Britain bans gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040

[DA60]

2040?

Please. They might as well have said 2240.

Do they realize that electric cars are still manufactured at a BIG loss...GM apparently loses $9,000 per Bolt. 'Magical' Tesla loses many thousands every time they sell a car.

'Eric Noble, president of the CarLab, a consulting company in California, believes most automakers lose at least $10,000 per EV sale. Adding credibility to that estimate, Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne said in 2014 that Fiat-Chrysler was losing $14,000 per sale of its 500e.'

GM may lose $9,000 for every Bolt EV sold - Autofocus.ca

Lithium-Ion batteries are just too expensive for the amount of power they deliver.

As much as I love them, there has to be a fundamental, technological change for electric cars to be profitable for manufacturers to sell.

And a politician promising something in 23 years means absolutely nothing as everyone knows a future government can change their minds anytime it wants and just make up a reason. Plus, politicians do not like carrying out ideas from previous politicians...especially if the previous politicians are of a different political party.

It is Europe, where green stuff thrives. But I am not believing this until 2040 rolls around (assuming I am still alive then).

 

[beerftw]

Range is not much of an issues any more. And the infrastructure is already getting in place here in the US. England I'd imagine would be rather easy by comparison being a smaller island nation.

Range is the biggest issue, and always has been with electric cars and still is. You can drive cross country with a gas car, fill up and keep driving, with an electric you need to keep recharging.

The recharging could be solved but the infrastructure to make it happen will probably take much longer than 20 years to build.

 

[beerftw]

Ok, but don't car manufacturers retool and change things around quite often, already? I can go into an auto part store and say, "I need x-part for a 1968 Chevy Malibu.", and they'd have it to me in 30 seconds.

Now, I go in and ask for the same part but for a 2004 Chevy <whatever>, and they ask, "Which one? They used three of them that year."

As to your point regarding reliability, again that's already the case... different manufacturers are known for their own sets of reliability issues. There's an old saying: "If you want a transmission issue buy a Chrysler, if you want a fuel system issue by a GM, if you want an electrical issue buy a Ford." I might have them switched around, but you get the idea.

Most of those retooled parts are not fully retooled though, like for example the same lines may be used for xyz power steering and the same exact pumps used with different brackets and pulleys. Switching from internal combustion would require ground up retooling, which is extremely expensive, which is why automakers do it in phases now rather than redesigning their whole line all the time.

 

[JasperL]

It would be really stupid to allow our enemies to control the sorlds oil supplies

I agree, but the cost of those wars for fossil fuels, to keep them plentiful and cheap, is a HUUUUGGGGE government subsidy of that fuel source. It's certainly not a 'free market' concept to drop bombs and kill people and topple governments to retain access to cheap oil. :roll:

 

[Anthony60]

2040?

Please. They might as well have said 2240.

Do they realize that electric cars are still manufactured at a BIG loss...GM apparently loses $9,000 per Bolt. 'Magical' Tesla loses many thousands every time they sell a car.

'Eric Noble, president of the CarLab, a consulting company in California, believes most automakers lose at least $10,000 per EV sale. Adding credibility to that estimate, Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne said in 2014 that Fiat-Chrysler was losing $14,000 per sale of its 500e.'

GM may lose $9,000 for every Bolt EV sold - Autofocus.ca

Lithium-Ion batteries are just too expensive for the amount of power they deliver.

As much as I love them, there has to be a fundamental, technological change for electric cars to be profitable for manufacturers to sell.

And a politician promising something in 23 years means absolutely nothing as everyone knows a future government can change their minds anytime it wants and just make up a reason. Plus, politicians do not like carrying out ideas from previous politicians...especially if the previous politicians are of a different political party.

It is Europe, where green stuff thrives. But I am not believing this until 2040 rolls around (assuming I am still alive then).

This is all a "look at me! Look how much I care about the planet. No more gas cars! Hooray for me!" political stunt. Why didn't they outlaw cancer, sunburn, and war too? Actually, I think they tried war already.

 

[OlNate]

Sorry but another thundering liberal herd member already beat you to that response

hehe...ok, whatever Henrin, uh, I mean, Mac.... It would just be so much more interesting of you to contribute something other than moaning about liberals all the time. We get it, you hate us. Do you actually have anything to say beyond that? If not, mission accomplished, we got it. Guessing most of us will be able to make it through our day somehow anyway.......

 

[bluesmoke]

That's a commitment for sure. I can understand Britain's concern for air pollution since their coal disaster in the 1950's that killed so many people and impaired so many more.

Good on them.

Britain bans gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040

Britain will ban sales of new gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040 as part of a bid to clean up the country's air.

The decision to phase out the internal combustion engine heralds a new era of low-emission technologies with major implications for the auto industry, society and the environment.
"We can't carry on with diesel and petrol cars," U.K. environment secretary Michael Gove told the BBC on Wednesday. "There is no alternative to embracing new technology."

Almost 2.7 million new cars were registered in the U.K. in 2016, making it the second biggest market in Europe after Germany.

Meeting the 2040 deadline will be a heavy lift. British demand for electric and fuel cell cars, as well as plug-in hybrids, grew 40% in 2015, but they only accounted for less than 3% of the market.

Still, experts say sales of clean cars are likely to continue on their dramatic upward trajectory.​

Many pretend that such action is contrary to business. Yet, businesses are going in this direction, anyway. Volvo has implemented plans to eliminate petroleum powered vehicles. Humans with a modicum of brain power know that to survive on this planet, we must do such.

 

[JMaximus]

When those advances are real and not merely promised I will take advantage of them

But bullyiing people by taking choices away from them is stupid and indicates less confidence in the big talk being thrown around by the greenies

The fact is if 15 years go by and the lost secrets of Atlantis have not been perfected they will be just as happy to worship Mother Earth in the dark

They won't be in the dark without cars.

And the law only requires new car purchases to be EVs. Already existing ICEs can stay on the road.

I'm thinking more of a situation where, unable to buy new cars ('cause there are none that work), people will keep fixing their current ones well past their otherwise useful life.

Aftertall, socialist hellhole islands covered in classic cars aren't unheard of

 

[DA60]

They won't be in the dark without cars.

And the law only requires new car purchases to be EVs. Already existing ICEs can stay on the road.

I'm thinking more of a situation where, unable to buy new cars ('cause there are none that work), people will keep fixing their current ones well past their otherwise useful life.

Aftertall, socialist hellhole islands covered in classic cars aren't unheard of

 

[Mac77]

I agree, but the cost of those wars for fossil fuels, to keep them plentiful and cheap, is a HUUUUGGGGE government subsidy of that fuel source. It's certainly not a 'free market' concept to drop bombs and kill people and topple governments to retain access to cheap oil. :roll:

Plentiful and cheap to what end?

Why would America want access to foreign oil?

Not to make the oil companies rich as the leftwingers seem to think but rather to put gasoline in our ambulances and cars and busses that America needs to sustain our economy

I guess you will say that windmills can replace oil and then we only need to fight the euros who seem to be the major suppliers of our new technology from windmills to fast trains.

But I say that if the new technology is better than fossile fuel let the free market come to that conclusing naturally and keep the government out of it

 

[Mac77]

They won't be in the dark without cars.

And the law only requires new car purchases to be EVs. Already existing ICEs can stay on the road.

I'm thinking more of a situation where, unable to buy new cars ('cause there are none that work), people will keep fixing their current ones well past their otherwise useful life.

Aftertall, socialist hellhole islands covered in classic cars aren't unheard of

People can keep their old cars only if the environmentalists allow them to

Just because the brits have not retroactively banned all gas cars yet does not mean they wont

After all the very existance of the planet is hanging in the balance dontcha know

 

[JasperL]

Plentiful and cheap to what end?

Why would America want access to foreign oil?

Not to make the oil companies rich as the leftwingers seem to think but rather to put gasoline in our ambulances and cars and busses that America needs to sustain our economy

It does both, but I agree, the purpose is/was largely to advance national interests, but you keep arguing points I'm not making. Point is ENERGY hasn't ever in the history of the country at least post 1900 or so been left to the "free market." The feds have used all kinds of ways to subsidize cheap, plentiful fossil fuels to encourage industry, etc. and WE ARE STILL DOING IT.

I guess you will say that windmills can replace oil and then we only need to fight the euros who seem to be the major suppliers of our new technology from windmills to fast trains.

But I say that if the new technology is better than fossile fuel let the free market come to that conclusing naturally and keep the government out of it

The government has been 'in' the energy market for well over a century and is still in it. We've already talked about pollution and the imminent domain power for the big Keystone Pipeline and the military's presence all over the world protecting our fossil fuel supplies. Add a surcharge to cover all that and much more, and a much bigger one to cover past costs we never recovered, all the deaths in the wars, disease and deaths from pollution, etc. at the pump and on our electric bills, and THEN we can let the "market" decide between alternatives on an apples to apples basis.

If not, your "free market" competition is something on the order of "let's have a 100 meter dash, and start fossil fuels off on the 50 yard line, alternatives at 0, then have a competition and see who wins!!"

 

[ludin]

2040?

Please. They might as well have said 2240.

Do they realize that electric cars are still manufactured at a BIG loss...GM apparently loses $9,000 per Bolt. 'Magical' Tesla loses many thousands every time they sell a car.

'Eric Noble, president of the CarLab, a consulting company in California, believes most automakers lose at least $10,000 per EV sale. Adding credibility to that estimate, Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne said in 2014 that Fiat-Chrysler was losing $14,000 per sale of its 500e.'

GM may lose $9,000 for every Bolt EV sold - Autofocus.ca

Lithium-Ion batteries are just too expensive for the amount of power they deliver.

As much as I love them, there has to be a fundamental, technological change for electric cars to be profitable for manufacturers to sell.

And a politician promising something in 23 years means absolutely nothing as everyone knows a future government can change their minds anytime it wants and just make up a reason. Plus, politicians do not like carrying out ideas from previous politicians...especially if the previous politicians are of a different political party.

It is Europe, where green stuff thrives. But I am not believing this until 2040 rolls around (assuming I am still alive then).

Not to mention they do not have the infrastructure to support it either.
the other issue is wait time. currently i can refill my car and go in <4 minutes.

depending on the car and the charger it can take a half hour +
the same issue exists with hydrogen run cars as well.

 

[ludin]

Range is the biggest issue, and always has been with electric cars and still is. You can drive cross country with a gas car, fill up and keep driving, with an electric you need to keep recharging.

The recharging could be solved but the infrastructure to make it happen will probably take much longer than 20 years to build.

i think tesla has the longest range at 200-250 miles.

 

[Anthony60]

i think tesla has the longest range at 200-250 miles.

Most of them seem to be in that range.

At least we have a Constitution here that protects us from a government that is so out of control, that gets so deep into our daily lives, that it tells us what cars we can drive. Right?

 

[poweRob]

The only way that is possible is for me to stop expressing my opinion

Or think.

 

[ludin]

Most of them seem to be in that range.

At least we have a Constitution here that protects us from a government that is so out of control, that gets so deep into our daily lives, that it tells us what cars we can drive. Right?

you would think that but you don't after the obamacare ruling.
the government can force you to buy an electric car now and if you don't they can force you to pay a tax penalty.

it was one of the largest abuses and losses of american freedom to date.
when the court gave the government power to force you into an economic transaction whether you want to be a part of it or not.

 

[poweRob]

Range is the biggest issue, and always has been with electric cars and still is. You can drive cross country with a gas car, fill up and keep driving, with an electric you need to keep recharging.

The recharging could be solved but the infrastructure to make it happen will probably take much longer than 20 years to build.

This is just tesla charger sites that have already been erected:



And that map is a year old.

The main problem I see with electric vehicles at this point is not charging infrastructure but time it takes to charge.

 

[JasperL]

you would think that but you don't after the obamacare ruling.
the government can force you to buy an electric car now and if you don't they can force you to pay a tax penalty.

it was one of the largest abuses and losses of american freedom to date.
when the court gave the government power to force you into an economic transaction whether you want to be a part of it or not.

I don't think that's an accurate description of what happened or what's possible after the ruling. The problem with healthcare is no one can or does opt out of the healthcare market - we ARE all part of it, or will be at some point in our lives, and if you're uninsured and get sick or injured, the health care system is by law REQUIRED to provide you emergency healthcare services whether you can pay or not.

And sure, the government can tax fossil fuels like we do now with gasoline taxes, and the same way we tax liquor, cigarettes, food, clothing, real estate, etc. No reason to invent a new justification for it based on the ACA ruling.

 

[ludin]

I don't think that's an accurate description of what happened or what's possible after the ruling. The problem with healthcare is no one can or does opt out of the healthcare market - we ARE all part of it, or will be at some point in our lives, and if you're uninsured and get sick or injured, the health care system is by law REQUIRED to provide you emergency healthcare services whether you can pay or not.

It 100% is accurate. The individual mandate forces people to buy a product they don't want or pay a tax for not buying it.
sure they do. there were millions of people (mostly younger or upper middle class people) that didn't want healthcare or they only wanted coverage when they had to go to the hospital.

And sure, the government can tax fossil fuels like we do now with gasoline taxes, and the same way we tax liquor, cigarettes, food, clothing, real estate, etc. No reason to invent a new justification for it based on the ACA ruling.

and due to the ACA they can force you to buy an electric car or you pay a tax penalty. it is no different than the ACA.
as they can force you to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty.

as long as they put a tax on it they can do it. it was one of the biggest power transfers in recent history and the american people lost big time.

 

[Anthony60]

I don't think that's an accurate description of what happened or what's possible after the ruling. The problem with healthcare is no one can or does opt out of the healthcare market - we ARE all part of it, or will be at some point in our lives, and if you're uninsured and get sick or injured, the health care system is by law REQUIRED to provide you emergency healthcare services whether you can pay or not.

And sure, the government can tax fossil fuels like we do now with gasoline taxes, and the same way we tax liquor, cigarettes, food, clothing, real estate, etc. No reason to invent a new justification for it based on the ACA ruling.

The question is, What is there left to stop the government from forcing you to buy anything now? The Supreme Court said that the Constitution can not stop them from forcing you to purchase health care. That's not a little thing, like a lightbulb (of course, they're involved in that too). Certainly as important or more than a car purchase.

So, what's to stop them now?

 

[JasperL]

It 100% is accurate. The individual mandate forces people to buy a product they don't want or pay a tax for not buying it.
sure they do. there were millions of people (mostly younger or upper middle class people) that didn't want healthcare or they only wanted coverage when they had to go to the hospital.

LOL, right, they didn't want to spend the money for insurance, or couldn't afford it, and when they got sick the ER is required by LAW to treat them, and to the tune of $billions per year, the rest of us picked up the tab. It's unbelievable how the GOP has been reduced to defending freeloading as some Constitutional right.

and due to the ACA they can force you to buy an electric car or you pay a tax penalty. it is no different than the ACA.
as they can force you to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty.

It's apples and dump trucks. 10s of millions of people don't have cars so why would they be required to buy an electric car? And if you want to tax internal combustion engines, we already have that tax - it's called a gas tax. Been in place for many decades. I assume you have no problem with taxes on gasoline, so why do we need a new tax or justification for taxing what we have been taxing for my entire lifetime?

as long as they put a tax on it they can do it. it was one of the biggest power transfers in recent history and the american people lost big time.

Right, freeloading is a Constitutional right!

 

[straykatz]

Just curious: Do people ever get denied... their doctor overruled, essentially... for a procedure or medication? If so, what are some of the common reasons given?

I honestly don't know the answer, hence my asking.

Not where I come from (originally from Canada)....your doctor determines your diagnosis and treatment plan not the government. I was never denied treatment or access to treatment and neither has anyone back home in my family or friends. If it is something outside of your doctors ability to care for then you are sent to a specialist...are there wait times?...yes!...but I can attest to the fact there are wait times to see certain kinds of specialists or have certain kinds of surgery here in the US too!

Generally when people come here from other countries for medical treatment it is because a treatment or surgery is available here but not in their home country or it's a elective surgery that can be obtained quicker/cheaper here....and of course there are those with money who buy their way to the front of the line per say by coming to the US but it's not as huge a number as we are often led to believe. For example - it's all too easy to say that "many" Canadians cross the border for medical care but what exactly is that "many" number?..what is the % of Canadians doing that on regular basis?....I'm willing to bet that number is quite small and most of those sought after procedures are likely not anything covered under Canada's healthcare...for example cosmetic surgery in most cases is elective and not paid for by the Canadian healthcare system. And while Canadians might complain about their system and the need for improvement you can bet on it that Canadians are not willing to give it up. No system is perfect.....but no other country in the world except America has such a major political issue related to healthcare along with an extreme aversion to everyone having the same care across this country regardless of age, sex, race, wealth. Every illness is not self-inflicted....and no matter who you are or how well you take care of your body...sooner or later you will need medical care for something in your lifetime.

 

[JasperL]

The question is, What is there left to stop the government from forcing you to buy anything now? The Supreme Court said that the Constitution can not stop them from forcing you to purchase health care. That's not a little thing, like a lightbulb (of course, they're involved in that too). Certainly as important or more than a car purchase.

So, what's to stop them now?

The health care market really is unique. No one can opt out, and the law REQUIRES providers to treat patients without regard to ability to pay. If you don't buy insurance, you're making a bet, and if you win (don't get really sick or in a bad accident) you keep the winnings of insurance premiums saved. If you lose and can't afford the 6 figure bill, we pay off your losses. I don't have a problem with putting a price on that bet you're making in which the law REQUIRES that we cover your losses if you cannot.

It would be different if the ambulance at the head on collision checked you for insurance or your bank account first before taking you to ER and giving you 6 figures worth of care, but that does not happen.

 

[beefheart]

This is just tesla charger sites that have already been erected:

View attachment 67220632

And that map is a year old.

The main problem I see with electric vehicles at this point is not charging infrastructure but time it takes to charge.

Yep, installing a charging station is a very quick process, unlike a new gas station. You have to excavate, install storage tanks, ensure that they are not leaking, install all the lines, the safety cutoffs, the pumps, the POS sales systems, and...you gotta refill the tanks every week.

Charging station, install equipment, hook it up to the grid, get the payment system up and running, and that is it.