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

10 years isn't a long time for automotive companies...
Current engine development takes 3-4 years so the majority of engine companies, the likes of Daimler & Ricardo will be working on projects for 2022 release and beyond. A lot of automotive companies aren't currently set up to make an electric vehicle. They may have designs and prototypes but they'll be a good few years away from high volume manufacturing. Not only that the switch in sourcing and purchasing can have a big effect on the supply chain and it makes it a struggle to forecast future demand. Electrification was always coming, but these companies need time to adjust the way they work. They'll currently have a building of engineers awesome at lowering fuel consumption, turbocharging and engine testing who suddenly have to change their knowledge (or be replaced) to knowledge of batteries and electric powertrains.

If the government sticks to this 2040 target it'll most likely be that gradual step downs occur, for example Volvo have announced that all pass cars from 2020 will either be hybrid or electric. Engine combustion technology is currently at its pinnacle but this doesn't matter so much when people still drive 20 year old cars and the layout of cities lead to a concentration of air pollution.

If we banned internal combustion engines in the next 10 years their wouldn't be enough electric cars to replace the demand and there would also be a huge demand on the electrical grid to the tune of 1 or 2 nuclear power stations (which people don't seem to like). These things take time and will be phased out gradually.

It's the direction the industry is heading in without such government intervention, but it's silly really, especially considering that's the way things are going anyway. The big problems come in battery manufacturing which need to really pick up if this goes global. That increased battery production has its own problems because it's hardly green itself, current batteries tend to be as dirty to make as the exhaust they're preventing with far more localised effects making it even worse for those harmed by it.

The bigger problem is providing the power. It means either a lot more fossil fuel power stations, mitigating benefits, or a lot of nuclear and that decision needs making very soon because these things take a long time to go from idea to activate. Beyond that the grid would need a massive overhaul to handle the extra demand and houses, both lines supplying the power and at least some internal wiring, would need replacing to handle the currents without tripping circuit breakers and creating major fire risks from the heat if things aren't changed.

As per usual, anti market drivel to pander to small groups with little thought about the consequences.

Posted from TSR Mobile

On balance, not a fantastic idea. Here's why:

3) The electormagnetic fields that electric vehicles cars and such like produce have been shown, in hundreds of studies, to disrupt human/animal biology, and are (thus) associated with quite a number of unpleasant pathologies, including cancer

I refer you to point (1), above; secondarily, altough it's not a competition/case of mutually exclusive options, you should consider the incidence of lung cancer, control for other factors, principally: smoking-related carcinogenesis, then compare with myriad cancers plausibly materially affected by exposure to EMFs (very difficult to be at all precise about, but we're starting to get a flavour from relevant lines of research/associated trends), for something approaching an accurate assessment

EMFs are (becoming) more widespread, insidious, and difficult to avoid/mitigate the effects of than most particulate pollutants. Adverse health effects of diesel/smog is accepted by the establishment, whereas the myriad biological impacts of EMFs have been largely covered up. I know which I'd be more concerned about were I an individual not already acutely and chronically adversely affected by exposure thereto

I'm a petrol head, so by 40 years time I will be moving out of Britain 😂

3) The electormagnetic fields that electric vehicles cars and such like produce have been shown, in hundreds of studies, to disrupt human/animal biology, and are (thus) associated with quite a number of unpleasant pathologies, including cancer

The majority of automobile companies have already began either planning or production of both electric and hybrid powered cars. At the end of the day, this transition is inevitable, and the longer it takes, the more environmental and economic damage will be dealt in the long term. I also mentioned the issue of having enough energy to sustain a fully electric society. However as I mentioned, as we transition, the advancement of renewable and electric technology will accelerate at a much higher rate, as it will be of a far higher demand, automotive companies will make their cars far more energy efficient in the long run, and for the short term, we can rely on other energy forms (shrugs). I also believe (probably wrong) that we have 7 nuclear power stations in operation currently, with hinkley point also being approved a while ago. When you have Scandinavian countries which have transitioned to almost entirely electric and powerhouse emitters such as India & China pushing harder than any other nation to transition to clean energy, you know this is essential. Not only for the environment, but if we want to stay economically competitive in the future. America is already (during this presidency) basically resigning their title as being the most economically prosperous nation on earth for the future, unless they change their entire philosophy. While we're not a superpower, there is huge gains out of this either way.

Tesla Model S P100D

And who knows what there will be in 5 or 10 years.

Although self driving will also be much more prevalent by 2040, so track days will be even more of a thing...

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm not denying the move to electrification, it's a great thing. Just saying it takes a long time to make these changes and they'll continue to be a demand for combustion engines (construction equipment, mining and marine). There's a big difference in automotive companies announcing their intentions and actually delivering on them. The government likes to set these dates and let the industry jump trying to reach these deliverable's, i work in the industry i see it everyday.

I prefer driving cars when I can hear the exhaust.

There's an app for that.

[video="youtube;378DmidD7eU"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=378DmidD7eU[/video]

Nooo. This wont satisfy me. Where's the pops and bangs?

we would already be using electric or hydrogen cars now if the government didnt brown-nose the big oil companies as much; the electric car has been around for over a century.

we just wouldn't I'm sorry

Not only is the typical range of a consumer electric car 70 miles, but they also take hours to charge fully. What's that? They fast charge a majority in 30mins? You're still stood there waiting for 30 minutes. At least with start stop tech, when a petrol car isn't moving (in traffic), no fuel is being used - unlike the issues caused by battery anxiety - ive been there, sat in a leaf, in the dark, cold and rain, sat in stationary traffic watching the battery drop to 6%.

Not to mention the weight of the batteries destroys a cars handling, and the disposal of the batteries is toxic - not to mention actually making the damn things. I think an autoexpress investigation found that the manufacturing and use of a prius did more damage to the planet long term than a range rover

The other issue is with the national grid - we already use 96.5% of what we produce, and producing more isn't an easy thing to do - the cheapest thing is to burn more oil, burn more coal or burn more gas - actually doing even more damage.

I agree that electric or part hybrid is the way forward - take the i3 as a great example - but true electric cars will not happen on a large scale for a least 2 decades, until battery tech can be solved

I think we would though.

Look back 40 years and tell me how technology, as a whole has advanced. Take video games for example. We've come from a two white rectangles and a white ball (ping pong) to full HD augmented virtual reality.

So why has the standard car model not changed much? Granted, aesthetics, engines, efficiency has certainly been advanced but still using traditional combustion engines.

So what could we have done in 40 years of the electric car? I think we could charge an electric car in the same time it takes to fuel a hydrocarbon based car, I think electric cars would meet the amount of miles a hydrocarbon based car can do and I'm sure we would find a way to prevent energy use while stationary (we already have that in current fueled cars so why can't we do that in electric?).

all these problems can be solved by engineering but there's simply not enough interest and funding from the government in not only engineering but STEM as a whole, despite being a lead country in research.

I agree that tech moves at an astonishing rate, but the big four manufacturers have all come out and said they cannot see any way at the moment of improving battery efficiency, charging rate etc

Unfortunately its all wishful thinking - if BMW/JLR/VAG could have produced a feasible electric option that could actaully replace a petrol car, you can be sure they would have.

i would agree that not enough investment is put into the STEM field, but its not as simple as 'give it some more money, we'll get some kind of result'.

I notice that the ban affects petrol and diesel only engines - not hybrid's. this means that cars are already being produced that fit this description, eg 530e, C220e VW GTE.... this is how the manufacturers will adapt, but you will not see, probably by the end our our livetimes, a total switch to electric cars.