The EU thread

[Iormlund]

Red diesel is just ordinary diesel with a red dye added. Farmers and suchlike are entitled to use it, it attracts a much lower tax than ordinary diesel. The dye is to prevent dodgy farmers creating a secondary market by selling it on to ordinary road users.

It's also dyed in Spain for the very same reason.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course there is.
Something that can be easily replaced with renewables vs something which would cause more emissions (not to mention effort and cost) than it saves to replace.

How in the world would it cause more emissions to replace diesel farm tractors with E tractors?

[Grey Fox]

Of course there is.
Something that can be easily replaced with renewables vs something which would cause more emissions (not to mention effort and cost) than it saves to replace.

How in the world would it cause more emissions to replace diesel farm tractors with E tractors?

At current technology it's going to require a lot of batteries and fossil fuel produce electricity. Easier to just use a ice tractor.

EVs are the perfect solution for light, quick and recurring work, it's not has straight forward for anything requiring heavy lifting for a long time.

[Sheilbh]

Really enjoyed this long piece on the EU's first attempt to foster a European microchip industry in the 1980s and the long quest for a Eurochip. It failed - but hopefully the lessons from that (and from countries that were more successful) are learned for Eurochip 2.0. I also feel it's probably relevant for the European response to the IRA/industrial policy generally:
https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/the-eurochip/

[crazy canuck]

Of course there is.
Something that can be easily replaced with renewables vs something which would cause more emissions (not to mention effort and cost) than it saves to replace.

How in the world would it cause more emissions to replace diesel farm tractors with E tractors?

At current technology it's going to require a lot of batteries and fossil fuel produce electricity. Easier to just use a ice tractor.

EVs are the perfect solution for light, quick and recurring work, it's not has straight forward for anything requiring heavy lifting for a long time.

Depends on usage of course.  It is the rare farm that uses a tractor for long periods of time of constant use.  Thinking back to the farmwork involving tractors I did in my youth, there would have been lots of time in between uses to recharge.

And the great benefit of an electric over an ICE is torque.  Lots of tasks involve pulling stuff with a tractor, and an electric is perfect for that.

[Grey Fox]

Of course there is.
Something that can be easily replaced with renewables vs something which would cause more emissions (not to mention effort and cost) than it saves to replace.

How in the world would it cause more emissions to replace diesel farm tractors with E tractors?

At current technology it's going to require a lot of batteries and fossil fuel produce electricity. Easier to just use a ice tractor.

EVs are the perfect solution for light, quick and recurring work, it's not has straight forward for anything requiring heavy lifting for a long time.

Depends on usage of course.  It is the rare farm that uses a tractor for long periods of time of constant use.  Thinking back to the farmwork involving tractors I did in my youth, there would have been lots of time in between uses to recharge.

And the great benefit of an electric over an ICE is torque.  Lots of tasks involve pulling stuff with a tractor, and an electric is perfect for that.

Interesting. Is BC or Quebec different or is it that the standards have change but my cousin (egg producer employee) regularly will be in fields for 16 hours+.

Yes, the advantage is instant torque but there will be no wide range adoption if your range is now 45 minutes for every 8 hours of level 2 charge time.

(Level 3 charging is faster but reduces life time of the batteries)

[HVC]

Of course there is.
Something that can be easily replaced with renewables vs something which would cause more emissions (not to mention effort and cost) than it saves to replace.

How in the world would it cause more emissions to replace diesel farm tractors with E tractors?

At current technology it's going to require a lot of batteries and fossil fuel produce electricity. Easier to just use a ice tractor.

EVs are the perfect solution for light, quick and recurring work, it's not has straight forward for anything requiring heavy lifting for a long time.

Depends on usage of course.  It is the rare farm that uses a tractor for long periods of time of constant use.  Thinking back to the farmwork involving tractors I did in my youth, there would have been lots of time in between uses to recharge.

And the great benefit of an electric over an ICE is torque.  Lots of tasks involve pulling stuff with a tractor, and an electric is perfect for that.

Interesting. Is BC or Quebec different or is it that the standards have change but my cousin (egg producer employee) regularly will be in fields for 16 hours+.

Yes, the advantage is instant torque but there will be no wide range adoption if your range is now 45 minutes for every 8 hours of level 2 charge time.

(Level 3 charging is faster but reduces life time of the batteries)

In Ontario farm equipment is usually intermittent use, but when used it's for a long time. You might not use a tractor for a weeks, but when you do it's a full day thing. cutting hay all day, or bailing all day to beat the rain, for example.

An EV would be good for a hobby farm. Moving feed, or tilling a small plot. Commercial farming wouldn't really be ideal, I don't think.

As for level three, as of right now that's not available for residential/private. Common level 2 is like 11kwh which would still take 8 or so hours to "fill" a tractor. Leviton makes a 18kwh charger, but that needs 100 amps.

[Barrister]

Of course there is.
Something that can be easily replaced with renewables vs something which would cause more emissions (not to mention effort and cost) than it saves to replace.

How in the world would it cause more emissions to replace diesel farm tractors with E tractors?

At current technology it's going to require a lot of batteries and fossil fuel produce electricity. Easier to just use a ice tractor.

EVs are the perfect solution for light, quick and recurring work, it's not has straight forward for anything requiring heavy lifting for a long time.

Depends on usage of course.  It is the rare farm that uses a tractor for long periods of time of constant use.  Thinking back to the farmwork involving tractors I did in my youth, there would have been lots of time in between uses to recharge.

And the great benefit of an electric over an ICE is torque.  Lots of tasks involve pulling stuff with a tractor, and an electric is perfect for that.

Are you thinking just specifically about a tractor?  And not all farm equipment?

Because I think I agree a tractor is used periodically.  But if you're seeding or harvesting (or spraying) then you're going from sunup to sundown.

[crazy canuck]

Of course there is.
Something that can be easily replaced with renewables vs something which would cause more emissions (not to mention effort and cost) than it saves to replace.

How in the world would it cause more emissions to replace diesel farm tractors with E tractors?

At current technology it's going to require a lot of batteries and fossil fuel produce electricity. Easier to just use a ice tractor.

EVs are the perfect solution for light, quick and recurring work, it's not has straight forward for anything requiring heavy lifting for a long time.

Depends on usage of course.  It is the rare farm that uses a tractor for long periods of time of constant use.  Thinking back to the farmwork involving tractors I did in my youth, there would have been lots of time in between uses to recharge.

And the great benefit of an electric over an ICE is torque.  Lots of tasks involve pulling stuff with a tractor, and an electric is perfect for that.

Interesting. Is BC or Quebec different or is it that the standards have change but my cousin (egg producer employee) regularly will be in fields for 16 hours+.

Yes, the advantage is instant torque but there will be no wide range adoption if your range is now 45 minutes for every 8 hours of level 2 charge time.

(Level 3 charging is faster but reduces life time of the batteries)

My workdays were often 14-16 hours, in the summer months.  But tractors are used intermittently during those hours.  The trick would be to have a charging station(s) near where the work is being done.  Having to continually drive them back to a central charging hub would not be very practical.

[crazy canuck]

Of course there is.
Something that can be easily replaced with renewables vs something which would cause more emissions (not to mention effort and cost) than it saves to replace.

How in the world would it cause more emissions to replace diesel farm tractors with E tractors?

At current technology it's going to require a lot of batteries and fossil fuel produce electricity. Easier to just use a ice tractor.

EVs are the perfect solution for light, quick and recurring work, it's not has straight forward for anything requiring heavy lifting for a long time.

Depends on usage of course.  It is the rare farm that uses a tractor for long periods of time of constant use.  Thinking back to the farmwork involving tractors I did in my youth, there would have been lots of time in between uses to recharge.

And the great benefit of an electric over an ICE is torque.  Lots of tasks involve pulling stuff with a tractor, and an electric is perfect for that.

Are you thinking just specifically about a tractor?  And not all farm equipment?

Because I think I agree a tractor is used periodically.  But if you're seeding or harvesting (or spraying) then you're going from sunup to sundown.

Yes I agree.  Harvesting and seeding equipment could not be electric with current tech.

[Sheilbh]

Not sure which thread to post this in - but this one seems to work. Really extraordinary piece of reporting (and brilliantly presented) by AP investigating "ghost ships" turning up in the Caribbean and Brazil:
https://apnews.com/article/adrift-investigation-migrants-mauritania-tobago-663a576e233cb4b363f5eda8d5969b5a

[The Larch]

Not sure which thread to post this in - but this one seems to work. Really extraordinary piece of reporting (and brilliantly presented) by AP investigating "ghost ships" turning up in the Caribbean and Brazil:
https://apnews.com/article/adrift-investigation-migrants-mauritania-tobago-663a576e233cb4b363f5eda8d5969b5a

Hats off to AP for such an in depth report and getting out of their way to help some of the families involved obtain some closure.

Reports like these makes one realize that no matter how many barriers and obstacles to inmigration are put on people's way, as long as people are desperate enough to risk their lives, things like this will keep happening.

[Tamas]

SO I am reading that VDL was saying that a break with China is not realistic and not practical.

I am really glad Europe has learned its lesson from Russia on how tolerating the abuses of autocracies and getting economically dependent on them works out. What the hell.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

SO I am reading that VDL was saying that a break with China is not realistic and not practical.

I am really glad Europe has learned its lesson from Russia on how tolerating the abuses of autocracies and getting economically dependent on them works out. What the hell.

What did you expect.

[Sheilbh]

SO I am reading that VDL was saying that a break with China is not realistic and not practical.

I am really glad Europe has learned its lesson from Russia on how tolerating the abuses of autocracies and getting economically dependent on them works out. What the hell.

She's right.

I've said many times but I really rate VdL - including on China. On a purely practical level it is not realistic or possible to have a break with China. Our economies are massively interlinked and Europe doesn't like talking about de-coupling, her line is around de-risking. This is the relevant section and I think she's right:

Much has been said about this since I set out the principles of this de-risking strategy. And even more has been said since the last trip. In many ways, that reaction is good because Europe needs to have this discussion. And so, I want to first and foremost thank the Parliament for putting this debate on today. It is urgent and it is good that we have this debate. Most importantly, I say this because this relationship is too important for us not to define our own European strategy and principles for engagement with China. I believe we can – and we must – carve out our own distinct European approach that also leaves space for us to cooperate with other partners, too. And the starting point for this is the need to have a shared and very clear-eyed picture of the risks and the opportunities in our engagement with China. And this means acknowledging – as well as clearly saying – that the Chinese Communist Party's actions have now caught up with its stated ambitions and the hardening of China's overall strategic posture over the last years. For example, the shows of military force in the South China Sea, in the East China Sea, and at the border with India, directly affect our partners and their legitimate interests. Or on the issue with Taiwan. The EU's 'One China' policy is long-standing. We have consistently called for peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and we stand strongly against any unilateral change of the status quo, in particular by the use of force. We must also never shy away from talking about the deeply concerning and grave human rights violations in Xinjiang. And just as China has been ramping up its military posture, it has also ramped up its policy of economic and trade coercion as we have seen from Lithuania to Australia and the targeting of everything from pop bands to trade brands. We have also seen these tactics directed right here in the House of European democracy. And I want to express my solidarity to those Members of the European Parliament who have been unfairly sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party just for calling out human right violations. And all this is symptomatic for the fact that China has now turned the page on the era of 'reform and opening' and is moving into a new era of 'security and control'. I heard this in Beijing from many European companies who have witnessed first-hand this shift towards security and away from the logic of open markets and free trade. And to strengthen that security and control leverage, China is openly pursuing a policy of reducing its dependency on the world – that is completely okay, that is their right –, but while increasing the world's dependency on itself. You know the examples, for example, whether it is on critical raw materials or the renewable energy, on emerging tech like artificial intelligence, quantum computing or biotech.

That is about as strong a summary as you get from any European leader right now.

The de-risking line is aimed at companies working in China or very involved in China but then there's a few European areas the Commission is working on - trying to increase resilience (also part of the IRA response), more aggressive use of trade retaliation, more protection of high risk sectors and trying to work with G7 partners on

Charles Michel who is far less impressive has been more doubtful about even that.

I think VDL and the Commission (and the Parliament) are clear-eyed and, broadly, right on China. The problem is ultimately member states and the Council. The Commission and Parliament have a reasonable shot at doing the sort of things they're talking about around trade and markets etc because that's their competence - but general attitudes to China, foreign policy etc doesn't have a European consensus among member states.

One thing I'd like to see is on the "trade defence" piece - Lithuania's the big example. China put a lot of sanctions on Lithuania after Lithuania kept causing problems in the 17+1 format, and then engaged very heavily with Taiwan. In my view there should have been strong European retaliation at that point on Chinese trade on a sort of an attack on one is an attack on all basis. Instead the EU is taking its case to the WTO which just seems painfully inadequate and not engaging in the world we're now in, meanwhile European companies have largely re-engineered their supply chains to make sure nothing Lithuanian touches exports to China. But that's something VDL is at least gesturing towards.