Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
New Petrol & Diesel Cars Banned In The UK From 2040, Now 2030
- Thread starter Robin
- 150 comments
- 9,884 views
- 36,634
- Scotland
- GTP_daan
The reporting on this is bollocks.BBC
They're assuming that the new Prius (or replacement) that's on sale in 2040 will still have an electric range of less than 50 miles.
This will have absolutely zero effect on the use of current Priuses (if they're still around in 22 years.)
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
The government is expected today to announce they are bringing the ban on Petrol and Diesel cars forward from 2040 to 2030. It had already been moved to 2035 earlier this year.
There certainly has been a rapid development in EV's since a ban was announced in 2017. Looks very likely all manufacturers ranges will be electric well before even the new date. The infrastructure is also moving along well but there is quite a bit more work to be done.
Would be nice to still have a choice to buy traditionally powered cars after that but I guess this is the way everything is headed.
There certainly has been a rapid development in EV's since a ban was announced in 2017. Looks very likely all manufacturers ranges will be electric well before even the new date. The infrastructure is also moving along well but there is quite a bit more work to be done.
Would be nice to still have a choice to buy traditionally powered cars after that but I guess this is the way everything is headed.
Last edited:
- 355
- Virgin Islands US
Global electric isn’t sustainable, alcohol/vegetable oil/ammonia/hydrogen/nuclear(kek) fuels are
pass it on
pass it on
Last edited:
- 3,802
Boris has turned into a complete utter tit. The free market should decide this. Why are they forcing us to go electric? Is it because they will use tax payers money to give Grants to companies the crooked MPs have shares in? It certainly isn't because its cleaner for the environment is it.
- 11,802
- Marin County
citation needed
- 355
- Virgin Islands US
Global electrical grids are struggling to keep up with demand NOW, what makes you think they can handle the additional load of millions of cars being charged every day? Besides, do you know where battery minerals and elements come from?
- 24,612
- Anoka, MN
Everything I've read has said it's not the demand causing the issue but rather the fact that the grids haven't evolved to best utilize newer sources of energy. Basically the surplus power from days where the wind and solar sources overproduce isn't being properly utilized.
There is no such thing as 100% clean energy, every source is going to have some form of negative environmental impact. So while Lithium still requires mining and has it's own serious issues (mainly water usage), those issues are not as bad as those resulting from oil, especially fracking. Plus as automotive technology improves so will the technology surrounding lithium mining and recycling.
As much as I'm a petrolhead, I've also come to terms with the fact that the days of gas powered vehicles being widely used are at an end. Even without the environmental issues electric cars are just more practical for regular driving.
- 29,717
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
You, uh...you don't get how citations work, do you?
- 355
- Virgin Islands US
Exactly, grids aren’t up to snuff. And it would cost billions to bring it up to line.
And that’s not even getting into a discussion onto the economics and actual real-world efficiency of solar and wind energy. Let’s just say there’s a reason they’re massively subsidised.
I wasn’t talking about how green battery tech is or isn’t, I was more pointing out the reason a lot of the minerals are so ‘cheap’ is because they’re mined by children in places like China and Africa for 5¢ an hour. Unless we plan on ramping up child labour to meet the demand, you’ll quickly see the cost of electric cars skyrocket as they move away from that sort of stuff.
What, are you the guy I got into this discussion about this topic with before and who I stopped talking to after he tried to pull rank with “I wrote a thesis paper on it, so I’m smarter than you. nyeh”?
If you wanna play that game, fine. Here’s some accredited sources and paraphrasing for you:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/electric-cars-co2-emissions-global-warming/ “An electric car powered by the current electrical grid will be responsible for the same levels of CO₂ as outputted by a gasoline car rated at 50mpg”
https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-JL-0518-v2.pdf “if every car on the road were replaced with an electric car... the effect on greenhouse gasses would be negligible”
https://www.realclearinvestigations...er_cities_arent_playing_in_podunk_124456.html “solar and wind farms are the least efficient use of land for energy generation”
https://www.heritage.org/energy-eco...-benefits-the-green-new-deals-energy-policies “The American green new deal... would be economic suicide”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-25/cobalt-child-labour-smartphone-batteries-congo/10031330 “Cobalt used to power large percentage of electric cars mined by abused children”
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...n-the-grid-take-depends-on-your-neighborhood/ “to support mass adoption of electric cars... would require massive overhauls of electrical grid to even support level 1 overnight charging”
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Posted without irony on an internet forum. On a computer. I'm not sure why you're targetting automotive batteries in particular here, it's a problem with the minerals (particularly cobalt) for mobile phones, laptops, certain types of screen, I could go on. It's up to the end-producers (large first-world companies) to drive change, something that'll be far easier if the end-users put pressure on them. Have you done that with your phone manufacturer?
So the problem there is using coal in the generation station, not a problem with the car's own emissions. It was news to you that using coal is bad?
The problem with that is it's two years out-of-date, and it costs a future where... guess what... the means of electricity production in the subsidized areas (e.g. the USA) don't change. He has quite a bad benchmark; "The simple fact is that, because of stringent emissions standards and low-sulfur gasoline, new ICVs (internal combustion vehicles) today emit very little pollution, and they will emit even less in the future".
He then finds that "And although ZEVs will emit less CO2 than ICVs, the projected reduction in CO2 emissions, below 1% of total forecast U.S. CO2 emissions, will have no measurable impact on climate and, hence, no economic value". That's why financial analysts don't drive engineering projects, nothing would ever get done.
Okay, not sure I really want to hear what RealClearPolitics has to say about land ownership, their views are pretty clear. It was suprising how little meat this article gave - issues over planning, developer payments, landscape protection... all things which need improvement if they are lacking but which aren't specifically applicable to renewable energy farms. So improve the problems. After all the same problems occur for people near coal-fired stations, right?
Some of that article is also based on the "turbines give you cancer" camp's views, not a good look.
I know we're not allowed to mention academic work but Heritage.Org is one of the examples I teach to demonstrate "Authorised Heritage Discourse". Heritage is an extremely right-leaning Conservative organ and, of particular note, one founded and heavily funded by petro-chem. Definitely has a dog in the fight. Puts lots of dogs in fights, has a traditionalist petro-chem agenda.
Yes, it's a problem in smartphone batteries (as your title says) and the batteries for other devices. As I've already said that's a problem that's completely separate from the use of the technology, and it's a problem that the multi-national first-world tech companies should be addressing. And they are.
That's a shocker (hur hur), if every ICE car was replaced with an electric car there wouldn't be enough charging capacity right now? Incredible.
Here's the thing: the electricity companies are selling you those lovely KwH hours, make no mistake that if demand moves from portable petrol to domestic charging they will supply the infrastructure. And they'll be there for you on the forecourts, outside the maaalll, in the parking lots, etc. etc.
- 29,717
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
In your five months of activity on this forum, I've quoted one (okay, now it's two) of your 348 posts, though I've observed plenty. So no, that's not likely to have been me unless you're recalling an interaction that occurred while using a previous account that has since been banned. Might you have been active in a previous incarnation? Because the ease with which you've dropped into abusive confrontations has had me wondering precisely that.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
If there's a demand, and there will be a demand, electric companies will absolutely spend the money on the grid.
This isn't true. The cost of electric cars won't skyrocket any more than any other car.
As for where the minerals come from, the two leading countries of lithium production are Australia and Chile. For nickel, it's Indonesia, the Philippines, and Canada. It's only when you get to cobalt where China has the upper hand and there are many electric cars that don't use cobalt compounded batteries.
- 29,717
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Why do those who oppose dramatic increase in EV use always form arguments around an electrical infrastructure that remains stagnant, when it's demonstrated anything but, while everything else around it advances? Is it just laziness? With these people being majority conservative (based solely on my own observation), is it a side effect of conservatism wherein the desire to not progress results in a perception that progress isn't made? It's insane.
- 11,802
- Marin County
I'm not going to beat around the bush here, these sure seem like bad faith talking points to obscure the true, but ultimately indefensible, resistance towards electric vehicles - they represent a change that you don't particularly like. Sorry to not give you the benefit of the doubt.
Just in case your argument is in good faith, do you think it's impossible for electrical grids to scale with electric car adoption? (This will obviously not be an overnight affair). Your second point, unless you live in a dirt hut you built yourself wearing some home-spun tunic and somehow didn't manage to use a computer to write it is disingenuous to the point of absurdity.
- 24,612
- Anoka, MN
Are you familiar with the term "56k Warning!"?
You think oil isn't? That's cute.
Honestly, that's actually pretty good! Petrol powered cars have been the main focus for over 100 years now, the fact a technology people only got serious about a little over a decade ago is already matching it is pretty damned impressive.
The problem is technology would have to be stagnant for that statement to be true. They aren't going to replace ICE cars overnight, it will be a long process and by the time they make up a majority of the market the technology in them will be much better than it is now.
You know how I mentioned the "56k Warning" in the first part of the post but didn't elaborate why? Well because the elaboration also addresses this statement. About 20 years ago (damn I'm getting old
) the average internet had a hard time dealing with larger files so people would put "56K Warning!" on posts that had a large amount of images or .gifs so people with slower internet would have advanced warning. Now, fast forward to today where most people can stream 4K movies while gaming online at the same time, the idea of an internet connection having a hard time loading a low quality picture is laughable.Now, do you think the infrastructure around in the dial-up era is the same as it is now or do you think companies updated it as technology became available?
So yes, the power infrastructure will need a massive overhaul, this isn't the "gotcha" you think it is though as while it may cost alot, there is enough money in it to make the upgrades worthwhile.
Last edited:
- 1,049
- Grand Rapids,MI
- HaydenFan69
- 10
- Andorra
This isn't your lover or close family, this is government...
Last edited:
- 1,049
- Grand Rapids,MI
- HaydenFan69
I thought my sarcasm was a bit evident.
There is money for improving infrastructure, but I don't think the technology has reached the level (maybe in 15-20 years it could be different) to even make broad goals like 2035-2040. So unless we want more nuclear or coal plants, the focus should be to improving the technology before we even think about infrastructure. Then we can think about banning the internal combustion engine.
- 355
- Virgin Islands US
“56k warning!”Are you familiar with the term "56k Warning!"?
You think oil isn't? That's cute.
Honestly, that's actually pretty good! Petrol powered cars have been the main focus for over 100 years now, the fact a technology people only got serious about a little over a decade ago is already matching it is pretty damned impressive.
The problem is technology would have to be stagnant for that statement to be true. They aren't going to replace ICE cars overnight, it will be a long process and by the time they make up a majority of the market the technology in them will be much better than it is now.
You know how I mentioned the "56k Warning" in the first part of the post but didn't elaborate why? Well because the elaboration also addresses this statement. About 20 years ago (damn I'm getting old
Now, do you think the infrastructure around in the dial-up era is the same as it is now or do you think companies updated it as technology became available?
So yes, the power infrastructure will need a massive overhaul, this isn't the "gotcha" you think it is though as while it may cost alot, there is enough money in it to make the upgrades worthwhile.
>thinking internet tech and battery tech are comparable
Oil production is subsidised to keep Russia and the Arabian peninsula from having a total monopoly on the world supply. That’s not the same thing as subsidising the production and purchase of electric cars. False equivalence #2
Electric cars are not a specific unique technology, they’re a direct sibling to electric motor and battery tech that’s been around for as long as the internal combustion engine. What electric cars are capable of today isn’t the starting point of a new and novel technology as you seem to be implying, it’s the culmination of 100 years of investment and advancement. There’s arguably been MORE investment into batteries and motors than the ICE, electric cars aren’t the only thing that use them you know. And further, you have to remember that ICE is regulated and shackled to a ridiculous degree, preventing a lot of tech advancement. ICE development isn’t subsidised.
Again, the main issue with internet speeds back in the day was primarily software-related, not hardware. It was an issue of modems not being able to process information quick enough. The main hardware issue was related to ISP and website servers, both of which are drastically cheaper and easier to upgrade than an electrical grid. There’s a big difference between private enterprise organically expanding local capacity and a government literally mandating an entire electrical grid be torn down and rebuilt from scratch. There’s a big bloody difference between the electrical load and requirements in modern first world countries and the load the internet produces. There’s a reason why internet still generally runs on decades-old landline hardware. False equivalence #3.
“I don’t have an actual counterpoint to your comment, so I’m just going to deflect by insinuating unrelated accusations about you being a sockpuppet account”
No, I’m not a sock. I had a similar discussion about 3 weeks ago about the topic of electric cars, and the bloke made the argument I referenced earlier. Your first response was equally as catty and smug, so I assumed it was you again.
As I predicted, someone shifted the argument from electric cars to green energy production. Which proves my original point that just unilaterally banning gasoline/diesel cars is pointless without a complete overhaul of the electrical grid. Something that essentially all economists agree is impractical at best and impossible at worst due to the costs involved. Let’s get back on topic, shall we? This topic is about the real-world viability of electric cars and the logistics of outlawing ICE-powered cars in less than 15 years, *NOT* about the hypothetical “they’ll work if we have a completely green power grid”. Can you address my points with that in mind? Or are you going to shift back to abstract hypotheticals about the green power grid that doesn’t exist and probably never will.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
That's not what's happening. The sale of new vehicles with ICE could be banned within 15 years, you'll still very much be able to buy an ICE vehicle, it just won't be brand new. Really, given the way the market is heading, we'd probably be at the point of most vehicles being EV of some sort within that time frame anyway.
- 355
- Virgin Islands US
Which goes back to my first comment before the thread got derailed. The market is heading towards EVs because politicians are railroading people into buying them. The best replacement for fossil fuels are things like hydrogen ICE, alcohol/vegetable oil, and if we want to go full Fallout; nuclear fusion/fission. These options are completely renewable, require minimal changes to the power grid, and most ICE vehicles can be converted to run on the former 3. The only reason we aren’t pursuing those technologies more is because legislators know precisely ****-all about alternative energies and instead get their knowledge on it from the same sources as John Q Public: internet blogs and out-of-context studies. There was a big push for ethanol around 2008-2010, if you recall. But then suddenly out of nowhere, EVs start getting massive subsidies and E85 and other renewable fuels disappeared outside of a few places. Meanwhile we have places like Brazil where the majority of their cars run on ethanol meaning they’re one of the few countries not beholden to Big Oil.
My guess is because ethanol is largely locally and domestically produced, which severely threatens the balance of power that has so many countries reliant on foreign sources of energy. So some hands were shook behind closed curtains, and local energy production support had the rug snatched out from under it to maintain status quo. EVs are no different from dinoburners in this regard; you’re still utterly reliant on foreign sources for raw material. I fully admit I haven’t researched the paper trail on it, so this stuff is pure speculation on my part.
- 24,612
- Anoka, MN
In a lot of ways, they are.
Still a subsidy though. Also, the U.S. is the top oil producing country in the world, Canada is #4, there really isn't a threat that Russia and the Arabian peninsula will have a monopoly.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Very true and I never claimed otherwise. What I did say was that we've only been seriously exploring using electricity for cars for a tad over a decade.
Again, while electric motors are nothing new, they've only been seriously considered a substitute for ICE for a relatively short period and in that period they've made quite a big dent.
Electric car batteries are not made the same way as other batteries, hence why you can't recycle them the same way.
And why do you think that is?
I'm not sure about that, even with the increased focus on electric power ICE power has increased while also getting better MPG.
This has to be a record for someone contradicting themselves, only Rick James could do it better!
Literally nobody is saying that... Literally.
I still don't think that means what you think it means.
I also think my analogy flew so far over your head it collided with the ISS. We didn't just go to bed one night with crappy dial-up and wake up in the morning with Gig-speed internet, rather it was the result in several small leaps in technology that inevitably led to where we are and will continue to improve as time goes on. I'm under no illusion that the power grid will make a similar leap or be as cheap to accomplish but it will happen and whoever does it the best will make their shareholders very happy.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry...
Probably because that's a major part of electric vehicles. It would be like talking about ICE cars but getting mad any time someone brought up fracking.
I haven't seen anybody argue that, in fact everyone seems to recognize that such an overhaul will need to happen.
Source?
- 355
- Virgin Islands US
“No I was just being metaphorical” nice backpedalIn a lot of ways, they are.
Still a subsidy though. Also, the U.S. is the top oil producing country in the world, Canada is #4, there really isn't a threat that Russia and the Arabian peninsula will have a monopoly.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Very true and I never claimed otherwise. What I did say was that we've only been seriously exploring using electricity for cars for a tad over a decade.
Again, while electric motors are nothing new, they've only been seriously considered a substitute for ICE for a relatively short period and in that period they've made quite a big dent.
Electric car batteries are not made the same way as other batteries, hence why you can't recycle them the same way.
And why do you think that is?
I'm not sure about that, even with the increased focus on electric power ICE power has increased while also getting better MPG.
This has to be a record for someone contradicting themselves, only Rick James could do it better!
Literally nobody is saying that... Literally.
I still don't think that means what you think it means.
I also think my analogy flew so far over your head it collided with the ISS. We didn't just go to bed one night with crappy dial-up and wake up in the morning with Gig-speed internet, rather it was the result in several small leaps in technology that inevitably led to where we are and will continue to improve as time goes on. I'm under no illusion that the power grid will make a similar leap or be as cheap to accomplish but it will happen and whoever does it the best will make their shareholders very happy.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry...
Probably because that's a major part of electric vehicles. It would be like talking about ICE cars but getting mad any time someone brought up fracking.
I haven't seen anybody argue that, in fact everyone seems to recognize that such an overhaul will need to happen.
Source?
“Sources” literally in my other comments. But fine, I’ll share em again
https://www.heritage.org/energy-eco...-benefits-the-green-new-deals-energy-policies
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...n-the-grid-take-depends-on-your-neighborhood/
and a new Mainstream Approved™ source:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...a-carbon-neutral-could-cost-1-trillion-a-year
granted this articles are primarily about the US, they apply anywhere these proposals are being, well, proposed
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Petro-funded "thinktank" dislikes the idea of loss of petro cars. Just as amazing the second time round.
That's about grids and is out of date, we covered that. Firing out links like chaff isn't helping.
Bloomberg, and it concludes its opener by saying we'll "probably be eating a lot more vegetarian hamburgers". After the statement about how Democrats are going to force-retrofit kitchens the thrust of that article is clear. The remainder doesn't disappoint.
The sad thing is that amongst all the hyperbole there's a serious point - investment is required to improve the grid. That's obvious, we've covered it here, and so your link brings only one new thing; mainstream media. Corker.
As far as the grid cost goes, it's an argument that doesn't stand up to much comparison. We (and I mean ICE drivers here) rely on a network of facilities that run from the point of contact in deep oilwells to the dripping tip of the forecourt nozzle. That network wasn't free, it doesn't maintain, refresh and extend itself for free, and it makes a lot of money by charging those overheads to the end-purchaser. And that's just how electrical grids work, but because we know where the sun is it's without the multi-billion exploration costs. And they are multi-billion, there is a huge amount of money in oil.
It seems that you're more worried about a change that you personally don't like (or the Democrat bogeypersons) than actually looking more closely at meat of the arguments you're presenting.
- 23,917
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I don't think biodiesel is anything other than a sort-term solution. My understanding is that is still requires a vehicle to run on regular diesel for a short period when first starting up as biodiesel can't be run from cold. It's also not sustainable to just switch all diesel vehicles to biodiesel as there just isn't the amount of 'used' vegetable oil available on that scale. This would lead to biodiesel producing companies using unused cooking oils, which would lead to a shortage that people use for cooking, which would require a shift to using more palm oil, which as we know is already destroying rain forests.
- 27,205
- United Kingdom
That and to get diesels burning anything close to "clean" they need hugely expensive technology now that renders them unsuitable for pretty much any car smaller in size than a Ford Focus. Biodiesel is certainly a more carbon-neutral fuel than conventional diesel which would solve one issue, but as TheCracker says it has a few problems of its own.
- 227
- California
- My-Kull
Electric has its own problems as well. It doesn’t come from magic. Something has to make it, and tidal and wind generators create problems as well. The batteries are toxic and of limited life, and lithium is relatively rare. So let’s hope something perfect appears.
Last edited:
McLaren
Premium
- 45,412
- Texas
