New diesel and petrol cars banned from UK roads by 2030
Discussion
turbobloke said:
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 a report for the NHS Executive entitled Transport and Health in London
To achieve this 'possible in theory' benefit, you would have to remove all non-electric forms of transport from London (including the airports, rail, buses, trucks etc), plus all non electric power sources (heating, wood burners etc). This would remove c 50% of the pollution as roughly half is natural background.
Seems rock solid evidence based policy making to me.....
wsurfa said:
turbobloke said:
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 a report for the NHS Executive entitled Transport and Health in London
To achieve this 'possible in theory' benefit, you would have to remove all non-electric forms of transport from London (including the airports, rail, buses, trucks etc), plus all non electric power sources (heating, wood burners etc). This would remove c 50% of the pollution as roughly half is natural background.
Seems rock solid evidence based policy making to me.....
As a first step those octogenarians and nonagenarians could try lving more of an active outdoor life
given that the air in their homes or other buildings will on average be ten times more polluted than outdoor urban air, as per UK BRE and US EPA research findings. Fortunately as yet nobody has suggested banning buildings...and it's notable how few green blobbers live in tents, trees or caves.
turbobloke said:
wsurfa said:
turbobloke said:
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 a report for the NHS Executive entitled Transport and Health in London
To achieve this 'possible in theory' benefit, you would have to remove all non-electric forms of transport from London (including the airports, rail, buses, trucks etc), plus all non electric power sources (heating, wood burners etc). This would remove c 50% of the pollution as roughly half is natural background.
Seems rock solid evidence based policy making to me.....
As a first step those octogenarians and nonagenarians could try lving more of an active outdoor life
given that the air in their homes or other buildings will on average be ten times more polluted than outdoor urban air, as per UK BRE and US EPA research findings. Fortunately as yet nobody has suggested banning buildings...and it's notable how few green blobbers live in tents, trees or caves.
turbobloke said:
Fortunately as yet nobody has suggested banning buildings...and it's notable how few green blobbers live in tents, trees or caves.
I'm thinking of banning EVs from my house, effective from 2013. (It's my house, so I am at liberty to make up my own nonsense rules, just like the government.)GroundEffect said:
Hybrids are a short-term future. A transition to BEVs only. They just cost too damn much to produce (an engine, transmission, e-machine AND large battery pack?!) so as soon as the costs of making proper-sized battery packs drops enough - and we're already well down that road - then full BEVs will take over.
2040 is too conservative a timing in my view.
Hybrids solve nearly all of the problems with none of the down sides. 2040 is too conservative a timing in my view.
Do I need some all pervasive charging infrastructure with hybrids? No.
If all he cars sitting on the Euston road were Hybrids with an electric range of 10 miles, would I have a pollution problem? No.
Would someone own a hybrid even if they couldn't charge at their front door? Yes, loads do today.
Are they more expensive? Yes and no. You're replacing the starter motor with something bigger and you have a small battery pack. We keep being told batteries cost nothing, so you're only worrying about the starter replacement and the electronics to control it. Not a big deal.
And I'll add - hybrids don't have a depreciation problem, unlike BEVs seem to, a hybrid with a tired battery pack does 99% of what it needs to do, and because people haven't tried charging it at 10C, they seem to last a long time. The current residual position on BEVs seems catastrophic.
Edited by rxe on Thursday 27th July 13:53
Think we've been here before !!!
The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894
By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure”. In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods.
In 1900, there were over 11,000 hansom cabs on the streets of London alone. There were also several thousand horse-drawn buses, each needing 12 horses per day, making a staggering total of over 50,000 horses transporting people around the city each day.
To add to this, there were yet more horse-drawn carts and drays delivering goods around what was then the largest city in the world.
This huge number of horses created major problems. The main concern was the large amount of manure left behind on the streets. On average a horse will produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day, so you can imagine the sheer scale of the problem. The manure on London’s streets also attracted huge numbers of flies which then spread typhoid fever and other diseases.
Each horse also produced around 2 pints of urine per day and to make things worse, the average life expectancy for a working horse was only around 3 years. Horse carcasses therefore also had to be removed from the streets. The bodies were often left to putrefy so the corpses could be more easily sawn into pieces for removal.
The streets of London were beginning to poison its people.
But this wasn’t just a British crisis: New York had a population of 100,000 horses producing around 2.5m pounds of manure a day.
This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted… “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.
The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed.
However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Henry Ford came up with a process of building motor cars at affordable prices. Electric trams and motor buses appeared on the streets, replacing the horse-drawn buses.
By 1912, this seemingly insurmountable problem had been resolved; in cities all around the globe, horses had been replaced and now motorised vehicles were the main source of transport and carriage.
Even today, in the face of a problem with no apparent solution, people often quote ‘The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’, urging people not to despair, something will turn up!
The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894
By the late 1800s, large cities all around the world were “drowning in horse manure”. In order for these cities to function, they were dependent on thousands of horses for the transport of both people and goods.
In 1900, there were over 11,000 hansom cabs on the streets of London alone. There were also several thousand horse-drawn buses, each needing 12 horses per day, making a staggering total of over 50,000 horses transporting people around the city each day.
To add to this, there were yet more horse-drawn carts and drays delivering goods around what was then the largest city in the world.
This huge number of horses created major problems. The main concern was the large amount of manure left behind on the streets. On average a horse will produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day, so you can imagine the sheer scale of the problem. The manure on London’s streets also attracted huge numbers of flies which then spread typhoid fever and other diseases.
Each horse also produced around 2 pints of urine per day and to make things worse, the average life expectancy for a working horse was only around 3 years. Horse carcasses therefore also had to be removed from the streets. The bodies were often left to putrefy so the corpses could be more easily sawn into pieces for removal.
The streets of London were beginning to poison its people.
But this wasn’t just a British crisis: New York had a population of 100,000 horses producing around 2.5m pounds of manure a day.
This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted… “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’.
The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilisation was doomed.
However, necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport. Henry Ford came up with a process of building motor cars at affordable prices. Electric trams and motor buses appeared on the streets, replacing the horse-drawn buses.
By 1912, this seemingly insurmountable problem had been resolved; in cities all around the globe, horses had been replaced and now motorised vehicles were the main source of transport and carriage.
Even today, in the face of a problem with no apparent solution, people often quote ‘The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’, urging people not to despair, something will turn up!
t crisis a.k.a. taxing petrol in favour of diesel. You can't help but wonder what efficiencies manufacturers might have eked out if their efforts had not been so falsely and needlessly diverted.rxe said:
GroundEffect said:
Hybrids are a short-term future. A transition to BEVs only. They just cost too damn much to produce (an engine, transmission, e-machine AND large battery pack?!) so as soon as the costs of making proper-sized battery packs drops enough - and we're already well down that road - then full BEVs will take over.
2040 is too conservative a timing in my view.
Hybrids solve nearly all of the problems with none of the down sides. 2040 is too conservative a timing in my view.
Do I need some all pervasive charging infrastructure with hybrids? No.
If all he cars sitting on the Euston road were Hybrids with an electric range of 10 miles, would I have a pollution problem? No.
Would someone own a hybrid even if they couldn't charge at their front door? Yes, loads do today.
Are they more expensive? Yes and no. You're replacing the starter motor with something bigger and you have a small battery pack. We keep being told batteries cost nothing, so you're only worrying about the starter replacement and the electronics to control it. Not a big deal.
And I'll add - hybrids don't have a depreciation problem, unlike BEVs seem to, a hybrid with a tired battery pack does 99% of what it needs to do, and because people haven't tried charging it at 10C, they seem to last a long time. The current residual position on BEVs seems catastrophic.
Edited by rxe on Thursday 27th July 13:53
Mild hybrids - 48V systems - are coming thick and fast but again, a stop-gap. They can run at "city" speeds on EV-only but the range of a 48V battery pack is limited. And a battery pack for a current 48V system is about $1000. Per car, that is a lot of money.
And you can't run in EV-mode with just changing your starter - you need to disconnect the engine from the E-machine. That's what makes P0 hybrids so limited. A P2 is the minimum you can get away with. That's more expense and something that requires a lot of investment.
For example, a 48V hybrid transmission is ~$100M to develop for mass scale. And that's without the battery pack development! You got that cash?
GroundEffect said:
A 12V battery can't make a hybrid work. Not enough power.
Mild hybrids - 48V systems - are coming thick and fast but again, a stop-gap. They can run at "city" speeds on EV-only but the range of a 48V battery pack is limited. And a battery pack for a current 48V system is about $1000. Per car, that is a lot of money.
And you can't run in EV-mode with just changing your starter - you need to disconnect the engine from the E-machine. That's what makes P0 hybrids so limited. A P2 is the minimum you can get away with. That's more expense and something that requires a lot of investment.
For example, a 48V hybrid transmission is ~$100M to develop for mass scale. And that's without the batter.y pack development! You got that cash?
Got all that. Mild hybrids - 48V systems - are coming thick and fast but again, a stop-gap. They can run at "city" speeds on EV-only but the range of a 48V battery pack is limited. And a battery pack for a current 48V system is about $1000. Per car, that is a lot of money.
And you can't run in EV-mode with just changing your starter - you need to disconnect the engine from the E-machine. That's what makes P0 hybrids so limited. A P2 is the minimum you can get away with. That's more expense and something that requires a lot of investment.
For example, a 48V hybrid transmission is ~$100M to develop for mass scale. And that's without the batter.y pack development! You got that cash?
All I want is city speeds. I want to address pollution in urban areas which is claimed to be such a problem. We can't say "batteries for BEV will be cheap" and "batteries for hybrids are expensive" - they are the same stuff, just smaller.
I don't care about P0 and P2 - all I know is that I get in a hybrid Prius everytime I use Uber and it seems to crawl around on battery power when in traffic. These cars make economic sense right now, because if they didn't, Uber drivers wouldn't be using them. If by (say) 2025 50% of cars in London traffic had a hybrid drivetrain, that's the problem solved. As it will be, as people are already buying loads of hybrids without any ceremony, subsidy or fan fare.
Dazed and Confused said:
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 ..A) That is a 2013 article
B)
"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.
B) Euro 6 diesels are not banned from London ULEZ
C) hybrids will still be allowed after 2040
D) Volvo are just OFFERING EVs on all NEW platforms, no mention of removing ICEs
foxbody-87 said:
What about imported vehicles sold by dealers not affiliated with manufacturers?
For example "Bob's US Imports" or similar, selling new F150s and whatnot (I'm guessing that the US isn't going to stopping production of fossil-fuel-only vehicles for quite some time).
European makers won't be stopping making ICE only vehicles either.For example "Bob's US Imports" or similar, selling new F150s and whatnot (I'm guessing that the US isn't going to stopping production of fossil-fuel-only vehicles for quite some time).
This looney UK dictate (and the similar looney one by the French last month) isn't about ending production, it's about them not being allowed to be sold after that date.
And as for our US cousins, rumours from within California is that they may well bring in similar state law banning ICE only sales long before the date of our UK one.
What I don't get is why the current set of hybrids are so in favour. Out of interest in relation to something else I looked up some details on Toyota Auris, asked how far on electric only, 1.2 miles only, apparently. Is that right? Yet we had someone on the local radio bragging that every Saturday he could drive in his Lexus CT200h from Bewdley to Tenbury Wells and back and not use a drop of petrol. Unless have misunderstood the various vehicle capabilities I call bull effluent on that.
So how much of this urban travel will be emission free at point of use? Very little at a guess.
So how much of this urban travel will be emission free at point of use? Very little at a guess.
FiF said:
What I don't get is why the current set of hybrids are so in favour. Out of interest in relation to something else I looked up some details on Toyota Auris, asked how far on electric only, 1.2 miles only, apparently. Is that right? Yet we had someone on the local radio bragging that every Saturday he could drive in his Lexus CT200h from Bewdley to Tenbury Wells and back and not use a drop of petrol. Unless have misunderstood the various vehicle capabilities I call bull effluent on that.
So how much of this urban travel will be emission free at point of use? Very little at a guess.
CT200h electric only range is about the same, so yes, bullshine.So how much of this urban travel will be emission free at point of use? Very little at a guess.
FiF said:
What I don't get is why the current set of hybrids are so in favour. Out of interest in relation to something else I looked up some details on Toyota Auris, asked how far on electric only, 1.2 miles only, apparently. Is that right? Yet we had someone on the local radio bragging that every Saturday he could drive in his Lexus CT200h from Bewdley to Tenbury Wells and back and not use a drop of petrol. Unless have misunderstood the various vehicle capabilities I call bull effluent on that.
So how much of this urban travel will be emission free at point of use? Very little at a guess.
To solve an urban pollution problem, 1.2 miles is all you need. So how much of this urban travel will be emission free at point of use? Very little at a guess.
Let's think of a typical scenario - you barrel over the M40 overpass and hit traffic in the Euston road. Whether you have stop/start or not, you're at maximum pollution - either and engine running continuously, or multiple restarts with a cold catalyst. With a Hybrid, even one with a 1.2 mile range, you can go all the way to King's Cross on electric. You'd then fire up the engine for the run up the Pentonville road, before doing the electric thing again at Shoreditch.
If you had a hybrid with a 10 mile range, you could shut the engine down as traffic slowed after the M25, get to your meeting in Central London, and most of the way out again - on electric. Then you've got the engine to take you home to Newcastle.
Really, they do solve all of the problems. The only downside is the complexity, but it isn't actually that complex - as any Uber driver will tell you.
I fail to see what the issue is here, like many 'issues' on PH, but I digress.
1. 20+ years away.
2. only effects *new* vehicles.
3. the govt. had to say 'something'.
4. govts tend to change 'once or twice' in 20 years, and their minds every other day.
5. technology changes.
6. mindset changes.
7. the middle east will be exporting solar power instead of oil.
Anyway, the dream of road pricing will be here by then in some form or another to replace fuel duty in the long run.
GFoS will become the modern day version of a steam rally.
1. 20+ years away.
2. only effects *new* vehicles.
3. the govt. had to say 'something'.
4. govts tend to change 'once or twice' in 20 years, and their minds every other day.
5. technology changes.
6. mindset changes.
7. the middle east will be exporting solar power instead of oil.
Anyway, the dream of road pricing will be here by then in some form or another to replace fuel duty in the long run.
GFoS will become the modern day version of a steam rally.
FiF said:
What I don't get is why the current set of hybrids are so in favour.
Because politicians like shiny expensive solutions to problems. That said, to be fair, whilst the current crop are pretty lame it's not hard to imagine the next generation being able to do a genuinely useful amount of miles on electric. Even ignoring localised pollution, electric is a very nice way to travel in heavy traffic; NVH that a quarter million pound Rolls can't match!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff