Skip to content

New diesel and petrol cars banned from UK roads by 2040

July 26, 2017

By Paul Homewood

From the Telegraph:

image

Diesel drivers on congested roads in towns and cities across the UK face new pollution taxes under Government plans which will ultimately herald the end of the traditional car.

Ministers have identified 81 major roads in 17 towns and cities where urgent action is required because they are in breach of EU emissions standards, putting people’s health at risk.

The Government will also commit to banning the sale of all new diesel and petrol cars by 2040 in a bid to encourage people to switch to electric and hybrid vehicles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/25/new-diesel-petrol-cars-banned-uk-roads-2040-government-unveils/

 

But the Times reports that hybrids will also be banned:

Sales of new diesel and petrol cars and vans will be banned from 2040, the government is to announce today.

The supply of new hybrid vehicles that have an electric motor and a petrol or diesel engine will also end in a move that comes after a similar pledge this month by President Macron of France. Less than 1 per cent of new cars sold in Britain run solely on electric power.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/end-of-the-diesel-and-petrol-car-955rwfhzs

 

Watch this space!

Given the same pledge just made by Macron, one wonders whether this is all an EU inspired agenda.

Advertisements
106 Comments
  1. HotScot permalink
    July 26, 2017 8:07 am

    Undoubtedly an EU inspired agenda.

    And it seems a knee jerk reaction to put pressure on Trump by the EU.

    And yet another move by the elite urbanites to dictate to the rest of the country because they deem cities to be polluted while the rest of the country is fine.

    And has been pointed many times on this blog by Paul, where is all the electricity to come from to power all these electric cars?

    Where’s the infrastructure for all this transport electrification?

    How are people with no driveway or garage to charge their vehicles?

    How will people drive from Kent to Glasgow or Edinburgh without having to make an overnight stop to charge their vehicles? A journey I, and many more, regularly make.

    If I haven’t popped my clogs by the 31st December 2039, I’ll be buying a large petrol or diesel powered car to see me out.

    • ricksanchez769 permalink
      July 26, 2017 2:15 pm

      What ‘ deleterious stuff ‘ goes into a battery and where does all the deleterious stuff go when the battery goes kaput?

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      July 26, 2017 2:48 pm

      Trump should just let Tesla go bust by removing all its federal subsidies. Perhaps California would still bail him out, but it would be a good warning.

      • HotScot permalink
        July 26, 2017 7:07 pm

        Tesla will be around a long time yet with or without Trump, or Browns support. There are innumerable nutty Germans willing to fleece the rest of the world, in partnership with him, for government subsidies.

    • July 26, 2017 3:23 pm

      Yours said it all. Not possible. So why do they say it?

      Could be part of a hidden agenda for huge electric tram system in Greater London?

  2. Geoff Sherrington permalink
    July 26, 2017 8:08 am

    Come to Australia with its low traffic density away from the 6 main cities.
    Have a ball. My big supercharged V8 still feels lovely under the foot.
    Try Jabiru to Darwin, 256 km in 2.00 hours of petrol head.
    Geoff.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      July 26, 2017 10:53 am

      Driving could be fun again, count me in!

  3. theguvnor permalink
    July 26, 2017 8:09 am

    Macron can probably achieve increased electricity through nuclear power 9see link) but how do we achieve it here without use of fossil fuels? OT interesting study here:
    http://www.gocompare.com/gas-and-electricity/what-powers-the-world

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      July 26, 2017 2:50 pm

      Macron will need to sack M Hulot first – he is planning to close a third of the French nuclear capacity for starters..

    • Adam permalink
      July 26, 2017 6:19 pm

      The French are going to have huge power supply problems soon most of their nuclear power plant was built in the 1980s and will need to be decommissioned soon, they can only last 30 40 years at most. They have built two plants since 2000 and have been failing to build a third for about 15 years.

  4. July 26, 2017 8:19 am

    Come on Hot Scot, round here we all have tractors. No banning announcement has been made about them. I reckon a John Deere 7R Series (Breathtaking performance, the best cab in its class, optimum comfort) could give you an average of about 20 mph up to Scotland, and do all of say, 10 mpg, and what’s more on RED diesel.

    So, nothing to worry about. For the shorter journeys we make – 15 miles return or so – I’m looking forward to pulling a trailer with 20 sheep in it, with an electric car. Should be a hoot.

    • dave permalink
      July 26, 2017 8:41 am

      Reminds me of Speer and Hitler, in the bunker, poring over the architect’s plans for the new Berlin, while the old Berlin was being blown to bits by the RAF.

      The irrepressible humour of the Berliner – a bit like that of the Cockney – came out in a joke of the time.

      “There is an air-raid warning!”

      “Well, the RAF will have to bomb us with houses first; to make a target!”

      • dave permalink
        July 26, 2017 8:59 am

        It also reminds me of Mussolini’s boast

        “I have an army of eight million bayonets!”

        and the supposed muttered quip by a listener

        “But where are the fucking eight million gun barrels?”

    • Gerry, England permalink
      July 26, 2017 1:05 pm

      JCB Fasttrak tractors do at least 40 mph and with big tyres to run over the slow electric vehicles. What’s not to like? The other answer is wheel out your classic cars and trucks. I believe there is a cut off for the London emission zone of 1972 – classic Bedford truck anyone?

  5. Laurence Eyton permalink
    July 26, 2017 8:25 am

    Well, electric isn’t the only other way to power a car. There’s LNG, which is what I expect most vehicle owners to convert to given the poor range of EVs. A tank of LNG does t get you as far as a tank of petrol, but it goes a hell of a lot farther than any electric. Note that the reason for the petrol/diesel ban in supposed to be nitrogen oxides, not CO2.

  6. AndyG55 permalink
    July 26, 2017 8:43 am

    ROFLMAO.. That is 23 years away.

    Anyone who thinks the anti-CO2 scam can last that long has been smoking some pretty heavy shroom !!

    • Sam Duncan permalink
      July 26, 2017 3:32 pm

      Parliament can’t bind its successors (how long did the Fixed Term Parliaments Act last?). This is posturing for the tree-huggers, nothing more.

      Either we’ll have found a genuinely better, more useful, technology by 2040, rendering any governmental mandate pointless, or we won’t, and it’ll have to be quietly brushed under the carpet to avoid public wrath. Whichever it turns out to be, this is utterly meaningless.

      Come to think of it, hasn’t Sweden committed to banning them by 2020, or something? Now that’s what you do when you’ve really drunk the green Kool-Aid. This, on the other hand, is Sir Humphrey kicking the issue so far down the road that he’ll never have to worry about it.

    • July 26, 2017 4:57 pm

      It’s lasted longer than that already. I wouldn’t be so sure were I you. These people are clinically insane.

    • BLACK PEARL permalink
      July 26, 2017 8:34 pm

      What a bunch of jokers
      About as believable as Corbyns pledge to eliminate student debt & fees.
      This is probably just a statement to get the nutter lobbyists off their backs & appease the EU
      Politicians used to be subtle & devious with their lies, now they’re totally blatant
      Only vehicle that will be allowed & affordable for the plebs in the future will be the Fred Flintstone model

  7. martinbrumby permalink
    July 26, 2017 8:48 am

    The EU?
    Certainly.
    But no-one seems to have noticed that the other day, Michael Gove gave a speech at the WWF, toadying up to WWF, Greenpeace and the rest, in other words the Green Blob.
    Then we have had Greg Clark’s various greenie policy pronouncements on Ruinable energy. Each madder than the last.
    So we are back to Vote Blue Get Green.
    The Green Blob has (again) won.
    How long before Fracking is banned?
    Obviously, Gove is not fit for Public Office. I guess 97% of all MPs are little better.
    Now, all they need to do is betray Brexit, open the borders and it is job done.
    Stupid, treacherous, scum.
    Let’s face it, even the deep greens despise WWF (read Panda Leaks) for their incompetence and corruption. Yet we have the Environment Secretary annointing them as the Government’s conscience?
    That should work….

  8. July 26, 2017 8:52 am

    And of course the knock on effect of all those redundant petrol stations and subsequent loss of forecourt jobs. Charging an electric car takes a lot longer than he five minutes to fill up with fuel, so we must of course see many more charging points with subsequent addition space needed at motorway stations etc etc. Ill thought policy from one of the two main idiotic political parties.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      July 26, 2017 11:00 am

      In cloud cuckoo land the time to recharge will be zero and the infrastructure including permanent wind and solar powered charging will be in place: guaranteed wind and solar in winter of course. Also, we will be able to afford to change the entire car fleet etc etc after they have ruined the economy and gas is unaffordable due to Russian sanctions… OMG/LOL!

  9. July 26, 2017 8:59 am

    I found this overview of the european plans for electric cars and some estimates of the extra costs.
    http://euanmearns.com/how-much-more-electricity-do-we-need-to-go-to-100-electric-vehicles/

  10. July 26, 2017 9:30 am

    The Conservative Party has gone full-on socialist. The 23-year plan reminds one of “the Great Leap Forward”. How well did that go? About as well as all other 5-year plans of socialist/communist states. Presumably the Conservative Party has this magic crystal ball which can predict technological development 23 years in advance. Truly, we are governed by idiots of the first order. At least I can claim that I didn’t vote for them and that in 23 years time I won’t be worrying about how to charge my ‘smart milk float’.

    • rwoollaston permalink
      July 26, 2017 9:55 am

      Absolutely right. Well said. It’s all about the elites pursuing their own agenda and paying for the science to be bent to fit.

      Perhaps this is what was meant by the term ‘post-industrial society?’ I think we’ll find it’s a post-prosperity society as well.

    • dennisambler permalink
      July 26, 2017 11:40 am

      “The Conservative Party has gone full-on (National) socialist.”

      http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_nazi_origins_of_renewable_energy_and_global_warming.html

      Technology and Economy in Third Reich: A Program for Work by Franz Lawaszeck, published in 1933

      Wind power, using the cost-free wind, can be built on a large scale. Improved technology will in the future make it no more expensive than thermal power. This is technically and economically possible and opens up a quite new life-important type of power generation. The future of wind is no longer small windmills, but very large real power plants. The wind towers must be at least 100 m [330 ft] high, the higher the better, ideally with rotors 100 m [330 ft] in diameter.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      July 26, 2017 1:07 pm

      The days of the Conservatives are numbered if they don’t change course on Brexit. They might be gone in 2 years time never to return in my lifetime.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        July 26, 2017 2:54 pm

        Not sure what you think would follow from a couple of years of Corbyn.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      July 26, 2017 2:20 pm

      I know it’s not the done thing to cross-post but I put this up on WUWT. It is the letter I wrote to the DM (‘cos Gove’s wife, Sarah Vine is a columnist there). I doubt they will publish:

      Sir,

      It is a fact of life that a thriving economy and a democratic country needs an abundant, dependable, predictable, and affordable electricity supply simply and easily delivered to its population. It is also a fact of life that if you want to usurp that thriving economy and counter the democratic rights of the population you do everything you can in your power to disrupt that supply: I can remember the three-day weeks of the ‘70s.

      It is my belief that our civil service and ministerial advisors have been infiltrated by those of a ‘Green’ persuasion whose aim in life is to make power supply in this country as difficult, spasmodic, complicated and expensive as they can. They have now managed to claim the scalp of Michael Gove, an otherwise extremely intelligent man who I would have thought more capable of independent thought; a man who would have seen through the Global Warming nonsense for the scam it is.

      How many subsidy entrepreneurs are enriching themselves on the back of wind and solar farms that deliver very little for the people of this country? How many politicians, ex-Ministers and SPaDs have left Government to go and work for the lobby groups/energy companies pushing the Green nightmare? (Sir Ed Davey is a case in point). How many people think that a battery is a source of power (hint: it is NOT a generator)?

      I suggest that when it comes to the latest hair-brained idea of Mr Gove’s department to install ‘battery walls’ – that will potentially ‘save users up to £40B over the next few decades’ (!!) – Mr Gove should ask himself, just who will benefit from the scheme? And how? It most assuredly will not be the poorer members of society, those living in tower blocks, social housing, or rental accommodation. No, it will be the high earners and the wealthy who can afford solar arrays and battery walls; it will be second home-owners whose empty homes they will turn into mini power-stations and earn their owners easy money even when empty – particularly when empty. Most of all it will be the lobbyists for the battery companies who have sold this ‘pup’ to government. It will, incidentally, also enrich insurance companies who will raise the fire insurance premiums for owners of properties with, what are in effect, potential fire-bombs sold as battery back-up installed. (The thought of a tower block’s multiple battery walls catching fire does not, we can see, need much imagination).

      I come back to the point that we need abundant and easily delivered reliable power supplies in this country, and we have the coal and gas – and, at some point, nuclear – systems to do just that. There would be no need for expensive subsidies (which at present make electricity three times the cost it need be) and there would be no ugly wind and solar farms scattered around the country mostly doing very little to keep our lights on, and preventing our industry producing the country’s wealth. This country, and the West in particular, is not going to change the climate (if indeed it needs to be changed) by beggaring itself by throwing money at third-world polluters who have a vested interest in bringing the West down. People should understand that China is a UN-defined ‘developing Nation’ – and will always be so defined: this is their get-out-of-jail-free-card which they will always be able to hide behind when it comes to (not) cleaning up their act. Mr Gove should have the courage to rely on his own intelligence and discuss this with people outside his department who do not have a political axe to grind: there are too many Greens in government and I didn’t vote for them.

      Yours,

      • Dung permalink
        July 26, 2017 2:34 pm

        Damn right Harrry!

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        July 26, 2017 2:57 pm

        Too good a letter for the Mail… Copy it to the more serious press. Even then, I think that they will not publish.

  11. Athelstan permalink
    July 26, 2017 9:35 am

    Volcanic? Always and ever, after all I am made of star dust out of a super Nova.

    close your eyes Paul.

    Consumer choice led demand – where did that disappear to?

    It may be the case and there will be people who tell me [again] how wunderbar are their electric vehicles and that isn’t the fu kin point, now is it?

    How many times can people deliberately, obtusely miss the point? This is all about control and authority and I wouldn’t mind that if I could perceive behind it all some altruistic endeavour, even a primary consideration to ordinary people but as God is my witness this is all about lies, chicanery, making people obedient to the rod. If these people [green blob and political claque] are so convinced of their reasoning, the efficacies of their arguments, surely then, the people would make the right choice? “Choice” – that’s the point.

    and so it goes:

    OOOoooh golly gee gosh and picture just such in EUlala land is, a Car cartel it has deemed that they wanna do ‘electric’ – HalleluJAH!!…… so the politicians and NGOs are wound up and is invented a pretext, lets call it erm ‘air pollution’ conveniently forgetting circa 1992 that the policians had previously collapsed and surrendered to the diesel car cartel encouraging people to buy them coz dey woz deemed to be “better for the environment!!” can you see the irony here, if you don’t you are effin blind. The ideas are madness, unfortunately Westminster is full of loonies and Gove has gone over to the green blob in some personal compromise, a surrender which is difficult for a logical person to fathom……

    BY 2040 or 23 years for those who can’t count [snowflake lurkers]…………..diesel and petroleum motor vehicles – all gone.

    Yep, as if by magic and governmental green mentalism should I say democratic government by DIKTAT mmm all oxymorons.

    What I want to know, was it a decision taken in craft………..ie if you’ve noticed some manufacturers have presumed……to “PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE” [stick it in and search]……. the German car cartel HQ, did they tell their polticians that “Britain will be first” – they’re the biggest mugs – easiest to dupe and after all Westminster is only a rubber stamp shop.

    What did I say, it wouldn’t be common sense, nothing to do with efficiency, convenience, price, formulated very well considered and weighed to a nicety. And absolutely no effort devoted to what about the juice to fuel all these lecky cars and wot about all the fossil fuel used to produce said lecky???? and then have they also been listening to that lunatic Elon Musk a tad too much and a wing and a prayer, which is a bit contradiction considering they always assert loudly their atheistic ‘beliefs’ or, there’s no God but Gaia and money – always money.

    Nope, without a moments hesitation [its the right thing to do – maybe, who TF cares?! …..green we’ll wee, wee on you!!] and despite what the plebs think…………………………….they’ll just legislate ’em out of existence [us and cars] and isn’t it about time drivers in the UK put their foot down – so to speak? Because this is abusive madness, green driven control freakery gone over the cliff of insane.

    Is it not well past time to tell our virtue signalling tossers who infest Parliament to enact laws which suit the British people rather than please supranational bodies and car manufacturers who just want to screw down the people or put another way, the people need to remind our representatives to serve our needs not the green and corporate blob.

    This is an imposition too far, once again based on no evidence and pushed by the cartels veiled in green lies and deceit beyond credibility, this is a clash of wills, will the petrol/diesel heads and they are many rise to this challenge or do we allow them to get away with another corporate monstering?

    The Demos need to wield their Kratos.

    • Dung permalink
      July 26, 2017 11:17 am

      On the button as usual Athelstan!

      This announcement ends any pretence that our government believes its own lies about freedom and democracy, it does not.
      We desperately need a new Libertarian party in the UK ASAP!

    • HotScot permalink
      July 26, 2017 11:38 am

      Athelstan/Dung

      Spot on Athelstan, this is the thin end of the socialist wedge. No more market forces, simply government instruction on what we can and can’t do.

      Dung, UK Libertarian party is a live and kicking. Time to join up and oppose this socialist nonsense. Perhaps not perfect, but its all we have.

      https://libertarianpartyuk.com

    • dennisambler permalink
      July 26, 2017 11:43 am

      Air Pollution was how the Obama EPA got the Endangerment Finding into being which became the basis for CO2 controls on coal plants in order to kill them.

  12. July 26, 2017 9:45 am

    The Telegraph has provided some criticism:
    Critics warn diesel ban could cost ‘trillions’ as drivers ‘remain in the dark’
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/26/critics-warn-diesel-ban-could-cost-trillions-drivers-remain/

    • Athelstan permalink
      July 26, 2017 9:46 am

      yeah, some quite good points in there, ta Phillip.

    • July 26, 2017 9:48 am

      Including the usual idiotic response from arch-trougher Dale Vince.

      • Athelstan permalink
        July 26, 2017 9:58 am

        What else, I cannot abide that supercilious twat.

        Vince and he laughs all the way to the bank with no sense of self awareness and how it rather compromises his noble Marxist principles but then do as I say not as I do, is the way of it with all of em and killing us all off by enforced taxation and wasting it all on boondoggles from which Vince makes an obscene profit – it must be such a joy for him, happy days eh?

        There must be a reckoning, he will be one of the first to be reckoned with.

      • martinbrumby permalink
        July 26, 2017 11:20 am

        I also enjoyed:-
        “Dr Penny Woods, Chief Executive of the British Lung Foundation, said: “We are pleased that the government is set to publish its air quality plan. Toxic air is poisonous.”
        Who knew?
        In a late announcement, it has been suggested that, in addition, ‘poisonous air is toxic.’
        Wow. Scaaary!

        The reality is that I have about as much faith in the “air pollution” scam as I have in the Glowbull Warming scam and for the same reason.

        Where are all the bodies?

        How did we survive the 1950s and 60s?

        Has no-one read Steve Milloy’s “Scare Pollution -Why & How to fix the EPA”?

        Don’t get me wrong, I have great concerns about President Trump.
        But you have to hand it to him, what other politicians that anyone has heard of has even recognised that there IS a swamp that MUST be drained?
        (Honourable exceptions Roger Helmer & Owen Patterson. How long did it take for the Green Blob to bullet the latter? Perhaps the ONLY credible Cabinet Minister who was on top of his brief in the last 20 years??)

        Gove’s recipe is to dive headfirst into the swamp.

        And remember that all this shite is trickled into the ears of ignorant Arts grad. Ministers by the Swamp / Blob. Who have specifically RECRUITED by the likes of Hilary Benn, Ed Miliband, Gummer-Deben & Tim Yeo. Even Margaret Thatcher appointed the likes of Sir Crispin Tickell and promoted Robert Watson.

        Drain the Swamp!

      • July 26, 2017 4:59 pm

        Rent seeker supreme. As is his counterpart in the USA, Elon “scammed the US taxpayer out of $9 billions) Musk.

  13. July 26, 2017 10:03 am

    Seems like an open goal for UKIP to stand up for consumer choice and against the huge green taxes that would be needed to achieve this idiotic ICE ban. If there are specific air-quality problems on certain roads then surely the best solution is to ban diesel vehicles from those specific roads and implement road charging as necessary to curb the problem in those specific areas.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      July 26, 2017 1:10 pm

      I think the Ukip ship has sailed. There is a huge gap for a right wing – note how the leftist media such as the BBC like to use that as an insult and try to paint anyone to the right as a neo-Nazi – for a party of common sense and conservative values. Too many people vote Tory, mislead by their name into believing they are conservative. Mass abstention would shock them.

      • Max Sawyer permalink
        July 26, 2017 2:11 pm

        Don’t forget the Nazis were the National Socialist Party – how the left love it when that is pointed out!

  14. July 26, 2017 10:10 am

    This is definitely a Referendom job.

    • July 26, 2017 1:03 pm

      A referendum is definitely required here. A proper debate of the pros – if anyone can think of any – and the cons must be had. Not this dictat from on high, or from between the clumps of reeds at least… If the people still vote for an all-electric fleet after that, well: we only have our peers to blame, huh?

      No to the ban!

  15. NeilC permalink
    July 26, 2017 10:20 am

    The big question is; who the hell do we vote for at the next general election?

    There is not one party with any sensible policies regarding energy. Inexpensive energy which works for the good of the people and industry of the UK is what we need.

    If only Nigel Farage would come back, we might get some sense back into the politics of what was a great country, before it is too late. (I have voted conservative all my life, it is no longer a free market party and I will not vote for them in the future)

    • rwoollaston permalink
      July 26, 2017 10:33 am

      Agreed. My local UKIP candidate’s business is cutting down woodland to produce woodchips so he’s benefitting from government policy. The longer this goes on the more difficult it will be to find people without a (subsidised) axe to grind unfortunately.

      • sean2829 permalink
        July 26, 2017 11:20 am

        Cutting woodlands to make wood chips to feed voracious power plants won’t go on long. Forest growth won’t keep up.

  16. July 26, 2017 10:37 am

    Banning hybrids is a non-starter for anyone with a rational brain, no way can a large percentage of the population re-charge an electric car overnight at home. I wonder how small an electric motor can go for it still to be classed as a hybrid.

    • July 26, 2017 7:21 pm

      From the DEFRA consultation document:

      “The shift to ultra-low and zero emission vehicles is well under way, and will continue to gather pace over the coming years as we move towards 2040, by which point the government will end the sale of all new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans”

      The keyword there is “conventional”, missed out (possibly on purpose) by activist-pretending-to–be-journalist Roger Harrabin (BBC “green” politburo), so “the end of petrol/diesel is nigh” is rubbish, most people will buy hybrids, probably with minimal electric motors, i.e. mostly powered by … petrol/diesel.

      If only the end of enviro-activist-journalism was nigh.

  17. July 26, 2017 10:38 am

    Very much off course, but a constant complaint in rural areas is the number of potholes, the lack of repair and damage to vehicles. Electric cars weigh a quarter more than i/c so holes will be larger, grow quicker and become more hazardous. Will the Highways Authority be granted a bigger budget?

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      July 26, 2017 11:18 am

      Any government will guarantee plentiful, free jam in 23 years time with total confidence. There will be no more pollution or nasty carbon dioxide . The fault will be the other party (whoever that is). The potholes will fill themselves in sheer joy.

  18. CheshireRed permalink
    July 26, 2017 11:01 am

    Of all the Green Blob issues I’d have to admit that reducing vehicle emissions is one I’d agree with. Who wants to walk through town breathing in toxic exhaust emissions? Come on, nobody does, so there really ought to be a 100% consensus on the *principle* of zero-emission vehicles. It’s a miracle (or a conspiracy!) how the ICE has lasted so long without genuine technological challenge. No other mass tech’ I can think of has had such an unchallenged run at the top of an industry greasy pole.
    How we get there is another matter, plus there’s the issue of how we supply the energy, which will move from self-generated ICE to electricity supplied at a home / work / public source. That’s where reality will bite. It will be hideously expensive. To meet the huge new demand we’ll HAVE to go large on gas and nuclear; there is no other way.
    Hybrid is the way for now for sure, combining zero-emissions for town driving and ICE for range.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      July 26, 2017 11:04 am

      PS I think cordless re-charging will be the ultimate objective, allowing every vehicle to re-charge while it’s being used. Likewise when it’s parked at home or on the road. There’s a fortune waiting for the first person to crack it properly…

      • HotScot permalink
        July 26, 2017 1:02 pm

        Scalextric rails along all roads.

        I have no idea what the voltage would have to be to keep a fully charged EV topped up, nor the transmission losses, nor what happens when it rains, nor how they are kept clean, nor if pedestrians would have to wear thick rubber boots.

        Or perhaps just on motorways where the range anxiety is a real issue.

        I have nothing against electric cars, just against being forced to drive them by government diktat.

        This will end badly as governments track record of selecting technology to foist onto the public is dismal. Paul had an article here about the light bulb fiasco which cost the taxpayer £3Bn for nothing. Similarly, this will end with huge taxpayer expense for little return.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        July 26, 2017 4:39 pm

        Actually, Hotscot, how’s about this? Buried at traffic lights are coils of wire to detect cars. What if they buried transformer coils (á la electric toothbrush chargers) so that every time an EV stopped at the lights it would get a quick charge (assumes the floor of the car had the other side of the transformer built in). In London you’d never get a flat battery!

    • sean2829 permalink
      July 26, 2017 11:30 am

      CO2 isn’t a pollutant, it’s the main atmospheric gas life depends on. The diesel problem, created by pushing high mileage to reduce CO2 emissions resulted in NOX emissions 5x greater than legal limits, causing real problems. Stop micromanaging a fake pollutant, set proper limits on real pollutants and let industry sort out how to meet sensible rules. Otherwise, the car of the future will be a bike.

      • dennisambler permalink
        July 26, 2017 1:19 pm

        But how are the legal limits decided? Junk science from the US EPA, handed down to receptive governments the world over.

        http://euanmearns.com/mortality-from-diesel-car-pollution-in-the-uk/

        We should also ban lightning flashes:
        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091030100022.htm

        “According to a [2009] paper by Ott and Pickering in the Journal of Geophysical Research, each flash of lightning on average in the several mid-latitude and subtropical thunderstorms studied turned 7 kilograms (15.4 pounds) of nitrogen into chemically reactive NOx. “In other words, you could drive a new car across the United States more than 50 times and still produce less than half as much NOx as an average lightning flash,” Ott estimated.”

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        July 27, 2017 6:55 am

        dennisambler
        Not only that but lightening fixes Nitrogen into a form suitable to fertilize plants. If diesel engines are producing the same chemicals then that too is aiding the greening of the planet.

    • Tim Hammond permalink
      July 26, 2017 12:49 pm

      Exhaust fumes are no more toxic than the cup of coffee I’m sipping – that too contains “toxins”. But the first principle of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. The air in London is just fine: all the deaths are just statistical trawling which is so flawed it’s laughable.

      And since money is finite, let’s spend the cash on solving real problems rather than this nonsense.

      • July 26, 2017 12:59 pm

        Yes, it’s just another application of the false Linear No Threshold Model.

  19. Athelstan permalink
    July 26, 2017 11:29 am

    Dear all,

    Yum yum!

    Sure, I’d like to live in a perfect world as well, where there was no air pollution but the if I want to buy goods from overseas I ain’t heard of many electric ships plying their trade, though we could go back to clippers I suppose.

    Air pollution, really theres is no solution especially if the Sun starts evaporating all that pesky water which picks up dust and all sorts of crap – frogs sometimes.

    Jeepers and then there’s Katla and all of her brothers and sisters around the world – ho hum if you wanna talk air pollutions!!! They’re the boys1

    Not to forget all sorts of cosmic rays and stuff, cripes.

    Wood burners, they’re all the rage and green too? What about that lawn mower putting up all that dust and pollen bet the neighbours hate you! Coughs and sneezers too. And if you like nuclear power, there’s always some fallout – what?

    Plus the electric car in your streets somewhere else has caused someone lots of ‘orrible air, but hey! at least your conscience is clear – way to go!

    and lets face it you will be grateful and if not you pay for it anyway next a tax on clean air coming Sooooooooooooooooooon.

    Signed.

    A happily very unconcerned virtue signaller.

    oh btw, uptick me on my arsebook page – please!!

    • dave permalink
      July 26, 2017 1:17 pm

      After all, Antarctica is melting in front of our eyes!

      Including the ice on the land, we are looking at 30 million square kms of the hard sort of wet, in the above..

      It was a scorching -62 C at the South Pole yesterday and – incredibly – even warmer today at -50 C . Extrapolating this rate of increase…

      • Athelstan permalink
        July 26, 2017 2:07 pm

        ‘warming planet’ and man made idiocy…………….

        – 62 C good grief, that would make your eye lids freeze and ‘up’ all the way to – 50 C wow! it’s a heat wave let me get my extrapolating boots on and I’ll meet you at 88ºS parallel, we can have a walk in the balmy temperatures……..maybe.

  20. Dermot Flaherty permalink
    July 26, 2017 1:11 pm

    Another way to view the 2040 target is to try to estimate how much extra generating capacity will be required.
    The ONS estimated that in 2011, there were some 27.3 million cars/vans on the road and in 2014, the National Travel Survey suggested that the average car journey was some 6,488 miles.
    Currently the longest range electric car can do 345 miles on a full charge and it has a 100kWh battery.
    A crude calculation using the above figures (I don’t think I have made any stupid mistakes !) says that we would need to generate another 51 terawatt hours of electric energy per year to sustain current car numbers and journeys and if we assume that they are all charged at home overnight with equal load spreading (how on earth is this going to be achieved ?), we would require some 17.5 gigawatts of generating capacity or some 5 Hinckley Point Cs.
    Where is this power coming from given the fact that we will be reducing capacity in this timeframe to meet the renewable targets ?

    • A C Osborn permalink
      July 26, 2017 8:18 pm

      You are certainly being optimistic, I would think it takes more than 100kW to charge a 100kWh battery, you need at least an extra 10-15%.

      • Dermot Flaherty permalink
        July 27, 2017 12:32 am

        Being as optimistic as possible was my intent in order to get the most conservative power estimate. So I assumed the 27M users would cooperate in their charging patterns to spread their annual consumption of the 51tWH in the most efficient manner to smooth out the load. Unless some form of compulsion/coercion is used (via “Smart” technology !) the likelihood of this happening is pretty small so my estimate of 5 Hinckleys could be exceeded by many multiples if – say – the majority of car users wanted to charge their cars before a Bank Holiday weekend.
        But this whole idea is completely typical of politicians who seem to have a deliberate disdain for any sort of detail and seem incapable of letting a few random facts destroy a “beautiful” theory.

  21. July 26, 2017 1:41 pm

    I would not worry about this. Sweeping legislation usually produces the opposite result to the one intended. For example “Rent Control” in New York and London was intended to keep rents low. Price controls in Venezuela were supposed to make food affordable but instead it made farming uneconomic so there is much less food available. Price incentives in the EU created butter mountains and wine lakes.

    When governments try to manipulate markets through legislation the results are usually disastrous. Almost as dumb as this Indiana bill:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

    • July 26, 2017 2:03 pm

      It’s the Iron Law of Regulation in action.

    • Rowland H permalink
      July 27, 2017 9:29 am

      “Whenever government legislates to force an economic outcome, the long term effect will be equal and opposite to that intended”. Newtons Law of Government Regulations.

  22. July 26, 2017 2:07 pm

    More from the Telegraph:
    “Diesel and petrol car ban: Plan for 2040 unravels as 10 new power stations needed to cope with electric revolution” No surprise there, but will the BBC agree?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/25/new-diesel-petrol-cars-banned-uk-roads-2040-government-unveils/

  23. HotScot permalink
    July 26, 2017 3:32 pm

    In an earlier comment I mentioned that Paul had discussed the government waste of £3Bn on changing light bulbs (there’s a joke in there somewhere).

    It wasn’t Paul, it was an article by Matt Ridley. The relevant paragraphs follow, and are worrying. Matt wrote this Times article a week or so before the government announcement on EV’s by 2040.

    “Here is a cautionary tale illustrating the latter point. Ten years ago Gordon Brown, then chancellor, and Hilary Benn, environment secretary, announced that ahead of an EU timetable Britain would forcibly phase out incandescent light bulbs in favour of compact fluorescent (CFL) ones, promising that this would “help tackle climate change, and also cut household bills”. By sending free CFL bulbs to most households and requiring retailers to sell only the new bulbs, this cost the country almost £3 billion.

    Slow to warm up, tending to flicker, with a much shorter lifetime than expected and dangerous to dispose of, CFL bulbs were less popular with consumers than with manufacturers, who tooled up to produce them. Now, just ten years later, nobody wants CFL bulbs, thanks to the dramatic fall in price of the next technology: more efficient, better quality and safer LED lights. The government backed the wrong technology. Fortunately, in that case, changing course won’t be very hard, though the waste of £3 billion is a miserable thought. It would be much worse if we picked the wrong battery technology for electric vehicles.”

    • July 27, 2017 2:29 am

      When the gumment chooses winners and losers taxpayers pick up the tab.

      Stoopid gumment rools……except here in the USA where Donald Trump has already undone most of Obama’s “Legacy” and may yet turn the ship of state around.

  24. thedude permalink
    July 26, 2017 4:07 pm

    Does anyone else get “Red Barchetta” stuck in their heads after reading these stories?

  25. annbanisher permalink
    July 26, 2017 4:15 pm

    I guarantee that there would be allowed exceptions for people with either influence or money.

    • Athelstan permalink
      July 26, 2017 4:53 pm

      Of course, the proles are the problem! The taxpaying eejits, are, always shafted and the rich will have there own ‘Zil lanes’ for their Indian/Chinese produced petrol cars and the odd automobili Lamborghini or three or six.

  26. Dermot Flaherty permalink
    July 26, 2017 4:20 pm

    As regards battery efficiency, basic chemistry tells us that the energy density of petrol is some 100x that of Li-ion and while it is true that an electric motor driven car is about 5x more efficient than a petrol-driven one, there is no sign of anything remotely approaching equivalence on the horizon for all the talk of Li-air, etc.
    But this is perfect territory for politicians as a 2040 target date affords great scope for arm-waving unsubstantiated claims re. “expected improvements in technology” and, I will bet, speculation on “efficiency improvements from driverless cars”.

    • July 27, 2017 2:38 am

      Driverless cars are the game changer. I am already thinking about living without owning a motor car. My garage will make a fine workshop but I will need to install air conditioning (I live in Florida).

  27. Peter Flint permalink
    July 26, 2017 4:54 pm

    Jeremy Vine (of the large BBC salary fame) ran an article on his programme today.
    It turned out to be nothing more than an advertisement for electric cars with owners calling in to say on air just how good they were.
    Nothing balanced about the article at all. Only one guy called in to ask how the revenue from oil will be replaced. We all know that government will be dreaming up new ways to shake down the consumer. This caller lost any credibility when he said F1 would not stand for phasing out of oil.
    I intend to write to the programme asking why it wasn’t a balanced review for what good it will do.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      July 26, 2017 5:00 pm

      Vine actually interviewed a Nissan Leaf owner who was sitting in his car on his drive. Vine asked the man to switch on his car. ‘Wow!’ says Vine, ‘That’s quiet, I can’t hear the engine!’

      And for this, the man is paid £700k/year!! The man is so thick.

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        July 27, 2017 7:03 am

        Harry Passfield
        I turn Vine off on Radio 2, the man is a complete buffoon. Watching him on Eggheads (I like quizzes for keeping the brain active) I used to give him the benefit of the doubt at his ignorance; now I’m convinced it is not an act but that his general knowledge is minimal.

        The other thing that saddens me is the lack of knowledge displayed by teachers on quiz programmes, but that’s another issue.

      • bea permalink
        July 27, 2017 9:34 am

        When, some forty years ago, I used to drive on the back roads of “La France Profonde,” the only English station which reached was 1500 M BBC Radio 2. It was Jimmy Young and Pete Murray then. Normal people of a certain maturity, who talked quietly and clearly about things they knew a little bit about. If they had on air an expert like “The Legal Beagle” the presenter – and the callers – politely asked straight questions and got straight answers.

        (Bring back “Waggoners’ Walk” !)

        “University Challenge” had a celebrity competition a few years ago.. One of the teams was “Members of Parliament.” Frankly, it was embarassing how totally ignorant these people, – supposedly possessing reasonable University Degrees – were. It was as if they took “Forget” pills at night, and woke up a bit stupider each day.

  28. Harry Passfield permalink
    July 26, 2017 5:06 pm

    AAArrrggghhhh! And now the BBC News is blaming everything on the ‘motorist’. No mention of buses, lorries, diesel-electric trains, STOR. Useless Shukman!!!

  29. Ian permalink
    July 26, 2017 6:28 pm

    Saw the latest BBC News – headlined the issue, added that the Green organisations say it’s not enough. Not a word about National Grid’s concerns. On Ch4 news, the Green Party co-leader said (not the first time I’ve heard her say it) that, in effect, we’re being shamed by countries like India which are much more ambitious. Naturally, such rubbish goes unchallenged.

  30. mwhite permalink
    July 26, 2017 6:40 pm

    http://www.mining.com/charts-chasm-between-future-lithium-supply-demand-28137/

    “The study zoned in on lithium and rare earth element neodymium, critical components of electric vehicles, which are also not easily substituted. The report notes there is currently no efficient substitute for lithium-based EV batteries “given the unparalleled energy density delivered by this chemistry” and no other chemistry provides magnets of the power achievable with neodymium magnets used in permanent magnet motors.”

    It’ll be unafordable

  31. Stonyground permalink
    July 26, 2017 7:11 pm

    I haven’t had time to read the whole thread so apologies if someone has said this already.

    If the government bans the sale of new ICE cars, then a massive industry will spring up refurbishing existing ones. Modern cars are incredibly well made, mine has done 130,000 miles and is still in good condition and totally reliable. I like it so much that when the inevitable happens and it needs something really expensive fixing, I will seriously consider spending the money on it. We all know that moment when we have to consider whether it is worth throwing any more money at our old car or whether the time has come to replace it with something newer. How difficult is this decision going to be when the government has restricted your choice of something newer to a piece of battery operated cack?

  32. tom0mason permalink
    July 26, 2017 7:12 pm

    The Future's Bright, The Future's...

    Equine

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      July 26, 2017 8:00 pm

      Brilliant!!!! Send it to Gove – and Lucas!

      • July 26, 2017 8:21 pm

        Perhaps traction engines will get to enjoy a resurgence?
        Only thought of these as I passed one on the back of a diesel powered HGV low loader today. 🙂

  33. BLACK PEARL permalink
    July 26, 2017 9:12 pm

    Been wanting to get my car to sound like this……
    https://en-gb.facebook.com/spitfirethefeaturedoc/videos/1404046973011778/

    … dont think the whine of an electric motor will have the same appeal 🙂
    This will be more blue sky thinking ready to be shot down in flames as in the above clip

    Just waiting for my local Labour council to ban or charge to pass through town, so will probably have to burn even more fuel to navigate around !

    • Athelstan permalink
      July 26, 2017 9:22 pm

      😉 and :O(( sh*7

  34. Ian permalink
    July 26, 2017 9:17 pm

    Stop worrying! Having mentioned in an earlier post that, predictably, the BBC couldn’t bring itself to mention the National Grid’s concerns, on the Ten O’Clock News they did! The National Grid has it all under control and is going to solve the problem by “demand management”, exclaimed an excited Shukman. Good Grief!

    • Athelstan permalink
      July 26, 2017 9:25 pm

      “demand management”

      ooooh, er perhaps they’ll switch off the civil service during the year black out the houses of Parliament and ask very nicely if Tower Hamlets and Canary wharf – similarly.

      • BLACK PEARL permalink
        July 26, 2017 9:31 pm

        Demand Management
        Is this the real reason for those Smart Meters ?

    • July 27, 2017 9:40 am

      Yes I saw that!

      I think Shukman described the problems as a few bumps in the road!

  35. Paddy permalink
    July 27, 2017 6:40 am

    God give me strength, and save us from Civil Servants. It is they who should be blamed, not the useless Pollies, to whom 2+2 probably equals 5.

    • bea permalink
      July 27, 2017 9:44 am

      I have known some good civil servants – and teachers, and doctors – over the years. They all took the first chance to secure a pension and quit. My brother-in-law was one such doctor. I noticed that the NHS was paying retired doctors to be locums at A&Es at £1,000 a day . I said “Surely, you wouldn’t mind doing a few days at that silly rate of pay?” He said that the mere thought of going into an NHS establishment ever again made him feel like he wanted to vomit.

      • bea permalink
        July 27, 2017 9:55 am

        I have a niece who is starting a general surgery rotation. One day she said that – so far – she had only been allowed to “hold the camera.” I said
        “Sensible! When you all get sued, there is a record.” She said, a little puzzled, “No, the endoscope.”

        That I really believed defensive medicine had got that bad, either says something about me or about the modern world.

  36. Dermot Flaherty permalink
    July 27, 2017 9:56 am

    Today’s Daily Telegraph has some good stuff on the additional power requirements for all-electric cars by 2040 but I don’t understand some of the numbers they state and in the interests of factual accuracy (not a concern for most politicians) I wonder if there are any electrical engineers out there who can help verify or correct my figures ?
    The DT suggests there are 30M cars on the road today and I used a figure of 27.3M based on a 2011 survey.
    So let’s assume 30M.
    Unfortunately, we then get confusion between energy and power. It is stated that current electricity usage at peak times is 61GW per year and that the extra energy needed to power electric cars by 2040 is 30GW per year. (Energy is of course expressed in Whs !)
    Since there is no mention of average driving distance (which along with range and battery capacity/charging rate) would give us the energy requirements, I have no idea how they arrive at this figure.
    (Further confusion arises in the Business section later on where Gillian Ambrose covers the same topic and shows a graph in which peak demand in 2040 is shown as 10 GWs !).
    The National Travel Survey gave a figure of 6,488 miles per year travelled in 2014 so let’s use this value.
    And while the range of a Tesla Model S is given, the full range figure quoted is 381 miles. Googling Tesla Model S 100D range gives a range of values from 335 to 393, so let’s use the DT value.

    So going back to the drawing board, if we magically switched all cars/vans to electric battery power overnight, we have 30M vehicles, each with a 100kWh battery with a range of 381 miles on a full charge, travelling an average of 6,488 miles per annum.
    A simplistic calculation (ignoring battery charging inefficiency) says that each car will need the equivalent of 17 full charges a year (6,488 / 381) and that means 1700 kWh energy required per annum by each car.

    Multiplying that out gives a total yearly energy requirement of 51TWh.

    At this point, I would appreciate it if anyone can point out any glaring mistakes I have made.

    What I then tried to do is assume mass cooperation by the 30M vehicle owners on a scale unprecedented in peacetime to smooth the power requirements over 365 overnight charging sessions.
    Assuming that all car owners are only going to charge their cars close to when the battery flat (totally unrealistic and against current advice re. home charging in the literature) that implies each car requiring an overnight charge every 21.5 (365/17) days.
    If we called that 21 days and allocated each car a particular charging day so we spread the charging evenly over the year, then that means that every night, some 1,428,571 (30M / 21) cars would plug in for 8 hours to get fully charged.
    If each car requires 100kWh of energy, then that means that during that 8 hour period, there will be a power requirement of some 17.86 (1,428,571 x 30M / 8) GW.
    (Or some 5 Hinckleys).

    Would anyone care to comment on my calculations so far ?

    But the above is a completely idealistic (and thus probably unrealistic) scenario with the sole aim of getting the most conservative energy requirements.

    What happens if there is a complete free-for-all and the majority of car owners plug their cars in overnight in much the same way as we do with smartphones ?
    What will this do to demand on the Grid ?

    The Tesla website suggests that a Tesla can charge at 7.4kW from a single-phase supply so if 30M cars try to plug in overnight, then does that mean the Grid will experience a demand of some 222GW (30M x 7.4kW) ?
    If so, then that equates to some 69 Hinckleys.

    I welcome all corrections/comments in the interest of promoting FACT !

    • July 27, 2017 11:12 am

      Dermot Flaherty the 1700 KWh of energy per car per annum looks very low to me.

      My car which is by no means economical has an 80 litre tank and, according to government figures used for RHI calculations, petrol equates to 9.7KW per litre therefore my fuel tank holds 776KW of energy.

      Even allowing that an electric engine is 5x more efficient at converting energy to motion compared to an internal combustion Engine (ICE) 776/5 = 155.kw is only 1 tank of fuel.

      The energy requirements must therefore be an order of magnitude greater unless we are all only going to use a tank of fuel a year each.

      As you say I may have made a fundamental error here and am open to correction.

      • Dermot Flaherty permalink
        July 27, 2017 2:49 pm

        Mark,
        This is one of the reasons I posted my comments since I was trying to be certain of the facts and not being either an electrical or chemical engineer, I may be making some fundamental mistake. I don’t disagree with your 776kWh of energy in your full tank of petrol but I don’t disagree with the numerous reports that suggest a Tesla Model S 100D can go for some 380 miles on a fully-charged 100kWh battery.
        My car (diesel I am afraid !) does between 10&11 miles per litre in day to day usage. Let’s use a figure of 10 miles/litre for your petrol car, and your 80L tank will take you 800 miles. Is that more or less your experience ?
        If so, then to do 6,488 miles, you will need 8.1 tank fulls, and burn 6293kWhs worth of petrol.
        Using an efficiency factor of 5 this equates to 1200kWhs worth of Li-ion battery power so I think we are in the right ballpark.
        I think I will stop for a while and let an expert tell us what (if anything) we are doing wrong.

      • July 27, 2017 3:41 pm

        Dermot,
        Oddly enough I only get around 350 miles from my 80 Litre (17.59 gallon) tank which works out to be around 14.1L per hundred Kilometres. or 20mpg. On a good run I can get 25mpg (11.3 Litres per 100K).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: