RE: All good things come to an end in 2035

[nightflight]

I've not read all of this thread, so apologies if this has been covered. Anyway, as has been said, it's the sale of IC cars and not the fuel which is being banned, so us petrol heads can still drive IC cars. The question is though, if the majority of cars on the road are EV, and that majority continues to grow, for how long will the oil companies be able to supply petrol etc at an affordable price? There are so many problems with this idea, I can't see it happening. Just imagine it for people who don't have a driveway. All those cables across the pavements for people to trip over, or feral kids to start cutting them etc.

[rick.e]

nightflight said:

I've not read all of this thread, so apologies if this has been covered. Anyway, as has been said, it's the sale of IC cars and not the fuel which is being banned, so us petrol heads can still drive IC cars. The question is though, if the majority of cars on the road are EV, and that majority continues to grow, for how long will the oil companies be able to supply petrol etc at an affordable price? There are so many problems with this idea, I can't see it happening. Just imagine it for people who don't have a driveway. All those cables across the pavements for people to trip over, or feral kids to start cutting them etc.

You're right. Its all been covered. Several times.

[dbs2000]

nightflight said:

I've not read all of this thread, so apologies if this has been covered. Anyway, as has been said, it's the sale of IC cars and not the fuel which is being banned, so us petrol heads can still drive IC cars. The question is though, if the majority of cars on the road are EV, and that majority continues to grow, for how long will the oil companies be able to supply petrol etc at an affordable price? There are so many problems with this idea, I can't see it happening. Just imagine it for people who don't have a driveway. All those cables across the pavements for people to trip over, or feral kids to start cutting them etc.

Some streets are having lamposts converted, there are an awful lot of solutions out there, including pop up charge posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKaEhBjt1ls (lamp post)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frkw6aurVUY&t=... (popup)

If feral kids cut the cables then I guess Darwin will cure Thanos' (earlier poster) over population concerns

[Dog Star]

There's some really vehement and irrational anti-ev stuff on here - I think a lot of this is this sheep-like PH "V8 weekend toy" adenoidal fantasist nonsense.

The piston engine is an anachronism - it really shouldn't exist any more. If we were starting with a blank slate right now and designing cars for the first time do you really think they'd have IC piston engines? I really doubt it.

I love my cars and bikes but the whole electric thing makes more sense. The day they get 300 mile range and 5 minutes recharge time to 80% I reckon they've nailed it.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Dog Star said:

There's some really vehement and irrational anti-ev stuff on here - I think a lot of this is this sheep-like PH "V8 weekend toy" adenoidal fantasist nonsense.

twaddle

there is no reason ICE cars cant become the focus of the hobbiest and leave the daly driving to the eco cars, they have already been built so the big environmental hit has already happened, low use 1-2k mile a year especially on a bio fuel would have negligible environmental impact

exact same thing happened to horses when the car came out, horses became for recreational use

[u9ge]

Amazing going up through this thread how many appear to think that there will be no technological development over 15 years...

Also to help the debate I’ll leave this here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

The question that really needs answering is will TVR have started production by 2035?

Yes, but they will have gone subsequently bust in that timeframe after a handful of cars delivered.

May even be a young bod who wants to 'revive the brand's again 'cos his dad had one in 2004 AD.

You heard it here first.

[Zener]

Remember this ICE or EV it will be the governments/politicians who decide not scientists or environmentalists (them even less so) even if its proven EV's are more destructive to the planet so dont feel too bad we may get our desired choice

[anonymous-user]

Councils can't repair potholes, Government has taken how long and cost how much re HS2? How many new power stations are we building to cope with the demand, 1 at the moment? Some of the views across the North Wales coast have already started to be ruined by wind farms so no more of those please.

To think we will have the infrastructure in place by 2035, no chance, maybe by 2050.

ICE will become recreational like horses, Electric might be the way forward, personal cars may have gone by then, Hydrogen might be the long term answer, people seem to forget electric cars have been in development too for 100+ years!

I'd happily have an EV for my commute, it'd make perfect sense, i'll keep my other car for the weekend

[cookie1600]

Dog Star said:

The day they get 300 mile range and 5 minutes recharge time to 80% I reckon they've nailed it.

You're right.

But that day will not be in 2035....

[Zener]

Dave Hedgehog said:

twaddle

there is no reason ICE cars cant become the focus of the hobbiest and leave the daly driving to the eco cars, they have already been built so the big environmental hit has already happened, low use 1-2k mile a year especially on a bio fuel would have negligible environmental impact

exact same thing happened to horses when the car came out, horses became for recreational use

Yep ^

[Black S2K]

rick.e said:

monty quick said:

Max_Torque said:

So you think an EV makes more pollution to manufacture?

Wrong again i'm afraid.

The evidence is infact un-deniably in EVs favour right across the board.

At least I do not have to argue with you on this - because I know I am correct. However, I am happy to look at the evidence you are basing your confidence on

Last year I closely followed the publishing of a paper by a group of german scientists purporting to prove that the lifecycle carbon footprint of EVs is higher than ICEs, the various debunking responses from well qualified people over the following months, and the responses from the original authors debunking the debunkers. With the greatest of respect to you both, and not wishing to upset anybody, I suspect both sides of the debate were probably better informed than people on this thread. Nevertheless, after months of good evidence from both sides, there was no agreement reached on whose arguments were most flawed, because they both were. Seriously. For example one side made the bold assumption that in the future, Lithium would be fully recycled at end of battery life. The other side, based on good evidence from progress recycling other materials, assumed that very little woudl be recycled. Another example was assumptions made on decarbonising of electricity suppy - Germany and the US are still fairly carbon intensive, France isn't. And that is the problem! Both sides, both including experts in their field, relied on assumption after assumption which cannot at this stage be proved correct. What is theoretically achievable, or what is assumed, is not what will happen. I am physicist, so I think I could follow arguments from both sides, yet after several cycles of response and counter-response, I concluded that both positions were so flawed, that it was impossible to establish who was "correct".

Edited by rick.e on Thursday 6th February 08:45

Isn't that so often the case with very complex systems? Theorists are forced to rely on best assumptions and it invariably descends into chaos.

Entropy always wins!

The positive side is companies do respond to pressure; VAG has announced it's taking big steps on accountability wrt its sourcing of battery materials. It cannot afford another massive shaming, so it is perhaps more sensitive to this sort of thing than most.

It's for the serious environmental pressure groups (like Greenpeace used to be before its hijack and Patrick Moore left) to identify there issues and to engage with the industries. It's probably all largely fixable given the will.

[TyrannosauRoss Lex]

cookie1600 said:

Dog Star said:

The day they get 300 mile range and 5 minutes recharge time to 80% I reckon they've nailed it.

You're right.

But that day will not be in 2035....

I wouldn't necessarily be so sure. Advancements have come on a lot in the past 15 years, and the rate of that will likely increase now manufacturers are effectively being forced down this road, so more money will be spent in the development of EVs.

[dbs2000]

TyrannosauRoss Lex said:

I wouldn't necessarily be so sure. Advancements have come on a lot in the past 15 years, and the rate of that will likely increase now manufacturers are effectively being forced down this road, so more money will be spent in the development of EVs.

Agree 100%, I imagine we'll see solid state in the next 5 years and affordable 5 years after that.

[V8muscle]

This is interesting - https://youtu.be/Hatav_Rdnno

[theblueflash]

Great thread, still not read it all. Lots of speculation, some of which may come true. Exciting but also uncertain.

For me I'd happily sit in a green fuelled commuter rocket for my 9-5 A-B journey. If it meant that ice owners weren't persecuted and taxed for trying to enjoy a pastime of an evening or weekend.

This knee jerk reaction to implementing electric also seems a little rushed in its thought. Infrastructure is a worry but they seem confident it'll be in place by 2035. But the government contradicts itself by putting all it's eggs in the electric basket and showing very little faith in other technology. I'm not against electric in any way but are we seriously saying that ice engines for example will not be much cleaner by 2035? Look at how much cleaner they are now compared to 10 years ago. If we're so obsessed with our carbon footprint then would we not also allow retrofitting of older cars with newer technology to avoid scrapping perfectly good vehicle shells? Which I would personally welcome

More importantly what do us petrolheads do with our cars? I don't want to let the "fear" of the future dictate what I do with my life for the next 10+ years. Problem is no matter how confident you are it's still seems worth worrying about.

So do I sell my £20k sports car and upgrade to another dream car for £40k and enjoy my life.

Or do I let the fear get me and sell my sports car, and bank the cash. Just in case the market is non existent and I'm looking at a government grant for my once £40k car which is now only worth 5k against a new Nissan leaf.
In a future where I have to call ahead to make sure the garage have fuel in-stock and no one is there, so I don't get chased by electric owners with pitch forks because I have a hobby

[warch]

Btw for all the doom and gloomongers and knee jerkists who’ve posted on here look at how classic cars are being treated. My classic has zero road tax, haven’t paid that since the 90s, and no annual MoT. Not exactly being clamped down or restricted by modern legislation. I think ICE cars will go the same way.

[anonymous-user]

rick.e said:

Last year I closely followed the publishing of a paper by a group of german scientists purporting to prove that the lifecycle carbon footprint of EVs is higher than ICEs, the various debunking responses from well qualified people over the following months, and the responses from the original authors debunking the debunkers. With the greatest of respect to you both, and not wishing to upset anybody, I suspect both sides of the debate were probably better informed than people on this thread. Nevertheless, after months of good evidence from both sides, there was no agreement reached on whose arguments were most flawed, because they both were. Seriously. For example one side made the bold assumption that in the future, Lithium would be fully recycled at end of battery life. The other side, based on good evidence from progress recycling other materials, assumed that very little woudl be recycled. Another example was assumptions made on decarbonising of electricity suppy - Germany and the US are still fairly carbon intensive, France isn't. And that is the problem! Both sides, both including experts in their field, relied on assumption after assumption which cannot at this stage be proved correct. What is theoretically achievable, or what is assumed, is not what will happen. I am physicist, so I think I could follow arguments from both sides, yet after several cycles of response and counter-response, I concluded that both positions were so flawed, that it was impossible to establish who was "correct".

Good post. It also depends how far down the carbon rabbit hole you want to go. What is the carbon footprint of building a new Gigafactory vs. reusing the same post war shed you've been using for 70 years? What is the carbon footprint of employing people who have to commute vs building and running robots? It's endless.

[anonymous-user]

warch said:

Btw for all the doom and gloomongers and knee jerkists who’ve posted on here look at how classic cars are being treated. My classic has zero road tax, haven’t paid that since the 90s, and no annual MoT. Not exactly being clamped down or restricted by modern legislation. I think ICE cars will go the same way.

I think, and hope, you're right. Worst case we'll be like people who own and ride horses today although hopefully we'll still be allowed to use motorways!

[u9ge]

TyrannosauRoss Lex said:

cookie1600 said:

Dog Star said:

The day they get 300 mile range and 5 minutes recharge time to 80% I reckon they've nailed it.

You're right.

But that day will not be in 2035....

I wouldn't necessarily be so sure. Advancements have come on a lot in the past 15 years, and the rate of that will likely increase now manufacturers are effectively being forced down this road, so more money will be spent in the development of EVs.

Hmmm... this is awkward but that said, a V3 supercharger will only deliver you 75 miles, so 24% in 5 minutes

eletrek.co said:

Due to continued engineering progress of the Model Y all-wheel drive (AWD), we have been able to increase its maximum EPA range to 315 miles, compared to our previous estimate of 280 miles. This extends Model Y’s lead as the most energy-efficient electric SUV in the world.