New diesel and petrol vehicles to be banned from 2040 in UK

[57xx]

So it looks like the government have set themselves up for a target to eliminate IC vehicles from our roads by 2040.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40723581

Edited July 26, 2017 by 57xx

[Dunsignalling]

So it looks like the government have set themselves up for a target to eliminate IC vehicles from our roads by 2040.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40723581

The way I read it is that they are intending to ban new ones coming onto the roads by then.

 

I suspect that running a petrol or diesel car will have been made sufficiently inconvenient to deter most drivers from buying new I/c vehicles long before that.

 

 

John

[Fat Controller]

So it looks like the government have set themselves up for a target to eliminate IC vehicles from our roads by 2040.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40723581

The cynic in me (never!) thinks they've picked this date as it's far enough in the future for people not to remember it when it arrives.

[57xx]

The way I read it is that they are intending to ban new ones coming onto the roads by then.

 

I suspect that running a petrol or diesel car will have been made sufficiently inconvenient to deter most drivers from buying new I/c vehicles long before that.

 

Yes, depending on which story you read or listen to, it can be interpreted in different ways, but I see it the same way as you - no more new ic sales from 2040. 

[tarifa]

It seems to me HM Gov is just following the recent announcement from the French.  I wonder how the petrochemical industry will react.

[tomparryharry]

With the imminent demise of the old jalopy, I've been tinkering in the workshop.

 

Pleased to say, the delivery of our new 4 horse 'carriage' is 'imminent'.

 

Mrs Smith is none too happy, however. Seems to dislike the removal of the front windscreen, and the local Plod want to talk to me about horse rustling...

 

Tootle Pip, everybody!

Edited July 26, 2017 by tomparryharry

[Dunsignalling]

The cynic in me (never!) thinks they've picked this date as it's far enough in the future for people not to remember it when it arrives.

It's actually not that far off, 22 and a bit years.

 

However, if I'm still around, I'll be 88, the current age of my mother, and buying a new car is unlikely to be high on my list of concerns by then.

 

On previous form, I'll be running my current 2010 turbo-diesel estate for a few more years yet, I didn't sell my previous two Peugeots until they were over 12 years old.

 

John   

Edited July 26, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[57xx]

I'm thinking it's time for a midlife crisis. I've always after an old Honda NSX, so maybe I should indulge myself. If I burn lots of fossil fuel in it, it can only help the government's target! Then from 2040 I can be all pompus driving around in my offset emission vehicle (unless hydrogen fuel cells can get some traction), pretending I'm green whilst someone miles away can suck on my fumes.

[Dunsignalling]

I'm thinking it's time for a midlife crisis. I've always after an old Honda NSX, so maybe I should indulge myself. If I burn lots of fossil fuel in it, it can only help the government's target! Then from 2040 I can be all pompus driving around in my offset emission vehicle (unless hydrogen fuel cells can get some traction), pretending I'm green whilst someone miles away can suck on my fumes.

I'm hoping that hydrogen does take off.

 

I have a nasty feeling that a massive increase in battery manufacture will itself have environmental consequences that the politicians haven't begun to imagine.

 

John

[APOLLO]

Won't happen, My 1973 Rover P5B V8 was built to last for ever !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Honestly though those who govern us have not got a clue - not a scientist or engineer amongst them.

 

And what are The U.S.A.,China & India etc. proposing to do while we shoot ourselves in the foot ?

 

2040 - I'll be 88 by then (with a bit of luck) I'd better start saving for my first payment on my electric zimmer !!

 

Brit15

[Metr0Land]

 

 

I have a nasty feeling that a massive increase in battery manufacture will itself have environmental consequences that the politicians haven't begun to imagine.

 

John

 

Not only that, but isn't the ethical disposal of these vehicles already a problem?

[t8hants]

I can only afford to buy last owner vehicles, and I drive them into the ground, a scrappage scheme robs me of my choice of a replacement vehicle, so the old one (Pug diesel estate)  has to keep going.

Nobody's mentioned that the rise in diesel pollutants coincides with the change to a cheaper formulation, as well as the introduction of the highly toxic unleaded fuel, that the petrol companies so desperately wanted us to adopt world wide.

I am most encouraged that the national grid will be able to cope with this massive increase in demand, though I would also like to know who is going to pay for the laying of the new charging grid and how the Government intends to recoup the lost fuel tax

[APOLLO]

I'm hoping that hydrogen does take off.

 

I have a nasty feeling that a massive increase in battery manufacture will itself have environmental consequences that the politicians haven't begun to imagine.

 

John

 

Interesting article re Hydrogen & cars. OK it's 10 years old & technology progresses - but the fundamentals are more or less the same.

 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2007/08/hydrogen-hype-49540.html

 

Brit15

[Robert]

As I said in Early Risers earlier this morning:
 

As for abolishing all petrol and diesel cars by 2040 - the idea is admirable, but probably utopian.  Unless someone comes up with an equivalent which allows you to drive up to 500km before refueling, and then allows you to refuel within five minutes (as you can with petrol and diesel).  Electric cars are getting there, but they aren't there yet.  Admittedly the Tesla is getting close (and may be there by 2040) but it still has a way to go, and range figures are being exaggerated by many manufacturers.
 
I believe we should be concentrating our efforts on a way of generating electricity cleanly and cheaply in a compact package.  If we achieve this, we will have limitless possibilities.  Electricity can be used for everything from traction through lighting to heat, and if the package is small enough, every home or vehicle can have their own "power pack" this will also cut down the costs of maintaining a network.  However, I suspect the corporate entities would have something to say about that.

What John said also holds true, by the time the environmental cost of making the batteries, plus the extra energy that is required to charge the batteries on your electric car, I doubt the environmental cost will be much reduced.  It will also be even more difficult to keep the lights burning at peak times - and no, more nuclear power stations are not the answer!

Edited July 26, 2017 by Robert

[chris p bacon]

Honestly though those who govern us have not got a clue - not a scientist or engineer amongst them.

 

And what are The U.S.A.,China & India etc. proposing to do while we shoot ourselves in the foot ?

 

 

No doubt develop them to sell to us while we ignore it.

[Karhedron]

I have a nasty feeling that a massive increase in battery manufacture will itself have environmental consequences that the politicians haven't begun to imagine.

I think this is more about clean air at the point of use rather than bringing down emissions overall. Electric cars are only more environmentally friendly if that electricity is generated from renewable sources. If it is generated from fossil fuels then all that happens is the pollutants are released at the power station rather than on the road and you lose 1/3 of the energy in moving it across the grid.

 

Electric cars will be great when fusion power finally arrives but that is still 30 years away (just as it has been for the last 50 years).

[Pete the Elaner]

I find it ironic that this announcement id made within days of MML electrification being scaled down & with the current trend for dual-powered railway units.

 

The oil companies have always been too powerful to let their market share drop significantly.

I also understand that production & demolition of electric vehicles leaves a bigger carbon footprint than the running of an I/C vehicle...or is this oil company propaganda as above?

[Horsetan]

I'm thinking it's time for a midlife crisis. I've always after an old Honda NSX, so maybe I should indulge myself. If I burn lots of fossil fuel in it, it can only help the government's target!....

I think the classic car industry will have more than a few comments to make about this announcement.

 

As far as fossil fuel is concerned, I used to go one better when I was running the 635CSi because I added proper tetraethyl lead each time I put petrol in. After all, if you're going to poison the environment, you might as well do it properly..... 

[melmerby]

And what are The U.S.A.,China & India etc. proposing to do while we shoot ourselves in the foot ?

Brit15

 

http://www.carscoops.com/2015/12/eight-us-states-and-four-european.html

http://www.carscoops.com/2012/01/california-wants-14-million-zero.html

 

Keith

[jjb1970]

The concerns about electrical supplies are predicated on an assumption that we continue to use large centralised power generating plants with electricity distributed via a national grid. We will certainly continue to need a national grid, and we will continue to use some large generating plants, but electricity generation and distribution are increasingly looking to renewables, micro-generation and distributed generation with micro-grids. Domestic energy storage is no longer a pipe dream and managing demand using smart devices is already happening (or not so smart devices if you already switch things off when not needed). The electric car has to be considered as only one part of a much more profound change in energy conversion and distribution.

Traditionally the assumption has always been that more efficient = cleaner. That was true (and remains true for the most part) if energy conversion is achieved in traditional heat engines. Less fuel in = lower emissions and lower energy demand in the fuel supply chain. If you de-couple environmental impact from energy efficiency, as can be done using renewable modes of conversion (wind, tidal, wave, PV etc) then that assumption no longer holds true. Making hydrogen has traditionally been very energy intensive (read dirty) or used fossil fuel feed stocks, however if you use wind energy to produce hydrogen then the fact it is energy intensive to produce hydrogen from water by electrolysis becomes immaterial.

The environmental footprint of batteries is the main concern but again much of the criticism is based on an assumption that battery technology and recycling are both static when in fact batteries have evolved very quickly in recent years with a lot of money being thrown at technologies which can avoid the use of rare and/or toxic metals.

The argument that the developing world isn’t doing much doesn’t hold water, take a lot at renewable energy investment in some of the developing economies (look up how much China is spending on renewables) and where a lot of the technology development for clean energy is originating. China has a rather aggressive technology program to develop electric cars and clean modes of energy conversion, they’re certainly not lagging behind in that respect.

Personally I think the 2040 figure is meaningless as the market will already have moved to all electric vehicles before then because of market conditions.

[John M Upton]

Never going to happen...

[tomparryharry]

So, a 'senior' gent went into a Nissan garage...

"Tell me, young man, I'm interested in the Nissan Leaf".

"Yes Sir, The Nissan Leaf is our latest, up-to date model", said the young salesman.

 

"Tell me, young man, how many miles to the leaf can I expect?"

 

It's like I've explained before. I only come here once a year to dust these jokes off...

Edited July 26, 2017 by tomparryharry

[Horsetan]

.....It's like I've explained before. I only come here once a year to dust these jokes off...

 

Next!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... I wonder how the petrochemical industry will react.

 Calmly. Their product portfolio is vital and covers far more than liquid fuel for road going I/C power. (Last time I looked liquid fuel I/C remains vital for air transport, farming and warmongering; all key interests of major governments.) the enrgy for road vehicles still has to be generated,be better done in large generating facilities whic offer vastly better efficiency in energy recovery, and 'scrubbing out' of undesireable combustion products.

 

Even with the environmental concern for the manufacture and reclaim of batteries, I can see net benefit in conjunction with autonomous vehicles. An efficient transport system that packs far more vehicles safely on the same road space, with great efficiency gains from the elimination of near continuous acceleration brought about by the inadequacies of the human driver, amounts to a lot of gain. Less tarmac and concrete required, much less energy consumption.

 

I imagine that some sort of deeply immersive VR product will be required to substitute for the little black beemer that every 22 y.o. male currently aspires to, and the motorbikes that are the usual MLC treatment. (Quite a saving for the NHS when the inevitable crashes are harmless.) Business opportunity there...

[tomparryharry]

Next!

 Thank you kind sir. Your cheque is in the post....