UK bans sales of gas/diesel powered cars, 2040

If you could drink a gallon of Pellegrino a day, and just try and hold it all in (just doing your bit for the planet), we could carry on burning oil for a bit longer.....

 

@BarryK: That's (how appropriate) "gaslighting" as a technique you're using, calling me confused. Now that's not very nice of you.
Negligible hydro electric? Just in 2012 it was 18% of UK alternative energy and 1.8GW. Hardly negligible.
Germanys record is 74% on a peak day not 85%, again misinformation from your side. nowhere near the average. I am willing to bet that was a record attempt too as a showcase.
You also leave out that the UK now imports 5.7TW per year. I am willing to bet that's not renewable and a big factor in the "decrease of emissions" you think you are seeing.

 

I don't think this is a political statement. It's just economics

Do you know what is the number one export of Wyoming? It's coal... and it goes to China.

So, yes, we dig up coal in Wyoming, put it on diesel powered trains to ship to Long Beach, load them into diesel powered ships to take it to China where it is put on more diesel powered trains so factories can use it to make cheap steel or burn it in dirtier power plants than we have in the US so they can make cheaper goods that will be shipped in diesel powered ships and trucks to appear for sale in our big box stores.

I may be crazy here but isn't something burned in China also in our atmosphere?

 

Wrong. Hydroelectric in the UK produces about 1.5% of the total, which IS negligible, especially when you consider it has no future expansion potential.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/harnessing-hydroelectric-power

Germany's peak was indeed a point in time, and I was not claiming it was an average but it goes to show how far some major countries have come along in tackling CO2.

http://scientifist.com/germany-renewable-energy-record-coal-nuclear-energy-transition-low-carbon/

85%. Where is the misinformation?

Finally, UK imports about 6% of total demand (2016 data), and much of it from France which I believe is biased towards nuclear energy, and therefore from a CO2 perspective clean. In any event, all the numbers for CO2 emission relate to UK production, not consumption (i.e. do not include imports), and therefore imports do not contribute to the reduction in CO2 emissions as you seem to think.

 

Not true at all.. this is a very popular myth...

"Almost all Wyoming coal is consumed in the United States, In 2015, out of 376 million short tons of coal mined in Wyoming, 52,400 tons were exported, less than one-tenth of one percent. Wyoming coal is shipped out of Wyoming for use in 28 states..."

We have coal trains from Gillette WY running through Denver all day and night for the US.
This coal is very clean-burning; high demand.

 

How much do electric car batteries drain sitting idle for a day or how about a week or two at a time? I'm curious if there is as gas tanks don't really have that issue. That seems like another figure that should be taken into account for how efficient they are for energy storage.

 

I lose 3-4 miles per day in the Tesla.

Kai

 

this has been on the wall for some time. Look at the war on cars in Paris. A complete mess. they make it as diffult as possible to drive. Also with the diesel fiasco of the past decade, electric is the only thing they can turn too. Plus they have a lot of green support.
Here we have the ethanol faisco too. In 10 years the fact will also indicate ethanol was more damaging than gas. By then just like diesel, somene will have made their money.

most kids are into computer/phones only and hate anything mechanical. So driving a computer or better yet a computer drive you (to the ditch) is more palettable for the majority. things like hyperloop will also be in
In 30 years. combustion engines will be gone and hopefully reserved to a few on special tracks. We are a dying breed that will end with this century

 

The law is only for new sales so you can use your old car. Maybe they will go the way of Cuba...the only cars on the road were built up to 2039 and will stay that way for 50+ years.

 

I guess you didn't read it.

The number one export from Wyoming is COAL and it does go to China. I didn't say all of the coal goes there.

So, I guess your myth is busted.

Now, do you want to argue that coal power plants in China are cleaner than the US or that coal burnt in China doesn't go into all of the atmosphere?

 

Boxerman:

The tax solution is simple and coming very soon. In fact, I think California may be the first. It's already being floated as more and more electric cars hit California roads.

You'll be taxed by your mileage. They will get the readings from your car and send you a bill. It won't matter if it's electric, diesel or gas. You have to pay a yearly registration anyway so they will use this as the time to make you pay the AGT (alternative gas tax)

 

The proposed changes only affect new vehicles. Hold onto your gas powered exotics, they will be true collector's dream cars by that time.

 

Maybe we'll be able to outlaw california by 2040.


Jokes aside, yes all new cars have Gps tracking already, so its a doddle to charge for mileage and put surcharges on that by location, for example city centres.

The scary part is everybody and evrything will be tracked by big brother, all movements recorded for future use.

Sadly to register youll probaby have to put a tracker in your classic, or the license plate will do it by itself.

Whither freedom in the name of green efficiency.

 

small it is perhaps, but negligible it is not. You said the UK did not have it at all.

Maybe. I am far more interested in the average and remember that if you add a fleet of electric vehicles charging at night, you will need to add capacity relative to today. Right now you are substituting gasoline with natural gas and nuclear.

Perhaps some people see CO2 as the root of all evil and believe replacing it with nuclear is a smart thing to do. So essentially an electric car in the UK is 50% nuclear powered.

Exactly, the numbers only reflect UK production. If you import 6%, you are not counting the co2 in your consumption so you have "lowered" your emissions by 6% on paper.

 

No. You are way off. You must look at the big picture. A car is a rolling environmental disaster. Engine oil, transmission oil, differential oil, powersteering fluid, suspension fluids (in some vehicles). Coolant, brake fluid etc. All of these items are toxic to the environment. They are toxic to refine to.

The ice engine is a toxic mess right from the start. Just manufacturing an ice engine is toxic, let alone what one produces for emissions. Speaking of emissions, let's add all the devices that control it. They have to be manufactured in factories that pollute.

With the electric car you remove pretty much all of this. You have left only one item that is toxic, and yet most of it can be recycled. You eliminate a huge industry that pollutes the air. So not only are you getting rid of the ice car, you are so getting rid of the extremely pollutant industry that surrounds it.

 

Teslas still have fluids that overlap with ICE cars so your statement is incorrect. ICE engines, if designed properly, can last decades and hundreds of thousands of miles whereas the battery packs need to be replaced much more rapidly. Batteries are also very toxic to manufacture as can be the way electricity is made to charge them (including the production process to make green things like solar panels).

I think both are bad for the environment and if people want to make a difference, walk to work or work from home. And if you must commute, use mass transit. Diesel electric trains are pretty efficient. They get over 500 miles per gallon per ton of freight. Some commercial airplanes get over 100 miles per gallon per passenger. Cars are pretty terrible for the environment.

 

So an electric car does not have a cooling system, brakes, suspension, transmission, differential, AC system or power steering? Interesting I did not know we were going back 100 years in car technology with them.
If you guys reason this way then look at the influence of a person on the environment. How many toxic substances are in your home on a daily basis?
The way you are reasoning it's better to just eliminate people or to have them go back to the stone age. Not the bronze because that's pollutive.

 

If they finish with liquid fuel cars in 2040 in the uk, i better book my electric car driving lessons for 2039 when i will be 86. I dont fancy jogging to the shops to get my shopping at 87.

 

Just the sales of new liquid fuel powered cars may cease at that point. My view is, like you can still get hay for horses today, you will also be able to get liquid fuels by then. Not to worry.
I run a number of cars on LPG, its a fuel I like a LOT. The fuel system is very simple, safe, maintenance free, and the fuel is easy on the engine (contrary to popular belief). The CO2 output is also lowered to about 2/3 relative to petrol, and PM (soot) is negligible because the fuel is by definition (because its already a gas) fully atomised in the cylinders. There are CNG systems too. Moral being, plenty of alternatives down the road.

 

And let's not forget heavy electric cars like the Tesla go through a set of tires rapidly compared to econobox cars that go 50k miles no problem on the same set. I get 30k on my 300hp sports car on a set. That's another less environmental thing about those cars people forget.

 

Let's just take this step at a time:

Please, please explain how you came to this 50% figure.

Hint 1: UK produces approximately 25% of its electricity via nuclear (see my link from post #29), and imports around 6% of its electricity (mix of fuel unknown, but let's say nuclear to give the benefit of the doubt to your number.

Hint 2: I don't see a lot of electric cars in the UK driving up to nuclear power stations to recharge specifically from nuclear generated electricity.

Hint 3: for your explanation, use of facts rather than figments of imagination is highly encouraged

I wait with bated breath....

 

It should be said that the truth about hydrogen powered fuel cell cars is that currently they are WORSE than petrol power cars in the release of green house gases and lowering the dependency of fossil fuels.

The way hydrogen is created now is by using natural gas and, with the aid of electricity, break it down into hydrogen and CO2. This CO2 is then released into the atmosphere.

In the fuel cell, the hydrogen is combined with oxygen and becomes water. The bi-product is electricity.

It is hoped that someday, hydrogen can be extracted from sea water using solar power. But, that's a long way off and may never really be energy or emissions neutral.

So in an attempt to create a true zero emissions vehicle, we have made something worse -- but it "sounds good".

 

What good will your collector car be when you can't buy the fuel to put in the tank?

Or, it may actually be restricted or outlawed from use?

If a government can induce people to buy certain types of cars and put them on the roads, it can also restrict the ones they don't want from being on the roads. In fact, it would be illogical in a bureaucrat's mind not to.

 

The other development which might force classics off the road (at least in cities and possibly highways) is autonomous cars. You don't want a series of robot cars marching in precision messed up by a driver.

As for fuel, at least the UK ban only applies to pure conventional fuel cars i.e hybrids with ICE are exempt. That will extend the fuel availability beyond 2040.