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

[markjay]

Probably a numpty question (not a stupid one - there is no such thing)

No new ICE after 2030 does not I presume apply globally. So what is to stop someone buying a new ICE from another country? OK, won't be from a major, but there must be a number of smaller manufacturers who could carve a niche?

As I am typing, the words "import levy" spring to mind! But still a question worth asking

They won't be allowed to import it, as it won't conform to UK regulations at the time of import?

 

[markjay]

Also, the Far East, the Gulf, Africa and South America etc are still huge markets for ICE cars... I believe that all major car manufacturers will continue to produce them, just not sell them in the West.

 

[ChipChop]

Probably a numpty question (not a stupid one - there is no such thing)

No new ICE after 2030 does not I presume apply globally. So what is to stop someone buying a new ICE from another country? OK, won't be from a major, but there must be a number of smaller manufacturers who could carve a niche?

As I am typing, the words "import levy" spring to mind! But still a question worth asking

The 2050 net zero emissions agenda is all encompassing. Even if you were allowed to personally import a car from a post 2030 ICE friendly country you would not be able to afford the container the car would be shipped in let alone the duty payable. Then we have the post 2030 cost of petrol, LPG and diesel to consider.

It would make more sense for you to emigrate to drive that 2031 new petrol V8.

 

[Gollom]

The 2050 net zero emissions agenda is all encompassing. Even if you were allowed to personally import a car from a post 2030 ICE friendly country you would not be able to afford the container the car would be shipped in let alone the duty payable. Then we have the post 2030 cost of petrol, LPG and diesel to consider.

It would make more sense for you to emigrate to drive that 2031 new petrol V8.

That's the bit that concerns me most in many ways. I have long said they will use large levies on ICE fuel to "encourage" people to change to EV. But that will mainly impact people who simply cannot afford a new EV (and the jury is out on buying 2nd hand in an initially limited market) Don't want to come over as a Socialist, but like so many things the decision will be made by people who tend not to have financial concerns in the first place (and live in areas where public transport is viable)

Yes, I agree something needs to be done. As others have said, better investment in producing less toxic fuels may have been wise. To run in parallel with changes to EV of course.

Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Glad it's not MY decision!

 

[ChipChop]

That's the bit that concerns me most in many ways. I have long said they will use large levies on ICE fuel to "encourage" people to change to EV. But that will mainly impact people who simply cannot afford a new EV (and the jury is out on buying 2nd hand in an initially limited market) Don't want to come over as a Socialist, but like so many things the decision will be made by people who tend not to have financial concerns in the first place (and live in areas where public transport is viable)

Yes, I agree something needs to be done. As others have said, better investment in producing less toxic fuels may have been wise. To run in parallel with changes to EV of course.

Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Glad it's not MY decision!

The movers and shakers in this world are now focussing investment in renewables (electrification), not fossil fuels. This means less supply of fossil fuels so increased cost. Those unwilling or financially unable to make the enforced switch will suffer but investors in renewables do not care if a poor Western person will not be able to afford the electricity to heat their homes let alone buy an electric car.

To make matters worse the biggest global investor in renewables is China. The biggest polluter with plans to continue to pollute to grow their economy. The nerve.

Meanwhile our economy goes down the toilet. Rather like a declaration of war on the West imho.

 

[Bellow]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Engineering Explained taking on the ICE vs EV arguments factoring in the CO2 used in production.
Buying a new car capable of 35 mpUSg to replace one returning 25 mpUSg takes seven years before CO2 parity is achieved. Running a car that already exists and returns 40 mpUSg takes seven years also to reach parity. Cars returning greater than 40 mpUSg are ''better run into the ground'' than replaced with electric. (Figures based on 12,000 miles pa).

Read between the lines and running our current cars (if economical on fuel) into the ground is better than replacing with new ICE or EV. Which, in the absence of a scrapage scheme - is where we are heading.

In the second part of the vid, I think he is a little optimistic re re-cycling batteries but something will have to be done there so maybe the tech will come. He also overlooks the carbon associated with the grid/generation upscaling required (when the infrastructure for ICE is already adequate).

 

[markjay]

As I keep saying...

EVs remove harmful NOx emissions and carbon particulates away from densely-populated areas, and help improve quality in city centres. This alone is a good reason to have them, in my view.

As for saving the planet... they might, or might not, I do not know. My guess is that EVs are part of the solution, but how big a part is a separate question.

 

[Bellow]

As I keep saying...

EVs remove harmful NOx emissions and carbon particulates away from densely-populated areas, and help improve quality in city centres. This alone is a good reason to have them, in my view.

Is that worth the increased CO2?

 

[grober]

There's a continuing theme here as to how EV as they now stand will fail to adequately replace all IC propelled vehicles-- that's true if you try to envisage the world/society continuing to run as it does now by using fossil fuels---- climate change dictates that it cannot continue to do so. Personal transport issues naturally highlighted here and raising understandable emotions on a car forum are but one expression of society's current painfull necessity for re-organisation in a much bigger picture.

 

[Bellow]

There's a continuing theme here as to how EV as they now stand will fail to adequately replace all IC propelled vehicles-- that's true if you try to envisage the world/society continuing to run as it does now by using fossil fuels---- climate change dictates that it cannot continue to do so. Personal transport issues naturally highlighted here and raising understandable emotions on a car forum are but one expression of society's current painfull necessity for re-organisation in a much bigger picture.

Fully agree, but personal mobility is going to be one of the toughest (and with economic consequences) to give up. And the question is the degree to which electrification of it should be devoted to it to the detriment of other electrical requirements/necessities.
And I'm still not seeing anyone voicing what they would give up to permit driving to survive. Plenty out there I suspect thinking they need a car to drive to the airport....
Perhaps the CO2 shortage (ironic!) created by high gas prices as it affects the meat industry will see a reappraisal of diet earlier than expected.

 

[markjay]

Is that worth the increased CO2?

Depends on whom you're asking... the parents of asthmatic children will definitely have a view on this

My own view, is that any increase in CO₂ emissions will be short term - the energy to power EVs is generated centrally (another benefit), and as long as manage to find CO₂-neutral energy production methods (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro), we will offset any temporary increase that EV may cause.

The issue with ICE is that it is an extremely inflexible solution. Any change to ICE takes decades to implement. How long did it take till we got rid of leaded fuel? Even the introduction of a small change such as E10 fuel is a major headache. EU1 was introduced in 1992, EU6 in 2014, so 6 incremental steps took us 22(!) years.... we've been debating here for a number of years the various attempts to get rid of old pre-EU6 diesels, bought with the government's encouragement due to low CO₂ emissions, and now they will now stay with us for decades until we manage to get the last one far away from city centres.

I don't know how long does it take to build a nuclear power plane, or a wind farm, etc, but I would hazard a guess it's less than 22 years... and once it's built, EVs will be powered by it seamlessly without owners even being aware. And we won't see pages and pages of 'is solar good for my EV?' posts etc, like we see with ICE cars.

 

[sjmaxwell]

The immediate affect is the environment is cleaner, the long term affect is more blured and as i said a while back its based on incomplete analysis as the breaking down and disposal of gas cars isn't considered which will add to CO2, keep your old car and run it for a long time is better at the moment but likewise, electric cars will create disposal issues, especially with the batteries which are not being considered yet ! And don't forget that car tax will have to be applied to electric cars in time so there will be no saving there let alone how the electricity is generated !

 

[Doodle]

And we won't see pages and pages of 'is solar good for my EV?' posts etc, like we see with ICE cars.

I wouldn't bet on it. There were posts about which type/model of charger is best when I ordered my Zoe, and that was 6 years ago

 

[Dryce]

Depends on whom you're asking... the parents of asthmatic children will definitely have a view on this

This IMO is a red herring. Air pollution was a lot lot worse in the past.

Now we have some low threshold numbers. A lot more people. And you can always find somebody who is sick or stir around some stats and then make a linkage.

I'm left wondering how I survived my early years.

My own view, is that any increase in CO₂ emissions will be short term - the energy to power EVs is generated centrally (another benefit), and as long as manage to find CO₂-neutral energy production methods (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro), we will offset any temporary increase that EV may cause.

The nubers can probably be made to workeither way on this.

But really for an EV to make sense they shouldn't be arguable.

The real problem presumably isn't EVs but unecessary early scrapping and unecessary production. That's the so called 'consumer society' isn't it? Exactly what we are criticised for by green groups. Bit ironic.

The issue with ICE is that it is an extremely inflexible solution. Any change to ICE takes decades to implement. How long did it take till we got rid of leaded fuel? Even the introduction of a small change such as E10 fuel is a major headache. EU1 was introduced in 1992, EU6 in 2014, so 6 incremental steps took us 22(!) years.... we've been debating here for a number of years the various attempts to get rid of old pre-EU6 diesels, bought with the government's encouragement due to low CO₂ emissions, and now they will now stay with us for decades until we manage to get the last one far away from city centres.

Ummmmm what?!?!?! "The issue with ICE is that it is an extremely inflexible solution"

Seriously?

Given the existing infrastructure and the range of products and the range of uses ..... IT'S THE MOST FLEXIBLE SOLUTION.

It's just the government that is making it less flexible by restricting where perfectly servicable and usable vehicles can be driven.

I don't know how long does it take to build a nuclear power plane, or a wind farm, etc, but I would hazard a guess it's less than 22 years... and once it's built, EVs will be powered by it seamlessly without owners even being aware. And we won't see pages and pages of 'is solar good for my EV?' posts etc, like we see with ICE cars.

Nuclear plant traditionally was about 10 years in the UK - from start to finish.

But the point has been repeatedly raised that the power requiirement of the average household could rise considerably so if threre is a mass move to EVs then we could see not just a small single or two digit % requirement for new power generation but a three digit %.

Now renewables are great when they work. But some sort of realistic view needs to be taken and they need to be backed by a considerable contingency. (Which adds to that three digit %).

The issues arising this week on energy security and costs act as a very poignant reminder that we are basically taking an economically fragile infrastructure that isn't as 'OK' as those running it would have us believe and expecting it to magically double or triple in generation capacity.

You have argued that EVs allow energy security because you can support them with a portfolio of different sources of power - but you have to have that portfolio in the first place.

So *right now* unless there is a significant uplift in investment every EV purchased and used that replaces a ICE is actually contributing to decreasing the energy security of every person in the UK who depends on the national grid - which is most of us.

And unless there is a significant uplift in investment then in the near to medium future every EV being added is potentially contributing to the economic risk that households and businesses will have significantly higher energy bills.

So no - in principle - it doesn't take 22 years to build a nuclear power station - but the big reality check on this should be the realisation that unless we are seeing multiple power station construction projects started right now then are heading towards a very big problem.

So ..... are we seeing a large number of power stations being constructed or planned to be constructed?

(And more poignantly how many are due to be decomissioned in the next 10 years ....... )

 

[Dickster]

Not sure if it’s been mentioned, but I was watching the spurs game at the weekend, and pundit Micah Richards said that he had an EV but got rid of it because the council not allowing him a charger or something like that You couldn’t make it up.

 

[markjay]

The future is here...:

Rolls-Royce’s all-electric ‘Spirit of Innovation’ takes to the skies for the first time

Rolls-Royce’s all-electric ‘Spirit of Innovation’ takes to the skies for the first time

www.rolls-royce.com

Embrace it

 

[190]

So ..... are we seeing a large number of power stations being constructed or planned to be constructed?

I would have some concern about planning to build large nuclear power stations because in practice we are utterly hopeless at building them to time and cost so that whatever financial case was made for building them can't possibly be matched in reality. Instead I would very much support the new concept of purchasing large numbers of factory built modular nuclear stations which stand a much better chance of the planned costs becoming a reality.

Whatever we are doing it doesn't seem enough. I would have heartily approved of HS2 being cancelled and the money being diverted to building energy infrastructure.

 

[markjay]

..Whatever we are doing it doesn't seem enough. I would have heartily approved of HS2 being cancelled and the money being diverted to building energy infrastructure.

What is the argument against HS2? That it's too expensive and we can't afford it? Or that we don't need it because the UK is less than half the size of France, and our trains serve us just fine as they are now? Or is it an environmental argument - that all land traffic infrastructure disrupts the ecosystems where they run? Etc.

 

[markjay]

This IMO is a red herring. Air pollution was a lot lot worse in the past.

Now we have some low threshold numbers. A lot more people. And you can always find somebody who is sick or stir around some stats and then make a linkage.

I'm left wondering how I survived my early years.



The nubers can probably be made to workeither way on this.

But really for an EV to make sense they shouldn't be arguable.

The real problem presumably isn't EVs but unecessary early scrapping and unecessary production. That's the so called 'consumer society' isn't it? Exactly what we are criticised for by green groups. Bit ironic.



Ummmmm what?!?!?! "The issue with ICE is that it is an extremely inflexible solution"

Seriously?

Given the existing infrastructure and the range of products and the range of uses ..... IT'S THE MOST FLEXIBLE SOLUTION.

It's just the government that is making it less flexible by restricting where perfectly servicable and usable vehicles can be driven.



Nuclear plant traditionally was about 10 years in the UK - from start to finish.

But the point has been repeatedly raised that the power requiirement of the average household could rise considerably so if threre is a mass move to EVs then we could see not just a small single or two digit % requirement for new power generation but a three digit %.

Now renewables are great when they work. But some sort of realistic view needs to be taken and they need to be backed by a considerable contingency. (Which adds to that three digit %).

The issues arising this week on energy security and costs act as a very poignant reminder that we are basically taking an economically fragile infrastructure that isn't as 'OK' as those running it would have us believe and expecting it to magically double or triple in generation capacity.

You have argued that EVs allow energy security because you can support them with a portfolio of different sources of power - but you have to have that portfolio in the first place.

So *right now* unless there is a significant uplift in investment every EV purchased and used that replaces a ICE is actually contributing to decreasing the energy security of every person in the UK who depends on the national grid - which is most of us.

And unless there is a significant uplift in investment then in the near to medium future every EV being added is potentially contributing to the economic risk that households and businesses will have significantly higher energy bills.

So no - in principle - it doesn't take 22 years to build a nuclear power station - but the big reality check on this should be the realisation that unless we are seeing multiple power station construction projects started right now then are heading towards a very big problem.

So ..... are we seeing a large number of power stations being constructed or planned to be constructed?

(And more poignantly how many are due to be decomissioned in the next 10 years ....... )

Holding our breath — How poor air quality blights cities - Centre for Cities

Air quality tends to be worse in cities than elsewhere in the country. Figure 2 shows the geography of background concentration levels of two major pollutants – nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5)[footnote]PM2.5, also known as fine particulate matter, refers to...

www.centreforcities.org

So how would you have tackled the issue of poor air quality in city centres?

The other option (which I am also in favour of) is to close-off busy city centres to private cars, while improving and subsidising public transport.

But simply saying that nothing should change because nothing could change isn't something I can support.

 

[Bellow]

Depends on whom you're asking... the parents of asthmatic children will definitely have a view on this

I've already commented on a range of measures to improve air quality. To that I'll add that I'm beginning to think that re-mapping diesels was a very bad idea. See the dyno plots where 'dips in the torque curve' have been swelled. Why were there dips to begin with? Because that was where the NOx was uncontrollable? Probably.

My own view, is that any increase in CO₂ emissions will be short term - the energy to power EVs is generated centrally (another benefit), and as long as manage to find CO₂-neutral energy production methods (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro), we will offset any temporary increase that EV may cause.

Building the infrastructure to support electrification has its own CO2 emissions that are being ignored. Not only are existing ICE vehicle serviceable without incurring any more production related CO2 emissions, so is the supporting infrastructure.

The issue with ICE is that it is an extremely inflexible solution. Any change to ICE takes decades to implement. How long did it take till we got rid of leaded fuel? Even the introduction of a small change such as E10 fuel is a major headache. EU1 was introduced in 1992, EU6 in 2014, so 6 incremental steps took us 22(!) years.... we've been debating here for a number of years the various attempts to get rid of old pre-EU6 diesels, bought with the government's encouragement due to low CO₂ emissions, and now they will now stay with us for decades until we manage to get the last one far away from city centres.

To change fuel requires little more than calibration changes to fuelling and ignition timing and maybe some hardware changes to counter corrosion. In new designs, compression ratio and combustion would be further optimised for the replacement fuel. Realistically, it is possible to retro-fit this. Already, the vast majority of petrol engines can cope with E10 without any problem. Flex Fuel engines in the USA readily accept 15% petrol/85% ethanol blends while retaining 100% petrol capability.
Elsewhere in the world, engines are running on 100% ethanol. Ethanol is crop derived and thus CO2 neutral.