When Carl Benz patented the “vehicle powered by a gas engine” in 1886, he did not foresee the day when German lawmakers would edge seriously towards a ban on the internal combustion engine.
mercedes-1886
While there’s some lawmaking distance to travel before any ban takes legal effect, consider the consequences for Germany.  And consider the source of the recommendation, and the gravitas it provides.
According to Forbes.com, and its automotive writer Bertel Schmitt:

Diesel and gasoline-powered vehicles officially are an endangered species in Germany, and possibly all of the EU. This after Germany’s Bundesrat has passed a resolution to ban the internal combustion engine starting in 2030, Germany’s Spiegel Magazin writes. Higher taxes may hasten the ICE’s departure.
An across-the-aisle Bundesrat resolution calls on the EU Commission in Brussels to pass directives assuring that “latest in 2030, only zero-emission passenger vehicles will be approved” for use on EU roads. Germany’s Bundesrat is a legislative body representing the sixteen states of Germany. On its own, the resolution has no legislative effect. EU type approval is regulated on the EU level. However, German regulations traditionally have shaped EU and UNECE regulations.

Adapted from Ixpos.DE and “Germany Trade and Invest“:   Germany’s automotive industry is the third biggest in the world (after China and Japan, counting passenger cars), and is the biggest industrial sector in Germany. Automobile manufacturing and related businesses employ 774,900 German workers and, at ~404B Euros, provide around 20% of German industry revenue. It’s no boutique business.
Germany automotive R&D expenditures are around 24B Euros per year, a third of it’s total R&D investment. And, it seems, they may soon have ambitious goals to put sharp focus into that work. It’s a great spur to innovation.
Further, around 77% of production is sold internationally. Production relies upon suppliers and OEM’s worldwide.  This means that changes to Germany’s car design principles and the resulting new manufacturing technologies will quickly become known and available worldwide. It’s no local phenomenon.
The country is also Europe’s top automobile market, and U.S.-based manufacturers do big business there as well. General Motors sold 244,000 vehicles in Germany in 2015, while Ford is on track to sell 280,000 vehicles this year.  Everyone making and selling cars will feel the effects of this change.

Comments

  1. It seems harsh but sometimes it’s what needs to be done. A few years back somewhere in Europe they were banning incandescent bulbs. It spurred better compact fluorescent and then the amazing LED bulbs we now have. If there hadn’t been that push the bulb industries would have just continued on as before.
    So, I’m all for it.
    Another factor is that by their nature designing an internal combustion engine takes a lot of expertise whereas electric motors are just some wires and magnets. With gas or diesel cars it’s difficult and expensive to start a new company. With electric cars someone with modest capitol could start a new company and be producing a new car.
    There could be many more companies producing them and not the existing establishment. This could change the hold that the automobile industrial complex has on governments and policies. Interesting times.

  2. Much like Vision in Vancouver or the NDP Canada-wide economics & job creation is not the gift of many German politicians, especially in the meek senate, the Bundesrat. Germany has a long history of coal and iron ore mining and associated manufacturing, be it locks, swords, knives, steam engines or more recently the internal combustion engine (ICE).
    The first countries to ban ICE cars in the EU will be countries with no car manufacturing base, eg. Holland, Norway, Switzerland or Denmark. The last one in Europe will be Germany as that is the very core of the Euro success. No Euro, no cheap exports. No cars with a distinct advantage no exports and no job base.
    The issue with e-cars is not the engine, but the batteries, i.e. their capacity & their charging. We will see how they progress as the Achilles heel of e-cars is still range and charge times, due to battery constraints.
    More relevant in this context is the car charging standards now being proposed and supported by the 4 leading German firms VW, Audi, BMW and Mercedes that do not fit a Tesla: https://transportevolved.com/2015/01/20/germanys-new-draft-legislation-electric-car-charging-model-follow/ and that charge at 350kw/h – almost 4 times the speed of Tesla’s (incompatible system).
    or here http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/bmw-daimler-ford-and-vw-plan-europe-wide-ev-fast-charge-network

    1. I’m sure that our parents said something similar when steam engines were being replaced by diesel. And our grandparents probably said something similar when horse drawn carriages were being replaced by bicycles and cars.
      Why does this have to be negative in any way? Old technology gets replaced by new and hopefully better technology. Are we worse off for this? The only real problem I see is that the increased wealth that is created is going to the very rich. Time for the private sector to increase wages.

      1. Private sector increase wages when it must. The real issue is excessive debt & spending by the public sector, and since 75% of it is wages & benefits we must start there. Party now. Pay tomorrow is indeed the major issue today, not ICE or global warming.
        Lets start to focus on excessive pensions, salaries and benefits of our civil servants that make out like bandits, yet have far more job security, work less life time hours, bank sick days, secure & often indexed pension, oversized benefits and STILL get higher base salaries: http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/7290-public-sector-workers-oped.html
        Demand that every city, province or federal department shows the true total annual cost per employee, both working as well as retired. Many or most even do not break out retirement costs of so called DB (defined benefit) pensions.
        Then let’s focus on reforming healthcare that gobbles up roughly 1/3 of most provincial budgets.
        Let’s also the costs and benefits of immigration and which immigrant groups contribute and which do not.
        Party now, pay tomorrow, i.e. spending more than comes in, i.e. offloading the cost of the party into the future and unto the non-voting under-18 or yet unborn is the Achilles heel of democracy. Not just here, but especially in Europe but Canada is following their dangerous trajectory and more and more voters are saying “nein” as we see in vote after vote after vote in Europe: Brexit, Afd, FN or other parties on the rise.
        Progress is great, but taxing energy and wages excessively is not. When the e-car at $15,000 will go 500km+ like your average small ICE car by Toyota, Ford, GM, VW Golf, Kia, Chrysler etc then they will be flying off the shelves.

        1. “Party now. Pay tomorrow is indeed the major issue today, not ICE or global warming”
          Yet you continue to promote a “party now and pay tomorrow” approach to climate change. Climate change that humans are contributing significantly to.
          Imagine how much more it will cost society by delaying action.
          “The real issue is excessive debt and spending by the public sector..”
          And here you are endlessly championing more of that, with unjustified transportation investments to every corner of the Metro region, and incredibly wasteful approaches to not dealing with climate change responsibly.

        2. Global Warming™ has really kicked in in Vancouver.
          The only thing one can possibly imagine is that the city administration never thought it would ever be cold again.
          They still think it’s humans that create the weather. No wonder they ran out of salt!
          It will take a generation to shake off this religious fashion. You can see them now, just like the aging hippies, the Global Warming™ freaks will be sitting around in their 60’s with their long white hipster beards, mumbling that that the end is coming, soon.

        3. Love to see more subways & rapid transit, too, Jeff. And yes more roads & bridges too as we are a growing region with the only major harbours to the growing Asian region so we need more transportation capacity fo any kind !
          As to global warming: nice. Many benefits, especially in Canada. A non-issue to many.

        4. Thomas, even if Canada would benefit from a warmer climate we’d be inundated by climate refugees from places that will be burning up – where agricultural production will be threatened.. Do you really think Canada’s borders could withstand the onslaught – especially of heavily armed Americans from the south? Are you ready for a situation that would make Europe’s refugee crisis look like a little picnic gathering?
          But Canada won’t benefit anyway. Ecosystems will be increasingly stressed and collapse. Forests will burn. Fisheries will end. The very advantage Canada has worldwide – a large unspoiled wilderness – may not survive in a form that would be attractive to anyone.
          Bur be positive in your delusion if you like. Thankfully you’re a dying breed.

        5. Let’s see. Just over 80% of public pension payments to municipal and provincial retirees comes from pension fund investment revenue. Investments from public pension boards are one of the largest and fastest growing wealth-creating entities in the nation. One recently bought out Cadillac Fairview.
          The act of wealth creation does not distinguish the investment seed money as public or private. It is money, period. And it has been generating a healthy return.
          One must look at the 19th Century history books to see what a private economy would look like. Morgan and Carnegie lived in huge mansions on the same island as hundreds of thousands of their employees who lived cheek-to-jowl in tenements filled with disease and tinder box conditions.

  3. Over the past decades, when German manufacturers developed newer more technologically advanced products, they often shipped the former production lines to other countries. Note that they built VW Beetles in several countries (notably Mexico), for the local markets, long after they stopped building them in Europe. Heavy mobile equipment for construction that was built in Europe went to Brazil and other countries, again for the local markets.
    BMW is building cars around the world, and notably now makes some engines in China, no doubt partly because they will be building them there longer than they will be able to in Europe.

  4. Imagine all the jobs that will be created as we shift from a carbon economy, with a sharp focus on lower transportation costs, cleaner air, and facing up to climate change.
    Most interesting EV announcement of December was the Nikola, IMO. Not the Tesla. But both named for Nikola Tesla?
    http://images.hgmsites.net/med/nikola-one-electric-semi-truck_100556407_m.jpg
    All electric drive, zero emission, up to 1200 mile range. Hydrogen fuel cell for energy storage (hydrogen produced by solar cells at Nikola plants).
    Battery storage (lithium) of 320 kwhr to supplement the H2. No plug in charging.
    “We will see how they (ecars) progress as the Achilles heel of e-cars is still range and charge times, due to battery constraints”
    Careful with the predictions. They might bite you.
    https://nikolamotor.com/

    1. Love to see the low hanging fruit picked first, such as elimination of diesel buses, trucks or cars especially in cities such as this ban of diesel trucks in 4 major cities. I wish Vancouver would do the right thing here too, rather than the fanatic ban of natural gas for heating water for your hot shower by 2020. https://www.ghanastar.com/international/four-major-cities-move-to-ban-diesel-vehicles-by-2025/
      Noise, congestion in cities and air pollution are the real crimes, not alleged global warming from too much CO2. As such I’d welcome more quiet e-cars in our cities.
      The transition costs will be enormous. The pickup might be slower than we all wish. Can the electric grid handle it ? Are apartment and condo buildings ready for massive $250,000+ electric grid upgrades per building to hook up more than 2-3 chargers but say 20 or 50 ? What about cars parked on the road ? Will cities install metered chargers along most residential streets ? Hardly. The pickup will be highest among upper middle class families with 2 cars and a private garage as they can easily be convinced to switch one of the 2 cars to an e-car. What % of cars is that ? 20-25% maybe ? What about the owner of one car though that wishes to commute to Kelowna, Kamloops, to Whistler or V Island 1x/month to visit family or go skiing ? Pickup won’t be nearly as high. That is why most cars are 4-5 person sedans although 90% of all rides are with 2 or less people, i.e. a 2 seater would suffice. Why are 90% of car not 2 seaters ? Because once in a while you need the extra 3rd or 4th seat. Ditto with e-cars. Most rides are less than 120 km but once in a while 300-400 km and stopping for 1/2 to 2 h to charge is just not acceptable convenience for most, Jeff.

      1. If you want to have a serious conversation you need to stop saying ridiculous things like “alleged global warming from too much CO2”.
        The trucks mentioned above are unlikely to be parking in condo buildings. The take up will be highest amongst commercial users who put more km on, and have higher fuel costs. For one or two people in an urban setting, it seems like walking and bikes make more sense much of the time. Add in more transit. We went from multiple cars to one, used occasionally. The gaps were filled with bikes, walking, transit.
        Instead of finding everything wrong in the progress to date, suggest you look at the technology and see where it is going. Look at battery costs. Look at charging rates. Look at alternate solutions (like the H2 fuel cell noted above) that avoid the entire battery issue. There is a huge range of opportunity here.

        1. “If you want to have a serious conversation”
          There’s no indication that this is a desired outcome for Beyer. We can only go by the evidence in front of us, for which we would put him in same category as Eric — a poster hoping to wallpaper this blog with clearly questionable statements, in the hope that the lowered quality of dialogue drives away the people who are presenting cogent arguments exposing their comments for what they are. This leaves an empty playing field in which they will continue to put forth inaccurate remarks — in the belief that the sheer volume of their comments will create some semblance of legitimacy for their position(s). The lack of opposition (due to frustrated people who are seeking a truly intelligent conversation about vital issues simply going elsewhere) will be used as an argument that their positions are acceptable and considered rational.
          It ain’t rocket science. But it is a tactic without integrity.

        2. Very true; we must listen to the scientists. Especially the Nobel Laureates.
          In addition to the Nobel Prize, he has also been awarded the Oliver E. Buckley Prize by the American Physical Society in 1965, and the Zworykin Award by the National Academy of Engineering in 1974.
          In 1985 he was awarded an honorary degree, doctor honoris causa, at the Norwegian Institute of Technology, later part of Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
          He is a member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.
          Certainly worth a few minutes listening to him:

        3. Oh that blooger guy. Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland.
          Who you gonna call?

        4. “Very true; we must listen to the scientists. Especially the Nobel Laureates”
          That is an example of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. If you are going to listen to the scientists, which seems a new tack for you, listen to the ones with expertise in the subject at hand.
          And if you are going to criticize the Skeptical Science article about Giaever’s claims, you should at least get the author right. The article was written by Dana Nuccitelli. That is who we are listening to. But if you want to talk about Dr. John Cook (the one with the PhD), fine.
          “Eric — a poster hoping to wallpaper this blog with clearly questionable statements, in the hope that the lowered quality of dialogue drives away the people who are presenting cogent arguments exposing their comments for what they are. This leaves an empty playing field in which they will continue to put forth inaccurate remarks — in the belief that the sheer volume of their comments will create some semblance of legitimacy for their position(s).”
          Well put.

        5. Yeah. You’re right. These bloggers know so much more that scientists that have been studying physics for 50 years. Nuttellacelli proudly calls himself a blogger. At least he’s straightforward on that. I see he comes fro UC Davis, the same place as our other fave blogger you introduced us to who now specializes in aggregating Global Warming™ snips for NASA and the 360 rabble.
          About Cook. I see he did get his PhD in cognitive psychology. The reference above is 5 years old and at that time he said he only had a BA.
          I guess you’re right again. A blogger and a doctor of cognitive psychology. They say it’s all over. I guess the science is settled.

        6. I’d put odds on the ones with degrees in astrophysics, and physics, publishing on climate change, with a long list of citations, knowing more about it than retired physicists who themselves note that they know nothing about climate science.
          Don’t just listen to the individuals though. Listen to the science. When you focus on the individuals it comes across as being because you haven’t got anything else to fall back on.

        7. We hope you, Chris, are listening. Jeff says don’t just listen to the individuals, listen to the science. Jeff says it comes across like you have nothing else.
          Watch the video and learn something. Or, if you prefer reading, then this is informative. It’s a bit technical for a lay person, so some ?, might struggle to get through the science.
          http://www.webcitation.org/5zjqDmw0L

        8. ” In 1960 Ivar Giaever demonstrated a tunnel effect through a thin layer of oxide placed between metal in normal or superconducting conditions.”
          How would this work (for which he was awarded one quarter of the Nobel for an effect named after Brian Josephson, the guy deemed responsible for 50% of the work on the topic (and a day and a half of Googling) qualify him to discount climate change Eric?
          Boy doesn’t (4:39) jump out though?
          ‘Interview with Professor Ivar Giaever by freelance journalist Marika Griehsel at the 54th meeting of Nobel Laureates in Lindau, Germany, June 2004. Professor Giaever talks about celebrating being awarded the Nobel Prize, his move from Norway to Canada and the USA (2:03), how he got the job at General Electrics despite low grades (4:39), the reasons why he became an entrepreneur (9:53), his thoughts about research (13:48) and also gives some advice to young students (15:45).’
          https://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=713

        9. If you want to play a numbers game Eric, then let’s do so:
          “Green and her colleagues found 4,014 papers that endorsed global warming, rejected global warming or explicitly stated they did not hold a position on it. Of these papers, 97.2 percent endorsed the “consensus” that global warming is human caused.”
          https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/
          Or, if we want to play Thomas’ game and chalk it up to politics, then the identity of the messenger and their affiliations becomes vital. Step out from behind the curtain and let us see who is pulling the levers. A fellow so dedicated to the truth as yourself shouldn’t fear putting their real name on their posts. In fact, were it really your position, it would be de rigeur.

      2. “I wish Vancouver would do the right thing here too, rather than the fanatic ban of natural gas for heating water for your hot shower by 2020”
        You will be glad to hear the, that Vancouver didn’t ban natural gas for heating water for your hot shower by 2020.
        There is a reduction target by 2020.
        There are code requirements to meet for new construction after 2030.
        And it refers to fossil fuel natural gas only.
        Why not find out the real story instead of continuing to repeat your falsehood?

        1. That’s right. And, the only way any new construction or any renovation will be allowed a gas appliance is if they are connected to the city controlled and much more expensive, district energy system which will be pumping methane gas from bio solids.
          Part of the Plan, always another plan, just like those Soviet Five Year Plans from failed history, the Renewable City Strategy. There will be:
          • Mandating energy use reporting
          All homeowners will have to report on their energy usage. Imagine that for a while. Report to whom? A city staff member? What next? Progressive energy pricing, dictated by the city?
          The Plan includes four essential areas of action:
          1. Limits: establish GHG and thermal energy limits by building type and step
          these down over time to zero.
          This is important:
          “In order to achieve zero emissions in new buildings by 2025 (or in some
          cases 2030), any portion of non-renewable energy in grid provided
          electricity will be required to be offset by the installation of an on-site
          renewable energy system such as photovoltaic solar panels. ”
          You *must*…
          ” One minor improvement will be setting a maximum allowed total GHG
          emission impact for new detached homes. The maximum allowed limit
          will be based on the average carbon footprint of a new home in
          Vancouver. Effectively, this will require larger than average homes to
          pursue greater energy efficiency or the use of additional renewable
          energy technologies sooner than the rest of the market. All grid
          connected space heating, domestic hot water heating, fireplaces
          (indoor and outdoor) and outdoor heating would be considered in
          setting the average. ”
          They’re going to homogenize the energy usage and efficiency of dwellings by pricing energy usage and specifically which appliances and systems are used.
          Yo won’t be able to just go out and buy a BBQ or a new space heater without reporting how much energy that, and all your other appliances, are using.
          All this because we have to Save The Planet™ from Global Warming™ and your city is going to make sure you live how they want and if you have money they will tax it, along with all the other tax suckers.

      3. Agreed, we can pretty much ignore Thomas, which is unfortunate because occasionally he actually has something to add. He looks the fool when he pretends he knows more about the climate than thousands of scientists devoted to the issue.
        Any new building built or retrofit today can easily eliminate natural gas and cost less for heat and hot water using only electricity. This is germane to a conversation about electric cars because we’re going to have to get smarter with our energy use to power them.
        The first thing is to eliminate waste. Passive houses can reduce heating energy demand by 80% or more. That’s a lot of waste that is currently blowing out our walls. New model heat pumps can generate three times the heat energy as the electricity they consume. We can eliminate gas with only a small uptick in electricity. That can probably be made up by reducing waste elsewhere in our wasteful systems.
        Meanwhile more urban people will be living with less need for cars. Electric motors are way more energy efficient than ICEs. Seems likely we’ll find economical ways to generate those electricity needs locally before too long. But we still have excess electrical capacity in the short to medium term.
        We’re basically there technologically already. It keeps getting cheaper and more viable. What’s most holding us back is greedy vested interests and naysayers like Mr. Beyer.

        1. Based on my utility bills I’d say that heating homes and hot water using natural gas is noticeably less expensive than doing it with electricity.
          Gas hot water tanks also recover faster so there’s less waiting between things that use a lot of water. Even with a natural gas tank there’s enough fighting for warm water at my home (4 adults, 2 kids) that I’ve seriously considered paying thousands of dollars to have a tankless system installed.

        2. Naysayer ? I am actually an optimist and REALIST. Look at energy cost, please, a topic conveniently swept under the green rug. Energy now a luxury good in Germany, for example
          part 1: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
          part 2: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288-2.html
          Daily hot showers. Who needs it? 1x/week is good enough, like the good old days !
          A nice house with a yard in the burbs ? Let’s kill that dream, as a small condo surely is good enough and so much better for the environment, too !
          Socialism always wants everyone equal, namely equally poor. CO2 taxes and high energy costs will go a long way to achieve that. No price is too high to sacrifice on the new altar of worship, the altar of man-made global waring.

        3. The climate is warming. Get used to it. But the world is also getting wealthier and busier so we actually have the money to improve our lives, not just the G7 or G20 folks but also the not so rich. 1B vehicles worldwide.
          Socialism = excessive taxation levied by the overpaid bureaucracy onto its peasants to equal everyone. Luckily we are not as bad as the failing EU yet, but we are aiming there dangerously close. Why ?

        4. Peasants are usually called “engaged citizens” or “the electorate” by politicians. Same thing.
          Ever increasing taxes, yet ever more free stuff like healthcare, education or roads that we truly cannot afford. Road tolls, far higher energy prices, private healthcare options, private schooling all coming in various forms as governments run out of money to shower its peasants with free gifts. Yet the one thing, spending constraints on wages & excessive benefits such as pensions, sick leave or healthcare packages a private sector worker can only dream of is NOWHERE in sight. Why is that ?
          Margaret Thatcher — ‘The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.’

        5. As Chris Keam has succinctly stated, there are some here;
          “hoping to wallpaper this blog with clearly questionable statements, in the hope that the lowered quality of dialogue drives away the people who are presenting cogent arguments exposing their comments for what they are. This leaves an empty playing field in which they will continue to put forth inaccurate remarks — in the belief that the sheer volume of their comments will create some semblance of legitimacy for their position(s). The lack of opposition (due to frustrated people who are seeking a truly intelligent conversation about vital issues simply going elsewhere) will be used as an argument that their positions are acceptable and considered rational.”
          IMO the “repetitive wallpaper strategy” is no different than the work of paid Putin propagandists!

        6. It’s always good to point out blatant Fake News, whether it comes from Soviet sources or moles masquerading as *normal* people.
          Checks and Balances are fundamental to informed dialogue.
          Do not be intimidated by impatient contrarians that insist on stifling any argument.

      4. Most home car chargers don’t use more power than an electric stove. We’ll be fine.
        The DC fast chargers which do cost a lot of money will basically be set up like gas stations.
        The hardest part is just locating a 220V plug beside a car, which technically isn’t that difficult.

    1. That would make sense for Vancouver the allegedly “greenest” city on the planet. Where is the city council motion on that rather than the silly”though shalt not use gas to heat thy shower” motion by 2020 !
      e-buses when ???

  5. The Bundesrat is essentially irrelevant in governing Germany in respect of this type of thing vs. the Bundestag. This is just political grandstanding.

  6. Tesla sold 26,000 in 2016. Up 5% from 2015. Wow.
    UPDATED: 1/5/17 9:24 am ET — Automotive News
    U.S. light-vehicle sales, led by fatter discounts, strong light-truck demand and solid gains at General Motors, Nissan and Honda in December, hit a record high in 2016.
    Overall sales rose by more than 56,000, or 0.3 percent, over the 2015 record. It was the seventh straight year of sales gains, an impressive streak and rebound for an industry that was down on its heels during the Great Recession. Volume rose 3 percent in December, well ahead of forecasts, pushing 2016’s final sales tally to 17,539,052 cars and light trucks.
    The seasonally adjusted, annualized sales rate hit 18.38 million, the highest pace of the year and fifth-highest of all time.
    In Germany: Full-year registrations were up 4.5 percent to 3.35 million, the highest level since 2009. Automotive News, Jan 4, 17.

      1. People forget the issue of SCALE. There are about 1B vehicles in the world (inc. motorbikes, trucks, buses, vans ..) 1B ! Maybe 1M per year by 2020. A million e-cars will displace only 50,000 barrel of oil a day or 0.05% of daily oil use ! Here’s an informed view by Canada’s premier energy economist, Peter Tertzakian on e-cars and oil: http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/will-electric-cars-unplug-oil-prices
        So to switch them all to electricity will take a while. People will buy what is cost effective and suits their needs. Once we get e-cars that go 500 km and cost $15,000 they will be flying off the shelves. Ditto with e-boats, e-tractors, e-trucks etc ! No one particularly likes ICE due to noise and pollution from exhaust. If better solutions exist they will crowd out existing technologies. Who still uses rotary dial telephones ? Who still has a black&white TV ? Who uses a 1980 PC with 32 KB ?
        Coal, oil and natural gas happen to store vast amount of energy per kg of weight. That is why they are used so much. Batteries still only factor 10-20 less energy content per kg ! Maybe once we get to factor 2 or 3 will we see a massive shift. How green are e-cars and e-batteries actually ?

        1. In 2016, approximately 740,000 EVs sold globally. In 2015, about 550,000 EVs were sold. In 2014, about 320,000 EVs were sold.
          So, 2017 is probably going to be about 1,000,000 EVs are sold. In the US, EV sales were up 37% year over year.
          Tesla in the next year alone plans to scale up its production to 500k cars per year. When the numbers are grown this quickly, it won’ be long before that dent in daily use is several million barrels. At that growth rate, the gas/diesel fleet is almost completely replaced within 20 years.

  7. An iceberg the size of Delaware is about to break off from the Larsen Ice Shelf in Antarctica and that will raise the sea level worldwide by 10 cm according to news reports.
    Instead of needlessly arguing about the cause of such impending events should we not contemplate what this might mean for sea level cities like Vancouver and how that might instruct us in regard to how and where we both construct and deconstruct the city?

    1. Relax. And watch out for Fake News.
      The Larsen Ice Shelf is just bobbing around in the sea.
      “An ice shelf is a floating extension of land-based glaciers which flow into the ocean. Because they already float in the ocean, their melting does not directly contribute to sea-level rise” Science Daily.
      “If the iceberg did break off, it wouldn’t contribute to sea-level rise since it’s already floating”, said Ted Scambos, a scientist with the National Science and Data center.

        1. Studies show that in the middle of the present interglacial the former Larsen A region, which was the furthest north and outside the Antarctic Circle, had previously broken up and reformed only about 4,000 years ago.
          Only.
          It was names for Larsen that sailed by the shelf in 1893.
          Don’t worry Arno, it’s nothing unusual. As the ice gets bigger it breaks off. We can’t stop the earth from changing. The only certainty is change itself.

        2. “we can’t stop the earth from changing”
          What a load of nonsense. We already have. The earth would be cooling due to decreased solar energy, but for us.
          It looks like Mann’s suit for libel is going ahead. How’s your buddy Steyn doing?

        3. And from the NOAA:
          http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11760/South-Pole-is-the-last-place-on-Earth-to-pass-a-global-warming-milestone.aspx
          “The Earth passed another unfortunate milestone May 23 when carbon dioxide (CO2) surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) at the South Pole for the first time in 4 million years”,
          Yes – 4 million years. And much of the increase has occurred in the last 200 years and yes, it was mostly man-made. Another fact is that CO2 keeps our planet warm and more CO2 makes our planet warmer. Most people accept this as being obvious – sort of like using triple glazed windows to keep more heat in your dwelling.

      1. Skill testing question for Eric;
        If the top of this iceberg is 350m above sea level where will it be when it melts?

        1. That is an important scientific study Thomas and it’s good that you bought it to our attention.
          Yet – we cannot rest.
          “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
          This means that in a thousand years time, if the IPCC and Phil Jones is right, the sea could rise by ten inches!
          I fear for my great, great, great, great, great, great, etc times 40, grandchildren.

        2. “who said it’s going to melt?”
          I can imagine eric putting ice cubes in his G&T and claiming that they don’t melt, because “the pause”

  8. The Larsen Ice Shelf is called a “shelf” because it is cantilevered off the underlying land mass, i.e. it is not floating in the arctic ocean. The Delaware sized part of it has not yet broken off but when it does it will be called an iceberg. We conclude that icebergs melt since we have never observed one that has not melted! The answer to the skill testing question which Eric has failed to answer is; the top of an iceberg when it melts will be nowhere, but in this case the world’s oceans will be 10 cm deeper than before. This effect will be observed at the surface of the ocean where it meets the shore in places like False Creek particularly during King Tides, winter storms, and low pressure weather systems and during the current phase of the lunar orbit which is close to the earth and pulls much more strongly on the earth. When you go to buy new boots to wade through sea flood waters you might consider the cause but it will hardly matter. Blame the gods, blame whoever you like but it will be you in the waders.
    I am not going to provide a link to prove common sense when all that is needed is a simple experiment which anyone can perform; fill a martini glass to the brim then add ice!

    1. Agree, but the 10 cm ocean rise doesn’t relate just to the shelf, but also the ice behind it that the shelf is currently holding back, IIRC.

  9. Thomas posted “NASA study shows Antarctic icesheets growing overall faster than it losses (sic) in some regions”
    This is an important study, because it adds to our body of knowledge. But I don’t think it means what you think it means. Especially as a stand alone conclusion.
    Very good to see you referring to reports and studies by scientists rather than deniers though. Thanks for that.
    “So what is really happening? One thing that Zwally’s study does highlight is how difficult it is to nail what is happening in East Antarctica because the signal is small and contaminated by unwanted effects that are as large or even larger. Zwally et al get a different result from previous studies because they make a different set of assumptions. Those assumptions are, by their nature, subjective and difficult, without additional evidence, to corroborate. There are, however, other lines of evidence that suggest that Antarctica is unlikely to have been gaining mass in the last few decades. That would, for example, make closing the sea level budget a whole lot harder (that is, making the sum of the sinks and sources match the observed rate of sea level rise). One other thing is certain: West Antarctica has been losing mass at an increasing rate since the 1990s and, irrespective of what is happening further East, that trend looks set to continue. Going to the other end of the Earth, the Greenland ice sheet has also been losing mass at an accelerating rate since around 1995. Greenland is now the single biggest source of mass to the oceans. These trends at both poles are huge signals that are unequivocal and uncontested.”
    Full article: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/so-what-is-really-happening-in-antarctica/

        1. Many fools apparently in a rising sea. With or without CO2 sea levels will rise.
          Judith Curry concludes her article about rising sea levels ( https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/ ) with this: “Sea level will continue to rise, no matter what we do about CO2 emissions. We need creative solutions – one of my favorites remains the garbage solution. ( here https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/20/20th-century-mean-global-sea-level-rise/ )”
          Her interview on Fox News about the explosion of funding and her debunking 97%+ “consensus” here http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/06/watch-climatologist-dr-judith-curry-on-fox-news-discusses-funding-debunks-98-consensus-claims/
          Most “fools” go about their daily lives as they have other more urgent priorities and some bike more to “save the planet”. Pick your choices wisely.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *