UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030: FT

[Harley Lover]

It's not quite as onerous as the headline suggests:

Quote

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson plans to announce next week a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, five years earlier than previously planned, the Financial Times reported on Saturday. Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035. The FT said the new timetable was not expected to apply to some hybrid cars which use a mixture of electric and fossil fuel propulsion and could still be sold until 2035.

 

An interesting approach, allowing hybrids to be sold through the current deadline of 2035.

 

I wonder if we're going to start seeing a bit of a 'competition' amongst governments around the world to virtue signal on BEV's by moving deadlines forward in this manner. It's going to push automakers (and perhaps moreso battery makers) to amp up (get it?) their supply and work very hard to push down costs on batteries - the heart of the market cannot afford current BEV's with anything close to the range a current gas vehicle consumer expects.

 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Harley Lover

[rperez817]

3 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

I wonder if we're going to start seeing a bit of a 'competition' amongst governments around the world to virtue signal on BEV's by moving deadlines forward in this manner. 

 

That is inevitable. Both governments as well as automakers (whose industry is heavily regulated) around the world recognize the fact that the ICE age for automobiles is coming to an end, and that their sustainability goals depend on making the transition to 100% electric vehicles as soon as possible. 

 

This is a competition worth having.

 

 

[akirby]

3 hours ago, Harley Lover said:

It's not quite as onerous as the headline suggests:

 

An interesting approach, allowing hybrids to be sold through the current deadline of 2035.

 

I wonder if we're going to start seeing a bit of a 'competition' amongst governments around the world to virtue signal on BEV's by moving deadlines forward in this manner. It's going to push automakers (and perhaps moreso battery makers) to amp up (get it?) their supply and work very hard to push down costs on batteries - the heart of the market cannot afford current BEV's with anything close to the range a current gas vehicle consumer expects.

 

The truth is a PHEV with a 50 mile range would probably run on battery 80-90% of the time with overnight home charging but with zero range anxiety or inconvenience on long trips.   If the goal is to reduce gasoline usage and emissions then this is the most effective solution right now.  But it doesn’t fit the green agenda so they ignore it and insist that everything go BEV which requires government mandates.

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

The truth is a PHEV with a 50 mile range would probably run on battery 80-90% of the time with overnight home charging but with zero range anxiety or inconvenience on long trips.   If the goal is to reduce gasoline usage and emissions then this is the most effective solution right now.  But it doesn’t fit the green agenda so they ignore it and insist that everything go BEV which requires government mandates.

This.

Just switch from today's diesel cars to PHEVs and it's mostly job done for the UK government,

they don't have to wait until 2030 and the cost difference to consumers would be negligible.

 

A lot of the commuter travel in the UK is at low speeds which is perfect for the electric side running,

eliminating all of those ICEs idling along, wasting fuel and creating emissions. It's probably easier for

manufacturers to switch to PHEVs than full electric because the battery packs are much smaller and

easier to adapt to existing vehicle designs.

Edited November 14, 2020 by jpd80

[rperez817]

On 11/14/2020 at 11:25 AM, akirby said:

The truth is a PHEV with a 50 mile range would probably run on battery 80-90% of the time with overnight home charging but with zero range anxiety or inconvenience on long trips.   If the goal is to reduce gasoline usage and emissions then this is the most effective solution right now.  But it doesn’t fit the green agenda so they ignore it and insist that everything go BEV which requires government mandates.

 

Transport & Environment and Emissions Analytics in Europe released a study today that confirms what they, ICCT, and other organizations have found previously, that PHEV exist primarily for regulatory compliance. In the real world, they are not a good substitute for a true BEV and a very short term solution at best. 

https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2020_11_Plug-in_hybrids_report_final.pdf

https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/plug-hybrids-new-emissions-scandal-tests-show-higher-pollution-claimed

 

"

Plug-in hybrids are fake electric cars, built for lab tests and tax breaks, not real driving. Our tests show that even in optimal conditions, with a full battery, the cars pollute more than advertised. Unless you drive them softly, carbon emissions can go off the charts. Governments should stop subsidising these cars with billions in taxpayers’ money."

 

"Carmakers blame drivers for plug-in hybrids’ high emissions. But the truth is that most PHEVs are just not well made. They have weak electric motors, big, polluting engines, and usually can’t fast charge. The only way plug-ins are going to have a future is if we completely overhaul how we reward them in EU car CO2 tests and regulations. Otherwise PHEVs will soon join diesel in the dustbin of history."

 

[akirby]

Perfect example of a greenie publication whose only agenda is to sell more BEVs.

 

They’re talking about PHEVs with higher emissions in the real world than the government test ratings.  No different than folks here who get worse fuel economy than the EPA estimates because the test doesn’t match how most people drive,

 

Notice they don't compare PHEV to ICE vehicles because I guarantee you for people like me who only drive more than 20 miles a day a few times a month the difference is huge.  They also assume everyone who has a PHEV could buy a BEV but they’re ignoring the range issue and charge time on trips which will prevent a lot of people from buying BEVs regardless of what the public wants.

Edited November 24, 2020 by akirby

[rperez817]

35 minutes ago, akirby said:

They also assume everyone who has a PHEV could buy a BEV but they’re ignoring the range issue and charge time on trips which will prevent a lot of people from buying BEVs regardless of what the publication wants.

 

T&E is very influential on shaping environmental regulations Europe. They may be successful in getting regulations in EU and in the U.K. changed to eliminate tax breaks for PHEV and regular hybrid car purchases, and use the freed up resources to support the further build out of EV charging infrastructure including DC fast charging. This should address the range anxiety concerns some EU consumers have about BEV. 

 

Germany's plan to require all petrol and diesel stations to provide electric car charging for example will likely be emulated in other parts of EU and possibly U.K.

[FordBuyer]

There is nothing particularly clean about BEV's unless you charge it up with solar or wind power. My hybrid runs more than 60% of the time on electric only and doesn't need the power grid every night. Just 10-12 gallons of gas every 600 miles or so. 

[Footballfan]

On 11/14/2020 at 7:46 AM, Harley Lover said:

It's not quite as onerous as the headline suggests:

 

An interesting approach, allowing hybrids to be sold through the current deadline of 2035.

 

I wonder if we're going to start seeing a bit of a 'competition' amongst governments around the world to virtue signal on BEV's by moving deadlines forward in this manner. It's going to push automakers (and perhaps moreso battery makers) to amp up (get it?) their supply and work very hard to push down costs on batteries - the heart of the market cannot afford current BEV's with anything close to the range a current gas vehicle consumer expects.

 

 

The best contribution socialist idiots like Borris Johnson could do for the auto industry is to be used as a crash test dummy.  These idiot politicians arbitrarily set standards and move them up thinking it is as easy as flicking a switch not knowing the billions of dollars that it will cost automakers.  

 

On 11/14/2020 at 11:04 AM, rperez817 said:

 

That is inevitable. Both governments as well as automakers (whose industry is heavily regulated) around the world recognize the fact that the ICE age for automobiles is coming to an end, and that their sustainability goals depend on making the transition to 100% electric vehicles as soon as possible. 

 

This is a competition worth having.

 

 

 

Being so myopic about EVs is what will doom the industry.  Remember the early 1980s when everyone thought diesel was the way to go?  How did that work out?  Or the Roger Smith era of GM where their luxury cars were downsized to most automakers compacts?  How did that work out for GM?  

 

If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, there are more ways than EVs to do so.  Aside from the issues of range anxiety and charging times, and customer acceptance (or lack thereof), there are the political issues like the oil lobby and the revenue issues as to how taxes will be paid to fund roads with EVs.  At the end of the day, it will cost as much to charge an EV as it does to fill a gas tank.  

 

[Footballfan]

Comparing the UK to US in terms of transportation and EV acceptance is naïve.  The US is almost 40 times the size of the UK in terms of land mass, 6 times the size of the UK in terms of population, and sells as many as 6 times as many vehicles as the UK does.  

[Harley Lover]

46 minutes ago, Footballfan said:

Comparing the UK to US in terms of transportation and EV acceptance is naïve.  The US is almost 40 times the size of the UK in terms of land mass, 6 times the size of the UK in terms of population, and sells as many as 6 times as many vehicles as the UK does.  

 

No disagreement on any of your points, but -  none of which has stopped California and its sycophant states from prancing down the EV path. 

[Trailhiker]

All I know it that for every gallon of gas I buy, the state gets about 25 cents to repair roads and bridges.

Where will states get that money when gas is no longer sold?

[akirby]

32 minutes ago, Trailhiker said:

All I know it that for every gallon of gas I buy, the state gets about 25 cents to repair roads and bridges.

Where will states get that money when gas is no longer sold?

Ad Valorem/Registration taxes.  Already in place or being contemplated in many states.

[akirby]

9 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

T&E is very influential on shaping environmental regulations Europe. They may be successful in getting regulations in EU and in the U.K. changed to eliminate tax breaks for PHEV and regular hybrid car purchases, and use the freed up resources to support the further build out of EV charging infrastructure including DC fast charging. This should address the range anxiety concerns some EU consumers have about BEV. 

They have a BEV agenda and the only way to make that happen is through government regulation.

 

If they were honest and their goal was to reduce emissions then they would have shown the ICE equivalents in that graph and compared all 3 based on average drive cycles.  But they won’t do that because it would show the PHEVs are a huge improvement over ICE in the real world.

 

I understand you agree with their agenda but don’t slant the facts or regurgitate clearly biased articles.

[rperez817]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

They have a BEV agenda and the only way to make that happen is through government regulation.

 

If they were honest and their goal was to reduce emissions then they would have shown the ICE equivalents in that graph and compared all 3 based on average drive cycles.  But they won’t do that because it would show the PHEVs are a huge improvement over ICE in the real world.

 

T&E doesn't have a BEV agenda necessarily. According to their vision statement, a "zero-emission mobility system" is what they seek. As of now, BEV just happens to the best technology to achieve that.

 

The sale of new automobiles in the EU and the U.K., regardless of propulsion source, happens through government regulation. T&E's goal is to ensure that those regulations foster sustainability. Zero-emissions are an integral part. Here is what the About us page on T&E's website says.

 

Transport & Environment's (T&E) vision is a zero-emission mobility system that is affordable and has minimal impacts on our health, climate and environment.

Since we were created 30 years ago, T&E has shaped some of Europe’s most important environmental laws. We got the EU to set the world's most ambitious CO2 standards for cars and trucks but also helped uncover the dieselgate scandal; we campaigned successfully to end palm oil diesel; secured a global ban on dirty shipping fuels and the creation of the world's biggest carbon market for aviation - just to name a few. 

Credibility is our key asset. We are a non-profit organisation and politically independent. We combine the power of robust, science-based evidence and a deep understanding of transport with memorable communications and impactful advocacy.

Our staff in Brussels, Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Warsaw and London collaborate with our 63 national member and supporter organisations in 24 countries across Europe. All together our members and supporters represent more than 3.5 million people.

[akirby]

44 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

T&E doesn't have a BEV agenda necessarily. According to their vision statement, a "zero-emission mobility system" is what they seek. As of now, BEV just happens to the best technology to achieve that.

That is by definition a BEV agenda.  As opposed to having a goal of simply reducing emissions.  If option A is zero emissions but only works for 20% of buyers today whereas option B is a 80% reduction in emissions but works for 100% of buyers today, which is better right now?  

My neighbor had a Volt which is a 50 mile range PHEV.  He commuted about 40 miles each way every day and charged at work.  He bought 1 tank of gas every 6 months or so.  That is MASSIVE reduction in emissions without any range anxiety or charging issues.  It’s a smart transition product if your goal is to reduce emissions.

 

[tarheels23]

13 hours ago, akirby said:

Perfect example of a greenie publication whose only agenda is to sell more BEVs.

 

They’re talking about PHEVs with higher emissions in the real world than the government test ratings.  No different than folks here who get worse fuel economy than the EPA estimates because the test doesn’t match how most people drive,

 

Notice they don't compare PHEV to ICE vehicles because I guarantee you for people like me who only drive more than 20 miles a day a few times a month the difference is huge.  They also assume everyone who has a PHEV could buy a BEV but they’re ignoring the range issue and charge time on trips which will prevent a lot of people from buying BEVs regardless of what the public wants.

I liked your post and would add that, as a C-Max hybrid owner a PHEV would fit our driving style, we are retired and live close to family we wished we had gotten a PH instead.  Again they happen to fit our needs but probably not most.

[paintguy]

Good luck with generating the electricity needed for these BEVs.

[rperez817]

4 minutes ago, akirby said:

My neighbor had a Volt which is a 50 mile range PHEV.  He commuted about 40 miles each way every day and charged at work.  He bought 1 tank of gas every 6 months or so.  That is MASSIVE reduction in emissions without any range anxiety or charging issues.  It’s a smart transition product if your goal is to reduce emissions.

 

Second generation Chevrolet Volt was one of very few PHEV models with an AER of 50 miles or more. But most PHEV models currently available in U.K. and Europe have much lower AER.

[FordBuyer]

4 hours ago, Trailhiker said:

All I know it that for every gallon of gas I buy, the state gets about 25 cents to repair roads and bridges.

Where will states get that money when gas is no longer sold?

The CEO of Chevron recently said that only 25% of a barrel of oil actually is turned into gas for vehicles. The rest goes into making plastics, asphalt paving, vinyl products, and so on. So fossil fuel ain't going nowhere. 

[FordBuyer]

7 minutes ago, paintguy said:

Good luck with generating the electricity needed for these BEVs.

We just need a lot more fossil fuel belching power plants to charge them up. Yes, natural gas is cleaner, but it's still a fossil fuel and emits methane. We need to forget this idea of the end of fossil fuels. Ain't going to happen. Not in this century.

[FordBuyer]

1 hour ago, tarheels23 said:

I liked your post and would add that, as a C-Max hybrid owner a PHEV would fit our driving style, we are retired and live close to family we wished we had gotten a PH instead.  Again they happen to fit our needs but probably not most.

I have a hybrid, and the plugin Escape doesn't interest me. It costs more, is much heavier, and range of 600 miles is about the same. And I don't want to be plugging in all the time. And we own our own home and don't itemize deductions. A hybrid is my sweet spot

 

[bzcat]

7 hours ago, Footballfan said:

 

The best contribution socialist idiots like Borris Johnson could do for the auto industry is to be used as a crash test dummy.  These idiot politicians arbitrarily set standards and move them up thinking it is as easy as flicking a switch not knowing the billions of dollars that it will cost automakers.  

 

 

 

 

LoL I think you are very confused about the politics of Boris Johnson. He is the guy that pushed his Conservative party into Brexit because the supposed overreaching statist and socialist EU rules and regulations.

 

The thing that seem to confuse a lot of self-identified American conservatives is that climate change denial is not a globally accepted rightwing philosophy or political ideology. It is an uniquely US political posturing by one political party. Conservatives and rightwing populists like Boris Johnson very much take climate change seriously because they know their nation's economy depends on a successful transition to carbon neutral industries. There is broad consensus across the political spectrum in other country on climate change and the need to combat it. 

[FordBuyer]

15 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

Second generation Chevrolet Volt was one of very few PHEV models with an AER of 50 miles or more. But most PHEV models currently available in U.K. and Europe have much lower AER.

In my mind, the Volt is a much more viable vehicle than the Bolt. Too bad it didn't sell. But then the Bolt isn't a good seller either.

[FordBuyer]

1 minute ago, bzcat said:

 

LoL I think you are very confused about the politics of Boris Johnson. He is the guy that pushed his Conservative party into Brexit because the supposed overreaching statist and socialist EU rules and regulations.

 

The thing that seem to confuse a lot of self-identified American conservatives is that climate change denial is not a globally accepted rightwing philosophy or political ideology. It is an uniquely US political posturing by one political party. Conservatives and rightwing populists like Boris Johnson very much take climate change seriously because they know their nation's economy depends on a successful transition to carbon neutral industries. There is broad consensus across the political spectrum in other country on climate change and the need to combat it. 

After almost losing his life to covid, he seemed to come out of the hospital a changed man....a more enlightened, humble man. Near death experiences do see to change us for the better.