricity is going to lead to problems.

What happens when a CAT5 hurricane or a tornado wipes out all those windmills you people want? Losing power will be bad enough but losing all transportation will be even worse.

I mean if you need an ambulance don't you want it to be able to get to you if the power is out for days or weeks?

My, my, so the present grid system in Puerto Rico did better? And we have windmills that have survived hurricanes and hurricane force winds just fine.

https://www.quora.com/Could-wind-turbines-withstand-Category-5-hurricanes

Wind turbines aren't perfect. Perhaps one of the most widely shared pictures in December of 2011 and early 2012 was this one from the Ardrossan wind farm in Scotland during a wind storm where the wind velocity reached 161 mph (260 kph). One of the thirteen wind turbines had a problem with its hurricane mode and failed spectacularly. The rest were online shortly after the wind died, unlike the Hunterston Nuclear Reactor, which was offline for 54 hours after power lines to it blew down, leaving thousands of Scots freezing in the dark.

 

[Old Rocks]

But you said, "The hardest to convince of the environmental necessity will be coal rolling Americans who insist on their right to do bloody stupid things"

So your plan could lead to more coal usage. Right?

It´s still better when the polluters are out of town.
Making enough renewable energy sounds unrealistic, coal and gas are quite dirty and limited and nuclear energy is the most suitable solution. More efficient methods are being developed, in a few decades the country could be supplied by a few subterranean plants.

No, renewables are very realistic, and will deliver the electricity at a far cheaper price than nuclear without the build in hazards of nuclear.

Except when it's dark out, raining, or calm.

Working on being stupid? Even as we post, grid scale batteries are being installed in many systems. As more people get into that business, and the competition comes online, then we will see wind and solar as 24/7 sources of power. That will work, even in the home, as there are now reasonably priced homes battery storage systems for sale.

Tesla is sending hundreds of Powerwall batteries to Puerto Rico — here's how the rechargeable battery works

And a taste of the future;

Nature Power 1,800-Watt Indoor/Outdoor Portable Off-Grid Solar Generator 240 Emergency Kit-40413 - The Home Depot

Then again, why the need for laws banning other types, or declarations by governments about banning other types?

When they put inline the grid scale battery big enough to power NYC for a week or so without further inputs, get back to me.

Because ICE's produce pollution and CO2. And we now have a better way.

As for you other nonsense, you know full well that the purpose of the grid scaled batteries will be overnight, and leveling out the input from renewables. No one ever suggested powering a whole city by them for a week at a time. Another really stupid comment by a really stupid "Conservative".

 

[Skull Pilot]

Relying too much on electricity is going to lead to problems.

What happens when a CAT5 hurricane or a tornado wipes out all those windmills you people want? Losing power will be bad enough but losing all transportation will be even worse.

I mean if you need an ambulance don't you want it to be able to get to you if the power is out for days or weeks?

My, my, so the present grid system in Puerto Rico did better? And we have windmills that have survived hurricanes and hurricane force winds just fine.

https://www.quora.com/Could-wind-turbines-withstand-Category-5-hurricanes

Wind turbines aren't perfect. Perhaps one of the most widely shared pictures in December of 2011 and early 2012 was this one from the Ardrossan wind farm in Scotland during a wind storm where the wind velocity reached 161 mph (260 kph). One of the thirteen wind turbines had a problem with its hurricane mode and failed spectacularly. The rest were online shortly after the wind died, unlike the Hunterston Nuclear Reactor, which was offline for 54 hours after power lines to it blew down, leaving thousands of Scots freezing in the dark.

Yeah and no big deal since a fraction of our power is wind generated but when we have the 100% you want we'll have to wait and see.

buried nuclear reactors and burying all our power transmission lines would be the most reliable system in any weather

 

[Old Rocks]

Relying too much on electricity is going to lead to problems.

What happens when a CAT5 hurricane or a tornado wipes out all those windmills you people want? Losing power will be bad enough but losing all transportation will be even worse.

I mean if you need an ambulance don't you want it to be able to get to you if the power is out for days or weeks?

My, my, so the present grid system in Puerto Rico did better? And we have windmills that have survived hurricanes and hurricane force winds just fine.

https://www.quora.com/Could-wind-turbines-withstand-Category-5-hurricanes

Wind turbines aren't perfect. Perhaps one of the most widely shared pictures in December of 2011 and early 2012 was this one from the Ardrossan wind farm in Scotland during a wind storm where the wind velocity reached 161 mph (260 kph). One of the thirteen wind turbines had a problem with its hurricane mode and failed spectacularly. The rest were online shortly after the wind died, unlike the Hunterston Nuclear Reactor, which was offline for 54 hours after power lines to it blew down, leaving thousands of Scots freezing in the dark.

Yeah and no big deal since a fraction of our power is wind generated but when we have the 100% you want we'll have to wait and see.

buried nuclear reactors and burying all our power transmission lines would be the most reliable system in any weather

LOL And we can all pay for the five fold increase in power costs that would involve. Nukes simply are not a viable option.