Britain to ban sale of all diesel and petrol cars and vans from 2040

[cybershot]

Self driven cars will no doubt have come on leaps and bounds by then also, which should make cycling safer, and b) anyone who can't drive, able to have a car anyway!! Which will of course mean buses will really just be a thing for poor people! Taxi drivers won't exist, and trains will probably all be self driven too.

 

[BigTom]

But those are very specific people. It's like me saying that because I know some disabled people who are completely homebound then most are.

If you seriously think that most physically disabled people can commute by bike then you're using a definition of disabled that doesn't have any meaningful application.

If it was obvious I wasn't saying every single disabled person can never ride a bike then I'm not sure why you decided to argue with me.

I'm not arguing with you. I encounter the attitude that absolutely nobody with a physical disability can use a bike way too often is all.
I never said most can, I said lots of people with physical disabilities can and do use bikes for utility/transport/commuter type cycling.
You never qualified the distinction you were drawing between able-bodied and disabled people, but from previous posts you've made I was confident you weren't making a blanket statement about all disabled people, but other people reading this I'm not at all sure they would or do, hence my comment.

 

[scifisam]

I'm not arguing with you. I encounter the attitude that absolutely nobody with a physical disability can use a bike way too often is all.
I never said most can, I said lots of people with physical disabilities can and do use bikes for utility/transport/commuter type cycling.
You never qualified the distinction you were drawing between able-bodied and disabled people, but from previous posts you've made I was confident you weren't making a blanket statement about all disabled people, but other people reading this I'm not at all sure they would or do, hence my comment.

You did say most, actually. Check your own posts.

So you're arguing against something you think people might be thinking even though nobody's said they are. Well Urban

 

[bluescreen]

Turning the electric car question on its head, I'm wondering if they could develop tangentially, just as mobile phones have become cameras and pocket computers. Once Musk et al. get the battery problem solved, the car becomes a very useful local mobile battery that you don't have to load and tow - it simply drives to whatever remote location, event or disaster where it's needed, at times when the grid may be shut down. Especially useful where the garage has its independent power source from local wind or solar. I can imagine the mobile temporary power source developing separately as a spin-off from passenger vehicles. Does rather need a decent battery capacity though. At present there wouldn't be anything left over from what it takes to get from A to B.

 

[SpookyFrank]

When all these electric cars materialise, how will government replace the lost earnings from fuel duty?

Massive savings in NHS treatments for people with respiratory diseases caused by living in car-poisoned air?

 

[BigTom]

You did say most, actually. Check your own posts.

So you're arguing against something you think people might be thinking even though nobody's said they are. Well Urban

Christ. I made a comment in a conversation, I've already said I'm not arguing with you. You must live a really stressful life if you see any comment as an argument, but don't worry, I won't talk to you again.
ftr, I said many/most could cycle, which given the range of adapted bikes that exists I think is true. You limited it to a particular form/function of cycling after that and I did not comment on proportions for that.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Massive savings in NHS treatments for people with respiratory diseases caused by living in car-poisoned air?

So the Tories need to raise the pension age to 150. Fab.

 

[scifisam]

Christ. I made a comment in a conversation, I've already said I'm not arguing with you. You must live a really stressful life if you see any comment as an argument, but don't worry, I won't talk to you again.
ftr, I said many/most could cycle, which given the range of adapted bikes that exists I think is true. You limited it to a particular form/function of cycling after that and I did not comment on proportions for that.

Nope, it was limited to a particular form of cycling - for transport rather than occasional fun - from the start. That's specifically what you claimed most physically disabled people could do.

You’re downplaying the issues of physical disability. I know you're just trying to focus on the positives, but when you make erroneous claims like most people can manage with adapted bikes, you make it seem like the rest of us just aren't trying hard enough.

I not only can't pedal but can't use brakes - there are no adaptations for me. And it's not like arthritis is some rare condition. When you think about the different conditions people can have you end up with far more that can't be adapted for (for transport, not sport) than can.

 

[weltweit]

A lot has to happen between now and 2040 for electric cars to work as replacements to petrol and diesel cars and vans.

Ideally electric cars will have to have similar ranges to petrol cars, i.e. 400 miles on a charge, and take about the same time and cost to be replenished, i.e. 5 minutes and about £40.00

Battery and charging technology just isn't there at the moment.

 

[mojo pixy]

I dare say business leaders will be consulted at some point about this mooted development, regarding the practicalities of making all goods move via emission-free or extremely low emission means. Which means that while we proles will have to shell out all kinds of monthly subscriptions for electric and electronic motors, diesel vans and HGVs will still be churning up the air because profits still depend on it.

 

[Cid]

A lot has to happen between now and 2040 for electric cars to work as replacements to petrol and diesel cars and vans.

Ideally electric cars will have to have similar ranges to petrol cars, i.e. 400 miles on a charge, and take about the same time and cost to be replenished, i.e. 5 minutes and about £40.00

Battery and charging technology just isn't there at the moment.

Or you just have a system where you change cars.

 

[Teaboy]

I dare say business leaders will be consulted at some point about this mooted development, regarding the practicalities of making all goods move via emission-free or extremely low emission means. Which means that while we proles will have to shell out all kinds of monthly subscriptions for electric and electronic motors, diesel vans and HGVs will still be churning up the air because profits still depend on it.

I don't know this for sure but I think we're a long way off the technology needed for electric trucks and lorries. Its just the power needed to shift all that weight.

 

[Corax]

more silent cars = more road deaths

Nope.

 

[NoXion]

That's what I was thinking . If I live that long I'll be half deaf , poorer vision and not be able to jump out of the way of quick things .

Really looking forward to my old age now . Thank you , you fucking hippy twats .

Pretty sure that fossil fuel cars are already quiet enough that the sound of the tyres rolling over the road is much louder than that of the engine. Especially on rougher surfaces. In any case, it would be easy enough to make electric engines noisier if needed.

 

[snadge]

So what happens with cruise/container ships, airplanes, trains and heavy freight?

One container ship chucks out more pollutants than 10k cars per day, or is it going to be the poorest in society that suffer again?

Self driving cars, lol, they are going to be trolled by pedestrians and cyclists constantly.

Where is the fucking electricity going to come from?

 

[weltweit]

So what happens with cruise/container ships, airplanes, trains and heavy freight?

One container ship chucks out more pollutants than 10k cars per day, or is it going to be the poorest in society that suffer again?

I don't want to be a killjoy but have you got a link for that?

Self driving cars, lol, they are going to be trolled by pedestrians and cyclists constantly.

Where is the fucking electricity going to come from?

 

[Corax]

Charging direct from current lampposts. This idea is the future IMO:

London street lights converted to EV charge points for trial - Zap-Map

 

[weltweit]

To easy for pranksters to interfere with it imo.

 

[snadge]

I don't want to be a killjoy but have you got a link for that?

I lied.

World's 15 Biggest Ships Create More Pollution Than All The Cars In The World - Industry Tap

I normal container ship's pollution = 50 million cars.

But ban the fucking car, why not, it's just normal people that use them.

 

[snadge]

Charging direct from current lampposts. This idea is the future IMO:

London street lights converted to EV charge points for trial - Zap-Map

BUT WHERE IS THE FUCKING ELECTRICITY GOING TO COME FROM?

FFS.

Do you really think that 13 amp wiring that lamposts use is up to the task of increased amperage that a car battery will need?

 

[Corax]

Do you really think that 13 amp wiring that lamposts use is up to the task of increased amperage that a car battery will need?

I personally don't have the technical knowledge about how that will be overcome. But as it's been approved for trial in various metropolitan areas, I rather strongly suspect that someone, somewhere along the design process has considered that.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong and you're the first person it's occurred to. Best email them I guess?

BUT WHERE IS THE FUCKING ELECTRICITY GOING TO COME FROM?

Probably France, for the most part.

However - one oft overlooked factor is that the EVs will themselves act as storage devices. A major challenge to our power infrastructure isn't so much average demand vs capacity, but peak demand. By designing an EV infrastructure that allows the vehicles to themselves put charge back into the grid if connected at peak times, some of this could be overcome.

FFS.

Yeah, people understand exactly what you're asking. But what answer do you want exactly?

There's an impending power crisis. We need more power stations, of some sort. We need to generate more power. Yes. Okay. Everyone knows that already.

 

[Corax]

I lied.

World's 15 Biggest Ships Create More Pollution Than All The Cars In The World - Industry Tap

I normal container ship's pollution = 50 million cars.

But ban the fucking car, why not, it's just normal people that use them.

That's because, or at least as it has been claimed, this move is sweet fuck all to do with climate change and everything to do with respiratory diseases caused by particulate pollution in urban areas. People don't walk to school or cycle to work over the English Channel.

 

[snadge]

That's because, or at least as it has been claimed, this move is sweet fuck all to do with climate change and everything to do with respiratory diseases caused by particulate pollution in urban areas. People don't walk to school or cycle to work over the English Channel.

But they do in coastal towns and cities where huge ships are berthed that run 24/7.

So why ban the sale of petrol cars? And why the preference of the government to build multiple waste to energy power stations which throw out even nastier particulates, in the middle of cities of all places?


More people die of obesity than diesel fumes.

 

[Corax]

So why ban the sale of petrol cars?

Nitrous oxides etc. It's not just "particulate" pollution as I said above - that was an error.

And why the preference of the government to build multiple waste to energy power stations which throw out even nastier particulates, in the middle of cities of all places?

Fuck knows. Those things are a fucking waste of time at best, and certainly not 'green' in the slightest. They wanted to build one at the end of the road where I used to live - but happily ultimately saw sense. The whole thing smacked of a scam tbh.

 

[Corax]

Doing something about the hipster trend for (sometimes illegal) wood-burning stoves would be nice as well.

 

[snadge]

Nitrous oxides etc. It's not just "particulate" pollution as I said above - that was an error.

NOx from suitably engineered petrol cars are negligible, banning petrol cars also is ridiculous.. follow the money

Fuck knows. Those things are a fucking waste of time at best, and certainly not 'green' in the slightest. They wanted to build one at the end of the road where I used to live - but happily ultimately saw sense. The whole thing smacked of a scam tbh.

Yes, they are a scam, paid for by the taxpayer to be built, the operators are then paid by the ton to burn rubbish, by the taxpayer again, strangely enough there are a lot of tories on the boards of these operator companies and there are loads of these plants in towns and cities all over the country and many, many more being built now.

The emissions are carcinogenic with a lot of heavy metal content, far worse than NOx.

They are profitable even if they don't produce one watt of power.


It's the same as cement works being paid ( taxpayer again) to burn old tyres.

 

[Corax]

NOx from suitably engineered petrol cars are negligible, banning petrol cars also is ridiculous.. follow the money

I did write "etc". Carbon Monoxide, for example. I'm yet to be at all convinced that we're anyway near close to eliminating all of that crap in mass produced petrol vehicles.

Yes, they are a scam, paid for by the taxpayer to be built, the operators are then paid by the ton to burn rubbish, by the taxpayer again, strangely enough there are a lot of tories on the boards of these operator companies and there are loads of these plants in towns and cities all over the country and many, many more being built now.

They are profitable even if they don't produce one watt of power.

Don't forget that a lot of them aren't designed to run 'waste' as is often made out, but biomass. So, renewable forestry that's...

...put on one of the aforementioned heavily polluting tankers, and shipped to eg Southampton for burning.

 

[snadge]

I did write "etc". Carbon Monoxide, for example. I'm yet to be at all convinced that we're anyway near close to eliminating all of that crap in mass produced petrol vehicles.

I agree but particulates, which is the reason they are being banned, is negligible, 20 years of technology and they will be non existent and fabulously fuel efficient, it will hit the poorly paid, working class person who has to travel for their work the hardest.

Don't forget that a lot of them aren't designed to run 'waste' as is often made out, but biomass. So, renewable forestry that's...

...put on one of the aforementioned heavily polluting tankers, and shipped to eg Southampton for burning.

I am talking 'only' about the waste to energy plants, there are about 20 being built at the moment and about 50 already running, their electrical output is non existant at best and are heavily funded by the taxpayer, next we have what you class as biomass stations, there are a lot of straw burning stations, local farmers grow only the worst type of crop that maximises burnable straw for miles around the station, getting paid a (taxpayer) premium for it, negligible electricity, probably enough to keep 50 electric cars topped up.

Converted to biomass stations (coal) are taxpayer funded but do chuck out a fair bit of electricity.


Shame they are all owned by private companies.

 

[Corax]

I am talking 'only' about the waste to energy plants, there are about 20 being built at the moment and about 50 already running, their electrical output is non existant at best and are heavily funded by the taxpayer, next we have what you class as biomass stations, there are a lot of straw burning stations, local farmers grow only the worst type of crop that maximises burnable straw for miles around the station, getting paid a (taxpayer) premium for it.

All sounds a bit Arlene Foster to me.

Personally, although I know it's an unpopular position I'm all in favour of building more nuclear plants. Especially if we can pay Elon Musk to get rid of the waste by lobbing it at the sun.

That, moonshots like fusion power and quantum photovoltaics, and a huge spend on geothermal development which has been tragically underinvested in. We're crawling around on the crust of a seething ball of magma FFS.

Another thing that rarely seems to get factored into these equations is how our consumption may reduce by more efficient use of energy. Improvements in battery technology and silicon use has already seen a significant amount of this in some areas, and fuck knows where this brave new world of quantum engineering and nanotech will take us...

 

[snadge]

Corax I'm all for Nuclears, more so for thorium though.