UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030: FT
reuters.com
reuters.com
What's disappointing is that all the talking points are the same-old tired fossil fuel propaganda from a decade ago. We have made progress, and we can make more progress if we all pull together.
It's seems crazy that in the 21st century the best option we have for the storage and transfer of energy is "let's burn stuff". We can do better than that.
I'd like my city to become a bicycling paradise. It's the best way of getting around for under 30km.
If the climate doesn't wait and doesn't care, then allowing wealthy people to pollute the ever-living fuck out of the environment solely because they're wealthy is even more perverse than placing the enormous burden on poor and middle class people to buy a new technology that has shit infrastructure.
Many of the HN crowd here are quite likely to live in an urban area, in an appartment without a fixed parking space. There is no 'charging at home'. Sure there're a decent number of plugs around - but for _everyone_? Not by a long shot. What this law is basically saying is that there will be no practical way for these people to own a car - not least without significant infrastructure work and public investment (and corresponding political will), which is, not always something you want to bet on. Given the healthy dose of skepticisim anyway - I'm not entirely surprised this is being received with less than universal excitement.
But people in general don't like having their options constricted even if it's for the greater good. It's human nature and I think the best ways forward are to get people excited about the electric future. 'In 10 years electric cars will be so good you'll forget we ever bothered with petrol' would probably be a more effective way to get people excited. Unfortunately that'd need to come from a pretty credible source, and they'd get the credit for it, and so in the absence of that - just make this law! It's easy, and who will be around in 10 years (in politics) anyway?... That's why I'm raising my eyebrows a bit at this.
What's really polluting the atmosphere is not people's cars, it's the constant and unstoppable traffic of goods delivered from country to country for no real reason other than "economy of scale"
A friend of mine has asked for an eye pencil replacement the other day because it was delivered of the wrong colour
It costed a couple euros and came from Korea
They gladly sent another one and picked up the old one
For a two euros eye pencil
Imagine what the fashion industry produces when it moves the 30 billion pounds of clothes that every year are discarded in UK
Not to say that people don't pollute, but that the control should start on who produce the most pollution and also profit from it, not from the last ring of the supply chain
Whilst most of the petrol stations near me are pretty shabby - it's easy enough to get fuel.
Make it mandatory. Done. Either they do it or they shut the parking garage. Both are wins.
Yay London :-/
I could imagine a scheme where a bank lends the HOA the money but then deals with the court since dealing with that is much less of a pain for them than the random building HOA president.
I live in a urban area and my commute by public transport is twice as long as by car. Yes I know it's not something to be celebrating - but I am definitely and objectively better off by using a car.
I currently have an electric vehicle - the only kind of usage scenario where it works and is absolutely brilliant is charging at home. That's about it. Public charging is a joke, vast majority of stations either don't work, are occupied most of the time, or cost so much money to use that it would literally be cheaper to drive a diesel car.
We visited our friends some time ago in London for a few days(before lockdown). They live in an apartment so no way I could run a cable to the parking space. No problem I thought - there's a Shell station nearby with a charging point, several ChargeYourCar points at car park not far away, and I could see on ZapMap that there were two charging points on the street - and worst case scenario there are rapid chargers along the way at few motorway stops.
We got there and basically - all ChargeYourCar points were out of order for 3 days we were there, the 2 charging points on the street were only for permit holders(something that ZapMap didn't mention), and the one single charging point at the Shell station nearby was occupied every single time I checked. So we stopped at the motorway services in the end, where they had 4 rapid charging points - all taken. We waited 30 minutes for someone to leave, once they left the car wouldn't connect - had to ring up the number on the charger, finally the customer service advisor restarted the point for me and it started charging. Only another 45 minutes of waiting and we had enough charge to get home. Oh and the charge was literally £0.49/kWh(I pay £0.05/kWh at home on a night tariff) - I had a Qashqai 1.6dCi few years ago that I could fill up for that much and drive down to london and back.
Again, the car itself is brilliant. It is the future. I have no idea how people still drive around in cars that burn anything to move - they are loud, having to have gears is stupid, having to keep buying fuel is stupid.
And yet.
I can't imagine that the UK government and the private sector will get their act together and somehow, in 9 years, the infrastructure will be amazing, and they will find answers to questions like how do you charge at an apartment or a house with no dedicated parking space. I'm eagerly awaiting to hear about these solutions.
Perhaps if electric vehicles were mandated, fast charging stations would be more widely available...
And, eventually, you'd need the number of ICE vehicles to be low enough that ubiquitous gas stations won't be economically viable anyway.
It literally doesn't matter that everybody on Hacker News would agree with this, HN is definitely not a representative sample on many topics.
If you think mankind is smarter, look at politics of lately, look at covid-related deniers, folks rejecting masks due to some wacky conspiracy, 5g/chipping and so on and on.
Forcing folks like this while we give places like China, India or other polluters a free pass? Not only are people expected to pay the bill (research, transition), but it literally won't matter on global scale that they do.
It's not for the polar bears, it's for us. Massive droughts and rampant storms are going to be far worse than needing to charge electric cars.
What is your alternate plan? I would love to have a less disruptive path forward.
Where is the negative externality in your example?
Norway has already shown the road to getting to mostly EVs. It costs money. But they can easily ban ICE cars because they've put their money where their mouth is.
BTW, even a 30 amp EVSE isn't great in an apartment. Because commercial service is almost always 3 phase, you'll only get 208v. That's 6.2 kW. In my townhouse, I have a 40A 240V circuit (50A at the breaker, but the 80% rule means the EVSE only puts out 40A). That's 10 kW. A 61% increase.
Parking garages could add charging stations for all their customers and get paid for that.
Parking places on the streets could be equipped with charging stations, one per place. It's going to be more complicated than laying fiber optics but doable. It's a new grid as big as the current one and for higher wattage.
Finally, if you have to park where there are no charging stations, oops.
Gas stations that can refill N cars per hour will be able to recharge a fraction of them, bad news for those businesses.
Of course this is true only if we'll have to charge. If battery swap becomes common then the problem will be solved. Yet, the volume and the weight of a battery is still greater than the volume and weight of the gasoline storing the equivalent energy. The logistics will be more complicated. I expect to see power plants dedicated to charging: charge batteries -> load them on a truck -> deliver to "EV stations" -> bring back the exhausted batteries -> check if they're still OK -> loop again.
It doesn't have to magically be "perfect" on Jan 1, 2030.
In the UK around 2.3 million vehicles are sold per year[1]. Which means in 2030 about that many electric cars will be sold, and so on for each year. The ICE vehicles that were sold in 2029 won't magically stop being used, they'll just slowly fade out.
So in reality they have until well into the 2030s (even 2040s) before the very vast majority of vehicles will be all electric.
Of course this is a big challenge, and it will require effort. Anything worth doing is difficult.
The other choice is we sit around and do nothing. I know which option I prefer. And at 38 years old, it isn't up to me. Talk to people who are 15-25 and ask what kind of air they want to breath and what kind of world they want to live in. This is a decision for them, not for us.
[1] https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/salesfig...
I don't know what kind of air they want, but it doesn't look like they are doing much to stop polluting.
If they wanted to, they could stop buying so many clothes or wear them for more than a season...
https://indigohoneycomb.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/fash.png
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/4DxwPKr6vDnGTAjAheQiVQrcrv...
See?
Nobody likes a bit of truth
People only want to believed the stories they already believe in.
As I've written in another comment
"Praise EV and you'll look cool, blame fast fashion and they'll hate you"
Point proven.
I live in an apartment and charging an EV would cost way more than gas. Even the cost of having a charging pole would be more expensive per month than I pay for gas (charging not included and likely also expensive). And, as you mentioned, be way more inconvenient in some situations.
But can't it still be worth it? It is just one, very minor, out of countless sacrifices we will undoubtedly have to make.
Why fight this one?
It's the beauty of driving
I'm all in favour for people to stop driving if they don't like it, I can't wait for the day where I can be among the few owners of a mechanical car that I drive when I need to relax, outside of the cities, just don't call what other people enjoy stupid, please
Before anybody jumps at me, I quit driving for commute or day by day activities 7 years ago and when I need a car now I use car sharing (I spent around 25-30 euros a month, it really is nothing compared to what I used to spend when I owned a car).
But please don't tell me that one of those electric smart is a real car
The feeling is just not there
I enjoy it too, my last car was a Mercedes AMG with a modified exhaust and a tune map. I loved it.
But no, it was stupid. The climate is fucked and I literally had a car where the ECU would inject fuel and cut ignition just to produce the loud BRAP BRAP BRAP noise when changing gears. Literally burning fuel to make a noise and not move the car forward.
Like, these two are not mutually exclusive. It was incredibly awesome and incredibly stupid at the same time.
For driving experience of course I would pick the AMG over my electric car. But it's not a sustainable position to be in.
Not because of manual gears...
Or because people love to drive
But because we move too many things burning fossil fuel
Pleasure is never stupid, before considering driving stupid, there are many things I would call it first
For example drinking beer, to quote you "you are literally burning fossil fuel to produce something that poison you"
The war on ice is wrong in many ways similar to the war on drugs: it is punitive only for the final user.
Do you really want people to stop using cars?
Instead of putting public money in private companies to help people buy the expensive new electric cars, give the money directly to people to not use the car and see what they use the money for, so you can better understand what their needs are, instead of creating an artificial one.
Stop? Nope. Vastly reduce reliance? Yep. Remove all subsidy to this mode of transit? Yes.
Global warming in my opinion is only the tip of the iceberg of "things car-based society has hurt". The massive sprawl induced by subsidized car infrastructure has many societal impacts, pollution is only one small item of a huge list.
We agree
You make an important point, the exact one that makes me doubtful that EV transition should be subsidized, again.
EV incentives will go to the same actors that created these conditions and is going to pay for the same infrastructure that made our cities a living hell.
Instead of banning cars, remove the need to use them.
Instead of subsidize car makers, subsidize the rethinking of the entire mobility plans
If people won't need cars, they won't use them
If people feel that they invested in new "safe" EV cars, even the young people who show no love for cars (not wrongfully) will start using them, because they are new, they are modern, they are safe and probably smell good too and for sure they signal that you care about the environment, so you won't keep them hidden in the garage, you'll use them as much as you can (also to maximize the investment)
Which will bring us to the same point we are now: much of the cities public real estate is eaten by roads and parkings while walking is disincentivized because everything useful, from IKEA to the shoe shop, are in some giant mall out of town unreachable without a car
We need to get rid of cars as a social need, EV or not, it is a really bad habit to rely on them other than for fun and the occasional emergency
A bunch of purists with then argue that despite the fact they can't reliably tell the simulated electric from the original in blind a/b testing that the original is still better because it has "soul".
https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopnik.com/this-chinese-elect...
Engine braking is an important part of driving safely because it avoids losing control of the steering wheels and can be used to drive at constant speed or slow down on slippery surfaces (snow, ice, water etc.)
There's a reason if trucks are still mainly manual and even the automatic transmission in trucks is not the same used in cars (it's much more advanced and it's more a computer activated gear than simply automatic)
The reasons why trucks don't usually have automatic transmissions is that the torque needed to move such a huge mass would destroy nearly every traditional hydrokinetic transmission, only recently dual clutches have started getting good enough to be installed in trucks, and indeed most new tractors you can buy now from Volvo, Mercedes or Scania are all automatic. It has nothing to do with safety, it was a technical limitation. And for braking trucks have a separate engine retarder that has nothing to do with the transmission.
are you chosing it or how much?
the answer is no.
you can't become an expert if you aren't allowed to control the parameters.
> The reasons why trucks don't usually have automatic transmissions is that the torque needed to move such a huge mass would destroy nearly every traditional hydrokinetic transmission
that's another point, automatic transmission is more expensive, less robust and increases the cost of the vehicle without adding any other benefit than being 'easier' to operate.
would you fly on a plane where the pilot only knows how to use the autopilot?
that's where safety comes in, when things take more time to master, people tend to become better at them
Manual gear is not stupid, it is simply technically superior (it costs less and lasts more).
That doesn't mean we should have levers and clutches, that's the simplistic view of wannabe futurists, trucks have something much more similar to a semi-automatic (with 10, 12, 13 gears) than a full automatic one.
Truth is car makers need to sell more cars and will gladly make them do all the work "automatically" so people don't have to learn how to do it properly.
If they don't do something now, the 15 years old of today will grow up without cars and in a generation cars would be a thing of the past (that would be great!).
How to make them survive? Well, first of all don't make them useless, make them electric and costly and cover the added cost with people taxes that go directly in car company's pockets.
Secondly make them "easy" and "cool" and "sexy" so that a teenager doesn't have to learn to drive, that's scary and dangerous, like... do you really still practice to learn? what are we, cavemen?
And make them as complex as possible, so that the price won't ever go down and a Renault Zoe will cost as much as a Tesla (a Model 3s cost about 35k, a Zoe around 33k. It's just ridicoulus!).
We live in the era of the iPhones where the promise is that anybody can do what any other people can do, even though there are people that spent their lives learning something and other that did not (I did not, for example).
Of course it is possible when what you can do is dictate by the manufacturer, because "it dangerous out there, think of your old parents! would you give them a smartphone that let them do whatever they want? of course not"
Would you give your children an ICE car?
With manual transmission?
Are you a criminal?
The whole idea that you don't know how to not destroy the planet and the car needs to teach you how to drive responsibly, while the same car has been built by those that profited from destroying the planet's environment, always fascinated me.
How did it become a good idea in people's minds?
Uhm, yes of course you are, at least in most cars you can chose the level of regenerative braking, the same you would in a manual car. The effect is the same as if you were going downhill and decided to stay in 4th, 3rd, 2nd or even 1st gear - it's up to you. The mechanical result of it is exactly the same as when using engine braking, so I'm really not getting what you're trying to argue here.
>>you can't become an expert if you aren't allowed to control the parameters.
Except that you are, I honestly think you aren't very up to date with what the current designs are, and almost certainly you haven't driven an electric car.
>>that's another point, automatic transmission is more expensive, less robust and increases the cost of the vehicle without adding any other benefit than being 'easier' to operate.
Again, you operate on "common knowledge" from at least 10 years ago. The "traditional" hydrokinetic automatic - absolutely, sure. But those aren't really being used in most cars nowadays. Modern Dual-Clutch automatic is as light as a manual, marginally more complex than one(because in fact is is a manual in operation), and indeed, has other benefts like improved fuel consumption and vastly faster shift times than any manual transmission can even dream of having. Again, I doubt you have actually driven one recently or at all.
>>would you fly on a plane where the pilot only knows how to use the autopilot? that's where safety comes in, when things take more time to master, people tend to become better at them
Sure, if your goal is to have everyone on the road be a professional driver, then yes, I 100% agree with you. I think people should be trained like in Germany, where a part of training is going on the Autobahn and driving at 200km/h+ for a little bit. I'd love that. I also think that my opinion on this topic is irrelevant because like I said earlier for most drivers this level of skill is unnecessary. Funnily enough, the exact same argument has been used to argue against autopilot in planes though - that its introduction will lead to pilots becoming inept and unable to act in emergencies. And that has actually happened in at least one documented plane crash - the autopilot disengaged and the pilots couldn't figure out why and the plane crashed. But....that doesn't change the fact that overal the introduction of autopilot has decreased the amount of accidents by several orders of magnitute - it made flying safer for everyone, even if it meant that pilots are now slightly worse at flying without it.
>>Manual gear is not stupid, it is simply technically superior (it costs less and lasts more).
Yeah except that in practice it doesn't, because people wear out manual transmissions all the time by being crap at using it. My dad used to have a car repair shop and someone who isn't "passionate" about cars will destroy a manual by just being an idiot at how they shift gears. People constantly break them by not using the clutch properly, shifting at the wrong moment, staying in the wrong gear for too long.....you physically cannot do this in an automatic, because you don't get to change the gears yourself - so in practice and for "an average consumer" they last longer.
Besides, I just want to point out - I love how you took my argument against a blanket ban on ICE cars, and you turned it upside down into an argument about manual cars and the love of driving. I have started by, and continued to argue that the ban is stupid because: 1) people will need ICE cars
2) There are enthusiasts who should be able to keep driving them if they already own them
For my enthusiast driving needs, please give me a good MX-5 or a roll cage equipped Impreza, any day please. But for most cars for average consumer shouldn't be anywhere near like that. They should be electric, they should be full of safety tech, and they should baby their drivers and passangers. Like, again, like I said multiple arguments ago - these are not mutually exclusive positions to take.
Of course I did.
And if you compare features and prices, they offer a way worse experience than a traditional car.
I've also driven rally cars professionally and on track sometimes with semi automatic gears.
I just lack the vocabulary to talk thoroughly about it in English (sorry, I studied business English and then computer science, not mechanical engineering...)
The state of the art is absolutely better and has been for decades, but the state of the art is not what people drive everyday.
The most popular EV right now in Europe is the Renault Zoe, which honestly is good, but far from great (and you can buy the same exact car with an ICE engine for 10k less, it's 30% less!)
Smart EQ is on the rise given the small size which is a great quality in many EU cities, it's as bad as the ICE one. At least it's affordable.
Except for Tesla all the other offer a very bad experience for the price, even the BMW i3 is not what you would expect from a 40 thousands euros car.
> People constantly break them by not using the clutch properly, shifting at the wrong moment
As I said I grew up in a repair shop too, imagine what they do to their cars when the same people think that an automatic is easier to drive so they put even less effort to it.
They destroy every other piece of the car, irresponsible people will be irresponsible.
I am not rooting for ice cars, but for letting cars go as a necessity and think of something else.
Electric cars are just another way to keep producing the same old product in a slightly different way.
They give a false sense of security and of progress.
But we are gonna have a black market for hacks and modified parts (batteries probably) anyway and they will be as dangerous as the traditional cars we have right now for pedestrians and other road users.
The problem with cars is barely the pollution, it's the effect that they produced on our environment, especially the highly dense urbanized areas of the World
If they were harder to drive and operate there will be less of them around
We got rid of people dying by falling from horses by not riding horses anymore as a standard way to travel
How many people do you see flying a plane?
A Cessna is not more expensive than a high end Tesla
P.s. flying without autopilot is barely possible, using an autopilot without mastering flight first is unimaginable
P.p.s. the same people not using the clutch correctly are going to mess with the engine controls on their new electric cars. How is that going to be better? Are they magically going to be better at operating machinery? Or will they care less because "EV are the future they almost drive themselves?"
P.p.p.s. the number of fatalities is constantly going down because there are more and more mandatory safety devices on cars, but the number of accidents is almost steady (at least in Italy) also considering that the number of km driven went down due to 2 global economic crisis and a pandemia in 20 years and the increase of restricted areas in cities. But, and this is the bad news, there were more cars in Italy in 2019 than ever before, 1.4% more than 2018.
In red goal for 2020 victim reduction, in black actual number of victims
https://www.pneurama.com/ew/ew_articolo/images/weekly_it/ima...
They have much longer than 9 years to get the infrastructure right.
The average car age in the US is roughly 12 years old. I imagine is is roughly the same in the UK. That means even if they stop selling new ICE cars in 2030 the average car might still be an ICE into the 2040s. Assuming no further restrictions it probably wouldn't be until the 2050s that it would become truly difficult to find a used ICE car.
Obviously the UK would need to improve in the meantime, but they would basically have 30 years to get their EV infrastructure into the position it works for every car owner.
No, these seem like pretty solid questions to ask if you are going to be forced to buy an electric car, not just if society is going to go all electric. Unless we're trying to convince people to just stop buying cars altogether in 2030.
That was my point. You aren't going to be forced to buy an EV. The used market for ICE vehicles can be expected to be robust for some 15-20 years after the ban on new cars goes into effect.
Newer cars will have improvements in other things besides motive power, like safety features. Are we going to force people who are not in a situation where EVs are usable, to forgo safety measures as well?
I'm also sure at some point someone somewhere might be inconvenienced by decisions like this, but we are going to have to just accept that if we want to combat climate change. Maybe you object to it for a political or ideological reason. However it doesn't make sense to blame that objection on the lack of currently existing infrastructure when it would be 20-30 years before we truly need that level of infrastructure.
I don't agree. Where I currently live, there are often waitlists for rationed time at workplace charging spots. The person who you initially responded to also has massive issues charging anywhere outside the home. We are already at a point where electric infrastructure is woefully inadequate to deal with the influx of EVs in the current market, which isn't all that EV friendly; this will be catastrophic once all new cars are required to be EV-friendly.
The correct choice to combat climate change would be to actually make credible, large investments in national EV charging networks, not pooh pooh the issue and tell motorists to eat cake.
>Obviously the UK would need to improve in the meantime, but they would basically have 30 years to get their EV infrastructure into the position it works for every car owner.
I acknowledge it needs to improve. However conversion of infrastructure doesn't need to be completed by 2030. A gradual increase in infrastructure over the next 20-30 years can get the job done and is eminently doable.
This isn't what's "works for every car owner", this is "works for even a majority of car owners". The current setup is terrible, the current investment pace is terrible, and there are currently no actionable plans to do better. And here we are talking like a ban is supposed to be feasible and this is going to get bearable in a nine-year timeframe.
We're not talking about the conversion of infrastructure, we're talking about the existence of adequate infrastructure. Other countries with electric transitions have clearly put public funding for infrastructure in place, and that's why it's not punishing for them to mandate it, because they are already ready.
2020 - EV infrastructure works for a minority of drivers.
2030 - EV infrastructure works for the average driver.
2045 - EV infrastructure works for all drivers.
Also I was talking about conversion because it isn't like the ICE infrastructure is going to persist in perpetuity. That real estate can be converted over to public EV chargers as the ratio of cars on the road change. Right now Tesla's fastest chargers can do an 80% charge in less than 30 minutes. If the industry is able to cut that in half over the next 20 years, recharging an EV isn't really going to be any less practical than refueling an ICE vehicle. We aren't going to need a dedicated parking space with a dedicated charger for every car by 2030.
But I think you're right about the bigger issue — Norway's further along the road, and has been able to fix the infrastructure enough that people don't complain much, and has done so in much less than those 30 years. There are complaints, e.g. about building coops that won't let people install chargers in shared garages.
Here is my source[1]. Average age for vehicles in operation is 11.9 years. 1 in 4 cars are at least 16 years old. Do you have a source on your claims?
[1] - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/28/25percent-of-cars-in-us-are-...
"according to the research, the average age of all cars on UK roads has increased from 6.7 years in 1994 to 8.3 years in 2019."
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-8739771/Bri...
So the average car is getting older, but still far from 12 years.
I seem to find useful pages only in German now (I am in Germany), which I expect wouldn't help you much, but statista.com and wikipedia.org has both, and if you wade through all the irrelevant graphs on statista you'll typically see that total/new is in the low teens for western countries (I checked three now, e.g. 47m/3.4m for .de, almost 14y lifetime or 7y average age).
With all this said, I am presuming what you have. If you tell me the car you drive, I can look at their stock and give you a more informed statement.
I’m not a fan of gas vehicles. The only car I own is a Tesla. Still, I’m aware that gasoline cars do have certain advantages and banning them outright seems more detrimental than taxing them.
I’m sure even when crop failures and mass migrations happen, some will still complain about their rights to burn fossil fuels for energy. We pulled progress and growth forward through incurring an enormous energy debt (burning ancient sunlight for 100+ years), and now it’s time to pay it back.
Once the market gets to a point where the sales of ICE cars are around few percent out of all, maybe even less - then there's no point in banning them at all. Clearly only people who absolutely need them are buying them, because no one else does. So....why ban them? And it looks like the market is absolutely heading towards that point anyway, with truly draconian fines in the EU introduced soon and general apetite for electric cars showing strong growth in the car sales. We'll be there in 10 years, full ban or not.
During World War 2, the US gov didn’t go to manufactures and kindly ask them to retool for the war effort. They demanded it. Similar situation, similar (but not quite as draconian) implementation. “You will build only EVs now, retool accordingly”.
Governments are even willing to invest in manufacturing and charging network costs, and green/central banks are coming with easy money. I’m unsure what other support you can provide at this point to make the transition smoother, considering petroleum consumption externalities are already unpaid for by the entire supply chain.
EV are cool, they make people who supports them blindly look cool too
Banning fast fashion is not, it'll make anyone who proposed it sound like a sad trombone or a "boomer" who wants to stop youth expression of inner self
But I know which is worse and I know that if we ban the first, we should obviously ban the other 5 years before
p.s. I do not own a car anymore (sold the last one 7 years ago) and I only make an average of less than 1 thousand Kms/year - this year I still have to surpass the 500 Kms - on rented cars (mainly inside the city, on electric cars)
But behavior cares about economics, taxes change the economics, and behavior affects CO2 levels.
The devil is in the details, of course. Taxes would have to be high enough to get the behavior under control. It could turn out that, in order to get usage down low enough, the taxes need to be 500% of the cost of a fossil fuel car or 5000% of the cost of fuel. And maybe that's not politically feasible or something.
But my point is in order to dismiss the idea of taxes as a solution, you can't start with the idea that taxes won't have any effect. Governments all over the world use taxes to change behavior, and there are obvious examples of it working, like tariffs in trade wars.
Note that I'm also not saying taxes are the right solution here. This is really just a point of order.
[1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
In ten years at the current rate of progress, EVs will be well past their tipping point economically and sales will crater anyway. If you add substantial carbon tax on the fuel, they're done.
And a carbon tax will help with all sorts of other emissions, transportation being only about 10%.
A new car sales ban does help car companies see the writing on the wall, but in the EU the direction is crystal clear anyway.
I feel like pointing at a graph of carbon in the atmosphere is an unfair response to the parent comment, who isn't denying the problem and is just talking tactics.
It appears politically untenable in the US. But so does a new ICE ban.
Caifornia has passed a 2035 ban, but it has flirted with a carbon tax too in parts.
Canada has a carbon tax, and a 2040 ban. Australia had a carbon tax, with no ICE ban, but to our eternal shame repealed it when a conservative government regained power. India has an ICE ban scheduled and a carbon tax. Norway has their aggressive 2025 ban, but has had a carbon tax that covers about half their emissions since the 90s.
The EU doesn't have one yet, but I would bet a lot of money they will by 2030.
It's not clear to me that they're all that different in terms of political will required. The same countries are interested in both.
Although the specific level of tax that can be passed on carbon may not be sufficient for the desired result. An ICE ban is in theory blanket, although exceptions are going to creep in.
HN users generally seem to care about their own convenience at the cost of everything else, as seen by all the support for things like Electron.
Sure, there are charging stations, but if you are traveling with kids, having an extra 1-hour break, could be a huge headache.
A common standard for batteries that could be quickly exchanged at a charging station, instead of charging them, could solve the problem 100%, but instead we see governments forcing less effective solutions into everyone's throat.
Also when you travel with kids, you make longer breaks when the kids need them. In that case, picking a random gas station nearby filling the gas while my wife runs everybody through the toilet and distributes snacks, makes things easier. Doing it exactly on schedule with a forced 30-minute wait in a fixed location would be much trickier.
I think people closer to the frontlines of tech understand better the problems with new technologies as they are implemented in practice, hence more people prefer having the choice to use older, less sexy, more time-tested technologies.
Depending on where you live, EV's may range from moderately practical to unrealistic. I travel to many countries frequently and have lived across APAC including India.
If you talk about a country like Singapore, which is very small in real estate (literally called a tiny red "dot"), sure. EV's are quite reasonable, also somewhat practical. It's good for daily commute or going around the island, sure.
If you talk about a country like India, then, it's highly impractical to own one. First, you need proper infrastructure across such a massive land area, which by itself could take decades to get right (currently, India doesn't have them). Then, you need to factor in the populace and thus the long queues you're going to be facing in the public charging spots. Because India is such a vast country, if you wanted to travel from the southern most point of the country to the topmost (Kanyakumari to Kashmir), it's going to be impossible with just an EV and relying on public charging points. The charging time alone would add up quite quickly over such a long duration.
I do a quarter of that stretch frequently - Banglore to Kanyakumari or sometimes even from Chennai. It takes me 8 hours on an average including a 1 hour meal break. And the fuel stations are just so easily accessible across this entire stretch. It costs me just $50 for one way and $70 for a 2 way journey of about 700-800 kms. If I was driving an EV, the best range I can get is about 250 kms (based on the options available in India and not quoting optimistic manufacturer ratings, but based on real world traffic conditions in India) on my Hyundai Kona. Charging to 80% takes about an hour. If you do the math, I'm going to be spending 3 hours just on charging alone. The cost for charging is also much more expensive compared to what I'm going to be spending on oil. It's a clear cut decision for me, especially when I have to travel long distances.
And I'm not even factoring the risk of what happens if my car breaks down in the middle of the highway, which a local mechanic will have no idea on how to fix. During my work experience, I have audited some of the code for some popular manufacturers out there. EV cars are actually not about battery tech, it's about software. They run basically everything from a software "engine". That actually scares me, especially because I'm a software engineer. The modern EV has a lot of things going down under the hood. This is so unlike my Suzuki diesel which is simply an old school car with a battle-tested ECU (the same ECU is reused across many models, manufacturers for decades now) made by Bosch. The code in there is very simple and doesn't try to do a lot. It takes care of firing the pistons at the right time, making sure the turbocharger doesn't overwork, it takes care of the locks and alarms in the car and that's about it. It doesn't do all the "smart" stuff that a modern EV does. Like talk to the manufacturer telling them where I am exactly. Or when I should service my car. Or what playlists I would enjoy listening to. The infotainment system on my Suzuki is separate, for instance. There is no software "engine".
As someone who prefers dumb speaker systems and TVs instead of "smart" speakers and TVs, I prefer regular, old-school cars than the modern "smart" EVs. If they made a dumb EV, for sure, I'd go for it for my city use, but it still doesn't meet my criteria for long distance travel as explained above.
This is why I consider EV's highly impractical FOR ME.
And this argument about "let's burn stuff" - did you know many charging points consume power off the grid, especially in India? And many people like me who own the Kona, actually carry around a portable Honda generator in our boot (which runs off petrol) which can charge the car for worse case situations.
> What's disappointing is that all the talking points are the same-old tired fossil fuel propaganda from a decade ago.
My point is, we are not there yet and we have to acknowledge that. You can't cast judgement on the rest who don't use an EV simply because it's not practical for them. That's elitist. EV's aren't necessarily "better" for everyone.
> We have made progress, and we can make more progress if we all pull together.
The question is, is it enough ? It feels a bit like we're curing the symptoms but not their causes.
There are 1.5 billion vehicles in the world, we should strive to reduce their number, not continue to expand it, EVs aren't a miracle, 1.5 billion EVs are still a huge problem
Switching to electric doesn't mean to increase the number of vehicles, they are built instead of ICE vehicles. Ideally, we reduce the count a lot, but every single vehicle built needs to be electric.
The government does still plan to eventually go EV-only, but not in 2030.
Looks like the only realistic plan. All the “fully electric by 2035” plans that hardcore environmentalists love to pass have zero chance of going into effect.
I guess the jokes on me because I thought that people, society in general negotiate on important matters.
Is my observation wrong or are you reading me as only condescending, facetious, luddite, troll?
Similarly, COVID-19 doesn't negotiate, hence we mandate masks to avoid the anti-science people from getting the rest of us sick.
I’d love to buy an EV but I can get a decent petrol/diesel car for 30k EUR and no comparable EV.
Irrelevant. Fifteen years is almost a political generation. Punting pain ensures a punt. It gives cover for doing nothing during the timeline. And when expiry nears, what is the harm of another decade,
A slow phase-in spreads the heartburn to a palatable level. One slow-burn strategy is a creeping mileage requirement. Another is hybrids as a Trojan horse.
TL; DR I bet I could win an election in any blue-collar district running against implementing an ICE ban in 2035.
There is absolutely not a chance that the UK could have EV charging infrastructure equivalent to the current network of filling stations in place by 2030. Hybrids can be filled as normal, operate on petrol on motorways and self-charge for use in town.
The number of super chargers you need in public places per car is pretty low. Can’t imagine with 100% saturation you would even need 10% of the gas station population to serve the country.
Presently happens at home - for those with off-street parking. Plugging in and charging overnight makes a lot of sense for those that a) do have that and b) don't do long enough trips to need to charge elsewhere. But that leaves out an awful lot of people. And EV ranges aren't nearly as long as the manufacturers quote* in any but ideal conditions with a single occupant and no luggage. So filling stations will still be needed and they will all need superchargers.
* Yes neither are ICE's but this isn't a problem for anyone because there are petrol stations everywhere
The UK is making sensible small steps. That quoted rule has ended and now only electric cars are exempt from that tax. We’ve had high fuel taxes for a while, though frozen lately for poor reasons, rather than the planned increases.
https://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/economical-cars/low-emission-...
IIRC, the original ban was going to apply to hybrids too - in 2035 - but now the government are bringing the ban forwards by 5 years for pure-ICE.
IMHO if governments want to meet their Paris Accord targets they should be focusing subsidies on getting the price of hybrids down to the level of the same model as a non-hybrid.
Reduces emissions in traffic and lights and helps build out charging infrastructure with plug-ins without an "over" reliance on stations.
Certainly also encourage BEVs, but I think an easy-is stepping stone is a needed given climate change.
I'll wager no manufacturer will be making them in a couple of years.
On the other hand, they have better range than either, generally, and keep the quick fillup time of an ICE, with optional short trip charging depending on equipment. Additionally range is good at slow speeds where electric wins, and at high speeds where ICE wins.
When the battery placement isn't criminally stupid (like c-max energi that guts the rear storage), the end result is a best of both situation.
But in any case, we don't need to reduce the CO2 produced by cars, we need to eliminate it entirely.
Society needs to get CO2-neutral urgently, and cars are actually the low hanging fruit as perfectly nice electric cars are already being sold. In contrast, we have very little ideas what to do about flying for example, except use precious bio or synthetic fuels.
Today each manufacturer is focused on achieving highest production efficiency with no coordination which leads to many divergent designs none of which are easy to recycle.
Are there are some new developments on the horizon before the world goes all-in and creates a new environmental problem?
[1] https://cen.acs.org/materials/energy-storage/time-serious-re...
Rich people: meh, this won’t change our lives much
Poor people: SOL
The price we pay for a functioning environment.
It's easy to dismiss progress with a one line snarky quip on the internet, and this is a hugely positive move.
Is that under the assumption that it's a warm day?
Unless you've got two drivers, a 7 hour trip likely requires more than a 35 minute stop to eat, and rest anyway.
Round here many people drive Diesels for their economy (11% extra energy per gallon compared to Petrol) though currently with the Diesel price premium over Petrol being roughly 11% more that's no longer true but diesel engines do last longer.
I'm not opposed to EVs but I don't think there'll be cheap ones like my Diesel if ever or at least for a long long time. And no one has said about future taxes on EVs. All that ICE fuel tax revenue will have to be replaced as it dwindles away. The 800 LB Gorilla in the room that no one mentions is "pay as you drive" I suspect.
> but diesel engines do last longer. "Longer" kind of doesn't matter these days. Sure, a diesel engine will literally never die, however my first car was a 1.4L peugeot with 260,000 miles on it. The engine and chassis were the only parts that hadn't been replaced by the time I got it, which is 25 years of your current mileage.
> I'm not opposed to EVs but I don't think there'll be cheap ones like my Diesel if ever or at least for a long long time.
A person commuting 200 miles per week, driving an old, heavily polluting car is likely to be one of the most affected by these changes. People with your driving habits are the reason that regulations like this have to exist in these forms. Poeple will hyper=optimise for their own benefit, as all of the externalities aren't costed. At the very least, buy a post-2008 diesel with a DPF in it.
The last two ICE cars I had, I bought them when they were 12 and 9 years old, rather than planning how to get them parted out at that age. I've very much enjoyed having an EV (especially as the guy who turns the wrenches), but they don't last anywhere near as long as ICE cars without major infusions of cash for the battery.
My next car is very likely to be another 6-10 year-old ICE car where I'd probably never consider buying a 6-10 year-old pure EV.
"other BEV should get you at least 10 years" isn't nearly the same as "will get you 25 years if it doesn't rust out or get crashed".
If we typically average even just 20 years from an ICE and 10 from a BEV, the BEV starts out way behind in the green race and might never catch up.
Stopping making new inefficient cars is good. Scrapping working perfectly good cars is an alloy of good and bad.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...
> The last two ICE cars I had, I bought them when they were 12 and 9 years old,
You're comparing technology that's had 100 years to develop, with the first iterations of EVs. You're right in that a current 2 year old EV likely has a much lower resale value than a 2 year old ICE vehicle. But remember that the Model S has been on sale for less time than the time between now and when this ban comes into place. Buying a 6 year old EV right now seems like a terrible idea, buying a 6 year old EV in 2035 will likely be a very different story.
I fear that we might instead have a time period where fundamental battery technology (or our ability to harness it) will not permit a retention of 75% of range over a 20-year period. It might be like the cars of the 50s though 80s which rarely made 250K miles without major engine service.
Cars used to have 5 digit odometers in miles and it was a noteworthy event to “roll one over”. Now, the worst crapbox you can buy will do 100K easily and many of the Japanese imports will do 300K miles with a few external accessories being changed along the way.
Of course, we could find ourselves in an apple-google situation where the cost of the cars themselves is reduced to a price point that a mass market can stomach, and the cars are "disposable". That thought makes me sad.
It also makes me sad, both from an ecological standpoint, but also from a financial standpoint. I see a lot of people making car payments that are $400+ for 72-month loans. (The average car loan length in 2019 was 69 months for a new car and perhaps an even more astonishing 65 months for used cars.)
Then, because they have a loan, they have to have expensive collision insurance and maybe even gap insurance. Then, because it's an expensive liability they see everyday, they feel like they have to take it to the dealership for repairs (to "protect their 'investment'"). Some people feel like they need to build a little house to protect it (which needs a curb cut and associated extra land usage), etc.
If it were more commonly accepted to drive a "millionaire next door" 15-year old Camry or CR-V, I think we could go easier on the world and on people (maybe except for people who work in the automotive new-car supply chain).
Until then, I can be happy that people buy so many new cars so often, because if they didn't do that, there wouldn't be any cheap used cars for me to buy and DIY-repair to avoid the shop rate and parts markup. :)
If you want to do traffic policy for the poor the best you can do is making walking safer.
All comes down to how you define poor (is it homeless? « Lower class »? Whatever Boris Johnson would think of as a bad living situation?)
And also: considering the progress that’s been made with EVs in just the last 5 years, project that out and it’s going to be a situation where you’d have to be mad to buy a gas car over electric in 2030. That’s a full 10 years from now. New gas cars won’t be price competitive by then.
If you don’t believe me just take a look at what Volkswagen is doing with their upcoming EVs.
So, sure, they’re being “banned,” but I really do wonder who in their right mind will be wanting to choose a gas car for a brand new vehicle in 2030.
Alternatively: charge the cars wherever they drive to. So at workplaces, shops etc.
A parking lot downtown, with 500 car capacity, might need several hundred kW of power at peak every day (50 km * 0.15 kWh/km * 500 / 8 hours = 475 kW). Anything above 100 kW requires MV distribution and a local transformer. At least they could allow people to book their charging slot and stagger the charging of all those cars, though. There are worse cases.
Ski resorts will have people visiting for a day on the slopes, possibly after a 100 miles drive or so, and needing their cars charged by the time they leave, maybe 6-7 hours later. But at least these are in sparsely populated regions, and often close to hydroelectric dams too, so it's not impossible to bring more electric power. By the time those people go back home they will have to charge as well to get ready for next day's commute the though.
In fact, every night people will come home and charge their cars. In this case (unlike the parking lot) there is no centralized distributor that could try to stagger the charging of all these cars.
And perhaps it will only be a couple days a year on long weekends or bank holidays, but there will be cases when a condo with 100 flats will also need a sustained power of hundreds of kW for several hours... and all other boxes of flats will have the same need on exactly the same day.
This means building lots of HV and MV transformation stations (which are not exactly cheap) in densely populated regions. Where are the plans to estimate this need and to build this infrastructure?
Far more important than a charging station network is investment in on-street charging for people who don't have access to a garage.
Charging at home is far more important than charging on the road.
In any case, a grid upgrade will not be required. The "grid overload" story is fossil fuel industry propaganda. You can find the details here: https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-...
...but the salient point is that if 80% of all passenger cars become electric, this would lead to a total increase of 10-15% in electricity consumption. (Far, far from the "order of magnitude" claim.)
And even this ignores the vehicle-to-grid features of modern EVs, which can actually put power back into the grid during periods of high demand.
Most electrical grids will need to be upgraded to accommodate this. This is doable, but costs money and takes time.
...but the salient point is that if 80% of all passenger cars become electric, this would lead to a total increase of 10-15% in electricity consumption. (Far, far from the "order of magnitude" claim.)
And even this ignores the vehicle-to-grid features of modern EVs, which can actually put power back into the grid during periods of high demand.
I expect this is the part which will require more investment than anything else, as it will mean electrifying office car parks — the UK is further north than every American state except Alaska, so winter sunsets happen before the work day ends.
It certainly shouldn’t be impossible, but the current UK government is prone to acting as if they can make things happen just by saying so rather than spending money or doing any planning.
The grid capacity is fine, however.
And "build more power plants"...so simple...part of the problem is that actually building more power plants is more complex than just typing a post out or observing it should be true. This is linked to the issues that I mentioned in the previous post (when the govt moved towards green power a decade or so ago, investment went through the floor...more recently, they have introduced price caps...the reason why the UK hasn't built power plants is because the govt asked companies to build them, and they said no...which is why the govt has had to hand out big subsidies to nuclear).
Btw, if you aren't familiar with something, ask more questions (I know this because I used to work as an analyst, and part of my coverage was these companies) rather than assume that someone has made a basic mistake. The power market is local, not global. What is happening in the US isn't happening everywhere else (the UK is far further down this road than anyone else).
See for example a study from our government about this exact subject (in Dutch): https://www.kimnet.nl/binaries/kimnet/documenten/rapporten/2...
The summary is that if there were 4 million vehicles charging overnight, it would cause a total of 20GW of electricity. Our current total consumption (including industry) is 33GW, so this would cause a significant increase in electricity consumption.
Dividing this number by 8760 (the number of hours in 2019) gives us 40,203,196 KW, or 40 GW total energy consumption. Assuming that electric vehicles are 5x more efficient than ICE, gives us about 8GW of electricity needed to replace all petrol and diesel consumption in the UK.
According to [1] the UK's peak consumption is currently 61.9 GW with a theoretical maximum of 75.3 GW. So to replace all non-commercial fuel used would be 13% of the peak usage.
According to [2] the UK's total electricity generation in 2019 was 323.7 TWh which is 3.237x10^11 KWh which is roughly equivalent to the total energy value for non-commercial diesel and petrol calculated above. Assuming again the 5x efficiency gain that would mean a ~20% increase in the amount of energy that would need to be generated.
[0] https://www.ukpra.co.uk/en/about/facts-and-figures
[1] https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/76160/13537-elec...
[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
I'm not so sure. Using the province of Ontario, since I have the link handy:
* http://www.ieso.ca/power-data
The demand the last few days peaked at 18:00 (local/ET) at 16.5-17K (MW), while its lowest point is at 02:00 at about 11.5K.
Would overnight car charging really exceed the ~5500 MW of power that needs to be handled already?
Admittedly that was almost 3 years ago, but I still wouldn't have anywhere to charge it at home...
15 amps at 230v won't charge very quickly.
Ubitricity has shown a concept where they have smaller extender posts off the lamp posts, which I guess they'll be able to install if an area gets really busy.
Absolutely. I think there are more on-street charging stations in that neighbourhood than there are in my entire city...
You seem to have hijacked my point with something that's bothering you though :(
If anyone wants to see an example of light pole charging, the Fully Charged YT channel had an episode of one example:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKaEhBjt1ls
See also pop-up chargers for streets without poles:
Edit: this article talks about one street in London being the first to have car chargers built in an is from March this year.
https://www.fleeteurope.com/en/new-energies/europe/analysis/...
The main difference is that (a) each street light is actually ~ 10W, and (b) the wiring is massively over-specified. Quoting from a local authority source for street lights, [1], the minimum conductor area allowed (for the 220-270 VAC supply) is 6 mm^2, for a total thermal current limit of around ~55A. If you have, say, 100 lamps on a single "ring main", you still only have a power draw of ~1 kW, where the cable is rated to 55 V x 220 A ≈12.1 kW minimum.
[1] https://www.durham.gov.uk/media/3075/Street-Lighting-Specifi...
How many people in the UK live in a detached or a semi-detached house?
is probably their deceptive response.
It was sometimes hard to get parked here never mind near your house or by a lamp post. Take a look at the street on Google street maps (Link below). These are old houses built over a century ago and many are now multiple occupancy with 1-3 cars per house. Counting lamp posts and cars (when full) there's probably one lamp post to every 15-20 cars. So lamp post charging is not going to work practically here and this is typical of many such streets.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5646881,-0.0087098,3a,75y,68...
Imagine if everything adopted this model. Gas at the pump changes price mid fill-up. You'd fret that you'd be gouged for a million dollar gallon in the moment that you glance away. Or if there were TOU in addition to data caps on your internet connection - streaming a movie might be more expensive than you bargained.
So yes, in principle I agree that pricing everything to the most-granular and timely degree is economically correct, but it's also absolutely exhausting as a consumer. There's only so much cognitive burden to be tolerated. At some point apathy takes over.
No, most people in the UK live in terraced housing with no assigned parking spot - it's hit and miss whether they get to park outside their house or not when they come home from work. You also can't trail cables across the sidewalk (or pavement, as they say over there) - that would upset the disability people, for one thing.
However, everywhere where in-street parking is regular over night, there should be power outlets at the street side. They are quite common in the scandinavik countries, as even ICE cars used to be plugged in over night for heating the motor.
Their numbers don't add up. My apartment consumes around 400kWh a month. Assuming I charge a Tesla with 82kWh battery and I use it all in a month, the additional energy consumption is: 82/400 = 20%. And that is only on the fat chance that I will be driving less than I do today.
So prove me wrong.
It's physics. All the energy that the cars consume has to come from somewhere. And people will drive more especially because the car is now somehow 'green'
And when private electricity consumption is very small, wtf was with the move to LED lighting for and the ban of incandescent bulbs?
And the switch from incandescent to CFL/LED did save a lot of energy in total, both for residential and business applications. I once read the number that the net load was reduced by 1 GW due to the change. That is a reasonably sized nuclear power plant.
My workings were 32 million licenced cars, 40kwh each (obviously bigger batteries are already available but you'd hope not every car would need charged from scratch). Works out as over 1000gwh, you'd have say 10 hours to charge them so you could bring that down to 100gw. Average electrical consumption in the UK is about 30gw. I appreciate it's a gross over estimate as most cars won't do nearly that many miles every day.
Average mileage in the UK is typically around 10k miles. A 40kw battery nets somewhere around 200 miles, so needs to be fully charged perhaps once per week on average. That cuts the above significantly but it's still of the order of the UK's current average consumption.
> This should be easy to fix but it is another thing which needs to be rolled out and working in the next 10 years.
How many people live within a circle of "a few hundred metres" in London? It averages 4700/km^2 across all of Greater London according to Wikipedia, it will be denser in the middle. How many cars is that? TFL says average of 0.3 cars/person. So that would be 1410 cars or 235 per charging point.
[0] https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/5-m... [1] https://www.lowcvp.org.uk/projects/electric-vehicle-energy-t... [2] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/electric-vehicle-car-infrast...
>The BBC reported a similar plan earlier on Saturday, without giving any sources.
So it didn't happen yet, but they think it might. Why not just wait a few days to report it when we have something more concrete than anonymous sources?
I'm not against it. I could consider Plugin Hybrid, if I would have charger dedicated for my parking spot. But IMHO, governments are approaching this from the wrong angle. Instead of fining manufacturers , and increase taxes, focus on the infrastructure, and the rest will follow.
I interviewed at a government job in my area a several years ago before I got into tech and the guy I was talking to told me when he took over, he spent his first few months just converting everything to digital formats. All because the guy in it previously didn't want to learn how to use a computer. Since the position was an agency arm of something in the penal system, there was no oversight besides the people that essentially paid him to make certain reports for higher ups to then make available to the public.
Yes, I know soothsayers claim battery packs are $100/kwh, but even at those prices, we are seeing $100k pickups with roughly equivalent capabilities to a $45k ICE version. Factor in 200k mile lifetime with 20mpg and $3/gallon fuel, and an electric pickup is still a hard sale.
I’m skeptical the industry will make a 2030 deadline.
Just the province of Quebec.
* https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/gas-vehicles-ban-ele...
Proviso:
> And according to La Presse, which first reported details of the plan, vehicles used for commercial and industrial purposes will be exempt.
Hopefully they bring that in a bit.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/30/18646486/british-columbia...
No, the market will continue to completely screw the environment unless the government steps in.
>If gasoline and diesel fuels have such strong negative externalities, the state should tax these fuels
Petrol and diesel are already heavily taxed, at £0.58/L (at current GBP/USD exchange prices that works out at $0.76/L USD, whereas the equivalent tax in the US is $0.05/L).
>These top-down, non-market edicts damage the ability to the market to find appropriate resource allocation via the price mechanism and thereby make everyone worse off.
Oh the holy market! Can't disrupt the holy market, even when it's destroying the planet.
What makes you believe that?
> Petrol and diesel are already heavily taxed, at £0.58/L
But people are still using regular gasoline cars. Why might that be?
> Oh the holy market! Can't disrupt the holy market, even when it's destroying the planet.
The market is what's given us the modern technological civilization that made the computer you're using to post your comments. Top-down control has always made us worse off in the end.
Setting a date well in advance is also helpful for production planning, it gives the market some certainty in developing their products for the cutoff, and this has to be done early to be useful.
Not to mention that there will still be plenty of valid use cases for ICE cars in 2030. Need to go anywhere without the charging infrastructure? Need to travel a long distance? Need to travel in an emergency like a blackout?
The other part which is just kind of sad is that this is another nail in the coffin for the hobby of building and modding cars. Parts supplies will dry up and working on older cars will just become more and more prohibitively expensive. It’s already happening. To be honest when a car is just another computer it ceases to be interesting.
I confess ignorance about this hobby, but I had imagined it might be easier for a hobbyist to build an electric car than an ICE one (once the parts become more available). I thought there were fewer moving parts in electric cars, and maybe fewer fluids (gasoline obviously being the big one)?
Turbo cars are usually pretty easy to get extra power out of. Want a different sound? Get an exhaust. Slap a bigger turbo on. Etc.
I haven’t looked much but most “modded” EVs I’ve seen required a whole team.
I would be interested which actual need for ICE cars there would be in 2030. Good electric cars are already quite comparable today and they keep getting better. Electricity is available everywhere, "charging infrastructure" can be created by installing a socked on the outside of buildings. Long distance travel is already no problem and in a blackout, you cannot refill your ICE car either, because fuel stations require... electricity.
Judging on how many modding projects, like converting old ICE cars to electric, do exist, car modding might get even easier.
In before all the Tesla/EV apologist team downvotes this truth into oblivion.
Edit: not sure about the downvotes, anybody care to explain? Did Tesla build superchargers in random 10-20000-inhabitant towns far from highways?
Peak usage also means that uncommon cases are going to be a problem. For long trips I am not sure that the supercharger networks can scale.
When travelling for vacation, for example, planning multiple 30-60 minutes stops at the supercharger station might not be feasible (and the fastest charging only fills the battery by about half of the capacity, so that means more stops) and there's also going to be a problem with waiting times without massive infrastructure improvements. Right now a typical highway gas station has at least 5 pumps and it serves one customer in 3-5 minutes. That is roughly 60000 km-vehicle per hour. To reach a similar capacity, a supercharger station would need (at 30 minutes per 300 km and 150 kW per station) about 15 MW of power and its own high-voltage transformer.
Yet this capacity would be needed only when everybody moves for spring break or summer vacation, and it would be vastly more expensive than a gas station. Is it feasible to have such a thing every 50 km of highway or so?
So if it's cheapest from 6 PM to 6 AM they will start charging (absent any control from the utility) at 6 PM approximately.
I am interested (genuinely :-)) in standards for grid to appliance communication and on which countries have those discounted rates. Would I lose the discount if my commute is longer (so I need a continuous supply throughout most of the night)? Are they tied to specific wires coming in the building?
Also did anybody run the numbers on the power that would be needed by a supercharger network comparable to current highway gas stations?
It's worth pointing out that Tesla lost that case. Then Tesla appealed and lost in the appeal court as well.
The UK Conservative government as currently run by Boris Johnson? Well, yes, of course they do! It's hardly a secret. They literally boasted that they'd got rid of Freedom of Movement as their first achievement of Brexit (under Theresa May at the time).
It was all over the news. How did you miss it?
Yes, explicitly so, but that’s a completely different story and has nothing to do with what fuel new cars will use in ten years time.