# Petrol & Diesel cars/vans to be banned in the UK from 2040



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

didn't see this coming!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40723581


----------



## donfresh (Feb 23, 2016)

*Banning all petrol and diesel cars by 2040*

So im sure you've all seen this on the news today.
I'm not happy about it as I find electric cars pretty boring...

but what does this mean for us petrol lovers and classic car owners?
will there be any exceptions?
will the prices of all cars plummet?

thoughts?


----------



## donfresh (Feb 23, 2016)

ah you beat me to it, just created a thread for this myself!

So where does this leave us petrol lovers?


----------



## Brian1612 (Apr 5, 2015)

It will never happen by 2040. Not a hope in hell as too much money is made in the oil/gas industry. 

It won't be banned, it will be a case of when it's gone that's when we stop using it.


----------



## Mikesphotaes (Jul 24, 2016)

I'll worry about it when I'm deid, which is highly likely by then!

However, I doubt the ban is as straight forward as reported.


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

I think the age of commuting to work by fossil fuels will come to an end after 2040, especially in your own vehicle. If you have either a fully electric or hybrid car, then you'll be ok.....although we may see wholesale charging for using a car in major city centres

Petrol/Diesel will still have its place, however, I think we'll have petrol or diesel cars kept as 'weekend' cars, or something to use when NOT travelling into a city centre.

However, if we want 'cleaner' inner city air, then the whole town/city planning situation needs to be looked at.......such things as traffic light sequences, road layouts & so called 'traffic calming' measures which have all been used to create congestion & bottle necks currently all needs to be revised so traffic can flow better.


----------



## donfresh (Feb 23, 2016)

the other issue is people think they're being green by driving an electric car...
where does the electricity come from? nuclear power station...or worse, fracking. we dont have much in the way of green energy here


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

I think the age of commuting to work by fossil fuels will come to an end after 2040, especially in your own vehicle. If you have either a fully electric or hybrid car, then you'll be ok.....although we may see wholesale charging for using a car in major city centres

Petrol/Diesel will still have its place, however, I think we'll have petrol or diesel cars kept as 'weekend' cars, or something to use when NOT travelling into a city centre.

However, if we want 'cleaner' inner city air, then the whole town/city planning situation needs to be looked at.......such things as traffic light sequences, road layouts & so called 'traffic calming' measures which have all been used to create congestion & bottle necks currently, all needs to be revised so traffic can flow better.


----------



## nbray67 (Mar 22, 2012)

There's a few factors that need to be sorted/looked into before the Gov't put in such a ban.

The main one being, who's paying for the electric car age? The billions the UK makes from the oil industry has got to be made up somewhere else on their profit sheets.
Scrapping petrol and diesel transport means they'll whack tax onto the electric revolution or onto us, the taxpayer, in some other form. The Gov't haven't said where this huge loss in income is going to be made up from.

Haulage via trucks, trains, planes and shipping is a long long way from the electric conversion and that lot alone, pollute the atmosphere way more than your family motor.

The car service/parts industry will also take a massive hit, again, something that hasn't been explained fully by the Gov't.


----------



## Clyde (Feb 15, 2012)

I think the main point people seem to be missing is the sale of new cars will be banned! What they will do to tackle emissions still remains to be seen, but I expect they will just add another tax to deter people.

If you look at how EVs have evolved over the last few years, this seems to be the way forward for many of the manufacturers, so a natural progression within the automotive industry. 

This announcement is just a tick box exercise for now. They clearly don't have any strategy around this which is why they opted for such a long period.


----------



## mokkaman (Feb 8, 2017)

Hi,If the government ban all petrol/diesel cars off the roads, where does leave the employment trail lead to.Nobody building conventional engines I would assume mass unemployment would follow surely.The government are banging on about unemployement figures on a daily basis,surely this will compound the matter.Cannot see it happen in my lifetime as they cannot sort out brexit at the moment.Cheers Andy


----------



## baxlin (Oct 8, 2007)

I assume there's also a massive power station building plan running alongside this wind down of ICE powered vehicles.

No? Quelle surprise!

Mind you, at having recently turned 70, I don't think it will bother me much......


----------



## Soul boy 68 (Sep 8, 2013)

Think of the heavy burden this will put on the national grid with all those charging facilities plus all households will need to have charging ports installed and what if you have a particular charging point for one type of car then when/if you change to a different car that has a different connection. Or how about these oil rich countries in the middle east? it could make oil a worthless commodity, Buses, trucks HGV's vans, how about motor bikes? there are lots of questions to answer. It's taken us over a 100 years to get this far with the combustion engine and the whole infrastructure so this whole EV revolution won't be a quick fix.


----------



## m500dpp (Feb 17, 2006)

As I read it, hybrids will still be sold and guess what they run primarily on petrol! Many major problems to be solved. Most new cars are bought on a contract with a guaranteed residual value, but in the years running up to EVs taking over who's going to gamble what a petrol or diesel car is going to be worth in 3 years time?

Seems to me it's a draconian solution to solve the bad air issue in a few cities, when the majority of the UK simply does not have an issue with air polution. Improve public transport and dont allow cars into city centres would be a much quicker and more viable fix.


----------



## andy665 (Nov 1, 2005)

ICE engined cars will rise in value when you can no longer buy them new

23 years time - thats more than several lifetimes inpolitics and I'm taking it with a pinch of salt

One question for the government - show us the details of your infrastructure to support the recharging of these vehicles and the emissions impact of it?


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

You lot are naysayers. Seriously.

Best thing to happen to motoring ever. You wait and see.

Burning stuff in an engine and watching 60% of the energy go out the exhaust? It's utterly crazy and old technology.

Of course heavy vehicles, HGVs and the like will still have to run on liquid fuels, even if all the oil ran out tomorrow there are ways of manufacturing these from other sources or methods. Ditto aviation and propelling ships.

What you don't actually realise is that it is far more efficient if you actually burnt all the petrol or diesel used in passenger cars in a powerstation and used it to charge battery cars due to the inherent problems with engines.

In any event, I recently had a bit of a calculation and worked out that you would need to add about 60GW of electrical capacity to the national grid to replace all the oil used in the UK annually. That is about the same electrical output as France which is basically 85% nuclear powered.

Charging points and the like are not complex, and you can charge the majority of the national vehicle fleet overnight on off peak juice when the grid is basically idling anyway. Throw in some software and you can program the cars only to charge between certain periods if you so wished.

You think cars with engines will be a worth more in 2040? Don't be daft. Who the heck is going to want to drive a 20+ year old banger VW diesel which will cost 10 times what an electric car does to run and has so many moving parts and servicing requirements?

Electric cars- you don't need any belts, filters, oil, chains, gearboxes, oil pump or even coolant system in many cases. You don't even use the brakes that often. The batteries are made up of hundreds of individual cells so if one fails it doesn't matter a damn.

PLUS, on a cold day you can leave the car plugged into the mains and defrost it and heat the interior virtually in moments by drawing directly from the mains. Software of course will stop you from trying to drive away whilst the thing is still plugged in.

You say improve public transport, but how? The major problem with buses is that they too are stuck in traffic and it would be easier to build nuclear powerstations than even dare try to extend the rail network to any extent.

Electric bikes- will be fantastically good. The major enemy of electric cars is mass.

You are worried that the mass abandonment of engines will lead to mass unemployment? How very altruistic of you, buying a car which relies on combusting a carcinogenic product to run, yet providing employment for the people who work for car makers and those who work in garages getting their hands dirty.

No, you wait and see. The government wants to stimulate the economy to run in a different direction. The UK already leads the way in battery tech but now we will have a massive incentive to keep ahead of the Chinese. We are also very hot on the heels of wind power and research in tidal power. It is obvious that the global demand for clean transportation and energy will only ever increase, and that over time you risk having your economy restrained by over-reliance on ever dwindling fossil fuel reserves.

The race is on. Trump can screw the Americans for another 8 years and keep them in the dark ages but the UK won't be stuck in that mould thankfully.

This is a good move for the UK as a whole. Instead of making engines, people can make batteries, which is good because that technology finds it's way into a myriad of different end uses. When was the last time you saw a smartphone that ran on petrol?

30 million cars in the UK, doing an average of 12,000km each. 35KWh to do 100km, doing the maths I reckon we need about 40-60 GW of installed electrical capacity. Another 20 Hinkley point C.

This kind of technology will lead to profound societal change for the better. Air pollution will be a thing of the past. We will no longer be dependent as a race upon a finite resource which has led to massive inequality globally, is a cause of extreme conflict and even used as a means to finance terrorism. The environmental damage from the extraction and production of liquid fuels will drastically be reduce and reserves will last far longer as less is required.

This can only be a good thing. And due to the geography of our little Island, we are laughing because we have an abundance of wind power, some of the best tides for tidal power, and even better, we don't have thousands of miles from one edge of the country to another. Ideal.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

I can understand why you are all going to cry in your milk about the death of your beloved internal combustion engines but please allow me to point out that the cost of various things is not being factored into the fuel you are buying on the forecourt.

Allow me to illustrate quite why our dependence on so much fossil fuel has to end and quickly.


----------



## dellwood33 (Mar 5, 2013)

I have no doubt that in 2040 , i will be driving electric - mind you at 88 it will be a mobility scooter


----------



## TonyHill (Jul 28, 2015)

Seems to me that as long as countries like America and Russia don't give a stuff about the environment and continue to belch all sorts into the atmosphere, then anything this tiny little island tries to do to improve air quality, will be totally nullified!:wall:


----------



## insanejim69 (Nov 13, 2011)

As has previously been stated. If you read the actual government portfolio, it states that only new cars registered after 2040 will be effected. Also it states quite clearly that only cars with a sole propulsion system of a diesel or petrol engine will be banned. A hybrid that uses a Petrol/Diesel engine along side a electric motor/regeneration system will be allowed. And as we know some of the fastest super cars on the planet are hybrids !!!!

It won't change anything TBH, most vehicles will still have a petrol/diesel engine by the end of this century, its just that they will also have battery packs and electric motors also. I also agree that its a great idea imo. Imagine your next gen hot hatch, 1.6 Turbo, with say 160 BHP or so, fitted with a hybrid system adding another 100-200BHP easy when needed, and can even be FWD with the electric motors in the rear meaning AWD under full power. Yet around town under 15mph it just runs on electric power. Whats not to like, seriously !!

James


----------



## Bulkhead (Oct 17, 2007)

I was skeptical about electric vehicles at first and, to a certain degree, I still am. They're not really at the point where they're viable in anything except short journey situations. However, a fact that seems to be ignored here is that we may not even have petrol and diesel fuel in 2040. Reserves are dwindling and as soon as this gets too restrictive, fuel prices will rocket. Hybrids are only an interim solution. Then of course you have to factor in countries who will not sign up to this kind of thing and continue to try to drill for oil to feed their supplies (US, Russia etc.) We have a different situation over here in Oz - the distances between places are huge and so limited-range vehicles are just not suited. However, we do have a lot of sun so maybe the government will be forward-thinking and install solar-powered charging stations along major routes. I won't hold my breath on this as the current government always bends over and takes what the mining and power companies dish out to them. Either way, it looks like electric or hydrogen cells are the go for the future.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

The current range of today's battery tech is fine. How many journeys are more than 200km today?

You can see hordes of blokes in suits in Teslas sat at charging stations on the motorway, all charging for free whilst they drink coffee. So you have to stop for 40 minutes every 200 miles, so? I'll take that as opposed to paying £70 a fill.

If you have a geographically vast country, you are stuck with liquid fuels, (which will continue to be needed for heavy machinery) OR you can use electric powered trains which run on overhead lines, which are far more effective and efficient than trucks will ever be.

This tech is not just happening in the UK. It's worldwide. It's happening in China, and India, who are both deep into nuclear power and battery tech, and it's happening across Europe. The Nordic countries are already trying to get deep into battery power for their nations car fleets ASAP.

Once the cost of battery tech declines, and becomes comparable with that of an engine, it will be a no brainer TBH. Why would you choose a 1.6 engined munter over a battery powered version? The performance and the noise? Behave.

Battery powered cars are hugely faster than their petrol or diesel powered cousins- the delivery of power and torque is rather different because they are not relying on internal speed like an engine is. Max torque arrives the second you put your hoof down, none of this torque curve lark.

As for Australia, step forward, as you have reserves of uranium, thorium and lithium. Merry Christmas, you will be involved in powering the world basically until doomsday if you never mined another tonne of coal again.


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

I am all for new technology and moving forward but why only the motorist? Why not haulage firms? Why not bus companies? Volvo made a gas turbine engine years ago that could cut polution from these two sources alone.
But how come airlines are exempt from this measure?
What about the railways, some still use diesel powered rolling stock.



However, all that aside, the one question i would like to see someone answer is......where is the government going to get all their extra revenue from if they ban the sales of new petrol and diesel cars? I foresee a hefty tax for those who have older cars and a proper hike in income tax to make up the shortfall


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

muzzer said:


> However, all that aside, the one question i would like to see someone answer is......where is the government going to get all their extra revenue from if they ban the sales of new petrol and diesel cars? I foresee a hefty tax for those who have older cars and a proper hike in income tax to make up the shortfall


Congestion charging for driving into city centres, or, road pricing to drive on major routes.
increased VAT on fossil fuels
Then they'll be the extra tax collected by virtue of increased profits made by electric companies
tax on street charging points perhaps

a government would have to be very brave to raise the rate of direct taxes, they're more likely to raise indirect taxes


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Andyg_TSi said:


> Congestion charging for driving into city centres, or, road pricing to drive on major routes.
> increased VAT on fossil fuels
> Then they'll be the extra tax collected by virtue of increased profits made by electric companies
> tax on street charging points perhaps
> ...


Or more likely road charging full stop


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

I'd be in favour of road charging.

I don't see why haulage companies should be taxed out of existence, they will only pass on the cost to the consumer which is a nasty merry go round.

Aviation, you are stuck with liquid fuels. Tax it by all means but use the proceeds to extend the rail network.

Borrow the money and electrify the entire rail network. It would take years but employ a lot of people for a long long time.


----------



## hibberd (Jul 5, 2006)

I am amused by all these announcements and the comments they bring about the end of the oil companies etc. Oil and Gas is used to make plastics, rubber and many other products so not just for powering cars. Even electric cars will be powered by Oil and Gas because the fuel is burnt to generate the electricity that they would run on. I wonder what all the powerstations will do for the local air pollution around them? Also what is not being spoken about bu very imortant is where will all the copper come from that would be used for this change and what would be the impact of that on some third world country that would be dug up to create this first world solution? Politicians are not managers they create the problems that further down the road need solving, this is happening here. They are not understanding fully what they do.


----------



## Derek Mc (Jun 27, 2006)

Interesting debate, however what nobody has asked or stated thus far,,,, It creates over seven times the pollution to build a single EV than almost any fossil fuel car it uses ten times the energy to make one too due to batteries.
The amount of power we require to charge all of these will NEVER be generated from renewables, so, the race will be on to seek better power packs or we overload the grid 24/7.

The ban however allows hybrids, and that is worth grabbing on to, as they still require a petrol or diesel power pack.

It just doesn't add up right now, my job means that I carry about 50>70Kg of equipment from Ayrshire to London to host seminars and attend presentations, I can't drive in one shot in any current EV not even (if I could afford it) a Tesla.

Finally what about our Buses and Commercial vehicles. it is actually the buses that are filthy ill-maintained worn diesel engined behemoths that foul the air in the city. Motorways are actually pretty pleasant areas if you ever wind the window down and take a sniff.


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Ahh yes but y'see the thing is....cars are evil evil evil machines and Britain once again has to lead the world in these things.

I still dont think it is as bad as it seems just yet, lets see what draconian laws or taxes they bring in on existing cars first. I just wonder if the government has actually thought this through properly, for example how is someone meant to get home from work at gone midnight when there is no public transport and they live 30 miles from work? If they introduce road charging and hike the price of fossil fuel through the roof, then that person or persons will no doubt be forced out of work. So in one fell swoop they will potentially clean up the pollution levels but also potentially drive unemployment through the roof.


----------



## ah234 (Nov 10, 2015)

muzzer said:


> I am all for new technology and moving forward but why only the motorist? Why not haulage firms? Why not bus companies? Volvo made a gas turbine engine years ago that could cut polution from these two sources alone.
> But how come airlines are exempt from this measure?
> What about the railways, some still use diesel powered rolling stock.
> 
> However, all that aside, the one question i would like to see someone answer is......where is the government going to get all their extra revenue from if they ban the sales of new petrol and diesel cars? I foresee a hefty tax for those who have older cars and a proper hike in income tax to make up the shortfall


I've always windered why there aren't more hybrid vans, especially for delivery firms going door to door. Seems more efficient than a diesel


----------



## insanejim69 (Nov 13, 2011)

ah234 said:


> I've always windered why there aren't more hybrid vans, especially for delivery firms going door to door. Seems more efficient than a diesel


The council up here have a large fleet of Hydrogen vans as a trial. But yes I agree a hybrid van would surely be hugely beneficial when it comes to fuel savings.

We also have a few new style hybrid light weight single deck buses, as well as the hugely unreliable hydrogen buses too. The hybrids weigh around 8 tonne compared to an older style 6 cylinder diesel one at 11 tonne. They also run a 4 cylinder diesel engine with the energy recouperation being used to power the interior lights and other electrical items, means that they average around 10mpg compared to their older counterparts at 6 mpg, the fuel bill savings are huge especially when the whole fleet goes through around 12000 litres each day.

James.


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

More needs to be done to get the lazy people to reduce their vehicle usage.
The sort that work 3/4 miles from home and would rather drive than walk or bike.
Or do the same to takes children to school, and then drive all over footpaths or grass verges to park up.

I'd like to wager there are millions of miles driven quite unnecessarily every year.

And yes, I am able to throw stones. My car doesn't do a school run nor gets used for driving walkable distances and I work 20 miles from home


----------



## Rayaan (Jun 1, 2014)

Am I the only one who hardly cares? 

It's 23 years away - plenty of time to have atleast 4 cars if not more considering how often people change nowadays


----------



## PugIain (Jun 28, 2006)

Rayaan said:


> Am I the only one who hardly cares?
> 
> It's 23 years away - plenty of time to have atleast 4 cars if not more considering how often people change nowadays


I don't really either. I'll be 60 by then, if not dead from stress.

Besides, the way the world's going the place will be a nuclear waste land in 2040.


----------



## Rayaan (Jun 1, 2014)

PugIain said:


> I don't really either. I'll be 60 by then, if not dead from stress.
> 
> Besides, the way the world's going the place will be a nuclear waste land in 2040.


Atleast it'll speed up electric car technology and make it more accessible to the majority though


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

What pollution is incurred from making batteries?

Also, taking 'I don't care, I'll be dead/retired by then' is not the attitude to have. We are working the planet over and leaving a problem our children and their children will have to address.

Also, battery powered (small) vans already exist. Wyke farms use them for Cheese deliveries, I have seen them on the road.

Personally I believe the move of mass transportation to battery or electrical power, along with changes to the way electricity is generated will be the biggest shakeup society has ever seen since fossil fuels were discovered.

The last time that happened the human race was relying on animal power or the efforts of slaves.

Burning fossil fuels in an actual power plant is still better than doing so in a car.

It's more thermodynamically efficient, and because of the scale you can actually begin to clean up the emissions properly in a way that is simply not possible with individual cars.

Doesn't matter anyway since the future will be nuclear, hydro, wind and tidal power.

We don't realise the burden that the high cost of fuel places on families. Electricity and gas are whole orders of magnitude cheaper than road fuels, for people on low incomes having a car that can now be filled for a tenth what it used to cost will be no small beer, not to mention that the cost of servicing or repairs will be almost a joke.


----------



## no1chunk (Nov 18, 2012)

I dont think it will happen it would kill certain industries in the uk like camping and caravanning and even going on a haven holiday. They havent refined electric yet to meet the demands that most of us need vehicles for. Using public transport will just cost to much money for people to spend a fortune on buying a electric car and then having to go everywhere on a train.


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

ollienoclue said:


> What pollution is incurred from making batteries?
> 
> Also, taking 'I don't care, I'll be dead/retired by then' is not the attitude to have. We are working the planet over and leaving a problem our children and their children will have to address.
> 
> ...


The government in this country rakes in a large percentage of their finances from taxing the motorist. Lets assume that they hike the price of petrol and diesel through the roof to discourage people from using older cars. So a large percentage will say no way, sell their car and use public transport.
So where is that revenue going to come from now? Road charging? I doubt it, if they start charging people to drive their electric cars on the roads, then a large percentage will say stuff that.
So where is the revenue going to come from now?
Vehicle excise duty? Possibly, they could start charging ridiculous amounts for the priviledge of driving on the roads but i suspect the simple solution is far more obvious and cynical.
Rather like Blair and New Labour did with diesel cars, they will push everyone towards electric cars and then ramp the price of electricity through the roof to make money off them

I'm all for change, if i could afford an electric car and had the correct facilities to charge it, i'd have one right now but that doesnt detract from the fact that this plan has not been thought out properly.
Why only cars? Why not lorries and buses?


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

The amount of tax derived from the tax on road fuels is about 25 billion per year. A large but not insurmountable problem as you will have to pay to use the roads. Fine by me if the cost of running the car is so low.

You can't make heavy vehicles work with current battery technology.

Killing off certain industries, like what?


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

I'm a bit late to the thread but this whole thing has given me a good laugh.

It just reeks of typical "green", virtue signalling BS and that's completely ignoring the logistics of actually implementing it.

Not to mention the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is actually quite damaging unlike all the CO2 fairytales :lol:

Ultimately, it's all about tax, tax, tax. Expect electricity bills to sky rocket to pay for all of this, new powerplants etc. They'll essentially be taxing everyone instead of just motorists... That's if it happens anyway and I can't see it despite the profound lack of common sense that our overlords exhibit.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

Lithium mining?

Err, most of it is extracted from brine pumped up from underground.

You would have to go some way with lithium to even begin to create the environmental hell that coal or oil production causes, and lithium is not difficult to recycle, either.


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

ollienoclue said:


> Lithium mining?
> 
> Err, most of it is extracted from brine pumped up from underground.
> 
> You would have to go some way with lithium to even begin to create the environmental hell that coal or oil production causes, and lithium is not difficult to recycle, either.


Nobody said coal/oil is all sunshine and lollipops, but you can't play down the environmental impact of mining lithium. Soquimich Lithium Mine might be worth a quick Google.

Then there's the transportation of the lithium to the battery manufacturer (not by solar powered rainbow wagons I might add), the environmental impact of manufacturing the battery itself, then again off to the car manufacturer en masse in those water powered fairy dust lorries we hear so much about.

It's all just green virtue signalling IMO. As empty and meaningless as the diesel propaganda they vomited all over the place during the last Labour government.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

millns84 said:


> Nobody said coal/oil is all sunshine and lollipops, but you can't play down the environmental impact of mining lithium. Soquimich Lithium Mine might be worth a quick Google.
> 
> Then there's the transportation of the lithium to the battery manufacturer (not by solar powered rainbow wagons I might add), the environmental impact of manufacturing the battery itself, then again off to the car manufacturer en masse in those water powered fairy dust lorries we hear so much about.
> 
> It's all just green virtue signalling IMO. As empty and meaningless as the diesel propaganda they vomited all over the place during the last Labour government.


You are clutching at straws now, factoring in the transportation of the actual material to a manufacturer occurs regardless of what method of propulsion is required.

We will still require liquid fuels to power heavy machinery, ships and aircraft. There is no getting away from that. But for typical passenger cars, there is huge scope for massive reductions in fossil fuel use pollution which we would be foolish not to go for.

The importation of huge volumes of natural gas and oil (and some coal) are in nobodies interest. It is bad enough burning them in millions of pounds worth of powerstation where the emissions can be scrubbed out, much less in internal combustion engines where the pollutants are chucked out at street level mostly in built up areas where people live.

The government, like that of several other countries, have signalled that they want the UK to be amongst the leading developers and manufacturers of what will obviously be a massively far reaching technology. Several other nations are seeing rises in renewable energy, nuclear power and battery powered vehicles. I can see no harm in issuing broad stroke policies that will obviously attract investment and induce job creation.

Is it just me or would you rather continue to have the country so obviously and hopelessly dependant upon fossil fuels, which will only become ever more expensive and scarce? It will eventually only serve to hinder economic growth. It is not even like the UK has huge oil or gas reserves to justify that kind of decision, and the coal mining industry is now a non-event anyway because of automation so that angle is out.

Here we are discussing a topic of national importance and people are concerned about the caravan industry and people losing their jobs because we simply won't make engines any longer?

Oh and Soqumich lithium mine, those pools are brine. They look positively awful and nothing is going to live in them I dare say but it is no different to naturally occurring brine pools/salt flats and the environmental burden is vastly lower than mining for iron ore, bauxite or manganese where you are talking about leaving legacy issues due to heavy metals. The US is littered with many of those all on the superfund list. They are not quick fixes.


----------



## millns84 (Jul 5, 2009)

ollienoclue said:


> You are clutching at straws now, factoring in the transportation of the actual material to a manufacturer occurs regardless of what method of propulsion is required.
> 
> We will still require liquid fuels to power heavy machinery, ships and aircraft. There is no getting away from that. But for typical passenger cars, there is huge scope for massive reductions in fossil fuel use pollution which we would be foolish not to go for.
> 
> ...


Wow! :doublesho

A topic of national importance? :lol: Well who am I to get in the way of the unstoppable green tax machine? They'll be taxing farts at this rate and perhaps we'll be world leaders in that too.

I do wonder what percentage of the world's emissions we are responsible for and of that percentage what cars are responsible for... No doubt it's small but we can definitely save the world yeah?

To answer your question about being dependent on fossil fuels, why not? They're ever more expensive as you say because of tax. Do you seriously believe that they'll just scrap all that tax and not push it on to your electricity bill? Oh and where is all the extra electricity going to come from? Are they going to have unicorns on treadmills to avoid all the pollution of energy production?

It's a complete circus and I can't believe people are eating it up :lol:


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

I've already said that it is obvious they will add in road charging or an additional tax to offset the 25 billion quid loss of revenue that the reduction in road fuel use will cause.

Long term, what is the point of keeping the economy dependent upon imported energy which is subject to hugely volatile market price changes? To say nothing of the environmental impact of them?


----------



## wayne451 (Aug 15, 2016)

Derek Mc said:


> The amount of power we require to charge all of these will NEVER be generated from renewables, so, the race will be on to seek better power packs or we overload the grid 24/7.


The energy that hits the earths surface in 1 hour from the sun would, if harnessed, be sufficient to power everything on the planet for a whole year so it's very blinkered to say it will never happen. The potential is there.

Then you have wind, tidal etc...


----------



## DrEskimo (Jan 7, 2016)

The problem of millions of cars requiring charging is certainly a challenge...

But...you can turn this on it's head. Rather than having millions of batteries connected to the grid demanding energy, you also have millions of full batteries that can help reduce the load by providing to the grid. Not unlike current feed in tariffs for those with personal solar panels.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/08/evs-sharing-power-with-homes-can-improve-their-battery-life/

Not only is this a very interesting method of dealing with the excess demand, but it's actually shown to improve the battery performance. Pair this with Elon and co's 'bigger picture' of people having their own solar tiles and home batteries, and we are looking at a shift away from centralised energy suppliers. Something I'm all for personally....

But I agree with the general sentiment. Whilst EVs are good at improving air quality from tail pipe emissions, it merely moves the issues with emissions from current energy generation downstream. Nuclear is a good short term solution, but without the necessary R&D to negate its downfalls (nuclear waste mainly) it doesn't seem to be a long term solution to me. Not to mention the monumental costs involved with Hinckley point C....

I'm still hedging my bets on nuclear fusion....we can all dream!


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Now i can understand people having different viewpoints but this is rapidly becoming an argument. Have your discussion but allow people their opinions and if you can't or won't see their point of view, then agree to disagree and move on please.


----------



## ollienoclue (Jan 30, 2017)

Fusion is probably never going to happen in a practical sense so you might as well give it up, trying to rely on a technology which might not even become practical in the next 50 years is not feasible given that the majority of the UK energy sector will be decommissioned in the mid 2020s.

It is possible to transmute nuclear waste but that is an entirely separate issue.

We can discuss the costs of Hinkley point C but the pay back is inside 10-12 years, flat out the plant will be churning out £192K of electricity every hour. And since the cost of fuel is nearly irrelevant, you can afford to run them flat out the whole time. At a 10 year pay back, it is comparable to solar panels (though these are an utterly pointless way of generating power anyway).

Wind turbines and tidal energy I am all in favour of, but the cost in real terms per actual megawatt generated is not hugely different to nuclear power.

The issue of waste is that the stuff needs to be stored carefully in a national repository so that it can be monitored and safeguarded, not buried and lost forever.

Interestingly coal fired power stations are legally allowed to pump out radioactivity virtually without restriction, whereas nuclear plants are heavily regulated and not permitted to let a bit go carbon 14 go.

Charging infrastructure is of no concern. It is not high tech and the technology already exists.

Charging cars at night when the grid is virtually half asleep is not problematic, here is a funky website that gives UK electricity production and consumption in real time:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk

As you can see, in the late evenings and at night, consumption is barely 30-50% of capacity. The grid is free wheeling. It is during the day that demand ramps up towards 40 GW. Note how nuclear is running virtually flat out day and night.

At 18 billion and a design life of 60 years, and a capacity factor of upwards of 90%, Hinkley is actually a source of cheap baseload juice. Wind power will be cheaper at times but cannot be relied upon, which means you have a choice between diesel generators (hideously expensive), coal, burning imported Russian natural gas or nuclear power.

With around 20GW of power looking for a home, by my reckoning I think we could replace at least a third of the nations vehicle fleet with battery propulsion right now. Throw in the ability to charge your cars whilst people are at work during the day, using say, wind, and you can even out the peaks and troughs.

The main issue with wind turbines is that they aren't particularly great in terms of output. The very largest models, which are truly colossal, crank out about 8MW at their rated speed. Just one of the Hinkley point C reactors churns out 1600MW. So you would need 200 wind turbines running flat out to match it. Only you would need to build a lot more than 200 to actually get comparable capacity factors. Megawatt for megawatt then I am not sure there is likely to be much in it, and a likely energy mix will need to make use of both technologies.


----------

