New diesel and petrol cars banned from UK roads by 2030
Discussion
Ali G said:
MartG said:
Odd that they announce this just a week after cancelling the rail electrification programme, leaving most of the UK dependent on diesel powered trains for the forseeable future...
Not very consistent, are they
Polite!Not very consistent, are they
A clueless self-service clusterf
k of asseholes may be a more appropriate description.Instead of actually thinking about this and doing everything in stages, to suit the most practical applications, some numpty pollie goes for the jugular of the common man instead.
First thing would have been to finish the electrification of the whole rail network, given that 50 years after the end of steam, we're still woefully short of that.
The other irony is that Beeching drastically cut the rail network built by the Victorians, which forced a lot of commercial transport onto the roads with diesel lorries....
Next stage could be all public service and commercial transport to be hybrid by a certain date, then full EV by a later date. Of course, had we not removed a huge percentage of the rail network........
The last thing to change over SHOULD be personal transport.
Instead the idiots in Govt are doing the reverse.........clueless doesn't even begin to describe it.
rb26 said:
Ali G said:
Is incorrect
Just investigated this and was genuinely shocked to find it's only 9% now. Still, we rely on over 50% of our electricity production on non-renewable resources. What do you think electrifying our cars and trucks will do to that demand? According to the Telegraph site, hybrids will still be allowed to be sold "new" after 2040.
Only "conventional" engines will not be made anymore
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/26/pla...
Only "conventional" engines will not be made anymore
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/26/pla...
With outdoor air in London cleaner than at any time in over 400 years (Lomborg) the occasions when air quality limits are breached coincide with trans-boundary events where weather systems bring pollution over from southern europe.
Studies claiming tens of thousands of deaths per year are caused by outdoor air pollution are based on the epidemiological fallacy and tell us little in reality, unlike credible studies from both the UK BRE and US EPA which agree that indoor air in the average building is ten times more polluted than outdoor urban air. Politicians need to prioritise better if they're interested in health, but the idea of taxing air in homes, libraries, shops or offices is unpalatable so the easier target is chosen with support from on-message studies that use fallacious methods.
Studies claiming tens of thousands of deaths per year are caused by outdoor air pollution are based on the epidemiological fallacy and tell us little in reality, unlike credible studies from both the UK BRE and US EPA which agree that indoor air in the average building is ten times more polluted than outdoor urban air. Politicians need to prioritise better if they're interested in health, but the idea of taxing air in homes, libraries, shops or offices is unpalatable so the easier target is chosen with support from on-message studies that use fallacious methods.
Vaud said:
Jazzy Jag said:
I was talking to a guy who is involved in the development of an EV, last week.
While the battery pack has a decent warranty there is a limit to the number of rapid charges allowed under the terms of the warranty.
It amounts to about 2 a week..
Which is fine for technology in 2017. 23 years of focused, high investment R&D will change this.While the battery pack has a decent warranty there is a limit to the number of rapid charges allowed under the terms of the warranty.
It amounts to about 2 a week..
Vaud said:
jjohnson23 said:
Sorry,I meant about the levels we have now.They try to make out we won`t be able to breathe in 25 years time if things don`t improve.
Well it's pretty crap in a lot of areas already.As in, seriously damaging to health.
Really? Where other than in a small number of cities?
How old are you Vaud? I can remember when a snowfall was black with soot from millions of coal fires; when major cities suffered from blanket smogs on a regular basis and lesser conurbations also suffered from pollution driven fogs.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be moving in this direction but I do believe the whole 'thousands at risk health' is just another con, such as were fed on s regular basis.
I wonder how long it'll be till we're told the magnetic fields from EVs are doing us harm? Or the high frequencies that we can't hear are damaging our ears?
Vaud said:
...insurers will push human drivers off the road.
Does not compute. Humans arn't going to become more prone to accidents, in fact autonomous cars are likely to be better at avoiding a crash where possible even when we fvck up, so the human driver risk is likely to fall. As more people choose not to drive themselves you'll have too many insurers fighting over a dwindling pool of statistically safer drivers, insurance prices will fall if anything.Vaud said:
Davidonly said:
Now that the wheels are falling off the climate change wagon is this not the next objective of the green religion to make us miserable?
More the medics with massive evidence that NoX and particulates kill lots of people. Different case.
and mirrors.Take one of the studies supposedly offering 'massive evidence':
Effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality: an analysis of 22 European cohorts within the multicentre ESCAPE project
As statistician William Briggs as pointed out/asked previously, from such a title would you expect to find that scientists publishing this research measured the effects of outdoor air pollution on mortality of a specific group of people in Europe whose exposure was known? Yes or no?
The answer is No. The three or four dozen researchers listed as authors never measured, not even once, the amount of air “pollution” any person was exposed to. Further, every single author knew that the title was false. And so did the journal editor. Not only wasn’t air “pollution” (dust, mostly) measured on individuals, but the proxies of air “pollution” weren’t even measured at the same time as mortality.
The people whose deaths were attributed to outdoor air pollution didn't keel over outdoors, they were already seriously ill indoors and consist of an anonymous cohort where deaths occurred a bit earlier than their medics' prognoses, with the conclusion that it must be due to outdoor air pollution - even though nothing was known of the exposure of the individuals in the cohort.
This and other studies of a similar nature do not offer 'massive evidence'.
ETA in another dance of the fallacies, in the above study one location in Europe was accorded the largest weight (ten times any other) in the meta-analysis because its inclusion skewed the outcome a certain way when so weighted.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 26th July 20:04
fblm said:
Does not compute. Humans arn't going to become more prone to accidents, in fact autonomous cars are likely to be better at avoiding a crash where possible even when we fvck up, so the human driver risk is likely to fall. As more people choose not to drive themselves you'll have too many insurers fighting over a dwindling pool of statistically safer drivers, insurance prices will fall if anything.
I think the opposite. A higher risk pool vs a lower risk pool. Insurance is an easy market to exit.turbobloke said:
What massive evidence? There is no such thing unless that definition includes smoke and mirrors.
Take one of the studies supposedly offering 'massive evidence':
Effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality: an analysis of 22 European cohorts within the multicentre ESCAPE project
As statistician William Briggs as pointed out/asked previously, from such a title would you expect to find that scientists publishing this research measured the effects of outdoor air pollution on mortality of a specific group of people in Europe whose exposure was known? Yes or no?
The answer is No. The three or four dozen researchers listed as authors never measured, not even once, the amount of air “pollution” any person was exposed to. Further, every single author knew that the title was false. And so did the journal editor. Not only wasn’t air “pollution” (dust, mostly) measured on individuals, but the proxies of air “pollution” weren’t even measured at the same time as mortality.
The people whose deaths were attributed to outdoor air pollution didn't keel over outdoors, they were already seriously ill indoors and consist of an anonymous cohort where deaths occurred a bit earlier than their medics' prognoses, with the conclusion that it must be due to outdoor air pollution - even though nothing was known of the exposure of the individuals in the cohoty.
This and other studies of a similar nature do not offer 'massive evidence'.
NoX and particulates are really bad for you. Stop me if I'm going too fast. and mirrors.Take one of the studies supposedly offering 'massive evidence':
Effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality: an analysis of 22 European cohorts within the multicentre ESCAPE project
As statistician William Briggs as pointed out/asked previously, from such a title would you expect to find that scientists publishing this research measured the effects of outdoor air pollution on mortality of a specific group of people in Europe whose exposure was known? Yes or no?
The answer is No. The three or four dozen researchers listed as authors never measured, not even once, the amount of air “pollution” any person was exposed to. Further, every single author knew that the title was false. And so did the journal editor. Not only wasn’t air “pollution” (dust, mostly) measured on individuals, but the proxies of air “pollution” weren’t even measured at the same time as mortality.
The people whose deaths were attributed to outdoor air pollution didn't keel over outdoors, they were already seriously ill indoors and consist of an anonymous cohort where deaths occurred a bit earlier than their medics' prognoses, with the conclusion that it must be due to outdoor air pollution - even though nothing was known of the exposure of the individuals in the cohoty.
This and other studies of a similar nature do not offer 'massive evidence'.
REALIST123 said:
Really? Where other than in a small number of cities?
Cities have a of of people living in them. The EU, for good or bad set out pollution limits. They have been exceeded significantly in many cities.
The problem with this forum is it is blinkered. A bunch of neolithic luddites looking to cling on to their precious diesel or petrol boxes.
Disclaimer: I have both petrol and diesel boxes- both at the higher end of pollution levels but I look forward to the electric future and welcome it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff