Ban on new petrol and diesel cars in UK from 2030 under PM's green plan

[Justin Dean]

I went Self Charging Hybrid because it is all very well buying a plug in but drive up to an inn for the weekend and where do you put your car to charge (local supermarket), go to see family at there house and stay over (charge how) with street parking, that and the economics of buying is bonkers, and yes lots say yes but cheaper to run but road taxing will come in to replace fuel tax think and then what? Jazz hybrid is reasonably priced for what it is . Comparable to what I used to pay for a honda civic plus inflation, I put in 4 grand and monthly pcp is less than £200 a month including servicing tax and beautiful pearlescent red
paint

 

[Brew_DD2]

I went Self Charging Hybrid because it is all very well buying a plug in but drive up to an inn for the weekend and where do you put your car to charge (local supermarket), go to see family at there house and stay over (charge how) with street parking, that and the economics of buying is bonkers, and yes lots say yes but cheaper to run but road taxing will come in to replace fuel tax think and then what? Jazz hybrid is reasonably priced for what it is . Comparable to what I used to pay for a honda civic plus inflation, I put in 4 grand and monthly pcp is less than £200 a month including servicing tax and beautiful pearlescent red
paint

As it stands just now, PHEV works great for us as essentially my wife is running it as an electric for her commute, but she can do huge journeys if she needs to. I have a car for my work, and I'll be going EV next year. I understand range anxiety for households where there is only the 1 vehicle though, and longer journeys are more frequent.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

I’m not sure how they work out what cars are the most polluting to be honest. I thought the road tax pricing took account of that but it appears not. I live in Essex but work in East London. From 25 October my workplace will be within the extended ULEZ zone so, a £12.50 per day charge to drive to the office as my 1.4l Diesel Fiesta that does over 60 mpg and costs £20 per year to tax isn’t ULEZ compliant. However, if I were to get rid and instead get a 1.4l petrol Fiesta that does 40 mpg and costs £270 per year to tax, I wouldn’t have to pay the ULEZ charge

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I’m not sure how they work out what cars are the most polluting to be honest. I thought the road tax pricing took account of that but it appears not.

These days car tax is primarily done on CO2 emissions to save the planet, with a rather random fixed penalty for diesel cars that don't meet the RDE2 standard for nitrogen oxide emissions.

Whereas ULEZ are all about controlling *local* emissions - so the particulates of diesel cars are a particular problem.

Horses for courses - I drive inside the new zone maybe once a year (and my current car is ULEZ-exempt, whereas my last one wasn't), but pre-Covid I was doing about 10k miles a year mostly on motorways. So it makes sense to hit me for my CO2 impact as I don't really contribute to London pollution. Whereas you do.

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

These days car tax is primarily done on CO2 emissions to save the planet, with a rather random fixed penalty for diesel cars that don't meet the RDE2 standard for nitrogen oxide emissions.

Whereas ULEZ are all about controlling *local* emissions - so the particulates of diesel cars are a particular problem.

Horses for courses - I drive inside the new zone maybe once a year (and my current car is ULEZ-exempt, whereas my last one wasn't), but pre-Covid I was doing about 10k miles a year mostly on motorways. So it makes sense to hit me for my CO2 impact as I don't really contribute to London pollution. Whereas you do.

personally I think the main objective is to make money out of it. If you really want to ensure only essential traffic enters London polluting the air, rather than those who can afford to do so, there would be a different system in place.

 

[user 43495]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54981425
So, how is this going to work then? I suppose they will have to put a 50% fuel duty on electricity instead in order to recoup the loss in this revenue!

All these hugely destructive 'green' measures will achieve is the bankrupcty of the UK and the impoverishment of us all. And for what? Even if you believe in this New Age religion of man-made climate change, bearing in mind the UK produces about 1% of the global co2 output, the difference all this will make to that is close to zero. As far as I am aware nobody in gvt has yet told us where all this extra electricity can possibly come from for these new vehicles and take a look at your meter spinning round next time you boil your wort: look at where we are now with electricity prices. It certainly ain't going to come from windmills. Those, as with any other means which rely of the vagaries of British weather, are doomed to the obvious standstill when we need power the most. It's also worth pointing out that without co2 there would be no life on earth.

 

[user 43495]

These days car tax is primarily done on CO2 emissions to save the planet, with a rather random fixed penalty for diesel cars that don't meet the RDE2 standard for nitrogen oxide emissions.

Whereas ULEZ are all about controlling *local* emissions - so the particulates of diesel cars are a particular problem.

Horses for courses - I drive inside the new zone maybe once a year (and my current car is ULEZ-exempt, whereas my last one wasn't), but pre-Covid I was doing about 10k miles a year mostly on motorways. So it makes sense to hit me for my CO2 impact as I don't really contribute to London pollution. Whereas you do.

I always thought "saving the planet" was a job for Dr Who. It's juvenile prattle. The planet has survived far more extremes than we humans can ever throw at it.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I always thought "saving the planet" was a job for Dr Who. It's juvenile prattle. The planet has survived far more extremes than we humans can ever throw at it.

It's just lighthearted shorthand for "global" issues as opposed to the local problems that a ULEZ is intended to solve. The planet has not survived changes of this magnitude happening so quickly - it's time that allows the planet to adapt. And a big difference is that we now have huge cities in coastal regions, that would have been swamped by past sea level changes.

It's also worth pointing out that without co2 there would be no life on earth.

Who mentioned "juvenile prattle"?

Even if you believe in this New Age religion of man-made climate change, bearing in mind the UK produces about 1% of the global co2 output, the difference all this will make to that is close to zero.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. How do you propose to persuade China to make changes if richer countries don't set an example?

As far as I am aware nobody in gvt has yet told us where all this extra electricity can possibly come from for these new vehicles and take a look at your meter spinning round next time you boil your wort: look at where we are now with electricity prices.

As I calculated up-thread, if you take the current UK mileage apply the electrical efficiency of current electric vehicles, and assume they're charged overnight 10pm-6am, it would need 8 hours of 54GW. Current UK capacity is over 75GW. Yes more investment is needed, but it's doable - for instance current planning is for another 40GW just of onshore wind by 2030. The issue is more about local grid capacity, but National Grid seem to be relatively relaxed that it's doable - it's not long ago that everyone was worrying about how the grid would possibly cope with >20% renewables. Electricity is still far cheaper than petrol - as I keep mentioning, a family member was paying £200/month on petrol, and then leased an old-shape Leaf for £200/month plus buttons on leccy. But one of the things signalled in recent announcements is that the costs of subsidising new technology are going to move from electricity to gas.

And you assume that "business as usual" is going to be easy. Oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s and have been declining since then - where will the oil possibly come from to power petrol/diesel cars into the 2040s? You worry about the economics of change without thinking about the current course we're on - does it make more sense to generate energy in the UK or to give trillions of dollars to Russia and the Arabs?

Anyway, apologies to others on this thread, this is all getting rather off-topic for a thread about cars.

 

[trummy]

The Magistrate sounds just like my Brother in Law a couple of years ago. You know the one, the one that has just ordered a new Tesla

 

[JockyBrewer]

I always thought "saving the planet" was a job for Dr Who. It's juvenile prattle. The planet has survived far more extremes than we humans can ever throw at it.

"the planet" survived the massive asteroid hit 65 million years ago.

The dinosaurs didn't.

 

[JockyBrewer]

As far as I am aware nobody in gvt has yet told us where all this extra electricity can possibly come from for these new vehicles .... It certainly ain't going to come from windmills.

Why not? A single new 'windmill' can power 13,000 homes: Why giant turbines are pushing the limits of possibility

As long as you have the ability to store the generated electricity for when the wind isn't blowing then we're good. This will require infrastructure, but there's plenty of options such as pumping water into a reservoir to run a hydro plant, generating hydrogen you can burn when required, or just really big batteries.

 

[user 43495]

"the planet" survived the massive asteroid hit 65 million years ago.

The dinosaurs didn't.

That is a very different argument to "saving the planet".

 

[user 43495]

Why not? A single new 'windmill' can power 13,000 homes: Why giant turbines are pushing the limits of possibility

As long as you have the ability to store the generated electricity for when the wind isn't blowing then we're good. This will require infrastructure, but there's plenty of options such as pumping water into a reservoir to run a hydro plant, generating hydrogen you can burn when required, or just really big batteries.

It won't be enough though. It's still a dribble for a country with an increasing population. Nuclear is the only sensible option.

 

[user 43495]

The Magistrate sounds just like my Brother in Law a couple of years ago. You know the one, the one that has just ordered a new Tesla

Then you have positively misheard me.

 

[user 43495]

It's just lighthearted shorthand for "global" issues as opposed to the local problems that a ULEZ is intended to solve. The planet has not survived changes of this magnitude happening so quickly - it's time that allows the planet to adapt. And a big difference is that we now have huge cities in coastal regions, that would have been swamped by past sea level changes.

Who mentioned "juvenile prattle"?

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. How do you propose to persuade China to make changes if richer countries don't set an example?

As I calculated up-thread, if you take the current UK mileage apply the electrical efficiency of current electric vehicles, and assume they're charged overnight 10pm-6am, it would need 8 hours of 54GW. Current UK capacity is over 75GW. Yes more investment is needed, but it's doable - for instance current planning is for another 40GW just of onshore wind by 2030. The issue is more about local grid capacity, but National Grid seem to be relatively relaxed that it's doable - it's not long ago that everyone was worrying about how the grid would possibly cope with >20% renewables. Electricity is still far cheaper than petrol - as I keep mentioning, a family member was paying £200/month on petrol, and then leased an old-shape Leaf for £200/month plus buttons on leccy. But one of the things signalled in recent announcements is that the costs of subsidising new technology are going to move from electricity to gas.

And you assume that "business as usual" is going to be easy. Oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s and have been declining since then - where will the oil possibly come from to power petrol/diesel cars into the 2040s? You worry about the economics of change without thinking about the current course we're on - does it make more sense to generate energy in the UK or to give trillions of dollars to Russia and the Arabs?

Anyway, apologies to others on this thread, this is all getting rather off-topic for a thread about cars.

It's far from being green (unless you take its other meaning) to do all the mining, transportation, cutting down hedgerows and ruining what's left of the countryside to proceed with yet more of these short-life windmills. I think it's become an obsession which has got out of control. A chum of mine who was in the oil business told me there is plenty of oil to be obtained. I see that there is sense in severing our dependence on oil from unstable countries but there is more than enough to prevent the rug being so pulled from under out feet leading to such impoverishment. With all the windmills we have now look at what's happened to electricity prices.

 

[user 43495]

It's just lighthearted shorthand for "global" issues as opposed to the local problems that a ULEZ is intended to solve. The planet has not survived changes of this magnitude happening so quickly - it's time that allows the planet to adapt. And a big difference is that we now have huge cities in coastal regions, that would have been swamped by past sea level changes.

Who mentioned "juvenile prattle"?

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. How do you propose to persuade China to make changes if richer countries don't set an example?

As I calculated up-thread, if you take the current UK mileage apply the electrical efficiency of current electric vehicles, and assume they're charged overnight 10pm-6am, it would need 8 hours of 54GW. Current UK capacity is over 75GW. Yes more investment is needed, but it's doable - for instance current planning is for another 40GW just of onshore wind by 2030. The issue is more about local grid capacity, but National Grid seem to be relatively relaxed that it's doable - it's not long ago that everyone was worrying about how the grid would possibly cope with >20% renewables. Electricity is still far cheaper than petrol - as I keep mentioning, a family member was paying £200/month on petrol, and then leased an old-shape Leaf for £200/month plus buttons on leccy. But one of the things signalled in recent announcements is that the costs of subsidising new technology are going to move from electricity to gas.

And you assume that "business as usual" is going to be easy. Oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s and have been declining since then - where will the oil possibly come from to power petrol/diesel cars into the 2040s? You worry about the economics of change without thinking about the current course we're on - does it make more sense to generate energy in the UK or to give trillions of dollars to Russia and the Arabs?

Anyway, apologies to others on this thread, this is all getting rather off-topic for a thread about cars.

China will do as she darn well likes as with all similar dictatorships.

 

[JockyBrewer]

That is a very different argument to "saving the planet".

My point was: the last time there was a catastrophic climate change the dominant vertebrates on the planet didn’t survive.

The difference in our case is that we can see it coming, and know how to stop it.

 

[alfajerry]

It won't be enough though. It's still a dribble for a country with an increasing population. Nuclear is the only sensible option.

 

[JockyBrewer]

It won't be enough though. It's still a dribble for a country with an increasing population. Nuclear is the only sensible option.

I do agree that we should do more with nuclear.

People think it’s dangerous, but per TWh there’s 0.07 deaths attributable to production and pollution, which is comparable to wind (0.04) and solar (0.02), and castle less than coal (24.6) and gas (2.6). That includes Chernobyl and Fukushima.

It also produces a similar level of overall pollution to wind and solar, and a tenth of even hydro power.

Unfortunately disasters like Chernobyl are hard to ignore. Whereas we seem to routinely ignore coal mining disasters that kill dozens or hundreds at a time every couple of years (Mining accident - Wikipedia), coal mine fires (Coal-seam fire - Wikipedia) and many other disasters from fossil fuels.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

For some reason, this chart comes to mind

It won't be enough though. It's still a dribble for a country with an increasing population. Nuclear is the only sensible option.

It's not a dribble - as I said above, 40GW of offshore wind is planned by 2030. It's not the only thing we need, but that is a significant chunk of capacity. We need all the forms of generation that we can get, as long as they are sustainable (ie there's provision for the waste) and are affordable - Hinkley Point will cost more than double the price of wind or solar, and they're complaining that's not enough. If you want expensive electricity, go nuclear.

China will do as she darn well likes as with all similar dictatorships.

Currently China has about 300GW each of solar, wind and hydro, she's going hard on renewables and has committed to peaking emissions by 2030 and carbon neutral by 2060. Not perfect, but still more than some Western countries have committed to.

It's far from being green (unless you take its other meaning) to do all the mining, transportation, cutting down hedgerows and ruining what's left of the countryside to proceed with yet more of these short-life windmills. I think it's become an obsession which has got out of control. A chum of mine who was in the oil business told me there is plenty of oil to be obtained. I see that there is sense in severing our dependence on oil from unstable countries but there is more than enough to prevent the rug being so pulled from under out feet leading to such impoverishment. With all the windmills we have now look at what's happened to electricity prices.

Again your confidence exceeds your knowledge. Right now offshore wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity generation. Typical lifespan is 25 years, not much different to most other forms of power plant - and it's relatively easy to reuse the foundations which are a big chunk of the upfront cost. Yes all economic activity involves mining and transportation - same with oil. There's plenty of oil - but not much cheap oil left, the only major reserves are things like the Venezuelan tars and Canadian oilsands which are expensive and very environmentally damaging to extract.

As for alfajerry's article - the guy is vastly overstating the energy required, as he's basing it on the (inefficient) use of energy of burning fossil fuels. See my calculation above based on current electric technology which comes out at 10.3GW continuous for the car fleet rather than his 33GW. Yes it's a challenge, but it's not as bad as he makes out, and he doesn't state where the energy would come from if we kept with fossil fuels.