Stop expanding the ULEZ to all the London boroughs in 2023

[Will]

In fairness, if you're suggesting that if they didn't oppose then they supported, that would be incorrect to assume. Only 1.2m people voted for Khan, would that mean the remaining 7.7m opposed him?

The nudge is not necessary, MOT takes most of those cars off the road and if the goal was to prevent pollution, a usage tax is more appropriate. In fact the most environmentally friendly think you can do is keep your car longer, and repair it with recycled parts as manufacturing has a big environmental impact.

Keeping older cars going maybe environmentally friendly in some respects but has nothing to do with localised air pollution.

There is a lot of misunderstanding with this it seems.

My comments regarding the consultation are that there’s always some feedback/campaign/petition organised by those who have a vested interest.

The honest truth is the majority of people aren’t particularly interested in stuff like this (why would they be when most cars are already compliant and not everyone drives anyway?)

Inevitably there will be some objection and a bit of media interest but it will go ahead regardless of what people on here might think!

 

[Will]

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

I’ve worked in central London for over 30 years and this issue is the least of its problems. It’s a problem that doesn’t exist. Khan is a cyclist and wants people out of cars. There may be pollution hot spots but they should be dealt with individually.

I guess supporters of this scheme would be in favour of the ridiculous 20mph zones (not all of them), and the nonsensical change to EVs.

I’m not a fan of the 20mph zones but I accept them.

Not sure EVs are nonsensical, they’re in their early years and I can’t see the change back to burning fossil fuels becoming likely.

Don’t make sense for me yet but I’m sure one day I will have one and so will most others.

 

[ALFAitalia]

......catalysts introduced in 1993 meant that the exhaust gases were cleaner than the air being sucked in......

LOL....imagine if that was actually possible...no need for EVs after all!!!!

 

[Dickster]

I’m not a fan of the 20mph zones but I accept them.

Not sure EVs are nonsensical, they’re in their early years and I can’t see the change back to burning fossil fuels becoming likely.

Don’t make sense for me yet but I’m sure one day I will have one and so will most others.

It’s a different subject Will but what will the UK driving EVs achieve? Is it going to save the planet?

And the 20mph zones in London. No one adheres to them so they don’t work.

 

[Dickster]

Keeping older cars going maybe environmentally friendly in some respects but has nothing to do with localised air pollution.

There is a lot of misunderstanding with this it seems.

My comments regarding the consultation are that there’s always some feedback/campaign/petition organised by those who have a vested interest.

The honest truth is the majority of people aren’t particularly interested in stuff like this (why would they be when most cars are already compliant and not everyone drives anyway?)

Inevitably there will be some objection and a bit of media interest but it will go ahead regardless of what people on here might think!

Not sure about that, the objections are more widespread than you seem to think.

This is just one council

Response to ULEZ consultation | London Borough of Bexley

www.bexley.gov.uk

 

[Will]

It’s a different subject Will but what will the UK driving EVs achieve? Is it going to save the planet?

And the 20mph zones in London. No one adheres to them so they don’t work.

ULEZ is for localised air quality, not about saving the planet.

So much misunderstanding on this.

 

[markjay]

It’s a different subject Will but what will the UK driving EVs achieve? Is it going to save the planet?

And the 20mph zones in London. No one adheres to them so they don’t work.

EVs remove harmful exhaust gas emissions from city centres, which is where most people live and work.

As for saving the planet... the answer isn't more cars (EVs or otherwise), instead the solution is that we should have less private cars, drive them less, and have (and use) more public transport.

 

[Dickster]

ULEZ is for localised air quality, not about saving the planet.

So much misunderstanding on this.

Localised? Practically the whole area inside the m25 is hardly localised.

 

[Dickster]

EVs remove harmful exhaust gas emissions from city centres, which is where most people live and work.

As for saving the planet... the answer isn't more cars (EVs or otherwise), instead the solution is that we should have less private cars, drive them less, and have (and use) more public transport.

So perhaps the investment in EVs would be better spent on a better public transport system. There’s a reason I’ve not commuted by train for 30 years.

 

[markjay]

So perhaps the investment in EVs would be better spent on a better public transport system. There’s a reason I’ve not commuted by train for 30 years.

I don't disagree. But we are where we are. We have EVs, and overcrowded public transport.

 

[Darrell]

The outrage seems to be mostly from a minority of people,

Seems to me that in this day and age that’s all you need to get action.

 

[Darrell]

EVs remove harmful exhaust gas emissions from city centres, which is where most people live and work.

I’m sure they do but the ULEZ extension isn’t the city centre.

I live 16kms from the city centre and I’m surrounded by school playing fields, 3 parks, 3 18 hole golf courses, one of the biggest pitch & putt centres in the U.K, the Green Belt and a sports centre with 30 football pitches, 4 rugby pitches and 4 cricket pitches.

Our local air quality is up there with the best.

 

[Dickster]

Seems to me that in this day and age that’s all you need to get action.

That is the reality and a sad state of affairs.

 

[neilrr]

Man drives electric car 350 miles to see real cost and 'numbers didn't add up'

Steven Smith wanted to find out just how easy it is to charge an electric car and what it costs but found that using the eco-friendly vehicle came with a hefty price tag

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[sgregory124]

Man drives electric car 350 miles to see real cost and 'numbers didn't add up'

Steven Smith wanted to find out just how easy it is to charge an electric car and what it costs but found that using the eco-friendly vehicle came with a hefty price tag

www.mirror.co.uk

And therein lies the problem.

Buy an electric car they say, their range is on a par with ICE vehicles they say, yada yada yada. Pure nonsense, it's clear from that guy's experience (and many others) that the technology and the infrastructure simply do not exist right now to support large scale adoption of EV's. No prospect of that happening anytime soon in this broken country of ours either.

I'm sure they work if you have nothing better to do than sit and drink gallons of coffee and watch the world go by whilst you charge up, but most people don't.

 

[Flyinspanner]

That’s a very interesting article, with ‘real world’ driving. I’ve often thought the range claims made by manufactures are like the old mpg claims they made for ICE cars, - very optimistic, on a perfect run/perfect conditions/nil traffic/etc.
Interesting that it EV is more expensive to run, and although he states people may be happy to pay the premium to be ’green’ it doesn’t address the electricity generation nor environmental damage mining metals for the batteries, and eventual costs in recycling them.
The charging points will always be costly as the installation and maintenance has to be factored in plus a big profit on already expensive electric.

How long before Hydrogen cells take over, EVs are bypassed and taxed as ICEs due to the damage done?

 

[sgregory124]

That’s a very interesting article, with ‘real world’ driving. I’ve often thought the range claims made by manufactures are like the old mpg claims they made for ICE cars, - very optimistic, on a perfect run/perfect conditions/nil traffic/etc.
Interesting that it EV is more expensive to run, and although he states people may be happy to pay the premium to be ’green’ it doesn’t address the electricity generation nor environmental damage mining metals for the batteries, and eventual costs in recycling them.
The charging points will always be costly as the installation and maintenance has to be factored in plus a big profit on already expensive electric.

How long before Hydrogen cells take over, EVs are bypassed and taxed as ICEs due to the damage done?

Don't forget syn-fuels, which would at least mean we don't have to scrap huge numbers of otherwise obsolete ICE cars during the transition.

 

[Petrol Pete]

"....Outlying councils set for ULEZ expansion revolt..."

A bit like when the Mayor of Swindon switched off/refused to maintain all of the speed cameras when the rules changed handing all of the 'gains' to central government.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Don't forget syn-fuels, which would at least mean we don't have to scrap huge numbers of otherwise obsolete ICE cars during the transition.

Will never happen....The elephant in the room comes from how synthetic fuels are made. They are produced by combining CO2 with hydrogen, and this raw material is then used to manufacture the sub-type – gasoline/petrol or diesel. Not only does this process involve lots of stages, each of which adds cost and consumes energy, the key element here is hydrogen, which leads to a similar set of questions about energy efficiency as hydrogen fuel cells. In fact, the situation is even worse for synthetic fuel. According to Transport & Environment, hydrogen fuel cells are currently 2.3 times less energy efficient than batteries, with the deficit dropping to 2 times less efficient by 2050. Synthetic fuels are less efficient still, with the estimate being about 4 times worse than batteries and very little improvement by 2050. In other words, powering the current car fleet with synthetic fuels instead of batteries will require four times as much electricity generation, which seems completely impractical. If just 10% of the UK’s cars, vans and small trucks used e-fuels it would require three times as much renewable electricity as batteries. It is also therefore entirely impossible that synthetic fuel will be cheaper than using electricity to charge batteries.

 

[sgregory124]

Will never happen....The elephant in the room comes from how synthetic fuels are made. They are produced by combining CO2 with hydrogen, and this raw material is then used to manufacture the sub-type – gasoline/petrol or diesel. Not only does this process involve lots of stages, each of which adds cost and consumes energy, the key element here is hydrogen, which leads to a similar set of questions about energy efficiency as hydrogen fuel cells. In fact, the situation is even worse for synthetic fuel. According to Transport & Environment, hydrogen fuel cells are currently 2.3 times less energy efficient than batteries, with the deficit dropping to 2 times less efficient by 2050. Synthetic fuels are less efficient still, with the estimate being about 4 times worse than batteries and very little improvement by 2050. In other words, powering the current car fleet with synthetic fuels instead of batteries will require four times as much electricity generation, which seems completely impractical. If just 10% of the UK’s cars, vans and small trucks used e-fuels it would require three times as much renewable electricity as batteries. It is also therefore entirely impossible that synthetic fuel will be cheaper than using electricity to charge batteries.

I'm not talking about running all the remaining ICE cars on syn-fuels, it was more for those of us that might be running special cars that we don't want to get rid of immediately when the inevitable transition happens, or because some rabid fundamentalist group wants us to.