New diesel and petrol cars banned from UK roads by 2030
Discussion
RizzoTheRat said:
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.
richie99 said:
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.
Some salt and vinegar for the above witterings...Let's not forget the planned decorbonisation deadline of 2050 i.e. no fossil fuel use.
If government works with fairytales on a daily basis, we need to look into it.
Farewell hybrids it was nice knowing you.
richie99 said:
I've not seen any confusion in official communications on this.
I've not seen any official communication at all. I spent a couple of minutes trying to google what Gove actually said, but only found lots of media articles saying it'd be a ban on all petrol and diesel cars, an no official wording of the actual policy. Nothing fully specific from Gove et al is hardly surprising. EV nirvana is fast on rhetoric and loose on the maths and physics.
On PH we even get power confused with energy in lectures about not confusing power with energy.
We get household charging scenarios without any thought to the fact that 43% of households lack access to any form of off-street parking, nor the impact of all cooking and heating (night time heating, yes it happens) switching from gas to electric in those households that do have off-street parking. The people with the power – and the future problems – know the score.
Domestic electricity capability is a limiting factor. According to National Grid the average household is supplied with single phase electricity and is fitted with a main fuse of 60 to 80 amps. They say that as a result, when using fast chargers with high power ratings, it would mean that a household could not use other high demand electrical items such as kettles, ovens, and heating systems without tripping a house’s main fuse. All EV households would need the max domestic 100 amp main fuse fitted, if not it’s drive or freeze, a cool choice.
Also according to the National Grid, to achieve a national network of high powered EV charging stations will require the chicken and egg cycle to be cracked. Large battery EVs will not become common-place unless there are sufficient charging stations to service them. However there will be little appetite to build such service stations unless there are enough cars to be serviced. Gove et al simply assume this will happen as if by magic. If it happens at all there will be extremely large amounts of taxpayer money involved, that the number of domestic charging points involved in a viable future scenario will cause “network stress” bearing in mind the relative or total lack of fossil fuels in play. Interpret that as you wish.
On PH we even get power confused with energy in lectures about not confusing power with energy.
We get household charging scenarios without any thought to the fact that 43% of households lack access to any form of off-street parking, nor the impact of all cooking and heating (night time heating, yes it happens) switching from gas to electric in those households that do have off-street parking. The people with the power – and the future problems – know the score.
Domestic electricity capability is a limiting factor. According to National Grid the average household is supplied with single phase electricity and is fitted with a main fuse of 60 to 80 amps. They say that as a result, when using fast chargers with high power ratings, it would mean that a household could not use other high demand electrical items such as kettles, ovens, and heating systems without tripping a house’s main fuse. All EV households would need the max domestic 100 amp main fuse fitted, if not it’s drive or freeze, a cool choice.
Also according to the National Grid, to achieve a national network of high powered EV charging stations will require the chicken and egg cycle to be cracked. Large battery EVs will not become common-place unless there are sufficient charging stations to service them. However there will be little appetite to build such service stations unless there are enough cars to be serviced. Gove et al simply assume this will happen as if by magic. If it happens at all there will be extremely large amounts of taxpayer money involved, that the number of domestic charging points involved in a viable future scenario will cause “network stress” bearing in mind the relative or total lack of fossil fuels in play. Interpret that as you wish.
National Grid said:
It may well be that the charging from home option may not be in the long term interest of the consumers even with smart chargers.
turbobloke said:
In the latest edition of LTT there's an idea that cars of all types will be taxed on a 'pay per mile through your insurance' basis. If it goes ahead this could allow the gov't of the day to maintain a lower rate of tax on EVs or more likely to tax all road-going vehicles in a similar if not identical way, thereby collecting tax that was previously received from fuel duty on petrol and diesel. It will then become extremely expensive or impossible to insure a car without a black box fitted by the insurance company. The wider implications will be obvious.
The wider implication is pay per mile.About effing time too.
Nothingtoseehere said:
oyster said:
The wider implication is pay per mile.
About effing time too.
Um...no thankyou.About effing time too.
It went down well when first proposed, it's been effectively buried since. IIRC the petition reached 1.8m.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6349027.stm
That's why they're likely to push it through the insurance route as per my post on the LTT mention (yesterday or the day before). As long as they think the votes lost won't be too bad.
turbobloke said:
Seconded.
It went down well when first proposed, it's been effectively buried since. IIRC the petition reached 1.8m.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6349027.stm
That's why they're likely to push it through the insurance route as per my post on the LTT mention (yesterday or the day before). As long as they think the votes lost won't be too bad.
"The ABD are calling for a referendum on the issue"It went down well when first proposed, it's been effectively buried since. IIRC the petition reached 1.8m.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6349027.stm
That's why they're likely to push it through the insurance route as per my post on the LTT mention (yesterday or the day before). As long as they think the votes lost won't be too bad.
Would that make me a remainer if I want things left as they are?
Imagine it was 52/48....
It's 20x years time, 20 years! Think how far things have progressed over the last 20 years - Why do so many of the objections (all be it from the usual suspects) in effect assume technological stagnation? If you look only as far as the end of the drive and only as far into the future as the next opportunity to post on PH then sure the whole thing is as believable as fairies at the bottom of the garden.
If on the other hand you assume a rate of technological growth that is largely triggered not by saving trees or those naughty MPs in their ivory towers but instead by the filthy lucre (replace the logical with nominic in eco) then surely you can see things will look a tad different? You don't even need to assume much growth, perhaps a typically British understatement of a mild swelling...
Do you really think that in 20 years times we'll still be looking at batteries that do 100 miles and only on warm days? Or that charging will take 6 hours and will require a power cable through the window? Really? Do you honestly believe that in 20 years we'll still be commuting/travelling the same basic way we do today?
In these ages of such rapid technological advance and economic temptation you'd surely be mad to even try and assume this months technology will be anything other than the laughing stock of the average millennial in 12 months time.
If on the other hand you assume a rate of technological growth that is largely triggered not by saving trees or those naughty MPs in their ivory towers but instead by the filthy lucre (replace the logical with nominic in eco) then surely you can see things will look a tad different? You don't even need to assume much growth, perhaps a typically British understatement of a mild swelling...
Do you really think that in 20 years times we'll still be looking at batteries that do 100 miles and only on warm days? Or that charging will take 6 hours and will require a power cable through the window? Really? Do you honestly believe that in 20 years we'll still be commuting/travelling the same basic way we do today?
In these ages of such rapid technological advance and economic temptation you'd surely be mad to even try and assume this months technology will be anything other than the laughing stock of the average millennial in 12 months time.
GnuBee said:
It's 20x years time, 20 years! Think how far things have progressed over the last 20 years - Why do so many of the objections (all be it from the usual suspects) in effect assume technological stagnation? If you look only as far as the end of the drive and only as far into the future as the next opportunity to post on PH then sure the whole thing is as believable as fairies at the bottom of the garden.
If on the other hand you assume a rate of technological growth that is largely triggered not by saving trees or those naughty MPs in their ivory towers but instead by the filthy lucre (replace the logical with nominic in eco) then surely you can see things will look a tad different? You don't even need to assume much growth, perhaps a typically British understatement of a mild swelling...
Do you really think that in 20 years times we'll still be looking at batteries that do 100 miles and only on warm days? Or that charging will take 6 hours and will require a power cable through the window? Really? Do you honestly believe that in 20 years we'll still be commuting/travelling the same basic way we do today?
In these ages of such rapid technological advance and economic temptation you'd surely be mad to even try and assume this months technology will be anything other than the laughing stock of the average millennial in 12 months time.
Who knows? It needs something amazing for battery development though, they are miles away from the energy density of liquid fuels. There's a few things that look promising in the lab but the real world is different. But we'll see. Storing, delivering and replenishing large amounts of energy quickly is a big ask. Physics gets in the way. It'd be great if it can be done though.If on the other hand you assume a rate of technological growth that is largely triggered not by saving trees or those naughty MPs in their ivory towers but instead by the filthy lucre (replace the logical with nominic in eco) then surely you can see things will look a tad different? You don't even need to assume much growth, perhaps a typically British understatement of a mild swelling...
Do you really think that in 20 years times we'll still be looking at batteries that do 100 miles and only on warm days? Or that charging will take 6 hours and will require a power cable through the window? Really? Do you honestly believe that in 20 years we'll still be commuting/travelling the same basic way we do today?
In these ages of such rapid technological advance and economic temptation you'd surely be mad to even try and assume this months technology will be anything other than the laughing stock of the average millennial in 12 months time.
GnuBee said:
It's 20x years time, 20 years! Think how far things have progressed over the last 20 years - Why do so many of the objections (all be it from the usual suspects) in effect assume technological stagnation? If you look only as far as the end of the drive and only as far into the future as the next opportunity to post on PH then sure the whole thing is as believable as fairies at the bottom of the garden.
If on the other hand you assume a rate of technological growth that is largely triggered not by saving trees or those naughty MPs in their ivory towers but instead by the filthy lucre (replace the logical with nominic in eco) then surely you can see things will look a tad different? You don't even need to assume much growth, perhaps a typically British understatement of a mild swelling...
Do you really think that in 20 years times we'll still be looking at batteries that do 100 miles and only on warm days? Or that charging will take 6 hours and will require a power cable through the window? Really? Do you honestly believe that in 20 years we'll still be commuting/travelling the same basic way we do today?
In these ages of such rapid technological advance and economic temptation you'd surely be mad to even try and assume this months technology will be anything other than the laughing stock of the average millennial in 12 months time.
1.If anything phone batteries were better years ago.If on the other hand you assume a rate of technological growth that is largely triggered not by saving trees or those naughty MPs in their ivory towers but instead by the filthy lucre (replace the logical with nominic in eco) then surely you can see things will look a tad different? You don't even need to assume much growth, perhaps a typically British understatement of a mild swelling...
Do you really think that in 20 years times we'll still be looking at batteries that do 100 miles and only on warm days? Or that charging will take 6 hours and will require a power cable through the window? Really? Do you honestly believe that in 20 years we'll still be commuting/travelling the same basic way we do today?
In these ages of such rapid technological advance and economic temptation you'd surely be mad to even try and assume this months technology will be anything other than the laughing stock of the average millennial in 12 months time.
2.If no wires,then how?
3.Range might get better but what if you live in the highlands or get stuck in six hours of stop start traffic on the M5 to Cornwall?
4.Do you really think recharging will get down to say,10 minutes?
Edit;
https://www.netcarshow.com/honda/1997-ev_plus/
Here's an ev from 20 years ago,100ish range,6hrs charge.
Real progress made in 20 years.....
Edited by Nothingtoseehere on Monday 31st July 12:44
turbobloke said:
...All EV households would need the max domestic 100 amp main fuse fitted, if not it’s drive or freeze, a cool choice....
You slammed 98Elise but tbh he has a point ref numbers.
I have a 100A fuse here. Cost nowt. Same in the last place I had.
When is peak demand? Are we suffering overly simplistic numbers to paint a worse picture than is actually there (no matter who produced the numbers).
I don't believe EVs (in current form at least) are the answer to any environmental concerns some may have. But equally I don't see them as the hellish product many would seem to. And as far as 2040 is concerned, I will be very surprised if all manufacturers here haven't gone that way before then anyway.
If Renault had a more sensible arrangement with their batteries I'd buy a Twizy tomorrow (to go with the 3x V8s, 1x cyl petrol and 1x 4 cyl diesel
). And if Teslas had been a chunk cheaper I may have not bought a diesel this time round. I would not bet any money at all on those sorts of issue not being resolved in 23yrs. Nor am I convinced about the simplistic figures spelling doom and gloom.turbobloke said:
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.
Quick back the fag packet calculations...
We have about 35m cars on the road, so if we say 7-8kWh per day each (based on average mileage) then that's approaching 30GWh per day (which is possibly where the 30GW came from?). If we spread that out over the day it would be just over 1.25GW continuous.
The majority of charging will be done overnight so if we say 12 hours then its 2.5GW. If we limited to just 6 hours overnight, say 11-5, then its 5GW.
The reality is we will probably see sine wave peaking at night. IIRC we have about 10GW spare overnight
That's assuming all cars are BEV only, which is I highly doubt will happen.
The only time that will be an issue is if everyone wants to supercharge as soon as they get home, but that's very very unlikely, would result in throttling (or the need for battery banks). That's the only issue I can see.
Can you post your source, or some of your own workings. I'm happy to be corrected but i prefer evidence to headlines.
98elise said:
Actually its a slight typo rather then a massive fail, I should have said watts is a unit of power consumption. (I'm happy for people to correct me). So getting back to the question, how do you think the 30GW relates to the energy needs?
Quick back the fag packet calculations...
We have about 35m cars on the road, so if we say 7-8kWh per day each (based on average mileage) then that's approaching 30GWh per day (which is possibly where the 30GW came from?). If we spread that out over the day it would be just over 1.25GW continuous.
The majority of charging will be done overnight so if we say 12 hours then its 2.5GW. If we limited to just 6 hours overnight, say 11-5, then its 5GW.
The reality is we will probably see sine wave peaking at night. IIRC we have about 10GW spare overnight
That's assuming all cars are BEV only, which is I highly doubt will happen.
The only time that will be an issue is if everyone wants to supercharge as soon as they get home, but that's very very unlikely, would result in throttling (or the need for battery banks). That's the only issue I can see.
I have had an Electric car since late 2013 - I charge it about once a fortnight. I think my solar panels cover my charging, I say I think as my electric bill has not become noticeably larger since I got the Electric Car.Quick back the fag packet calculations...
We have about 35m cars on the road, so if we say 7-8kWh per day each (based on average mileage) then that's approaching 30GWh per day (which is possibly where the 30GW came from?). If we spread that out over the day it would be just over 1.25GW continuous.
The majority of charging will be done overnight so if we say 12 hours then its 2.5GW. If we limited to just 6 hours overnight, say 11-5, then its 5GW.
The reality is we will probably see sine wave peaking at night. IIRC we have about 10GW spare overnight
That's assuming all cars are BEV only, which is I highly doubt will happen.
The only time that will be an issue is if everyone wants to supercharge as soon as they get home, but that's very very unlikely, would result in throttling (or the need for battery banks). That's the only issue I can see.
I think the grid will be fine actually.
All a load of fuss about nothing if you ask me, however, I will miss certain aspects of Internal Combustion Engines - so whilst I still want one I still keep a nice one whilst the legislation and the affordability allows me to.
GnuBee said:
It's 20x years time, 20 years! Think how far things have progressed over the last 20 years - Why do so many of the objections (all be it from the usual suspects) in effect assume technological stagnation? If you look only as far as the end of the drive and only as far into the future as the next opportunity to post on PH then sure the whole thing is as believable as fairies at the bottom of the garden.
If on the other hand you assume a rate of technological growth that is largely triggered not by saving trees or those naughty MPs in their ivory towers but instead by the filthy lucre (replace the logical with nominic in eco) then surely you can see things will look a tad different? You don't even need to assume much growth, perhaps a typically British understatement of a mild swelling...
Do you really think that in 20 years times we'll still be looking at batteries that do 100 miles and only on warm days? Or that charging will take 6 hours and will require a power cable through the window? Really? Do you honestly believe that in 20 years we'll still be commuting/travelling the same basic way we do today?
In these ages of such rapid technological advance and economic temptation you'd surely be mad to even try and assume this months technology will be anything other than the laughing stock of the average millennial in 12 months time.
On the other hand, a "breakthrough in battery technology" has been "just around the corner" for as long as I can remember, but, somehow, we never, quite, make it round that corner.If on the other hand you assume a rate of technological growth that is largely triggered not by saving trees or those naughty MPs in their ivory towers but instead by the filthy lucre (replace the logical with nominic in eco) then surely you can see things will look a tad different? You don't even need to assume much growth, perhaps a typically British understatement of a mild swelling...
Do you really think that in 20 years times we'll still be looking at batteries that do 100 miles and only on warm days? Or that charging will take 6 hours and will require a power cable through the window? Really? Do you honestly believe that in 20 years we'll still be commuting/travelling the same basic way we do today?
In these ages of such rapid technological advance and economic temptation you'd surely be mad to even try and assume this months technology will be anything other than the laughing stock of the average millennial in 12 months time.
On the face of it, this seems to be another policy (see 100% renewables) that relies on some unknown technology that will arrive, as if by magic, sometime in the next 20 years. It's rather like that oft-derided staple of 1930s radio serials - "With one mighty bound he was free!".
Edited by gareth_r on Monday 31st July 13:28
Nothingtoseehere said:
1.If anything phone batteries were better years ago.
2.If no wires,then how?
3.Range might get better but what if you live in the highlands or get stuck in six hours of stop start traffic on the M5 to Cornwall?
4.Do you really think recharging will get down to say,10 minutes?
Edit;
https://www.netcarshow.com/honda/1997-ev_plus/
Here's an ev from 20 years ago,100ish range,6hrs charge.
Real progress made in 20 years.....
1. What? Top tech in 1994 was something like the Nokai 2110/2140 . 550mAh battery, 18 hour charge time. Similar sized phone of today - Sony Z5 Compact - with a 2700mAh battery can fully charge in around 2 hours.2.If no wires,then how?
3.Range might get better but what if you live in the highlands or get stuck in six hours of stop start traffic on the M5 to Cornwall?
4.Do you really think recharging will get down to say,10 minutes?
Edit;
https://www.netcarshow.com/honda/1997-ev_plus/
Here's an ev from 20 years ago,100ish range,6hrs charge.
Real progress made in 20 years.....
Edited by Nothingtoseehere on Monday 31st July 12:44
2. https://www.pluglesspower.com/
3. Simple - charge overnight, then you've got fewer range worries than with a petrol car (help, where's the nearest fuel station...) . 6 hours stop start - I'd expect at least one comfort break with that much traffic.
4. Probably.
gareth_r said:
n the other hand, a "breakthrough in battery technology" has been "just around the corner" for as long as I can remember, but, somehow, we never, quite, make it round that corner.
On the face of it, this seems to be another policy (see 100% renewables) that relies on some magic technology that will arrive, as if by magic, sometime in the next 20 years. It's rather like that oft-derided staple of 1930s radio serials - "With one mighty bound he was free!".
So we're not going to recognise the development of Li-ion technology? Sorry if I'm assuming you're actually much younger. Battery technology has come on enormously - that's why you can carry around a phone that does all the things you expect it to do and yet still have it fit in your pocket.On the face of it, this seems to be another policy (see 100% renewables) that relies on some magic technology that will arrive, as if by magic, sometime in the next 20 years. It's rather like that oft-derided staple of 1930s radio serials - "With one mighty bound he was free!".
It'll come down to money (that's always the big enabler), A policy that catalyses car makers to view EV as less the niche for the eco warriors and more the solution for a large section of people who aren't doing those 1000 mile non-stop trips around the artic circle.
The other part here is that this is good for us surely? It'll push cars into new directions, the packaging constraints forced upon designers by the neccessity to house the ICE and the liquid fuel for it will, with luck, lead to more interesting designs, the desire to maximise efficiences should make designs like the i3 less revolutionary and more the norm. Then consider the impact of the potential for autonomy - what happens when people who don't care about the car being "their" car or simply have different priorities opt instead to have the car arrive for them and take them to Tesco's etc?
This thread reads like the end of the world is being visited upon all real men when a different spin is a future of more interesting design options and one where autonomy may actually reduce the cars on the road.
Nothingtoseehere said:
https://www.netcarshow.com/honda/1997-ev_plus/
Here's an ev from 20 years ago,100ish range,6hrs charge.
Real progress made in 20 years.....
And now 300* mile range and an hours charge in a Tesla Model S, sounds like progress to meHere's an ev from 20 years ago,100ish range,6hrs charge.
Real progress made in 20 years.....
*Your mileage may vary
gareth_r said:
n the other hand, a "breakthrough in battery technology" has been "just around the corner" for as long as I can remember, but, somehow, we never, quite, make it round that corner.
On the face of it, this seems to be another policy (see 100% renewables) that relies on some magic technology that will arrive, as if by magic, sometime in the next 20 years. It's rather like that oft-derided staple of 1930s radio serials - "With one mighty bound he was free!".
I suspect it's a mistake to concentrate on just batteries - if the tech needing the battery is also more efficient, then the battery doesn't necessarily need to get better. But...On the face of it, this seems to be another policy (see 100% renewables) that relies on some magic technology that will arrive, as if by magic, sometime in the next 20 years. It's rather like that oft-derided staple of 1930s radio serials - "With one mighty bound he was free!".
Tesla appear to be able to get their cars around 300 miles now (at a price). That now makes them credible IMO (at a price!).
I've started looking at my regular use of my cars and am realising that most of my use could be covered by something with a 30-50 mile range. And I became aware a while ago that pretty much no modern car can be used to full potential on UK roads.
I think batteries are already at the point where a usable and amusing driving experience could be on offer. The next 23yrs is only going to see that situation improve.
I don't see me ever getting rid of all my ICE cars. But I can see a time not that far away when the bulk of our family mileage is done in something electric. And I doubt I'm alone (I'd actually see me as a typical "against" outlier
).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff