Scotland to "Phase out" New Petrol and Diesel Cars by 2032

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The Scottish government has pledged to phase out new petrol and diesel cars and vans across Scotland by 2032, eight years ahead of the UK Government target: charging points will be massively expanded, and pilot projects that encourage uptake of electric vehicles will be established. There are also plans to make the A9, a major road in Scotland, fully electric-enabled.

The plans replicate those already made by France and cities such as Madrid, Mexico City and Athens. The Government said the commitment was necessary due to the avoidable impact poor air quality was having on people’s health. Jesse Norman, the parliamentary under-secretary at the Department for Transport, confirmed the Government’s plans. “The Government has a manifesto commitment for almost all cars and vans on our roads to be zero emission by 2050. We believe this would necessitate all new cars and van being zero emission vehicles by 2040,” Mr. Norman said in a written answer to the Commons.
 
Interesting. I look forward to seeing how it pans out. Seems like it would be good for Metro areas - not so much for the spread out areas here in the US.
 
More coal powered cars!

Again, completely disregarding that batteries are incredibly terrible for the environment in both production and disposal. Solar panels are 100x's worse.

This argument absolute bullshit made up by pro-oil lobbying groups and aped by countless others online who just want a convenient easy talking point.

1.) Neither Litium Ion or Nickel Cadmium batteries are particularly bad for the environment. Most are highly recyclable at end of life too.

2.) I'll take coal powered cars via the electric grid any day over inefficient internal combustion engines. Even if our power mix were all coal (it isn't, it's only about 30%) the higher thermal efficiency of a large gas turbine on a coal plant compared to the abysmally low average real world thermal efficiency of even an efficient internal combustion engine means that an all-coal sourced electric vehicle produces MUCH less carbon emissions. It's not even close.
 
I'll post what I posted on the gentoo forum & here when the UK thread was made


Naib said:
the irony is it was the corrupt EU politicians that pushed diesel as clean and gave tax cuts ...

EV is a joke right now but is improving
hybrids are like the vhs-dvd combo's and I pity the fool that bought into them
Petrol/Diesel will still be needed for long haul and HGV

22years? assuming we are still here, assuming the oceans can be mined for rare earth... sure EV for urban travel, even city-city in any european country is doable. WHAT I want to know is what is the gov'n going to do about infrastructure...

BMW 7series... 327 kW, ~ 1000miles on a full tank, 60mpg => 16.6gallon tank. => 75.5litres. (diesel) 36.9 MJ/litre => a fully fuelled 7series has 2.7TJ of energy in its tanks.
87 billion vehicle miles in the UK in 2014.

keeping it simple and assuming all that was done by 7series ... 235EJ for energy on the roads...
In 2014, the UK consumed 2,249 TWh of electrical energy => 81EJ of energy.

in the next 20years more and more EV will be sold and produced until in 2040 no more petrol/diesel (LPG?, other fuel?)... one could assume from then only EV... 2.6million new cars were registered in 2016...
What is the gov'n doing to
1) increase electrical generation capability
2) increase the national and regional distribution to cater for 3x load increase at some point in the next 20-30 years purely from vehicles

Generation and distribution is not being discussed. What benefit does Scotland banning it 8years ahead of they are not addressing Scotland grid (which is a UK concern...). The SNP should concentrate on the alcohol problem and the education issue in Scotland before playing silly oneUpmanship with westminster
 
Or the power grid

Agreed. The ability of the current power grid (and current power generation) to keep up with a mass shift to electric vehicles is the real problem.

Having a grid and power generation available to support the inevitable mass adoption of electric vehicles only 15 years from now seems like wishful thinking.
 
This argument absolute bullshit made up by pro-oil lobbying groups and aped by countless others online who just want a convenient easy talking point.

1.) Neither Litium Ion or Nickel Cadmium batteries are particularly bad for the environment. Most are highly recyclable at end of life too.
One of the major arguments against the batteries has to do with the impact of mining these materials. There is a definite impact from that. I'm not an expert on what's worse.

In my opinion, I think we need more nuclear plants if we really want to go with electric cars and electric charging stations. Any fuel burning plant will have more of an impact on the environment than nuclear does.
 
If anyone is ready to go electric it's France. They get most of their power from nuclear reactors and they sell off something in the range of 48 TWh of excess capacity to their neighbors annually instead of using it for themselves.
 
More coal powered cars!

Again, completely disregarding that batteries are incredibly terrible for the environment in both production and disposal. Solar panels are 100x's worse.

Or the power grid
The saying that a car is only as green as the power you charge it with is a 100% factual statement.

What you two are failing to understand is that right now we need to get people on board with plugging in to charge cars and overall using electric vehicles. Over time the source of the power will become cleaner and greener.

No problem, especially one as big as climate change and green energy, is solved in a single one fell swoop.

I am positive 125 years ago people made the comment "Why would I want to buy these new, slow, clunky, and expensive automobiles when I can just jump on my horse and go?"
 
With delays for lobbyists, delays for political hand-fucking, delays for funds, delays for infrastructure upgrades, and grandfather clauses this should all get done within 50 years of the day all the world's car makers stop making fossil fuelled cars.

This is a pure PR release.

Just like these all climate accords, they're PR. They have no impact on economies, no impact on pollution, and no impact on quality of life, because these things are made of loop holes. They make great election platforms for either the "look what I did" set or the "everything is a conspiracy" set. They're all full of shit though.
 
One of the major arguments against the batteries has to do with the impact of mining these materials. There is a definite impact from that. I'm not an expert on what's worse.

In my opinion, I think we need more nuclear plants if we really want to go with electric cars and electric charging stations. Any fuel burning plant will have more of an impact on the environment than nuclear does.


Are you referring to the misinformation campaign that's been going on online for 5-7 years since the boost in popularity of the Prius that used an image that looked like a lunar landscape claiming it was environmental damage from mining?

Or maybe this thoroughly debunked comparison meme?
 
Are you referring to the misinformation campaign that's been going on online for 5-7 years since the boost in popularity of the Prius that used an image that looked like a lunar landscape claiming it was environmental damage from mining?

Or maybe this thoroughly debunked comparison meme?

Yep. I did say I wasn't an expert on what's worse comparing a Prius to a conventional fuel burning vehicle. All I said was that nuclear power has less environmental impact than fuel burning plants. This is especially true of more modern nuclear plant designs.
 
One of the major arguments against the batteries has to do with the impact of mining these materials. There is a definite impact from that. I'm not an expert on what's worse.
I guess we better keep fighting wars in the Middle East to secure oil interests just to be safe.
 
I guess we better keep fighting wars in the Middle East to secure oil interests just to be safe.

It's one of the many stupid things we need to stop doing as a society. Burning coal for warmth or power like it's 1899 is another.
 
Yep. I did say I wasn't an expert on what's worse comparing a Prius to a conventional fuel burning vehicle. All I said was that nuclear power has less environmental impact than fuel burning plants. This is especially true of more modern nuclear plant designs.


Yeah, I like nuclear power, but it winds up being on the pricy side per KWh, and then there's the whole final storage problem.

I'd fully support nuclear expansion if - and only if - we get all of our spent fuel out of short term storage pools ad into permanent storage.
 
This argument absolute bullshit made up by pro-oil lobbying groups and aped by countless others online who just want a convenient easy talking point.

1.) Neither Litium Ion or Nickel Cadmium batteries are particularly bad for the environment. Most are highly recyclable at end of life too.

2.) I'll take coal powered cars via the electric grid any day over inefficient internal combustion engines. Even if our power mix were all coal (it isn't, it's only about 30%) the higher thermal efficiency of a large gas turbine on a coal plant compared to the abysmally low average real world thermal efficiency of even an efficient internal combustion engine means that an all-coal sourced electric vehicle produces MUCH less carbon emissions. It's not even close.
Thank you for sparing me from having to debunk this myth.

3.) also localized pollution is much easier to deal with than a billion individual cars with each it's own exhaust emissions. You can have much better and more expensive particle filters on a power plant than on a car.
 
This argument absolute bullshit made up by pro-oil lobbying groups and aped by countless others online who just want a convenient easy talking point.

1.) Neither Litium Ion or Nickel Cadmium batteries are particularly bad for the environment. Most are highly recyclable at end of life too.

2.) I'll take coal powered cars via the electric grid any day over inefficient internal combustion engines. Even if our power mix were all coal (it isn't, it's only about 30%) the higher thermal efficiency of a large gas turbine on a coal plant compared to the abysmally low average real world thermal efficiency of even an efficient internal combustion engine means that an all-coal sourced electric vehicle produces MUCH less carbon emissions. It's not even close.
Wrong... Both contain Cobalt which is "very" hazardous. Cobalt is normally obtained as a bi-product of nickel and copper mining but the increased demand for Lithium Ion batteries is currently resulting in cobalt shortages and is resulting in mining specifically for cobalt. Presuming the elimination of ICE's this will dramatically increase the toxic hazards associated with the mining and recycling of cobalt.

What do you call a system of government that regulates and dictates policies to privately own industries? Fascism... The evidence for Man-made climate change is evaporating with the realization that the so-called science is based upon faulty statistical methodology. The Roman and Medieval warm periods, both pre-industral, where as warm or warmer than recent modern temperatures. Forcing electric cars down the throats of consumers is likewise based upon faulty science and endangers the public's safety by trading a minor environmental hazard for one far more dangerous. Electric cars based upon today's technology would never become dominant under free market forces...

Thankfully the American people are waking up to the insanity of the progressive movement and the hopefully this nonsense will stop. If somebody wants to own an electric car than good for them but do not eliminate the choice of buying a relatively clean and (more) practical internal combustion powered vehicle.
 
Scotland is pretty small, range isn't going to be a problem. Any long distances in the UK as a whole take you so long that people don't usually do it. A 2 hour drive is 'long'.

Scotland also has a pretty high percentage of renewable power. It's reliably windy and the tides are strong. Solar would not be much use. I say this coming from Fife.

What do you call a system of government that regulates and dictates policies to privately own industries?

That is not fascism, almost all types of government dictate terms to business, control of industry while an aspect of (some) fascism was not the point of it. Anyway, the dictation of terms is usually a good thing as without boundaries those without moral bounds would do things that are bad just to make money. That's why we don't have rivers that you can set fire to any more. If the government didn't dictate then cars would be more polluting than they are, we'd all still be breathing lead and our cities would still have coal power stations in the middle of them (think of all the gains from not having transmission loss)
 
How about freezing cold temps or extremely hot temps. Battery range is cut to around 50%. I'll take my Hybrid any day. My Fusion just got 57mpg running into Salem using I5 and surface streets. And take my friends 5 year old Nissan Leaf. Used to get 100 miles when new, now down to 80. Capacity Decay.
 
And don't forget Big Oil. Do you really think they are going to let this crap happen? And don't forget the wonderful Socialist Republic of California. We want you to go green, buy hybrids and electric cars. Hey wait a minute you guys are not paying enough gas tax any more. Humm, I think we will charge all hybrid and electric car owners a $100 surcharge on top of your regular yearly license registration fee.
 
What do you call a system of government that regulates and dictates policies to privately own industries? Fascism...
So by that definition, if the EPA says that allowing runoff from fracking containing benzene, heavy metals, and misc. industrial chemicals into the water table because it will poison people in a few years and tries to regulate private business that's fascism? Or hey, imposing hard limits on the banks from speculating with money they don't actually have, that's fascism? I swear, some people don't understand the difference between good regulation and bad and just put it all in the same camp, not realizing some regulation was there for very important reasons. I mean it's not like we ever had a Great Depression due to free market activity or let our rivers catch on fire by letting companies police themselves.
 
I swear, some people don't understand the difference between good regulation and bad and just put it all in the same camp, not realizing some regulation was there for very important reasons.
Mainly because we increasingly have two separate more extreme camps dominating. One side hasn't seen any regulation they don't like. And the other thinks practically any of it whatsoever belongs in the USSR not here. The seemingly few of us who fancy ourselves in the middle are just bewildered.
 
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-tesla-model-s-p85d-ev-long-term-test-wrap-up

Our long-distance road trip highlighted that Tesla’s range estimate is consistently optimistic. This discrepancy demanded that the driver perform constant mental math, evaluating how quickly the predicted range was falling compared with the climbing odometer. Over 40,000 miles, the predicted range dropped 1.4 miles for every mile driven.
We averaged 69 MPGe, well below the EPA’s 93 combined MPGe. With electricity at a national average of 13 cents per kWh, running our Tesla cost the same as driving a 38-mpg car with gas at $2.40 per gallon.

Over the course of a 20-degree weekend with minimal charging, one editor saw 134 miles of driving range disappear to warming the battery, heating the cabin, and reduced efficiency.

Any trip that requires one or two Supercharger stops is relatively painless. Anything longer, however, quickly becomes tedious. Our coast-to-coast routine involved two or three hours of driving, followed by about 45 minutes of charging, rinse, repeat. We covered 3647 miles in four days, spending 57 hours behind the wheel and another 15 hours, 22 minutes plugged in (not including overnight charging).

We’ve been promised that EVs will reduce operating costs, but Tesla’s service prices don’t reflect its vehicles’ simplicity. The 12,500-mile maintenance stop involves replacing the cabin air filter, the windshield-wiper blades, and the key-fob batteries and performing an inspection. It cost $432. Every second service calls for replacing the brake fluid and the air-conditioning desiccant bag, upping the price to $756. It appears that even in the electric future, the service department remains a profit center.

The tech has a ways to go and Tesla will not be allowed to fail.
 
Mainly because we increasingly have two separate more extreme camps dominating. One side hasn't seen any regulation they don't like. And the other thinks practically any of it whatsoever belongs in the USSR not here. The seemingly few of us who fancy ourselves in the middle are just bewildered.
Those that allegedly dislike regulation are in fact very ineffective at removing them. Take the Regulatory Monolith that is ObamaCare. All 3 bodies and the GOP can't/won't get rid of it. ideological polarity is not reflected in action. Either the GOP are frauds or regulations are a quagmire the government is unable or unwilling to climb out of. Ironically the Reality vs. Talk is a good talking point to avoid entering into new regulations lightly.
 
Regardless of the pros and cons I don't see that level of structural change, at least in terms of reliability and cost, in 13 years. Far less ambitious projects take 7-10 years. This will all require massive engineering and construction obstacles.

And Mexico City? I can see a country, but a single city is just down right silly even if large. In any case Mexico has far bigger problems to worry about.
 
What about the price of the EV/hybrids? They are way more expensive than the ICE cars. 10/20 year return?!
 
What of it? They are being forced into premature artificial market viability. Even if we aren't there right this moment we will be sooner or later. And eventually further yet down the road they will be competitive without needing to be propped up to the extent they are now.

This company cannot and will not fail. I wish I had known to put all my money into stock when it was cheap. You can't lose. It may as well have backed by the USG stamped right on the logo.
 
What of it? They are being forced into premature artificial market viability. Even if we aren't there right this moment we will be sooner or later. And eventually further yet down the road they will be competitive without needing to be propped up to the extent they are now.

This company cannot and will not fail. I wish I had known to put all my money into stock when it was cheap. You can't lose. It may as well have backed by the USG stamped right on the logo.
If they are not cheap enough, people will not buy them. I could use one, since the most I drove was 20 miles both ways to work. But gas is cheaper in the long run than a hybrid.
 
if they could harness all the power from blowing smoke up everyone ass they could have a pretty powerful energy source.
 
How about freezing cold temps or extremely hot temps. Battery range is cut to around 50%. I'll take my Hybrid any day. My Fusion just got 57mpg running into Salem using I5 and surface streets. And take my friends 5 year old Nissan Leaf. Used to get 100 miles when new, now down to 80. Capacity Decay.
Freezing cold is a problem, but other cars have decreased range between 20-30% instead of 50%

http://insideevs.com/bmw-i3-winter-range-reduction-tips-offsetting-cold-weather-impact/

 
Back
Top