RE: All good things come to an end in 2035

RE: All good things come to an end in 2035

Author
Discussion

otolith

41,368 posts

159 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
monty quick said:
Even if it was physically possible to provide enough charging locations for 30million cars (which I continue to suggest is IMPOSSIBLE) does anyone believe this level of investment and rate of installation will be achieved in the UK by the late 2030's? If you do, I suggest you may be one of the rare people that believed HS2 would be on-time and on-budget!!
We already have tens of millions of charging locations. Most cars , most of the time, will be charged by their owners using their owner's infrastructure.

As you point out, early take-up will necessarily be by the better off because there aren't so many old EVs about. Wealthier people are more likely than not to have off road parking or a garage. In 2010, 66% of households had a garage or other off street parking. And those households which only have street parking are disproportionately the poorer ones - 73% of local authority tenants vs 20% of owner occupiers. That is reflected in the car ownership - about 70% of households with one car had a garage or other off street parking, over 80% of two car households and over 90% of three car households.







https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

kiseca

8,015 posts

174 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
monty quick said:
My final comment;
Several of the people here are making a case for EV's as of today. There is absolutely nothing wrong with EV's today.

In the UK the statistics show that 7% of all cars are 'alternative fuel'. It is estimated that pure EV represents about 2% of UK cars. Allow me a very rough extrapolation = 600,000 pure EV cars out of 30million UK cars (not vans or trucks).
Allow me an even more outrageous generalisation:- most of these pure EV cars are currently company cars or cars owned by middle to upper middle class drivers. Many of these drivers have dedicated charging points at their place of work and can comfortably charge at home.
Fact - the existing public charging infrastructure is close to full capacity (even Tesla accept that they are not rolling out charge points fast enough to meet demand). That was the situation before the announcement that new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars will be banned. Now the pressure is on to move away from a vehicle technology that has been the norm for over 100years to something new in just 15years and only one technology is currently commercially available i.e. pure EV

Even if it was physically possible to provide enough charging locations for 30million cars (which I continue to suggest is IMPOSSIBLE) does anyone believe this level of investment and rate of installation will be achieved in the UK by the late 2030's? If you do, I suggest you may be one of the rare people that believed HS2 would be on-time and on-budget!!
Up until 2035 ICE cars will still be on sale. Assuming the government by then, which in 15 years may well have changed hands, interests, policies and possibly even parties 3 times, hasn't noticed that the infrastructure isn't ready and pushed the ban back another 5 years in the hope that it becomes the next government's problem to execute, in 2035 30 million vehicles supported by the infrastructure in place at the time aren't suddenly going to be scrapped and replaced by 30 million EVs.

Either, by 2035 demand and infrastructure have changed enough that most vehicles are already EVs, or by 2035 we have up to 30 million ICE vehicles at various stages of their lives gradually being replaced over the next 10 - 15 years by EVs.

Yes there will be disruption, there always is when you change anything significant. But it's a part of change. If we had no disruption, nothing would ever have changed. And some people will gain, and some will lose out. I'd guess those that prepare best will be more likely to gain.

warch

2,152 posts

109 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
I'd read the new cutoff for the end of sales of petrol and diesel cars as more a statement of intent rather than a cast iron immovable deadline.

I'd assume there will be exemptions to allow smaller concerns, i.e. Caterham to keep building cars with ICE, and certainly there will still be engines built and overhauled. Fuel will still be available, even if it isn't actually petrol or diesel, ethanol or bio diesel for example.

Middlechild

12 posts

16 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
I don't see the PM, MP's, the Royals, delivery vans, artics, farm machinery, generators and well heeled London mob driving Electric vehicles, setting an example, or the demise of motor sport powered by ICE's!
The Electric Formula E is like watching Scalextrix, awful!
The motorist has always been the lowest hanging fruit, buy diesel we were told and now it has depreciated so much I have to keep it for another 15years!
Nobody in their right mind is going to buy an overpriced electric SUV and find the battery technology has changed in the next 3 years and made it unsaleable.
It's the same with solar panels, wait until the development has been done then invest, but not until!
Can you imagine electric motorbikes making no noise!
Once a petrolhead, always a petrolhead!

otolith

41,368 posts

159 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Middlechild said:
Nobody in their right mind is going to buy an overpriced electric SUV and find the battery technology has changed in the next 3 years and made it unsaleable.
Hardly anyone buys any new cars, they just lease or PCP them and let someone else take the residual risk. So not a problem.

Volant

98 posts

83 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Well, yes but no, PCP works due to a projected value at the end. If the value were to be 20p because the car was worthless, PCP would be prohibitively expensive.

But there won’t be 30/40/50 million cars on the road. Most on this forum probably still will have their own, but in wider society, most won’t.

What is really crackers is so many people having their own car, that is stationary for 23 and a half hours a day, or whatever the average is....

Fractional ownership is coming. Zipcar on a massive scale, full of generation z being driven autonomously.

Dave Hedgehog

12,803 posts

159 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Middlechild said:
I don't see the PM, MP's, the Royals, delivery vans,
as its still early days there are hardly any available, that will change


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/19/amazon-is-purchasi...

farm machinery is a tiny % of fossil fuel usage, a lot of the kit is only used a couple of days a year


warch

2,152 posts

109 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all


Saw this a few weeks ago.

himselfunknown

11 posts

145 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
nightflight said:
monty quick said:
I am not pro EV nor anti-EV. I just feel that 'banning' petrol and diesel is too heavy handed. Yes, I know ICE are inherently inefficient but look at the improvements that have been made over the last 15years and then consider what might be possible in another 15 years.

The whole life carbon cost of a typical small EV (at the moment) is far worse than the whole life carbon cost of an equivalent ICE vehicle (in sheer whole life calculations a Tesla X would equate to something like two Range Rovers) AT THE MOMENT!!! Of course this will improve.
All battery chemistries have a defined (and relatively short) life and the faster you charge the batteries the shorter life gets. Therefore, EV charging will always need many minutes.

My problem is therefore infrastructure. Just for my doomsday scenario bear with me. Imagine that in 2038 almost all of the 40million + cars in the UK are now EV's.

Now imagine just about any street, in any town that has 1930's - 1960's terraced houses both sides of the road. Almost every house has one car on the front garden and a second car crammed somewhere on the street (two wheels up the kerb to allow traffic to flow). Now imagine all of the heavy duty cables running to those cars from charging points in the houses (somewhere else??); imaging the old electricity infrastructure almost glowing red due to being overloaded; imaging the thieves at night coming along and stealing all that expensive copper wire, etc., etc. OK, not all the cars can get connected at home - that's OK they can drive to the dedicated public charging points (somewhere??) but 'oh no' there are already 25 cars connected and another 5 waiting - damn! Some of those cars are fully charged but the owners have gone off shopping!

Yes of course I am painting a 'worst case' picture but tell me; with reducing fuel tax revenues juts how is the EV infrastructure going to avoid my doomsday scenario??

This is why I keep hoping that Hydrogen Fuel Cells can be rapidly and dramatically developed because then some of those 40million vehicles could still just pop into the service station for a 'fill-up'.
Well said. I accept that the majority of cars are going to be EV, and I think that is where the problem will be for petrolheads who want to continue with their toys just for weekends etc. Will it be viable for the petrol companies to still produce petrol and deliver it to petrol stations? Perhaps if we go for hydrogen vehicles (which seem a more practical answer), then we can have petrol pumps and hydrogen pumps at the same points.
There are other fuels out there (bioLPG/bioethanol) that could replace petrol either directly or with minimal modification to current ICE's. And be 100% renewable/sustainable too. However, they need more funding/research, that is currently being gobbled up by the EV market.

otolith

41,368 posts

159 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Why would the research budget of people who make cars be gobbling up the research budget of people who make fuels from plants?

Max_Torque

15,176 posts

172 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
Black S2K said:
Just for clarification, when people claim that the bigger Teslas/Ian Paices/etc are the least energy-efficient BEVs as they are so large, that's more due to frontal area than due to their mass?

Or are you just referring to the more typical urban driving environment as opposed to overall?
The larger SUV's are higher consumers for a couple of main reasons:

1) Yes they are heavier - being heavier does use more energy. A 2 .4 tonne ETRON uses more energy than a 1.2 tonne i3. (both use less energy to change the speed of their mass than does an equivalently heavy ICE, because they can recover 70% of that energy)

2) They have a large frontal area - their drag co-efficient might not be that bad (although it often is) but overal drag is the frontal area multipled by the co-efficient, so being large and tall they are draggy overall (and usually lots of room for air to blow around underneath causing yet more drag)

3) They run massive wheels and tyres - again, much more drag

4) They are often trying to be "sporty". Pretty much everything you do to make a car sporty is in direct opposition to that what you'd do to make a car a low consumer of energy. Wide, soft tyres, lots of camber and castor to get high lateral grip and good on-centre steering feel, big brake discs and calipers all add drag

5) People who buy big SUVs do so expecting to be comfortable. Hence cabin HVAC loads are high (lots of cabin to heat or cool, lots of glass area so a high solar load etc)

and an additional real world reason is

6) They tend to be driven much,much more aggressively than say a mid sized EV like a nissan leaf. Higher average speed, harder acceleration, more agressive use of throttle and regen, and sometime the brakes too!

HertsBiker

6,267 posts

226 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
rick.e said:
As has been said several times, this is not a problem. We currently have 65GW worth of generation capacity, needed to cope with peak demand. Our average demand is only 35GW. So when smart grid is implemented (the intelligent scheduling of demand to even out peaks and troughs), we have enough generation capacity to run 70M electric cars at average 7000 miles per year. We currently oy have 30M cars, so plenty of capacity. (In simple terms, smart grid gives you the choice between running an appliance immediately, or having it monitor the grid and switch on in times of low demand at a preferential tariff. Your non urgent charging, or dishwashing, can be done at 4am)
I believe you are incorrect. I googled peak UK output, the number of vehicles we have, average milage, and if my sums are correct... we have a deficit of 65tWh if we all did 7900 miles a year at 4 miles per kWh.
But respectfully, I may be wrong. I hope I am, bit if I'm not, we are in deep st.

RSTurboPaul

1,734 posts

213 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
HertsBiker said:
rick.e said:
As has been said several times, this is not a problem. We currently have 65GW worth of generation capacity, needed to cope with peak demand. Our average demand is only 35GW. So when smart grid is implemented (the intelligent scheduling of demand to even out peaks and troughs), we have enough generation capacity to run 70M electric cars at average 7000 miles per year. We currently oy have 30M cars, so plenty of capacity. (In simple terms, smart grid gives you the choice between running an appliance immediately, or having it monitor the grid and switch on in times of low demand at a preferential tariff. Your non urgent charging, or dishwashing, can be done at 4am)
I believe you are incorrect. I googled peak UK output, the number of vehicles we have, average milage, and if my sums are correct... we have a deficit of 65tWh if we all did 7900 miles a year at 4 miles per kWh.
But respectfully, I may be wrong. I hope I am, bit if I'm not, we are in deep st.
I can't believe that a 'smart grid' would extend to individual appliances within a household (i.e. behind a 'smart meter'), or that we will ever have the grid capacity and production capacity to provide all the electric we need (even more so when we are told we can't burn fossil fuels and have to rely on allegedly sustainable forms of energy capture/realisation) so I can only assume that at some point, when demand peaks are likely to occur, there will be need to 'manage demand' - by which I mean 'stop people getting the electricity they want' by turning off / restricting the maximum capacity of given smart meters.

But who decides who gets switched off / throttled? Would we just have to suck it up and pretend we're living in East Germany or a developing country because 'the powers that be' have decreed that we cannot have enough electric to wash our diarrhoea-ridden children's clothes / charge the car for the 11pm shift we have to get to / heat the water for a shower before we go to work in the morning? I doubt that will be seen as improving the quality of life for people, no matter how noble the alleged cause.

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 7th February 22:16

RemarkLima

853 posts

167 months

Friday 7th February
quotequote all
RSTurboPaul said:
HertsBiker said:
rick.e said:
As has been said several times, this is not a problem. We currently have 65GW worth of generation capacity, needed to cope with peak demand. Our average demand is only 35GW. So when smart grid is implemented (the intelligent scheduling of demand to even out peaks and troughs), we have enough generation capacity to run 70M electric cars at average 7000 miles per year. We currently oy have 30M cars, so plenty of capacity. (In simple terms, smart grid gives you the choice between running an appliance immediately, or having it monitor the grid and switch on in times of low demand at a preferential tariff. Your non urgent charging, or dishwashing, can be done at 4am)
I believe you are incorrect. I googled peak UK output, the number of vehicles we have, average milage, and if my sums are correct... we have a deficit of 65tWh if we all did 7900 miles a year at 4 miles per kWh.
But respectfully, I may be wrong. I hope I am, bit if I'm not, we are in deep st.
I can't believe that a 'smart grid' would extend to individual appliances within a household (i.e. behind a 'smart meter'), or that we will ever have the grid capacity and production capacity to provide all the electric we need (even more so when we are told we can't burn fossil fuels and have to rely on allegedly sustainable forms of energy capture/realisation) so I can only assume that at some point, when demand peaks are likely to occur, there will be need to 'manage demand' - by which I mean 'stop people getting the electricity they want' by turning off / restricting the maximum capacity of given smart meters.

But who decides who gets switched off / throttled? Would we just have to suck it up and pretend we're living in East Germany or a developing country because 'the powers that be' have decreed that we cannot have enough electric to wash our diarrhoea-ridden children's clothes / charge the car for the 11pm shift we have to get to / heat the water for a shower before we go to work in the morning? I doubt that will be seen as improving the quality of life for people, no matter how noble the alleged cause.

Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 7th February 22:16
More likely you have a recycled car battery strapped to the wall which is trickle charged by the grid at low demand times, this is the buffer to let you run your life as normal... Or you don't pay for the convenience and have to manage your own power usage based upon what you have available.

We really do have it easy at the moment compared to any other point in history!

Mr Tidy

11,388 posts

82 months

Saturday 8th February
quotequote all
SidewaysSi said:
What BMW do you have?
These 3 just now!





I bought the Z4MC in December to replace the Z4 3.0Si that is currently for sale, and the E90 is my 330i daily. I do like an N/A straight 6 petrol with a manual gearbox and RWD! rolleyes

In all fairness an EV would do 99% of the trips my E90 does, but I'd still have the charging problem with the cable(s) over the fence in the background. And now and again I'll go to watch a race meeting at Silverstone, Castle Coombe, Thruxton or Brands Hatch and if more than one mate is joining me there would be a problem as the Z4 is a 2 seater and most current EVs wouldn't get us home!

Still so far it's only a ban on selling new cars with an ICE in 2035 and not wanting to sound selfish, as I'll be in my 70s by then it will probably never affect me.

On another note both my Mum and sister live in Sutton and I've seen a few Met Police BMW i3s - I wonder if they have the range extender? And will that be outlawed in 2035?


broombroomcar

3,734 posts

53 months

Saturday 8th February
quotequote all
This is more than likely a controversial suggestion - all ICE motor racing should be banned. At least with cars on the road, you are going somewhere. Not many people go out for a drive these days - the ones that do are on here, so very few.

No doubt people will say the revenue involved in motorsports, but it is not necessary in terms of emissions.

Pommy

10,837 posts

171 months

Saturday 8th February
quotequote all
broombroomcar said:
This is more than likely a controversial suggestion - all ICE motor racing should be banned. At least with cars on the road, you are going somewhere. Not many people go out for a drive these days - the ones that do are on here, so very few.

No doubt people will say the revenue involved in motorsports, but it is not necessary in terms of emissions.
Im thinking a field full of cows emit more emissions in a year than a year of the entire UK motorsport calendar

Kolbenkopp

2,258 posts

106 months

Saturday 8th February
quotequote all
broombroomcar said:
This is more than likely a controversial suggestion - all ICE motor racing should be banned. At least with cars on the road, you are going somewhere. Not many people go out for a drive these days - the ones that do are on here, so very few.

No doubt people will say the revenue involved in motorsports, but it is not necessary in terms of emissions.
Much more effective to ban football, around 12 times worse (with all the fans driving around to see matches) than a full season of F1. And a lot more boring IMO.

Mr Tidy

11,388 posts

82 months

Saturday 8th February
quotequote all
broombroomcar said:
This is more than likely a controversial suggestion - all ICE motor racing should be banned. At least with cars on the road, you are going somewhere. Not many people go out for a drive these days - the ones that do are on here, so very few.

No doubt people will say the revenue involved in motorsports, but it is not necessary in terms of emissions.
Very controversial, but now we have left the EU we just need to ban cheating German F1 drivers because we can add an element of fairness at last!

If Motor Racing had no ICE input I wouldn't bother with it - I don't care who makes the best hair-dryer!

And I do go out for a drive from time to time. laugh





SidewaysSi

7,365 posts

189 months

Saturday 8th February
quotequote all
Mr Tidy said:
SidewaysSi said:
What BMW do you have?
These 3 just now!





I bought the Z4MC in December to replace the Z4 3.0Si that is currently for sale, and the E90 is my 330i daily. I do like an N/A straight 6 petrol with a manual gearbox and RWD! rolleyes

In all fairness an EV would do 99% of the trips my E90 does, but I'd still have the charging problem with the cable(s) over the fence in the background. And now and again I'll go to watch a race meeting at Silverstone, Castle Coombe, Thruxton or Brands Hatch and if more than one mate is joining me there would be a problem as the Z4 is a 2 seater and most current EVs wouldn't get us home!

Still so far it's only a ban on selling new cars with an ICE in 2035 and not wanting to sound selfish, as I'll be in my 70s by then it will probably never affect me.

On another note both my Mum and sister live in Sutton and I've seen a few Met Police BMW i3s - I wonder if they have the range extender? And will that be outlawed in 2035?
They look amazing. What cars did you have before?