New diesel and petrol cars banned from UK roads by 2030
Discussion
Randy Winkman said:
Apologies if this issue has already been raised, isn't this a topic where national legislation is a bit pointless? It only really works if you have EU legislation or a global agreement. Then manufacturers are motivated to find a solution. After all, the UK's cars are the same as everyone else's cars.
No. 2.5m+ car sales is motivation enough. CARB has driven far more stringent emissions legislation in California than the rest of the US with only 2m sales annually. Comply or lose market access. Easy.fblm said:
Randy Winkman said:
Apologies if this issue has already been raised, isn't this a topic where national legislation is a bit pointless? It only really works if you have EU legislation or a global agreement. Then manufacturers are motivated to find a solution. After all, the UK's cars are the same as everyone else's cars.
No. 2.5m+ car sales is motivation enough. CARB has driven far more stringent emissions legislation in California than the rest of the US with only 2m sales annually. Comply or lose market access. Easy.Evangelion said:
This would never arise because the cars wouldn't need to be charged at home - they could do it on the way to or from work (or while out shopping etc), by just visiting a charging station which with tomorrow's technology could top the car up, or exchange a low battery for a charged one in minutes.
The RayTay school of EV promotion: Everything will be fixed by tomorrow's technology, which is just around the corner so all arguments can be based on it actually existing.With "tomorrow's technology" battery range won't be a problem anyway, you'll just chuck some rubbish into your Mr. Fusion unit which will power your car for months
my hope with this is that the industry sees sense and realises that the infrastructure is already there.......petrol stations......with the next generation of battery tech all we need is the petrol pumps to be gradually replaced with charging points on the same sites......no charging at home, no new rubbish built into the streets, perfect, looking for forward to it actually!
Mr2Mike said:
Evangelion said:
This would never arise because the cars wouldn't need to be charged at home - they could do it on the way to or from work (or while out shopping etc), by just visiting a charging station which with tomorrow's technology could top the car up, or exchange a low battery for a charged one in minutes.
The RayTay school of EV promotion: Everything will be fixed by tomorrow's technology, which is just around the corner so all arguments can be based on it actually existing.With "tomorrow's technology" battery range won't be a problem anyway, you'll just chuck some rubbish into your Mr. Fusion unit which will power your car for months
Raymond Baxter promised me one to park outside my house on the moon, by the year 2000.
GarageQueen said:
my hope with this is that the industry sees sense and realises that the infrastructure is already there.......petrol stations......with the next generation of battery tech all we need is the petrol pumps to be gradually replaced with charging points on the same sites......no charging at home, no new rubbish built into the streets, perfect, looking for forward to it actually!
With charging times measured in many tens of minutes, cant see existing garages having the capacity to handle many EVs.GarageQueen said:
my hope with this is that the industry sees sense and realises that the infrastructure is already there.......petrol stations......with the next generation of battery tech all we need is the petrol pumps to be gradually replaced with charging points on the same sites......no charging at home, no new rubbish built into the streets, perfect, looking for forward to it actually!
Can't see it working for recharging. Surely, the way forward is some further standardisation of batteries - and then simply switching over an exhausted battery for a fresh one?GarageQueen said:
my hope with this is that the industry sees sense and realises that the infrastructure is already there.......petrol stations......with the next generation of battery tech all we need is the petrol pumps to be gradually replaced with charging points on the same sites......no charging at home, no new rubbish built into the streets, perfect, looking for forward to it actually!
Really? You've had a long hard day at work, it's a roasting hot sunny day , you can finally set off home. Halfway home you realise you won't have the range to get back to work tomorrow.... so in your utopia you now have to find a 'charging' station and sit there for god knows how long, sweating your tits off.Wouldn't it be much easier to get home plug it in, and crack open a cold one?
My slant is slightly different; if the government is really concerned about the health of it's citizens, then cigarette smoking and production (in the UK) should be stopped today.
The whole reasoning behind this movement to EV is because the MP's are based in London, they don't like the air quality there but are not prepared to actually do anything about it except for an nationwide change, which, if it went ahead would devastate the motor industry, including motor sport, in this country.
I do agree that change is necessary, and I look forward to all the MP's driving their built (mostly) in Britain EV Minis. Because they do not need, nor should they be able to 'expense' anything bigger.
There are so many long term issues that need to be dealt with, like electrification of the railways, which are not happening.
If the government was concerned, then banning commuting, live where you work or work where you live, no need to drive more than 20 miles, jet flights, cruise liners and the list goes on.
As usual from the current government (the mindless and spineless Conservatives and the 'rest') nothing is ever thought out and is usually forgotten about before the next election.
I am in the motor trade, but with this latest 'plan', would be very worried if I was the CEO of a business planning for the next 10 to 20 years or a new business about to start.
The whole reasoning behind this movement to EV is because the MP's are based in London, they don't like the air quality there but are not prepared to actually do anything about it except for an nationwide change, which, if it went ahead would devastate the motor industry, including motor sport, in this country.
I do agree that change is necessary, and I look forward to all the MP's driving their built (mostly) in Britain EV Minis. Because they do not need, nor should they be able to 'expense' anything bigger.
There are so many long term issues that need to be dealt with, like electrification of the railways, which are not happening.
If the government was concerned, then banning commuting, live where you work or work where you live, no need to drive more than 20 miles, jet flights, cruise liners and the list goes on.
As usual from the current government (the mindless and spineless Conservatives and the 'rest') nothing is ever thought out and is usually forgotten about before the next election.
I am in the motor trade, but with this latest 'plan', would be very worried if I was the CEO of a business planning for the next 10 to 20 years or a new business about to start.
Robertj21a said:
Can't see it working for recharging. Surely, the way forward is some further standardisation of batteries - and then simply switching over an exhausted battery for a fresh one?
I'm not sure about battery exchanges. The concept works for things like propane cylinders because you get exactly the same amount of gas every time, but with a battery which is known to decline in performance then I'm not so sure.You rock up in your one day old Tesla and change batteries to get something that's 4-5 years old and potentially far less capability than the brand new one that's come out of your car and is destined for the spotty mechanic's drive when it's been recharged. The system will work fine for the first couple of years when all the batteries are new(ish) but 5 years down the line I think it would be a nuisance if you get an apparently fully charged battery that lasts for half as long and your new car suddenly goes from a 250 to 150 mile range.
D900SP said:
My slant is slightly different; if the government is really concerned about the health of it's citizens, then cigarette smoking and production (in the UK) should be stopped today.
...
(plus other stuff)
...
I am in the motor trade, but with this latest 'plan', would be very worried if I was the CEO of a business planning for the next 10 to 20 years or a new business about to start.
I can't argue with those points at all. I can see the benefit of enforcing electric vehicles inside cities but as usual our MPs appear to think that once they're elected the world stops at the M25. Can you imagine living in the Scottish highlands with an electric car ? (actually there is a charge point in Lochgilphead car park for a couple of cars so perhaps they're planning ahead)...
(plus other stuff)
...
I am in the motor trade, but with this latest 'plan', would be very worried if I was the CEO of a business planning for the next 10 to 20 years or a new business about to start.
This has got to be one of the least thought-through proposals I've seen in years and the only thing I take comfort from is that this announcement is being made by politicians who will never have to enforce it.
b2hbm said:
This has got to be one of the least thought-through proposals I've seen in yearsand the only thing I take comfort from is that this announcement is being made by politicians who will never have to enforce it.
Hmmm, brexit?By setting a date 25 years away there is time to implement the aolutions needed.
To summarise an article with more balance than gov't propaganda:
In spite of hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer bribes to persuade motorists to buy them, EVs make up only 0.3 per cent of the 31.7million cars on our roads. What additional sums of taxpayer money will be spent before the eve of compulsion - which is going to be needed.
The extra 30 gigawatts of electricity needed to charge these cars would add nearly 50 per cent to our current peak electricity demand, half of it still supplied by the fossil fuels the Government wants to eliminate...Michael Gove thinks it will come from come from wind and nuclear power. To provide 30GW from wind would require approx 10,000 new turbines, on top of the 7,600 we already have...unfortunately this was based on the full capacity of these turbines rather than actual output which, thanks to the wind's intermittency, is between one quarter and one third as much. 33,000 to 40,000 new turbines by 2040 is dreamworld territory at ~6 per day every day. There are industry insiders on PH who can tell you what installation times are, and even if it was possible, what the cost of this number of turbines would be. They will also know how many cars will be charged when there's no wind across much of the country.
30GW from nuclear power would require ~£200bn on nine more nuclear power stations the size of Hinkley Point, although this itself is unlikely to be built before 2030 and no more are yet firmly in the pipeline.
Gove et al are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
With fossil fuels phased out, where will back-up power come from? Will interconnectors cope? How much would it cost? At 5 to 6x current levels iirc it may well not involve EU countries with phased out fossil fuels in any case.
After 2030, we will not only be switching to electricity for our transport system but also for all our heating and cooking. A Parliamentary report, based on an Imperial College study, estimates that this will boost our electricity needs to 350GW, many times higher than our current peak demand.
If pie in the sky ambition lets politicians exercise their full capacity for folly with NOx targets anywhere near 50% of current levels then they'll need to set out their strategy for phasing out forests, parks, lawns and vegetation burning.
The level of gov't foolishness outlined above is close to insanity and maybe, at some point, eventually the penny will drop. Any bets on when?
In spite of hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer bribes to persuade motorists to buy them, EVs make up only 0.3 per cent of the 31.7million cars on our roads. What additional sums of taxpayer money will be spent before the eve of compulsion - which is going to be needed.
The extra 30 gigawatts of electricity needed to charge these cars would add nearly 50 per cent to our current peak electricity demand, half of it still supplied by the fossil fuels the Government wants to eliminate...Michael Gove thinks it will come from come from wind and nuclear power. To provide 30GW from wind would require approx 10,000 new turbines, on top of the 7,600 we already have...unfortunately this was based on the full capacity of these turbines rather than actual output which, thanks to the wind's intermittency, is between one quarter and one third as much. 33,000 to 40,000 new turbines by 2040 is dreamworld territory at ~6 per day every day. There are industry insiders on PH who can tell you what installation times are, and even if it was possible, what the cost of this number of turbines would be. They will also know how many cars will be charged when there's no wind across much of the country.
30GW from nuclear power would require ~£200bn on nine more nuclear power stations the size of Hinkley Point, although this itself is unlikely to be built before 2030 and no more are yet firmly in the pipeline.
Gove et al are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
With fossil fuels phased out, where will back-up power come from? Will interconnectors cope? How much would it cost? At 5 to 6x current levels iirc it may well not involve EU countries with phased out fossil fuels in any case.
After 2030, we will not only be switching to electricity for our transport system but also for all our heating and cooking. A Parliamentary report, based on an Imperial College study, estimates that this will boost our electricity needs to 350GW, many times higher than our current peak demand.
If pie in the sky ambition lets politicians exercise their full capacity for folly with NOx targets anywhere near 50% of current levels then they'll need to set out their strategy for phasing out forests, parks, lawns and vegetation burning.
The level of gov't foolishness outlined above is close to insanity and maybe, at some point, eventually the penny will drop. Any bets on when?
glasgow mega snake said:
b2hbm said:
This has got to be one of the least thought-through proposals I've seen in yearsand the only thing I take comfort from is that this announcement is being made by politicians who will never have to enforce it.
Hmmm, brexit?By setting a date 25 years away there is time to implement the aolutions needed.
turbobloke said:
To summarise an article with more balance than gov't propaganda:
In spite of hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer bribes to persuade motorists to buy them, EVs make up only 0.3 per cent of the 31.7million cars on our roads. What additional sums of taxpayer money will be spent before the eve of compulsion - which is going to be needed.
The extra 30 gigawatts of electricity needed to charge these cars would add nearly 50 per cent to our current peak electricity demand, half of it still supplied by the fossil fuels the Government wants to eliminate...Michael Gove thinks it will come from come from wind and nuclear power. To provide 30GW from wind would require approx 10,000 new turbines, on top of the 7,600 we already have...unfortunately this was based on the full capacity of these turbines rather than actual output which, thanks to the wind's intermittency, is between one quarter and one third as much. 33,000 to 40,000 new turbines by 2040 is dreamworld territory at ~6 per day every day. There are industry insiders on PH who can tell you what installation times are, and even if it was possible, what the cost of this number of turbines would be. They will also know how many cars will be charged when there's no wind across much of the country.
30GW from nuclear power would require ~£200bn on nine more nuclear power stations the size of Hinkley Point, although this itself is unlikely to be built before 2030 and no more are yet firmly in the pipeline.
Gove et al are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
With fossil fuels phased out, where will back-up power come from? Will interconnectors cope? How much would it cost? At 5 to 6x current levels iirc it may well not involve EU countries with phased out fossil fuels in any case.
After 2030, we will not only be switching to electricity for our transport system but also for all our heating and cooking. A Parliamentary report, based on an Imperial College study, estimates that this will boost our electricity needs to 350GW, many times higher than our current peak demand.
If pie in the sky ambition lets politicians exercise their full capacity for folly with NOx targets anywhere near 50% of current levels then they'll need to set out their strategy for phasing out forests, parks, lawns and vegetation burning.
The level of gov't foolishness outlined above is close to insanity and maybe, at some point, eventually the penny will drop. Any bets on when?
Spot on, and so pie in the sky it's pointless to continue even contemplating the interpretation that only full EV vehicles will be permitted.In spite of hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer bribes to persuade motorists to buy them, EVs make up only 0.3 per cent of the 31.7million cars on our roads. What additional sums of taxpayer money will be spent before the eve of compulsion - which is going to be needed.
The extra 30 gigawatts of electricity needed to charge these cars would add nearly 50 per cent to our current peak electricity demand, half of it still supplied by the fossil fuels the Government wants to eliminate...Michael Gove thinks it will come from come from wind and nuclear power. To provide 30GW from wind would require approx 10,000 new turbines, on top of the 7,600 we already have...unfortunately this was based on the full capacity of these turbines rather than actual output which, thanks to the wind's intermittency, is between one quarter and one third as much. 33,000 to 40,000 new turbines by 2040 is dreamworld territory at ~6 per day every day. There are industry insiders on PH who can tell you what installation times are, and even if it was possible, what the cost of this number of turbines would be. They will also know how many cars will be charged when there's no wind across much of the country.
30GW from nuclear power would require ~£200bn on nine more nuclear power stations the size of Hinkley Point, although this itself is unlikely to be built before 2030 and no more are yet firmly in the pipeline.
Gove et al are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
With fossil fuels phased out, where will back-up power come from? Will interconnectors cope? How much would it cost? At 5 to 6x current levels iirc it may well not involve EU countries with phased out fossil fuels in any case.
After 2030, we will not only be switching to electricity for our transport system but also for all our heating and cooking. A Parliamentary report, based on an Imperial College study, estimates that this will boost our electricity needs to 350GW, many times higher than our current peak demand.
If pie in the sky ambition lets politicians exercise their full capacity for folly with NOx targets anywhere near 50% of current levels then they'll need to set out their strategy for phasing out forests, parks, lawns and vegetation burning.
The level of gov't foolishness outlined above is close to insanity and maybe, at some point, eventually the penny will drop. Any bets on when?
Of more concern is the supposed intelligence of the current crop of politicians. I thought Gove was supposed to be one of the smarter cookies, either obviously he is not, or if true and he is one of the better ones, despair.
turbobloke said:
To summarise an article with more balance than gov't propaganda:
In spite of hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer bribes to persuade motorists to buy them, EVs make up only 0.3 per cent of the 31.7million cars on our roads. What additional sums of taxpayer money will be spent before the eve of compulsion - which is going to be needed.
The extra 30 gigawatts of electricity needed to charge these cars would add nearly 50 per cent to our current peak electricity demand, half of it still supplied by the fossil fuels the Government wants to eliminate...Michael Gove thinks it will come from come from wind and nuclear power. To provide 30GW from wind would require approx 10,000 new turbines, on top of the 7,600 we already have...unfortunately this was based on the full capacity of these turbines rather than actual output which, thanks to the wind's intermittency, is between one quarter and one third as much. 33,000 to 40,000 new turbines by 2040 is dreamworld territory at ~6 per day every day. There are industry insiders on PH who can tell you what installation times are, and even if it was possible, what the cost of this number of turbines would be. They will also know how many cars will be charged when there's no wind across much of the country.
30GW from nuclear power would require ~£200bn on nine more nuclear power stations the size of Hinkley Point, although this itself is unlikely to be built before 2030 and no more are yet firmly in the pipeline.
Gove et al are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
With fossil fuels phased out, where will back-up power come from? Will interconnectors cope? How much would it cost? At 5 to 6x current levels iirc it may well not involve EU countries with phased out fossil fuels in any case.
After 2030, we will not only be switching to electricity for our transport system but also for all our heating and cooking. A Parliamentary report, based on an Imperial College study, estimates that this will boost our electricity needs to 350GW, many times higher than our current peak demand.
If pie in the sky ambition lets politicians exercise their full capacity for folly with NOx targets anywhere near 50% of current levels then they'll need to set out their strategy for phasing out forests, parks, lawns and vegetation burning.
The level of gov't foolishness outlined above is close to insanity and maybe, at some point, eventually the penny will drop. Any bets on when?
Just to pick you up on the power requirements, where do you get your figures? I'm going to guess you read it in the papers but don't understand what it means?In spite of hundreds of millions of pounds in taxpayer bribes to persuade motorists to buy them, EVs make up only 0.3 per cent of the 31.7million cars on our roads. What additional sums of taxpayer money will be spent before the eve of compulsion - which is going to be needed.
The extra 30 gigawatts of electricity needed to charge these cars would add nearly 50 per cent to our current peak electricity demand, half of it still supplied by the fossil fuels the Government wants to eliminate...Michael Gove thinks it will come from come from wind and nuclear power. To provide 30GW from wind would require approx 10,000 new turbines, on top of the 7,600 we already have...unfortunately this was based on the full capacity of these turbines rather than actual output which, thanks to the wind's intermittency, is between one quarter and one third as much. 33,000 to 40,000 new turbines by 2040 is dreamworld territory at ~6 per day every day. There are industry insiders on PH who can tell you what installation times are, and even if it was possible, what the cost of this number of turbines would be. They will also know how many cars will be charged when there's no wind across much of the country.
30GW from nuclear power would require ~£200bn on nine more nuclear power stations the size of Hinkley Point, although this itself is unlikely to be built before 2030 and no more are yet firmly in the pipeline.
Gove et al are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
With fossil fuels phased out, where will back-up power come from? Will interconnectors cope? How much would it cost? At 5 to 6x current levels iirc it may well not involve EU countries with phased out fossil fuels in any case.
After 2030, we will not only be switching to electricity for our transport system but also for all our heating and cooking. A Parliamentary report, based on an Imperial College study, estimates that this will boost our electricity needs to 350GW, many times higher than our current peak demand.
If pie in the sky ambition lets politicians exercise their full capacity for folly with NOx targets anywhere near 50% of current levels then they'll need to set out their strategy for phasing out forests, parks, lawns and vegetation burning.
The level of gov't foolishness outlined above is close to insanity and maybe, at some point, eventually the penny will drop. Any bets on when?
watts is a rate of power consumption, batteries are need energy not power. Power dictates the speed of charging, not the energy capacity.
Do some simple maths and you will see that the average drive needs about 7kWh per day. Now work out whats the maximum power you think your house could draw over night. Do you think it could cope with 1 kW, or possibly 2? your hob is something like 9kW, a shower can be 14kW. Now multiply by the time you have. If we go with 1kW (so way under what you could draw), it will take 7 hours to charge. Lets say the grid could cope with 2kW, now its 3.5 hours to charge.
Quoting "30GW" from what you've read in the papers is just meaningless. Its like saying we can't fill up all petrol cars at the same time, so we need millions of new petrol stations.
98elise said:
Just to pick you up on the power requirements, where do you get your figures? I'm going to guess you read it in the papers but don't understand what it means?
watts is a rate of power consumption, batteries are need energy not power. Power dictates the speed of charging, not the energy capacity.
watts is a rate of power consumption, batteries are need energy not power. Power dictates the speed of charging, not the energy capacity.
Not sure if serious and a massive fail.
Watts are units of power, and power is the rate of energy consumption not power consumption.
Massive fail right at the outset, if you heard a noise it was your pomposity which just went pop.
Just to pick me up? Red Bull works OK.
The figures are gov't figures.
I know all about energy and power, as you can see above, I also know that hertz means bzzzz.
Funny stuff though, thanks for the enterrainment factor complete with a touch of misplaced arrogance and the ironic schoolboy error.
98elise said:
Do some simple maths ...
Are you sure you're up to simple maths? Simple physics was beyond you not long ago.You need to check in with the gov't not me.
Try repeating the calculation with no wind and only Hinkley C and give the cost.
Tick Tock.
D900SP said:
The whole reasoning behind this movement to EV is because the MP's are based in London, they don't like the air quality there but are not prepared to actually do anything about it except for an nationwide change, which, if it went ahead would devastate the motor industry, including motor sport, in this country.
There seems some confusion as to whether post 2040 will be electric cars only (as reported by quite a lot of the press), or just banning ICE only (recent article saying Toyota sought clarification and Hybrids aren't going to be banned)If it's the latter then it won't make much difference at all to the motor industry. We're talking 23 years time. Volvo have already announced they're not going to be making any ICE only cars from 2 years time, I wouldn't at all surprised to see most other manufacturers go the same way in the next few years.
Electric only would be a bit more of a challenge though, but probably more a challenge for the power generation companies than the car manufacturers.
RizzoTheRat said:
There seems some confusion as to whether post 2040 will be electric cars only (as reported by quite a lot of the press), or just banning ICE only (recent article saying Toyota sought clarification and Hybrids aren't going to be banned)
If it's the latter then it won't make much difference at all to the motor industry. We're talking 23 years time. Volvo have already announced they're not going to be making any ICE only cars from 2 years time, I wouldn't at all surprised to see most other manufacturers go the same way in the next few years.
Electric only would be a bit more of a challenge though, but probably more a challenge for the power generation companies than the car manufacturers.
I've not seen any confusion in official communications on this. Same as the Volvo announcement. No confusion from them They all say hybrids or all electric. I've even seen something from Volvo saying that all cars will have an electric motor. How this is much different from today where every single vehicle has an electric motor - except we call it a starter motor now - I'm not sure. Fit a bigger battery and starter motor - modify it to drive the vehicle at times and you have a hybrid. If it's the latter then it won't make much difference at all to the motor industry. We're talking 23 years time. Volvo have already announced they're not going to be making any ICE only cars from 2 years time, I wouldn't at all surprised to see most other manufacturers go the same way in the next few years.
Electric only would be a bit more of a challenge though, but probably more a challenge for the power generation companies than the car manufacturers.
Where the confusion comes in is when the cretins in the media and politics start adding their own spin and start wittering on about all electric.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff