New petrol and diesel car sales will be 'banned from 2030'

ChipChop

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
3,357
Location
Newcastle
Car
S210 320cdi w201 190d 2.5
Reduce, Recycle, Reuse, is the only long term solution. EVs are great, but we won't be able to drive our way out of an ecological disaster, regardless of the mode of transport.
Western countries need to be asking Africa and India for all our old simple fixable cars back. In exchange you can have all of the knackered Nissan leafs. Trouble is they do not want them.
 

Bellow

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
7,823
Location
Ecosse.
Car
C2500 350, 450
Baning private cars from city centres will affect the poor an rich alike.

OK, so the rich will probably use Uber VIP, but that's about the only advantage they'll get.

So are we good to go...?
That isn't what is happening. Private cars are permitted - but only a certain type which happens to be rather expensive to buy.
 

ChipChop

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
3,357
Location
Newcastle
Car
S210 320cdi w201 190d 2.5
Running a pre-2008 Diesel car may have its attraction, but owners need to recognise that they're sitting on a melting ice cube... not really a long term proposition.
Many indirect injection diesel engines (pre CDi in Mercedes speak) can run on non fossil fuels (UK rapeseed oil) and are therefore very much a viable long term proposition. Perfect for use outside of cities.

Whoever came up with the Euro emissions standards, also known as the diesel engines planned obsolescence scheme, needs to be shot.
 
OP
OP
markjay

markjay

MB Master
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
36,536
Location
London
Car
W204 C180 Executive SE 2013 Automatic / COMAND NTG4.7 and Morel speakers fitted by www.comand.co.uk
That isn't what is happening. Private cars are permitted - but only a certain type which happens to be rather expensive to buy.

And this should change. My view. No cars should be allowed.

We need to drive less in general, use mire public transport, ban cars from city centres, and have only EVs - no ICE for private cars. That's my view of what should happen in the (very) long term.

And yes, it's like every other innovation, including flat screen TVs and smartphones - great technology, that only tbe rich can afford to buy outright, the rest are be able to have it if they get finance from the banks (or other finance providers). The very poor can't be able to get that either. EVs are no different.
 

m80

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
3,411
Location
Derbyshire, High Peak
Car
Viano, 651 2014. W211 646 (for a short while)
Running a pre-2008 Diesel car may have its attraction, but owners need to recognise that they're sitting on a melting ice cube... not really a long term proposition.

The melting ice cube is I assume out with ICE and in with, well so far EV.
But this is a slowly melting ice cube, in that no more new ice after 2030, 10 years away.
Although I see manufacturers have pulled away significantly already.

So unless the legislators train their drones on the diesel, is my example, they 'can' be around for a while yet. A restricting factor is the replacement parts availability, so possibly more down to after market than oem. MB, for example, may already be reducing such availability.
Next issue may be the availability, and possibly cost, of fuel.

Example.
My (later) 2009 211. More simple than the new LED headlight mo mo's, but still a good motor.
Cost £2,700 (but value has increased due to me and what ever else is affecting this). Depreciation is a fraction of any new EV, or even 2nd hand.
I will serve far better then the limitations of an EV, for me at least.

This would allow me to spend significant amounts on maintaining it, and running it, and still be quids in.

Pick up an early 2005 Gr Cherokee and it's even simpler under the bonnet. They don't rust, they provide v reasonable comfort, but with LED's all over the place. It's allowed to pump 3 thingies at MOT, rather than my restricting 1.5 oojah's.

The possibilities are numerous.
Many of course wouldn't entertain such an old style car and are happy to spend oodles on a fast depreciating EV (I had to refrain from being childish and calling them glorified milk floats).
 

ChipChop

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
3,357
Location
Newcastle
Car
S210 320cdi w201 190d 2.5
And yes, it's like every other innovation, including flat screen TVs and smartphones - great technology, that only tbe rich can afford to buy outright, the rest are be able to have it if they get finance from the banks (or other finance providers). The very poor can't be able to get that either. EVs are no different.
Our governments all seem to concur that we are in a climate emergency. The stumbling block for the majority will be justifying the financials for that new BEV to save the planet.

Our concerned governments could makes the switch affordable to all by taking the private banks charging interest on loans out of the equation. Implement a ban on usury while we are in a climate emergency. Issue interest free government loans that all can afford.

Problem solved.
 
Last edited:

Bellow

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
7,823
Location
Ecosse.
Car
C2500 350, 450
And this should change. My view. No cars should be allowed.
We're retreading old ground here. As a city dweller that is your prerogative - but it is a city planning issue and shouldn't be conflated with the need to reduce carbon emissions.
We need to drive less in general, use mire public transport, ban cars from city centres, and have only EVs - no ICE for private cars. That's my view of what should happen in the (very) long term.
It will take a very long time as public transport outwith cities is scarcely viable. To achieve that aim will mean more and more people moving to already densely populated cities and as cities so densely packed are really in the overall scheme of things still an experiment - maybe not such a good idea. Anyway, agriculture will still be out in the sticks and those crops don't plant, nurture, and harvest themselves.
And yes, it's like every other innovation, including flat screen TVs and smartphones - great technology, that only tbe rich can afford to buy outright, the rest are be able to have it if they get finance from the banks (or other finance providers). The very poor can't be able to get that either. EVs are no different.
As luxury goods, fair enough. As a means to getting to and from place of work, shops, doctor/dentist, etc, etc - not so much.
 
OP
OP
markjay

markjay

MB Master
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
36,536
Location
London
Car
W204 C180 Executive SE 2013 Automatic / COMAND NTG4.7 and Morel speakers fitted by www.comand.co.uk
..justifying the financials for that new BEV to save the planet...

The more immediate goal is to remove harmful carbon emissions from densely-populated areas, thus improving air quality in city centres.

Which EVs do well. That's justification enough in itself.
 

ChipChop

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2020
Messages
3,357
Location
Newcastle
Car
S210 320cdi w201 190d 2.5
The more immediate goal is to remove harmful carbon emissions from densely-populated areas, thus improving air quality in city centres.

Which EVs do well. That's justification enough in itself.
carbonreduce.jpg

In reality was it not an ICE engine that 'cleaned' the air as it drove. Dirty air in clean air out the exhaust pipe.

 
Last edited:

Bellow

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
7,823
Location
Ecosse.
Car
C2500 350, 450
The more immediate goal is to remove harmful carbon emissions from densely-populated areas, thus improving air quality in city centres.

Which EVs do well. That's justification enough in itself.
No!
CO2 is not damaging to human health. NOx and particulates are. You are conflating issues again that need to be kept separate. You are seriously jeopardising the wider take-up of EVs by presenting them as a solution to what city dwellers would like.
 
OP
OP
markjay

markjay

MB Master
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
36,536
Location
London
Car
W204 C180 Executive SE 2013 Automatic / COMAND NTG4.7 and Morel speakers fitted by www.comand.co.uk
No!
CO2 is not damaging to human health. NOx and particulates are. You are conflating issues again that need to be kept separate. You are seriously jeopardising the wider take-up of EVs by presenting them as a solution to what city dwellers would like.

Please read my post again:

The more immediate goal is to remove harmful carbon emissions from densely-populated areas, thus improving air quality in city centres.

Which EVs do well. That's justification enough in itself.

Not all carbon emissions are harmful, clearly. And CO2 emissions are not harmful carbon emissions (not harmful directly to humans' health anyway).

Use of EVs will move the harmful ones away from city centres. Surely that's a good thing?

It would be illogical to object to the removal from city centres of a direct source of harmful pollution that people breathe, simply because it does not also solve the bigger problems of the entire planet.
 

Bellow

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
7,823
Location
Ecosse.
Car
C2500 350, 450
Please read my post again:



Not all carbon emissions are harmful, clearly. And CO2 emissions are not harmful carbon emissions (not harmful directly to humans' health anyway).

Use of EVs will move the harmful ones away from city centres. Surely that's a good thing?

It would be illogical to object to the removal from city centres of a direct source of harmful pollution that people breathe, simply because it does not also solve the bigger problems of the entire planet.
Going round in ever decreasing circles but.... it is possible that there could be an ICE that did not emit emissions harmful to human health but that possibility is removed by the banning of the sale of ICE in any format. An ICE that does not emit emissions harmful to human health, with a much lower carbon cost in production and running on bio-fuel is a superior solution.
EVs are a solution to that particular problem but weren't necessarily the only solution. They will have to be now though. Burning bridges has never struck me as sensible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m80

davymead

Active Member
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Shanklin Isle of Wight
Car
E350 CDI Sport Saloon 265. Smart ForTwo Limited II Convertible. ‘87 Jetta Gti 16V
.
EVs are a solution to that particular problem but weren't necessarily the only solution. They will have to be now though. Burning bridges has never struck me as sensible.
My thoughts entirely.
Some enormous gambling going on IMHO.
 

m80

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
3,411
Location
Derbyshire, High Peak
Car
Viano, 651 2014. W211 646 (for a short while)
Use of EVs will move the harmful ones away from city centres. Surely that's a good thing?
From the perspective of a city dweller then yes.
But there is a cost both environmental and financial, and possibly will result in a very harmful social effect.

The environmental, the downside of scrapping good motors and building new has been discussed lots already.

The financial is prohibitive to the majority. This may well, and should be a lesser cost over time due to increase of production, but as we exhaust more of the planets resources.
More though is the tax payer is and will need to fund much of the initiative. Even in the cities this is to the advantage of the minority. Outside of those cities and it will take much longer for the EV's to become popular (if that is the right term anyway). You want cleaner air, I will be required to largely pay for it.

Socially those that can afford can enjoy. The rest that are going to have less disposable cash anyway shall have to find other means to compensate for the loss of transport, and do w/o other things to do that.

So much of legislation nowadays, and corporate responses to it, create ever growing obstacles to personal progress and remove the incentive to that progress.
That was always a downside of socialism.
Any political colour would do the same sort of thing anyway. We are becoming more authoritarian.
 

SW18

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
1,533
Location
London
Car
S212 E500 Sport
Deferring EV rollout until its technology has improved (to circumvent the above) strikes me as being a valid proposition while pursuing other avenues of carbon reduction - eg, diet change and thus the possibility of growing (ICE compatible) bio-fuels.
The issue with deferral is that improving EV technology is a virtuous circle; it needs sales to bring returns to attract capital into R&D. No-one perfects a technology and then rolls it out, improvements are incremental. As it happens, a small and growing number of new car buyers are very willing to buy an EV, so the virtuous circle of technological improvement begins.

The other stuff - dietary changes, bio-fuels, plus hydrogen, changing electricity generation mix, and more - are all needed as well.
 

Dryce

MB Enthusiast
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
9,181
Car
..
The more immediate goal is to remove harmful carbon emissions from densely-populated areas, thus improving air quality in city centres.

Which EVs do well. That's justification enough in itself.

Odd that there are so many developments next to busy motorways ..... particularly interchanges.

And odd that despite buses being a major problem - and the proposed technology solutions to clean them being ineffectve in practical use they're not being anned.

The air in our cities is way cleaner than it was in the past - so we have invented new problems and back them with big numbers.

In the H&S world once somebody starts to be concerned about a risk then it becomes tangible- then it evolves to be a concern
and then it escalates to be a major issue that needs to be addressed by imposing expensive dogmatic policy and solutions.

Trouble is that big numbers become bandied about that become unchallenged. (10000 people a year die of X as if there is a single cause X and if that was addressed 10000 people wouldn't die). The media pick up on edge cases and apply blame where there are other underlying factors.

It's a ratchet that once something gets elevated as a perceived risk you can't lower it - it can only go higher.

We're at a stage where things are getting silly and damaging - and some pragmatism and honesty and reflection are required.

But we won't get that.
 

Dryce

MB Enthusiast
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
9,181
Car
..
The issue with deferral is that improving EV technology is a virtuous circle; it needs sales to bring returns to attract capital into R&D.

That would be a valid point where EVs were competing properly.

But the economics have been fixed such that we end up with nice expensive EVs that are being subsidised by those who will never afford them.

Seen many announcements for nice little EVS ? ????

As opposed to nice expensive EVs ?????

And how many are being pushed as company vehicles taht end up primarily being privately used and a tax benefit ?????
 

davymead

Active Member
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Shanklin Isle of Wight
Car
E350 CDI Sport Saloon 265. Smart ForTwo Limited II Convertible. ‘87 Jetta Gti 16V
We're at a stage where things are getting silly and damaging - and some pragmatism and honesty and reflection are required.

But we won't get that.
But I think we will, precisely the reason why this particular thread has become popular, not just on this forum, but plenty of people I speak to seem intrigued by the enormity of it all.
 

Bellow

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
7,823
Location
Ecosse.
Car
C2500 350, 450
The issue with deferral is that improving EV technology is a virtuous circle; it needs sales to bring returns to attract capital into R&D. No-one perfects a technology and then rolls it out, improvements are incremental. As it happens, a small and growing number of new car buyers are very willing to buy an EV, so the virtuous circle of technological improvement begins.
I don't dispute the process you outline. However, we are at a point where there must surely be ample knowledge of the electrics (some from F1 exploits I suspect) to be getting that bit right. What still needs development is outwith eg, a battery better than current that is thus far wholly problematic in its construction and disposal, charging infrastructure and the generation to back it.
Given that there will be demands for batteries outwith the automotive sector, development of that doesn't require EV sales to drive forward. Ditto generation capacity. So that only really leaves re-charging infrastructure and while EV take-up can influence that so will the desire to maximise return on investment leaving some gaping holes in the virtuous circle's circumference - mobile phone coverage (or lack of) tells us that.
Dryce's comments are valid here. There is something very lopsided about a technology succeeding only because its preferred alternative is being disqualified from running. Very clean (EU7) engines are now dismissed as being too costly - but are still substantially cheaper than battery production.

The other stuff - dietary changes, bio-fuels, plus hydrogen, changing electricity generation mix, and more - are all needed as well.
I suspect we will discover too late in the day just how useful liquid (at ambient temperature and low pressure) fuels are. For road transport that advantage is hard to replace. Without other factors lithium batteries wouldn't stand a chance of usurping them. They remain a carbon neutral possibility (bio-fuels) and with a fresh outlook on ICE (focus more on reducing NOx than CO2 as the CO2 is already neutralised) the sheer versatility of liquid fuels could be retained and used in vehicles with a fraction of an EV's manufacturing cost and carbon footprint. This would also free up electricity (which will be in short supply) for where it can better be deployed. No R&D will be done on this though while Mercedes and the rest fiddle with their business models to cater for the wealthiest - knowing they wont have to.
 
OP
OP
markjay

markjay

MB Master
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
36,536
Location
London
Car
W204 C180 Executive SE 2013 Automatic / COMAND NTG4.7 and Morel speakers fitted by www.comand.co.uk
...Very clean (EU7) engines are now dismissed as being too costly - but are still substantially cheaper than battery production...

Dieselgate put the last nail in that coffin. The automotive industry scored an own-goal with that one, basically their message was the EU6 was a bridge too far for them, hence why they won't be trusted again with EU7. This has become the story of what might have been, but won't happen now.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom