32 ms·
Britain to ban new petrol cars and vans by 2030 on road to net zero emissions
- trollied 6y agoDiscussion from 3 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25101766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25101766
- numpad0 6y agoTwo top comments there are made by one same account and the topmost is about “anti-EV sentiment [being] so strongly held”. Understandable a dupe had to be made, can’t discuss where these robots prevail.
- matsemann 6y ago- Am I so out of touch? No, it must be everyone else who are wrong! Or in your case, just accusing them of being bots..
- adrianN 6y agoThis is a necessary step to becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Countries that don't make similar announcements soon are not serious about that goal.
- raxxorrax 6y agoA lot of people might buy cheap used cars in 2029 that might be on the road till 2040-2050. If he is serious about it, which is rare when officials promise something 10 years into the future, he would suggest a plan to provide the needed infrastructure.
- danparsonson 6y agoWhat's the alternative? Destroy all petrol and diesel cars in 2029? If they didn't allow a transition period then it wouldn't go well.
- hannob 6y agoMandate a switch to e-fuels. Start with "all fossil-based fuels need to add 1% of synthetic e-fuels next year" and increase it to 100% over time. You can still drive your ICE car, but it'll become expensive.
- srg0 6y agoHow do synthetic fuels solve the CO2 problem?
- raxxorrax 6y agoDidn't want to say it was a bad idea, just that EV have to become viable for the general population and that is currently not the case because of the higher price. Very high taxes on fuel would also incentivize people to buy EV. I don't use a car much that is why I have a used one for ~2500$. I know a mechanic for cheap repairs, I need it occasionally to reach friends and family and public transport is not an option since time has become so valuable and it doesn't work for emergencies. I would not want to spend 20,000$ on a car because it would just be parked most of the time. Especially among younger people I see this very often. It will be interesting to see EVs hit used markets. My company leases cars for 50,000$ without thinking twice and some people just love cars that much, but that isn't realistic for the vast majority of people. Currently used EV can cost 25,000$. Not viable for the mass market.
- adrianN 6y agoThe median age of cars on the road is 10 years or so. While it's true that there is a long tail of very old cars, it's unlikely that many of them will be around by 2050, especially if fuel infrastructure becomes sparser due to lack of demand.
- lovemenot 6y agoIf so, their second-hand price will increase accordingly. Until this aporoach becomes uneconomic for the majority. In the meantime, any new carbon tax would also work against this approach.
- Tade0 6y agoJoke's on them, because nowadays cars are made with a focus on the first owner's experience - some parts have become more expensive and integrated, so keeping an ICE vehicle running in 2050 is going to cost a fortune.
- concerned_user 6y agoYou forget that currently road maintenance and other expenses are taken from the petrol tax when share of EV increases there will have to be a tax on charging so total cost of ownership over all the years of owning EV will start to go up.
- PopeDotNinja 6y agoI’m not sure about the economics of it, but I’d rather drive a car powered by synthetic gasoline made from pulling carbon dioxide out of the air. No new CO2 combined with no restrictions on range & quick refueling times sounds like a win. I still don’t know where people will plug in all of these electric cars.
- adrianN 6y agoThe economics are such that it probably won't work out. EVs are >85% efficient from wind turbine to movement. Making synthetic fuel is at best 40% efficient from electricity->fuel and the ICE only translates <30% of that to movement. We probably don't have enough room for turbines and solar panels to produce the necessary power.
- XorNot 6y agoEhh...we get a stupid huge amount of sunlight from the sun daily, and the benefit of synthetic fuel is that it's a lot easier to store long term then electrical energy in batteries. I think the main issue is that it's a lot easier to convert diesel's to run on alternative fuel oils then it is to get gasoline vehicles to do the same.
- frenchy 6y agoIf you can devise a way of synthesizing gasoline from CO2 in the atmosphere that doesn't require a huge amount of solar energy and/or a few million years, you'll be a very popular person. It's a matter of fighting against the laws of thermodynamics.
- naskwo 6y agoIsn't Britain the geological definition (https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-great-britain-and-the-united-kingdom https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-betwee...) and should the title not be "UK to ban..."?
- valleyer 6y agoIt's pretty common to use "Britain" (usually not "Great Britain", though) as shorthand for "the UK state". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name)#Modern_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name)#Modern_us... > The term Britain is widely used as a common name for the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, or UK for short.
- Jaruzel 6y agoAs a Brit[1] this convention still irks me. Maybe we should just be American about it, and call the whole of the UK 'England', and pretend Scotland is it's own country? /s --- [1] Yes, I get the irony of calling myself a 'Brit', but 'Uker' just doesn't sound right.
- headmelted 6y agoUker sounds so very Farage of you to be fair.
- rightbyte 6y agoAre not Scotland, Wales and England each countries though?
- scarygliders 6y agoThey are not sovereign countries. Both Scotland and England gave up their sovereign status when the Acts of Union were enacted, to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Basically, Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland, are nations which comprise the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is the sovereign state.
- dariosalvi78 6y agothis should have been done 10 years ago, but anyway, it's a good move. Waiting to see the EU doing the same.
- xendo 6y agoi don't follow the space closely, but from my brief research it seems that 10 years ago there were almost no alternatives to petrol cars. On what premise do you think it would've been reasonable to ban petrol cars in that situation?
- speedgoose 6y agoI think his point is that we should have got electric cars a long time ago.
- dariosalvi78 6y agowell, electric cars were invented in the late 1800, so it's a matter of market more than technology. If we had this policy launched 10 years ago the market would have been way different now. Even considering the same market offers as we have had without the policy: hybrid cars exist since late 90s and the first fully electric cars were already available 10 years ago. It could have been done.
- obilgic 6y agoI don't think anyone will be prefer non-electric cars in 3-5 years anyways
- waynesonfire 6y agoGuess you got three to 20 years to sell that gas guzzler before nobody will buy it?
- 8draco8 6y agoFor years people will prefer non-electric cars. From a perspective of someone with his own driveway this is a nobrainer to have electric car but many people in EU live in apartment blocks and there is simply no infrastructure there to charge all necessary cars. I will be able to say that "no one should have a reason to drive petrol car" when 0-100 charge time will be around 15 minutes.
- headmelted 6y agoOr inexpensive (to install, not to use) and widespread charging becomes available in most locations. A normal 13A socket will charge my Leaf in about 12 hours. The 8 hours of charge I’d get from plugging in at a parking bay during work hours would likely be enough for most people, but we have no current infrastructure for billing people at that scale (although I imagine it could easily be developed, still a massive undertaking to roll out widely in cities though). We’d also need to be able to provide the massive increases in grid energy that would be required for that. Nuclear seems like it would be a good use case for this but that still seems like it would be a tough sell, even now.
- barnacled 6y agoFor me I'd like the govt to address this and indicate how they intend to do so (most parking in the UK is on-street) - it's a huge infrastructure project.
- headmelted 6y ago
- 8draco8 6y agoPersonally I can live with electric car in UK but electric VANs will be much bigger trouble because they are heavy and can't hold that much cargo. There is a lot of restrictions in law and infrastructure that limits usage of vehicles to under 3.5t
- robin_reala 6y agoRenault Master Z.E. is either 3.1t or 3.5t and comes in a bunch of configurations: https://www.renault.co.uk/electric-vehicles/master-ze/specifications.html?bodyTypeCode=PT1261_panel_van https://www.renault.co.uk/electric-vehicles/master-ze/specif...
- Hamuko 6y ago>The real life estimates of 75 miles in Summer and 50 miles in Winter also give an insight of how powerful these batteries are, reducing your need to be constantly charging your vehicle and allowing you to enjoy the ride! Isn't that pretty shit?
- huhnmonster 6y agoThat is, well..., rather bad. I imagine if this trend prevails in the future, we will see your plumber asking you if he can charge his transporter and deducting their charging cost from your invoice.
- sbierwagen 6y agoLousy compared to a van with a full tank of petrol. On the other hand, https://www.quora.com/How-many-miles-per-day-does-a-FedEx-or-UPS-driver-drive-on-average https://www.quora.com/How-many-miles-per-day-does-a-FedEx-or... >Originally Answered: how many miles per day does a FedEx or UPS driver drive on average? That answer varies from hub to hub, route to route. In my hub, there are several routes that average maybe 5 miles a day total, whereas the route I run averages 75-80 miles a day.
- robin_reala 6y agoLi-ion battery capacity has tripled in a decade[1]. If that continues at the same pace (big if of course) then by 2030 the same van could have 150-225 miles of range. [1] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-ion-battery-cell-densities-have-almost-tripled-since-2010/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/19/bloombergnef-lithium-io...
- jcvhaarst 6y agoRather late to the party in Europe : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_veh...
- Mvandenbergh 6y agoIs it? Most of those countries are also at 2030 with just two in the 2020s. Admittedly that table is way out date.
- foxreymann 6y agowith the way UK is doing nobody will afford a car in 2030. maybe people on benefits, surely not the working ones
- LatteLazy 6y agoThis perfectly epitomises the uk (and the rest of the worlds) attitude to global warming: * it's a non binding commitment to do something but not for at least a decade * it's not enough even if it does happen * it will be too late by then (it probably already is for anything but drastic action) * it's totally at the whim of future governments who will be no more willing to spend the money/time/popularity than the current unwilling government * people will eat it up with a spoon and act like this is a real thing and a sign of progress and a victory This is the same as my committing to start my diet, by giving up one specific thing, but not for a decade, after my doctor told me I gave 6m to lose weight or die. And to celebrate I'll eat two pizzas and 4 litres of soda, for breakfast.
- anovikov 6y agoBut on the other hand, this IS indeed a super drastic action and we can't expect any nation on Earth apart from possibly, a few city-states like Singapore, to do as much in the same time frame. Petrol cars will be mainstay of transportation for about 40-50 years and will dominate new car sales for at least 20-30 years depending on the country. Anything but classic petrol and diesel cars will still hold tiny market shares 10 years down the road almost everywhere. I mean, the climate change situation is hopeless. Some measures may be taken in the name of it, and they are important, but they are mainly a side action: for example, they do a lot to suppress oil-funded dictatorships like Russia or Saudi Arabia - people won't support the measures if they were directed at that openly, but if it's about climate, they are a lot easier to sell. But, we have to just admit that the global warming will proceed and probably faster than even the worst estimates predict, and just plan accordingly out of this assumption. It is too profitable to mine and use fossil fuels, any large nation trying to stop doing so will be competed out of existence by those who don't (and they will have way lower energy efficiency so will displace your uncompetitive products with theirs, in the end INCREASING overall emissions), and largest polluters are nuclear powers so you can't even force them to stop by military action. Just see where the climate will stand when 3x of the current extractable reserves of fossil fuels are burned (because technology will develop and a lot of new reserves will become available which are now not). And plan for that level of global temperatures, precipitation and sea levels. It will happen, and the nations that win are those who plan in advance.
- physicsguy 6y agoMany, many houses do not have anything other than on-street parking here. Since 2012 I've lived in 5 houses, and three of them had no driveway. I'm currently buying a house which has no drive way, with no way of fitting one. Apparently 1/3 houses have only on street parking. Unless they also provide huge, huge grants to rapidly implement dense onstreet charging, and fast, this is a pipedream and will end up getting pushed back. Edit: To evaluate the scale of how difficult it is to implement on street parking - go and have a look out of your own window in a built up area and count the number of lamp posts and the corresponding number of cars. Right now (9:35am), in a pretty built up area, I can see three lamp posts on my own street, and eighteen cars parked on the road. One of those lamp posts is located where it's illegal to park because of double yellow lines. I currently live in a rented flat at the moment, and that has another 25 car parking spaces. To get charging points located there would require a number of disparately located and willing landlords to agree to wire up the car park for electric charging too.
- ehnto 6y agoSome places here you get no street parking, and if you're building you need a minimum amount of spots for cars in the plans. In some parts of Japan, when you buy a new car the dealership has to get confirmation from police that you have a designated parking spot. They come around and measure it, then get back to the dealership who then gets to sell you the car. I'm sure now they sometimes have records and stuff they can go off but the gist is the city won't be providing space for your car, it's up to you.
- ChrisRR 6y agoI agree. My previous flat had parking about 50 metres away. The previous, people just parked anywhere on the road. I bet they won't be installing charging points at every random location on a road that anyone could possible park on
- cmdkeen 6y agoI live in Edinburgh, one of the more car-unfriendly cities in the UK and recently bought a Model 3. I park on the street, the city has gone nowhere with its plans to provide on street chargers. Yet it isn't a problem, despite a relative lack of public chargers compared to elsewhere in the country it is still perfectly feasible. I've tweaked my habits to go to the supermarket that has a charger in the car park, when planning what to do at the weekend I check nearby charging locations. Business locations can acquire visitors by offering them, and there's all sorts of upsell benefits. A garden centre that has one might get me to stay and visit their cafe if I know I'm going to be there for an hour for instance.
- mister_hn 6y agoI hope that with these bans, actually the government will take action on the high prices of electric vehicles and on the charging infrastructure. A middle-size car can't cost € 40.000 (without batteries!), a lot of people can't afford them.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoI know that decent electric cars will drop in price over time, but I don't know if they'll become in reach. I also am not convinced the secondhand market will be any good in the next decade, batteries have a limited lifespan and will need to be replaced eventually. You can buy a beater for <1000 pounds which can still work just fine for a few years, I don't see that happening with electric cars.
- mister_hn 6y agoI don't see a huge price drop before 2027-2028 at least. EV feel like "luxury" ones because they are new. A VW ID.3 costs like a Mercedes Class E, which can be considered a high standard.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago> the government will take action on the high prices of electric vehicles and on the charging infrastructure Why spend money on access to more vehicles instead of improving public transport. If we are serious about the environment and the whole 3x R's, we should treat vehicles as the luxury that they are. If you have to commute between your remote farm and your nearest city sure maybe there should be a government incentive. But if you are within an urban setting incentivizing more vehicles (eletric or otherwise) is not a good government investment in my view. I think a big issue with people that say that public transit doesn't work for their particular use-case, or their logistics, or their 5 kids, is because they never experienced high quality, high frequency, reliable public transit. This is arguably a near impossible task in Automotive-centric North and South America but it is absolutely feasible in Europe, Asia, and Africa.
- fogihujy 6y ago
- ragoler 6y agoI hope that the US follow soon. Well, we need to wait for January 20 to let the global warming denier go home
- barnacled 6y agoThis is utterly ridiculous. I live in the UK and have been renting for many years, I've lived at 15+ addresses and not at a single one could I have powered the car from home. Not one. The UK is small, cars are squeezed onto tiny roads and most people do on-street parking, i.e. you park where you can. When I last had a car I could only park around the corner from my flat (which was set far back from the road). Having off-street parking is a luxury here that only a small % of people have, and even then if you have a block of flats it still makes charging from home more or less practically impossible. Unless the govt intend to install charging points at every car parking spot on every residential road in the entire country in 9 years (!) or whatever the full timeline they have in their minds for everybody to have electric then this is not feasible. That's not to mention the fact that charging electric cars requires very significant current to do so in a reasonable timeframe. Electrical substations in the UK simply could not cope with anything close to full electric car deployment without the entire electrical network being upgraded. And this is before we get on to practicality issues around cars breaking down, longer trips or how petrol stations might be used given charge time. I think there is some kind of shared delusion that this is some easy way of reducing CO2 emissions. It's not easy, and there are very big questions and trade-offs that nobody appears able to address. Before people suggest 'well people need to use public transport then' - while the UK has better public transport than e.g. much of the US (I went to Austin without a car once, that was tough) - outside of London public transport is extremely expensive, very very unreliable (our trains for example are the most expensive and least reliable in all of Europe), slow and entirely impractical for many areas. I am not anti-electric car, in fact I wouldn't mind using one (that acceleration, consistent torque, so much more reliable) - it's just there are huge practical issues that the govt seem never to address. I personally think the appropriate compromise is to move forward with very efficient hybrid vehicles.
- crispyporkbites 6y ago> I personally think the appropriate compromise is to move forward with very efficient hybrid vehicles. which is exactly what this legislation allows for
- barnacled 6y ago
- bjoernbu 6y agoI really wonder about the charging infrastrucuture. I guess it is doable and a necessary transmission, but I am a bit afraid it may be the next thing some countries are sleeping on. As a German, there are serious subsidies for home owners to install one right now. However, I just moved into a new rental apparment and visiteted quite a few places that were all built in 2020. All of them had very nice parking spaces allocaed to the flat, but zero wallboxes for the entire appartment. I also looked into buying a flat and often it would have been difficult, sometimes even impossible to install one on my own behalf wihtout checking with all other buyers (and these kinds of changes often lead to tedious legal fights, afaik). The place I'm moving to doesn't have one either, but the ladlord will install one, once needed. At the moment I still have a car with a diesel engine and no plans to change soon(I go almost everywhere by bike, even have a different one for rainly days and to carry groceries, and do 0-2 longer trips per month and ~1 very long trip for vacation per year, bike + diesel seems to fit that quite well) soon, but the next car will be electric i guess To make things worse: The overall power comsumption should not be too much of a problem, but if almost vehicle was electric and charged where people live, the power infrastructure could be in serious trouble. If improving it in remote areas goes anywhere as well as FTTC/FTTH internet, we're headed for disaster. There are a lot of interesting ideas, e.g. decentralized batteries within people's homes and renewables. But if all the focus is on changing the cars on the road, I have little hope that other transitions will be quick enough
- DrBazza 6y agoAt least this is only banning new cars at the moment. But electric cars don't have a guaranteed real-world range of over 350 miles, the same as a tank of fuel, cost the same as petrol models, and charge as quickly as you can fill it with petrol. If the latter was solved petrol stations could be converted to charging points in cities, reducing the need for on-street charging points. And the charging requirements for all those cars, requires a massive investment in the national grid, practically doubling capacity if we ever get all 25 million registered vehicles electric. Twice as many power stations than we currently have, twice as many wind turbines and so on.
- kjksf 6y agoA few counterpoints. You don't need 350 miles of range, especially in England, which is 200 miles coast-to-coast. Average yearly mileage in UK is 9.2 k miles, which is 766 miles per month which is 2.1 full charges at 350 miles. Current estimates are that electric cars will achieve cost parity with ICE cars by 2025. Possibly much sooner given than Tesla is planning $25k car in 2022. Model 3's Total Cost of Ownership is already at par with Honda Civic if you consider cost of gas vs. cost of electricity. While charging is slower than pumping gas and deprives you the pleasure of inhaling oil fumes, most charging happens at home. And finally the bogus "massive investment" argument. Starbucks is truly heart broken every time they need to "massively invest" in opening new store. Oil execs are driven to the brink of suicide every time oil demand spike and they have invest into drilling more holes in the ground. Finally, solar energy producers and grid operators cry themselves to sleep in order to forget how much more money they'll make by selling more energy.
- DrBazza 6y ago> You don't need 350 miles of range I drive south-coast to Northumberland, weekly. I don't want to spend 30 minutes plus waiting for the car to charge 2 or 3 times on during the journey, assuming there's even a free charger. Using an electric vehicle, with the current range, would make my 365(!) mile journey about 2 hours longer than it already is. I'm not an outlier either. We have friends and family that do London to Edinburgh weekly, or fortnightly, and often further. As for " bogus "massive investment" argument" that's a bogus-bogus statement. Sorry. We need to double the energy generation in this country to go fully EV and replace all new, and old registered vehicles (there's 25 million registered with the DVLA). We need to additionally add charging points to homes, and on-street. On-street is the worst - can you imagine digging up every street in inner London that has residents with cars to satisfy 'all EV in new cars by 2030'?
- detaro 6y agopreviously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25101766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25101766
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- feralimal 6y agoWhere is the climate emergency? Can someone show me something I can see? Sea levels haven't risen. There are more small birds around where I live than when I was younger. Things seem to be doing ok. I am a skeptic and I'm very far from trusting experts. I don't want to be in a state of belief, I want to know. But I am put in a position that I must take it on trust that it is real. Is carbon dioxide bad? Surely, it would just make trees grow. In reverse, if we had more oxygen in the air we would be more active. How is it that in the 70s we were told we were going into a mini ice age? On the other hand, I can lay my hands on documents that indicate the Club of Rome and other organisations, want to use climate change as a lever to change the world. I mean, how does coronavirus relate to climate change, such that we cannot go back to normal, unless we take all these actions? So, for me, climate change and corona virus are a means to get everyone (almost) on board with re-sculpting the world, to suit those who own the big corporations and run those organisations like the UN, WEF, etc. It is an excuse to usher in a technocracy where those who own everything are able to micro-manage every detail of our lives - where we go, how much electricity or water we use, what job we do, etc, etc. Frankly its dystopian. Its also blinkered to talk about climate change in isolation of how this issue serves the mega-plans that are in place.
- mindracer 6y agoSea levels have risen and will continue to rise because of climate change - https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
- jw1224 6y agoSea levels absolutely have risen. Here’s the data from NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
- feralimal 6y agoThanks for those posting data from NASA and NOAA. I know you will think that I'm being outrageous not to trust the data from those organisations, but I don't. I see all - ALL - the organisations as acting in interests that are not mine. I do not want to get into an anarchy conversation, but I think it is self-evident that governmental structures are about control. What is requested in posting this 'scientific' data, is that I deny the evidence of my own senses. What I would really like anecdotal evidence, preferably supported by photos. Personally, all the beaches I went to in my youth have water at the same level. I appreciate there is erosion, as there is also the depositing of new material elsewhere. What can you give personal testimony on? PS Do you see and accept that when you take the science data on trust, your are actually taking a religious position? The position is that the science is right, even if it doesn't cohere with your own senses. That is faith!
- chuckSu 6y agoI suppose I need to by that big V8 I always wanted before it’s too late
- turing_complete 6y agoI am not sure if that is good idea. With carbon-free energy and carbon-capture you can have the efficiency and energy density carbon fuels and net zero emissions at the same time.
- acallaghan 6y agoYou can't keep burning fossil fuels and expect to deal with climate change
- brainzap 6y agoBy 2040 climate will be so hot food will stop coming to the cities.
- speedgoose 6y agoI'm so surprised to read so many people complaining on HN. I live in Oslo where electric cars are normal and everything is fine. It changes a few habits and these cars are not cheap brand new yet but I really don't see a problem. If it's going to be a challenge in 10 years, because they are still too expensive or it's too complex to install power plugs for example, it will simply be delayed. UK is very good at delaying things.
- AntiImperialist 6y agoNo, everything is not fine in Norway. Norway invested a lot on Tesla and to help their investment, they removed taxes and tolls on EVs. Most of Norway's electricity comes from hydropower and they have been building wind farms lately. Meanwhile, Norway's entire economy basically relies on selling crude oil. So, it has been "donating" a lot to anti-oil interests in the U.S. so that the oil prices remain high enough for them to justify more oil exploration. As a counter response, the U.S. has been supporting Greenpeace Norway to try to stop oil exploration in Norway. The whole thing is a clown show. The only one who is benefiting from this is China. It produces most of the rare earth minerals required for EVs, makes all of EV parts and makes all the wind turbines.
- speedgoose 6y agoThe VAT has been removed in 2001, the tolls in 1997. Tesla has been created in 2003, but they didn't sell much in Norway until 2013. https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/ https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/ No one will deny that Norway's wealth is related to the oil industry, but no Norway is not relying on selling crude oil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Norway I don't know about the funding's of anti-oil interests in the US, do you mean they are not funding competitors but companies that may benefit Norway ? For sure China is doing well on the electric vehicle supply chain, but China isn't the only country making EV parts. Far from that.
- AntiImperialist 6y ago>I don't know about the funding's of anti-oil interests in the US, do you mean they are not funding competitors but companies that may benefit Norway ? No, they fund politicians and lobbies. For example, they funded the Clinton Foundation to buy political favors... which they cut significantly after Clinton lost the 2016 election. The idea was to get the Democrats to push back on fracking, so that the Norwegian oil remains relevant for a longer time. https://www.thelocal.no/20160704/norways-funding-of-clinton-foundation-under-scrutiny https://www.thelocal.no/20160704/norways-funding-of-clinton-...
- obayesshelton 6y agoJust wait for the TAX that they put on the electric cars and driving them.
- ppf 6y agoI have so many issues with this, as it is just greenwashing at its worst. For a start - the latest EURO emissions regulations already make it practically impossible to sell a new ICE-only car. At this rate, ICE-only new cars will already be a rarity by 2030. The "net zero emissions" is only if the electricity used to power those EVs is generated from renewable sources (and I'm not sure how much further installation potential the UK has for those sources). Unless we return to nuclear power (which brings its own debate), the overall lifecycle CO2 benefit of EVs and hybrids as they stand is minimal. I also really dislike the blinkered focus on CO2 as the only variable to optimise. Sourcing the lithium and other minerals necessary for EVs is extremely problematic, and lithium battery recycling has yet to be proven at all viable. Some initial research also suggests that heavy demands are going to be placed on lithium reserves. The net result of this is that manufacturers will make hybrids that just about meet the legislated "green" requirements, meaning all new cars will bring the worst of both worlds to the road. In the "green" new future of Britain's transport, everyone will be driving bloated hybrid SUVs. Finally - for the "EVs are great because they only have one moving part!" crowd - how many cars have you sold or scrapped due to electronics faults, compared to ICE faults? The only remotely sustainable form of motorised transport is an ebike (or maybe a bike with a tiny petrol engine), if you really take this whole argument at face value. Edit: Nearly forgot (which is odd, given the actual enormity of this point) - the UK grid in no way can handle any significant increase in pure EV usage. There would have to be significant investment, and new systems manufactured, for this to even be viable. As I said, I suspect that the solution that will actually be used is hybrid cars.
- chatzi 6y agoExcellent comment, makes me sad that no-one seems to be talking about the effects of mining for the electric car minerals
- asenk 6y ago>The overall lifecycle CO2 benefit of EVs and hybrids as they stand is minimal. That's simply not true. >Net emission reductions from electric cars and heat pumps in 59 world regions over time >..We show that already under current carbon intensities of electricity generation, electric cars and heat pumps are less emission intensive than fossil-fuel-based alternatives in 53 world regions, representing 95% of the global transport and heating demand. Even if future end-use electrification is not matched by rapid power-sector decarbonization, it will probably reduce emissions in almost all world regions. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0488-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0488-7
- lkramer 6y agoThis seems like a relatively cheap promise to make. The auto industry is already moving towards this model (or full EV), likely by 2030 the production of pure petrol cars will be very limited. Including hybrids in what is allowed makes this at best unambitious. Where the UK is really moving is with windpower, they were a bit slow to get started, when you consider that the UK is probably one of the prime locations for windpower, but they are now catching up: https://www.power-technology.com/projects/hornsea-project-one-north-sea/ https://www.power-technology.com/projects/hornsea-project-on... Of course, they are not first movers, and while the UK could have been a pioneers in green technology, they are now relying on foreigner partners (Danish Orsted for construction and German Siemens for the Turbines).
- dalbasal 6y agoMy thoughts on this are a mixed bag. First, naturally, is skepticism at far off dates. OOH, these things do really need time to work. OOH, the zero-emissions date is 2050, post-singularity Second is coordination. If the plan is "Once there are electric cars, we'll buy some." The industry's response will be "once it's cheap enough, we'll make some." That days seems to be coming anyway, but that really makes this a weak policy. My third thought is "industrial policy." That is, a policy that actually affects the availability and price performance of electric cars. If the policy is agreed, but doesn't meaningfully change what engineers are doing now, then it's not really affecting much. An actual industrial policy probably needs to act across a bigger market than UK only in order to actually affect timelines. All that said, I like it. A ban bootstrapped by cross subsidies is a far better way to go than carbon consumption taxes.
- vertis 6y agoMeanwhile in Australia: New electric vehicle taxes expected across Australia[1][2]. [1]: https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/electric-vehicle-taxes-expected-across-australia-20201111-p56djo https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/electric-vehicle-tax... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/11/south-australias-new-tax-on-electric-vehicles-ridiculed-as-a-big-tax-on-not-polluting https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/11/south-au...
- srg0 6y agoCountries which are no longer major automotive manufacturers can afford to accelerate the transition. Basically, they can just import different cars. The countries where automotive lobby is still influential, will have to adjust the transition period to keep their ICE industry happy. As for the charging infrastructure, I think it's easier to solve. It's not much more complicated than laying optical fiber everywhere. A massive undertaking, without doubt, but the revenue potential of the public charging is enormous. It's like building a network of gas stations, but without having to move fuel ever again.