Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Transportation

Rolls-Royce Plans To Stop Making Gas-Powered Cars By 2030 (engadget.com) 76

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
Rolls-Royce is the latest automaker to reveal plans to move entirely to electric vehicles within the next decade. Engadget reports: Spectre, Rolls-Royce's first EV, will arrive in the last quarter of 2023. The BMW brand plans to start testing the vehicle soon, according to Reuters. Rolls-Royce teased the EV in some images, but it literally kept the Spectre's design under wraps. Rolls-Royce CEO Torsten Muller-Otvos said that by 2030, the automaker "will no longer be in the business of producing or selling any internal combustion engine products." Sibling brand Mini has made a similar pledge. Parent company BMW has not set a date for making a full switch to EVs, though it aims to move half of production to electric models by the end of this decade.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rolls-Royce Plans To Stop Making Gas-Powered Cars By 2030 More

Rolls-Royce Plans To Stop Making Gas-Powered Cars By 2030

Comments Filter:
  • If they indeed make all electric vehicles and sell them for $25K I will definitely deposit the whole $25K into the pre-order to get one of their vehicles :)

  • Well that's it then... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hans Lehmann ( 571625 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:37PM (#61846353)
    I'm staging a boycott. I refuse to ever buy a Rolls-Royce again until they change their ways.
    • I will join you in this boycott. RR are infringing upon our rights to own and drive a well made V12 luxury vehicle. Until this situation changes I will not buy any late model Rollers.

      • They've been infringing on your right to buy a well made luxury vehicle for the best part of 50 years now. Now if it's a piece of shit with leather seats you're after, that they could offer you :-)

    • BMW plans to continue to develop traditional engines for the near future, as well as diversifying into EVs. I expect so long as people want them, and as long as they are still legal to drive, as a company they be your best bet. I'm sure there is huge pressure on the to cave on this, but I hope they don't.

      https://www.roadandtrack.com/n... [roadandtrack.com]

      • I wonder if there are any car companies still making long term plans for fuel engine vehicles or are all manufacturers planning to switch to EV eventually.

      • I'm sure there is huge pressure on the to cave on this, but I hope they don't.

        What's your long-term plan here? How do you plan on finding oil, extract it, refine it into fuel for your non-EV vehicle in the future?

        • What's your long-term plan here? How do you plan on finding oil, extract it, refine it into fuel for your non-EV vehicle in the future?

          We will be extracting oil for the foreseeable future for lubricants, jet fuel, container shipping, asphalt, chemical feedstocks, plastics, etc. I'm quite sure there will still be gasoline for those who need or desire it. While they may be able to tweak the fractional distillation process to make less of it, it is still going to be an inevitable by-product.

          And this does not even contemplate the possibility of synthesized hydrocarbon fuels, which may be a more environmentally friendly way of running comb

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quenda ( 644621 )

      I'm confused.

      Rolls Royce the aerospace company makes gas turbines, but Rolls Royce the car-maker does not, just petrol and diesel.

      Back in 1998, the Queen's Rolls was converted to run on gas, but that was not a factory option:

      https://gazeo.com/automotive/v... [gazeo.com]

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by rossdee ( 243626 )

        Gas turbines (in planes) don.t run on gas either.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by quenda ( 644621 )

          Gas turbines (in planes) don.t run on gas either.

          Ah, I see. Google tells me that while most gas turbines run on LPG or natural gas, Rolls Royce make "Marine Gas Turbines" that burn oil. I stand corrected.

      • RR are also currently testing electric planes

    • But are you willing to stop flying with Rolls Royce engines? That's, uh, where the rubber meets the road on the boycott.

      • But are you willing to stop flying with Rolls Royce engines? That's, uh, where the rubber meets the road on the boycott.

        Pratt & Whitney FTW!

      • RR cars doesn't make engines, though. RR engines ended up with jet engines almost by accident during WW2. But that because Rover (long gone) wanted to build RR engines to put in tanks, not jets to out in aircraft. I suppose if things had gone differently there might have been some Humber saloons with Nenes in the back in the late 1940s rather than MiG-15s :).

      • Nah the rubber meets the road when you do your emergency landing on account of making the mistake of flying with Rolls Royce engines :-)

        https://www.bbc.com/news/busin... [bbc.com]

  • Fine, but where's the EVs for the rest of us? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by marcle ( 1575627 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:39PM (#61846365)

    We get it, lots of companies can make really expensive EVs, and many of them are really awesome. Too bad I'll never drive one.
    Thing is, there's a lot more poor people than rich people. So if the idea is that EVs will somehow help fight climate change, the math just doesn't work out.

    • Even Kia is selling a full electric now https://www.kia.com/us/en/niro... [kia.com]

    • Re:Fine, but where's the EVs for the rest of us? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:45PM (#61846387)
      EVs have continually fallen in price over the last decade. Ten years ago I couldn't afford one. In the summer of 2019 I bought an EV. Today I would have paid even less.

      Yes, a Rolls Royce will never be an Average Joe's car, but by 2030 there will be plenty of Average Joe EVs on the market.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )

      The idea is, I think, that people that are not wealthy enough to buy a newer vehicle as will start using mass transit.

      Sure, there's the used car market, but eventually that's going to dry up for ICE cars once they aren't being made any more.

      • That's nice. I don't live in a city and neither does the overwhelming majority of America or Canada.

        Do you really mean to say that the majority of Americans and Canadians will slowly be forced back, against their will and via passive-aggressive economic coercion, into the urban lifestyle and it's attendent pathologies like crime, disease, and political corruption that intrudes on the common man's ability to live his life in peace?

        That's stuff revolutions are made of, fella. If you thought the mask protests

        • The majority of people in the USA and Canada live in urban environments.

          • If suburbs with 1 or 2 acre lots and not even sidewalks count as "urban" by not being completely out in the sticks, then sure.

            But that doesn't mean public transit passes the laugh test in these places. Even in Boston, the most European of American big cities, public transit as a viable alternative for personal automobiles ends about a few miles outside the Boston/Cambridge/Somerville urban core. I would estimate that at least *half* the population in the metro area needs a car for daily commutes and weekend

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

              If suburbs with 1 or 2 acre lots and not even sidewalks count as "urban" by not being completely out in the sticks, then sure.

              From census.gov:

              80.7%: Percent of the U.S. population that is urban

              You are entitled to your own opinion, but don't try to spin your opinion as a fact.

        • I live twenty miles from the nearest sizable town (one of more than 20,000 population, which is still small), let alone city. An electric car would be fine for me. What proportion of the population in the USA lives more than 20 miles from even a small town?

        • I don't live in a city and neither does the overwhelming majority of America or Canada.

          In 2020, about 82.66 percent of the total population in the United States lived in cities and urban areas. [statista.com] In 2019, 81.48 percent of the total population in Canada lived in cities. [statista.com]

          You really are a nutjob, first for not knowing that most people live in cities in the USA and Canada which is common knowledge that even dopes on the street are likely to possess, second for not checking, and third for not thinking we'll check.

          • In his defense, many cities do not have mass transit. Big urban metropolisis do, but not all cities. Granted a sizeable percentage live in areas with mass transit, but even in many of those places, not a large percentage of the population use it due to scheduling and the like.

            • In his defense, many cities do not have mass transit.

              That is not a defense, because it is irrelevant to his claim that most people don't live in cities. It is thus an irrelevancy.

              Cities CAN be efficient IF they have mass transit. But since you can add mass transit to a city after the fact, it's not an irredeemable position that many cities lack it.

              The best way to add mass transit to a city is probably elevated PRT, since it requires little to no changes in surface transit paths, and provides JIT scheduling.

              • This all requires a certain amount of population density in order to not be wasteful by running empty vehicles (of any size) back and forth for JIT or along fixed routes.

                Only a small portion of the population lives in such an environment and, more importantly, only a small portion of the population *wants* to live in such an environment, as evidenced by both the preexisting and the recent covid-instigated migration of people from city cores to suburban and rural areas.

      • The idea is, I think, that people that are not wealthy enough to buy a newer vehicle as will start using mass transit.

        That will represent a huge drop in average standard of living. Should not avoid calling it what it is.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mark-t ( 151149 )
          You may have had a point if everyone was entitled to the some standard of living that did not involve having to use public transit if one simply did not wish to.
          • I would not say anyone is entitled, but here in the west the vast majority of people who don't want to take public transit don't have to. Personal transportation is affordable for all but the very lowest on the income ladder. I see any change in that as a negative.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by necro81 ( 917438 )

        Sure, there's the used car market, but eventually that's going to dry up for ICE cars once they aren't being made any more

        Think there won't be a used car market for EVs? Indeed, because they have fewer and less-fussy components compared to an ICE car, they should have a longer usable lifespan.

        It is true that batteries degrade, but none-too-quickly. Tesla warranties its batteries for 70% after 8 years / 120k miles. Here is crowdsourced Model S and X data indicating 90% after 160k miles [electrek.co]. And it is

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mark-t ( 151149 )
          Of course there will be a used EV market, my point was that once manufacturers arent' making any new ICE cars, the used car market for them is going to dry up after a few years for people shopping for a primary car.

    • Re:Fine, but where's the EVs for the rest of us? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @01:35AM (#61846995) Journal

      Poor people buy cars secondhand. Craiglist in my area has some used EVs for four figures.

      • Can someone explain to me how Craig is able to buy and sell so much stuff every damn month? Is that guy printing his own money or what?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      There are a lot of affordable, long range EVs in Europe.

      Nissan Leaf
      Kia eNiro
      Kia eSoul
      Hyundai Kona
      MG ZS EV
      Renault Zoe
      VW ID.3
      Skoda ENYAQ
      Mini Electric

      And a bunch more I forgot. There is a decent used market as well.

      • Yeah, AmiMoJo, my friend.
        But you do not grasp it.

        This is Europe!!

        People are driving 400miles with their EV. Deliver a package. And plug the EV into the power grid.
        20mins later they want to drive back!! Because they can not afford a hotel, have no business except delivering the package, are not hungry and do not need sleep.

        So you see: if an EV can not do 800 miles, it is completely useless.

        Actually I saw a mini electric yesterday: fine car!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The Mini Electric is an acquired taste I think... The "gear shifter" thing looked like an 1980s joystick. Not keen on the Union Jack rear light clusters either, those probably won't age well.

    • Too bad I'll never drive one.

      Unless you're 80 years old already you will drive one.

      Thing is, there's a lot more poor people than rich people. So if the idea is that EVs will somehow help fight climate change, the math just doesn't work out.

      Poor people aren't universally dumb. They too can calculate total cost of ownership by looking it up on a simple website and realise they are better off buying an entry level EV on finance than a gasoline car.

      But hey even if they aren't, I look around and see plenty of EVs for under $10k on the second hand market, and that's just dealer sites, I'm sure you can find even cheaper ones if you go private.

      • Depends on the country or area. Here in Canada, most used EVs start between 20~30K$. If you happen to see something between 10~15K$ it's just pure luck.

    • I just ordered an EV. The drop from petrol costs to charging costs is paying for the monthly payment on the car. 'free' is a pretty good price.

  • *All* car makers have the same plans.

    Click-bait in it's worst extreme.

    Time to cancel my subscription I reckon.

    • It's a bit different when an established luxury brand announces it. But then many of the markets RR sells into have indicated that ICE sales won't be an option, so it has little choice in many markets.

  • So nothing but electric and liquid fuels after 2030?

  • Why is this trifle news? (Score:3)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:48PM (#61846557)

    The ultra-rich don't need gassers and are the ideal target market for electrics. They don't do long drives and have aircraft for that sort of thing.

    • The ultra-rich don't need gassers and are the ideal target market for electrics

      Yeah, kind of sad really, but not so different from the ubiquitous old guy in the new Corvette driving slowly in the left lane..

    • there are so few of them it doesn't matter what kind of car they use, even if powered by coal.

  • I don't believe this will happen. (Score:3)

    by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:12PM (#61846807)

    At least this isn't another non-promise promise or doing something by 2050. Making a business plan that is 9 years out is on the edge of believably. When JFK made his plan known to put a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 8 years that was something people paid attention to. 8 years for a newly elected POTUS means a high probability of still being in office.

    I'd like to see people make promises for mitigating global warming that are in a short enough time frame that the people making the promises will still be around to see it through. A POTUS candidate with a 10 year plan should be laughed out of the room. An 80 year old CEO, politician, or whatever with a 20 year plan should also be laughed out of the room. What we have now in Congress are a bunch of 70+, 80+, and maybe even 90+ year old politicians laying out 20, 25, and 30 year plans. These people should be mocked. They should not even be in office. What we have are a gaggle of Baby Boomers all looking to spend as much money as they can before they die because they know the more they spend the more bridges, schools, post offices, and airports get named after them. Then the buildings get started, they toddle on up with a cane (if not in a wheelchair) to dedicate it, and then taxpayers are stuck paying for it for decades.

    These people will make promises for many years out on a solar or wind project but never nuclear power. Oh, right because it takes "forever" to build a nuclear power plant. I guess six years to build a nuclear power plant is "forever" when your expected to not live to see the next election.

    I want to see predictions that matter, and in a time frame that is believable. Electric cars in 10 years won't matter if there's no nuclear power. Tell me how you will have nuclear power in 6 years, and synthesized hydrocarbons 2 years after that. Let's see some nuclear powered USCG icebreakers, and nuclear powered US Navy destroyers and frigates.

    Nuclear power and synthesized fuels are the future, not electric cars and solar panels. Unserious people discuss solar power and electric cars.

    • If promising something that won't still be true when a US president leaves office, then nine should promise building of nuclear reactors. Or it's a poor metric. Put it this way, in Europe promises were made in 1990s that have outlived virtually everyone in the political class, yet are still being delivered. And in the UK nuclear is still being built and Blair, Cameron and Clegg are long gone.

      • And in the UK nuclear is still being built

        Six months behind schedule so far, billions over budget, and totally unneeded if not for Brexit

  • When I was a kid, back towards the middle of the previous century, nobody I knew of had a Rolls, but the name had an almost mythic status to it. Supposedly they never broke down. As I young man I do remember talking about them with a gruff, no-nonsense mechanic who said that they did break down, and he'd had to repair them. But, however good they were then, it was a different company than now.

    Eventually I did read about them, and the original company was run by Henry Royce who had already established a b

    • I don't think it is a bad thing when another corporation suddenly acquires an old and storied brand, as long as the parent doesn't meddle much with the original purpose and philosophy of the company. I don't think that Lamborghini or Bentley brands got somehow diluted when VW bought them. VW actually saved them for near certain bankruptcy.

      But when BMW bought Rolls-Royce, it's important to keep in mind that BMW bought only the brand name. The original factory and other assets remained in the hands of VW who

  • Good (Score:2)

    by nagora ( 177841 )

    Then we won't have to work out whether Americans are referring to cars powered by actual, you know, GAS, or petrol.

    • Then we won't have to work out whether Americans are referring to cars powered by actual, you know, GAS, or petrol.

      It'll be better when the british switch over to all EVs so we don't have to wonder if "petrol" means diesel, gasoline, kerosene, or some other petroleum distillate. Americans are abbreviating, but naming a specific fuel (obviously gasoline) while the british have just made up a stupid word that isn't obviously specific and thereby demonstrated that the English are shit at English once again.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nagora ( 177841 )

        Then we won't have to work out whether Americans are referring to cars powered by actual, you know, GAS, or petrol.

        It'll be better when the british switch over to all EVs so we don't have to wonder if "petrol" means diesel, gasoline, kerosene, or some other petroleum distillate. Americans are abbreviating, but naming a specific fuel (obviously gasoline) while the british have just made up a stupid word that isn't obviously specific and thereby demonstrated that the English are shit at English once again.

        "Petrol" is not commonly used for any of the things you mentioned other than gasoline, whereas "Gas" is regularly used for many things other than gasoline.

        Also, British != English.

  • All these EV's coming in the next 10-20 years, but where is all the electricity / charging stations coming from ? Power grids in the U.S. can't handle the load in winter and summer now ! Texas is one state. Stop all bit mining like China ? All these new cars will overload an already strained grids !

  • 2030, bla bla bla

    I think most of these company declarations are either not done in good faith, or they (likely correctly) forecast that the climate emergency will be so burning in a few years that a similar future compliance will be legislated anyway. Either way, not worth the paper it's written on.

    What I'd like is, companies bragging about how their 2020 sales was 30% EV, instead of 20% in 2019, and other tangible, actually reached achievements.

    Car companies should also proudly communicate how much of thei

  • I will have to stock up an get a few backups just in case my current RR gas guzzler dies.

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Close