New diesel and petrol cars banned from UK roads by 2030
Discussion
urquattroGus said:
I've just bought a year old Diesel car, Euro 6 compliant, zero road tax (for now)
If you believe the papers I'm going to burn in hell and be taxed at 350% more and my car will be worth nothing.
The facts seem to get lost...
That they do. Articles like this (below) don't help.If you believe the papers I'm going to burn in hell and be taxed at 350% more and my car will be worth nothing.
The facts seem to get lost...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/mar/04/dies...
Mr2Mike said:
Did you realise the title says "National"? It's hard to imagine if you live in London, but there are other places in the UK 
Head over here for regional data. Let's start with COPD, which is short hand for "your lungs are buggered".https://statistics.blf.org.uk/copd
Look at the graphs of "people diagnosed with COPD per 100K of population". Firstly, diagnosis rates are falling - fewer people are getting it. Secondly, the areas that you would expect to be stand out areas for diagnosis (if this killing 40K people a year b
ks is true) .. don't stand out. London has lower diagnosis rate than Scotland,the Midlands .etc. ...Now for the interesting one. Number of COPD deaths per million people per country. We have 200 deaths per million people. We have 67 million people. So we have 13,400 COPD deaths a year. So even if every COPD death is caused by diesel, we're still looking for another 25,000 people. Not even the most delusional people are suggesting that all COPD deaths are caused by diesel.
OK, how about asthma? Here.
https://statistics.blf.org.uk/asthma
Start with the same "new diagnosis" chart. Falling over the last 2 decades with a slight uptick in 2012. Again, London is in the middle of the pack.
Total deaths - 1,200 per per year. So we've still got 23K people to find.
Right, the biggie. Lung cancer.
https://statistics.blf.org.uk/lung-cancer
New diagnoses - pretty much flat, some areas (North East) are rising, some are flat. London, again, middle of the the pack.
Have a look at the mortality by LA region - in the map of the UK. Doesn't seem to match pollution hotspots in the slightest. (this is true for all of the data).
Total deaths: 300 per million or 20k, Great - it all adds up.
So, to summarise: if you believe that falling diagnosis rates constitutes a crisis AND that ALL of the COPD, Asthma and Lung Cancer deaths are caused by diesel .... then the 40K figure is believable and we have a problem. I don't believe either of those things.
Edited by rxe on Friday 28th July 13:23
Even Roger "I blindly believe everything I'm told by the green lobby" Harrabin feels obliged to point out that 40,000 is essentially a made up number (my interpretation... yours may be different )
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3897...
)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3897...
Pan Pan Pan said:
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.
rxe said:
Interesting. So Denmark has a worse mortality rate from lung disease than Mexico? 
It's definitely ICE cars. No doubt.
gareth_r said:
Even Roger "I blindly believe everything I'm told by the green lobby" Harrabin feels obliged to point out that 40,000 is essentially a made up number (my interpretation... yours may be different )
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3897...
That was quite a read - thanks for the link!)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3897...
Harrabin is certainly mixing it in more ways than one.
In these snips Harrabin said:
How bad is UK air pollution?
Air pollution is a major contributor to ill health in the UK, but it's hard to say exactly by how much.
Dirty air doesn't directly kill people. But it's estimated in the UK to contribute to the shortening of the lives of around 40,000 people a year, principally by undermining the health of people with heart or lung problems.
How accurate are media headlines about 40,000 deaths?
Headlines claiming that pollution kills 40,000 are just wrong - it's more subtle than that. It's also wrong to say pollution in the UK is rising.
The 40,000 pollution-related deaths figure is not a count of actual deaths - it's a statistical construct, with a lot of uncertainty involved.
Government advisers say the 40,000 number might be a sixth as big - or twice as big.
In the UK, air pollution nationally has been generally dropping (except from ammonia from farming).
But despite the overall fall, in many big UK cities safe limits on harmful particulates and oxides of nitrogen - NOx - are still regularly breached. And in London, NOx levels at the roadside have barely dropped at all.
Scientists are also more confident now about the ways that air pollution harms people. It has even recently been linked with dementia, although that link remains debatable.
That last last couple of sentences is/are a beauty, scientists are more confident (implication: certain) except where it remains debatable (implication: uncertain). Aye.Air pollution is a major contributor to ill health in the UK, but it's hard to say exactly by how much.
Dirty air doesn't directly kill people. But it's estimated in the UK to contribute to the shortening of the lives of around 40,000 people a year, principally by undermining the health of people with heart or lung problems.
How accurate are media headlines about 40,000 deaths?
Headlines claiming that pollution kills 40,000 are just wrong - it's more subtle than that. It's also wrong to say pollution in the UK is rising.
The 40,000 pollution-related deaths figure is not a count of actual deaths - it's a statistical construct, with a lot of uncertainty involved.
Government advisers say the 40,000 number might be a sixth as big - or twice as big.
In the UK, air pollution nationally has been generally dropping (except from ammonia from farming).
But despite the overall fall, in many big UK cities safe limits on harmful particulates and oxides of nitrogen - NOx - are still regularly breached. And in London, NOx levels at the roadside have barely dropped at all.
Scientists are also more confident now about the ways that air pollution harms people. It has even recently been linked with dementia, although that link remains debatable.
Good to see H point out that the 40,000 number isn't a count but a statistical construct with large uncertainties attached, It's a shame he doesn't make an attempt to explain how the epidemiological fallacy makes it not just uncertain but essentially worthless - a major sin of omission.
Nationally, emissions of nitrogen oxides fell by 61% between 1970 and 2011 (DEFRA statistical release, 2012) but there's the inevitable focus on London, where Harrabim claims "NOx levels at the roadside have barely dropped at all". Naturally this is a chicken soup statement since levels will vary from road to road and from time to time, also depending on the vehicle profile of the road.
It's certainly another sin of omission not to mention that large improvements have been realised recently, for example on the London 159 bus route, use of Euro 6 buses led to a 95% drop in roadside NOx.
Across the city as a whole, such gains can't be replicated due to various factors including the vehicle profile of a road as above, while 0% of naturally occurring NOx from trees, lawns, vegetation burning, and lightning will be eliminated by transport policy.
There are still two elephants in Harrabin's room, one is 10x more polluted indoor air (on average) compared to outdoor urban air, and the other is 3-NBA emissions. These are due to stop-start diesel engined buses mostly and HGVs too. Not diesel cars with smaller capacity diesel engines, though. 3-NBA is one of the most, if not the most, carcinogenic compounds we can hope not to meet, and the work of researchers such as Dr Hitomi Suzuki on transport emissions of 3-NBA from buses and HGVs has always fallen on deaf political ears.
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 28th July 16:01
Evanivitch said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
If the purpose of this ban on petrol and diesel cars is to reduce air pollution, then it seems that the country must start building many, many nuclear power plants straight away, so that they are in place by 2040. Enough nuclear plants must be built to cover base load, with a bit of spare capacity provided by other methods of generation such as wind power.
Energy is never destroyed, it only changes its form. therefore with the current mix of generation methods, using electric vehicles will not reduce emissions, it will only move them down the road a bit. At present electricity is one of the most polluting fuels, with one of the highest AD-L fuel factors of any of the fuels available for use in the UK. Only when the bulk of electricity generation in the UK is based on a method which does not produce the emissions that the current systems do, will EV`s be able to be described as non polluting (but this does not take into account the pollution associate with their manufacture, and the toxic nature of some of their battery systems.
Actually in the way most cars are used, electric cars do make some sense, because for the most part they are sat in the drive / car park / kerb doing nothing except waiting to be used. The perfect time in fact for them to be recharged ready for their next use. If the problems of power distribution to the drive / car park / kerb can be solved (surely possible) , and improvements on the range of EV`s can be made, they could become fully and real world viable by 2040. The only vehicle type which may cause a problem are those intended for use in vast and remote areas where a power grid does not exist, and cannot be installed on grounds of cost, engineering problems etc. For exploration vehicles it seems that fossil fuels may be the only viable option.
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
This sounds like a GCSE physics answer.Energy is never destroyed, it only changes its form. therefore with the current mix of generation methods, using electric vehicles will not reduce emissions, it will only move them down the road a bit. At present electricity is one of the most polluting fuels, with one of the highest AD-L fuel factors of any of the fuels available for use in the UK. Only when the bulk of electricity generation in the UK is based on a method which does not produce the emissions that the current systems do, will EV`s be able to be described as non polluting (but this does not take into account the pollution associate with their manufacture, and the toxic nature of some of their battery systems.
Actually in the way most cars are used, electric cars do make some sense, because for the most part they are sat in the drive / car park / kerb doing nothing except waiting to be used. The perfect time in fact for them to be recharged ready for their next use. If the problems of power distribution to the drive / car park / kerb can be solved (surely possible) , and improvements on the range of EV`s can be made, they could become fully and real world viable by 2040. The only vehicle type which may cause a problem are those intended for use in vast and remote areas where a power grid does not exist, and cannot be installed on grounds of cost, engineering problems etc. For exploration vehicles it seems that fossil fuels may be the only viable option.
When one considers that all the energy on planet Earth comes directly or indirectly from the sun, including coal and oil, and that we are only using the tiny fraction that has happened to land on the Earth, (the rest just flies by into space), it means there is colossal energy out there to be had, we just have`nt found a way of capturing it properly and efficiently yet.
Electricity isn't the most dirty form of energy. It can be as clean or as dirty as you like. All other forms of automotive energy require significant energy input before they can be used in the automotive vehicle. Oil production and refining is energy intensive. Hydrogen production is hugely energy intensive. Biofuel is energy intensive to an unknown degree. By using Electricity directly you remove many inefficiencies involved in production of these other fuel sources.
Exploration vehicles? This is a tiny niche market within the grand scheme. No one is suggesting returning remote communities to horse and cart.
All energy doesn't come from the sun, they stop teaching that when you're 12. Huge amounts of energy on Earth come from radioactive particles, which coincidentally is also where the energy of the sun is derived.
As posted before Approved Document L shows that electricity currently has one of the worst fuel factors of any fuel used / currently on offer in the UK
If a calculation is based on a typical dwelling which is heated by gas, and its construction arranged so that it complies with AD-L, One has to do no more than change its heating system from gas to electric, and that exact same dwelling will then fail the requirements of AD-L by a country mile.
Where electric heating is used, significant and expensive increases in its specification and build cost must be made for such an electrically heated dwelling to even scrape itself into compliance with the energy section of the building regulations.
This situation does not change for EV`s because based on the current mix of generation methods, electricity still has one of the governments highest fuel factors, making no difference whether it is used to heat a home, or run an EV.
Until the mix of energy generation in the UK is changed so that the base load is generated by methods that don't produce emissions, say nuclear, this situation will prevail.
Pan Pan Pan said:
I never said electricity was the dirtiest form of energy, I said it was `one' of the dirtiest.
As posted before Approved Document L shows that electricity currently has one of the worst fuel factors of any fuel used / currently on offer in the UK
If a calculation is based on a typical dwelling which is heated by gas, and its construction arranged so that it complies with AD-L, One has to do no more than change its heating system from gas to electric, and that exact same dwelling will then fail the requirements of AD-L by a country mile.
Where electric heating is used, significant and expensive increases in its specification and build cost must be made for such an electrically heated dwelling to even scrape itself into compliance with the energy section of the building regulations.
This situation does not change for EV`s because based on the current mix of generation methods, electricity still has one of the governments highest fuel factors, making no difference whether it is used to heat a home, or run an EV.
Until the mix of energy generation in the UK is changed so that the base load is generated by methods that don't produce emissions, say nuclear, this situation will prevail.
Bringing building standards to a automotive discussion. Excellent! How does coal and biomass rate against Electricity?As posted before Approved Document L shows that electricity currently has one of the worst fuel factors of any fuel used / currently on offer in the UK
If a calculation is based on a typical dwelling which is heated by gas, and its construction arranged so that it complies with AD-L, One has to do no more than change its heating system from gas to electric, and that exact same dwelling will then fail the requirements of AD-L by a country mile.
Where electric heating is used, significant and expensive increases in its specification and build cost must be made for such an electrically heated dwelling to even scrape itself into compliance with the energy section of the building regulations.
This situation does not change for EV`s because based on the current mix of generation methods, electricity still has one of the governments highest fuel factors, making no difference whether it is used to heat a home, or run an EV.
Until the mix of energy generation in the UK is changed so that the base load is generated by methods that don't produce emissions, say nuclear, this situation will prevail.
Forgive for replying to points made several pages back, but I only came upon this thread today.
Firstly the tower block with everyone's cars parked outside and dozens of cables hanging out the windows. This would never arise because the cars wouldn't need to be charged at home - they could do it on the way to or from work (or while out shopping etc), by just visiting a charging station which with tomorrow's technology could top the car up, or exchange a low battery for a charged one in minutes.
As for road tax, a device in the car connected to a satnav could report on the number of miles covered, and in what sort of road/traffic conditions, during the charging (monetary charging that is) period, so that shortly afterwards a bill would drop through your letterbox. If the bill wasn't paid within a certain period, the car would then turn itself off until it was paid.
Firstly the tower block with everyone's cars parked outside and dozens of cables hanging out the windows. This would never arise because the cars wouldn't need to be charged at home - they could do it on the way to or from work (or while out shopping etc), by just visiting a charging station which with tomorrow's technology could top the car up, or exchange a low battery for a charged one in minutes.
As for road tax, a device in the car connected to a satnav could report on the number of miles covered, and in what sort of road/traffic conditions, during the charging (monetary charging that is) period, so that shortly afterwards a bill would drop through your letterbox. If the bill wasn't paid within a certain period, the car would then turn itself off until it was paid.
Evanivitch said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I never said electricity was the dirtiest form of energy, I said it was `one' of the dirtiest.
As posted before Approved Document L shows that electricity currently has one of the worst fuel factors of any fuel used / currently on offer in the UK
If a calculation is based on a typical dwelling which is heated by gas, and its construction arranged so that it complies with AD-L, One has to do no more than change its heating system from gas to electric, and that exact same dwelling will then fail the requirements of AD-L by a country mile.
Where electric heating is used, significant and expensive increases in its specification and build cost must be made for such an electrically heated dwelling to even scrape itself into compliance with the energy section of the building regulations.
This situation does not change for EV`s because based on the current mix of generation methods, electricity still has one of the governments highest fuel factors, making no difference whether it is used to heat a home, or run an EV.
Until the mix of energy generation in the UK is changed so that the base load is generated by methods that don't produce emissions, say nuclear, this situation will prevail.
Bringing building standards to a automotive discussion. Excellent! How does coal and biomass rate against Electricity?As posted before Approved Document L shows that electricity currently has one of the worst fuel factors of any fuel used / currently on offer in the UK
If a calculation is based on a typical dwelling which is heated by gas, and its construction arranged so that it complies with AD-L, One has to do no more than change its heating system from gas to electric, and that exact same dwelling will then fail the requirements of AD-L by a country mile.
Where electric heating is used, significant and expensive increases in its specification and build cost must be made for such an electrically heated dwelling to even scrape itself into compliance with the energy section of the building regulations.
This situation does not change for EV`s because based on the current mix of generation methods, electricity still has one of the governments highest fuel factors, making no difference whether it is used to heat a home, or run an EV.
Until the mix of energy generation in the UK is changed so that the base load is generated by methods that don't produce emissions, say nuclear, this situation will prevail.
Do people actually believe that by using an EV, that somehow, they are saving the planet?
otolith said:
I would have thought that raw COPD and lung cancer prevalences are pretty poor indicators of any health effects of air pollution, given how strong the signal from tobacco use is in any raw dataset.
Clearly smoking has a material impact. But the raw data highlights that:- we don't have some death crisis in London and other polluted areas. If all the figures were declining, but London and other urban centres had higher incidences than other areas, there would be justification in a panic. But no urban areas have higher than normal incidences of these diseases.
- The figure of 40,000 deaths a year is utter b
ks, being comparable to the TOTAL number of lung related deaths per annum.Evangelion said:
Forgive for replying to points made several pages back, but I only came upon this thread today.
Firstly the tower block with everyone's cars parked outside and dozens of cables hanging out the windows. This would never arise because the cars wouldn't need to be charged at home - they could do it on the way to or from work (or while out shopping etc), by just visiting a charging station which with tomorrow's technology could top the car up, or exchange a low battery for a charged one in minutes.
As for road tax, a device in the car connected to a satnav could report on the number of miles covered, and in what sort of road/traffic conditions, during the charging (monetary charging that is) period, so that shortly afterwards a bill would drop through your letterbox. If the bill wasn't paid within a certain period, the car would then turn itself off until it was paid.
So a combination of magic, a mountain of new infrastructure and a massively complex privacy eliminating technical solution will get it to work, at some indeterminate point in the future?Firstly the tower block with everyone's cars parked outside and dozens of cables hanging out the windows. This would never arise because the cars wouldn't need to be charged at home - they could do it on the way to or from work (or while out shopping etc), by just visiting a charging station which with tomorrow's technology could top the car up, or exchange a low battery for a charged one in minutes.
As for road tax, a device in the car connected to a satnav could report on the number of miles covered, and in what sort of road/traffic conditions, during the charging (monetary charging that is) period, so that shortly afterwards a bill would drop through your letterbox. If the bill wasn't paid within a certain period, the car would then turn itself off until it was paid.
OK.
Even if it could work it seems a poor solution if the nominal issue is a bit of air pollution.
As I understand it, the belief is that the excess deaths are through cardiovascular disease, not particularly pulmonary disease.
The figures originate from studies which were not concerned with the cause of death, just overall mortality. I would not particularly like to stand behind the numbers being touted, but it's probably more useful to dig into those than to do back of a fag packet epidemiology on specific diseases.
https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/does-air...
The figures originate from studies which were not concerned with the cause of death, just overall mortality. I would not particularly like to stand behind the numbers being touted, but it's probably more useful to dig into those than to do back of a fag packet epidemiology on specific diseases.
https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/does-air...
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.
otolith said:
As I understand it, the belief is that the excess deaths are through cardiovascular disease, not particularly pulmonary disease.
Yes, with one of the studies (I posted details in the thread already) citing increased heart attacks and strokes due to sleep disruption from the noise penetrating homes alongside busy roads. Not outdoor air quality. If more detailed research ever gets around to looking at all indoor factors including the ~10x more polluted indoor air then we may start to get somewhere useful, but not useful for gov't and taxation purposes...so let's not get too excited that reality will make an appearance any time soon.
Apologies if this issue has already been raised, isn't this a topic where national legislation is a bit pointless? It only really works if you have EU legislation or a global agreement. Then manufacturers are motivated to find a solution. After all, the UK's cars are the same as everyone else's cars.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff