• Djennik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Although good news, maybe do something about the fact that every minute 13 million dollar in subsidies is going to fossil fuels… In 2022 the total was 7 trillion, dwarfing the 1 trillion for renewables (globally)

    Source: IMF

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would fossil fuels even be profitable anymore if the subsidies were removed, or is the recent history of fossil fuels just a tale in wealth extraction and collusion by a dead industry?

      • DoctorTYVM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They absolutely would be profitable, it’s just that those costs would then be passed on to the consumer. People would see energy costs skyrocket to make up the difference.

        The oil companies still have a product most of the world needs and people will (and have) killed to get it. We’d rebel against a government they tried

        In order to get passed oil we need to move to alternatives like EVs.

  • suction@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The actual roadblock (sic) to e-cars in Europe and especially Germany is that culturally, people don’t live in the urban sprawl (one house one garage per family) but more like Americans do in big cities like NYC: Multi-flat apartments with no reserved parking spots - street parking is the norm, and in bigger cities is very hard to find in the evening. That of course means overnight charging is only possible for those who own a parking space closed off to the public, and can convince the person who they rent from to install a charger. Then you have the further problem of the electric grid in most cities not being able to supply the needed bandwidth for a big number of fast chargers. That’d mean that the whole grid would have to be upgraded, so digging up city streets for the next decades. People in the sticks who own property (single house on a plot of land) are those who can reasonably switch to electric cars for the time being, because let’s face it, no amount of chargers at service stations will be enough - if I can’t charge my car overnight at home, I won’t buy an e-car. I’m not driving to the next service station, wait for a charger to become available, then sit in my car playing Vampire Survivors for 2h until it’s charged. Every other day.

    I seriously doubt electric cars will take off in Europe due to the lack of the “charging at home” option for the majority of people with no real resolution in sight.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My understanding is that level 2 street charging is growing. They also do things a little differently in that rather than having a cord at each station (prone to theft/vandalism) drivers carry their own cord that plugs into the station and the car.

      Another thing to consider is that people driving within the city probably don’t cover much distance. Depending on pricing vs gas, 15 minutes at a fast charger every week or two may be enough to get by and worth it.

      Housing density and the things it comes with are absolutely a factor. But maybe not an insurmountable one.

  • Chreutz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Does the legislation say anything about the number of chargers at each service station?

  • heird@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    As they banned nuclear that means it’ll be all power coming from coal burning?

    • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s hard to do the math with low uncertainty, but it is likely still less carbon intensive to burn coal too charge EVs than to use ICEs.

      Even with transmission and storage losses.

      The reason for this is that the turbines in a power plant are operating very near to the peak possible thermodynamic efficiency (something like 60%).

      ICEs operate at a much lower efficiency than that.

      • baru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s irrelevant. The coal usage is down, it isn’t up. There is an exception for when France was doing huge maintenance on their nuclear power plants.

        It’s telling that the coal misinformation is brought up so often.