New petrol and diesel vehicles sales ban in UK from 2035
Discussion
GliderRider said:
Tides are predictable. MeyGen Pentland Firth
But produces a very small amount of power / electrikery. Either due to the short periods of decent flow (rule of twelths etc) or requires stupid amount of work to create a lagoon - and hence become commercially unfeasible (and environmentally nonsense). See Swansea Lagoon.PushedDover said:
Overlooking the stupidity of the demand of charging a EV at a petrol station (not just the terminology, but why feel the need to migrate to the antiquated process)
FFS. Do you really think that in the coming 15 years that the EV cars, technology and infrastructure will remain just the same as today ?
A little forward thinking is required.
The weird thing is if the health problems associated with the ICE had been known. They would never have been developed. FFS. Do you really think that in the coming 15 years that the EV cars, technology and infrastructure will remain just the same as today ?
A little forward thinking is required.
The range obsession is a red herring for at least 80% of motorists. It may even force much of the unnecessary travel off the roads completely.
Within 10 years the range will be 300/400 miles minimum and motorists should be force to stop anyway after that length of drive with a 20/30 min break. Obviously automation will cut out the need for the long stop.
I never understand why people like looking backward an do not accept the damage that car pollution is doing to their children or chose to ignore it.
Edited by Nickgnome on Tuesday 4th February 23:35
Nickgnome said:
I never understand why people like looking backward an do not accept the damage that car pollution is doing to their children or chose to ignore it.
Yet you bang on about a leisure activity that required huge toxic chemicals during production to create.It's all about balance and moving forward as new science enables change, that's what humans do.
Nickgnome said:
I know stopped with my first company car. Why would I do it now, much more fun elsewhere.
If your a motor mechanic it’s hardly a surprise is it?
I'm not a motor mechanic.If your a motor mechanic it’s hardly a surprise is it?
Engine builds i tend not to get involved with much, we pay specialists to do that work, at £125K +VAT a pop it's not cost effective.
If i do an engine now it's a real oddball thing that needs reverse engineering, most of the time they are just spacers for my work.
jsf said:
Nickgnome said:
I never understand why people like looking backward an do not accept the damage that car pollution is doing to their children or chose to ignore it.
Yet you bang on about a leisure activity that required huge toxic chemicals during production to create.It's all about balance and moving forward as new science enables change, that's what humans do.
I don’t know or certain but I may be below average. If your talking about the boat btw. It’s good for.at least 50 years
Maybe other people have more polluting pass times.
I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly.
Nickgnome said:
All new houses zero heating energy
How does the house stay warm in winter? I've heard rumours that it gets cold at that time of year.Nickgnome said:
Every new house to have minimum 2kw array possibly more depending on house size. Planning insisting one good south facing elevation. Solar roof tiles already exist and the efficiency is much higher now and much cheaper.
I have 3.6kW and as I said it still is only good for a quarter of my commute with zero other usage.Renewable are mostly unreliable & don't provide sufficient power for our needs. It's a lovely idea but not realistic.
Tryke3 said:
Hoe many people will loose their jobs now that everyone knows ICE cars will be banned in 15 years ? This is what happens when you let a clown make decisions
If it happens it will be the SALE of new ICE cars.Meanwhile in Germany, my electrician informed me that in a couple of years a new regulation is coming limiting installation of exterior fast charge points due to worries over grid capacity.
Nickgnome said:
MXRod said:
No Doubt flagged up before
As the VED take reduces , where is the replacement income for HS2 comming from ?
VED on electric cars ? loss of off peak cheap electricity? and even tax on electricity , a well thought out policy ,NOT !
Governments will find a way of raising revenue to pay for our service’s somehow. As the VED take reduces , where is the replacement income for HS2 comming from ?
VED on electric cars ? loss of off peak cheap electricity? and even tax on electricity , a well thought out policy ,NOT !
Does it really matter the funds need to be found?
The lunatics really have taken over the asylum, there will have to be cuts to hospitals ,education and a raft of social services, is this what people want ?
The point being made about infrastructure is important, last year an area of Scotland had its gas supply discounted, requests had to be made for people to reduce their usage due to the system being unable to cope, remember heating will all be electric along with cooking as well as car changing.
Then we have the biggest problem who is in charge of this massive change, Politicians, it really is not going to work, do people believe our politicians are capable enough to oversee such a massive change,I do not.
And finally CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary gas for photosynthesis, people talking about a cleaner environment appear totally unaware of science.
skwdenyer said:
It is sad to say, but there's nothing inevitable about ditching ICEs apart from due to the political following of vested interests coupled with a total inability amongst petrochemical companies to plan for the future. There are several options for continuing to use ICEs, from production of methanol using sequestered CO2 as feedstock to hydrogen to "synthetic petrol." None of those needs to be anything but carbon neutral and, with the right management, they can be neutral on other emissions too.
But, each of them requires considerable investment in the back-end infrastructure, something nobody seems willing to do. EVs solve the problem "by magic" - electricity generation and distribution is well-understood, we just need more of it.
Honestly this is a sad indictment of the lack of forward thinking on the part of the petrochemical companies - a bit of joined-up thinking, joined-up decision making, joined-up lobbying and they could have produced a whole new generation of products and kept consumers in thrall to them for decades to come
If you think you have the solution, promote it, prove it is the way forward to those who can make it happen. But, each of them requires considerable investment in the back-end infrastructure, something nobody seems willing to do. EVs solve the problem "by magic" - electricity generation and distribution is well-understood, we just need more of it.
Honestly this is a sad indictment of the lack of forward thinking on the part of the petrochemical companies - a bit of joined-up thinking, joined-up decision making, joined-up lobbying and they could have produced a whole new generation of products and kept consumers in thrall to them for decades to come
Do you really think the giant petro-chemical companies of this World would not seek to do all they can to remain as profitable as they are currently and limit the damage to their bottom-line by EV's if they could? For sure they are working on alternatives, with massive budgets for doing so. It's just that EV is 'winning' at the moment. I'm pretty certain another solution will replace EV in the future too.
We're selfish, us car enthusiasts. Awfully so when it comes to big, noisy polluting engines. We're the equivalent of those utter a
holes who used to go to pubs and fill it with cigarette smoke, even deliberately blow it in your direction. Look what happened to them - they had to be forced to stop. Even if we disregard the whole Climate issue, it is fundamental that if we can find a viable solution - EV is the current flavour - to stop polluting the air we breathe and, more importantly, force others to breathe and limit noise then we should do so, as a civilised society.
I'm just as selfish in this regard as the rest of you who enjoy ICE cars, we are pricks though if we don't adapt to a solution that is less polluting in terms of air we breathe and noise. In the 1950's, car numbers were tiny compared to now. But their numbers are now enormous. The effect they have on people in terms of gross quality air in cities and urban areas is awful. Yeah, let's impress the neighbours with my loud M5 and belt out a few fumes too. Utter nobbish behaviour. We've all done it. We still do. It has to stop though. I accept that. We can't always be t
ts. We have to respect everyone and not selfishly protect our perceived 'right' to pollute in order to enjoy cars. The vast majority of the motoring public couldn't give a toss what powers their vehicle, providing it gets them from A to B. The vast majority will, however, welcome cleaner air and less noise. We need to respect that. People who rely upon others to solve all the problems love to comment and suggest why such and such is impossible. Why it won't work because they live in a flat or a terrace or a tent on top of a high-rise. "Ooooo, the grid! Woe is us!" "It will never work, not enough Nuclear" "His cock's bigger than mine, I need my M5 to compensate!" They'll ignore that there are people in very specialised problem-solving fields working on these issues for them. It's easy to b
h and moan and lament a loss but if you really want to enact change, get off yer bum and make it happen. If you think you know a better way forward, do it. (I say this generally). We could stretch out ICE and fossil fuels for decades more by going more efficient, less polluting, less powerful...but it is just desperate clinging on and procrastination, asking future generations to go through the withdrawal process instead of us, now. Again, selfish of us. Just get it done. Adapt now. EV now, maybe something better down the line. ICE has had its time, great while it lasted, now it must be phased out. We have a while yet, but I do believe it is inevitable that they must make way for something else.
Funkmachine7 said:
Logically the use og alcohol fuels solves the petrol problem, it's a closed carbon cycle.
CO2 --> crops ----> alcohol ---> car fuel ---> CO2 --> crops..
\
\ ------> feed waste ----> pigs ---> bacon --> fertilizer
Simple.
Except it's not.CO2 --> crops ----> alcohol ---> car fuel ---> CO2 --> crops..
\
\ ------> feed waste ----> pigs ---> bacon --> fertilizer
Simple.
Growing crops to 'feed' cars is land and water not being used to feed/house people, and we are 7 billion in number- and rising.
Electric has to be the way to go, and it looks like that is the way we are going.
PRTVR said:
And finally CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary gas for photosynthesis, people talking about a cleaner environment appear totally unaware of science.
At last, well said! Climate change and the environment is a political problem, it has always been a political problem and there will never be a solution until that is recognised and we stop trying to look to science for "the answer" which we already had all along.Coolbananas said:
We're selfish, us car enthusiasts. Awfully so when it comes to big, noisy polluting engines. We're the equivalent of those utter aholes who used to go to pubs and fill it with cigarette smoke, even deliberately blow it in your direction. Look what happened to them - they had to be forced to stop.
But big, noisy, polluting, engines in cars owned and driven by enthusiasts represent a tiny proportion of the total vehicle population on our roads. The smokers you're talking about ruined the atmosphere for almost everyone in a pub and were quite rightly stopped from doing so IMO; however, if you took all the large engined enthusiast cars off the road tomorrow it wouldn't change the overall level of vehicle pollution significantly as there simply aren't enough of them to make a difference. Therefore, seeking to highlight and target them and their owners as a matter of priority is nothing more than empty symbolism in my view - if you want to reduce total pollution from vehicles significantly you're not going to do it by focusing on the likes of M5's and C63's... holes who used to go to pubs and fill it with cigarette smoke, even deliberately blow it in your direction. Look what happened to them - they had to be forced to stop. Coolbananas said:
skwdenyer said:
It is sad to say, but there's nothing inevitable about ditching ICEs apart from due to the political following of vested interests coupled with a total inability amongst petrochemical companies to plan for the future. There are several options for continuing to use ICEs, from production of methanol using sequestered CO2 as feedstock to hydrogen to "synthetic petrol." None of those needs to be anything but carbon neutral and, with the right management, they can be neutral on other emissions too.
But, each of them requires considerable investment in the back-end infrastructure, something nobody seems willing to do. EVs solve the problem "by magic" - electricity generation and distribution is well-understood, we just need more of it.
Honestly this is a sad indictment of the lack of forward thinking on the part of the petrochemical companies - a bit of joined-up thinking, joined-up decision making, joined-up lobbying and they could have produced a whole new generation of products and kept consumers in thrall to them for decades to come
If you think you have the solution, promote it, prove it is the way forward to those who can make it happen. But, each of them requires considerable investment in the back-end infrastructure, something nobody seems willing to do. EVs solve the problem "by magic" - electricity generation and distribution is well-understood, we just need more of it.
Honestly this is a sad indictment of the lack of forward thinking on the part of the petrochemical companies - a bit of joined-up thinking, joined-up decision making, joined-up lobbying and they could have produced a whole new generation of products and kept consumers in thrall to them for decades to come
Do you really think the giant petro-chemical companies of this World would not seek to do all they can to remain as profitable as they are currently and limit the damage to their bottom-line by EV's if they could? For sure they are working on alternatives, with massive budgets for doing so. It's just that EV is 'winning' at the moment. I'm pretty certain another solution will replace EV in the future too.
We're selfish, us car enthusiasts. Awfully so when it comes to big, noisy polluting engines. We're the equivalent of those utter a
holes who used to go to pubs and fill it with cigarette smoke, even deliberately blow it in your direction. Look what happened to them - they had to be forced to stop. Even if we disregard the whole Climate issue, it is fundamental that if we can find a viable solution - EV is the current flavour - to stop polluting the air we breathe and, more importantly, force others to breathe and limit noise then we should do so, as a civilised society.
I'm just as selfish in this regard as the rest of you who enjoy ICE cars, we are pricks though if we don't adapt to a solution that is less polluting in terms of air we breathe and noise. In the 1950's, car numbers were tiny compared to now. But their numbers are now enormous. The effect they have on people in terms of gross quality air in cities and urban areas is awful. Yeah, let's impress the neighbours with my loud M5 and belt out a few fumes too. Utter nobbish behaviour. We've all done it. We still do. It has to stop though. I accept that. We can't always be t
ts. We have to respect everyone and not selfishly protect our perceived 'right' to pollute in order to enjoy cars. The vast majority of the motoring public couldn't give a toss what powers their vehicle, providing it gets them from A to B. The vast majority will, however, welcome cleaner air and less noise. We need to respect that. People who rely upon others to solve all the problems love to comment and suggest why such and such is impossible. Why it won't work because they live in a flat or a terrace or a tent on top of a high-rise. "Ooooo, the grid! Woe is us!" "It will never work, not enough Nuclear" "His cock's bigger than mine, I need my M5 to compensate!" They'll ignore that there are people in very specialised problem-solving fields working on these issues for them. It's easy to b
h and moan and lament a loss but if you really want to enact change, get off yer bum and make it happen. If you think you know a better way forward, do it. (I say this generally). We could stretch out ICE and fossil fuels for decades more by going more efficient, less polluting, less powerful...but it is just desperate clinging on and procrastination, asking future generations to go through the withdrawal process instead of us, now. Again, selfish of us. Just get it done. Adapt now. EV now, maybe something better down the line. ICE has had its time, great while it lasted, now it must be phased out. We have a while yet, but I do believe it is inevitable that they must make way for something else.
It’s inevitable, it’s got to happen - it would be nice for a change if the UK was a pioneer rather than a reluctant heel-dragging nation. We have the legislation for “net zero” by 2050, now we need actual work on the ground to really ramp up without delay. I do fear the persuasive lobbyists of the motor manufacturers and oil companies will fight tooth and nail to try and push that date back though!
Agammemnon said:
I have 3.6kW and as I said it still is only good for a quarter of my commute with zero other usage.
Renewable are mostly unreliable & don't provide sufficient power for our needs. It's a lovely idea but not realistic.
Incidental loads, heat recovery and possibly a very small heat pump to keep the temperature comfortable.Renewable are mostly unreliable & don't provide sufficient power for our needs. It's a lovely idea but not realistic.
People generate 80w pp, when at rest. If losses are minimised the steady state at a reasonable temperature requires minimal energy.
I never said as an individual energy self sufficiency would be easily achievable
The intermittency of renewables can be factored in just like the redundancy that is built in every power generation facility.
The wider one looks at the capture the less intermittent it becomes.
PRTVR said:
Nickgnome said:
MXRod said:
No Doubt flagged up before
As the VED take reduces , where is the replacement income for HS2 comming from ?
VED on electric cars ? loss of off peak cheap electricity? and even tax on electricity , a well thought out policy ,NOT !
Governments will find a way of raising revenue to pay for our service’s somehow. As the VED take reduces , where is the replacement income for HS2 comming from ?
VED on electric cars ? loss of off peak cheap electricity? and even tax on electricity , a well thought out policy ,NOT !
Does it really matter the funds need to be found?
The lunatics really have taken over the asylum, there will have to be cuts to hospitals ,education and a raft of social services, is this what people want ?
The point being made about infrastructure is important, last year an area of Scotland had its gas supply discounted, requests had to be made for people to reduce their usage due to the system being unable to cope, remember heating will all be electric along with cooking as well as car changing.
Then we have the biggest problem who is in charge of this massive change, Politicians, it really is not going to work, do people believe our politicians are capable enough to oversee such a massive change,I do not.
And finally CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessary gas for photosynthesis, people talking about a cleaner environment appear totally unaware of science.
£1.1 billion is peanuts. What’s on the cost side btw?
Just from a risk perspective. If the vast numbers of climate scientists who suggest we are causing climate problems with our actions, the only impact is we are slowing growth and developing less rapidly with actual fiscal cost.
However if they are correct the cost is so massive to almost be incalculable to humans. Mass migrations on a scale unimaginable as liveable areas become flooded or unsustainable.
I realise that this is PH so every individual is a fully qualified multi tasking QC, research scientist. Doctor, Teacher, Engineer, etc. etc.
I’ve said before your politicians are selected by you and everyone else that select them through the process right from candidate selection so they reflect the people they represent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff