BMW Says Europe's Gas Engine Ban 'Can Kill an Industry' (motor1.com) 202
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motor1: BMW watched from the sidelines as Audi, Porsche, Mercedes, Volvo, and others announced lofty EV goals a few years ago, only to backtrack in recent months. Munich never vowed to go fully electric within a set timeframe, instead preferring to give customers the freedom of choice. It projects demand will be evenly split between gas and electric cars by 2030, but Bavaria hasn't committed to a combustion-free future. The company maintains its desire to give people what they want rather than artificially restricting powertrains to EVs, as the European Union plans for 2035. In an interview with Australian magazine CarExpert, Chief Technology Officer Joachim Post argued it should ultimately come down to buyers, not the EU: "Finally, the customer decides."
Provided the ban takes effect in a little over nine years, the board member fears it could have massive repercussions: "If the European Commission is going to say they have a plan to cut the combustion engine in 2035, they're not asking the customers and how [EV charging] infrastructure is coming up, how the energy prices are and all the things there. It's stupid to do that in that way. And you can kill an industry doing it that way."
His concerns are echoed by Mercedes CEO Ola Kallenius, who recently warned the European car industry is "heading at full speed against a wall" and could even "collapse" if the EU doesn't reconsider. The statement came shortly after Stuttgart's boss admitted the company had to make a "course correction" to keep combustion engines longer than initially planned. Mercedes continues to invest in conventional powertrains, and there's even a completely new V-8 from AMG on the way. The report notes that BMW continues to generate strong profits from its combustion engines, ranging from three-, four-, six-, and eight-cyclinder engines to a Rolls-Royce V-12 -- even supplying rivals like Toyota and possibly soon Mercedes.
In fact, the "M" in BMW stands for "Motoren" (German for "engine").
Provided the ban takes effect in a little over nine years, the board member fears it could have massive repercussions: "If the European Commission is going to say they have a plan to cut the combustion engine in 2035, they're not asking the customers and how [EV charging] infrastructure is coming up, how the energy prices are and all the things there. It's stupid to do that in that way. And you can kill an industry doing it that way."
His concerns are echoed by Mercedes CEO Ola Kallenius, who recently warned the European car industry is "heading at full speed against a wall" and could even "collapse" if the EU doesn't reconsider. The statement came shortly after Stuttgart's boss admitted the company had to make a "course correction" to keep combustion engines longer than initially planned. Mercedes continues to invest in conventional powertrains, and there's even a completely new V-8 from AMG on the way. The report notes that BMW continues to generate strong profits from its combustion engines, ranging from three-, four-, six-, and eight-cyclinder engines to a Rolls-Royce V-12 -- even supplying rivals like Toyota and possibly soon Mercedes.
In fact, the "M" in BMW stands for "Motoren" (German for "engine").
Horseshit. (Score:4, Insightful)
BMW wants customers to have the freedom to choose between engines and batteries.
Their rationale is total horseshit and it's plain to see. Everything about this screams, "but our profit margins!" and an endless stream of crocodile tears.
I say, "fuck 'em" because they had the option to develop this technology sooner and reduce the pain of transition. However, instead of being reasonable, they decided against any investments in EVs because they were too busy rolling in piles of cash that papered over the 250M bodies of the people that will die from climate change by 2100.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like that you say 2100 now. Good tactic. The 5, 10, and 12 year future doomsdays always end up embarrassing enviro-grifters, at least that's what muh computer models are telling me...today...and stuff.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
May you reap what you sow.
Climate change already having consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you missed the estimated 2000 dead from the latest South Europe heat wave? Or the increased intensity of both drought and flooding? Or the fires in California, Australia ... ? Of course the whole world is not literally on fire (if that's how it was interpreted), but climate change is already here, and have already consequences to society. Mostly as predicted by meteorologists / climate science / geologists.
It's more than reasonable to listen to the predictions, and act on them if we would like to avoid much more severe consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
And all of those events get more intense and/or frequent when we increase the heat in the atmosphere. It's not that complicated meteorologically, and well supported by both models and actual evidence.
And sure, a single car trip is not break-or-make. But the total global emissions are the result of many small contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. They are part of the problem, nothing else.
Re:Horseshit. (Score:4, Informative)
Their rationale is total horseshit and it's plain to see. Everything about this screams, "but our profit margins!" and an endless stream of crocodile tears.
As I see it there's nothing stopping a competitor to put an end to BMW's profits by offering BEVs that make anything with an internal combustion engine look like expensive junk. Putting a government thumb on the scale to favor BEV makers is restricting fair competition, that is the government picking who makes a profit and so is open to all kinds of corruption.
I also seen nothing restricting BEV ownership. Quite the opposite as I can recall all kinds of incentives like tax breaks, better parking spots, and more. That wasn't enough? If the people wanted a ban on gasoline cars then we would not need a ban from the government that answers to them. Think about that. If enough people bought only BEVs then BMW would leave the market for greener pastures, pastures that would presumably get smaller with time as the BEV gains in popularity, until BMW can't make a profit any more.
I say, "fuck 'em" because they had the option to develop this technology sooner and reduce the pain of transition. However, instead of being reasonable, they decided against any investments in EVs because they were too busy rolling in piles of cash that papered over the 250M bodies of the people that will die from climate change by 2100.
Global warming is from burning fossil fuels, and gasoline doesn't have to be a fossil fuel. A gasoline vehicle doesn't necessarily have to burn gasoline, though there might need to be some changes to the software or something so it's not lighting up the dashboard with funny readings from engine sensors. Have them burn ethanol or some other kind of carbon neutral fuel instead of a fossil fuel.
I'm seeing people that lost sight of the goal. The goal is lower CO2 emissions, not everyone driving a BEV or nothing. The BEV is just one way to get to a net zero (or close enough to net zero that we stop counting) to mitigate against global warming. Wasn't there something on Slashdot recently about ships burning "green" ammonia for fuel in their nominally diesel engines? Maybe it wasn't Slashdot but this has been getting more attention lately. The conversion from diesel to ammonia seems simple enough. I recall there's some ammonia mixed with the intake air, then at TDC there's a small amount of peanut oil or something injected to get the compression ignition. There's many variation on the theme to consider, use your imagination.
Re:Horseshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
As I see it there's nothing stopping a competitor to put an end to BMW's profits by offering BEVs that make anything with an internal combustion engine look like expensive junk.
Is your goal only to reward whoever makes the most popular product? Or do you care whether the product destroys the planet?
I don't understand what position you're trying to argue. Burning fossil fuels is literally destroying the planet. If you choose to drive an ICE, then you personally are harming the entire human race. Yet you don't seem to see that as a problem, and say governments shouldn't interfere with what people want to do? That not "picking who makes a profit" is more important than preserving the future of humanity?
Seriously?
A gasoline vehicle doesn't necessarily have to burn gasoline
There is no credible path to stopping climate change that doesn't replace nearly all ICE vehicles with EVs. To start with the engines are far less efficient, roughly 3x less. Then there's the inefficiency of manufacturing chemical fuel, which loses around another 2x. It's just not realistic.
In addition, the total global capacity for manufacturing gasoline from renewable energy is currently zero, or so close to zero as to be effectively the same. Even if we could somehow produce so much clean energy that we didn't care about throwing away 5/6 of it, there's still no way we could produce enough to meet global demand for many years.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand what position you're trying to argue. Burning fossil fuels is literally destroying the planet.
I believe I was clear on my position. I understand I was trying to make several points but I believe they should have been easy to follow. I'll try again and also to keep each point distinct.
The problem lies with the fuel, not the engine. We can remove the issue of global warming from the engine by using carbon neutral fuels like ethanol.
Ethanol just barely produces more energy than goes into making it. So unless you're running all of the farm equipment, transportation equipment, etc. on pure ethanol, you're only reducing your fossil fuel consumption by maybe 20% by doing that.
There's been plenty of other options offered so they are easy to find. Other than ethanol I can think of the US Navy project on carbon neutral jet fuel. While cars don't often run on jet fuel they can often do so with little to no modifications.
I think you're mixing up AVGas with jet fuel. Jet fuel is kerosene. A car can run on AVGas. Running a car on kerosene would likely require *major* changes to avoid the fuel prematurely detonating on compression, because kerosene is roughly the equivalent of 15-oct
Re: Horseshit. (Score:2)
"The problem lies with the fuel, not the engine."
No, this is nonsense. The engine has poor efficiency no matter what fuel you run it on and there's always carbon release at some stage. If you run hydrogen then it was in the production of the fuel. And if you used a fuel cell you would get more mileage and therefore there would be less carbon emissions, so the ICE is provably the problem again.
Re: Horseshit. (Score:2)
The climate has been unusually stable throughout humanity's existence, which is how we have prospered. Now we have created conditions which have never existed for that entire period and you expect it to continue to support that prosperity?
Re: (Score:2)
That is exactly what is happening with Chinese luxury/performance brands. They are entering the European market with similar or better quality/performance to the Germany brands, at a lower price point. They also have big leads in some areas like battery tech and battery swapping stations.
At the moment the stigma of them being Chinese and new, less recognizable brands is holding them back, but it's only a matter of time. Look at SAIC with their MG brand, now firmly established and with a decent reputation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing people that lost sight of the goal. The goal is lower CO2 emissions, not everyone driving a BEV or nothing.
The goal never had anything to do with CO2 emissions. The goal is authoritarian control by the technocracy. It is about making it impossible for anyone but the elite to live in anything but some some burtalist high rise or be tethered to farm equipment they maintain. "They" don't want normies being able to assemble etc, or have the degree of independence to reject a policy but voting with their feet.
Re: (Score:2)
Their rationale is total horseshit and it's plain to see.
Then why is this an industry-wide problem, affecting ALL manufacturers that are not getting subsidies up the wazoo? We've had electric cars for 25 years and they still haven't obliterated ICE. Most people don't want EVs, and there are good reasons for that, even if the EV fanatics insist on plugging their ears and blowing off every else's concerns.
I'm so sick of people thinking with their emotions. I don't even bother arguing with people over why I don't want an EV, because nobody listens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
another one who thinks the transition should have been overnight
Eh? I'm not the one insisting that all other options be outright banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually electric cars predate ICE vehicles...
They failed because the technology was totally impractical at the time, and largely disappeared from the market until fairly recently.
These days they are less impractical, but still unsuitable for a lot of use cases, and still more expensive than ICE vehicles.
Re:Horseshit. (Score:5, Informative)
BMW did invest plenty in EVs. The i4 and i7 are good EVs and they just announced the new Neue Klasse bespoke EV platform with dozens of new models in the pipeline, including the newly introduced iX3.
They simply refused to pick a sunset date for their ICE cars. And it makes sense when you consider they don't really make appliances; they make cars for people who like driving. People like manual gearboxes and the sound of an engine.
Re: (Score:2)
If people like manual gearboxes, why don't they buy them? BMW offers like 3 or 4 models with manual as an option, with the uptake rate between 15-65%, with the rate dropping the higher the performance of the car.
I fully agree that BMW has invested a lot in EVs and they have actually proven all the neysayers who claimed Tesla was going to replace them wrong.
What I don't agree with is this struggle to postpone the inevitable just because it means that their investments in ICE are going to become almost worthl
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hyundai proved that EVs can be really fun to drive. Their sport models even have fake engine noises and fake gears if you want them.
Maybe part of the problem is that even cheap EVs have performance that blows away fossil cars costing 3-4x as much.
Re: (Score:2)
They investing doesn't change what the GP said. The point is fundamentally about money. They make lower profit margins on EVs while the higher cost of the drive train provides less opportunity to differentiate in a lower cost market.
they make cars for people who like driving. People like manual gearboxes and the sound of an engine.
Most of BMW's high end sports cars default to automatic transmissions. Consumer preference is not overwhelmingly in support of manual driving, the manual is the most prominent gearbox in Europe due to it shaving several thousands off the cost of the car (economies of scale). In
Re: Horseshit. (Score:2)
I test rode a zero SR a couple years ago. Smoothest bike I've ever ridden. Torquey. Throttle response was instant. Seating position wasn't my cup of tea. I'm keeping my bmw for now, but my next bike will be an EV for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
BMW wants customers to have the freedom to choose between engines and batteries.
Their rationale is total horseshit and it's plain to see. Everything about this screams, "but our profit margins!" and an endless stream of crocodile tears.
there are quite a lot of people who do not want to see a storied automaker stop making what they excel at (engines).
personally, im not ready to see BMW as an EV-only company.
Non sequitur. (Score:4, Insightful)
Without making any particular point, you are merely throwing out a non sequitur.
Climate change is real, everyone (sane) knows that it is real and that we need to reduce emissions as fast as possible if the future is going to anything but an unmitigated disaster.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate change is real, everyone (sane) knows that it is real and that we need to reduce emissions as fast as possible if the future is going to anything but an unmitigated disaster.
Do we have enough mining and manufacturing capacity to sell enough BEVs to replace the hydrocarbon burners before they all wear out or global warming is the disaster you fear? Is there enough electric generation capacity built quickly enough to charge these BEVs and keep the lights on?
That's not an argument to keep burning fossil fuels. That is a reminder of some very important logistics that need to be solved before any ban on internal combustion engines can be banned. In order to relieve some of the st
Re:Non sequitur. (Score:5, Interesting)
We don't have the industrial capacity to ban internal combustion engines for a market as large as the EU. We likely won't have it for something like 30 years.
This seems like a huge stretch. In general, EVs charge at night when power consumption is lowest, so the impact on the grid is usually minimal, and more than half of all cars sold in Europe today are already either hybrid or battery-powered, so clearly there isn't a problem building enough electric motors, building the HVDC wiring, etc. So that basically just leaves battery production and expansing the HVDC charger networks for trips.
Remember that to be able to ban new ICE cars, you don't have to be able to accommodate all of the cars suddenly being EVs. You just have to be able to accommodate the roughly 4% annual replacement rate being EVs. This really should not be an impossibly high bar to reach in a decade.
Re:Non sequitur. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that to be able to ban new ICE cars, you don't have to be able to accommodate all of the cars suddenly being EVs. You just have to
pass a law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Non sequitur. (Score:2)
Half at once is enough to allow many more people to switch without any changes.
don't need to replace cars 1-to-1 (Score:2)
The question is slightly wrongly formulated - we don't need to replace fossil fuel vehicles with BEV:s 1-to-1.
A *huge* amount of traffic can be done with more efficient technology - for example rail with overhead electric power, which can move large amounts of cargo as well as provide efficient commuting and intercity trips (just look at Europe). All this while using relatively small amounts of rare metals - or real estate. And in smaller cities (especially in Europe where BMW is headquartered) a large shar
Re: (Score:3)
And in smaller cities (especially in Europe where BMW is headquartered) a large share of car trips are 10 km with very little cargo. You seldom need a car for that - a bicycle or e-bike is often enough.
There are also a lot of factors which work against that...
For instance here i have a supermarket 2km away, and i prefer to walk there almost daily, however they keep running promotions like "EUR10 discount when you spend EUR100"..
When i walk there i can seldom carry EUR100 worth of groceries back unless i target specific high value items that are compact/light enough. The supermarket operates a loyalty card scheme so they could easily keep track of cumulative spend, they just don't bother.
Larger packs are g
Re: (Score:2)
A workaround would be using a smaller vehicle - like a cargo bike (I can large almost all cargo, including building supplies, with the cargo bikes available in the local cycle pool) or regular bike. But yes, this kind of "buy more" verbiage both encourages driving and wastefulness.
Re: (Score:2)
Being forced to do this by our politicians over here will get the kicked out of office pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
If you value the transportation mode "stuck in car traffic" so high, then sure. Reducing car dependency however helps with many urban qualities, including preserving green spaces, ability of kids or the elderly to get around on their own, and of course air and water quality, traffic safety. Also congestion, helping those who actually specifically need a motor vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
We who? I don't need to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Non sequitur. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is zero evidence of any real urgency.
You absolute fool. Climate change isn't something that can be stopped like someone who stops walking, it's more like a freight train that takes miles to stop. On top of that, we aren't even feeling the full effect of current emissions because there is a five year lag.
By the time there is "real urgency", it will be far too late and a total ecological collapse will be unavoidable. How can you be so shortsighted despite all the warnings?
Because no one can make a profit from reducing emissions.
