No ICE from 2040?!?
Discussion
The Crack Fox said:
plenty said:
So we shouldn't bother doing anything until others start first?
As it happens China and the US are well ahead of the UK in terms of policymaking.
Policymaking on what? Try breathing the air in New York or Beijing. It's like soup! As it happens China and the US are well ahead of the UK in terms of policymaking.
The Crack Fox said:
Do you think they'll really look at us and follow suit? When have they ever done that? They still have the death penalty, for example.
I didn't say that China and US should follow the UK's lead. I said that US and China are already ahead of the UK if not in today's air quality then in terms of their long-term plans to improve things in the future. This was a response to your original post along the lines of "what's the point of doing anything because it's a global problem, the UK is only a small country and no-one else is doing anything".Salamura said:
- They refuse to see that the chunk of the pollution generated by transport vehicles is not contributed to passenger cars, but lorries and ships, which has been shown by not one study. Surely, you can't expect fully electric trucks or ships by 2040. The required range will just be impossible to achieve, so these will remain diesel with 99.9% certainty.
-
Why does everyone argue this? WHY?-
Just because there is more than one polluter, doesn't mean we cant tackle anything but one of them? Getting cars to go electric is extremely easy compared to getting greener planes and cargo ships. People aren't just shrugging those off, they're much more complex issues.
We have 23 years of development infront of us.
Salamura said:
rampageturke said:
Why does everyone argue this? WHY?
Just because there is more than one polluter, doesn't mean we cant tackle anything but one of them? Getting cars to go electric is extremely easy compared to getting greener planes and cargo ships. People aren't just shrugging those off, they're much more complex issues.
We have 23 years of development infront of us.
Because the government's argument is that this ban is aimed at improving air quality, and we know that it will do fJust because there is more than one polluter, doesn't mean we cant tackle anything but one of them? Getting cars to go electric is extremely easy compared to getting greener planes and cargo ships. People aren't just shrugging those off, they're much more complex issues.
We have 23 years of development infront of us.
k all because the air will keep getting polluted by everything else that is not a road car, including the power stations that will make the electricity for them. I'm not saying we shouldn't develop the electric vehicle, I'm saying that banning ICEs solves nothing and causes more issues if anything. Why not let the technology and market to naturally shift towards EVs, which is already happening, instead of going as drastic as to ban the ICE? I'm against stupid political stands, not against technology and progress...jeremyh1 said:
Most of you on here would have grown up by then . Some of you are even going to college nexr year
So when 2040 comes you will have more pressing priorities Some of you will even be able to drive safely with out blaming everybody else for your poor road craft
I'd personally go the other way and say that most of PH members will be dead by 2040. It's all bad tempered-ness, tankards, pipes, eccentric dress codes and obscene amounts of nose and ear hair in here.So when 2040 comes you will have more pressing priorities Some of you will even be able to drive safely with out blaming everybody else for your poor road craft
Salamura said:
Why not let the technology and market to naturally shift towards EVs, which is already happening, instead of going as drastic as to ban the ICE?
Because people are retarded like you and the vehicle manufacturers are happy to make the same polluting crap till the end of the world without external regulations. There's no "natural shift" without pushing.Will they have sorted all the pollution problems of the manufacture of the battery systems by 2040 ?
Let alone the recycling of all the toxic stuff from knackered electric cars and batteries.
Our national grid can barely cope with demand during peak times at the moment.
Imagine 30 million vehicles being plugged into the grid in the evenings.
By 2040 we might of finished the public enquiries into where the next new power station is going to be built .
Let alone the recycling of all the toxic stuff from knackered electric cars and batteries.
Our national grid can barely cope with demand during peak times at the moment.
Imagine 30 million vehicles being plugged into the grid in the evenings.
By 2040 we might of finished the public enquiries into where the next new power station is going to be built .
grumpy52 said:
Will they have sorted all the pollution problems of the manufacture of the battery systems by 2040 ?
Let alone the recycling of all the toxic stuff from knackered electric cars and batteries.
Our national grid can barely cope with demand during peak times at the moment.
Imagine 30 million vehicles being plugged into the grid in the evenings.
By 2040 we might of finished the public enquiries into where the next new power station is going to be built .
All valid questions. Let alone the recycling of all the toxic stuff from knackered electric cars and batteries.
Our national grid can barely cope with demand during peak times at the moment.
Imagine 30 million vehicles being plugged into the grid in the evenings.
By 2040 we might of finished the public enquiries into where the next new power station is going to be built .
Power usage is lowest at night, when cars will charge. At 12,000 miles year this is just 30 per day- i.e. most people will only need to charge say twice a week, for only 4 hours a time.
i have just had a home charger installed for free, and charging data is being sent back and analysed. So these issues are being studied and assessed.
So EVO now stands for Electric Vehicle Only? I started a thread on this a month back on the Classic forum, but in that case I got it totally wrong I admit, thinking that all engine-driven cars were banned from 2040. Turns out they can't be sold from then, but one of my cars is already 56 years old and running beautifully, the other just the same but a mere 50 years old, and as I'll be 94 by ten I am not too bothered. The problem is as to where my grandson will be able to buy petrol for them.
But the reason why teslas can go what 200miles? Without a charge is because the use of very rare and expensive raw materials for the motor (neodymium magnets I think they use, well my physics teacher told me haha) that's why a tesla will set you back what £70k+? And if 30million people in UK alone buy an electric car with this type of motor then it'll become even more expensive material to buy due to increased rarity. I honestly don't see this happening, sure pollution by vehicles is a big problem but I just don't think electric is the way forward. Surely if everyone who had an ICE vehicle and replaced them with an electric one, there'd be a power crisis? Surely the power plants wouldn't be able to cope with such an increase in usage, could be wrong but just thinking out loud here. Can't ban the enthusiast owning older petrol cars, be like banning people from living in old buildings/cottages due to being inefficient with central heating and costing more to heat up in the winter. Silly idea to ban petrol and diesel engines by 2040.
I do find it funny that some people post on here about how much cheaper electric cars will be to run. They are now, but not for long.
Never in the history of government decisions has anything be done to save people money. As soon as EVs have become commonplace they will cost at least as much as our current cars do to run.
I think the fuel duty revenue number is about £27b per annum at the moment. But that's of the top of my head, I may be wrong.
Never in the history of government decisions has anything be done to save people money. As soon as EVs have become commonplace they will cost at least as much as our current cars do to run.
I think the fuel duty revenue number is about £27b per annum at the moment. But that's of the top of my head, I may be wrong.
Plug Life said:
Because people are retarded like you and the vehicle manufacturers are happy to make the same polluting crap till the end of the world without external regulations. There's no "natural shift" without pushing.
I guess your mum never told you that it's not polite to call people names...Would you care to explain how the pollution reduces by burning the oil in a power plant instead of in an ICE? About 50% of the UK's energy is produced from fossil fuels at the moment. If the demand rises with EVs, and it will, you're just shifting the problem, not solving it...
suffolk009 said:
I do find it funny that some people post on here about how much cheaper electric cars will be to run. They are now, but not for long.
Never in the history of government decisions has anything be done to save people money. As soon as EVs have become commonplace they will cost at least as much as our current cars do to run.
I think the fuel duty revenue number is about £27b per annum at the moment. But that's of the top of my head, I may be wrong.
Quick Google shows £27b in 2014-15, but the number that's more concerning is ~75% of the price of fuel is tax. Disgusting really isnt itNever in the history of government decisions has anything be done to save people money. As soon as EVs have become commonplace they will cost at least as much as our current cars do to run.
I think the fuel duty revenue number is about £27b per annum at the moment. But that's of the top of my head, I may be wrong.
HedgeyGedgey said:
But the reason why teslas can go what 200miles? Without a charge is because the use of very rare and expensive raw materials for the motor (neodymium magnets I think they use, well my physics teacher told me haha) that's why a tesla will set you back what £70k+? And if 30million people in UK alone buy an electric car eith this type of motor then it's become even more expensive material to buy due to rarity. I honestly don't see this happening, sure pollution by vehicles is a big problem but I just don't think electric is the way forward. Surely if everyone who had an ICE vehicle and replaced them with an electric one, there'd be a power crisis? Surely the power plants wouldn't be able to cope with such an increase in usage, could be wrong but just thinking out loud here. Can't ban the enthusiast owning older petrol cars, be like banning people from living in old buildings/cottages due to being inefficient with central heating and costing more to heat up in the winter. Silly idea to ban petrol and diesel engines by 2040.
Tesla uses AC induction motors which do not utilise magnets. A Tesla uses no 'rare earth' metals such as neodynium (not that it is actually rare) in the battery or motor.PistonIan said:
It's not just generating capacity that will need uprating if we all move to electric vehicles, it's the entire electricity bearing infrastructure... Pylons, substations, underground cabling, etc. I doubt anyone has factored that into their calculations and costs?
I was wondering this - we'll need more capacity on everything. Nuclear? Then there's an obvious need for energy storage facilities to overcome the peaks and troughshttp://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff