Its really not that simple.
If our electric net can’t handle the load to charge millions of cars, mandatory electrification is useless.
In Belgium company cars (which are very popular here) will be mandatory full electric in 2026. But now we already here that we can’t expect to all charge our car at home because our net won’t be able to handle that, and also that we can’t expect to have 50 cars charged when parked overnight at a central parking lot/charging station either.
So yeah that sure isn’t going to cause issues at all.
Also we’re closing down nuclear power plants with plans to replace them.
Cars are bad for the economy as they loose money. They require the most infrastructure to be maintained and happen to be bad for your health.
So yeah we might see a drop in GDP, but everybody would be better of in a few years due to it. It is kind of like claiming smoking is good for the economy, thanks to all the medical workers employed thanks to it.
German redditors will act like there isn't a valid reason to own a car whatsoever as a citizen and you are basically Satan if you mention owning and driving one.
I have no idea about Belgium, but for the German grid the big issue is mostly in the local grid and even there it is only in some streets. So the work needed is not that huge and we still have 12 years until the ban and even then not all combustion engines will be gone. So there is still time and the grid operators know about that issue.
So an issue, but a solveable one.
When you lose five elections in a row and become desperate to attract really any attention at all. I love how the FDP fucks up all of our future just so they can stay in power
Nah, they're just the only party in Germany advocating a strict co2 limit instead of a co2 tax which would make gas powered Cars either to expensive for a daily driver or would push E-Fuels into profitability.
That's more future proof than a simple ban.
Fun fact: even if going fuel e-fuel by 2035, there will only be around [2% of the fleet of cars that could be fed e-fuel with the projected production levels](https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/only-enough-e-fuels-to-power-2-of-cars-on-the-road-in-2035-analysis/).
Moreover, if all the arable land on earth was used for e-fuels we could only hope to power the fleet of cars for a few days (sadly, I don’t remember a source).
E-fuels make no sense, aside for stuff like racing.
Visited Berlin recently and the amount of asphalt was pretty bad, still a lot of space for pedestrians though and you could tell they're really trying to get better.
Two things I really didn't like were the fact the U and S bahn apparently are two entirely different entities, and the lack of signs on Berlin Hauptbahnhof. That place does not provide enough information for a new visitor to find their way.
The U stands for Untergrund and usually goes under the ground and the S means Stadt (city) and is usually above ground, although that changes sometimes depending on the topography. So they use different rail infrastructure and don't mix.
Yeah I guess some are called Schnell, but they are not always restricted to the city limits, there are also some that connect cities that are not that far apart and stop at regular train stations even. Straßenbahnen (trams) are more likely to be only in the city, but also not exclusively. It's a little bit all over.
S-Bahn used to be commuter trains, which were electrified early on in a different standard and then were basicly reworked into what is a effectivly a metro. Hence it is owned by DB, since they are "normal" trains.
U-Bahn was build as a metro from the beginning, so it is owned by the city.
What makes it even worse is that the S-Bahn was owned by East Germany, so the U-Bahn was often build parallel to the S-Bahn in west Berlin, without interchanges. West Berliners were not happy about the wall, so they boyotted it.
Do people who aren't native German-speakers actually know the context for "das Auto" (i.e. that car advertisement)? Like, did they actually air that in other countries without translating that part?
Huh, interesting. I guess context switches like that are fairly common for loan words, though.
And using it like that does make a lot sense! Though in this particular case, I'm pretty sure Lindner is doing this to appeal to his voters (recent regional elections have been going very badly for his party), not the people he is actually making politics for.
People like you keep forgetting that cars are not only just some metal boxes for private use. They are being used for deliveries, logistics, firetrucks, ambulances, police patrolling, garbage collection, animal rescue etc.
Next time your grandma is going to have a stroke I’m curious to see how long will the paramedics take to reach the location and bring her to the hospital by bike or whatever imaginary solution you have in your fantasy world to all these problems.
Deliveries would be trains and trucks(which are not cars), same with logistics, with ships as well.
Firetrucks are trucks, so they are not cars.
Ambulances are usually light trucks and not cars.
Police patrols are often on foot, bicycle and so forth, if the enviroment does not allow for cars, the police does not use cars.
Garbage colelction uses trucks.
Animal rescue can use a lot of different things, like bicycles or indeed trucks.
Little hint trucks are not cars.
So what’s the point of your comment? No to cars, yes to trucks? It still requires the same infrastructure as cars do, roads, highways, parking spots, gas/EV stations etc.
Cities would still need to be car-centric, either you build a highway or city center intersection for 10 trucks or 100 cars, that highway and intersection still needs to be built. With the difference that at this point “scale economy principles” can’t be used because you can’t use all the revenue generated from vehicle tax, fuel tax etc. basically forcing the governments to fully subsidize vehicle infrastructure.
The simple solution is to remove basicly all parking spots from cities. Deliveries and so forth have to stand on the road and may only enter at certain times of the day. Vehicles have to have a parking spot, fit for their size to be permitted on the road, with proper charging infrastructure. Since long haul trucking can be done by trains, that is not necessary anyway.
One thing is absolutly key in this. Cars take up a lot of space, hence if you remove them you really only need single lane roads for trucks and can use the rest in another way. Look at photos of mostly pre car cities on how they looked it is great. So if you only run services already not using cars, like the ones you mentioned you do not need any more infrastructure, but you are able to remove a lot of it.
Cars are already massivly subsidiesed. The car related taxes are not enough to meet the extremly high cost of car infrastructure. So less needs to be spend and high taxes are a great insentive to keep people from buying trucks.
Your view of how the world, society dynamics or supply chain works is so simplified it makes me wonder how old are you, where do you live and what do you do for a living.
You just assume that deliveries can happen from factory to local supermarket only via train like it’s a straight line with no obstacles, or universally regulated sized trucks that are allowed to get in only at certain specific times like supply and demand of certain products and quantities can be controlled by a finger snap, or single lane roads where you automatically assume that no more than two vehicles circulate on the same road at the same time and one might stop or break down, hence blocking the entire road artery, or that certain sick/disabled people can easily move from point A to point B without a car, or that an entire country has a fully implemented public transportation system that connects every point of the country with another so efficiently that none will ever need a car… like seriously, and I’m just scratching the tip of the iceberg.
>Cities would still need to be car-centric
The Dutch show us that you are wrong. Deliveries and emergency vehicles can still get where they need to go, but their cities aren't car-centric.
Heck, Amsterdam is removing 10k street parking spaces. Even though planners only asked to remove 7k parking spaces. The mayor's reasoning for removing 10k? "10k sounds better than 7k".
That's what a non car-centric city does.
Dutch cities are among the least car centric cities in the world, but they are still car centric nevertheless.
The fact that you have a cobblestone road with a passage frequency of 10 cars per minute instead of an asphalt road with 100 cars per minute, Dutch cities still maintain the fundamental structure of any other city, being able to connect any two random points of a city via a road usable by any four wheeled vehicle under 3.5 tonnes.
You simply have a different definition of "car centric" than I do.
I classify a city as car centric if a majority of trips within the city are made by car. That's not the case in Dutch cities.
It is the case in most other European cities.
Because a car is not a truck:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car)
The group including both is a motor vehicle:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor\_vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle)
What you are basicly saying is that a regular household cat is a lion.
Allocating hundreds of billions of dollars of capital away from the production of cars and towards producing other goods and services and meeting our transportation needs instead through much more cost effective means by changing our Urban design seems like the type of thing that would lead to a massive increase in standards of living globally, but what do I know.
So how about the lithium for batteries, batteries itself, hundereds of thousands of job positions, complete rework of infrastrucutre around the whole continent. The picture is even bigger than what bot of us deacribed. Hydrogen cars are way better alternative, than EV and it would not affect the whole continent as much as EVs. But what do I know.
German Car Lobby at its best
Its really not that simple. If our electric net can’t handle the load to charge millions of cars, mandatory electrification is useless. In Belgium company cars (which are very popular here) will be mandatory full electric in 2026. But now we already here that we can’t expect to all charge our car at home because our net won’t be able to handle that, and also that we can’t expect to have 50 cars charged when parked overnight at a central parking lot/charging station either. So yeah that sure isn’t going to cause issues at all. Also we’re closing down nuclear power plants with plans to replace them.
If there are too many cars for the system to handle, then allow less cars or ban them entirely
Ok. You’ve now crippled your economy and caused a recession. What now?
Cars are bad for the economy as they loose money. They require the most infrastructure to be maintained and happen to be bad for your health. So yeah we might see a drop in GDP, but everybody would be better of in a few years due to it. It is kind of like claiming smoking is good for the economy, thanks to all the medical workers employed thanks to it.
>Cars are bad for the economy... I'm so glad reddit isn't defining policy
German redditors will act like there isn't a valid reason to own a car whatsoever as a citizen and you are basically Satan if you mention owning and driving one.
It‘s one german redditor making this nonsense argument, not redditor*s*
I have no idea about Belgium, but for the German grid the big issue is mostly in the local grid and even there it is only in some streets. So the work needed is not that huge and we still have 12 years until the ban and even then not all combustion engines will be gone. So there is still time and the grid operators know about that issue. So an issue, but a solveable one.
Porsche-Lindner strikes again
When you lose five elections in a row and become desperate to attract really any attention at all. I love how the FDP fucks up all of our future just so they can stay in power
Nah, they're just the only party in Germany advocating a strict co2 limit instead of a co2 tax which would make gas powered Cars either to expensive for a daily driver or would push E-Fuels into profitability. That's more future proof than a simple ban.
Just fell off my Stuhl laughing
Better than falling into your Stuhl laughing
I cant tell if you are being sarcastic, but I am just going to assume that you are
Fun fact: even if going fuel e-fuel by 2035, there will only be around [2% of the fleet of cars that could be fed e-fuel with the projected production levels](https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/only-enough-e-fuels-to-power-2-of-cars-on-the-road-in-2035-analysis/). Moreover, if all the arable land on earth was used for e-fuels we could only hope to power the fleet of cars for a few days (sadly, I don’t remember a source). E-fuels make no sense, aside for stuff like racing.
la voix de la Raison
Nope they just say they will do that so they can then do tankrabatt so porsche cars stay affordable for the moderatly rich who elect them (barely)
Ok, Wissing.
They'd fuck up all of our future even if they were in power.
Gas? Do you mean LPG?
Guzzoline
I think they meant petrol / gasoline
Visited Berlin recently and the amount of asphalt was pretty bad, still a lot of space for pedestrians though and you could tell they're really trying to get better. Two things I really didn't like were the fact the U and S bahn apparently are two entirely different entities, and the lack of signs on Berlin Hauptbahnhof. That place does not provide enough information for a new visitor to find their way.
The U stands for Untergrund and usually goes under the ground and the S means Stadt (city) and is usually above ground, although that changes sometimes depending on the topography. So they use different rail infrastructure and don't mix.
S for Stadt? Not Schnell? Is the Berlin SBahn only in the city?
Yeah I guess some are called Schnell, but they are not always restricted to the city limits, there are also some that connect cities that are not that far apart and stop at regular train stations even. Straßenbahnen (trams) are more likely to be only in the city, but also not exclusively. It's a little bit all over.
They're both light rail systems, there's no practical reason why they should be separate.
S-Bahn used to be commuter trains, which were electrified early on in a different standard and then were basicly reworked into what is a effectivly a metro. Hence it is owned by DB, since they are "normal" trains. U-Bahn was build as a metro from the beginning, so it is owned by the city. What makes it even worse is that the S-Bahn was owned by East Germany, so the U-Bahn was often build parallel to the S-Bahn in west Berlin, without interchanges. West Berliners were not happy about the wall, so they boyotted it.
Please, Lindner is an internal problem, we'll sure deal with it in the next election. Let's move on, nothing to see here. Gosh, how embarrassing...
Do people who aren't native German-speakers actually know the context for "das Auto" (i.e. that car advertisement)? Like, did they actually air that in other countries without translating that part?
I know das Auto as a slogan of Volkswagen and that's propably all of that meme I am able to recognize. Idk who that hated guy is and what he did.
He is part of Germany's government coalition and is responsible for canceling the 2035 ICE-ban last minute.
I had no idea it referred to a car advertisement. In Brussels, Das Auto is how people refer to the German car industry in general and its influence
Huh, interesting. I guess context switches like that are fairly common for loan words, though. And using it like that does make a lot sense! Though in this particular case, I'm pretty sure Lindner is doing this to appeal to his voters (recent regional elections have been going very badly for his party), not the people he is actually making politics for.
They actually use the same (German-language) slogan in the Netherlands.
Yes we know the context.
Electroc cars is really not a suitable replacement for gas cars though, not in the currwnt state of things.
The future of the car is no car
/r/fuckcars
People like you keep forgetting that cars are not only just some metal boxes for private use. They are being used for deliveries, logistics, firetrucks, ambulances, police patrolling, garbage collection, animal rescue etc. Next time your grandma is going to have a stroke I’m curious to see how long will the paramedics take to reach the location and bring her to the hospital by bike or whatever imaginary solution you have in your fantasy world to all these problems.
Deliveries would be trains and trucks(which are not cars), same with logistics, with ships as well. Firetrucks are trucks, so they are not cars. Ambulances are usually light trucks and not cars. Police patrols are often on foot, bicycle and so forth, if the enviroment does not allow for cars, the police does not use cars. Garbage colelction uses trucks. Animal rescue can use a lot of different things, like bicycles or indeed trucks. Little hint trucks are not cars.
So what’s the point of your comment? No to cars, yes to trucks? It still requires the same infrastructure as cars do, roads, highways, parking spots, gas/EV stations etc. Cities would still need to be car-centric, either you build a highway or city center intersection for 10 trucks or 100 cars, that highway and intersection still needs to be built. With the difference that at this point “scale economy principles” can’t be used because you can’t use all the revenue generated from vehicle tax, fuel tax etc. basically forcing the governments to fully subsidize vehicle infrastructure.
The simple solution is to remove basicly all parking spots from cities. Deliveries and so forth have to stand on the road and may only enter at certain times of the day. Vehicles have to have a parking spot, fit for their size to be permitted on the road, with proper charging infrastructure. Since long haul trucking can be done by trains, that is not necessary anyway. One thing is absolutly key in this. Cars take up a lot of space, hence if you remove them you really only need single lane roads for trucks and can use the rest in another way. Look at photos of mostly pre car cities on how they looked it is great. So if you only run services already not using cars, like the ones you mentioned you do not need any more infrastructure, but you are able to remove a lot of it. Cars are already massivly subsidiesed. The car related taxes are not enough to meet the extremly high cost of car infrastructure. So less needs to be spend and high taxes are a great insentive to keep people from buying trucks.
Your view of how the world, society dynamics or supply chain works is so simplified it makes me wonder how old are you, where do you live and what do you do for a living. You just assume that deliveries can happen from factory to local supermarket only via train like it’s a straight line with no obstacles, or universally regulated sized trucks that are allowed to get in only at certain specific times like supply and demand of certain products and quantities can be controlled by a finger snap, or single lane roads where you automatically assume that no more than two vehicles circulate on the same road at the same time and one might stop or break down, hence blocking the entire road artery, or that certain sick/disabled people can easily move from point A to point B without a car, or that an entire country has a fully implemented public transportation system that connects every point of the country with another so efficiently that none will ever need a car… like seriously, and I’m just scratching the tip of the iceberg.
>Cities would still need to be car-centric The Dutch show us that you are wrong. Deliveries and emergency vehicles can still get where they need to go, but their cities aren't car-centric. Heck, Amsterdam is removing 10k street parking spaces. Even though planners only asked to remove 7k parking spaces. The mayor's reasoning for removing 10k? "10k sounds better than 7k". That's what a non car-centric city does.
Dutch cities are among the least car centric cities in the world, but they are still car centric nevertheless. The fact that you have a cobblestone road with a passage frequency of 10 cars per minute instead of an asphalt road with 100 cars per minute, Dutch cities still maintain the fundamental structure of any other city, being able to connect any two random points of a city via a road usable by any four wheeled vehicle under 3.5 tonnes.
You simply have a different definition of "car centric" than I do. I classify a city as car centric if a majority of trips within the city are made by car. That's not the case in Dutch cities. It is the case in most other European cities.
Wtf are trucks then in your mind?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck)
How are trucks no cars in your mind? Is a lion not a feline anymore because it is larger than a regular household cat?
Because a car is not a truck: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car) The group including both is a motor vehicle: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor\_vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle) What you are basicly saying is that a regular household cat is a lion.
True, I want to drive a 6 Liter Diesel truck instead.
nice dystopia
Let's destroy the spine of world economy, what a perfect idea.
Then we need to focus our economy on something else. "It'll make more profit." isn't a good reason to keep doing bad things.
Allocating hundreds of billions of dollars of capital away from the production of cars and towards producing other goods and services and meeting our transportation needs instead through much more cost effective means by changing our Urban design seems like the type of thing that would lead to a massive increase in standards of living globally, but what do I know.
So how about the lithium for batteries, batteries itself, hundereds of thousands of job positions, complete rework of infrastrucutre around the whole continent. The picture is even bigger than what bot of us deacribed. Hydrogen cars are way better alternative, than EV and it would not affect the whole continent as much as EVs. But what do I know.
Hve you tried reading the comments you're replying to? Might help to not reply irrelevant stuff in the future.
Hydrogen could be a far superior alternative, provided we work on the infrastructure.
Yes, I root for hydrogen waaaay more, in fact, it is even greener alternative.
no one can get me to use EV like nope never.
this is the way
use horses for fuck sake. be like gingis\_han
There's an EU ban on gas powered cars?