Exactly why it needs to be made unprofitable to emit pollution rather than not. You've made an excellent case for a carbon emissions tax.
We are "reducing emissions" as fast as is profitable.
That's not actually doing anything at all, it's just chasing money and damn the consequences.
Our consumption of electricity continues to grow faster than the growth in renewables.
Which is why the sane solution would be alter the pricing structure so that when businesses use more electricity that they pay more per unit.
There are lots of things that would immediately reduce emissions. But in fact we aren't doing them and emissions have been increasing.
And it's absolutely infuriating.
Re:Non sequitur. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why the sane solution would be alter the pricing structure so that when businesses use more electricity that they pay more per unit.
That tends to have unintended consequences.
First, if the extra per-unit price is more than the cost of an extra meter, you'll suddenly see them adding extra meters to avoid it.
Second, it means that things that inherently use lots of power, like arc furnaces, become unprofitable, and suddenly you end up depending on imports for all of your metal. You end up storing your data on servers in third-world countries because the server farms cost too much here. You end up with more and more businesses moving overseas to avoid the extra costs.
Third, it is likely to result in higher emissions. No realistic amount of power reduction will ever cause a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, because most clean base load power is either very limited in where it can be built (hydro) or is extremely expensive (nuclear), while the cheapest base load power (currently natural gas) is not so clean. So if you reduce usage, the folks producing power are likely to try to cut the most expensive power production first, and that means you are very likely to end up polluting *more*.
Pushing for power conservation is pretty much always a mistake. If you want to reduce the environmental harm of power production, start phasing out fossil fuels for non-emergency power purposes, and set a hard end date by which all power production must be green. Let the industry figure out how to meet those standards, whether by building nuclear plants, solar, wind, battery storage, or some other means. The cost of power will go up, but you've actually solved the problem.
The notion of conserving our way to clean energy is, IMO, pure fantasy unless the cost of solar (including storage) ends up being so much lower than the cost of natural gas that nobody considers building the latter. Until we reaching that tipping point, you either mandate that the percentage of non-zero-emission power plants gets smaller each year until it reaches zero or you fail to make power production cleaner. That's just basic economics.
Re: (Score:2)
Power will be used, but that was obvious. It's the TYPE of power that will be used, its sources, and its sustainability.
Solar infrastructure, along with wind, tidal, hydro, and other forms don't alter the weather in the same way that fossil fuels have. Fossil fuels have also altered the geopolitical climate, creating vast empires of wealth that want to sustain themselves.
The environmental harm is undeniable. BMW wants to please their clientele, no doubt, but they've also been unable to innovate away from IC
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly why it needs to be made unprofitable to emit pollution rather than not. You've made an excellent case for a carbon emissions tax.
Unless every country in the world does this simultaneously, those countries that implement such taxes will become uncompetitive and start losing out to those countries without such taxes. High emission activities will just be outsourced to countries with less regulation.
Re:Non sequitur. (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless every country in the world does this simultaneously, those countries that implement such taxes will become uncompetitive and start losing out to those countries without such taxes. High emission activities will just be outsourced to countries with less regulation.
Couldn't the country importing the product just slap tariffs on anything that was produced in such countries?
Re: Non sequitur. (Score:2)
"relax and enjoy life a little."
You mean relax so that nobody winds up expecting you to change your lifestyle, because you don't care about anyone else.
Re: Non sequitur. (Score:2)
"There is zero evidence of any real urgency"
Why are you leading with nonsense?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to just the "fuck the EU" part.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what about the EU? Since it's not even remotely clear I'm going to assume you meant "but our profit margins" part and American businesses complaining about having to follow EU rules.
I know that's not what you intended to say, but your communication sucks so that's what I'm going with.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny because ilk like you are always the first to cry for help the second that their own shitty choices come back to haunt them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we need an AI dictatorship, people chose to sacrifice their children for convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This status quo won't survive the current generation of kids one way or another (and in some of the ways not most of the kids either).
Irrelevance? (Score:5, Insightful)
An electric motor is also a motor, so that last line of the summary is hoghwash. But, BMW seems to take a page out of the Trump handbook, 'ICE first!'. Which is, of course, a valid way. Still, as with any choice anyone makes at any given time, the consequences of these choices are your to bear.
And with that choice BMW seems to go in the direction of becoming obsolete by their own hand. I have owned 3 BMW's when living in the Netherlands. Fine cars, each one of them. Enjoyed driving these as well. But if they don't want to play in a changing market, then why would the market care? Their stance only makes the Chinese car industry more relevant, by simply choosing to remain in the technical backwater that is ICE.
ICE is fun and sounds so much better than EV does. Any day of the week and twice on Sundays even. Yet, that doesn't exclude BMW of moving where the market goes. This is why such companies must work on R&D, without CEO's c.ckblocking the required spending to do so. Else you, as a company, simply become irrelevant.
Re:Irrelevance? (Score:4)
Yet, that doesn't exclude BMW of moving where the market goes.
BMW wants to continue to build what they are quite aware their customers want. That is how the market is supposed to work.
Re:Irrelevance? (Score:5, Insightful)
BMW wants to continue to build what they are quite aware their customers want.
Consumers want to get from A to B and are price conscious about it. Consumers will simply buy EVs if ICE vehicles are banned, that's really all their is to it. What BMW wants to continue to do is sell vehicles they make higher margins on, and vehicles where for a lower cost they can add differentiating features. For EVs the drivetrain makes up a higher cost that eats into manufacturing profits and removes differentiation at the lower end.
Don't be naive, BMW wants what is best for BMW and doesn't give a flying fuck about a consumer beyond how wide they can get them to open their wallet.
That is how the market is supposed to work.
Since you invoked the market it's important to understand basic economics. With "The Market" I believe you mean free market where consumer choice dominates? In all economic theories the end stable state of any free market economics is either total market collapse, or single monopoly supply. In any free market economy where public resources are at play (like clean air, or CO2 emissions) tragedy of commons leads to complete resource collapse.
The only way the market "works" is through regulation. You don't have anywhere near the choice you think you do. We haven't had that in centuries and with very good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers want to get from A to B and are price conscious about it.
As I pointed out earlier, this might be true of people looking for cheap Chinese EVS but is not BMW's market. Here where I live most of the vehicles are full size trucks and SUVs, so I'm thinking gas milage is low on the list for most consumers. I'm on my 4th owned-from-new BMW. I buy the most fun one I can afford. I'm not cross shopping economy cars at all. I'm already planning on a 27' M2 next actually.
Consumers will simply buy EVs if ICE vehicles are banned, that's really all their is to it.
In some parts of the world they will simply change governments instead. So there will still be a m
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, people want all sorts of stuff that is bad for them or bad for other people, so we regulate sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a damn about how a market is supposed to work if the human race goes extinct?
The human race will likely go extinct one day, but not soon. You should try to enjoy your life, today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how you capitalise, ill thought out opinions aren't facts.
I disagree. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course the current course can kill the ICE industry. It's the very point of the policy.
However, by "collapse" the likely mean "the Chinese will eat our lunch" will only happen because the European automakers currently refuse to take EVs, even hybrids, seriously. I mean there's Munich auto fair right now, and a big maker like Renault is showing its 6th update of the Clio (the best selling car from the brand), and it's a simple ICE with no electrified version planned.
Complaining about infrastructure is not an argument here for the collapse of the EU car industry. The same infrastructure problems will affect both European and foreign makers. In 2035, every maker, including the Chinese, will face the same wall.
They urge the governments to "reconsider", another way of saying they don't want to change anything. They should on the contrary make constructive proposals. If the governments can't figure it out themselves, BMW should give them hints, and it's not so difficult. Governments could pass laws requiring every private car park operator (commercial centers, corporates) to equip 10% of their parking spaces with chargers, even if slow ones for now. I expect this sort of mandate will eventually happen, but BMW could already launch the idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course the current course can kill the ICE industry. It's the very point of the policy. However, by "collapse" the likely mean "the Chinese will eat our lunch"
BMW owners don't want cheap Chinese EVs, and BMW is quite capable of building a pretty well regarded (by enthusiasts) BEV (the i4 M50) which is as good as anything from China, as well as being a BMW, except for the pesky problem that it is not what BMW drivers want. Ain't nothing China can do about that either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the infrastructure argument is such BS. The ICE ban means only sales of new cars, which in combination with the average age of cars in the EU means we'll still have ICE cars on our roads well into the 2040's if not 2050's. An ICE car sold in 2034, 9 years(!) from new will be halfway through its lifespan in 2045.
That means a child born today could buy a reasonable used ICE car for their first car in 20 years. I do not understand the "customer's choice" argument from this perspective at all. Like should
Re: (Score:2)
I mean there's Munich auto fair right now, and a big maker like Renault is showing its 6th update of the Clio (the best selling car from the brand), and it's a simple ICE with no electrified version planned.
That is disingenuous and ignorant. Renault won't ever made an electric Clio because the entire industry has moved on from the dumb idea of slapping an EV drive train into vehicles fundamentally not designed from them. It hasn't worked well in the past and I can only highly recommend never buying an EV model of an ICE car. If they look the same and are built on the same platform you're getting a product with pointless tradeoffs.
If you want an electric Clio the buy a Renault 5, that *is* the EV version of the
Climate destroyers claim they are the good guys (Score:2)
What else is new? The reality is they messed up their strategy and now want to go on polluting longer to keep their profits up. Obviously, these assholes must not be allowed to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
What else is new? The reality is they messed up their strategy and now want to go on polluting longer to keep their profits up. Obviously, these assholes must not be allowed to do that.
Pretty sure there is a carve out in the EU regulations for e-fuels.
https://www.hemmings.com/stori... [hemmings.com]
Porsche is leading the way on this, but BMW also has an enthusiast customer base. No reason ICE cars can't be pretty clean. EU just needs to focus on the goal and not micromanaging markets. Governments are generally really bad at that.
Re: (Score:2)
E-fuels will be expensive. Green hydrogen is inefficient as hydrogen haters love to point out, but it has lots of room to bring the cost down. Green CO2 is likely inherently expensive, due to required materials and consumables. You need both.
Premium automakers have a particular challenge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
E-fuels will be so expensive that only supercar owners will be able to afford them. We're talking $20 per gallon or more. Nor do they solve the problem of local air pollution.
I've seen estimates of double current gasoline prices at scale but am too lazy to search, that would certainly be well with in the budget of many people why buy luxury cars. I would certainly pay double in order to continue to buy new ICE cars. Otherwise I'll just continue to use the traditional stuff in whatever my last car will be.
Preparing for failure (Score:2)
Their job is to make compliant cars. They can certainly emphasize the laziness of government means the needed infrastructure isn't getting built. They might even pontificate on the stupidity of demanding a city of EVs that can't get 'fuel' and thus function as street art.
An addition problem will be, the cost of re-tooling means most people can't afford an electric vehicle. That's a price/demand/bankruptcy problem that also requires government intervention.
If government doesn't honour their side of the
well, yes obviously (Score:2)
That's the point.
Collapse? oh no (Score:2)
"His concerns are echoed by Mercedes CEO Ola Kallenius, who recently warned the European car industry is "heading at full speed against a wall" and could even "collapse" if the EU doesn't reconsider."
Why is everyone a capitalist believing that the market will give us the solutions we need up until the time where they were caught sleeping and now they want us to please be nice to them?
We do not have time to coddle these babies. Figure something out or die, that's not my problem. My problem is that fires get
Gas should be taxed properly... (Score:2)
Gas prices should include cost of climate change and of war in Ukraine.
Then we can talk about "consumer's freedom"
Yeah like CFCs (Score:2)
We should have let consumers choose.
Because consumers were atmosphere chemist experts.
We should also let consumers choose at the hospital what they need because they're doctors.
Ad nauseam....
Or, just make good EVs... (Score:2)
Instead of coasting on brand name recognition and making everything possible a yearly subscription to protect your margins. At this point, they deserve to get run over by Korean automakers and Chinese upstarts.
I agree with using tariffs to prevent market dumping by China, but you have to build something in response not just complain. So, go design and engineer a great EV. People like rising to a challenge, after all.
Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)
IT'S SUPPOSED TO KILL AN INDUSTRY.
You were warned 20 years ago that this would happen, and yet you're still pumping out the thing we're trying to ban because it's killing the planet.
Why do conservatives fcuk off global warming? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bavaria is a very conservative place, since 1946, unopposed conservative rule.
I have my own bias views that conservatism is a fundamentally fearful and primitive philosophy.
Most conservatives I know have a strong negative bias from all the Daily Mail reading they do. Very fearful, particularly of different cultures. I guess that is why they like guns to make them feel safe. Why they cling to tradition like a raft in the messy world of competing ideas. Heavens Margaret I don't know what to think anymore, boys can be girls? Which way is up?
If a conservative mind is stressed mind, then anything that is seen as an inconvenience to it like an EV is just another threat to be opposed. Why should I put myself out to help anyone?
Conservatives are a herd animal, that's what fearful cattle do and why they like authoritarian leaders like Trump to save them from the terrible 'them' who are not like 'us' and their death terrors.
If they could be got onside of a "global survival" argument they could be the political power to make real changes as typically they also have the money being the most selfish and greedy bunch.
Perhaps that's the root of a problem is to not try to scare a conservative with global warming, they are already terrified of the world, any more stress and it will pop their primitive minds and they'll start fighting.
Thanks Captain obvious (Score:2)
Sir, this was always the plan, to kill the petrol industry.
Acthually (Score:3)
The M can still stand for Motoren, as electric motors are uhm, motors.
Re: (Score:2)
Public sentiment: Blinkers Might Work
No it won't (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The report notes that BMW continues to generate strong profits from its combustion engines... In fact, the "M" in BMW stands for "Motoren" (German for "engine").
It may surprise you but EVs have engines too.
I always thought motoren was German for motors, how could I have been so wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When You've got 60% of your country living paycheck to paycheck upfront is what matters.
That's right but people who live paycheck to paycheck don't purchase BMWs, they don't even purchase new cars. Even if they want a new one, they take the best selling model which right now is sold 13 k€ (it's not a BMW as you can guess). Out of all European makers, BMW is among the least who could complain about the additional price of a battery. Their latest production, presented here 5 days ago, sells for 60 k$ https://hardware.slashdot.org/... [slashdot.org] Their customer base wouldn't care much if a bigger batter
Re: (Score:2)
They don't buy them up front, they lease them or have a vehicle loan.
Re: (Score:2)
If we dropped the tariffs on BYD vehicles, they'd be the cheapest new cars you could buy in the USA. The downside, of course, is you'd have the American automakers making the exact same complaints about how their industry is being killed.
but in America if you don't own your own home, which is basically impossible if you're under 40, then you're going to be paying about the same or maybe a little bit more to charge your EV unless your job is giving you free charging as a perk.
More or less, yeah. It's also a bit of a pain in the ass to deal with having to sit at a DCFC station for a half hour every few days, rather than the once-a-week gas pit stop most people have become accustomed to. Of course, there is always just going rogue and running a
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't the office parking lot have charging points? Is the US a third world country?
Why would you have to sit in a station to charge, when grocery stores can build chargers in their parking spaces?
This is already being solved in developed countries. I know people who fuel up their Plug-in hybrids twice a year, because their 30 mile range is enough to get them between work, the store and home, with options to charge at any of these locations.
Putting in a charger is not a big job.
Re: (Score:2)
but in America if you don't own your own home, [...], then you're going to be paying about the same or maybe a little bit more to charge your EV [...].
More or less, yeah.
Assuming this is about people living in rented apartments. If it comes with an underground parking lot, it should be possible to install a wallbox. Of course you'd have to ask permission from the owner, but they have no reason to refuse. Or don't you have underground parking lots in the US?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the use of fossil fuels has more than doubled human lifespan and made immense improvements to health besides making modern civilization. Maybe you should factor the costs of not using them
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It was when Soviet planners and 5-year agricultural plans that failed miserably because the economy can't be planned from a central authority successfully. Only free market capitalism can allocate resources in the proper proportions to satisfy societal needs. Gov't edits for things like EV's are doomed to failure.
This is why the Libertarian Paradise of Haiti is so successful: there's no government to get in the way of unfettered free market capitalism.
Or maybe, your point of view is so ludicrously oversimpl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't free markets solve the problems with anarchy?
Sounds like your want government intervention.