Petrol and diesel cars to be phased out within 20 years?

[carryfast]

Winseer:
If Brexit can already be talked about being “overturned” - when we’ve voted for that, then surely it will be even easier to overturn “doing away with dependency on Petroleum” by those same powers that be…?

Queue: Trumped-up reduction in diplomacy with China, similar to the trumped-up downgrading of cheap Russian energy. Even Germany are being told by the US corporations right now to “stop using cheapo Russia stuff, and start paying more for ours - there’s trade sanctions on dontya know!”

There’s even the possibility that Western governments might like to make some kind of “back market” on trashed solar panels - to get the Lanthenides out of them, which China otherwise rations the rest of the world in.
Buy a solar panel, scrap it through some government scheme, and harvest the fancy mineral content.
Everyone is a winner except China. Even the Arab states are happy, because we didn’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels after all.

You seem to have missed the point that fossil fuel ‘dependency’ means more choice and more self sufficiency not less.Especially if we re access our coal reserves and we stop flogging off our oil and gas reserves and use them ourselves.On that note how do reach the conclusion that electricity dependency,is supposedly better than fossil fuel dependency or that it doesn’t effectively mean trading a lower dependency on Middle Eastern fuel supplies situation,for more dependency on foreign owned,more expensive,dangerous electricity generation,instead ?.

While I’m guessing you wouldn’t want to be first in the queue to want to heat your home with electricity instead of gas, let alone a situation in which your transport needs are also electricity dependent added to that,even now.Let alone when it’s provision inevitably becomes mostly a monopoly situation for the nuclear power industry with all the financial and safety implications of that.With road fuel duty also added to those costs.

While ironically in this case the establishment that is derailing Brexit is actually the same establishment that wants to create that captive market for the EV and electric energy industries,by removing the freedom of choice to use fossil fuels directly wherever possible.Not vice versa.

[ironeddie]

Carryfast:

IronEddie:
My 09 astra was only £30 to tax. Government has decided diesel is evil again hence the increase in tax on your new car.

And I guess that’s the thing with all this environment stuff. It’s too wrapped up in politics and what the powers that be choose. It’s hard to know what the truth actually is.

Diesel being a dirtier fuel to burn than petrol,let alone LPG,isn’t in doubt.However it’s clear that the government has no intention of just making petrol/LPG fuelled vehicles more attractive by massively reducing petrol/LPG fuel taxation and putting it on diesel.

This is all about removing the freedom of choice,to use internal combustion engines to create a captive market and monopoly for EV producers and electricity generators.IE a totally different agenda that’s just taking advantage of and using the justified fears over diesel,as an obvious red herring and a diversion,to remove the freedom of choice to use any type of ICE.

That’s what I mean about it all being political. The government at the time decided petrol was nasty and gave tax breaks to ‘green’ diesel vehicles. Now the thoughts shifted back. Truth is petrol or diesel it all pollutes. But the politicians pick the advice they want at the time to suit their ends.

Electric isn’t green either. Maybe at point of use. But the process to make the batteries, the plastics used in the cars interior etc all pollute. And that’s not even counting the bloody power plants generating the electricity.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

[slowlane]

IronEddie:

Carryfast:

IronEddie:
My 09 astra was only £30 to tax. Government has decided diesel is evil again hence the increase in tax on your new car.

And I guess that’s the thing with all this environment stuff. It’s too wrapped up in politics and what the powers that be choose. It’s hard to know what the truth actually is.

Diesel being a dirtier fuel to burn than petrol,let alone LPG,isn’t in doubt.However it’s clear that the government has no intention of just making petrol/LPG fuelled vehicles more attractive by massively reducing petrol/LPG fuel taxation and putting it on diesel.

This is all about removing the freedom of choice,to use internal combustion engines to create a captive market and monopoly for EV producers and electricity generators.IE a totally different agenda that’s just taking advantage of and using the justified fears over diesel,as an obvious red herring and a diversion,to remove the freedom of choice to use any type of ICE.

That’s what I mean about it all being political. The government at the time decided petrol was nasty and gave tax breaks to ‘green’ diesel vehicles. Now the thoughts shifted back. Truth is petrol or diesel it all pollutes. But the politicians pick the advice they want at the time to suit their ends.

Electric isn’t green either. Maybe at point of use. But the process to make the batteries, the plastics used in the cars interior etc all pollute. And that’s not even counting the bloody power plants generating the electricity.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

Ah yes, good point, but most of that pollution happens in poor countries. It’s not pollution if it’s happening in poor countries - it won’t be long before the Undemocratic Republic of Arse gets paid to have power stations built for other countries to use.

[winseer]

No one has explained yet - what we all do with our Fossile fuel vehicles after 2040. It’s a given that it will be illegal to drive that old E-Type Jag any more on British Roads. They never produced a Hybrid version after all! The same applies to all classic cars straight away of course.

Then there’s the cars in the 5-30 year age range: Who’s going to buy a depreciating asset that isn’t even allowed on the roads any more?
Does everyone park it on the drive, SORN it, and then invite passing brudders to throw bricks at them, seeing as even their irk won’t be willing to take it away for “scrap” once they cannot do them up, and use them for the next bank robbery, or whatever it is they do with “scrapped” vehicles these days…

Nearly new cars up to 5 years old by 2040 - won’t actually exist - if you think about it.
Who’s going to buy a new car in 2036 say, when they know that when they intend flogging it on 2nd hand and upgrading by 2040 - they’ll be no bugger who wants to buy it - because it’s as illegal to have on the roads as the purest class A drug by that point!

The only way this would work is if the government GAVE the entire public a state-of-the-art electric car BEFORE 2035 by the latest then - in exchange by way of some kind of scrappage scheme. Even then, they’d have to draw the line on the “minimum age of a car that can be scrapped”, or else the public will still be filling their boots with new cars from 2030-2035 thinking there will be some free fancy electric car in them at the end of it.

Draw the line somewhere, stick rigidly to it - and PAY rather than penalize the public for doing thus.

We’d have to wean ourselves off buying electricity from France, and other places abroad as well. How long does it take to BUILD a power station again?
Last time I looked, we were knocking ours down for some stupid reason.
I suppose we could consider a “Trump” approach, and make use of our masses of coal reserves in this country - and REALLY take ourselves back to the more prosperous times of the past.
We need not have the “endless strikes” downside of the 70’s - as Unions are no longer in command of the “command industries” now like they once were.

If we’re going to be building windmills instead of power stations - then FFS let’s have the factories building them HERE, rather than us paying Germany through the nose whilst we lay off our Scottish turbine manufacturers. You’d think that by this point “everything on the continent being 25% dearer” would have REVERSED that trend by now - but no one is even looking at it, it seems among our politicians.

[ironeddie]

I doubt fuel burning cars will be banned post 2040. It’s illogical and not at all practical.

They will probably be taxed higher and a scrapage scheme introduced.

The impact remember won’t just be on us as car users though. If no more petrol or diesel cars exist on a hard limit of 2040 then suddenly every petrol station closes down. It’ll be a gradual decline from 2040 people will slowly move from petrol to electric. Slowly the petrol stations will close or rebrand into something else. 2100 will arrive and there will still be petrol powered vehicles on UK roads. Just it won’t be the majority.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

[chrisdalott]

most likely they will increase the tax on petrol massively so that if you do own your classic e-type, bently, ferrrari whatever you could keep it in the garage and take it for a spin at the weekends, like a luxury item

sort of like horses are now, its quite expensive to stable and feed a horse but some people just enjoy riding horses and have the money so they are willing to pay

as the horse was replaced by the petrol car as the main means of transport, so too will the car be replaced by the electric car, but they will still be some old classics around. if one in a hundred cars on the road runs on petrol then i think that would be acceptable in terms of pollution

[juddian]

I like the way everyone thinks they can plan the world, our country in particular for 20 odd years down the line.

I suspect it won’t be electric cars at all, its entirely possible we’ll be in the middle of some Mad Max scenario with survivors for several years before snapping up tough old school 4x4’s and bolting RSJ’s and wire meshing the windows in order to pass through affected urban areas in relative safety.
How many days go by now without some ne’er do wells kicking off or attempting to murder total strangers.

[franglais]

Winseer:
It’s a given that it will be illegal to drive that old E-Type Jag any more on British RoadsNo one has explained yet - what we all do with our Fossile fuel vehicles after 2040… They never produced a Hybrid version after all! The same applies to all classic cars straight away of course.

Then there’s the cars in the 5-30 year age range: Who’s going to buy a depreciating asset that isn’t even allowed on the roads any more?
Does everyone park it on the drive, SORN it, and then invite passing brudders to throw bricks at them, seeing as even their irk won’t be willing to take it away for “scrap” once they cannot do them up, and use them for the next bank robbery, or whatever it is they do with “scrapped” vehicles these days…

Nearly new cars up to 5 years old by 2040 - won’t actually exist - if you think about it.
Who’s going to buy a new car in 2036 say, when they know that when they intend flogging it on 2nd hand and upgrading by 2040 - they’ll be no bugger who wants to buy it - because it’s as illegal to have on the roads as the purest class A drug by that point!

The only way this would work is if the government GAVE the entire public a state-of-the-art electric car BEFORE 2035 by the latest then - in exchange by way of some kind of scrappage scheme. Even then, they’d have to draw the line on the “minimum age of a car that can be scrapped”, or else the public will still be filling their boots with new cars from 2030-2035 thinking there will be some free fancy electric car in them at the end of it.

Draw the line somewhere, stick rigidly to it - and PAY rather than penalize the public for doing thus.

We’d have to wean ourselves off buying electricity from France, and other places abroad as well. How long does it take to BUILD a power station again?
Last time I looked, we were knocking ours down for some stupid reason.
I suppose we could consider a “Trump” approach, and make use of our masses of coal reserves in this country - and REALLY take ourselves back to the more prosperous times of the past.
We need not have the “endless strikes” downside of the 70’s - as Unions are no longer in command of the “command industries” now like they once were.

If we’re going to be building windmills instead of power stations - then FFS let’s have the factories building them HERE, rather than us paying Germany through the nose whilst we lay off our Scottish turbine manufacturers. You’d think that by this point “everything on the continent being 25% dearer” would have REVERSED that trend by now - but no one is even looking at it, it seems among our politicians.

As I heard it, Gove is saying “no new cars to be registered after 2040”. Doubtless they will be a gradual increase of price and lowering availability of conventional cars leading up to this date. And given that this date is based on a promise made in a manifesto of a party that is on . . somewhat shaky ground . . . a promise made about events 23yrs in the future. . .lots can happen, or rather NOT happen.
" The population of the UK has increased by more than half a million - the biggest rise for 70 years - according to official figures.
There were 65,648,000 people in the UK in June 2016, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS)." In 2040 the population could be such, there wont be anyone wanting to buy cars, as the roads will be so jammed there wont be much point in it !

Power station construction? Im sure youre aware, but for those who dont follow such things: Look at Hinckley Point Announced in March 2008 that UK/France would join to construct some nuclear stations. 27 March 2017, the Office for Nuclear Regulation gives consent for construction of Hinkley Point C to begin. Now look at Flammanville 3 concrete poured in Dec 2007, due on line 2020, Hinckley C on line in 2030 ■■ Maybe ■■? [bbc.com/news/business-37369786](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37369786) Shows that the Dept of Energy were proposing no net increase in electricity production up to 2035. Maybe Mr Gove has plans to build loads of windmills after this date? Theres enough hot air out of politicians (of all colours) to power them all.

Since the proposal to end diesel/petrol car production is to stop pollution, is burning coal/shale-gas to make electricity going to be helpful?
Clearly not. But the way things work it could well happen.

With a combination of changing circumstances, (will we recognise the world 23yrs from now?), politicians promises, lack of clean electricity, rising population and congestion. . . . Well, Ill still have my petrol and diesel engine fix available I reckon. May only be driving at walking pace and paying loads for fuel, but Ill still be playing with engines.

[franglais]

Juddian:
I like the way everyone thinks they can plan the world, our country in particular for 20 odd years down the line.

I suspect it won’t be electric cars at all, its entirely possible we’ll be in the middle of some Mad Max scenario with survivors for several years before snapping up tough old school 4x4’s and bolting RSJ’s and wire meshing the windows in order to pass through affected urban areas in relative safety.
How many days go by now without some ne’er do wells kicking off or attempting to murder total strangers.

Listening to the news recently one can see that Post Apocalyptic, Mad-Max films are going to be the “go to=how to” YouTube videos for us all !

[carryfast]

Winseer:
No one has explained yet - what we all do with our Fossile fuel vehicles after 2040. It’s a given that it will be illegal to drive that old E-Type Jag any more on British Roads. They never produced a Hybrid version after all! The same applies to all classic cars straight away of course.

Then there’s the cars in the 5-30 year age range: Who’s going to buy a depreciating asset that isn’t even allowed on the roads any more?
Does everyone park it on the drive, SORN it, and then invite passing brudders to throw bricks at them, seeing as even their irk won’t be willing to take it away for “scrap” once they cannot do them up, and use them for the next bank robbery, or whatever it is they do with “scrapped” vehicles these days…

Nearly new cars up to 5 years old by 2040 - won’t actually exist - if you think about it.
Who’s going to buy a new car in 2036 say, when they know that when they intend flogging it on 2nd hand and upgrading by 2040 - they’ll be no bugger who wants to buy it - because it’s as illegal to have on the roads as the purest class A drug by that point!

The only way this would work is if the government GAVE the entire public a state-of-the-art electric car BEFORE 2035 by the latest then - in exchange by way of some kind of scrappage scheme. Even then, they’d have to draw the line on the “minimum age of a car that can be scrapped”, or else the public will still be filling their boots with new cars from 2030-2035 thinking there will be some free fancy electric car in them at the end of it.

Where does the policy state that it will apply retrospectively ?.As opposed to it only applying to new vehicles registered after that cut off date.While if retrospective enforcement was the case it would be a departure from all previously accepted norms.While if the classic car market thought that such cars will be illegal to use within around 20 years it would start to collapse already.Which obviously isn’t the case more like the contrary it’s growing.Because older cars are simpler to maintain and much more fun to drive.Which can only increase even more if new car drivers are going to be increasingly forced into battery powered toys in the form of EV’s.

While if there is a problem in that regard it will more likely be parts provision and the viability of road fuel supplies.Bearing in mind that the car manufacturers and fuel suppliers are all for the scam for obvious reasons.

The way you’re talking you sound like a closet green in celebratory mood who thinks that all your dreams have already come true in that all classic cars have to be scrapped from tomorrow together with the building of the new super nuclear power stations needed to fuel this nightmare control freak new order.

[the_nodding_donkey]

Carryfast:

IronEddie:
I’m ok with the nuclear risk. It’s mostly safe.

It’s safe until it inevitably explodes or leaks at some point.Then as I said you’ve got a massive population living on a small Island with no where to run and no way out.In addition to wiping out our food production capacity to feed those who don’t die sooner or later of the radiation poisoning.

Let me guess you’re also a ‘climate change’ believer and think nuclear is the way to save the planet from a non existent made up theory by a bunch of scammers,working for the interests of the Chinese Communist Party,just so long as they get a kickback from it.

On that note I’m guessing that the stupid corrupt zb’s running the establishment won’t be investing in property in Pripyat anytime soon.

I have a boat, so me and my loved ones will be fine.

[carryfast]

chrisdalott:
most likely they will increase the tax on petrol massively so that if you do own your classic e-type, bently, ferrrari whatever you could keep it in the garage and take it for a spin at the weekends, like a luxury item

sort of like horses are now, its quite expensive to stable and feed a horse but some people just enjoy riding horses and have the money so they are willing to pay

as the horse was replaced by the petrol car as the main means of transport, so too will the car be replaced by the electric car, but they will still be some old classics around. if one in a hundred cars on the road runs on petrol then i think that would be acceptable in terms of pollution

It would be more ‘acceptable’ for the government to shove all this green bs and if they want to impose green party policy then stand on a green party manifesto and get a mandate for it.Remind us what the Greens vote was at the last election.

On that note how does the justified backlash against diesel now suddenly turn into hitting petrol users for example.When surely the aim would be to just hit diesel.Or for that matter I didn’t see any manifesto or policy aims of rationing classic car use in whatever form in all this.Bearing in mind that ‘spin at the weekend’ can actually mean a good run across the continent rather than using zb boring public transport or flying or driving a boring modern eco heap let alone a silly battery powered toy.Strange how the green zealots seem to apply double standards regarding the freedom of choice to use air transport in that regard.

While it seems obvious that what is already a dodgy,corrupt,control freak piece of legislation,in the form of an aim to move to EV’s regarding all ‘new registrations’ ‘after’ 2040 and with it over dependency on and a captive market for the electric energy producers,is being read and pushed as something much more by green crusaders showing their true colours and hoping to use the Conservative mandate to do it because they can’t get one of their own.

[franglais]

the nodding donkey:

Carryfast:

IronEddie:
I’m ok with the nuclear risk. It’s mostly safe.

It’s safe until it inevitably explodes or leaks at some point.Then as I said you’ve got a massive population living on a small Island with no where to run and no way out.In addition to wiping out our food production capacity to feed those who don’t die sooner or later of the radiation poisoning.

Let me guess you’re also a ‘climate change’ believer and think nuclear is the way to save the planet from a non existent made up theory by a bunch of scammers,working for the interests of the Chinese Communist Party,just so long as they get a kickback from it.

On that note I’m guessing that the stupid corrupt zb’s running the establishment won’t be investing in property in Pripyat anytime soon.

I have a boat, so me and my loved ones will be fine.

Hope your boats inside a big sealed bubble then? . . . .with Trump sending planes over the Korean peninsula, China talking about "childish behaviour", and who knows what happening in Pyongyang, seems that the air pollution fears weve got about emissions from ICEs are gonna be dwarfed by a big mushroom cloud soon!

[truckman020]

i’ll be 76 by then doubt if I will even be driving[maybe getting my wings fitted if I kick the bucket,lol]mind you that’s providing I go up top if heaven exists

[carryfast]

the nodding donkey:
I have a boat, so me and my loved ones will be fine.

I don’t think you’ve thought through all the implications of a mass panicked exodus of a large part of the population all running for the same coasts and airports,loss of food production capacity,and losses of real estate and homes that can never be returned to.That’s even assuming the authorities don’t just decide to say nothing and let nature take its course and/or your escape plan actually works.

[ironeddie]

Carryfast:

IronEddie:
I’m ok with the nuclear risk. It’s mostly safe.

It’s safe until it inevitably explodes or leaks at some point.Then as I said you’ve got a massive population living on a small Island with no where to run and no way out.In addition to wiping out our food production capacity to feed those who don’t die sooner or later of the radiation poisoning.

Let me guess you’re also a ‘climate change’ believer and think nuclear is the way to save the planet from a non existent made up theory by a bunch of scammers,working for the interests of the Chinese Communist Party,just so long as they get a kickback from it.

On that note I’m guessing that the stupid corrupt zb’s running the establishment won’t be investing in property in Pripyat anytime soon.

Missed this one. There are 449 nuclear reactors operating in 30 countries. In the several decades since the first nuclear power stations came online there has only been a handful of accidents. And maybe only two seriously bad ones. So actually nuclear is very safe. The % chance of a Cernobyl level accident is tiny. I accept the the risk is that when it does go wrong it goes horrifyingly wrong. But I find that risk acceptable when compared against polluting coal/oil/gas power stations or ineffective green solutions like wind farms.

Not going to take your bait on climate change.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

[carryfast]

IronEddie:
The % chance of a Cernobyl level accident is tiny. I accept the the risk is that when it does go wrong it goes horrifyingly wrong. But I find that risk acceptable.

Not going to take your bait on climate change.

You don’t need to.

You’ve already said everything we need to know with that bs.Like all the green barmy army you’re prepared to gamble with other people’s lives,regarding the very real risks of nuclear power,to solve your own selfish deluded bs climate change fears.IE ‘you’ personally find that admittedly ‘horrifying’ risk as being ‘acceptable’ because you’re a full on climate change believer and you’d obviously prefer the risk of making swathes of the country an uninhabitable waste land with a homeless,destitute,poisoned,starving,effectively disaster area refugee population and everyone else has to find it ‘acceptable’ too on those grounds to pander to your own ridiculous fears.Also bearing in mind that the government is using those stupid deluded climate fears for its own agenda which has nothing to do with worrying about the non existent climate issue and everything to do with creating a captive market for the nuclear energy industry.On that note the idea of imposing potential nuclear catastrophe on the country and its population,to solve irrational fears of climate change,is the definition of allowing the lunatics to take over the asylum.Meanwhile at least get a mandate first before trying to dictate what we must supposedly do.Then if the country votes for what you’re proposing at least it will only have itself to blame when the all zb,which inherently goes with nuclear power,inevitably hits the fan.

[juddian]

We’ll know nuclear is safe when they site a massive power station on the Essex marshes, more chance of ■■■■■■■ in the queens handbag than that happening.

Seeing as we sacked off our nuclear experts we’ll get some foreigners in to design and build it, hopefully a smaller one could be housed inside the Battersea power buildings, London elite’s very own generator.

[carryfast]

Juddian:
We’ll know nuclear is safe when they site a massive power station on the Essex marshes, more chance of ■■■■■■■ in the queens handbag than that happening.

Seeing as we sacked off our nuclear experts we’ll get some foreigners in to design and build it, hopefully a smaller one could be housed inside the Battersea power buildings, London elite’s very own generator.

Probably better to send all the pro nuclear lobby to live in France.Then they get the win win of staying with their Europhile heroes and eventually get the all electric utopia they seem to want so much.Of either crawling along expensive autoroutes at 80 mph max in their robotised EV or go by TGV.Which leaves the question if the government are so keen on going electric why not start with the much easier move to electric domestic boilers instead of gas.Let me guess they know they’d face massive defaults and they’d get chucked out of office,when everyone gets their first electricity bill.Meanwhile they obviously go for the softer option of convincing the electorate that going electric is the answer to ‘dirty diesel’ and ‘climate change’ and the naive muppets buy it in their droves.

All as part of a mad insidious agenda of removing the freedom of choice to use fossil fuels.In a country which is not only self sufficient in them,but in which even imported fossil fuel provides more and cheaper options in that regard.Thereby turning the place into a more expensive nuclear powered time bomb.

No doubt with the win win ( for them ) of not only getting a kick back from the Chinese and French nuclear energy providers.But also from the export of our remaining fossil fuel reserves to countries which have the sense to refuse to go nuclear.In addition to the ongoing use of as much fossil fuel as the air transport industry can manage to get through while it lasts ( long beyond 2040 ).IE it all stinks of yet another not only financial,but also dangerous,corrupt corporate stitch up,at the Brit public’s expense.With as usual that public being too naive and brainwashed to see it.

[winseer]

IronEddie:
I doubt fuel burning cars will be banned post 2040. It’s illogical and not at all practical.

They will probably be taxed higher and a scrapage scheme introduced.

The impact remember won’t just be on us as car users though. If no more petrol or diesel cars exist on a hard limit of 2040 then suddenly every petrol station closes down. It’ll be a gradual decline from 2040 people will slowly move from petrol to electric. Slowly the petrol stations will close or rebrand into something else. 2100 will arrive and there will still be petrol powered vehicles on UK roads. Just it won’t be the majority.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

Surely, that’s what is intended for the years 2018-2039 already?

I understood that the 2040 was the very final deadline for the last diehard Fossil-Fuel powered vehicles to be taken off our roads for good?

“Phasing Out” I think a 23 year period to do it all would be classed as…?