The ones up for sale in a general classifieds site are likely to be the higher-used ones. Many private collected Ferraris are driven under 100 miles per year, but won’t show up in general classifieds. (If they change hands, it’s more likely via word of mouth or marque-specific forums like f-chat.)
This seems like an easy fix if they're not actually being driven, just don't make these supercars street legal. Have the exemption be "if you're driving the car on a racetrack then it can be ICE."
EVs are more expensive initially, but cheaper in the long run. I bought a 20k EUR EV last year (VW e-up, great car). After ~8 years it will be cheaper overall than a 10k EUR ICE car. Petrol prices will probably go up faster than electricity as well, so likely even less.
So apart from subsidizing the purchase price which already happens widely, perhaps the government should provide cheap loans for people who don't have the initial capital to buy an EV.
Also, There are signs we've already hit the peak for conventional oil. This report [1] claims that by the 2030s Europe will see its access to oil reduced by 10-20%. So running an ICE car will only go up from here. There's good reasons to assume the costs of EVs will only go down.
Wrt to the grid, the french grid operator RTE published a study [2] saying that they estimate that by 2035 there will be 15.6 million EVs on the road, a bit half of the 38m total cars on french roads today. The study says this would represent 8-10% of today's electricity consumption and would pose no danger to the stability of the grid. About 2 million new cars are sold here every year, so after 2035 the percentage would go up by 1% every year to 20% or so. A challenge but definitely feasible.
From my experience taking charge on Ionity for 0,79EUR/kWh means that it is more expensive than gas. And because I just moved to another country, and live in apartment, I don't have place to charge.
Thing is that there is more than 50% people in EU who has no place to charge at home, because they are living in apartments. SO they will be charging on expensive Fast DC chargers. It will be more expensive than owning an ICE and also massively less comfortable because you will be waiting on car to get charged, thus wasting your time.
I think they'd consider that out of scope, which for me is a feature rather than a bug.
The project is really about providing the runtime, rather than batteries-included application framework as many mobile platforms provide. Perhaps they are targeting web/rust developers more than native mobile developers?
All the things you would like to see in an example have well-established ways of doing in a web application. Camera access is a good example, where the javascript way of doing is through navigator.getUserMedia(). I imagine it would be supported by Tauri where the underlying browser engine supports it. Tauri provides filesystem access as well, as you don't have that in a web page.
Isn't (battery) weight a proxy for what we really care about, energy consumption per covered distance? Seems like if you'd tax the latter, manufacturers would have more options to innovate around efficiency rather than just battery weight and provide lower-taxed vehicles. Battery weight will of course still be important to get consumption down, but perhaps there are other ways as well to make cars more efficient.
One example: a thing often overlooked is the efficiency of the onboard charger, which can incur a loss of up to 32% on for example the Renault Zoe [1].
In the US at least, the gas tax (in concept, not really in reality) what we care about is wear on roads. Therefore a tax on gasoline was actually just a proxy for what we cared about, which was wear on roads.
Taxing battery weight is a better method in this instance, because wear is directly proportional to vehicle weight.
If the idea is to replace gas taxes as a means of funding roads then the tax should be based on a combination of damage done by the vehicle (which is basically a tax on weight) and some efficiency multiplier. I’ve seen it mentioned in the past that governments can just check your odometer reading on a yearly basis and charge a tax on that but it’s probably just easier to tax the electricity at the point of charge (specifically for charging purposes).
Ideally this would encourage lighter vehicles to cut down on the initial “weight” tax as well as increase efficiency of the vehicle overall (more miles per kilowatt hour).
There’s obviously going to be a lot of headaches for farm use vehicles and people generating their own power and paying a tax on it but how else do you pay for roads and incentivize people to stop driving gigantic vehicles?
Pretty much the only vehicles that matter from an infrastructure wear and tear perspective are the heaviest traffic (which on every road that isn't a private driveway means commercial trucks).
If you want to tax that just tax based on the max GVW.
For almost all cases, this is far from true. For a typical ICE car, the manufacturing emissions tends to be around 10%-20% of the lifetime emissions the vehicle. You can see the exact breakdown for a variety of cars, and comparison to EVs at https://climobil.connecting-project.lu
And, other than that one Volvo study, the other studies show that while it does take more CO2 to produce an EV, the improved efficiency allows the EV to payoff that extra CO2 within about 12,000 miles of driving which is about a year for for the typical American driver.
If there is no bike lane, the only safe thing to do as a cyclist is to take the full lane, because there is not enough space for cars to safely overtake you. That won't stop some drivers from doing it anyway, so better block them and be safe.
As dageshi said, yes if there is significant traffic.
When cycling, under such circumstances, I usually stay between two parked cars until the traffic is better (that is usually after a switch of traffic light to red). But again I try to stay in reserved lanes, much safer.
So if you're stuck behind a tractor, do you also expect it to stop by the side of the road and let all traffic pass? I'm sure many farmers would disagree with you there and tell you they've got work to do. I've never seen any tractor do that in fact.
Same goes for bicycles, they've got places to be. It's a means of transportation just like a car. If there is no bike lane, that's though luck for the cyclist (as it's a lot less comfortable) and for the motorists behind them, and a good reason for cyclists and motorists alike to argue for more bike lanes. Why should they alone bear the cost of shitty infrastructure (in time lost stopping by the side of the road every time a car is stuck behind them for +20s)?
