[iagovar]

They can ban ICE cars as much as they want. More than half Europe won't buy electric because they are too expensive.

And not only that, you can't plan to travel in a lower end electric with their ranges. Recharge is very slow.

You can buy a dirt cheap second hand ICE, and it will give you that, you'll recharge in a minute, and most proven models are easy and cheap to repair.

Electric cars turns out they do fail, and when they do it is super expensive.

I really really want to have one, but currently comparing an electric to, say, a Fiat Panda, it just doesn't make sense for most Europeans.

[zelos]

What's the alternative? The status quo isn't an option, so something has to replace it.

[iagovar]

IDK, but I won't spend 30K in a car that only allows me to city travel. If I'm forced to live without an ICE I just won't have a car, and that's it.

That's fine for many people, not so good for the car industry and their direct and indirect jobs.

Buying a 6K second-hand car is not only much more ecological than buying a brand new electric car, but I have more range, I can get it cheaply fixed if I go to something like a Renault Clio, a Peugeot 206, Fiat Panda and the like.

Since I live in a flat and I don't have garage, I can park it in my street without worrying about recharging (it's just going to get me a few minutes to get to the gas station, a two minutes to get gas).

With the salaries in my area, spending 30K in a car it's just too much money. It's more than my current yearly salary. And there's plenty of people with lower income than mine.

Also, turns out electric cars come with a lot of bloat that breaks, so the most immediate upside of such car goes away.

As far as I can see, too much has to change for mass adoption. With the current trend they'll remind cars for rich countries and rich people for a lot longer.

[zelos]

> Buying a 6K second-hand car is not only much more ecological than buying a brand new electric car,

I'm not sure how true this is: 80% of ICE CO2 emissions are from driving/servicing I believe.

[iagovar]

Probably, but you still have to compare it to an electric car.

Not having a car wins in both scenarios.

[kazinator]

> I won't spend 30K in a car that only allows me to city travel.

Right? It's like a $30K license to be a four-wheeled member of the working class.

[iagovar]

I can understand the Fuzz in high-income countries. 30k seems doable when your income is in the range of 60-200k. For me 30K is a lot of money.

And honestly I don't really feel that moving around a massive battery in a newly produced car is better than buying a Fiat Panda and taking care of it. My brothers Panda is nearing 500.000 Km and it's fine.

[clouddrover]

Synthetic fuel. Works in current cars and it's cleaner than current fuel:

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/porsche-beg...

[fogihujy]

Synthetic fuel and biofuels will probably be required for several decades until legacy equipment like farming machinery (not to mention military veichles) has been replaced/modernized. Regular cars, on the other hand, will probably be mostly electric within 15-20 years.

The main issues are power-grid development and EV range. I suspect those problems will be handled within 10 years.

[sbehlasp]

No one talks about the biggest disadvantage of EVs which is extraction of lithium which is a threat to environment and people who are involved in it. Plus a major disadvantage is where these dead batteries end up! land fills which again is biggest threat to environment. Even batteries are recyclable but up to what extent one day they will end up in landfills [https://www.res-ev.co.uk/problems-with-ev/#:~:text=One%20of%....] . There are some other options like hydrogen powered cars which do not harm environment any way, i think more research should be done to promote them or any other absolutely cleaner biofuel powered cars

[fogihujy]

Yeah, that's another hurdle that needs to be tackled. Going electric is going to take decades, and we'll probably never be completely rid of combustion engines.

[Hypx]

Since synthetic fuels are zero emissions, why would they ever need to be replaced by EVs? A better question is why we need to bother with electrification at all if there are alternative paths to zero emissions?

[fogihujy]

They still pollute, even if they're carbon neutral. Particle emissions won't go away.

[Hypx]

Particulate emissions can come from the tires. EVs aren't magic on this form of pollution. Plus, you can have particulate filters on the engine exhaust, reducing this greatly.

[Hypx]

There is the option of fuel cell cars in addition to synthetic fuels. Electric cars is only 1 of several possible directions we can go.

[Hypx]

With synfuels the status quo is an option. Nothing fundamentally has to change.

[killtimeatwork]

Forcing Europeans to move to electric cars hardly changes the status quo re: global warming.

[oblio]

It changes things. Europe is developed. If Europe and other developed groups don't switch to clean energy, transportation, heating, etc, the future industrializing countries with probably 2-3-4 billion people will fry us all.

It's not a moral imperative, it's simple survival.

[iagovar]

Ok, now try to sell an electric car to someone who makes 10K/y or less.

People just won't have cars.

[oblio]

Hey, I'm not from a developed country. Poor people will just buy second hand cars from developed countries, give it 5-10 years.

They'll just need beat up Opels with 300k km on them :-D

[iagovar]

That's pretty difficult, unless fixing batteries for dirt cheap (and with enough range to inter-city travel at least) becomes doable.

I can't see someone making any useful of a VW ID3 in, say, Morocco.

[bildung]

CO2 wise the shift to EVs alone will change almost nothing, you just centralize emissions at power plants. It does enable a potential shift to renewable energy sources, though.

Source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/comparative-l...