RE: Consultation on engine phase out closes tonight
Tuesday 18th February 2025
Consultation on engine phase out closes tonight
Don't miss the chance to tell the UK government exactly what you think about the sale of combustion cars ending
Fair warning: you have till just before midnight tonight to make your thoughts known to the government about the phasing out of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 and what exactly the so-called zero-emission transition period until 2035 will look like. The accompanying ZEV mandate, which may sound like the sort of poorly conceived plot device that would have Ethan Hunt frowning for the first hour of a Mission Impossible - but is in fact a poorly conceived plot of the government’s own making - has caused a similar amount of frowning about the pace and obvious pitfalls of so much change.
The consultation - which you can find here - asks 17 questions, some pertinent, others redundant, in the job of investigating and documenting varied opinion. As you might expect, they are partly a reflection of the pickle the Department for Transport finds itself in. For a start (and without wishing to dredge up what now seems like ancient history) the date chosen for banning the sale of new cars powered exclusively by petrol and diesel was plucked from the air like a small child guessing the age at which they will get married. It bore no relationship to the reality of the market nor the will of the consumer nor the pace of technology nor the implementation of the required infrastructure. It merely sounded good when Boris Johnson first mentioned it.
Little wonder then that it has become a political football to be tediously kicked back and forth. At any rate, leaving all that to one side, for now the 2030 deadline stands in the UK - although it is the stark reality of its imprudence that has triggered all the handwringing about what comes next. Plug-in hybrids exclusively? If so, which sort and with how much range? Or hybrids of all kinds? Where does hydrogen enter the mix? Or range-extenders? Or synthetic fuel for that matter? As you might imagine, the government’s failure to confirm precisely what it means by ‘hybrid’ has meant plenty of second-guessing among carmakers, and doubtless a fair amount of lobbying.
Certainly the consultation process will have taken in their views on the subject. Just last month, when PH spoke to Adrain Hallmark about the future of Aston Martin, he was poised for an additional round of talks with the powers that be. If PH had to guess, the definition of what manufacturers can sell after 2030 will likely end up taking a fairly liberal view of what it means to be a hybrid - one that accommodates the vast majority of newer solutions already being built at scale. A more stringent alternative would only serve to further limit the choice of cars available to the customer at ever greater cost, as well as hamper an industry not concerned exclusively with the UK’s mostly arbitrary choice of rules (especially as its combustion phase-out fails to align with the 2035 one set by the EU).
In all likelihood, the large-scale OEMs will have expended just as much energy attempting to have the existing ZEV mandate watered down. The government’s ill-judged attempt to force carmakers to sell an ever-increasing percentage of EVs - and face fines if they do not meet the annual target - has arguably proved a bigger thorn in the side for some than the 2030 cliff edge, mostly for its detachment from showroom-based reality. Even with the delays and loopholes already available to manufacturers, it would not be a shock to find the government bringing a carrot to bear on the situation, even as it wields a stick on pure combustion.
For low-volume carmakers - typically those that rely more heavily on combustion in its purest form - the immediate future is less stark than the long-term one. The government has already tentatively acknowledged that there is precedent for treating those making fewer than 2,500 cars a year differently, and it seems probable they will officially be excluded from the 2030 deadline. But unless something changes in the meantime, they will almost certainly be made to adhere to the outright ban on CO2 emissions looming in 2035. Probably nothing we say will prevent that future from coming to pass - but if you’re willing to send an email to zevmandate@dft.gov.uk before 11.59pm tonight, at least no one can say you didn’t try.
Phasing out sales of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 and supporting the ZEV transition - click here for the response form
Discussion
Consultations are only done for window dressing qe are going to ban ice early and then watch as our transport infrastructure crumbles. This goverment are 7 months in an I think have built zero homes, raised taxes, given above inflation pay rises to train drivers (when train uses age is still below pre covid levels). I would not be surprised if a major OEM pulls out of the UK completely or only offers LHD cars.
Clicked on the link out of curiosity….
You have to then click another link to download load a PDF which needs to be emailed or posted in once completed.
The Nudge Unit have played a blinder here; the process has been designed to minimise responses as there are far easier ways to solicit views online. Proof positive of what others have said already - they neither care nor want to understand our views as the decisions are already made.
You have to then click another link to download load a PDF which needs to be emailed or posted in once completed.
The Nudge Unit have played a blinder here; the process has been designed to minimise responses as there are far easier ways to solicit views online. Proof positive of what others have said already - they neither care nor want to understand our views as the decisions are already made.
To be fair, the consultation has been quite clear it is not about whether the ICE only ban is happening or not, but rather, how it will happen. It is also clear it is not consulting on changes to the timelines or ZEV targets. Clearly they're not going to listen to any comments about what is explicitly outside the scope of the consultation. That ship has sailed.
It is primarily focussed on the definition of allowable hybrids between 2030 and 2035 and the emissions trading options available to manufacturers during that period.
It also goes as far as stating that mild hybrids will not be allowed either. Obviously, a lot of the PH article is written to try and stoke arguments on the forum to encourage higher levels of traffic to the site.
It is primarily focussed on the definition of allowable hybrids between 2030 and 2035 and the emissions trading options available to manufacturers during that period.
It also goes as far as stating that mild hybrids will not be allowed either. Obviously, a lot of the PH article is written to try and stoke arguments on the forum to encourage higher levels of traffic to the site.
I have recently completed my responses to the UK Government’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate Consultation. If you find them useful, feel free to copy, modify, or reference them in your own submission. The more aligned voices there are, the greater the potential for a positive outcome.
Question 1: Do you agree with the Government’s view that full hybrid and plug-in hybrid technologies only should be considered? Please explain your answer.
Answer. No, I do not agree with the Government’s view that only full hybrid and plug-in hybrid technologies should be considered. A blanket approach that prioritises these technologies while disregarding the advancements in internal combustion engine (ICE) technology and alternative fuels is restrictive, potentially detrimental to economic growth, and does not fully account for technological innovation and infrastructure readiness.
Question 2: Do you prefer a technological definition that permits both HEVs and PHEVs, or a technological definition that permits PHEVs only? Please explain your answer.
Answer. I prefer a technological definition that permits both HEVs (Hybrid Electric Vehicles) and PHEVs (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles), but also extends to advanced ICE vehicles using sustainable fuels. Restricting the definition solely to PHEVs is unnecessarily limiting and does not account for technological advancements, infrastructure challenges, and consumer needs.
Question 3: Do you support no further CO2 requirements, a vehicle level CO2 cap, or a fleetwide CO2 requirement? Please explain your answer.
Answer. I support a fleetwide CO₂ requirement rather than a vehicle-level cap or the absence of further CO₂ regulations. A fleetwide approach provides the necessary balance between environmental responsibility, technological flexibility, and economic sustainability, allowing manufacturers to achieve emissions reductions in a more strategic and commercially viable manner.
Question 4: Should a minimum range be required for new PHEVs and, if so, at what level should it be set? Please explain your answer.
Answer. A minimum electric range for new Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) should not be set arbitrarily, but rather determined based on practical use cases, technological feasibility, and infrastructure readiness. While ensuring that PHEVs deliver genuine environmental benefits is important, a rigid one-size-fits-all requirement could lead to unintended consequences, such as higher vehicle costs, reduced model availability, and a decline in consumer adoption.
Question 5: Do you agree with the Government’s intention not to establish a technological definition for the specification of new non-ZE vans that may be sold from 2030? Please explain your answer.
Answer. Yes, I agree with the Government’s intention not to establish a rigid technological definition for the specification of new non-Zero Emission (non-ZE) vans from 2030. A technology-neutral approach allows for greater innovation, flexibility, and a more practical transition for businesses that rely on commercial vehicles.
Question 6: What are your views on establishing a CO₂ requirement for vans from 2030? What is your preferred measure, if any, and at what level should the target be set? Please explain your answer.
Answer. I support establishing a CO₂ requirement for vans from 2030, but this should be based on a fleetwide approach rather than rigid vehicle-level targets. The requirement should allow technological flexibility, taking into account operational needs, infrastructure limitations, and the diverse use cases of commercial vans. A balanced, phased target that aligns with realistic technological and economic developments is preferable to an overly aggressive approach that could disrupt industries.
Question 7: What would be the impact to the economy and to UK society of any new or additional non-ZEV CO2 requirements in the van sector from 2030? Please explain your answer and provide evidence where possible.
Answer. The introduction of new or additional CO₂ requirements for non-Zero Emission Vehicles (non-ZEV) in the van sector from 2030 would have significant economic and societal impacts, particularly on business costs, supply chains, employment, and regional inequalities. While emissions reduction is a critical goal, overly stringent regulations without sufficient infrastructure and technological readiness could lead to higher costs, reduced operational efficiency, and unintended economic consequences.
Question 8: What are your views on current measures to support demand for zero emission vehicles? What additional measures could further support the transition?
Answer. The UK government has implemented several measures to encourage the adoption of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs), such as grants, tax
incentives, and infrastructure investments. While these initiatives have helped increase uptake, challenges remain, particularly in vehicle affordability, charging infrastructure, and fleet transition support. To accelerate adoption and ensure a practical and equitable transition, additional measures should focus on reducing upfront costs, expanding charging networks, and addressing fleet and commercial sector challenges.
Question 9: What are your views on whether small volume manufacturers (between 1,000 and 2,499 registrations) should be subject to the 2030 requirements for cars and/or vans?
Answer. Small volume manufacturers (SVMs) play a unique role in the automotive industry, often specialising in niche, high-performance, luxury, or specialist commercial vehicles. Applying the same 2030 zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) requirements to SVMs as large-scale manufacturers could have disproportionate economic consequences, potentially stifling innovation, increasing costs, and threatening business viability. A more flexible, phased approach or targeted exemptions for SVMs would ensure emissions reduction targets are met without unnecessarily harming a vital sector of the UK automotive industry.
Question 10: What are your views on whether micro-volume manufacturers (fewer than 1,000 annual registrations) should be subject to the 2030 requirements for cars and/or vans?
Answer. Micro-volume manufacturers (MVMs) produce highly specialised vehicles, often for niche, bespoke, or heritage markets. Applying the same 2030 zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) requirements as large-scale manufacturers would be disproportionate and could threaten their survival. Given their limited impact on total emissions, their role in automotive craftsmanship, heritage preservation, and innovation, and the significant cost barriers to electrification, MVMs should be granted an exemption or an extended compliance timeline.
Question 11: What is your opinion on exemptions for Special Purpose Vehicles from the 2030 requirements for cars and vans?
Answer. Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) serve unique and often essential roles that standard passenger or commercial vehicles cannot fulfil. Imposing strict 2030 zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) requirements on SPVs without exemptions could create significant operational, technical, and financial challenges for industries that rely on these vehicles. Given their low production volumes, specialised applications, and the current technological limitations of zero-emission alternatives, SPVs should be exempt from the 2030 requirements or granted an extended compliance timeline to ensure practicality and continuity in essential services.
Question 12: What is your opinion on exemptions for kit cars from the 2030 requirements for cars and vans?
Answer. Kit cars represent a small-volume, enthusiast-driven segment of the UK automotive industry, contributing to heritage preservation, engineering craftsmanship, and automotive innovation. Given their low annual production, minimal contribution to total vehicle emissions, and the impracticality of mandating zero-emission alternatives, kit cars should be exempt from the 2030 ZEV requirements. Applying full compliance would threaten the viability of this sector, undermine automotive hobbyists and small manufacturers, and offer little tangible environmental benefit.
Part 2: Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Updates
Question 13: Are the time limits on the current flexibilities in the ZEV Mandate for cars and for vans still appropriate? Please explain your answer.
Answer. The current time limits on ZEV Mandate flexibilities for cars and vans may not be fully appropriate, given the challenges in infrastructure readiness, vehicle affordability, and commercial sector transition timelines. While setting clear long-term targets is essential for industry planning, rigid time constraints could lead to unintended consequences, such as supply shortages, higher costs, and disruptions to businesses that rely on non-ZEV vehicles. A phased, adaptive approach that considers real-world adoption rates and market conditions would be more effective in achieving a practical and sustainable transition.
Question 14: What are your views on the proposal to implement a van-car transfer in VETS? Please explain your answer.
Answer. The proposal to implement a van-to-car transfer mechanism in the Vehicle Emissions Trading Scheme (VETS) has potential benefits in providing flexibility to manufacturers and balancing ZEV adoption across different vehicle categories. However, it also raises concerns about fairness, effectiveness, and the potential unintended consequences for van operators and businesses. A carefully structured approach, with clear safeguards and limitations, is necessary to ensure that the policy supports a practical and balanced transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs).
Question 15: Are there other flexibilities that should be considered within VETS for cars and vans?
Answer. While the Vehicle Emissions Trading Scheme (VETS) provides essential flexibility in transitioning to Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs), additional measures could help address industry challenges, support SMEs, and ensure a smoother transition. These should include sector-specific allowances, phased compliance mechanisms, alternative technology recognition, and adjustments for infrastructure limitations.
Question 16: Do you agree that VETS should be amended to account for the UF change? If so, do you agree with the proposal set out? Please explain your answer.
Answer. Amending the Vehicle Emissions Trading Scheme (VETS) to account for the Utility Factor (UF) change is a necessary step to align policy with real-world emissions data, ensuring that Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) are accurately credited based on their actual zero-emission driving share. While the principle of updating the UF is sound, the specific implementation details must be carefully evaluated to avoid unintended consequences, particularly for commercial operators, fleet managers, and manufacturers still investing in hybrid technologies.
Question 17: Do you agree with the proposal to allow UK derived or EU derived WLTP specific emission reference targets to apply from 2021-2023 in the United Kingdom, and in 2024 in Northern Ireland? If not, why?
Answer. Allowing UK-derived or EU-derived WLTP (Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicles Test Procedure) emission reference targets to apply in the UK from 2021–2023 and in Northern Ireland from 2024 provides regulatory continuity and maintains alignment with international emissions standards. While this approach is generally pragmatic, the long-term divergence between UK and EU targets should be carefully managed to avoid regulatory confusion, market distortions, and competitiveness risks for UK manufacturers.
Question 1: Do you agree with the Government’s view that full hybrid and plug-in hybrid technologies only should be considered? Please explain your answer.
Answer. No, I do not agree with the Government’s view that only full hybrid and plug-in hybrid technologies should be considered. A blanket approach that prioritises these technologies while disregarding the advancements in internal combustion engine (ICE) technology and alternative fuels is restrictive, potentially detrimental to economic growth, and does not fully account for technological innovation and infrastructure readiness.
Question 2: Do you prefer a technological definition that permits both HEVs and PHEVs, or a technological definition that permits PHEVs only? Please explain your answer.
Answer. I prefer a technological definition that permits both HEVs (Hybrid Electric Vehicles) and PHEVs (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles), but also extends to advanced ICE vehicles using sustainable fuels. Restricting the definition solely to PHEVs is unnecessarily limiting and does not account for technological advancements, infrastructure challenges, and consumer needs.
Question 3: Do you support no further CO2 requirements, a vehicle level CO2 cap, or a fleetwide CO2 requirement? Please explain your answer.
Answer. I support a fleetwide CO₂ requirement rather than a vehicle-level cap or the absence of further CO₂ regulations. A fleetwide approach provides the necessary balance between environmental responsibility, technological flexibility, and economic sustainability, allowing manufacturers to achieve emissions reductions in a more strategic and commercially viable manner.
Question 4: Should a minimum range be required for new PHEVs and, if so, at what level should it be set? Please explain your answer.
Answer. A minimum electric range for new Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) should not be set arbitrarily, but rather determined based on practical use cases, technological feasibility, and infrastructure readiness. While ensuring that PHEVs deliver genuine environmental benefits is important, a rigid one-size-fits-all requirement could lead to unintended consequences, such as higher vehicle costs, reduced model availability, and a decline in consumer adoption.
Question 5: Do you agree with the Government’s intention not to establish a technological definition for the specification of new non-ZE vans that may be sold from 2030? Please explain your answer.
Answer. Yes, I agree with the Government’s intention not to establish a rigid technological definition for the specification of new non-Zero Emission (non-ZE) vans from 2030. A technology-neutral approach allows for greater innovation, flexibility, and a more practical transition for businesses that rely on commercial vehicles.
Question 6: What are your views on establishing a CO₂ requirement for vans from 2030? What is your preferred measure, if any, and at what level should the target be set? Please explain your answer.
Answer. I support establishing a CO₂ requirement for vans from 2030, but this should be based on a fleetwide approach rather than rigid vehicle-level targets. The requirement should allow technological flexibility, taking into account operational needs, infrastructure limitations, and the diverse use cases of commercial vans. A balanced, phased target that aligns with realistic technological and economic developments is preferable to an overly aggressive approach that could disrupt industries.
Question 7: What would be the impact to the economy and to UK society of any new or additional non-ZEV CO2 requirements in the van sector from 2030? Please explain your answer and provide evidence where possible.
Answer. The introduction of new or additional CO₂ requirements for non-Zero Emission Vehicles (non-ZEV) in the van sector from 2030 would have significant economic and societal impacts, particularly on business costs, supply chains, employment, and regional inequalities. While emissions reduction is a critical goal, overly stringent regulations without sufficient infrastructure and technological readiness could lead to higher costs, reduced operational efficiency, and unintended economic consequences.
Question 8: What are your views on current measures to support demand for zero emission vehicles? What additional measures could further support the transition?
Answer. The UK government has implemented several measures to encourage the adoption of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs), such as grants, tax
incentives, and infrastructure investments. While these initiatives have helped increase uptake, challenges remain, particularly in vehicle affordability, charging infrastructure, and fleet transition support. To accelerate adoption and ensure a practical and equitable transition, additional measures should focus on reducing upfront costs, expanding charging networks, and addressing fleet and commercial sector challenges.
Question 9: What are your views on whether small volume manufacturers (between 1,000 and 2,499 registrations) should be subject to the 2030 requirements for cars and/or vans?
Answer. Small volume manufacturers (SVMs) play a unique role in the automotive industry, often specialising in niche, high-performance, luxury, or specialist commercial vehicles. Applying the same 2030 zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) requirements to SVMs as large-scale manufacturers could have disproportionate economic consequences, potentially stifling innovation, increasing costs, and threatening business viability. A more flexible, phased approach or targeted exemptions for SVMs would ensure emissions reduction targets are met without unnecessarily harming a vital sector of the UK automotive industry.
Question 10: What are your views on whether micro-volume manufacturers (fewer than 1,000 annual registrations) should be subject to the 2030 requirements for cars and/or vans?
Answer. Micro-volume manufacturers (MVMs) produce highly specialised vehicles, often for niche, bespoke, or heritage markets. Applying the same 2030 zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) requirements as large-scale manufacturers would be disproportionate and could threaten their survival. Given their limited impact on total emissions, their role in automotive craftsmanship, heritage preservation, and innovation, and the significant cost barriers to electrification, MVMs should be granted an exemption or an extended compliance timeline.
Question 11: What is your opinion on exemptions for Special Purpose Vehicles from the 2030 requirements for cars and vans?
Answer. Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) serve unique and often essential roles that standard passenger or commercial vehicles cannot fulfil. Imposing strict 2030 zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) requirements on SPVs without exemptions could create significant operational, technical, and financial challenges for industries that rely on these vehicles. Given their low production volumes, specialised applications, and the current technological limitations of zero-emission alternatives, SPVs should be exempt from the 2030 requirements or granted an extended compliance timeline to ensure practicality and continuity in essential services.
Question 12: What is your opinion on exemptions for kit cars from the 2030 requirements for cars and vans?
Answer. Kit cars represent a small-volume, enthusiast-driven segment of the UK automotive industry, contributing to heritage preservation, engineering craftsmanship, and automotive innovation. Given their low annual production, minimal contribution to total vehicle emissions, and the impracticality of mandating zero-emission alternatives, kit cars should be exempt from the 2030 ZEV requirements. Applying full compliance would threaten the viability of this sector, undermine automotive hobbyists and small manufacturers, and offer little tangible environmental benefit.
Part 2: Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes Updates
Question 13: Are the time limits on the current flexibilities in the ZEV Mandate for cars and for vans still appropriate? Please explain your answer.
Answer. The current time limits on ZEV Mandate flexibilities for cars and vans may not be fully appropriate, given the challenges in infrastructure readiness, vehicle affordability, and commercial sector transition timelines. While setting clear long-term targets is essential for industry planning, rigid time constraints could lead to unintended consequences, such as supply shortages, higher costs, and disruptions to businesses that rely on non-ZEV vehicles. A phased, adaptive approach that considers real-world adoption rates and market conditions would be more effective in achieving a practical and sustainable transition.
Question 14: What are your views on the proposal to implement a van-car transfer in VETS? Please explain your answer.
Answer. The proposal to implement a van-to-car transfer mechanism in the Vehicle Emissions Trading Scheme (VETS) has potential benefits in providing flexibility to manufacturers and balancing ZEV adoption across different vehicle categories. However, it also raises concerns about fairness, effectiveness, and the potential unintended consequences for van operators and businesses. A carefully structured approach, with clear safeguards and limitations, is necessary to ensure that the policy supports a practical and balanced transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs).
Question 15: Are there other flexibilities that should be considered within VETS for cars and vans?
Answer. While the Vehicle Emissions Trading Scheme (VETS) provides essential flexibility in transitioning to Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs), additional measures could help address industry challenges, support SMEs, and ensure a smoother transition. These should include sector-specific allowances, phased compliance mechanisms, alternative technology recognition, and adjustments for infrastructure limitations.
Question 16: Do you agree that VETS should be amended to account for the UF change? If so, do you agree with the proposal set out? Please explain your answer.
Answer. Amending the Vehicle Emissions Trading Scheme (VETS) to account for the Utility Factor (UF) change is a necessary step to align policy with real-world emissions data, ensuring that Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) are accurately credited based on their actual zero-emission driving share. While the principle of updating the UF is sound, the specific implementation details must be carefully evaluated to avoid unintended consequences, particularly for commercial operators, fleet managers, and manufacturers still investing in hybrid technologies.
Question 17: Do you agree with the proposal to allow UK derived or EU derived WLTP specific emission reference targets to apply from 2021-2023 in the United Kingdom, and in 2024 in Northern Ireland? If not, why?
Answer. Allowing UK-derived or EU-derived WLTP (Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicles Test Procedure) emission reference targets to apply in the UK from 2021–2023 and in Northern Ireland from 2024 provides regulatory continuity and maintains alignment with international emissions standards. While this approach is generally pragmatic, the long-term divergence between UK and EU targets should be carefully managed to avoid regulatory confusion, market distortions, and competitiveness risks for UK manufacturers.
Gecko1978 said:
Consultations are only done for window dressing qe are going to ban ice early and then watch as our transport infrastructure crumbles. This goverment are 7 months in an I think have built zero homes, raised taxes, given above inflation pay rises to train drivers (when train uses age is still below pre covid levels). I would not be surprised if a major OEM pulls out of the UK completely or only offers LHD cars.
Vauxhall are shutting Luton. Nissan are here and lobbying the government. But we have crazy Red Ed with his net zero BS to contend. We've stopping new oil liences - the only country in the world to do so? For what - he thinks we'll have "clean energy" and bills will come down a few hundred pounds per year. But as Suzannah Reid asked how much to bills have to rise from the current levels for him to be able to claim bills have come down!As usual, the politicians will F things up, and be moved on or will move on themselves. Perhaps to the House of Lords or some cushty non-exec director job paying unfathomamble amounts of money for seemingly very little. Or write a book, or have a column in a paper.
What a waste of time, I’ve tried to find the form to actually take part. Of course they have made it very difficult to find the form. It should be a 1 click on line form without any faffing about and posting the document snail mail. As others have said, it’s an already decided going forward and a consultation only to make it look legal.
With new fuels like eFuel and other new formats like new diesels with very little emission, there is no need for this now. In fact if you take classic cars, their total emissions over their lifetime are better than electric cars whose batteries have a life of 8-12 years, have to be replaced and disposed of, funny how they don’t have a plausible method of doing that, a problem for generations to come to deal with. With classic cars, you crush them and recycle the oils and metal, very clean. At the end of the day, look at the reality!
With new fuels like eFuel and other new formats like new diesels with very little emission, there is no need for this now. In fact if you take classic cars, their total emissions over their lifetime are better than electric cars whose batteries have a life of 8-12 years, have to be replaced and disposed of, funny how they don’t have a plausible method of doing that, a problem for generations to come to deal with. With classic cars, you crush them and recycle the oils and metal, very clean. At the end of the day, look at the reality!
The sooner the better.
The best ICE cars that will ever be made have already been made. Nothing made today or in the future will be in my fantasy garage. Too complicated, too strangled by emissions regs, too heavy, and impossible to maintain or repair.
So, let .gov crack on with the EV targets to bring costs down on family/daily/city transport and stop all the uncertainty. The vast, vast majority of EVs on the market are absolute crap and horribly overpriced; dreadful UI, immature systems, and in the case of Tesla, terrible build quality and unrefined dynamics. The disruptors (Tesla and the Chinese) can't match the established manufacturers for quality, ride, NVH etc, and the established manufacturers who have been doing build quality and NVH for years can't rip off Tesla's innovation without making an absolute hash of things (poor touchscreen usability, idiotic self-drive, inefficient and unreliable running/charging gear etc).
We're stuck in this phase of lousy ICE cars and lousy EVs and the only way out is towards better EVs or worse ICEs. So let's all choose our ICE weekend toys from the peak era (997 GT3 for me please), pop them in the garage for later, and get the hell on with buying EVs for daily use, otherwise we'll be in this unholy mess for decades.
The best ICE cars that will ever be made have already been made. Nothing made today or in the future will be in my fantasy garage. Too complicated, too strangled by emissions regs, too heavy, and impossible to maintain or repair.
So, let .gov crack on with the EV targets to bring costs down on family/daily/city transport and stop all the uncertainty. The vast, vast majority of EVs on the market are absolute crap and horribly overpriced; dreadful UI, immature systems, and in the case of Tesla, terrible build quality and unrefined dynamics. The disruptors (Tesla and the Chinese) can't match the established manufacturers for quality, ride, NVH etc, and the established manufacturers who have been doing build quality and NVH for years can't rip off Tesla's innovation without making an absolute hash of things (poor touchscreen usability, idiotic self-drive, inefficient and unreliable running/charging gear etc).
We're stuck in this phase of lousy ICE cars and lousy EVs and the only way out is towards better EVs or worse ICEs. So let's all choose our ICE weekend toys from the peak era (997 GT3 for me please), pop them in the garage for later, and get the hell on with buying EVs for daily use, otherwise we'll be in this unholy mess for decades.
Gecko1978 said:
Consultations are only done for window dressing qe are going to ban ice early and then watch as our transport infrastructure crumbles. This goverment are 7 months in an I think have built zero homes, raised taxes, given above inflation pay rises to train drivers (when train uses age is still below pre covid levels). I would not be surprised if a major OEM pulls out of the UK completely or only offers LHD cars.
The Government do not build houses and I suppose the ones I seeing being built and completed are a mirage. The rest of your post is as equally misguided. ZT260SE said:
Clicked on the link out of curiosity….
You have to then click another link to download load a PDF which needs to be emailed or posted in once completed.
The Nudge Unit have played a blinder here; the process has been designed to minimise responses as there are far easier ways to solicit views online. Proof positive of what others have said already - they neither care nor want to understand our views as the decisions are already made.
^ This.You have to then click another link to download load a PDF which needs to be emailed or posted in once completed.
The Nudge Unit have played a blinder here; the process has been designed to minimise responses as there are far easier ways to solicit views online. Proof positive of what others have said already - they neither care nor want to understand our views as the decisions are already made.
Slippydiff said:
ZT260SE said:
Clicked on the link out of curiosity….
You have to then click another link to download load a PDF which needs to be emailed or posted in once completed.
The Nudge Unit have played a blinder here; the process has been designed to minimise responses as there are far easier ways to solicit views online. Proof positive of what others have said already - they neither care nor want to understand our views as the decisions are already made.
^ This.You have to then click another link to download load a PDF which needs to be emailed or posted in once completed.
The Nudge Unit have played a blinder here; the process has been designed to minimise responses as there are far easier ways to solicit views online. Proof positive of what others have said already - they neither care nor want to understand our views as the decisions are already made.
paddy1970 said:
No, I do not agree with the Government’s view that only full hybrid and plug-in hybrid technologies should be considered. A blanket approach that prioritises these technologies while disregarding the advancements in internal combustion engine (ICE) technology and alternative fuels is restrictive, potentially detrimental to economic growth, and does not fully account for technological innovation and infrastructure readiness.
Would it be fair to say that you are approaching this topic as someone with a vested interest in alternative fuels?I put myself forward as someone with a vested interest in minimising the cost of decarbonised passenger car transport for end users.
It's no secret that I have little faith in hydrogen-based solutions, whether that be fuel cell, hydrogen ICE or e-fuel.
Mainly arising from an engineer's perspective on the practical reality and cost of delivering these solutions, either the vehicles or the fuel supply, to millions of users.
If I was to ask for someone to spell it out in as much detail as possible what these technological innovations are, and when they will be delivered, that will fundamentally change the prospects for the low-efficiency pathways towards decarbonisation, would you be willing to step up?
The point I'm making is that nobody is seemingly willing or able to put a convincing argument together, that stands up to scrutiny, why the UK should make room for the alternative fuel approach to cars.
I'm not talking about the emotive side, I'm talking purely about cost. As it stands, I don't see a single post-2035 UK usage case for passenger cars that cannot be met either by EV or second hand petrol cars.
If I was being cynical I would say that the idea of sustainable fuel for general public everyday day use is a distraction, and a very expensive one, that just ends up with a significantly higher cost of motoring for end users.
Let's say I'm wrong, surely the very large oil and gas companies would be all over this stuff like a rash, yet they have no meaningful interest in hydrogen or bio-based fuels for the passenger car sector.
Conversely, they recognise the role that the lower efficiency pathways will need to play in the harder-to-abate sectors such as marine and aviation.
As an example, here is BP's latest take on it: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/e...
As for the car manufacturers themselves, why are they not making much more noise about synthetic fuels? I'm talking about on a daily basis, not a couple of the more premium brands mentioning it once or twice a year, but in way that indicates they believe there is a viable pathway to save them from the existential crisis that many are facing.
As far as I can tell, they too only see EV or petrol in their futures. Are there biding their time? Why has the rhetoric around sustainable fuels for cars not ramped up massively in the last year or so?
ZT260SE said:
Clicked on the link out of curiosity….
You have to then click another link to download load a PDF which needs to be emailed or posted in once completed.
The Nudge Unit have played a blinder here; the process has been designed to minimise responses as there are far easier ways to solicit views online. Proof positive of what others have said already - they neither care nor want to understand our views as the decisions are already made.
They've made it pretty clunky for sure!You have to then click another link to download load a PDF which needs to be emailed or posted in once completed.
The Nudge Unit have played a blinder here; the process has been designed to minimise responses as there are far easier ways to solicit views online. Proof positive of what others have said already - they neither care nor want to understand our views as the decisions are already made.
TX.
Kipsrs said:
Totally irrelevant what we have to say because they’re going to do exactly what they want anyway. . .
I will never forget Ken Livingstones interview on talk radio for the CC zone expansion where he said they only did the consultation because they had to and they were going ahead with it regardless 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff