Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, FordBuyer said:

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.

 

There are actually ways to greatly reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (two very different things) from electric power generation while also supporting the dramatic increase in electric power generation that will be needed nationally to support an increasingly BEV transportation sector. It involves speeding the process of shutting down coal plants and ramping-up construction of relatively clean natural gas power plants, paired in part with renewable energy sources (for renewable energy to be practical, due to it being an intermittent, not baseload power source, it needs to be paired with stand-by quick-start-up natural gas generation). Many states are doing this, and the transition can be accelerated. One state not doing this (and there are a few others too), which is a reason for their disastrous electrical grid problems, is California, which is simultaneously trying to cut back on natural gas power generation and increase renewable energy power generation. And finally, this transition working will depend fundamentally on robust use of hydraulic fracturing technology for natural gas production. Without fracking our natural gas supply will plummet and its price will skyrocket. Sadly, those most pushing for increased use of renewable energy are also those pushing for an end to fracking, severely restricting the construction of new natural gas power plants, and generally trying to outlaw any new natural gas hookups, as recently passed in San Francisco.

 

Down the road back-up generation for renewables will be able to be provided by massive battery storage facilities, but that future is not the near future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bzcat said:

There is broad consensus across the political spectrum in other country on climate change and the need to combat it. 

 

Yes sir bzcat, there is also consensus among automakers all over the world about this issue whether they are based in the Europe, U.S., or Asia. Of course some automakers are doing a better job than others in addressing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FordBuyer said:

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

 


I think you’re confused about range on a PHEV.

 

Lets say 6 days per week you drive 20 miles or less and one day you drive 50 miles and both have a 600 mile range per tank and the PHEV has a 20 mile range on battery.

 

In the hybrid one tank will last you 3.5 weeks.

 

With the PHEV you’re 100% electric except for 30 miles one day per week.  One tank will last you 20 weeks.

 

The hybrid requires 15 tanks per year.  The PHEV only 3.  A difference of about $500 per year.  Not huge but with a longer battery range and higher gas prices it could be a lot more.   But yes you have to plug it in at least every few days.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try.  Charge sustaining emissions means the IcE is running all the time maintaining a full battery charge.

 

Show me one that compares emissions between an ICE and a PHEV driving 80% on battery power alone and recharging at home every night.  I bet it’s not there because they cherry picked the comparisons that are BEV favorable and PHEV disfavorable.

 

I gave an example where a PHEV uses only 3 tanks of gas per year compared to a hybrid at 15 or a conventional ICE that would use 20 or 25.  Surely even you can acknowledge that’s a huge savings in fossil fuel consumption and emissions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FordBuyer said:

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.

 

It's definitely going to happen with century. The US is already at 20% renewable generation in 2019. This despite a Govt policy the past 4 years that severely undermines renewable energy adoption and in favor of heavy subsidy on fossil fuel extraction. Worldwide, renewable power is at 25% with some significant outliers like China that is far below the average.

 

We need to be at about 30% right now to avoid catastrophic climate change so there is a lot of catching up to do but the growth curve in renewable energy generation is encouraging. In short, power generation is actually one of the bright spot in the global fight against climate change. 

 

One of the biggest problem on the other hand is automotive emission. However, if we convert the vehicle fleet to electric, we essentially solve both problems because the power grid worldwide is largely on its way towards being decarbonized by the middle of the century. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

European mentality towards driving and emissions is vastly different to the US, the reality of driving in the UK is that the majority of high polluting occurs in virtual gridlocked traffic commutes, not the hundreds of miles of unaffected motorways.

 

To me, substitute hybrids/PHEVs for small efficient but polluting diesels and you get immediate results there with minimal infrastructure change right now.

 

Governments love to do things on a grand scale so they can be praised for watershed change, that as we’ve seen can come at huge cost to the motorist.

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, akirby said:

Nice try.  Charge sustaining emissions means the IcE is running all the time maintaining a full battery charge.

 

Show me one that compares emissions between an ICE and a PHEV driving 80% on battery power alone and recharging at home every night.  

 

In real world usage of PHEV, CS mode is dominant in the "average drive cycles" you mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

In real world usage of PHEV, CS mode is dominant in the "average drive cycles" you mentioned.


if I drive less than 20 miles per day the engine doesn’t run at all.  But feel free to keep ignoring facts that don’t match your agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, akirby said:


if I drive less than 20 miles per day the engine doesn’t run at all.  But feel free to keep ignoring facts that don’t match your agenda.

 

You're the one "ignoring facts that don’t match your agenda". You previously requested "a comparison ICE equivalents in that graph and compared all 3 based on average drive cycles". The T&E report provided that comparison, with the exception of Mitsubishi Outlander which didn't have manufacturer supplied data in this context for the PHEV model. Sources referenced in the report itself as well studies in the U.S. confirm that "average drive cycle" in real world usage of PHEV is CS mode dominant.

 

Also, the assertion "drive less than 20 miles per day the engine doesn’t run at all" for a PHEV isn't always true. Each of the PHEV models tested by T&E will activate the ICE engine even in CD mode with a fully charged HV battery if ambient temperatures are very high or low, if accelerating rapidly, or in conjunction with certain usage patterns for the air conditioner or defogger/defroster.

 

All this debate about the viability of PHEV is moot anyway. PHEV is an obsolete technology that exists primarily for regulatory compliance, the T&E analysis will likely result in EU and U.K. government agencies reconsidering subsidies for PHEV and accelerating timelines for banning the sale of new PHEV (and any other ICE powered cars and light trucks).

Edited by rperez817
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, akirby said:


I think you’re confused about range on a PHEV.

 

Lets say 6 days per week you drive 20 miles or less and one day you drive 50 miles and both have a 600 mile range per tank and the PHEV has a 20 mile range on battery.

 

In the hybrid one tank will last you 3.5 weeks.

 

With the PHEV you’re 100% electric except for 30 miles one day per week.  One tank will last you 20 weeks.

 

The hybrid requires 15 tanks per year.  The PHEV only 3.  A difference of about $500 per year.  Not huge but with a longer battery range and higher gas prices it could be a lot more.   But yes you have to plug it in at least every few days.

 

 

So with a plugin, you have to plug in and use gas. Most of the time your outlet is connected to a coal fired plant or natural gas. I guess it could be a nuclear plant. Anyway, everytime you accelerate hard on freeway ramp, pass someone, pull away from light on major thruway, your engine will kick in even on a plugin. And the batteries are hundreds of pounds heavier and usually mean less cargo room to boot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

You're the one "ignoring facts that don’t match your agenda". You previously requested "a comparison ICE equivalents in that graph and compared all 3 based on average drive cycles". The T&E report provided that comparison, with the exception of Mitsubishi Outlander which didn't have manufacturer supplied data in this context for the PHEV model. Sources referenced in the report itself as well studies in the U.S. confirm that "average drive cycle" in real world usage of PHEV is CS mode dominant.

 

Also, the assertion "drive less than 20 miles per day the engine doesn’t run at all" for a PHEV isn't always true. Each of the PHEV models tested by T&E will activate the ICE engine even in CD mode with a fully charged HV battery if ambient temperatures are very high or low, if accelerating rapidly, or in conjunction with certain usage patterns for the air conditioner or defogger/defroster.

 

All this debate about the viability of PHEV is moot anyway. PHEV is an obsolete technology that exists primarily for regulatory compliance, the T&E analysis will likely result in EU and U.K. government agencies reconsidering subsidies for PHEV and accelerating timelines for banning the sale of new PHEV (and any other ICE powered cars and light trucks).


All I asked for is a legitimate comparison of the entire drive cycle which for PHEVs include a considerable number of miles on battery power alone compared to an ICE under the same circumstances to show the improvement in emissions.  What you posted is comparing PHEVs “real world” performance (including modeling) compared to the mfr estimates and compared to a BEV.  So of course a PHEV will look bad by comparison under those circumstances.

 

But back to my example.  If I drive 20 miles per day for 6 days and 50 miles per day one day per week, here is my fuel use for the week:

 

ICE @20 mpg - 8.5 gallons

HEV at 40 mpg -  4.2 gallons

PHEV with a 25 mile EV range -  0.625 gallons

 

Even if you double the PHEV to 1 gallon that’s still a 88% reduction in emissions with no range or charging concerns or inconveniences,

 

That is the benefit that BEV proponents don’t mention.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to go back to the basics......which industry produces the most pollution. I believe it's the electrical powerplant industry. That is the crux of the problem with hundreds of millions of people.plugging in their devices everyday including their vehicles in increasing numbers. Certainly having less need for upstream, midstream, and downstream oil operations will help, but the PROBLEM remains nontheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OX1 said:

 

How's that work if you kill fracking?? 

It doesn't, if you keep reading what I wrote:

"And finally, this transition working will depend fundamentally on robust use of hydraulic fracturing technology for natural gas production. Without fracking our natural gas supply will plummet and its price will skyrocket. Sadly, those most pushing for increased use of renewable energy are also those pushing for an end to fracking, severely restricting the construction of new natural gas power plants, and generally trying to outlaw any new natural gas hookups, as recently passed in San Francisco."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2020 at 1:01 PM, akirby said:


if I drive less than 20 miles per day the engine doesn’t run at all.  But feel free to keep ignoring facts that don’t match your agenda.

This is what a lot of Volt owners used to do, they’d use the electric side exclusively and so much that the engine was eventually forced to operate and use up fuel before it went stale.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2020 at 1:01 PM, akirby said:


if I drive less than 20 miles per day the engine doesn’t run at all.  But feel free to keep ignoring facts that don’t match your agenda.

The way the British use PHEVs is different, they have ZEV zones like London but to get there, the owners run in charge sustain mode, so they have full EV range inside the zone.

 

So the British PHEVs use fuel to and from London or other ZEV city zones each day, that’s the rub.....

 

it would be interesting if California and the aligned states introduced the same kind of zero emissions zones around targeted city areas, I wonder how folks would respond to that, being slugged heavy fees to enter areas with a regular ICE......

Edited by jpd80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a story online about a UK couple taking a 125 mile roadtrip in the new Porsche Taycan and detailing how it took 9.5 hours because of broken charging stations, overused stations, and it taking forever to charge up whenever they did find a useable one. Sounds like England is still a long way from having the infrastructure in place to service BEV's. Still more of a second vehicle status for errands only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’re often told that there are enough chargers but there’s a huge assumption that everyone will charge at home. That’s fine to a point but as the number of unplanned journeys increase, it’s easy to see instances where people begin to think about keeping their BEVs above 50% charge and that’s when the fun starts with occupied chargers and hunting for an open slot.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

We’re often told that there are enough chargers but there’s a huge assumption that everyone will charge at home. That’s fine to a point but as the number of unplanned journeys increase, it’s easy to see instances where people begin to think about keeping their BEVs above 50% charge and that’s when the fun starts with occupied chargers and hunting for an open slot.

...and that's assuming there's enough added capacity to electricity generation and the grid to handle such a fast transition from petrol to electricity to power the transportation sector. I do think the transition is coming and it may come more quickly than many originally thought, but I'm concerned that politics might push it faster than technologically prudent and that not enough planning is being done for the major upgrade needed to support it in the utility sector. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jpd80 said:

We’re often told that there are enough chargers but there’s a huge assumption that everyone will charge at home. That’s fine to a point but as the number of unplanned journeys increase, it’s easy to see instances where people begin to think about keeping their BEVs above 50% charge and that’s when the fun starts with occupied chargers and hunting for an open slot.

To me that is where range anxiety comes in, be it battery golf cart or car. Often I will go on a 10 mile errand, but then on spur of moment turn it into 50+ round trip. No range anxiety with 600+ mile hybrid or 200+ mile gas golf cart. And gas stations are on just about every major intersection and gas is dirt cheap.

 

I say good luck to those trying to sell millions of battery vehicles. Ford is smart to keep production volume low until an acceptable infrastructure is in place. Right now, BEV's are for upper income people who want a green second car for errands.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...