9 ms·

Diesel and petrol ban should come much faster, say MPs

37 points by bauc 8y ago

setquk 8y ago
MPs who don’t understand the power distribution logistics and lack of capacity problems we have here...
- PuffinBlue 8y ago
  What are you talking about?
- Symbiote 8y ago
  Or MPs who think those problems can be solved in 12 years rather than 22.
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    MP's who have no technical scientific education apart from odd stand outs like Mrs Thatcher or these days Chi Onwurah. Mrs T allegedly questioned the civil servants pushing the rush to Diesel 30 years ago.
    - Symbiote 8y ago
      Most parts of possible problems have political, social, legal, economic and technical parts. A big technical issue is around battery capabilities, but other issues are stuck with a lack of funding, political will, gaps in the legal system. For example, installing places for people renting or living in flats to charge cars, or reducing car demand by increasing walking/cycling.
      - C1sc0cat 8y ago
        Its all very well saying "you peasant chappie" stop using your car its back to the omnibus for you - but the punters don't like it.
- simonbarker87 8y ago
  This is touted out so much but switching cars over to EVs would require the grid to be increased less than 50% as EVs use about 30% the energy of a combustion engine. Given that most cars will be charged over night the reality is that it would be less than this.
  - skgoa 8y ago
    Currently all BEVs charge at their maximum rate the moment they are connected to the charger. Which almost always happens in late afternoon or early evening. I.e. the exact time when the energy usage is at a peak already. While there are many ideas regarding how this load can be pushed into the dead of night, nothing concrete has even been proposed, yet. So I wouldn't dismiss this issue that quickly, especially when we are talking about a (theoretical) rapid adoption of BEVs.
    - mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
      Ummm, a timer to allow charging at certain time only? Seems pretty simple to me.
      - skgoa 8y ago
        A simple timer isn't enough. You would want the chargers to be networked, so that the power company can optimize the load. That's not impossible, but it also doesn't exist, yet.
        robjan 8y ago
        The UK power grid (which this article is talking about) is being converted to a smart grid. All new electric meters report their usage continuously which can be used to discover usage patterns. I imagine that chargers would also be connected to smart meters.
        makomk 8y ago
        As it currently stands, most of the installed base of smart meters can't even communicate to electricity companies other than the one that originally installed them, so I'd say that's a long way off.
CalRobert 8y ago
I have a hard time imagining how somebody could be opposed to this and pretend they have anything but selfish motivations. Emissions kill people. They kill the elderly. They kill people with asthma. They give people cancer. Your car is an instrument of death even if you don't hit anyone. Parts of the UK have appallingly bad air quality (by regional standards; obviously it's not Beijing). People are dying en masse but because you can't see it and say "my car was the one that killed them" most people just. don't. care. Also the majority of trips are short enough to be done via bike or ebike if you give people safe routes to do so, something the UK has been completely unwilling to do.
- ddorian43 8y ago
  You fix things by working from the top of highest offenders. Something tells me it's not the average people.
  - mtgx 8y ago
    Fixing the climate change problem should have always involved systemic solutions - i.e. bans on diesel vehicles, high carbon prices, etc, not stuff like "use less water in your home." But since most governments are corrupt/can get paid by those rich companies they are trying to regulate, the former has also been the most difficult to implement.
  - ndnxhs 8y ago
    As a population car users represent a massive amount of emmisions. Removing that would be one of the highest offenders.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Indeed - so focusing on large companies selling devices causing massive destruction makes perfect sense.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    Oil companies are the biggest polluters and contributors to climate change. By severely reducing the amount of fossil fuel vehicles on the roads, we lessen the demand for fossil fuels, and reduce pollution. Big cargo ships should also be targeted, they burn significantly worse grades of fuel, and pollute a lot more.
lixtra 8y ago
Why not raise tax instead of banning? You can tax cars and fuel. You can make a predictable scheme for the next 20 years (i.e. fuel will raise about 4% per year,...) This gives the economy time to adopt. But please no exceptions.
- fredley 8y ago
  Because this disproportionally affects people who have no other alternative. Rich city people can switch to electric cars without changing habits that much, there are charging points everywhere and they're building lots more all the time. Go to Cornwall though and it's a very different picture. You need to get all these more remote regions as wired up as central London _before_ introducing any taxation, or make exceptions while you're building the infra.
  - crc32 8y ago
    You could build up e.g. Cornwall (through subsidy) with the revenue from the tax.
    - fredley 8y ago
      You could, but people would be pissed about being taxed to pay for something they don't have yet (and hence have no way to avoid the tax). While it might be a sensible strategy for raising the money it would be political suicide.
      - crc32 8y ago
        let's flesh it out a bit then. Op said "You can make a predictable scheme for the next 20 years (i.e. fuel will raise about 4% per year,...)" So how about investing in Cornwall now, borrowing against the 20 year revenue stream from the tax.
      - lixtra 8y ago
        So how are they better of by banning cars in 10 or 20 years? Communities can also take loans to build out infrastructure now and pay with the transition tax levied a bit later. As too political suicide, there are three types of voters: a) those that believe petrol cars should be banned b) those that do not want to give up their cars ever c) those that think cars should be banned but not for them now. Therefore: a) should be happy with an immediate tax ladder as it creates incentive to move now b) will never be happy. c) if that is the majority of your voters it’s still better to have a a gradual change now then a sudden change in the future. They could just overturn your decision in the future just before the planned sudden change. If MPs urge for a change that is more than one election away they are hypocrites and shouldn’t be MPs. Obviously some changes take a long time to bear fruits, but the change has to be immediate and gradual.
nemodmarg 8y ago
Electric cars seems like such an obvious answer for so many issues, but still outside of US it is pretty much impossible to find a reliable and affordable options.
- PuffinBlue 8y ago
  Rest of the world is doing alright thanks. Ioniq, Kone, Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe, BMW i3, e-up, e-golf etc etc. You can even get iPace or the e-tron will also be out next year. Some I've listed are more expensive than others, but you cannot possibly suggest the Renault Zoe or Nissan Leaf aren't affordable or reliable. The model 3 will be here soon too, who knows what will be here in 14 years!
WordyMcWordface 8y ago
I have a hard time imagining an electric car working for me. There are two charging points within a 2-mile radius and I cannot park within about 15 meters of my house so it is just impossible to charge one. Hydrogen or something where I can still go to a "filling station" might work. Right now I view electric cars as a tax break for anyone lucky/rich enough to have a driveway. This might all change in a few years but I doubt there will ever be enough charging points on local roads.
- jstanley 8y ago
  Before there were petrol stations everywhere, it would have been hard to imagine a car working better than a horse. And yet here we are.
  - fredley 8y ago
    But you still can't put the cart before the horse. Tax people who don't switch to a viable, cleaner alternative from dinosaur-burning vehicles, but not before you've made that alternative viable in the first place. Much (most?) of the UK is not ready for full switchover yet.
    - Swenrekcah 8y ago
      2032 is still 14 years away which is a long time. And according to the article it’s even then just about banning the sale of new vehicles. This should be completely doable if the UK puts half a mind to it.
      - fredley 8y ago
        Unfortunately the UK does not have half a mind to spare, and won't for a few years at least. One of the less noticable side-effects of Brexit is that it totally dominates the entire political landscape, to the exclusion of other issues. In a news magazine I read[1], they had an infographic where they measured the average number of comments below articles on a number of unrelated topics it took for Brexit to be mentioned. The figures were mostly below 10 (and look at me, bringing up Brexit in this unrelated issue!) 1: https://www.slow-journalism.com/infographics/culture/infographic-can-british-people-talk-about-anything-other-than-brexit https://www.slow-journalism.com/infographics/culture/infogra...

37 points by bauc 8y ago

setquk 8y ago

MPs who don’t understand the power distribution logistics and lack of capacity problems we have here...

PuffinBlue 8y ago
What are you talking about?
Symbiote 8y ago
Or MPs who think those problems can be solved in 12 years rather than 22.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  MP's who have no technical scientific education apart from odd stand outs like Mrs Thatcher or these days Chi Onwurah. Mrs T allegedly questioned the civil servants pushing the rush to Diesel 30 years ago.
  - Symbiote 8y ago
    Most parts of possible problems have political, social, legal, economic and technical parts. A big technical issue is around battery capabilities, but other issues are stuck with a lack of funding, political will, gaps in the legal system. For example, installing places for people renting or living in flats to charge cars, or reducing car demand by increasing walking/cycling.
    - C1sc0cat 8y ago
      Its all very well saying "you peasant chappie" stop using your car its back to the omnibus for you - but the punters don't like it.
simonbarker87 8y ago
This is touted out so much but switching cars over to EVs would require the grid to be increased less than 50% as EVs use about 30% the energy of a combustion engine. Given that most cars will be charged over night the reality is that it would be less than this.
- skgoa 8y ago
  Currently all BEVs charge at their maximum rate the moment they are connected to the charger. Which almost always happens in late afternoon or early evening. I.e. the exact time when the energy usage is at a peak already. While there are many ideas regarding how this load can be pushed into the dead of night, nothing concrete has even been proposed, yet. So I wouldn't dismiss this issue that quickly, especially when we are talking about a (theoretical) rapid adoption of BEVs.
  - mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
    Ummm, a timer to allow charging at certain time only? Seems pretty simple to me.
    - skgoa 8y ago
      A simple timer isn't enough. You would want the chargers to be networked, so that the power company can optimize the load. That's not impossible, but it also doesn't exist, yet.
      - robjan 8y ago
        The UK power grid (which this article is talking about) is being converted to a smart grid. All new electric meters report their usage continuously which can be used to discover usage patterns. I imagine that chargers would also be connected to smart meters.
        makomk 8y ago
        As it currently stands, most of the installed base of smart meters can't even communicate to electricity companies other than the one that originally installed them, so I'd say that's a long way off.

CalRobert 8y ago

I have a hard time imagining how somebody could be opposed to this and pretend they have anything but selfish motivations. Emissions kill people. They kill the elderly. They kill people with asthma. They give people cancer. Your car is an instrument of death even if you don't hit anyone. Parts of the UK have appallingly bad air quality (by regional standards; obviously it's not Beijing). People are dying en masse but because you can't see it and say "my car was the one that killed them" most people just. don't. care. Also the majority of trips are short enough to be done via bike or ebike if you give people safe routes to do so, something the UK has been completely unwilling to do.

ddorian43 8y ago
You fix things by working from the top of highest offenders. Something tells me it's not the average people.
- mtgx 8y ago
  Fixing the climate change problem should have always involved systemic solutions - i.e. bans on diesel vehicles, high carbon prices, etc, not stuff like "use less water in your home." But since most governments are corrupt/can get paid by those rich companies they are trying to regulate, the former has also been the most difficult to implement.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  As a population car users represent a massive amount of emmisions. Removing that would be one of the highest offenders.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Indeed - so focusing on large companies selling devices causing massive destruction makes perfect sense.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Oil companies are the biggest polluters and contributors to climate change. By severely reducing the amount of fossil fuel vehicles on the roads, we lessen the demand for fossil fuels, and reduce pollution. Big cargo ships should also be targeted, they burn significantly worse grades of fuel, and pollute a lot more.

lixtra 8y ago

Why not raise tax instead of banning? You can tax cars and fuel. You can make a predictable scheme for the next 20 years (i.e. fuel will raise about 4% per year,...) This gives the economy time to adopt. But please no exceptions.

fredley 8y ago
Because this disproportionally affects people who have no other alternative. Rich city people can switch to electric cars without changing habits that much, there are charging points everywhere and they're building lots more all the time. Go to Cornwall though and it's a very different picture. You need to get all these more remote regions as wired up as central London _before_ introducing any taxation, or make exceptions while you're building the infra.
- crc32 8y ago
  You could build up e.g. Cornwall (through subsidy) with the revenue from the tax.
  - fredley 8y ago
    You could, but people would be pissed about being taxed to pay for something they don't have yet (and hence have no way to avoid the tax). While it might be a sensible strategy for raising the money it would be political suicide.
    - crc32 8y ago
      let's flesh it out a bit then. Op said "You can make a predictable scheme for the next 20 years (i.e. fuel will raise about 4% per year,...)" So how about investing in Cornwall now, borrowing against the 20 year revenue stream from the tax.
    - lixtra 8y ago
      So how are they better of by banning cars in 10 or 20 years? Communities can also take loans to build out infrastructure now and pay with the transition tax levied a bit later. As too political suicide, there are three types of voters: a) those that believe petrol cars should be banned b) those that do not want to give up their cars ever c) those that think cars should be banned but not for them now. Therefore: a) should be happy with an immediate tax ladder as it creates incentive to move now b) will never be happy. c) if that is the majority of your voters it’s still better to have a a gradual change now then a sudden change in the future. They could just overturn your decision in the future just before the planned sudden change. If MPs urge for a change that is more than one election away they are hypocrites and shouldn’t be MPs. Obviously some changes take a long time to bear fruits, but the change has to be immediate and gradual.

nemodmarg 8y ago

Electric cars seems like such an obvious answer for so many issues, but still outside of US it is pretty much impossible to find a reliable and affordable options.

PuffinBlue 8y ago
Rest of the world is doing alright thanks. Ioniq, Kone, Nissan Leaf, Renault Zoe, BMW i3, e-up, e-golf etc etc. You can even get iPace or the e-tron will also be out next year. Some I've listed are more expensive than others, but you cannot possibly suggest the Renault Zoe or Nissan Leaf aren't affordable or reliable. The model 3 will be here soon too, who knows what will be here in 14 years!

WordyMcWordface 8y ago

I have a hard time imagining an electric car working for me. There are two charging points within a 2-mile radius and I cannot park within about 15 meters of my house so it is just impossible to charge one. Hydrogen or something where I can still go to a "filling station" might work. Right now I view electric cars as a tax break for anyone lucky/rich enough to have a driveway. This might all change in a few years but I doubt there will ever be enough charging points on local roads.

jstanley 8y ago
Before there were petrol stations everywhere, it would have been hard to imagine a car working better than a horse. And yet here we are.
- fredley 8y ago
  But you still can't put the cart before the horse. Tax people who don't switch to a viable, cleaner alternative from dinosaur-burning vehicles, but not before you've made that alternative viable in the first place. Much (most?) of the UK is not ready for full switchover yet.
  - Swenrekcah 8y ago
    2032 is still 14 years away which is a long time. And according to the article it’s even then just about banning the sale of new vehicles. This should be completely doable if the UK puts half a mind to it.
    - fredley 8y ago
      Unfortunately the UK does not have half a mind to spare, and won't for a few years at least. One of the less noticable side-effects of Brexit is that it totally dominates the entire political landscape, to the exclusion of other issues. In a news magazine I read[1], they had an infographic where they measured the average number of comments below articles on a number of unrelated topics it took for Brexit to be mentioned. The figures were mostly below 10 (and look at me, bringing up Brexit in this unrelated issue!) 1: https://www.slow-journalism.com/infographics/culture/infographic-can-british-people-talk-about-anything-other-than-brexit https://www.slow-journalism.com/infographics/culture/infogra...