Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by srdavison123)
    I agree that we need to move away from combustion engines. It's indisputable that petrol/diesel fuelled cars are causing substantial damage. Therefore, why 2040? Considering the ban will prevent the production of NEW combustion powered vehicles, why not have the ban, in say 10 years to give the motoring industry a chance to prepare, but not to fall behind the rest of the world (with the exception of the US of course). Countries such as Finland, Denmark, Sweden etc. have already begun to transition to clean power vehicles and technology with smaller GDP's. Therefore it's a step in the right direction, but ultimately seems like a wasted opportunity.
    For the 'petrol heads' complaining... Accept reality, it has been clear for decades that this would eventually happen (perhaps too late) and just because it's electric, doesn't mean it's all bad. While I love the noise of a good V10 engine and I'm an avid F1 fan for example. Formula E is an example of great innovation in electric technology, with entertaining racing for example.
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    We'll all be dead by 2040.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1c8e2)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    3) Compared to the cancer and other health risks of, in particular, diesel fuel?
    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 :yy:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    Everything has a price. For the short term, of course it has consequences, but the long term gains are exponentially greater. As the demand and energy policies change, the country will adapt.
    • Study Helper
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    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
    Can you be more specific on this, which studies and peer reviewed science? Thanks.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    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 :yy:
    I'd still like to see that comparison, after all the point is to replace diesel (and petrol) cars with EVs so it's absolutely fair to want to see the risks of each.

    What about WHO:
    http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/m...ooklet2008.pdf
    "Overall, ELF magnetic fields fall within Class 2B (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”) of the IARC classification scheme. This puts them in the same class as car exhaust, coffee and pickled vegetables. Class 2A (probably carcinogenic) includes diesel exhaust, sun lamps and PCBs, and Class 1 (carcinogenic) includes alcoholic drinks, benzene and asbestos."

    I'd rather remove a "probable" in favour of a "possible".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uberteknik)
    Can you be more specific on this, which studies and peer reviewed science? Thanks.
    No problem, here's a major, publicly available collection of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. You're welcome :top2:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    I'd still like to see that comparison, after all the point is to replace diesel (and petrol) cars with EVs so it's absolutely fair to want to see the risks of each
    Makes sense, indeed, albeit that it is possible to outlaw diesel without moving over to EVs entirely (false dichotemy)

    What about WHO
    https://olgasheean.com/who-harm

    I'd rather remove a "probable" in favour of a "possible"
    I'd rather remove both, personally, and would be wary of relying on world government institutions for reliable scientific opinion, much less public health pronouncements. Don't expect others to have the same level of knowledge/insight into such (relatively obscure) areas of science/medicine as someone in my position but do, by now, expect folks to be alive to the fact that the establishment is not necessarily gunning for the little guy, and is almost never truly impartial :yy:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jahir)
    I'm a petrol head, so by 40 years time I will be moving out of Britain 😂
    So am I, but I've already left. As has been said, long-term plans will change.

    Electric cars can be much better performance cars, e.g. a motor for each wheel, instant torque control. The reciprocating internal combustion engine is a triumph of optimisation over good design IMO. Whilst I like the sound of some engines, and love a turbo kick, electric is the way to go for performance reasons. What Tesla have achieved is amazing, and they're not done yet.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It says new cars.

    This literally means nothing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    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
    There's no way around EMFs. Electricity plays a pinnacle role in our lives and without it, humanity would cease to advance like we are now.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by srdavison123)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    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 prefer driving cars when I can hear the exhaust.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1c8e2)
    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.
    The companies have no choice but to follow suite. If they fail to deliver ahead of the game, they fall behind. The quicker it occurs, the faster, more efficient and easier the technology will be to sustain in the long run.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jahir)
    I prefer driving cars when I can hear the exhaust.
    There's an app for that.

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BTAnonymous)
    There's no way around EMFs
    Nonsense. We are perfectly capable of innovating our way out of a fix, the problem is the lack of acceptance of the biological threat (essentially boils down to a toxic combination of scientific/political nativity and corruption)

    Once the powers that be are forced to acknowledge the issue (as they were, begrudgingly, with things like tobacco, aspestos, and leaded petrol), they will adapt standards accordingly

    It's almost certainly perfectly possible to build electric vehicles that are no more hazardous than some conventional cars. If not, we'll find some other solution. This costs extra, but I like to think preserving human/animal life is probably worth it

    Electricity plays a pinnacle role in our lives and without it, humanity would cease to advance like we are now
    Indeed so, and fortunately there is typically no need to place ourselves remotely close to potent EMFs
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    There's an app for that.

    Nooo. This wont satisfy me. Where's the pops and bangs?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 29, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.