New diesel and petrol cars banned from UK roads by 2030
Discussion
REALIST123 said:
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 misquoted in my reply.Invisible pollution is much more damaging than visible pollution. Big particles, your lungs stand a chance of stopping. NoX and ultra fine particulates are really not good for you.
As for my age... irrelevant, but I know the history of the clean air acts.
This is a comparable, but different crisis... NoX being invisible.
But would you be happy working next to a busy stop/start main road with the windows open?
Vaud said:
I think the opposite. A higher risk pool vs a lower risk pool. Insurance is an easy market to exit.
Human drivers will likely cost more to insure than AI, I agree, but that doesn't mean human drivers will be priced off the road. The higher risk pool (human drivers) will likely become a lower risk than they are now as the better AI drivers avoid the dumb meaty drivers, agreed? Insurers don't especially want to exit the insurance market, agreed? Insurers will likely have lower claims costs than they do now, agreed? If they don't lower their prices they will generate an excess profit and others will enter the market, or their competitors will undercut them. Which bit do you disagree with? Why will a lower risk increase cost?Thread has moved too quickly for me not sure if discussed
But what does this mean for the average family in the interim? Will the cost / taxation of ICE cars outpace the roll-out of everything needed for electric cars to be mainstream?
What about the profits of the companies we will rely on to push this? With everyone fearing residual values is everyone going to start holding on to their current car longer, reducing how often they turn over new cars, reducing the R&D budgets of major manufacturers?
Will the taxpayer also need to sunsidize the roll out of the charging infrastructure? Offer incentives to those manufacturers to pad out those budgets?
Doom and gloom of course, and maybe too soon to be thinking about it, but I am pretty sure most people will have seen a drop in values in diesels recently, even put off buying one.
But what does this mean for the average family in the interim? Will the cost / taxation of ICE cars outpace the roll-out of everything needed for electric cars to be mainstream?
What about the profits of the companies we will rely on to push this? With everyone fearing residual values is everyone going to start holding on to their current car longer, reducing how often they turn over new cars, reducing the R&D budgets of major manufacturers?
Will the taxpayer also need to sunsidize the roll out of the charging infrastructure? Offer incentives to those manufacturers to pad out those budgets?
Doom and gloom of course, and maybe too soon to be thinking about it, but I am pretty sure most people will have seen a drop in values in diesels recently, even put off buying one.
Vaud said:
REALIST123 said:
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 misquoted in my reply.Invisible pollution is much more damaging than visible pollution. Big particles, your lungs stand a chance of stopping. NoX and ultra fine particulates are really not good for you.
As for my age... irrelevant, but I know the history of the clean air acts.
This is a comparable, but different crisis... NoX being invisible.
But would you be happy working next to a busy stop/start main road with the windows open?
But, no, I wouldn't be happy working as you say and I'm in full agreement that diesel/petrol vehicles should be restricted therein. I just think that a more common sense approach should be taken for those who don't have to live in these toilets and need more than a little box with a range of 100 miles.
As for your earlier patronising comments about Luddites, you really shouldn't be so presumptuous. I'd make a bet that my profile, despite having a diesel and a petrol car, is a lot greener than yours. I'd also bet that I've invested more in the last 10 years in personal green initiatives than you have.
Whatever, I would also have an electric car if there was one available at a competitive price, to rival the cars I'm driving now. Unfortunately there isn't.
Vaud said:
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.
FFS, Do you tuck into a juicy steak whilst wearing a "all meat is murder T-shirt" as well? 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.
What a joke......Your electric future is here why are you not using it? You seem to think everyone should.
Vaud said:
NoX and particulates are really bad for you. Stop me if I'm going too fast.
Your perspective and understanding are seriously limited unless you're faking bad. You're not bad at corny soundbites though.The issue isn't about the influence of NOx and particulates but demonstrating exactly what it is on a large scale, what the sources are, and how to make any further improvements.
In terms of attribution, I've already explained how the conclusions reached over tens of thousands of deaths per year as due to outdoor air pollution are baseless.
Regarding sources, Hari et al. in "Ultraviolet Light and Leaf Emission of NOx" (Nature 422, 134, 2003) showed that global NOx emissions from trees are equal those produced by combined worldwide industrial and traffic sources. Add in lawns and large grassy spaces, particularly those that have been well fed, which are also an excellent source of NOx, and natural sources are outstripping manmade sources.
The component from transport is largely due to diesel engines in buses and goods vehicles - NOx is an inevitable result of combustion at high temperatures in diesel engines, it's a gas and isn't trapped in particulate filters.
As outdoor levels of NOx and particulates have fallen dramatically over recent decades, so the incidence of asthma has risen. A report for the NHS Executive entitled Transport and Health in London concluded (section C5 p44): "...the available evidence does not support a causative role for outdoor air pollution". Does cleaner air cause more asthma than polluted air?!
Indoor air is on average ten times more polluted and I gave sources for this (UK BRE, Dr Jeff Llewellyn iirc, and the US EPA) so in health terms this represents a far greater priority for policymakers, perhaps I typed too fast for you.
AFAICS nobody has said that it's a bad idea to have clean air, the issues are whether reports on health impacts are credible (no), where the air we breathe is least clean and most poilluted (indoors) and how to get outdoor air even cleaner when gains are already pushing the law of diminishing returns with sources such as trees and grass remaining a significant factor. Diesel buses and goods vehicles would be a good place to look for further gains in outdoor air quality.
Family fleet type cars are a non-starter when logical prioritisation gets involved. Unfortunately sensible prioritisation is all too rare and the sarc-emotion factor wins out with far too many people including politicians - though we ought not to expect anything better from that group.
Vaud said:
REALIST123 said:
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 misquoted in my reply.Invisible pollution is much more damaging than visible pollution. Big particles, your lungs stand a chance of stopping. NoX and ultra fine particulates are really not good for you.
As for my age... irrelevant, but I know the history of the clean air acts.
This is a comparable, but different crisis... NoX being invisible.
But would you be happy working next to a busy stop/start main road with the windows open?
Wills2 said:
Vaud said:
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.
FFS, Do you tuck into a juicy steak whilst wearing a "all meat is murder T-shirt" as well? 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.
What a joke......Your electric future is here why are you not using it? You seem to think everyone else should.
Edited by Jazzy Jag on Wednesday 26th July 20:39
Vaud said:
The EU, for good or bad set out pollution limits. They have been exceeded significantly in many cities.
And as already pointed out, when this occurs in the UK it's very often at times when weather systems bring trans-boundary pollution over from...europe.The EU wants to penalise the UK for failing to meet targets because of weather that brings southern european pollution to cities such as London. As we simultaneously increase trees and grassy areas. Presumably that makes sense to you,
Vaud said:
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.
I also welcome a mostly electric, relatively pollution free, stress free, autonomous, quiet future, where our classic ICE cars are relegated to curiosities like steam cars and horse carriages or better yet retrofitted with 500bhp kers systems. So be it, few cars since 1996 hold much interest for me anyway. That doesn't mean we have to sit here with an open mouth assuming that monumental infrastructure upgrades from a dozen new power stations, to grid improvements, to the electrification of almost every parking space in the country will simply be taken care of, or worse, dismiss anyone who dares discuss the challenges as 'neolithic luddites'. The only problem with this forum is people who can't discuss an interesting issue without calling people names when they seem to understand the problem considerably better than you. 
GroundEffect said:
Via USB3.0 my 3200mAh battery charges from empty in about 1hr. And that's only 2.5 Amps @ 5V (i.e. 12.5W) compared with 150kW (12 THOUSAND times faster!) in a TESLA Supercharger.
As I said above, a proper fast charger (like the Supercharger) can give you 80% charge in 30 minutes. That's 280 miles in 30 mins. And the latest fast chargers are 2.5 times faster than that...
1 too many beers to do the maths properly - but that would mean about a 300-400kw requirement, which would mean a very serious increase in volts/amps.As I said above, a proper fast charger (like the Supercharger) can give you 80% charge in 30 minutes. That's 280 miles in 30 mins. And the latest fast chargers are 2.5 times faster than that...
600v and 600 amps - that would be massively insulated and pretty big cross section - can't imagine it would be much fun to handle. Plus shoving that fat a pipe into a bunch of Li-ion batteries would create a bunch of heat, and reduce their lifetime by quite a lot I'd guess.
fblm said:
Human drivers will likely cost more to insure than AI, I agree, but that doesn't mean human drivers will be priced off the road. The higher risk pool (human drivers) will likely become a lower risk than they are now as the better AI drivers avoid the dumb meaty drivers, agreed?
Possibly, but their data will show the risk. I suspect it is more complex in that it is not just about avoiding drivers, but also tiredness/human error/etc that will be factored in. Computers don't get tired, sneeze, etcfblm said:
Insurers don't especially want to exit the insurance market, agreed?
Disagree. Insurers want to make money. They have no qualms about exiting unprofitable market segments.fblm said:
Insurers will likely have lower claims costs than they do now, agreed? If they don't lower their prices they will generate an excess profit and others will enter the market, or their competitors will undercut them. Which bit do you disagree with? Why will a lower risk increase cost?
A market with reduced risk is less attractive as you can only command a lower premium. wsurfa said:
1 too many beers to do the maths properly - but that would mean about a 300-400kw requirement, which would mean a very serious increase in volts/amps.
600v and 600 amps - that would be massively insulated and pretty big cross section - can't imagine it would be much fun to handle. Plus shoving that fat a pipe into a bunch of Li-ion batteries would create a bunch of heat, and reduce their lifetime by quite a lot I'd guess.
These chargers are not theoretical, there are thousands of them already installed.600v and 600 amps - that would be massively insulated and pretty big cross section - can't imagine it would be much fun to handle. Plus shoving that fat a pipe into a bunch of Li-ion batteries would create a bunch of heat, and reduce their lifetime by quite a lot I'd guess.
Whilst they are not quite as fast as stated they can do 170 miles in 30 minutes, it's 135kW and I don't think the cable is as hefty as a petrol hose;)
fblm said:
crankedup said:
The race is now definitely on for the manufacturers, techi nerds and designers to develop those tasty cars of the future. The future looks rosy.
I look forward to receiving my electricity ration card.As other developed countries are likely to follow this route, the only means of escape is to become an Al Gore, Leo Di Caprio or Johnny Depp character, driving and flying all over the place while telling other people to stop driving and flying.
fblm said:
Vaud said:
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.
The only problem with this forum is people who can't discuss an interesting issue without calling people names when they seem to understand the problem considerably better than you. I am infuriated by the negative attitude towards "it can't be done" when all of the direction in R&D, car capabilities and technologies point to the concept that it can be done, and when combined with autonomous systems, it's a lot closer than many posters seem willing to admit, for the vast majority (and I caveat, not every) motorist.
My posts have been positive and towards the discussion based on a reasonable amount of knowledge on air pollution, cars, the limits and capabilities of autonomous systems and large scale infrastructure, including conversations with senior execs at several car manufacturers, key supply partners, and the likes of Google.
It is coming, it is happening. This country can embrace it and take a lead or remain a congested and polluted (at least of the cities) environment with the health / quality of life consequences.
Wills2 said:
FFS, Do you tuck into a juicy steak whilst wearing a "all meat is murder T-shirt" as well?
What a joke......Your electric future is here why are you not using it? You seem to think everyone should.
Next car, I will. I am mostly talking about 2040, as the thread title describes. I am not talking about today.What a joke......Your electric future is here why are you not using it? You seem to think everyone should.
turbobloke said:
And as already pointed out, when this occurs in the UK it's very often at times when weather systems bring trans-boundary pollution over from...europe.
The EU wants to penalise the UK for failing to meet targets because of weather that brings southern european pollution to cities such as London. As we simultaneously increase trees and grassy areas. Presumably that makes sense to you,
Leeds regularly breaks the limits. Is that from trans-boundary pollution?The EU wants to penalise the UK for failing to meet targets because of weather that brings southern european pollution to cities such as London. As we simultaneously increase trees and grassy areas. Presumably that makes sense to you,
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff