France calls for the end of the internal combustion engine!

Comedy gold in this thread. Plus, I'm now hungry for escargot. [emoji39] Nice garlicky escargot. Crusty bread. Good wine. Heaven.

Anyway, in the absence of research & investment in "clean" electricity generation, these proposals are a band aid, and just an eco shell game...T

 

Well...never heard or read about turbo-electric drive, William? Some very large ships has boilers producing steam, which ran turbines, powering generators which produced electricity for large electric engines? The American "Lexington" class carriers, some battleships of the "New Mexico" class, the french liner "Normandy"...the biggest drawback was weight, and short-circuits in case of underwater damage.
Some of the US "Destroyer-Escorts" of World War Two has the same powerplant as conventional submarines, i.e Diesel-Electric, if I'm not mistaken. Some locomotives too.
Rgds

 

Steam turbines, just like in power stations, are not really efficient.

 

Thank you for the clarification.

 

I've been under the impression that "atmospheric" was the distinction from exhaust driven "turbocharged" or mechanically driven "supercharged" internal combustion engines (ICE)....not a synonym for the same.

 

A naturally aspirated engine is an internal combustion engine in which air intake depends solely on atmospheric pressure and which does not rely on forced induction through a turbocharger or a supercharger.

wikipedia

 

Fully agree with you but for the snails, the ones from Charente (north of Bordeaux - Cognac region) are much more tasty and they don't come from eastern europe.

Regarding the end of ICE, Germany was discussing last year about this and was planning to stop the ICE cars in 2030.

In Northern European countries such as Sweeden, Norway...it has already been planned.

 

A turbocharged or supercharged ICE engine is still an ICE engine.

A non-turbocharged or supercharged, or otherwise force feed, ICE engine is called an Atmospheric ICE.

Hope that helps, otherwise I don't quite get your post.
Pete

 

Europe has been taken over by greeny nutjobs

 

Yes. 25 years ago

 

Over-simplification, if you ask me (and even if you don't...). Depends on the different countries.
As for France: Paris has NOT been taken over by the greens enough: the city has become irrespirable nowadays, so polluted that in days of heat it's almost impossible to breathe.
For the rest of the country, it is debatable. But Paris needs solutions right now.

Rgds

 

That was exactly my inference. "Atmospheric" (non-boost) and "charged" (be it mechanical or turbo) is the diferentiation I was referring to. Nothing not to "get"...

 

I thought that's what I inferred.

 

Clarify me on the current laws which indicate vehicles of a certain year are not allowed in Paris in certain days or times? I have heard there is a law speaking to that but cannot recall the specifics....

Re doing away with the ICE. As of now the only realistic alternative is the electric car, and if they are concerned about pollution then they are going about it the wrong way as it is a well known fact that the pollution emitted by creating the battery itself is more pollutant than just running an engine for a period of years (cannot recall what the figure was per cylinder with size etc), not to mention electricity itself does not come from magic. Or is France resigned to the fact that battery production, as long as its polluting somewhere else, doesn't concern them. A bit short-sided no? Seems like more of a political agenda than anything else as the whole 'man-made global climate change' thing is nonsense science to many many experts anyway.

 

I can't specifically but maybe this will help.
I remember the thread from prior to Le Mans:

Emission stickers will be mandatory in France this year.

 

pollution levels are only relevant by location.

the french govt does not care about pollution issues to do with battery production since they dont produce them in france. nor do they car about smokestacks since they get 80% of their electricity from nukes (which was an extremely smart thing to do as of many years ago - contrary to the other euro numbnuts shutting them down willingly and without reason ((hint; germany))).

so nerofer is right - all that matters to the french govt is how paris feels now.


(btw, the expression is short siGHTed)

 

There has been a succession of different laws during the last years, specific to Paris:
- July 1st, 2015: interdiction of all buses ans trucks built and/or registered before 2001 during the working days (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday) between 8:00 and 20:00.
- July 1st, 2016: interdiction on the same days/hours for all petrol or diesel powered vehicles of all kind built and/or registered before January 1997
- July 1st, 2017 interdiction of all Diesel-powered vehicles built before 2001, all utilitary vehicles built before 2002, all buses built before 2006.

And the objective is now to get the city rid of all diesel-powered vehicles in 2020.

This is not specific to Paris, by the way: many other cities have already done the same in Europe, see map enclosed in this article (in french, but have a look at the map)

Pollution à Paris*: interdiction des véhicules les plus polluants à partir du 1er*juillet

Paris suffers from a specific pollution problem which comes, mainly, from the fact that the city is small and old, and has never been fully adapted to automobiles; and from the indiscipline of the french people living and/or working in Paris, who insist on using their cars rather than the tube, which is well organised and can take you anywhere in the city usually much faster than any car. It means that Paris is usually chocked with cars occupied mostly by a single person.
During period of hot weather, no wind (we had four or five days at 36°c last week) you can actually see the dark gray layer of smog above the city from any vantage point.

Clearly, something has to be done: it is actually difficult to breathe some days, the number of kids with respiratory problems has been multiplied the last years, etc...

Rgds

 

Yes, the plan towards nuclear power that was implemented in 1974 after the first oil crisis was bold and smart, but it had some unwanted consequences along the years. Among these:
- an "all-electricity" mentality in France, meaning that, as far as cheap electricity was easily available, a progressive feeling that energy didn't cost anything; almost every house converted to electric power, this including heating; it tend to give very high peaks of demand for electricity during the cold winters, for instance.
- a tendancy to avoid establishing the necessary very long term strategy for recycling the nuclear cores, for refurbishing or demolishing the power plants, etc...
As the nuclear plants were expected to last for about 40 years, well: you know the politicians: usually they do not care about planning the costs for expenses in five years from now, not to speak about 40 years from now...so it was always "we'll see tomorrow".
Now tomorrow is "nowadays", and it is clear than the cost of maintaining, or rejuvinating the plants, recycling the cores, etc...has not been adequatly evaluated.

Rgds

 

AMuS

At the last minute, the EU weakened the ban on internal combustion engines from 2035. After the German veto, the sale of combustion vehicles is still permitted if they are operated with e-fuels. Formula 1 provided the ammunition for this.

Italy, Poland, Austria, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic have also spoken out against a unilateral policy for battery cars and called for openness to technology. The member states then reached a compromise.

The combustion ban only applies to engines that run on fossil fuels. There is a back door for climate-neutral e-fuels. However, proof must be provided that the engine is used exclusively with so-called synthetic fuels.

The EU specification is of great importance for Formula 1. F1 will also rely on hybrid technology with the new engine regulations from 2026. The 1.6 liter six-cylinder turbo is then fed with 100 percent CO₂-neutral fuel and its work is supported by a 350 kW electric motor.

According to F1 experts, this mix of combustion engines and electric motors in combination with e-fuels is the most sustainable drive there is. This is the result of a study by Oxford University commissioned by Formula 1.

In contrast to the battery car lobby, the 40-page study includes the full life cycle from the creation of the car and the energy source to its actual use.

The paper was discreetly distributed to over 200 politicians across all parties as a decision-making tool. This included the German government. But also in Italy, the Netherlands, France, Great Britain and Greece, lobbyists from Formula 1 carried out educational work.

The study should be thought-provoking and a reminder that in the fight against climate change it is better to grasp at straws than to commit unilaterally. Incidentally, the campaign is not only aimed at the EU.

Stefano Domenicali also met with the prime ministers of England and Australia on the subject. The aim is to show that energy sources cannot be viewed in isolation from their production and the cars in which they are used.

Efficiency disadvantages compared to purely electric drives would be offset by independence from countries like China and secure supply chains.

In addition, e-fuels offer the opportunity to operate end-of-life vehicles in a climate-neutral manner until they are scrapped well beyond 2035.

And it is an offer to poorer countries in Africa, Asia or South America to bridge the transition phase with e-fuels until electrification is possible and affordable there.

Formula 1 feared that if politicians rejected synthetic fuels and biofuels of the second generation, no further investors would be found. Those responsible hope that there are enough companies that see a market in this technology and, through development, solve the problem of the available quantities and the currently high price for e-fuels.

The current high level of energy consumption can only be reduced through appropriate research. Motor sport in general and Formula 1 in particular wants to be a test laboratory for this. Formula 1 has already started a research program with the Saudi oil company Aramco. Through the direct competition of the fuel suppliers represented in F1, the aim is to achieve quick results. Because the fuel that will be used in the high-performance engines from 2026 must be designed in such a way that it also works exactly as it should in a series engine.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/f1-politik-e-fuels-argumente-kampagne/

 

Actually there were 3 French governments during WWII - Free French fighters - based in the UK and all over the French Colonial Empire. they were more of a rebel force than a real govt, but technically they were the French Govt in exile. Then you have the "Free French Government" based in Algiers ... they were technically neutral, but leaned which ever way the wind blew. and then Vichy - set up by the Axis... Petan was the leader.

 

As De Gaulle said, the Vichy gouvernment lead by the Marechal Petain was illegitime.
The only one was the exiled one in London lead by the same De Gaulle coupled with the CNR after 1943.
CNR ( conseil national de la resistance).

 

Wrong. Winners write history.
On July 9/10, 1940, the French Assemblée Nationale sitting in Vichy, voted to give full powers to Maréchal Petain, and to disband itself.
That, according to the IIIrd Republic Constitution.

 

I perfectly know this.
You don’t get what I was meaning.
Legality does not always mean legitimacy.
The deep spirit of the French republic was not in Vichy but in London.

 

Or anything is illegitimate, until it's made legal.

People have been debating this for centuries.

 

True
I will stop to discuss about P and R.
Back to topic