New diesel and petrol cars banned from UK roads by 2030
Discussion
Otispunkmeyer said:
turbobloke said:
Dazed and Confused said:
powerstroke said:
Dazed and Confused said:
Why not just ban diesels and sooner than 2040?
Because they are saying petrol is just as polluting as the latest diesels ..It won't be until petrol engines operate at the same temperature as diesels.
So, forget it.
You would appear to be aware of what follows but it didn't get an explicit mention in your post.
NOx is formed in larger amounts at the far higher temperatures immediately post-combustion in a diesel engine. The strongly bound nitrogen and oxygen i.e. N2 and O2 molecules in the air needed to burn the charge are dissociated and form N and O which react to form NOx. This dissociation is significantly less prevalent at the lower temperatures in petrol engines as there is less thermal energy available to split the NN triple bond and OO double bond so less NOx is emitted.
Enforcing all new building construction to be heated electrically instead of gas, (no cost implication) coupled with a phase out of existing gas-heated buildings would bring about more immediate air quality improvement in the UK (its claimed by 40%) than this plan for EV/PHEV by 2040 would......
Won't win votes from the eco-nutters though.....
Won't win votes from the eco-nutters though.....
Monkeylegend said:
Canals is the answer, canals and more rivers. We should be building more rivers.
If only somebody had thought of this a couple of centuries ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
And electric boats. We flood all the major motorways to make rivers for amphibious electric cars, and we can have sails as a secondary propulsion system on windy days. Zero emissions, electric/wind hybrids, problem solved.
We then don't need to worry about changing weather patterns due to climate change resulting in heavier downpours in the future, so a double whammy.
We then teach all horses to swim so we can use the harness I am developing.
Win/win all round.
I'm sensing slightly that you're not taking this seriously.If only somebody had thought of this a couple of centuries ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
And electric boats. We flood all the major motorways to make rivers for amphibious electric cars, and we can have sails as a secondary propulsion system on windy days. Zero emissions, electric/wind hybrids, problem solved.
We then don't need to worry about changing weather patterns due to climate change resulting in heavier downpours in the future, so a double whammy.
We then teach all horses to swim so we can use the harness I am developing.
Win/win all round.
Or maybe the Suzuki Splash and Renault Wind are way ahead of their time.
Why has this been announced now?
Answer: in order to meet our commitments to EU. We have copied a commitment also made by our nearest neighbour - France.
Call me a cynic, but I believe the current government has simply kicked the ball "well down the street", for some future government to actually deliver. More than likely, come 2035, or sooner, lobbying by oil companies and car manufacturers, the Treasury losing revenue, plus the myriad of logical comments about infrastructure already made here, it will suddenly become necessary to put it back by a few years, and then again, a few years later. Saying it was an objective rather than a firm commitment.
It's also perhaps worth noting that 2-days before this announcement the commitment to electrify the Leeds-Manchester rail line was dropped in favour of a Diesel-electric hybrid solution, and that one day before BMW announced that they would assemble the all-electric Mini in Cowley. Both these go to show that transport policy in the UK is a shambles and only tends to be driven by this month's big idea.
The scale of heavily polluted roads in the UK, is actually quite small pro-rata and could be more easily managed with the other commitment made yesterday - the £250million grants to affected local authorities I.e. pass the real problem onto someone else to deal with.
Job done!
Answer: in order to meet our commitments to EU. We have copied a commitment also made by our nearest neighbour - France.
Call me a cynic, but I believe the current government has simply kicked the ball "well down the street", for some future government to actually deliver. More than likely, come 2035, or sooner, lobbying by oil companies and car manufacturers, the Treasury losing revenue, plus the myriad of logical comments about infrastructure already made here, it will suddenly become necessary to put it back by a few years, and then again, a few years later. Saying it was an objective rather than a firm commitment.
It's also perhaps worth noting that 2-days before this announcement the commitment to electrify the Leeds-Manchester rail line was dropped in favour of a Diesel-electric hybrid solution, and that one day before BMW announced that they would assemble the all-electric Mini in Cowley. Both these go to show that transport policy in the UK is a shambles and only tends to be driven by this month's big idea.
The scale of heavily polluted roads in the UK, is actually quite small pro-rata and could be more easily managed with the other commitment made yesterday - the £250million grants to affected local authorities I.e. pass the real problem onto someone else to deal with.
Job done!
Otispunkmeyer said:
Petrol has always been a better fuel for passenger cars in my opinion. Diesel should have been the preserve of the heavy duty prime movers; trucks, ships, trains.
This was generally the common sense view before Climate politics stepped in.With a heavy green movement within the EU and a continuance of ignorant UK government environment departments, the UK public were force fed the belief that everything would be fine and dandy if CO2 was 'tackled'.
aeropilot said:
Enforcing all new building construction to be heated electrically instead of gas, (no cost implication) coupled with a phase out of existing gas-heated buildings would bring about more immediate air quality improvement in the UK (its claimed by 40%) than this plan for EV/PHEV by 2040 would......
Won't win votes from the eco-nutters though.....
Unfortunately with the current generation mix, electrically heated dwellings are bad news in terms of pollution, with electricity having one of the highest fuel factors in Approved Document L. Won't win votes from the eco-nutters though.....
Take a typical dwelling in the calculations, heated with gas which by virtue of its construction, air tightness, and heating system etc complies with Approved Document L, and then do nothing else to it except change its heating system from gas, to electric, and it will fail AD-L by a country mile (Requiring significant and expensive upgrades in its construction to bring it back into compliance). At the present, in terms of pollution, electricity is just about the worst fuel a person could choose to heat their home.
Edited by Pan Pan Pan on Thursday 27th July 11:14
Pan Pan Pan said:
Unfortunately with the current generation mix, electrically heated dwellings are bad news in terms of pollution, with electricity having one of the highest fuel factors in Approved Document L.
Take a typical dwelling in the calculations, heated with gas which by virtue of its construction, air tightness, and heating system etc complies with Approved Document L, and then do nothing else to except change its heating system from gas, to electric, and it will fail AD-L by a country mile (Requiring significant and expensive upgrades in its construction to bring it back into compliance). At the present, in terms of pollution, electricity is just about the worst fuel a person could choose to heat their home.
Gas CH is 'planned' to be phased out, some talk of Hydrogen conversion, but essentially the current 'plan' is everyone will be forced to use electric for heating.Take a typical dwelling in the calculations, heated with gas which by virtue of its construction, air tightness, and heating system etc complies with Approved Document L, and then do nothing else to except change its heating system from gas, to electric, and it will fail AD-L by a country mile (Requiring significant and expensive upgrades in its construction to bring it back into compliance). At the present, in terms of pollution, electricity is just about the worst fuel a person could choose to heat their home.
GCH boilers are actually the second largest source of the 'nasty' pollutants in towns.
It's all a load of b
ks/irrelevant anyway, air quality is not seriously bad as it stands, but you can bet any government forced changes will make energy/transport ruinously expensive and MORE damaging to the environment and health in different, unforeseen/unintended consequences.Mr GrimNasty said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Unfortunately with the current generation mix, electrically heated dwellings are bad news in terms of pollution, with electricity having one of the highest fuel factors in Approved Document L.
Take a typical dwelling in the calculations, heated with gas which by virtue of its construction, air tightness, and heating system etc complies with Approved Document L, and then do nothing else to except change its heating system from gas, to electric, and it will fail AD-L by a country mile (Requiring significant and expensive upgrades in its construction to bring it back into compliance). At the present, in terms of pollution, electricity is just about the worst fuel a person could choose to heat their home.
Gas CH is 'planned' to be phased out, some talk of Hydrogen conversion, but essentially the current 'plan' is everyone will be forced to use electric for heating.Take a typical dwelling in the calculations, heated with gas which by virtue of its construction, air tightness, and heating system etc complies with Approved Document L, and then do nothing else to except change its heating system from gas, to electric, and it will fail AD-L by a country mile (Requiring significant and expensive upgrades in its construction to bring it back into compliance). At the present, in terms of pollution, electricity is just about the worst fuel a person could choose to heat their home.
GCH boilers are actually the second largest source of the 'nasty' pollutants in towns.
It's all a load of b
ks/irrelevant anyway, air quality is not seriously bad as it stands, but you can bet any government forced changes will make energy/transport ruinously expensive and MORE damaging to the environment and health in different, unforeseen/unintended consequences.As I posted, based on the `current' mix of generation methods electricity currently has one of the highest (worst) fuel factors in Approved Document L.
Once we manage to change the way electricity is generated in the UK, this situation will change, and electrically heated homes could/will be the best way forward, but that is not the situation which exists at present, nor unfortunately is it likely to for some time to come. New Nuclear plants which can serve the majority of the UK would seem to be the only (relatively) quick fix, and even they could take twenty plus years to build, even if they are given the go ahead now.
Nothingtoseehere said:
Monkeylegend said:
Canals is the answer, canals and more rivers. We should be building more rivers.
If only somebody had thought of this a couple of centuries ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
And electric boats. We flood all the major motorways to make rivers for amphibious electric cars, and we can have sails as a secondary propulsion system on windy days. Zero emissions, electric/wind hybrids, problem solved.
We then don't need to worry about changing weather patterns due to climate change resulting in heavier downpours in the future, so a double whammy.
We then teach all horses to swim so we can use the harness I am developing.
Win/win all round.
I'm sensing slightly that you're not taking this seriously.If only somebody had thought of this a couple of centuries ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
And electric boats. We flood all the major motorways to make rivers for amphibious electric cars, and we can have sails as a secondary propulsion system on windy days. Zero emissions, electric/wind hybrids, problem solved.
We then don't need to worry about changing weather patterns due to climate change resulting in heavier downpours in the future, so a double whammy.
We then teach all horses to swim so we can use the harness I am developing.
Win/win all round.
Or maybe the Suzuki Splash and Renault Wind are way ahead of their time.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Unfortunately with the current generation mix, electrically heated dwellings are bad news in terms of pollution, with electricity having one of the highest fuel factors in Approved Document L.
Take a typical dwelling in the calculations, heated with gas which by virtue of its construction, air tightness, and heating system etc complies with Approved Document L, and then do nothing else to except change its heating system from gas, to electric, and it will fail AD-L by a country mile (Requiring significant and expensive upgrades in its construction to bring it back into compliance). At the present, in terms of pollution, electricity is just about the worst fuel a person could choose to heat their home.
Gas CH is 'planned' to be phased out, some talk of Hydrogen conversion, but essentially the current 'plan' is everyone will be forced to use electric for heating.Take a typical dwelling in the calculations, heated with gas which by virtue of its construction, air tightness, and heating system etc complies with Approved Document L, and then do nothing else to except change its heating system from gas, to electric, and it will fail AD-L by a country mile (Requiring significant and expensive upgrades in its construction to bring it back into compliance). At the present, in terms of pollution, electricity is just about the worst fuel a person could choose to heat their home.
GCH boilers are actually the second largest source of the 'nasty' pollutants in towns.
It's all a load of b
ks/irrelevant anyway, air quality is not seriously bad as it stands, but you can bet any government forced changes will make energy/transport ruinously expensive and MORE damaging to the environment and health in different, unforeseen/unintended consequences.As I posted, based on the `current' mix of generation methods electricity currently has one of the highest (worst) fuel factors in Approved Document L.
Once we manage to change the way electricity is generated in the UK, this situation will change, and electrically heated homes could/will be the best way forward, but that is not the situation which exists at present, nor unfortunately is it likely to for some time to come. New Nuclear plants which can serve the majority of the UK would seem to be the only (relatively) quick fix, and even they could take twenty plus years to build, even if they are given the go ahead now.
You really couldn't make this s
t up.There's been plans for big tidal projects for decades that have also been continually kicked down the road largely by the eco-nutters - I worked on one of the Severn Barrage scheme's back in 1981 FFS.
Somehow, I don't know how, but major infrastructure decisions need to taken out of the hands of the career politics that simply aren't interested in whats more than 4 years ahead.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Gas CH is 'planned' to be phased out, some talk of Hydrogen conversion, but essentially the current 'plan' is everyone will be forced to use electric for heating.
GCH boilers are actually the second largest source of the 'nasty' pollutants in towns.
Ironic given how it was touted by the Govts of the days as being the utopia that would clean the air of smoke from coal fired boilers and fires polluting the air. We just have air now that still harms you, but just keeps the buildings looking clean GCH boilers are actually the second largest source of the 'nasty' pollutants in towns.
turbobloke said:
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.
Sorry but that's just nonsense.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.
London was breaching annual pollution limits in a matter of days in January at certain parts of the city.
aeropilot said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Gas CH is 'planned' to be phased out, some talk of Hydrogen conversion, but essentially the current 'plan' is everyone will be forced to use electric for heating.
GCH boilers are actually the second largest source of the 'nasty' pollutants in towns.
Ironic given how it was touted by the Govts of the days as being the utopia that would clean the air of smoke from coal fired boilers and fires polluting the air. We just have air now that still harms you, but just keeps the buildings looking clean GCH boilers are actually the second largest source of the 'nasty' pollutants in towns.
If and when electricity generation for the whole of the UK can be changed to a non polluting form, the simple fact will change, but until then emissions from buildings will be one of, if not the main form of pollution if for no other reason by their comparative numbers alone.
As alreafdy pointed out, the key thing here is having the infrastructure to support whats been announced. I know a very senior player at National Grid and when I raised this with him , after much tutting and shaking of the head , he basically related that people need to be prepared for considerable interference in their personal lives , saying that smart meters are just the start of things. Instead of supply being driven by demand and thus supply increased as needed , supply will be constrained to meet targets , irrespective of said demand.
He will be retiring in 3 years , thank fk he relates. Regularly in the past he's lamented regarding the idiocy of UK energy policy, never ceasing to be astounded at the next lunacy. He ought to know.
Anyhow, what worries me the most, is what will happen to motorsport? With nobody developing ICE it seems likely that racing will go electric as well. Who will go to see it? The noise, is a huge part of the atmosphere , its debateable if I'd bother going to the circuits anymore , atmosphere being my key reason for attending , no atmosphere, no point. We shall see as they say.
He will be retiring in 3 years , thank f
k he relates. Regularly in the past he's lamented regarding the idiocy of UK energy policy, never ceasing to be astounded at the next lunacy. He ought to know. Anyhow, what worries me the most, is what will happen to motorsport? With nobody developing ICE it seems likely that racing will go electric as well. Who will go to see it? The noise, is a huge part of the atmosphere , its debateable if I'd bother going to the circuits anymore , atmosphere being my key reason for attending , no atmosphere, no point. We shall see as they say.
oyster said:
Sorry but that's just nonsense.
London was breaching annual pollution limits in a matter of days in January at certain parts of the city.
erm ever heard of a pea-souper ?London was breaching annual pollution limits in a matter of days in January at certain parts of the city.
they didn't happen that long ago u know !
wail link
oyster said:
turbobloke said:
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.
Sorry but that's just nonsense.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.
London was breaching annual pollution limits in a matter of days in January at certain parts of the city.
Those limits didn't exist 400 years ago, and closer in time than that too of course. Information that a contemporary AQL, including any imposed by the EU, has/have been breached tells us nothing abuot the quality of air today compared to decades or centuries ago. Improvements even in recent times have been significant long after the clean air acts started to appear.
This represents some of those relatively recent improvements for London in terms of major pollutant levels, from 1976 to 1996, blue line. It's been falling steadily,. Note that the asthma incidence line has been rising at the same time.
Data from a report for the NHS Executive entitled Transport and Health in London
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 27th July 12:57
Dazed and Confused said:
Monkeylegend said:
Dazed and Confused said:
powerstroke said:
Dazed and Confused said:
Why not just ban diesels and sooner than 2040?
Because they are saying petrol is just as polluting as the latest diesels .."the air pollution penalty for diesel cars is often justified by the reduced CO2 emissions over petrol"
"the lack of progress in cleaning city air can be blamed on the steady increase in diesel vehicles on our roads"
Have a read and learn something.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/10/pollut...
Why is it only diesels that are banned from the LEZ zone?
Or Dieselgate - VW's flawed attempt at making diesels appear nicer to the environment and people's lungs than they actually are. Diesels, not petrol.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff