Britain bans gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040

[afx]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/26/news/uk-bans-gasoline-diesel-engines-2040/index.html

[retired & glad]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/26/news/uk-bans-gasoline-diesel-engines-2040/index.html

Well JC, at my age I won't be around to see this but I think the model companies will have to make some new dies and molds for the electric motors. Electric would have to improve on length of traveling from point A to point B a lot better. With battery technology improving over this length of time, it might be possible.

Richard

[Snake45]

Well JC, at my age I won't be around to see this but I think the model companies will have to make some new dies and molds for the electric motors. Electric would have to improve on length of traveling from point A to point B a lot better. With battery technology improving over this length of time, it might be possible.

Richard

I'm really not that interested in building models of coal-powered cars (which is what electrics really are, after all--or, in some cases, nuclear).

[Draggon]

So much for the British F-1 GP.  Seriously though, what the article said about the tipping point being reached when electric vehicle prices coming down to the cost of gas and diesel is true. I'd consider buying a Ford C-Max Hybrid but I just can't justify the cost. The girlfriend wants an electric vehicle but is quite deluded as to when they will be as inexpensive as her Ford Fiesta. 

[Jim N]

Cost is an issue; although, governments can take care of that through tax legislation if they want or have to.  To me the biggest drawback is the time it takes to recharge the batteries.  Until they can get the charging time to be comparable to refilling a gasoline or diesel car, people are not going to be interested.  There is a lot of time to improve the technology, but we have been told battery powered cars are the future since the early part of the 20th century.

[Richard Bartrop]

I'm really not that interested in building models of coal-powered cars (which is what electrics really are, after all--or, in some cases, nuclear).

I don't know, I think I could get into it.

[waynehulsey]

I don't know, I think I could get into it.

Been looking for that one. Do have a card model of  similar to this one.

[signguy2108]

On the electric theme, an article in the new Overdrive says that Nikola already has orders for 8000 class 8 electric semi's, with Fitzgerald Glider Kits contracted to build the first 5000 units, with delivery of the first trucks in 2020. Supposed to put out 1000 hp & 2000 ft lbs of torgue. Ryder will be the contracted maintenance facility. On another note, Texas passed house bill 2205 in May which will allow driverless vehicles on it's highways starting Sept. 1st

[Bill J]

The concept of clean powered vehicles is a great idea. However, it is flawed in many regards. Consider that some means of generating the electricity for storage in batteries is burning some sort of fuel. The manufacture of large quantity of batteries is highly polluting and very expensive. Batteries need to be replaced at some interval and the cost of the batteries is extremely high. While they are making electric cars that are powerful and fast, there are none with adequate range to be a practical vehicle for most people. They are fine for an in the city commuter but very limited in open road range. Who wants to take a road trip that requires stopping after a few hundred miles and waiting many hours for the batteries to be charged?

I would imagine in 22+ years there will be some better solutions but will there be large trucks capable of moving goods across country with battery power? Doubtful. Also consider that if every vehicle on the road required charging of batteries, the level of pollution generated by the fuels required to supply that energy. Great concept for tree huggers but not a practical solution to transportation in the long term.

I used to work for one of the major defense contractors before retiring and our division built satellites, all battery powered with the latest and best battery technologies. It's impossible to change that battery once that spacecraft is in orbit. we had numerous battery fires while testing systems. Any car powered by batteries has a built in additional fire and toxic hazard.

[retired & glad]

On the electric theme, an article in the new Overdrive says that Nikola already has orders for 8000 class 8 electric semi's, with Fitzgerald Glider Kits contracted to build the first 5000 units, with delivery of the first trucks in 2020. Supposed to put out 1000 hp & 2000 ft lbs of torgue. Ryder will be the contracted maintenance facility. On another note, Texas passed house bill 2205 in May which will allow driverless vehicles on it's highways starting Sept. 1st

Driverless vehicles would probably be a lot better and safer compared to a lot of the things I see about every day with driver vehicles. Common sense was left at home with some of them. Tail gaters try my nerves when I'm already going 20 mph over the posted speed limit. Been a long time here since I have seen any police on the highways checking speed and stupid driving.

[signguy2108]

The concept of clean powered vehicles is a great idea. However, it is flawed in many regards. Consider that some means of generating the electricity for storage in batteries is burning some sort of fuel. The manufacture of large quantity of batteries is highly polluting and very expensive. Batteries need to be replaced at some interval and the cost of the batteries is extremely high. While they are making electric cars that are powerful and fast, there are none with adequate range to be a practical vehicle for most people. They are fine for an in the city commuter but very limited in open road range. Who wants to take a road trip that requires stopping after a few hundred miles and waiting many hours for the batteries to be charged?

I would imagine in 22+ years there will be some better solutions but will there be large trucks capable of moving goods across country with battery power? Doubtful. Also consider that if every vehicle on the road required charging of batteries, the level of pollution generated by the fuels required to supply that energy. Great concept for tree huggers but not a practical solution to transportation in the long term.

I used to work for one of the major defense contractors before retiring and our division built satellites, all battery powered with the latest and best battery technologies. It's impossible to change that battery once that spacecraft is in orbit. we had numerous battery fires while testing systems. Any car powered by batteries has a built in additional fire and toxic hazard.

Bill, Nikola is claiming 600-1000 miles before recharge, with a spare battery on board, but apparently recharge stations are just a concept in someone's head at the moment! You can read the online version at overdrivemag.com    And Richard, i cant go a half mile in my town without seeing a cop! 9000 people, 24 city cops, 12 deputies, 2 constables and 5 state troopers, one of which lives next door and writes about 15 tickets a day to stupid drivers! lol

[mike 51]

changed my mind.

 

Edited July 26, 2017 by mike 51

[TarheelRick]

Has anybody given any thought to how to dispose of all those dead batteries?  I know quite a bit can be recycled, but there are still some really toxic nasties left over.

[Rocking Rodney Rat]

Has anybody given any thought to how to dispose of all those dead batteries?  I know quite a bit can be recycled, but there are still some really toxic nasties left over.

Throw 'em in the ocean.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Has anybody given any thought to how to dispose of all those dead batteries?  I know quite a bit can be recycled, but there are still some really toxic nasties left over.

Ship 'em to China. That's where a whole lot of toxic-material-containing products are already going.

God knows nobody in Britain wants smelly old industries around (even if they're clean) recycling a glut of toxic materials created by a poorly thought-out (but typical) knee-jerk "solution" to energy and pollution problems.

[Atmobil]

Here in Norway there has been talks of banning all use of so called "fossil" vehicles from 2025 or 2030 and now there is also talks of banning all cars that are driven by human drivers from 2030 or 2035.
For me, such news only makes me sure, I'm moving to somewhere else. I was thinking of UK but after the latest news the UK is off my list.

[Force]

I don't believe battery powered re-chargable electric cars is the total solution of the problem as many seems to think.
There are too many disadvantages with them, relatively short range on one charge, re-charging time too long, heavy very expensive batterys that have to be changed every 5 or so years, you have to use a heater in the winter time wich burn some kind of fuel as an electric heater will shorten the range, the batterys are not safe for the invironment either to produce or dispose of, the electric distribution net will be overloaded when everybody re-charges their vehicles at the same time after work and so on...and how are the electricity to re-charge the batterys produced, coal, nuclear, oil, natural gas...because all the wind turbines, solar powered stations and hydro electric stations in the World  will not be enough by far...that's a food for thought.
Yes I'm guessing that we are going to drive electric cars in the future...but not with batterys, just a fuel cell that's easy and fast to renew (read re-fuel) so it's much like the gas or diesel car we use today, and you will get heat in the car in winter time from the process..and the only exhaust from the fuel cell is water vapour (steam).
The problem is how to produce the Hydrogen for the fuel cell inexpensively and how to contain it in the cars safely...but I belive it will come.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Force

[Richard Bartrop]

They're banning sales of IC cars, but it doesn't say anything about banning their manufacture.  I can't see them telling companies like Rolls-Royce and Jaguar that they can't sell their wares elsewhere.  In any case, it's still heavy handed and unnecessary.

IF elecgtric cars really do work as well as their advocates think they will, then there's no need to force people to switch.  If they don't then maybe maybe they shouldn't be making the change.

[Snake45]

 

IF elecgtric cars really do work as well as their advocates think they will, then there's no need to force people to switch.  If they don't then maybe maybe they shouldn't be making the change.

Quoted for truth. Electrics will replace gas/diesel when they can compete on their own (I.e., without government subsidies and welfare) in the free market.

[Ace-Garageguy]

...The problem is how to produce the Hydrogen for the fuel cell inexpensively and how to contain it in the cars safely...but I belive it will come.

For those of you who were asleep in science class, hydrogen is easily split out of common water by a process called electrolysis (and no Maude, I'm NOT talking about hair-removal) which is simply passing an electric current through water. Pure hydrogen and pure oxygen are released.

Honda, among others, has already demonstrated conclusively that a small rooftop photovoltaic array (makes electricity from sunlight..."solar cells") and compressor / storage tank can generate sufficient hydrogen each day to fuel a fuel-cell or H₂-powered IC-engined vehicle for the "average" commute. Filtered household waste-water can be the source, turning it from a problem to be dealt with by the sewer system into vehicle fuel and pure, clean oxygen released into the atmosphere.

Over the years, I've done extensive work with natural-gas and propane powered vehicles, and the plumbing and "safe" fueling procedures to use H₂ in vehicles is very similar to what we use in the NAT GAS powered units. Storing gaseous fuels, and hydrogen in particular, onboard a vehicle in sufficient quantity to get decent range is tricky, but it's known tech.

None of this is really hard, or rocket science, and it could have easily been implemented 10 or 20 or 30 years back, or more.

The resistance humans always exhibit to any new technology, and the overriding greed of the stake-holders in the status-quo (who are in general too stupid to realize that they could have easily $$ dominated the hydrogen power field had they started a long time ago...) are the only things that've stopped a rational segue from liquid petroleum fuels to gaseous petroleum fuels, and ultimately to a hydrogen and electricity based transportation network.

Those of you who love the sound of a snorty V8 or high-revving L4 need not worry. Your engines can be readily converted to run just fine on hydrogen too.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[waynehulsey]

My cousins had a Ford 8N converted to propane back in the late 50's and most tractor manufacturers were offering it as an option by 1960. You had one tank to fuel the tractor and plumbed to the house for heating and cooking for you city folk. So lots of experience as Bill said using gaseous fuels with vehicle storage being a bit of a problem right now. But a lot of work is being done with hydrides which should provide a solution. The main problem is existing infrastructure and investment build around liquid petroleum that the corporations don't want to basically supersede and have to replace from their profits. Let the next CEO worry about it after I've got my retirement package. Which is also sort of what Bill said from a slightly different perspective.  

[Bernard Kron]

Electric vehicles have always been attractive from the point of view of silence and ease of operation. At the dawn of the automotive age they were considered ideal for women drivers because they started up immediately with no physical effort and because they ran smoothly and silently. And yet they never became popular even though for several years they were among the safest, and highest performing cars one could buy. The Achille's Heal was battery charge time and battery size and weight. It severely limited both range and the real operating time of the vehicle. Range was often little more than 20 miles and charge time was typically overnight.

Surprisingly little has changed in the 100+ years since those early days. Tesla assures you that their cars have a range of 265-300 miles, with other electric car manufacturers now making similar claims. This is only the case in relatively ideal of conditions. Electric vehicles operate best in moderate temperatures with battery function rapidly being compromised in either near-freezing weather or exceptionally high temperatures (over 100 degrees F). In the winter of 2013 a New York Times reporter was given a Model S to drive between Washington DC and Boston (he only got as far as Milford, Connecticut) in the middle of winter (see http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?mcubz=0 ), While Tesla warned him that he would need to recharge the car at least twice along the way because of the cold temperatures, even their vaunted engineers got caught out, as the effective range of the car plummeted to about 45-55 miles between charges.

Additionally charge times for these cars remain severely impractical even under ideal conditions. Tesla has been obliged to place their Supercharger stations next to coffee shops due to the typical 35-45 minute charge times. The charge time for a model S on 240 volt current, assuming a 10-20% residual charge is in the range 5-8 hours depending on ambient temperature. The capital investment for the equipment to do this in your home is in the $3-4K range. Charging your Model S using 120 volt current can take upwards 8-16 hours depending on residual charge and ambient temperature. So it's not just infrastructure that is a roadblock, but major shortfalls in orders of magnitude in battery performance that have yet to be overcome.

My own feeling is that Tesla has done an impressive job of creating an attractive high performance luxury sedan which functions admirably as a prestigious second car. However, long road trips, for example business trips between major cities, or family vacations, are out of the question. But these types of cars are almost never used for such purposes. The true test comes with the Model 3, which is being hyped as within reach of middle class families with a promised sale price starting at $35K. The form factor is that of a BMW 3 series. Expect big trouble for Tesla as pioneering single car owners take the bait. 2018 promises to be an exciting year as Elon Musk either foolishly or courageously pushes the envelope of practicality.

Marketing types believe that charge times on the order of 15 minutes or so will be the breakthrough. Compared with the 5 minutes or less it takes to refuel and pay at a typical gas station this seems like an eternity. But perhaps the efficiency, simplicity and cleanliness will prove compelling enough. I remain skeptical, to some degree because Mr. Musk and others are so anxious to press us into the electric age at a rate that portends some pretty big snags along the way.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Bernard Kron

[Richard Bartrop]

For those of you who were asleep in science class, hydrogen is easily split out of common water by a process called electrolysis (and no Maude, I'm NOT talking about hair-removal) which is simply passing an electric current through water. Pure hydrogen and pure oxygen are released.

Honda, among others, has already demonstrated conclusively that a small rooftop photovoltaic array (makes electricity from sunlight..."solar cells") and compressor / storage tank can generate sufficient hydrogen each day to fuel a fuel-cell or H₂-powered IC-engined vehicle for the "average" commute. Filtered household waste-water can be the source, turning it from a problem to be dealt with by the sewer system into vehicle fuel and pure, clean oxygen released into the atmosphere.

Over the years, I've done extensive work with natural-gas and propane powered vehicles, and the plumbing and "safe" fueling procedures to use H₂ in vehicles is very similar to what we use in the NAT GAS powered units. Storing gaseous fuels, and hydrogen in particular, onboard a vehicle in sufficient quantity to get decent range is tricky, but it's known tech.

None of this is really hard, or rocket science, and it could have easily been implemented 10 or 20 or 30 years back, or more.

The resistance humans always exhibit to any new technology, and the overriding greed of the stake-holders in the status-quo (who are in general too stupid to realize that they could have easily $$ dominated the hydrogen power field had they started a long time ago...) are the only things that've stopped a rational segue from liquid petroleum fuels to gaseous petroleum fuels, and ultimately to a hydrogen and electricity based transportation network.

Those of you who love the sound of a snorty V8 or high-revving L4 need not worry. Your engines can be readily converted to run just fine on hydrogen too.

You bring up a good point about electrolysis, and I have wondered if instead of trying to figure out how to transport and distribute hydrogen is to use the existing electrical and water networks to make hydrogen on site?  Of course the obvious questions here are what would be the cost of an electrolysis unit that could generate enough hydrogen to service a day's worth of customers,  and how many kilowatt-hours of electricity you wouldd need to do it..  What is the real world efficiency of the process?

As ou mentioned, we already know how to deal with propane, and while hydrogen is a little trickier to deal with the solutions exst.  However, enclosed parking lots usually don't allow propane vehicles to park there, so if hydrogen fueled vehicles are subject t the same restriction, that could be a problem.    I know there were experiments with metal hydride way back when.  What kept those from being developed any further?

[PatW]

I worked in my last job at The Open University in the UK. I spoke at length on the subject of Electric vehicles to various scientists on campus. The big question was, 'How are we going to generate enough electricity for 65 million people. firstly for their homes businesses and then for vehicles to use for work plus leisure?'

To we continue to pollute the atmosphere with huge coal powered power stations ( which makes things worse) or add or replace them with nuclear powered ones?

If we change to nuclear power we need to build 10 or 15 more of those to cope with demand and adversely what do we do with that waste product from that?

There are so many questions surrounding this perceived changes plus politicians make these scathing comments normally without any research at all! Plus recently the leader of our Labour Party announced that they if they get into power nationally would cancel out all student debt, when he was told it would cost £100bn he quickly said 'Well we didn't research the subject before I made that pledge!

So watch this space! We've firstly got to find £55billion for the HS2 High Speed, south to north railway rail network 'White Elephant' that's going to take decades to build!

Politicians make wild statements without knowing all the facts as they regularly grasp at straws trying to supposedly save the planet!

  

Edited July 27, 2017 by PatW

[Ace-Garageguy]

I worked in my last job at The Open University in the UK. I spoke at length on the subject of Electric vehicles to various scientists on campus. The big question was, 'How are we going to generate enough electricity for 65 million people. firstly for their homes businesses and then for vehicles to use for work plus leisure?...

...Politicians make wild statements without knowing all the facts as they regularly grasp at straws trying to supposedly save the planet!

 

You allude to two very important points.

The first is that human population is increasing at a rate that is unsustainable, and is the real cause of a lot, if not all, of humanity's current problems. Global population has more than doubled in just MY lifetime. And the folks who are breeding the fastest are NOT the ones who are in a position to do anything to solve the problems human numbers are causing.

The second is that there's no global energy initiative, but instead a lot of disparate groups pulling in different directions, and many of them are politicizing issues that need to be addressed by the best technical minds on the planet rather than being used as levers to gain political power.

There's also the problem of rabid mismanagement by the capital sector. One of the companies over here that had developed a brilliant and sustainable growth model for installing local solar generating stations let the wheeler-dealer MBA set get carried away, began playing the fast-and-loose "business" game (rather than focusing on the tech and hardware that need to be fully developed and debugged) trying to gobble up other companies and expand as fast as possible, and in the process burned through $24 BILLION of investment money prior to filing for bankruptcy (leaving NOTHING for the shareholders).

The Idiocracy is here. Welcome to the future.