UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[FW17]

.....you should blame UK government because of using so much fossil fuels and ignoring emissions but who knows, maybe their plan is a huge change for 2040

the country is run by 'news' media, who fake environmental crises and force the elected government to respond to 'public' opinion

the UK is not ignoring any emissions, it has done more reduction (relatively) than any other country, it's done too much
it also reprocesses many other countries nuclear fuel

and you're still telling yourself and us that there is no fossil fuel burned in Spain, Holland, or Sweden etc etc for heating
and so all energy in those countries is in the form of vehicle fuel or renewable electricity

the UK renewables programme is bigger than Spain's etc etc
coal will all be gone by 2025, it is already being replaced by the environmentally bogus wood firing
the UK carbon emission has already fallen to less than 3% of the (rising) carbon emission of China and India combined

So you saying being technically advanced is a bad thing?


Since the price of fuel is coming down, it must be a great market for American Muscle cars from 1970.....................

[Andres125sx]

I don't understand your statement, how is a EV more user friendly?

1- No need to warm up (so less failures from people who don´t care about taking care of his car)
2- Limited gear changes if any but the car always react
3- They´re quiet and smooth and less stresful
4- Less restrictions when going into the city


Yes I like lists

You are not convincing me to make the switch on the more user friendly pitch.

I know, when people don´t like something it´s difficult for them to accept the advantages of that thing they don´t like

Point 1. I start and drive, even the manual in my car suggests this. No "warmup needed" and what is awesome is that my rev limit is reduced automatically when cold, this Is to help out those people that don't know.

They also say breaking-in is not necessary... when it is. Also, taking care of a cold engine is not limited to not revving it up. Different materials have different heat expansion ratios, and even same material will need more or less time to expand depending on the thickness of the part, so a warm up period is always necessary for an ICE if you want it to have a long and healthy lifespan

Point 2. I normally select D and as long as I need to move forward, I keep it there. If I need to go backwards, I select R. Very user friendly.

You missed the last part... and the car always react. Current automatic gearboxes are awesome, but even so they need some time to engage a shorter gear when you floor the throttle due to the lack of torque at low revs. Electric motors don´t need to engage a shorter gear, some don´t even have gears, it´s instant torque without gearchanges, so yes that´s user friendliness.... even if you compare them with an ICE with automatic gearbox. If comparing with a traditional gearbox, the difference is dramatic.

Point 3&4 has nothing to do with user friendliness.

Maybe not for you, but they are for MANY people. A quiet car is always a bonus. Car manufacturers spend some money on noise isulation, usually the most expensive the car is, the better isulation, so it must provide some advantage



Anycase you don´t like EVs, ok, but no need to deny their numerous advantages

Also, I can get 840km of extra urban driving on a single charge, and it takes me less than 10min for a full charge at one of the many charging stations.

Obviously, that´s the reason none is saying EVs can replace ICEs today.

[Andres125sx]

and you're still telling yourself and us that there is no fossil fuel burned in Spain, Holland, or Sweden etc etc for heating
and so all energy in those countries is in the form of vehicle fuel or renewable electricity

Read properly please, I never said that.

I said that contrary to what the article says about the UK, those countries electricity does not come from coal plants mainly, so that statement implying EVs are not that green because electricity comes from coal plants mainly, only applies to the UK, but it would be false in many other countries.

Basically they´re using the fact most energy in the UK produces a lot of harmful emissions, to bash EVs, as if it was a problem of EVs, when it´s only a problem of the UK

the UK renewables programme is bigger than Spain's etc etc
coal will all be gone by 2025, it is already being replaced by the environmentally bogus wood firing
the UK carbon emission has already fallen to less than 3% of the (rising) carbon emission of China and India combined

Not trying to start a fight about whose daddy is stronger but while some countries are still planning their future to accomplish the environment agreement to reduce emsissions, some others have already accomplished their target for 2020, like Spain

I´m not trying to defend some country is better than some other, there are a million factors affecting energy production. I´m only pointing the fact that you can´t blame EVs because of the emissions of a country. Specially if, as you´ve stated yourself, the UK plan is advanced and emissions will be drastically reduced in a near future.

If that´s true, don´t you agree that should be mentioned in the article when they´re talking about a rule for 2040? The problem they mention (more electricity comes from coal plants wich produce a lot of emissions) will not be true in 2040 wich is the date they´re talking about, so that´s, plain an simple, misleading information at least

[Andres125sx]

The petrol prices go down the more EV come into being due to supply and demand.

EV, by its very existence guarantees the continued lifespan of IC vehicles.

Nice wishfull thinking, but something wich is limited and need to be used for loads of things (asphalt, plastics, gas, diesel for ships, kerosene for airliners.....) will never see a price drop. Even if a half of the worldwide cars become electric.

Are you seriously claiming that your opinion wins against an iron law of economics?

Any product that loses 50% of its customers will see a price correction.

Your opinion in this case has no merit.

Fair enough, I was just trying to point the fact petrol is not used for cars only, but for many many more uses, so even if the fuel demand for cars goes down, if petrol is really becoming limited, prices will go up no matter how many cars are using fuel or electricity. The number will only change the slope of the petrol price graph, with many cars the prices will go up quickly, while if the number is reduced the price increase will take longer. But I don´t think the number will be reduced to the point prices will go down sincerely, I´d love it as that would mean EVs have become a norm, but I doubt it.

That´s also a law of economics, when something is limited, prices goes up

[Tommy Cookers]

@ Andres etc
well I am giving up on trying to understand what you are saying ......

interestingly to me
taxpayer funding is given where there seems to be a potential 60% (lifetime) reduction in carbon emissions (so nothing to CHP ?)
now running is 1935 MW conversion of coal to wood firing at Drax
some arboriculture experts seem to show that there is a lifetime increase in emissions, anyway there is less reduction in the near term
(there's a huge amount of carbon in soil, turning into CO2 and methane - but this aspect of land management is ignored)
now only about 32% of Drax output is coal fired, and funding for further conversion to wood has been cut .....
http://news.sky.com/story/energy-future ... m-10954086
however Drax is interested in converting 2 the 3 remaining unconverted 660MW units to gas firing
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/arti ... rsion.html
this http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... fuels.aspx
reminds me that gas firing would give a sure carbon reduction of about 45%

and Drax has bought 4 remote rapid response 299 MW open cycle gas turbine units expected to run c. 500 hours/year
10 min startup (10x faster than combined cycle gas turbine) to compensate for the limitations of PVs and the 1000+ wind turbines
at least 1 coal fired plant having been destroyed by being forced into rapid response to save gas fired (steam) plant being so destroyed
remember that renewables in part increase our emissions by restricting our use of CCGT (and its 60% carbon saving)

EDIT - NEWS 1 week later a campaign group says the wood firing has increased local PM10s by 135% - Drax says this is legal

the latest Tesla EV .....
has of course its torque limited at low speeds and falling at high speeds and a best motor efficiency of 91%
say, 89% motor efficiency, 89% supplier-to-battery efficiency, and 89% battery-to-motor drive-motor efficiency
to factor down whatever carbon efficiency the electricity supply has

the UK has of course a notoriously high 'motor fuel duty' (tax) of about $5/gallon
I look forward to that tax burden (instead of handouts) being transferred to EV users
and we can mine lithium in Cornwall

[Andres125sx]

Now it´s me who got lost with your reasoning...


Just to clarify I´m only trying to say that sort of articles are biased, sensationalist, and, IMHO, reckless. They don´t like EV´s, or they think their readers don´t like EV´s, so they only try to bash EV´s with or without reason.

If the UK has a proper plan to reduce emissions, pointing out that electricity produces as much emissions as ICEs is nosense. To judge that announcement about banning ICEs in 2040 they should be evaluating electricity emissions in 2040, not currently, so if there´s a plan to drastically reduce emissions in a near future, judging a rule for 2040 with today standards is biased, sensationalist and reckless, as it´s setting people against that rule with biased info

[Zynerji]

I'm far more concerned with the environmental impact of lithium mining for EV batteries than I am of the carbon reduction.

If you want CO2 reduction, genetically modify trees to grow twice as fast to sequester it.

[Andres125sx]

I'm far more concerned with the environmental impact of lithium mining for EV batteries than I am of the carbon reduction.

I read some time ago future batteries could recycle 100% of its lithium so it would become a closed cycle without huge minning needs. Not sure how accurate it was or if it will become real at some point, but it was promising

If you want CO2 reduction, genetically modify trees to grow twice as fast to sequester it.

Typical capitalist mentality, instead of adapting to sustainable habits, let´s modify everything so it´s nature who adapts to my needs

Don´t get me wrong, I´m capitalist too and don´t think there´s anything better right now, but nothing is perfect and that´s exactly the problem with capitalism, it promotes greed and makes people think everything can be done with money


Some days ago I watched Ultimatum to Earth again, and I found comical the reasons scriptwriters provide to give humankind a second oportunity, because if that situation would be true, humankind would be anihilated, period, we´re ruining the planet consciously and we still bother about our wallets more than we do for the planet. As a specie we don´t deserve a second oportuniy. Matrix did explain it perfectly , humankind is a parasite of Earth, we only exploit its resources without any sustainability in mind. That´s exactly what parasites do, so while we don´t change that mentality of "we can do whatever we want with the planet" drastically, we´re parasites who think we are special, but only parasites. Smart animals don´t ruin their own environement.

Sorry for the OT, yesterday I heard it was the day were we´ve exhausted the natural resources the planet can cope with, so the resources we use the rest of the year can´t be replaced and, once again, made me realize how bad can be we humankind for the planet

[Tommy Cookers]

what we called until recently the 'developing' world is now largely living on food grown on unsustainable water supplies pumped from underground
but we Westeners don't hear about this from our governments because that would reduce their ability to make us feel guilty

[Zynerji]

I'm far more concerned with the environmental impact of lithium mining for EV batteries than I am of the carbon reduction.

I read some time ago future batteries could recycle 100% of its lithium so it would become a closed cycle without huge minning needs. Not sure how accurate it was or if it will become real at some point, but it was promising

If you want CO2 reduction, genetically modify trees to grow twice as fast to sequester it.

Typical capitalist mentality, instead of adapting to sustainable habits, let´s modify everything so it´s nature who adapts to my needs

Don´t get me wrong, I´m capitalist too and don´t think there´s anything better right now, but nothing is perfect and that´s exactly the problem with capitalism, it promotes greed and makes people think everything can be done with money


Some days ago I watched Ultimatum to Earth again, and I found comical the reasons scriptwriters provide to give humankind a second oportunity, because if that situation would be true, humankind would be anihilated, period, we´re ruining the planet consciously and we still bother about our wallets more than we do for the planet. As a specie we don´t deserve a second oportuniy. Matrix did explain it perfectly , humankind is a parasite of Earth, we only exploit its resources without any sustainability in mind. That´s exactly what parasites do, so while we don´t change that mentality of "we can do whatever we want with the planet" drastically, we´re parasites who think we are special, but only parasites. Smart animals don´t ruin their own environement.

Sorry for the OT, yesterday I heard it was the day were we´ve exhausted the natural resources the planet can cope with, so the resources we use the rest of the year can´t be replaced and, once again, made me realize how bad can be we humankind for the planet

I'm simply a realist. People are not going to change their habits (like Gore thinks, by making it ridiculously expensive, like cigarettes... ), so why not modify trees?

If you think crop modification is a new idea, you should research what corn looked like before humans got involved with its cultivation. Monsanto is already modifying crops to be weed-killer resistant, why not make them sequester carbon as well? And trees! You literally called me a capitalist because I suggest modifying and planting millions of trees!!! Holy Cow!

[Andres125sx]

You literally called me a capitalist because I suggest modifying and planting millions of trees!!! Holy Cow!

No, I called you a capitalist because of being conscious of a problem, but instead of changing the root of the problem, looking for a typically capitalist solution.

We humans are so arrogant we think even if we´re destroying the planet, it´s the planet who must change to survive. Anything except modifying our confortable western lifestyle, right?

[Zynerji]

We have the power to adapt our surroundings to me our needs, and we have that power because of our minds.

I make no apology for looking to technology to solve our problems. That why necessity invented it in the first place.

And planting modified trees is far less expensive than taxes and bureaucratic oversight of Carbon Caps.

Maybe they will be the giant redwood wonders 1000 years from now.

Every biologic lifeform on earth has been modified by events in earth's history, or none of it would still exist.

[Andres125sx]

You´re comparing nature evolution over millions years with some human technology we don´t even master. That´s arrongance man, thanks for ilustrating

But you still get offended if I call you capitalist...


That´s exactly the problem with capitalism, make people think money is the only important thing and everything can be done with enough of it.


When seas increase around 1m and lands get flooded all around the world including your holiday house, let me know what magic solution will money bring, or once we anihilate bees or some other basic specie with our pesticides, let me know how money will return the natural balance, or once your organism acumulate more heavy metals it can cope with due to eating too much big fishes, let me know how money will make you healthy again...


I am capitalist and I really think it´s been the best for us several decades, but capitalism is killing the planet as everybody, from big companies to governments only care about money even if that means exterminating forests and complete species. This is a fact we should realice before reaching a non return point wich can´t be too far


Anycase this is OT and it went too far, so this is my last post here. Sorry.

[Tommy Cookers]

yesterday the UK Govt declared its refusal to fund (1.3 billion pounds) the proposed Swansea Bay Tidal ('energy')Lagoon
the funding would have been by guaranteed price support to Tidal Lagoon Power's electricity production
the level required is declared to be poor value for money

the SBTL (requiring construction of 6 miles of sea wall) was a pilot scheme ....
'powering' (by which TPL means supplying a fraction of the energy needs of) 155,000 homes
5 much larger schemes were intended at various parts of the (Severn) estuary

if any of the 5 were under way that would appear to be a nail in the coffin of a tidal barrage across the estuary
because such a barrage would need to support billions or tens of billions of pounds in compensation to TLP
that's the estuary that has already 100 - 200 miles of sea wall provided free by Mother Nature

[strad]

Have you heard of climategate?