Do you want to make combustion engines in cars illegal!?

[Johnnypenso]

I didn't give up. I found a different piece of evidence and came to the conclusion that it will be naturally limited and we don't have to artificially limit it.

Honest question, if you didn't find this different piece of evidence, would you still stick to your OP?

 

[sk8er913]

Honest question, if you didn't find this different piece of evidence, would you still stick to your OP?

There's no such thing as not finding more evidence; every comment in this thread contributes it's own idea to the thread. And as I said before I made this in 30 minutes, mostly because I watched too many Nurburgring parking lot videos the night before a chemistry class that happened to be on pollutants. Some of the effects of the pollutants are scary, CO stood out the most in my mind, because it binds with your blood cells in the place of Oxygen and it has a tighter/stronger bond than CO2 and O2 so you suffocate to death and it leaves your system very slowly. Previously I only knew of the CO2 emissions in cars. So I thought it would be awesome that if we could stop polluting our local environments to eliminate these nasty CO and NO emissions and create these great enclaves to the greatness of the sports car(Nurburgring parking lot + easily accessible track.)

So no I wouldn't have stuck too it, because I didn't put enough time into it. I did put a lot of thought into it, but it was concentrated into a small amount of time. I still think that it would be good for us to replace commuter cars and trucks with 100% EV. And I think it will happen within my lifetime probably. BTW I had another idea too about 10 minutes before this, I was in slow traffic forcibly following the speed limit. It was such a ridiculous and stupid idea, but I would totally love to have it lol! My other idea was to record sounds of different cars (like Gran Turismo, except better) and you can pick the sound of the engine of your choice for the speakers to play back in a 100% EV car. That is so stupid, but so awesome, I gotta have one! XD

 

[Johnnypenso]

BTW I had another idea too about 10 minutes before this, I was in slow traffic forcibly following the speed limit. It was such a ridiculous and stupid idea, but I would totally love to have it lol! My other idea was to record sounds of different cars (like Gran Turismo, except better) and you can pick the sound of the engine of your choice for the speakers to play back in a 100% EV car. That is so stupid, but so awesome, I gotta have one! XD

I think that idea is brilliant actually, no joke

 

[sk8er913]

I think that idea is brilliant actually, no joke

Some days you need a V8 others are more like a V12... sometimes you want a BMW Transmission with its super loud whine. You can drive a "different car" every day lol.

 

[squadops]

Redemption

👍

 

[Imari]

My other idea was to record sounds of different cars (like Gran Turismo, except better) and you can pick the sound of the engine of your choice for the speakers to play back in a 100% EV car. That is so stupid, but so awesome, I gotta have one! XD

You'll be pleased to know that you can have one!

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/a-new-technology-can-make-your-car-sound-like-a-spaceship-2014-6

To my knowledge I haven't heard of a full electric car with this tech fitted from the factory, but there are quite a few other cars that come with sound systems that boost and/or modify the engine sounds with sound files. Same technology, if anything it's easier in an electric because you don't have to sync the sample to the engine revs.

 

[R5]

Or bankrupt every small, local gas station owner or franchisee as the costs to retrofit away from oil-based products would be too great.

Of course, that will be a problem. I guess the only way to work around

Another issue with using the term internal combustion engine is that they can be designed to internally combust something other than petroleum products. I've seen liquid natural gas designs, propane designs, and liquid hydrogen designs.

The thing abou internal combustion is that it is very versatile for the fuel source. You need to redesign the combustion chamber for the type of fuel you are using, but everything after that is similar. Heck, even power plants based on hydroelectrical, nuclear, tidal forces, and wind all use the same basic principle for generating power: turn a turbine connected to a generator.

It would be a very difficult law to enforce, no denying that. My guess at a solution is insurance details, when the car gets MOT'd then they test fuel type and update your insurance details, so when police check your license plate, they can see you're running biofuels.

However, this isn't a foolproof system either.

 

[niky]

I didn't give up. I found a different piece of evidence and came to the conclusion that it will be naturally limited and we don't have to artificially limit it.

Why?

Why shouldn't we limit the use of crude oil if it will eventually run out?

-

The thing is... crude won't. Your "new evidence" is woefully out of date, being from 2007, right where we had "peak consumption" due to economic growth in China and India, and a booming global economy built off of the back of bogus sub-prime mortgage gambling. (TL;DR, China and India grow big, bankers raising trillions of dollars on spurious stocks, flooding world with cash)

We live in a world wherein that huge money bonanza has unlocked previously uneconomical Shale and Tar Sand finds, where China is diversifying into hydroelectric and EV in a big way, and where the economy has collapsed.

In combination with an oversupply of oil, this very low demand means we will have enough oil to last for a very long time... and that the economy will probably keep shrinking around it.

-

Not metering crude use in the US means that the mean incomes of US consumers will shrink along with the oil economy, particularly as economic growth in some US states depends on oil refining and extraction.

-

If you don't start enacting solutions now to push the market one way or another, then by the time you do, it may be too late. I'm sure the libertarians here would object to biasing the market (I would be, too), but come on... if your convictions that "something must be done" are so flimsy as to be swayed that way... then they're not very strong convictions, in the first place.

-

Besides... the real reason your plan won't work is because it's completely economically unfeasible. Four hundred years of EV and battery production shoved into ten years. Sixteen billion dollars worth of EVs, a few billion dollars worth of direct investment in existing production infrastructure, a few more billion sunk into building new factories for EVs, chargers and batteries, and tens of billions more in erecting new charging infrastructure across the country.

And, after that, you've got billions in investment laid idle, and two-thirds of that gigantic workforce laid off... as the purchase rate drops from 40 million a year down to the regular 10-16 million.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Eventually combustion engines WILL be illegal. Diesels will naturally be the first to go, in fact I expect they'll be taxed out of the market shortly due to their noxious nitrogen output.

As petroleum production shrinks over years (which from an environmental point of view it's sure to under legislation) then it will become more expensive. That in turn will take care of the "classic" market; those who can afford to run them will continue to run/fuel them. The loss of the petrol market is probably many years away though, the replacement technologies will be more than adequate by them.

My worry when I look at the US is that large infrastructure development is ongoing in order to feed their oil deficit... with such recent investment the oil giants there are unlikely to be accepting any wind-down plan soon. If they ever would, of course

 

[FoRiZon]

No way

 

[Imari]

Eventually combustion engines WILL be illegal.

I'm not sure they will be. It's a possibility.

As petroleum production shrinks over years (which from an environmental point of view it's sure to under legislation) then it will become more expensive. That in turn will take care of the "classic" market; those who can afford to run them will continue to run/fuel them. The loss of the petrol market is probably many years away though, the replacement technologies will be more than adequate by them.

What if the replacement is non-petroleum combustion engines?

My worry when I look at the US is that large infrastructure development is ongoing in order to feed their oil deficit... with such recent investment the oil giants there are unlikely to be accepting any wind-down plan soon. If they ever would, of course

If there was a viable alternative, the oil giants would want to be the first to get a slice of the pie. Any sensible company would rather diversify their interests to ensure that they're part of the winning team than attempt to hold on to yesterday's technology longer than necessary.

Agreed:

You know that's steam/water vapour, right?

 

[FoRiZon]

You know that's steam/water vapour, right?

Might not the perfect example, but least you get the idea.

 

[Imari]

Might not the perfect example, but least you get the idea.

If you don't know what a cooling tower looks like, maybe.

It's a picture of not-smoke that's made to look worse than it is by being black and white. Seems a dishonest way to make your point to me. Why not just get a picture of a refinery? Because a picture of a refinery isn't as dramatic, and would show that while they still pollute a lot it's unlikely to invoke the "OMG, the planet is dying" emotion that you're looking for.

I dislike when people attempt to manipulate the emotions of others by being dishonest. I dislike it more when they say it doesn't matter.

I know what your point is and it's a decent one. You might as well bother to put it across properly. Otherwise you're simply adding to the already large list of environmentalists who think that it's OK to lie to get people to believe what they know is right.

 

[JR98]

I don't think combustion engines should be illegal. if they did then any car with an engine would have to be scrapped, and that could include hybrids as they use an engine too. It would also cause car manufacturers a lot of money as they would all have to change to all electric cars.

 

[Famine]

Eventually combustion engines WILL be illegal. Diesels will naturally be the first to go, in fact I expect they'll be taxed out of the market shortly due to their noxious nitrogen output.

That's a pest, as almost all public transport, distribution and shipping relies on diesel engines.

Virtually all buses and coaches are diesel and all lorries and delivery vans are diesel. Tack on most of the UK's rail network and just about all container ships and you have rather a lot of problems to circumvent before you can even think about banning diesel engines.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's a pest, as almost all public transport, distribution and shipping relies on diesel engines.

Virtually all buses and coaches are diesel and all lorries and delivery vans are diesel. Tack on most of the UK's rail network and just about all container ships and you have rather a lot of problems to circumvent before you can even think about banning diesel engines.

Indeed, although more and more busses are using hybrid dynamo technology alongside petrol engines.

An interim measure to the full replacement of diesel technology is a biofuel that doesn't have the same carcinogenic/nitrous properties of diesel emissions. Any ban would likely be on the production of new diesel engines - given the work-cycles of "commercial" engines this would likely remove the need for a complete ban as they would simply not be replaced (or would have to be bio-reconditioned).

If there was a viable alternative, the oil giants would want to be the first to get a slice of the pie. Any sensible company would rather diversify their interests to ensure that they're part of the winning team than attempt to hold on to yesterday's technology longer than necessary.

Eventually, yes. For now you might argue that big-Petro has enough of a hold on legislation to keep making money from existing tech without the need for new R&D or infrastructure investment.

 

[Famine]

Indeed, although more and more busses are using hybrid dynamo technology alongside petrol engines.

Maybe in That London, but elsewhere it's DERV as far as the eye can see. Even our very latest buses - introduced to great fanfare by Arriva last year - are powered by Cummins diesels (with regenerative braking to power cabin electrics).

Any ban would likely be on the production of new diesel engines - given the work-cycles of "commercial" engines this would likely remove the need for a complete ban as they would simply not be replaced (or would have to be bio-reconditioned).

That would be a spectacularly bad idea. One only has to look at even Euro4 engines (2005) compared to Euro6 (2013). Euro4 g/kWh limits for commercials exceed Euro6 by a huge whack - twice the particulates (0.02 to 0.01), triple the HCs (0.46 to 0.13) and nine times the NO2 (3.5 to 0.4) - and that's with only 8 years of progress. Imagine where they'll be in 8 years' time...

If every diesel over 2 years old was replaced with a Euro6 diesel less than 2 years old, emissions would be slashed - so really if your target is cutting emissions it's old diesels that need replacing.

Of course that means they have to be made, and that doesn't come without its environmental cost...

 

[TenEightyOne]

...One only has to look at even Euro4 engines (2005) compared to Euro6 (2013). Euro4 g/kWh limits for commercials exceed Euro6 by a huge whack - twice the particulates (0.02 to 0.01), triple the HCs (0.46 to 0.13) and nine times the NO2 (3.5 to 0.4) - and that's with only 8 years of progress. Imagine where they'll be in 8 years' time...

If every diesel over 2 years old was replaced with a Euro6 diesel less than 2 years old, emissions would be slashed - so really if your target is cutting emissions it's old diesels that need replacing.

That's a good point, I hadn't realised newer diesels were that much 'cleaner'. Would a programme that required replacement with a new diesel (coupled with a tax break for an alternative engine) be better to manage?

Something really needs to be done and I don't see that the "cost to industry" argument is really going to carry this.

 

[Liquid]

Good point about commercial vehicles and public transport. Certainly, in Llanfairnowhere out in North Wales it's diesel buses everywhere. We have just three railway lines for the whole of the region, two of them very short, but it's all diesels all the time. There is no electrification at all; the cost to do so would be a great burden which no railway company would foot, not that it would have to because the state owns the tracks and fixtures but they would need new vehicles which is a bill they don't want to pay.

Replacing diesels or whatever petroleum distillate vehicles, even with more efficient engines of the same type, is great if you live somewhere which has the infrastructure, money and resources but not so great for rural, less populated areas companies are less likely to care about and invest in.

 

[Aphelion]

🤬 it I've just decided to let the oil run out. It's not much longer.

 

[Famine]

Something really needs to be done and I don't see that the "cost to industry" argument is really going to carry this.

Good point about commercial vehicles and public transport. Certainly, in Llanfairnowhere out in North Wales it's diesel buses everywhere. We have just three railway lines for the whole of the region, two of them very short, but it's all diesels all the time. There is no electrification at all; the cost to do so would be a great burden which no railway company would foot, not that it would have to because the state owns the tracks and fixtures but they would need new vehicles which is a bill they don't want to pay.

Replacing diesels or whatever petroleum distillate vehicles, even with more efficient engines of the same type, is great if you live somewhere which has the infrastructure, money and resources but not so great for rural, less populated areas companies are less likely to care about and invest in.

Generally speaking, private bus companies are pretty good at replacing their old fleet with new - it's a pretty simple affair because they just buy the buses and they reap fuel economy rewards too. I'm sure a lot of you know that I live pretty much in the North York Moors - the definition of Absolutely Nowhere - and our local bus company's fleet is 58% Euro5 or newer.

With train companies and their part-private, part-public franchise model it's an utter pain in the arse. Buying rolling stock isn't as simple as heading out to buy 20 buses - there has to be upstream demand from the larger rail industry, internationally, for them to even be made. Due to the way the franchises were awarded, our local still runs 30 year old Class 142 Pacers - there was no budget for new coaches or power units because the government of the time (2004) determined no increase in passenger numbers on that franchise and bids were made excluding the possibility...

Recently they've been told to scrap the Pacers. They're going to be replaced (by 2020) with old London Underground rolling stock. It's a joke.

 

[Liquid]

Ah yes, Northern Rail. The only company left using Pacers. Thankfully they were gone from North Wales by the time Arriva took over the franchise in 2003 but a lot of the Arriva stock is still older than I am.

They use old tube trains on the Isle of Wight. I did know that the Pacers have to go by 2018ish because they don't comply with disability access laws but I didn't know Northern were looking at tube trains to replace them.

I mean, to keep it on topic I can't see old tube trains being particularly green and efficient diesels.

 

[Adamgp]

Back in 1969, the state of California actually passed (by a clear majority) a bill to ban the sale of internal combustion powered cars in the state by January 1st, 1975. That went well.

I don't see how a similar type of ban working today as alternatives are just not there.

 

[sk8er913]

Back in 1969, the state of California actually passed (by a clear majority) a bill to ban the sale of internal combustion powered cars in the state by January 1st, 1975. That went well.

I don't see how a similar type of ban working today as alternatives are just not there.

How long was it in effect?

 

[Adamgp]

How long was it in effect?

I can't find much else on it except for the bill was passed. As far as I know it never went into effect, likely because it was near impossible to put the bill into effect.

 

[sk8er913]

I can't find much else on it except for the bill was passed. As far as I know it never went into effect, likely because it was near impossible to put the bill into effect.

They wanted to use steam powered vehicles. My guess is that they failed miserably. Because in and since 1976 there have been smog regulations.

 

[Adamgp]

They wanted to use steam powered vehicles.

Steam, and also gas turbine powered vehicles.

 

[sk8er913]

Steam, and also gas turbine powered vehicles.

Im very surprised, never knew something as similar this was passed.

 

[Adamgp]

Im very surprised, never knew something as similar this was passed.

I read about it a few years ago, I think it was in a Car and Driver article.

The big worry then was Global Cooling and controlling smog emissions, which was largely taken care of by the mandate of catalytic converters in 1975.

 

[sk8er913]

I read about it a few years ago, I think it was in a Car and Driver article.

The big worry then was Global Cooling and controlling smog emissions, which was largely taken care of by the mandate of catalytic converters in 1975.

Global cooling was never an issue. In the 70s some scientists believed in cooling but articles were still around 70/30 ratio. Still a vast majority for warming.