No new diesel cars after 2030

Page 4 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
Mar 14, 2005
13,422
611
40,935
What is the chancellor of any government going to do to plug a £40 billion black hole. If you do not use a vehicle at all, will you still be penalised i.e. increases on public transport etc?
Following on from my last answer about VED and taxes.

All taxes we pay go into the exchequer, and the source of those tax revenues does not dictate what that money is spent on (Except in a few special case, and VED is not one of those)

For years the money collected through VED was not matched by the spending on roads, so in practice drivers have been subsidising all other Government expenditure like for example the NHS, Schools, and Defence and Trains etc.

So it's not as if you have lost out as whilst you are concerned about your tax revenue being used to subsidise activities that you may not actually use your self, many others have been subsidising those services you do use.

Swings and roundabouts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: otherclive
Nov 11, 2009
8,965
1,115
30,935
Following on from my last answer about VED and taxes.

All taxes we pay go into the exchequer, and the source of those tax revenues does not dictate what that money is spent on (Except in a few special case, and VED is not one of those)

For years the money collected through VED was not matched by the spending on roads, so in practice drivers have been subsidising all other Government expenditure like for example the NHS, Schools, and Defence and Trains etc.

So it's not as if you have lost out as whilst you are concerned about your tax revenue being used to subsidise activities that you may not actually use your self, many others have been subsidising those services you do use.

Swings and roundabouts.
This article from Wikipedia I had in my Reading List. It uses references from some well respected authorities and shows that it’s not a simple comparison. But it does explain many of the facets very well such that readers can then decide their own view of the topic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_aspects_of_the_electric_car#:~:text=Electric cars (or electric vehicles, EVs) have several,electricity used to charge them and other factors.
 
Jul 18, 2017
1,779
325
5,935
Surely the reduction in VED as you describe was to encourage people, to buy “green “ cars.
I wonder just how much pollution will be saved by EVs? Ie what is the pollution cost of manufacture and batteries using rare metals? Say an average person does 10 k pa,a lean burn ice may not actually be a big pollution contributor . After all ice and ev manufacturing costs must come into the equation?
The biggest issue with the VED being zero on EV is that only the wealthy can afford an EV at present so in many cases the vehicle is bought as a status symbol so that they can show off that they are green. The vehicle is then possibly parked up in a garage while they use their V8 as a run around.
EVs probably create just as much if not more pollution than a fossil fuelled vehicle as they still have to get the extra electric from somewhere. Fitting induction loops into roads will create just as much pollution. Erecting windmills and sea barriers to generate electric creates ongoing environmental damage or perhaps even more.
I am a firm believer that EVs in their current form using batteries is not the way forward as they damage the environment in many other ways besides polluting the air.
Surely one way would be to look at converting the millions of cars currently on the road to a more environmentally friendly fuel similar to petrol cars being converted to LPG.
Maybe harnessing the earth's natural magnetic field would be a way forward?
 
Jul 18, 2017
1,779
325
5,935
Following on from my last answer about VED and taxes.

All taxes we pay go into the exchequer, and the source of those tax revenues does not dictate what that money is spent on (Except in a few special case, and VED is not one of those)

For years the money collected through VED was not matched by the spending on roads, so in practice drivers have been subsidising all other Government expenditure like for example the NHS, Schools, and Defence and Trains etc.

So it's not as if you have lost out as whilst you are concerned about your tax revenue being used to subsidise activities that you may not actually use your self, many others have been subsidising those services you do use.

Swings and roundabouts.
I am sorry but I do not follow your logic? The money lost still needs to be recouped from somewhere if it is not coming from VED and fuel duty?
 
Jun 20, 2005
11,629
423
40,935
My point Prof was that making an EV inclusive of all materials cannot be that different from an ICE . I am confident by 2030 the ICE may well be pollution free. Technology is a wonderful thing and anything is possible.
On VED have no fear the Government of the day will invent a method to tax us!
 
Jul 18, 2017
1,779
325
5,935
My point Prof was that making an EV inclusive of all materials cannot be that different from an ICE . I am confident by 2030 the ICE may well be pollution free. Technology is a wonderful thing and anything is possible.
On VED have no fear the Government of the day will invent a method to tax us!
A very fine line between recouping tax losses and creating poverty?
 
Mar 14, 2005
13,422
611
40,935
I am sorry but I do not follow your logic? The money lost still needs to be recouped from somewhere if it is not coming from VED and fuel duty?
I was not suggesting the tax revenue wouldn't need to be recouped, and yes there will almost certainly be tax rises to help cover the cost of supporting the country through the C19 crisis, But your original point seemed to be bemoaning the fact that everyone regardless of using a car or not would be paying to progress the EV revolution. The fact is the way the exchequer works means we all pay for all services and initiatives whether we use them or not. That is mutual support burden we should all be prepared to accept - or leave the country.
 
May 7, 2012
5,506
420
25,935
I think the answer has to be that we simply do not know what will happen. Science is moving things forward at a speed never seen before, trying to say what will be the position in 2030 is really guesswork. The idea of a ban on petrol and diesel cars looks good from an environmental position, but we simply do not know if it can be done in practice, only time will tell. By then we will have a different government, who will have their own ideas and react as they see fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JezzerB
Mar 14, 2005
13,422
611
40,935
My point Prof was that making an EV inclusive of all materials cannot be that different from an ICE . I am confident by 2030 the ICE may well be pollution free. Technology is a wonderful thing and anything is possible.....
In many aspects I'd agree, the production methods for almost everything other than the Engine/battery will be similar, but even now we water based paints rather than the older oil based ones, plastics from recycled material, synthetics instead or animal based products for the vegans, so there are already many initiatives to reduce the environmental impact of cars - even the Euro standards for engine emissions.

Someone has suggested that at some time in the future an ICE engine might be zero emissions, Fundamentally that is a very very steep hill to climb. Don't forget an emmision is anything produced as a by product of a principal process, so even heat, noise or water (from pure hydrogen engines) are emissions but might not be considered to be pollutants.

Net Carbon zero possibly, but I don't share your confidence of cars (Even EV's) being pollution zero ever. Unfortunately whenever we make something, we always produce some pollution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dustydog
Jul 18, 2017
1,779
325
5,935
I was not suggesting the tax revenue wouldn't need to be recouped, and yes there will almost certainly be tax rises to help cover the cost of supporting the country through the C19 crisis, But your original point seemed to be bemoaning the fact that everyone regardless of using a car or not would be paying to progress the EV revolution. The fact is the way the exchequer works means we all pay for all services and initiatives whether we use them or not. That is mutual support burden we should all be prepared to accept - or leave the country.
Seems we were both talking at cross purposes. If the government cannot recoup the all money through the motorists, they will need to look for other avenues how to recoup the lost revenue and that way would be to increase other taxes i.e. VAT etc.
 
Nov 11, 2009
8,965
1,115
30,935
The biggest issue with the VED being zero on EV is that only the wealthy can afford an EV at present so in many cases the vehicle is bought as a status symbol so that they can show off that they are green. The vehicle is then possibly parked up in a garage while they use their V8 as a run around.
EVs probably create just as much if not more pollution than a fossil fuelled vehicle as they still have to get the extra electric from somewhere. Fitting induction loops into roads will create just as much pollution. Erecting windmills and sea barriers to generate electric creates ongoing environmental damage or perhaps even more.
I am a firm believer that EVs in their current form using batteries is not the way forward as they damage the environment in many other ways besides polluting the air.
Surely one way would be to look at converting the millions of cars currently on the road to a more environmentally friendly fuel similar to petrol cars being converted to LPG.
Maybe harnessing the earth's natural magnetic field would be a way forward?
But LPG still creates CO2 albeit a cleaner burn than petrol or diesel for air quality improvements. The Wikipedia article that I posted above discusses the pros and cons of the various options on a cradle to grave basis and that’s what counts.
 
Jul 18, 2017
1,779
325
5,935
But LPG still creates CO2 albeit a cleaner burn than petrol or diesel for air quality improvements. The Wikipedia article that I posted above discusses the pros and cons of the various options on a cradle to grave basis and that’s what counts.
Which is why I used the word "similar" in the sense a similar concept, but not the same. Apologies for not making it clear.
There are many cars on the road today that are well over 20 years old and still going strong. I am not referring to vintage type vehicles either.
Our 1300cc Corolla Auto is now 24 years old with 120k on the clock and still going strong. It is comfortable, we get about 40mpg and servicing costs are very low. In spares if I have spent £500 on it in the past 8 years that would be a lot of money.
It is mainly used around town so we see no need to trade in a reliable vehicle. Everything on it works including radio and air con. Many other people probably feel the same way if they have a reliable vehicle. Also some people are cash strapped and sales of second hand vehicles will still happen after 2030.
 
Jan 3, 2012
2,674
382
20,935
My wife car is 12 years old Mitsubishi colt attivo 1.1 75,000 miles from new and it passed every MOT still gets 51.4mpg and cost next to nothing it still going strong starts up first go it been a very reliable car for work and pleasure .. if it not broken why get rid of it .
 
Mar 14, 2005
13,422
611
40,935
EVs probably create just as much if not more pollution than a fossil fuelled vehicle as they still have to get the extra electric from somewhere.
This is demonstrably untrue. A substantial amount of the UK 's electrical power is derived from nuclear, and renewables, This depresses the pollution created by the generators. We still have further to go to remove oil and gas from the generation and we are getting closer to that position.

In addition EV's are far more efficient then ICE vehicles, which means from the same mileage driven the total emissions from any EV ( and its sources of power generation) are substantially less then from ICE vehicles. There is plenty of irrefutable evidence to show that.

Fitting induction loops into roads will create just as much pollution. Erecting windmills and sea barriers to generate electric creates ongoing environmental damage or perhaps even more.
It simply is not possible for an induction loop fitted in a road to charge an EV to create pollution! It's no worse than any other pipes or cables that are buried in the road surface!

Windmills at sea? the impact on the environment is minimal, far far less than building any sort of power station, or the impact of seeking oil fields, extracting, refining, and transporting fuel oils.

I am a firm believer that EVs in their current form using batteries is not the way forward as they damage the environment in many other ways besides polluting the air.
Compared to all the extraction of gas and oil over the last 100 years or more the amount of damage to the environment to extract the materials to make batteries is absolutely minute.
And with pressure on developers to reduce any damage by looking for more sustainable products the future of battery production will be greener.

Combustion engines produce pollution for every moment the engine runs, Batteries do not produce any. At end of life, IC engines have fluids and some components that that cannot be recycled, car batteries can often be repurposed for other power storage duties, or if necessary can be completely recycled. Though the recyclers are not yet fully set up to do this but they are getting better.

Surely one way would be to look at converting the millions of cars currently on the road to a more environmentally friendly fuel similar to petrol cars being converted to LPG.
Simply finding an alternative fuel to use in combustion engines does not change the fact that combustion engines of any sort will produce emissions when ever they are used, of which some are likely to pollute, and their overall efficiency will never be as good as that of an EV's due to thermal and friction losses.

Maybe harnessing the earth's natural magnetic field would be a way forward?
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how this would work?
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2005
11,629
423
40,935
1. Currently offshore wind power is producing in excess of 10% of the total national grid. I am sure that will be and is being increased . Good news . More jobs providing almos done with the U.K. not Europe.
Apparently there are other sources of power , eg waves and hydro still to be developed forward

2. Induction loops long term with new technology should not be dismissed just yet. They may well be a successful way forward increasing available mileage on the moving vehicle.

3. Realistically there will always be a penalty . Whilst batteries will be used for domestic storage the general view is that some disposal costs of some waste will be involved. I suspect by the time that comes the amount will be minimal . On the fluids from our ICEs a lot of course is burnt in your local garage heater for warmth.

4. It’s not science but Governments that decide . Back in 1900 the electric tram and trolley bus was flavour of the month. The rest is history😥😥. Smokeless zones came in . Power stations were no longer clean, scrap electric and bring in diesel. And on it went. I hope this time we are on the correct path.
 
Jul 18, 2017
1,779
325
5,935
This is demonstrably untrue. A substantial amount of the UK 's electrical power is derived from nuclear, and renewables, This depresses the pollution created by the generators. We still have further to go to remove oil and gas from the generation and we are getting closer to that position.

In addition EV's are far more efficient then ICE vehicles, which means from the same mileage driven the total emissions from any EV ( and its sources of power generation) are substantially less then from ICE vehicles. There is plenty of irrefutable evidence to show that.



It simply is not possible for an induction loop fitted in a road to charge an EV to create pollution! It's no worse than any other pipes or cables that are buried in the road surface!

Windmills at sea? the impact on the environment is minimal, far far less than building any sort of power station, or the impact of seeking oil fields, extracting, refining, and transporting fuel oils.



Compared to all the extraction of gas and oil over the last 100 years or more the amount of damage to the environment to extract the materials to make batteries is absolutely minute.
And with pressure on developers to reduce any damage by looking for more sustainable products the future of battery production will be greener.

Combustion engines produce pollution for every moment the engine runs, Batteries do not produce any. At end of life, IC engines have fluids and some components that that cannot be recycled, car batteries can often be repurposed for other power storage duties, or if necessary can be completely recycled. Though the recyclers are not yet fully set up to do this but they are getting better.



Simply finding an alternative fuel to use in combustion engines does not change the fact that combustion engines of any sort will produce emissions when ever they are used, of which some are likely to pollute, and their overall efficiency will never be as good as that of an EV's due to thermal and friction losses.


Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how this would work?
Now that you have totally analysed my post why do you think that you are correct? Is nuclear a clean energy as straight away your argument does not wash! Plus the fact that using nuclear does not make an EV more efficient.

In order to lay the induction lines don't workmen have to travel to the site each day, dig up the road using fossil fuel machinery, hold up fossil cars for hours causing even more pollution etc or is someone going to wave a magic wand and it happens in the blink of an eye.

Sorry but your argument just does not make sense however if you are happy with whatever you believe that is all that counts. LOL!
 
Nov 11, 2009
8,965
1,115
30,935
Now that you have totally analysed my post why do you think that you are correct? Is nuclear a clean energy as straight away your argument does not wash! Plus the fact that using nuclear does not make an EV more efficient.

In order to lay the induction lines don't workmen have to travel to the site each day, dig up the road using fossil fuel machinery, hold up fossil cars for hours causing even more pollution etc or is someone going to wave a magic wand and it happens in the blink of an eye.

Sorry but your argument just does not make sense however if you are happy with whatever you believe that is all that counts. LOL!
Nuclear energy is clean. Coal and oil have killed far more people through extraction, process, pollution and accidents. In fact Ted Kennedy killed more people at Chappaquidik than did Three Mile Island. The nuclear waste requires disposal and plants require dismantling to segregate the waste streams. You really should read the Wikipedia article above which has some very balanced sections from well respected institutions. An EV converts its battery energy to motive power far more efficiently than dies a fossil fuelled vehicle.

What you really need is one of these berthed in a river or canal close by. A SMR transporter. 😀

DC5556EF-9D60-405A-8EA2-9AF7C20A4608.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PTA and ProfJohnL
Jan 3, 2012
2,674
382
20,935
Nuclear energy is clean. Coal and oil have killed far more people through extraction, process, pollution and accidents. In fact Ted Kennedy killed more people at Chappaquidik than did Three Mile Island. The nuclear waste requires disposal and plants require dismantling to segregate the waste streams. You really should read the Wikipedia article above which has some very balanced sections from well respected institutions. An EV converts its battery energy to motive power far more efficiently than dies a fossil fuelled vehicle.

What you really need is one of these berthed in a river or canal close by. A SMR transporter. 😀

View attachment 934
i would have love having a go one one those when i was younger:)
 
Mar 14, 2005
13,422
611
40,935
Now that you have totally analysed my post why do you think that you are correct?
I think I'm correct becasue I and a lot of other people have researched aspects of this and there are plenty of authoritative reports and publications that support the view I have expressed. The car manufacturers would not be spending their money on this technology if there were viable cheaper alternatives.

Is nuclear a clean energy as straight away your argument does not wash! Plus the fact that using nuclear does not make an EV more efficient.
There is no argument that nuclear waste is hazardous to life, but the big difference is nuclear fuel waste is managed very carefully, where as waste emissions from vehicles is spread wherever the vehicle goes. In terms of impact on the environment ICE is vastly greater than Nuclear

according to

UK Nuclear power stations manage an efficiency of between 37 to 40% (Fuel energy to usable power) but there are no emissions other than excess heat that escapes to the environment. That information is readily available from many different sources. That still allows EV's to be more fuel efficient than any ICE only vehicle currently available. Recent developments might see the efficiencies of new nuclear stations reaching 45%

In order to lay the induction lines don't workmen have to travel to the site each day, dig up the road using fossil fuel machinery, hold up fossil cars for hours causing even more pollution etc or is someone going to wave a magic wand and it happens in the blink of an eye.
The processes needed to lay induction systems would be no more complicated or disruptive than any other reason to excavate a road for power, water, drainage, gas or telecoms etc.

There are many works that are conducted when traffic flows are low (eg at night) to minimise disruption. Induction systems have yet to be proven, but they have not been adopted or implemented by many vehicle a manufacturers yet. Bear in mind the suggestion is induction pads would only be fitted in localised areas not along every road.

Sorry but your argument just does not make sense however if you are happy with whatever you believe that is all that counts. LOL!
I most certainly do believe in what I have written, and that belief has come from an engineering background, and modest research into the subject. EV life will be different, and drivers will have to adopt new ways of dealing with personal transport. I'm not saying there won't be alternatives to EV's, but based on present trends EV's will be the dominant form of transport moving forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: otherclive
Jul 15, 2008
3,235
89
20,735
I already have my house heated by a gas boiler that is now banned and illegal for new installations.
I suspect I will continue the personal trend and have diesel cars long after new ones are banned.
My current diesel tow car has it's 20th birthday soon ........no plans to replace it ;)
 
Nov 11, 2009
8,965
1,115
30,935
I already have my house heated by a gas boiler that is now banned and illegal for new installations.
I suspect I will continue the personal trend and have diesel cars long after new ones are banned.
My current diesel tow car has it's 20th birthday soon ........no plans to replace it ;)
Gas boilers are not banned and new ones are still being installed. Most if not all new gas boilers are designed to work on natural gas, a mix of natural gas and hydrogen or hydrogen. Trials are underway in parts of UK where a gas/ hydrogen mix is being tested.
 
Jan 31, 2018
768
244
2,135
Gas boilers and oil need banning-but they are to be banned in teh future so i understand; should be quicker than cars imo-burning fossil fuel with no catalyst so the co2 is simply chucked out of the wall. Anyway back to making up for fuel tax there are plenty of options out there-charge per mile of road use seems to be the way they are thinking-they've wanted to do it for ages and of course foreign vehicles could be charged too. mmmm
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts