Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Today’s move against petrol and diesel vehicles will move the

SystemSystem Posts: 12,260
edited July 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Today’s move against petrol and diesel vehicles will move the narrative on from Brexit

This morning’s big political news is that the Government is set to announce that petrol and diesel vehicles will no longer be sold in the UK from 2040.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,764
    Look! A dead cat.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,764
    Ginsters shares in freefall.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,288
    Second!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,766
    It only really works as a policy if lots of other countries do it as well. France made the first move, but we need others to follow suit. By getting in early, though, we have the chance to establish the UK as a centre for R&D in this area, which would be a very good thing. Of course, that will also depend on how our post-Brexit immigration policy works. If we only want tens of thousands of immigrants a year, then we are going to make it very hard for ourselves given the other gaps we will need to fill.

    In short, while this will move things on in the short-term, Brexit is there in the background for this policy as it is for almost everything else as well.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,402
    It's a policy that makes headlines and requires you to do nothing very much. Ideal!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,766
    Actually, Michael Gove may just have ensured that Brexit does remain the main story.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,288
    It is surely going to affect new and used car prices as the date draws near, and in practice the changeover date will have to be significantly sooner, since who would buy a new petrol or diesel car in the 2030s?
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,541
    edited July 2017

    Actually, Michael Gove may just have ensured that Brexit does remain the main story.

    Edit: Sorry, stupid comment!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,766
    Interesting. Thanks for the link.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,766

    Actually, Michael Gove may just have ensured that Brexit does remain the main story.

    Why? What's he done?

    Started a chicken war with Liam Fox ;-)

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,345
    Back in the 80s, I was promised flying cars by 2020.

    So I'm underwhelmed by this announcement.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    edited July 2017
    I wonder if this will also include other hybrid options like fuel cell technology plus battery. Catalytic fission of water to burn hydrogen for short term boost in power.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,345

    Actually, Michael Gove may just have ensured that Brexit does remain the main story.

    Why? What's he done?

    Started a chicken war with Liam Fox ;-)

    In future, can you call him 'The disgraced national security risk Liam Fox'
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    edited July 2017
    Distributive power supply - Polywell fusion reactors dotted around :grin:
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    I wonder what this will do to the British motor racing industry
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    "In Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2017, UK GDP was estimated to have increased by 0.3%. The services aggregate was the main driver to the growth in GDP, contributing 0.42 percentage points. Production and construction recorded falls in Quarter 2 2017 of 0.4% and 0.9% respectively, each contributing negative 0.06 percentage points to GDP.

    The main contributor to growth was the distribution, hotels and restaurants sector, which increased by 1.1%, contributing 0.15 percentage points to quarter-on-quarter GDP growth. Retail trade, except of motor vehicles, and food and beverage service activities were the main contributors to the growth in this sector.

    The second largest contributor was motion picture activities, which grew by 8.2% and contributed 0.07 percentage points to GDP growth."

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/grossdomesticproductpreliminaryestimate/aprtojune2017
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    TheScreamingEagles

    So the "disgraced national security risk" Liam Fox is the target of a "chicken war" with the "half mad and wholly hated" disgraced and disloyal Cabinet Minister.

    Theresa "the unelectable" needs to get back soon from her holidays and stamp her authority on this rabble.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,274
    There's a bit of a contradiction in there. On the one hand he's arguing that the Tories are suffering because people can't get on the housing ladder. But presumably, the people moving to Swindon, Reading, Crawley, Bracknell and Brighton are getting on the housing ladder.

    Personally I think the Tories do need to worry about home ownership. But there is a tendency to think that the latest result is all that matters and that because the Tories didn't do as well as expected, things will inevitably get worse for them. What we've just had is an election where the Tories ran a pretty dreadful campaign and the opposition got a free ride to promise the earth to voters. And the Tories still won more votes than Labour.
  • IanB2 said:

    It is surely going to affect new and used car prices as the date draws near, and in practice the changeover date will have to be significantly sooner, since who would buy a new petrol or diesel car in the 2030s?

    Anyone who cares about the environment. The production of batteries is still highly inefficient and polluting. Until they get the pollution & energy used to produce the batteries below what a petrol car would produce in its lifetime buying an electric or hybrid is a crime equivalent to buying a diesel. Hopefully they'll get there by 2040
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,406

    Actually, Michael Gove may just have ensured that Brexit does remain the main story.

    Why? What's he done?

    Started a chicken war with Liam Fox ;-)

    I reckon Gove is winging it
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited July 2017
    O/T

    Has anyone stayed at the new Canary Wharf Novotel? It opened in February (I think):

    https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2017/04/19/novotel-canary-wharf-opens/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,520

    I wonder what this will do to the British motor racing industry

    In the short term, get them lobbying hard against it! Although to be fair, at the top end the F1 teams are already pioneers of hybrid electric car technology, they'll probably benefit from increased adoption of their tech by the mainstream. The current electric Formula E series is also pushing electric cars, but the tech there is still a long way away - the cars are very slow and the batteries only last 20 minutes.

    In the future, the race track might be the only place left to enjoy old fashioned petrol powered cars!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,345
    tlg86 said:
    Can you explain why?

    I have no knowledge on this matter, so could do with some educating.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,520
    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,229
    FPT:

    The quantities of chlorite and chlorate, the byproducts from using chlorine dioxide to disinfect poultry, are too low to realistically impact human health. According to data from the European Commission, a person would need to eat 5% of their bodyweight in chlorinated poultry daily to consume their tolerable daily intake of chlorate, or more than 23% to reach the same limit for chlorite.

    The average adult woman would have to regularly eat more than two and a half chlorinated chickens a day before suffering any noticeable health effects. The typical man would have to eat nearly three whole birds each day. That is before “the expected decreases in the levels of these [chlorite] residues after processing, including cooking”, according to the European Commission.

    Drinking water poses a far greater risk, contributing 99% of the disinfection byproducts consumed in a typical daily diet, with chlorinated poultry making up just 0.3% to 1% of total exposure.

    The British government limits the combined concentration of chlorite and chlorate in water at 0.5mg per litre. At that upper bound, eating a whole chicken is roughly equivalent to drinking a glass of water.


    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56eddde762cd9413e151ac92/t/59747741bf629a8e3d01a494/1500804930480/Chlorinated+Chicken.pdf
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,274

    tlg86 said:
    Can you explain why?

    I have no knowledge on this matter, so could do with some educating.
    Trains tend to operate in between cities - and there's not that many of them. Cars, lorries, buses and taxis tend to operate within cities and cause air pollution.

    That's not to say that they shouldn't aim to electrify railways - especially the Great Western Mainline - but the reason you'd do it is to improve operational performance. The reduction in air pollution is very much a secondary concern.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Back in the 80s, I was promised flying cars by 2020.

    So I'm underwhelmed by this announcement.

    You do realise that it was quite possible for guests at Oscar Wilde's wedding to arrive in a production model electric car with a rechargeable battery?

    This is a very cunning move by the govt, since as well as being a good plan it is a very effective theft of Labour's clothes and it focuses attention on the diesel falsifying activities of the filthy Hun. If only it had been in the manifesto...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited July 2017
    Jonathan said:

    Look! A dead cat.

    As long as it is not an unfunded commitment to build new power stations and charging infrastructure or a hundred billion pound hole in the budget as petrol taxes fall to zero.

    You know how these things upset Guido's followers and CCHQ-sponsored astroturfers.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,520
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:
    Can you explain why?

    I have no knowledge on this matter, so could do with some educating.
    Trains tend to operate in between cities - and there's not that many of them. Cars, lorries, buses and taxis tend to operate within cities and cause air pollution.

    That's not to say that they shouldn't aim to electrify railways - especially the Great Western Mainline - but the reason you'd do it is to improve operational performance. The reduction in air pollution is very much a secondary concern.
    The residents of Paddington may disagree, as a 40 year old fume-belching 125 leaves every five minutes heading west.

    GWR electrification should have been started as soon as the WCML electrification finished.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,919
    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars.
    (Snip)
    It may not work out that way. Remember most cars are unused most of the time, and that makes them a good distributed store of large amounts of energy.

    *If* protocol standards can be developed (and they'd probably be international standards), then the power grid can communicate with cars. If there's a power shortage, they could provide a few watts to the grid. If there's too much power, they could soak some up.

    If the car believes it won't be used until the next morning, then it could give some energy back to the grid and charge up later.

    This is more likely if battery tech improves as much as some hope.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,345
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:
    Can you explain why?

    I have no knowledge on this matter, so could do with some educating.
    Trains tend to operate in between cities - and there's not that many of them. Cars, lorries, buses and taxis tend to operate within cities and cause air pollution.

    That's not to say that they shouldn't aim to electrify railways - especially the Great Western Mainline - but the reason you'd do it is to improve operational performance. The reduction in air pollution is very much a secondary concern.
    Thanks.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Oh goodie, massive job creation. And we will shortly have an extra £360m odd a week to spend on it. And if you pro rate up £56bn to benefit the tiny fraction of people who want to take a train to Leeds, to a scheme which benefits the entire population, you get quite a big number.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,274
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:
    Can you explain why?

    I have no knowledge on this matter, so could do with some educating.
    Trains tend to operate in between cities - and there's not that many of them. Cars, lorries, buses and taxis tend to operate within cities and cause air pollution.

    That's not to say that they shouldn't aim to electrify railways - especially the Great Western Mainline - but the reason you'd do it is to improve operational performance. The reduction in air pollution is very much a secondary concern.
    The residents of Paddington may disagree, as a 40 year old fume-belching 125 leaves every five minutes heading west.

    GWR electrification should have been started as soon as the WCML electrification finished.
    I bet it pales into insignificance when compared to the contribution of the A40 and other surrounding roads.

    Anyway, the bi modes will be on electric in and out of Paddington. It's the poor people of Bath who will have to put up with diesel fumes.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,067
    Rather than having a cliff edge date, after which it is illegal to buy a petrol/diesel car, why not prod the industry in this direction more quickly through vehicle tax? This tax rate is already dependent on the age of car and type of engine so this would not be too difficult to implement. The tax increase on these cars could start of very gradually so that the manufacturers have some time to adapt, but the increase accelerates up to 2040 so that in the last couple of years most petrol/diesel cars will be priced out of the market. It also avoids the problem that a petrol car bought in 2039 would still legally be allowed to be driven emmitting pollution for the lifetime of that car.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Autonomous cars will drastically reduce ownership in urban areas.
  • jayfdeejayfdee Posts: 618
    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,919
    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:
    Can you explain why?

    I have no knowledge on this matter, so could do with some educating.
    Trains tend to operate in between cities - and there's not that many of them. Cars, lorries, buses and taxis tend to operate within cities and cause air pollution.

    That's not to say that they shouldn't aim to electrify railways - especially the Great Western Mainline - but the reason you'd do it is to improve operational performance. The reduction in air pollution is very much a secondary concern.
    The residents of Paddington may disagree, as a 40 year old fume-belching 125 leaves every five minutes heading west.

    GWR electrification should have been started as soon as the WCML electrification finished.
    ISTR the original WCML electrification in the 1960s did not go smoothly. Besides, back then the GWR were still concerned with doing things their way, hence the outdated diesel-hydraulics.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,635
    Wonder if I can keep my 207 going till 2040...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,520
    tlg86 said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:
    Can you explain why?

    I have no knowledge on this matter, so could do with some educating.
    Trains tend to operate in between cities - and there's not that many of them. Cars, lorries, buses and taxis tend to operate within cities and cause air pollution.

    That's not to say that they shouldn't aim to electrify railways - especially the Great Western Mainline - but the reason you'd do it is to improve operational performance. The reduction in air pollution is very much a secondary concern.
    The residents of Paddington may disagree, as a 40 year old fume-belching 125 leaves every five minutes heading west.

    GWR electrification should have been started as soon as the WCML electrification finished.
    I bet it pales into insignificance when compared to the contribution of the A40 and other surrounding roads.

    Anyway, the bi modes will be on electric in and out of Paddington. It's the poor people of Bath who will have to put up with diesel fumes.
    Last time I was on the A40 it was full of German-made diesels, so you're probably right ;)
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,067


    Anyone who cares about the environment. The production of batteries is still highly inefficient and polluting. Until they get the pollution & energy used to produce the batteries below what a petrol car would produce in its lifetime buying an electric or hybrid is a crime equivalent to buying a diesel. Hopefully they'll get there by 2040

    The pollution for battery production and electricity generation does not push the emmisions out one meter away from a child's head.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited July 2017
    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    i barely drive at all now and ride my bike most places. It is quite surprising how little time I lose, The gym is 25 mins by bike and 15 by car, and the sense of freedom/lack of traffic more than compensates for the time lost. Healthier too. Electric cars may encourage more cyclists because of the lack of fumes inhaled on the road, although it might be tricky to hear them!

    When everything is done by robot, we will have more time on our hands and cycling may become even more popular, as there is no rush to get anywhere
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,919
    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Autonomous cars will drastically reduce ownership in urban areas.
    Perhaps. The onset of truly level-5 autonomous cars will utterly alter travel patterns, yet alone ownership. Rentals would, I think, be more common than ownership, which is one reason Uber are so keen to get in on the act, albeit incompetently.

    Although as regular readers will know, I'm very bearish about the likelihood of true level-5 cars in the immediate future.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,074
    As we're discussing trains, this is my favourite train video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEjU9KVABao
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,987
    isam said:

    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    i barely drive at all now and ride my bike most places. It is quite surprising how little time I lose, The gym is 25 mins by bike and 15 by car, and the sense of freedom/lack of traffic more than compensates for the time lost. Healthier too. Electric cars may encourage more cyclists because of the lack of fumes inhaled on the road, although it might be tricky to hear them!

    When everything is done by robot, we will have more time on our hands and cycling may become even more popular, as there is no rush to get anywhere
    There is always a rush to get somewhere. Futurologists of the past believed that one of the biggest problems of this (current) autonomated era would be what to do with all our free time. We find stuff to fill it up with.

    As for cycling, yes, there may be an uptick in usage if air pollution is reduced but the facts remain that you still turn up sweaty wherever you're going, you're still vulnerable to other road-users wielding heavy, fast metal boxes, and you're still at the mercy of the weather.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,383
    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    The former energy tsar, recently passed, suggested petrol stations could become battery change stations, with a supply of standardized charged batteries swapped in and discharges swapped out for recharge. Given the number of batteries in each car it is still a massive logistical piece both in the automation/robotics/car design needed to achieve an acceptable battery swap experience, the moving, separation and storage of batteries within the station, and the recharge solution, whether onsite or remote.

    It would likely look more like a small factory than a petrol station.

  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    A better move than no new hydrocarbon fuelled cars by 2040 would have been to have 2030 as a target for no petrol or diesel cars in cities. That's where the pollution is worse but also where the infrastructure needed could be most cheaply implemented.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,987
    Pulpstar said:

    Wonder if I can keep my 207 going till 2040...

    I'm wondering the same about my 52-plate Fiesta.
  • isam said:

    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    i barely drive at all now and ride my bike most places. It is quite surprising how little time I lose, The gym is 25 mins by bike and 15 by car, and the sense of freedom/lack of traffic more than compensates for the time lost. Healthier too. Electric cars may encourage more cyclists because of the lack of fumes inhaled on the road, although it might be tricky to hear them!

    When everything is done by robot, we will have more time on our hands and cycling may become even more popular, as there is no rush to get anywhere
    Hmm, where have I heard that before? :-)
  • jayfdeejayfdee Posts: 618
    isam said:

    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    i barely drive at all now and ride my bike most places. It is quite surprising how little time I lose, The gym is 25 mins by bike and 15 by car, and the sense of freedom/lack of traffic more than compensates for the time lost. Healthier too. Electric cars may encourage more cyclists because of the lack of fumes inhaled on the road, although it might be tricky to hear them!

    When everything is done by robot, we will have more time on our hands and cycling may become even more popular, as there is no rush to get anywhere
    My Plug in makes an artificial noise when on electric,quieter than an ICE, but you can turn it off, it is on by default. Yes it can hardly be heard at all with the noise off.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,520
    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    Yes, the government currently make around £50bn from fuel duty and VED (road tax), none of which are paid by electric cars. They're going to have to find a way to replace this renenue somehow, perhaps a tax on charging point usage or differential electricity pricing based on whether for domestic or automotive usage.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,987
    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    Indeed. You can be reasonably confident that if the move to electric becomes a flood rather than a trickle then the tax base will follow.

    On the other hand, as the market expands, the efficiency of electric should improve markedly as more money goes into R&D in search of the returns on offer in such a bigger market.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,919
    Pro_Rata said:

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    The former energy tsar, recently passed, suggested petrol stations could become battery change stations, with a supply of standardized charged batteries swapped in and discharges swapped out for recharge. Given the number of batteries in each car it is still a massive logistical piece both in the automation/robotics/car design needed to achieve an acceptable battery swap experience, the moving, separation and storage of batteries within the station, and the recharge solution, whether onsite or remote.

    It would likely look more like a small factory than a petrol station.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V0vL3nnHY

    You'd end up being charged for 'wear' on the battery.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited July 2017
    FPT


    Trump seems to be able to do whatever he wants. The checks and balances that are supposed to exist in the US system are clearly not as strong as was thought. He has a supine Congress, a majority in the Supreme Court and is now looking to manufacture a fraudulent voting narrative that will enable him to deny millions the opportunity to go cast ballots. The US is going on a very dark journey. I cannot see it ending well.

    I am not sure Trump is getting away with stuff so much as Republicans realising they can use Trump as cover to ram pet projects through, such as sanctions or the repeal of Obamacare.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    The process behind this is quite interesting, it results from an order of the High Court directing the UK to comply with pollution limits dictated by the Great Whore of Brussels. what will Mr Farage have to say about it?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,043
    What idiot thought that was good selection of colours to use. Yellow ok then green, shades of green, greeny blue, bluey green, shades of blue, ....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,074
    Mr. D, indeed.

    Must admit, I'm concerned that there'll be no investment in the 'too difficult' area of rural infrastructure for charging points. This sounds like an urban policy, designed by people interested and aware of urban environments.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,520

    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Autonomous cars will drastically reduce ownership in urban areas.
    Perhaps. The onset of truly level-5 autonomous cars will utterly alter travel patterns, yet alone ownership. Rentals would, I think, be more common than ownership, which is one reason Uber are so keen to get in on the act, albeit incompetently.

    Although as regular readers will know, I'm very bearish about the likelihood of true level-5 cars in the immediate future.
    Agree on the fully autonomous cars. The difficulty will be where they drive differently to human-driven cars, for example sticking to speed limits. It will also be really easy for humans driving other cars to play games, cutting them up and not letting them out, for example. They'll probably have to start with dedicated lanes or roads.

    Uber are a bunch of scumbags who are losing a lot of money. They'll probably fold this year but the idea of fleets of rental autonomous cars as taxis is probably realistic. There's a lot of money going into the technology.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    scotslass said:

    TheScreamingEagles

    So the "disgraced national security risk" Liam Fox is the target of a "chicken war" with the "half mad and wholly hated" disgraced and disloyal Cabinet Minister.

    Theresa "the unelectable" needs to get back soon from her holidays and stamp her authority on this rabble.

    Not quite sure how you can describe someone who won an election as "unelectable"?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    kjh said:

    What idiot thought that was good selection of colours to use. Yellow ok then green, shades of green, greeny blue, bluey green, shades of blue, ....
    Not just me then. Still not sure which line is the uk...
  • Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Autonomous cars will drastically reduce ownership in urban areas.
    Perhaps. The onset of truly level-5 autonomous cars will utterly alter travel patterns, yet alone ownership. Rentals would, I think, be more common than ownership, which is one reason Uber are so keen to get in on the act, albeit incompetently.

    Although as regular readers will know, I'm very bearish about the likelihood of true level-5 cars in the immediate future.
    Agree on the fully autonomous cars. The difficulty will be where they drive differently to human-driven cars, for example sticking to speed limits. It will also be really easy for humans driving other cars to play games, cutting them up and not letting them out, for example. They'll probably have to start with dedicated lanes or roads.

    Uber are a bunch of scumbags who are losing a lot of money. They'll probably fold this year but the idea of fleets of rental autonomous cars as taxis is probably realistic. There's a lot of money going into the technology.
    Aren't you contradicting yourself there? Taxis, by definition, have to be fully autonomous.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited July 2017
    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Autonomous cars will drastically reduce ownership in urban areas.
    Perhaps. The onset of truly level-5 autonomous cars will utterly alter travel patterns, yet alone ownership. Rentals would, I think, be more common than ownership, which is one reason Uber are so keen to get in on the act, albeit incompetently.

    Although as regular readers will know, I'm very bearish about the likelihood of true level-5 cars in the immediate future.
    Agree on the fully autonomous cars. The difficulty will be where they drive differently to human-driven cars, for example sticking to speed limits. It will also be really easy for humans driving other cars to play games, cutting them up and not letting them out, for example. They'll probably have to start with dedicated lanes or roads.

    Uber are a bunch of scumbags who are losing a lot of money. They'll probably fold this year but the idea of fleets of rental autonomous cars as taxis is probably realistic. There's a lot of money going into the technology.
    How are Uber losing money? All they do is put out an IT platform and then rake in a slice from millions upon millions of drivers. Genuinely interested to know.

    Also for JJ: what do you mean by "short-term"? 2040 is a long way away.
  • Alice_AforethoughtAlice_Aforethought Posts: 772
    edited July 2017
    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    The petrol station network has been in numerical decline for 40 years, but it has accelerated in the last 20. The culprit was supermarkets, whose market share went from nothing to 22% in 2000 to about 44% now.

    We had about 30,000 petrol stations in 1980 which fell to 13,000 in 2000 and to about 8,500 today. About 1,500 of those are supermarket sites, so they do 44% of the volume through 18% of the sites.

    Supermarkets sell fuel barely above cost - in 2000 Tesco made about £500k profit on petrol, despite being the biggest fuel retailer, but didn't care it was so little because once there, people go into the shop and spend the real money there. Esso followed by the others started price-matching supermarkets in 1996 but because they don't have supermarket sales to cross-subsidise the margin-free petrol, the net result was that only the biggest of them survived, and all the others have closed.

    It is now appreciably hard to find a petrol station in an unfamiliar area. On several occasions we have very nearly run out because we didn't pass one for twenty miles on an A road and those the satnav indicated were all gone.

    It will be very, very difficult indeed in the transition between petrol/diesel and electricity. The unavailability of petrol will make current cars very troublesome to operate. On the positive side I will eventually be able to afford a Ferrari Daytona Spyder, although it won't be possible to drive it.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Autonomous cars will drastically reduce ownership in urban areas.
    Perhaps. The onset of truly level-5 autonomous cars will utterly alter travel patterns, yet alone ownership. Rentals would, I think, be more common than ownership, which is one reason Uber are so keen to get in on the act, albeit incompetently.

    Although as regular readers will know, I'm very bearish about the likelihood of true level-5 cars in the immediate future.
    Agree on the fully autonomous cars. The difficulty will be where they drive differently to human-driven cars, for example sticking to speed limits. It will also be really easy for humans driving other cars to play games, cutting them up and not letting them out, for example. They'll probably have to start with dedicated lanes or roads.

    Uber are a bunch of scumbags who are losing a lot of money. They'll probably fold this year but the idea of fleets of rental autonomous cars as taxis is probably realistic. There's a lot of money going into the technology.
    "Playing games" sounds fun, but I would expect them to have always-on 360 deg video cameras, both for navigational purposes and as an updated version of the man with a red flag law.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,520

    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Autonomous cars will drastically reduce ownership in urban areas.
    Perhaps. The onset of truly level-5 autonomous cars will utterly alter travel patterns, yet alone ownership. Rentals would, I think, be more common than ownership, which is one reason Uber are so keen to get in on the act, albeit incompetently.

    Although as regular readers will know, I'm very bearish about the likelihood of true level-5 cars in the immediate future.
    Agree on the fully autonomous cars. The difficulty will be where they drive differently to human-driven cars, for example sticking to speed limits. It will also be really easy for humans driving other cars to play games, cutting them up and not letting them out, for example. They'll probably have to start with dedicated lanes or roads.

    Uber are a bunch of scumbags who are losing a lot of money. They'll probably fold this year but the idea of fleets of rental autonomous cars as taxis is probably realistic. There's a lot of money going into the technology.
    Aren't you contradicting yourself there? Taxis, by definition, have to be fully autonomous.
    That's what it will look like eventually, but it I was agreeing with @JosiasJessop that it will take longer than expected for the technology to mature.

    Yes, an autonomous car is useless if it can't work like a taxi. In fact, an autonomous car than will hand control back to the human driver in an emergency is probably more dangerous - as the human may not be paying sufficient attention.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038

    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    Indeed. You can be reasonably confident that if the move to electric becomes a flood rather than a trickle then the tax base will follow.

    On the other hand, as the market expands, the efficiency of electric should improve markedly as more money goes into R&D in search of the returns on offer in such a bigger market.
    The national grid in GB has a capacity of ~61 GW. Mass elec. cars will melt it. Badly thought out, driven by industrial lobbying. The nuclear industry is desperate for a level load; cars are used as much in summer to winter.

    IMO if elec cars are the answer it's the end of private motoring and the car industry. One might as well summon a driverless electric taxi to get to the train station ... or supermarket. Electric taxis could be charged off the 11 kV system, avoiding the huge cost of replacing all the small 230 V cables to houses.

    I'll be 87 in 2040. Although I think I'll still be around, I'll be past caring.

    Most cars in 1900 were electric. If you think they'll improve, look at the past. The range is similar then and now.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,766
    Very big win for UNISON at the Supreme Court today in the employment tribunal case. Fees ruled unlawful, government must pay money back:

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0233.html
  • As for cycling, yes, there may be an uptick in usage if air pollution is reduced but the facts remain that you still turn up sweaty wherever you're going, you're still vulnerable to other road-users wielding heavy, fast metal boxes, and you're still at the mercy of the weather.

    I looked into a pushbike or a moped a few years ago as an alternative to the Tube, and concluded I'd end up paying for both.

    If I have to go to a 9am meeting at someone else's office I am not going to cycle in to arrive at mine at 7.30, change, and commute over to their office. I'm going to Tube it straight there, which means I'll Tube it home again. So either I pay the maximum daily whack for a Tube ticket or I buy a season ticket and under-use it while also paying for the two wheels.

    I think it only really works for people who work flexi hours in one place all the time.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,247

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    The petrol station network has been in numerical decline for 40 years, but it has accelerated in the last 20. The culprit was supermarkets, whose market share went from nothing to 22% in 2000 to about 44% now.

    We had about 30,000 petrol stations in 1980 which fell to 13,000 in 2000 and to about 8,500 today. About 1,500 of those are supermarket sites, so they do 44% of the volume through 18% of the sites.

    Supermarkets sell fuel barely above cost - in 2000 Tesco made about £500k profit on petrol, despite being the biggest fuel retailer, but didn't care it was so little because once there, people go into the shop and spend the real money there. Esso followed by the others started price-matching supermarkets in 1996 but because they don't have supermarket sales to cross-subsidise the margin-free petrol, the net result was that only the biggest of them survived, and all the others have closed.

    It is now appreciably hard to find a petrol station in an unfamiliar area. On several occasions we have very nearly run out because we didn't pass one for twenty miles on an A road and those the satnav indicated were all gone.

    It will be very, very difficult indeed in the transition between petrol/diesel and electricity. The unavailability of petrol will make current cars very troublesome to operate. On the positive side I will eventually be able to afford a Ferrari Daytona Spyder, although it won't be possible to drive it.
    Sounds positive to me.

    There are fewer petrol stations because cars are much more efficient these days, need to fill up less, and there is far fiercer competition, which consolidates at supermarkets and keeps prices low for the consumer.

    Satnavs help people locate the nearest petrol station, or linked apps on their phones.

    You should always fill up when you have <50 miles to go.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,520
    Anorak said:

    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Autonomous cars will drastically reduce ownership in urban areas.
    Perhaps. The onset of truly level-5 autonomous cars will utterly alter travel patterns, yet alone ownership. Rentals would, I think, be more common than ownership, which is one reason Uber are so keen to get in on the act, albeit incompetently.

    Although as regular readers will know, I'm very bearish about the likelihood of true level-5 cars in the immediate future.
    Agree on the fully autonomous cars. The difficulty will be where they drive differently to human-driven cars, for example sticking to speed limits. It will also be really easy for humans driving other cars to play games, cutting them up and not letting them out, for example. They'll probably have to start with dedicated lanes or roads.

    Uber are a bunch of scumbags who are losing a lot of money. They'll probably fold this year but the idea of fleets of rental autonomous cars as taxis is probably realistic. There's a lot of money going into the technology.
    How are Uber losing money? All they do is put out an IT platform and then rake in a slice from millions upon millions of drivers. Genuinely interested to know.

    Also for JJ: what do you mean by "short-term"? 2040 is a long way away.
    Lots of lawyers and lobbyists! Also lots of investment in technology other than the app, such as driverless cars, although they just got caught with a load of Google's IP from a guy they hired. The CEO also resigned after a sexual harassment lawsuit.

    They're I believe $4bn down so far this year, all VC investors' cash. The investors are losing patience.
  • Sandpit said:

    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    Yes, the government currently make around £50bn from fuel duty and VED (road tax), none of which are paid by electric cars. They're going to have to find a way to replace this renenue somehow, perhaps a tax on charging point usage or differential electricity pricing based on whether for domestic or automotive usage.
    Just tax the rich. They should be asked to pay a little bit more. It's not like they already do, or anything.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,439
    edited July 2017
    Interesting that the government has chosen to declare war on the motorist just weeks after declaring war on pensioners (and look how that turned out) ;)

    If the nations car drivers decide to protest and turn London/M25 into a car park for a week the government will fall.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,849
    edited July 2017
    tlg86 said:

    There's a bit of a contradiction in there. On the one hand he's arguing that the Tories are suffering because people can't get on the housing ladder. But presumably, the people moving to Swindon, Reading, Crawley, Bracknell and Brighton are getting on the housing ladder.

    Personally I think the Tories do need to worry about home ownership. But there is a tendency to think that the latest result is all that matters and that because the Tories didn't do as well as expected, things will inevitably get worse for them. What we've just had is an election where the Tories ran a pretty dreadful campaign and the opposition got a free ride to promise the earth to voters. And the Tories still won more votes than Labour.
    The problem is, tlg, that the people who have to move to Swindon, Reading etc. to get on the housing ladder will a) take their politics with them, b) resent their commute and blame the government, and c) push up the prices in said commuter towns thus pricing locals who can't/won't get a job in London further out of the market.

    This is a major reason those towns and many others like them will fall to Labour next time.

    I cannot see a solution for the Tories though. If they made planning controls significantly easier, they'll piss-off their core constituency. Any other steps they take to reduce house prices will similarly upset their core voters.

    Massive council house building?... Doesn't really fit the Tories core values, nor meet the property ladder desire (though it does help people to have their own place to live). But where would it be funded from?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 61,247

    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    Indeed. You can be reasonably confident that if the move to electric becomes a flood rather than a trickle then the tax base will follow.

    On the other hand, as the market expands, the efficiency of electric should improve markedly as more money goes into R&D in search of the returns on offer in such a bigger market.
    The national grid in GB has a capacity of ~61 GW. Mass elec. cars will melt it. Badly thought out, driven by industrial lobbying. The nuclear industry is desperate for a level load; cars are used as much in summer to winter.

    IMO if elec cars are the answer it's the end of private motoring and the car industry. One might as well summon a driverless electric taxi to get to the train station ... or supermarket. Electric taxis could be charged off the 11 kV system, avoiding the huge cost of replacing all the small 230 V cables to houses.

    I'll be 87 in 2040. Although I think I'll still be around, I'll be past caring.

    Most cars in 1900 were electric. If you think they'll improve, look at the past. The range is similar then and now.
    To be honest, declaring something as a goal for 2040 is a little more than a statement of intent.

    It might just be the Government following where the market is going anyway, and pretending it's leading policy, as much as anything else.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    Indeed. You can be reasonably confident that if the move to electric becomes a flood rather than a trickle then the tax base will follow.

    On the other hand, as the market expands, the efficiency of electric should improve markedly as more money goes into R&D in search of the returns on offer in such a bigger market.
    The national grid in GB has a capacity of ~61 GW. Mass elec. cars will melt it. Badly thought out, driven by industrial lobbying. The nuclear industry is desperate for a level load; cars are used as much in summer to winter.

    IMO if elec cars are the answer it's the end of private motoring and the car industry. One might as well summon a driverless electric taxi to get to the train station ... or supermarket. Electric taxis could be charged off the 11 kV system, avoiding the huge cost of replacing all the small 230 V cables to houses.

    I'll be 87 in 2040. Although I think I'll still be around, I'll be past caring.

    Most cars in 1900 were electric. If you think they'll improve, look at the past. The range is similar then and now.
    We managed horse -> car and sail -> steam. I think we will get by on the electric changeover.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,439
    Can someone show where the UK is on that graph? Most of the colours look the same?
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Autonomous cars will drastically reduce ownership in urban areas.
    Perhaps. The onset of truly level-5 autonomous cars will utterly alter travel patterns, yet alone ownership. Rentals would, I think, be more common than ownership, which is one reason Uber are so keen to get in on the act, albeit incompetently.

    Although as regular readers will know, I'm very bearish about the likelihood of true level-5 cars in the immediate future.
    Agree on the fully autonomous cars. The difficulty will be where they drive differently to human-driven cars, for example sticking to speed limits. It will also be really easy for humans driving other cars to play games, cutting them up and not letting them out, for example. They'll probably have to start with dedicated lanes or roads.

    Uber are a bunch of scumbags who are losing a lot of money. They'll probably fold this year but the idea of fleets of rental autonomous cars as taxis is probably realistic. There's a lot of money going into the technology.
    Aren't you contradicting yourself there? Taxis, by definition, have to be fully autonomous.
    That's what it will look like eventually, but it I was agreeing with @JosiasJessop that it will take longer than expected for the technology to mature.

    Yes, an autonomous car is useless if it can't work like a taxi. In fact, an autonomous car than will hand control back to the human driver in an emergency is probably more dangerous - as the human may not be paying sufficient attention.
    Yes, I fully agree. Isn't that the wall that Google have run up against?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,849
    edited July 2017
    GIN1138 said:

    Can someone show where the UK is on that graph? Most of the colours look the same?
    +1 Why do they doe these things in five shades of effin blue-green!

    I take it it's Italy at the bottom?
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited July 2017

    As for cycling, yes, there may be an uptick in usage if air pollution is reduced but the facts remain that you still turn up sweaty wherever you're going, you're still vulnerable to other road-users wielding heavy, fast metal boxes, and you're still at the mercy of the weather.

    I looked into a pushbike or a moped a few years ago as an alternative to the Tube, and concluded I'd end up paying for both.

    If I have to go to a 9am meeting at someone else's office I am not going to cycle in to arrive at mine at 7.30, change, and commute over to their office. I'm going to Tube it straight there, which means I'll Tube it home again. So either I pay the maximum daily whack for a Tube ticket or I buy a season ticket and under-use it while also paying for the two wheels.

    I think it only really works for people who work flexi hours in one place all the time.
    I looked at this. For me, an travelling to work 4 days a week and the occasional bus ride is cheaper as pay-as-you-go than a rolling monthly travel card, especially when vacation time is taken into consideration.

    Season tickets for the tube are for mugs or a few edge cases.
  • Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    The petrol station network has been in numerical decline for 40 years, but it has accelerated in the last 20. The culprit was supermarkets, whose market share went from nothing to 22% in 2000 to about 44% now.

    We had about 30,000 petrol stations in 1980 which fell to 13,000 in 2000 and to about 8,500 today. About 1,500 of those are supermarket sites, so they do 44% of the volume through 18% of the sites.

    Supermarkets sell fuel barely above cost - in 2000 Tesco made about £500k profit on petrol, despite being the biggest fuel retailer, but didn't care it was so little because once there, people go into the shop and spend the real money there. Esso followed by the others started price-matching supermarkets in 1996 but because they don't have supermarket sales to cross-subsidise the margin-free petrol, the net result was that only the biggest of them survived, and all the others have closed.

    It is now appreciably hard to find a petrol station in an unfamiliar area. On several occasions we have very nearly run out because we didn't pass one for twenty miles on an A road and those the satnav indicated were all gone.

    It will be very, very difficult indeed in the transition between petrol/diesel and electricity. The unavailability of petrol will make current cars very troublesome to operate. On the positive side I will eventually be able to afford a Ferrari Daytona Spyder, although it won't be possible to drive it.
    Sounds positive to me.

    There are fewer petrol stations because cars are much more efficient these days, need to fill up less, and there is far fiercer competition, which consolidates at supermarkets and keeps prices low for the consumer.

    Satnavs help people locate the nearest petrol station, or linked apps on their phones.

    You should always fill up when you have <50 miles to go.</p>
    There are fewer petrol stations solely because of supermarkets. The total road fuel market is 11% bigger now than in 1992 but the number of filling stations has more than halved.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,402
    edited July 2017
    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    Good point. Some car manufacturers are promoting LPG as a poor man's enviro-friendly transport.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited July 2017

    isam said:

    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    i barely drive at all now and ride my bike most places. It is quite surprising how little time I lose, The gym is 25 mins by bike and 15 by car, and the sense of freedom/lack of traffic more than compensates for the time lost. Healthier too. Electric cars may encourage more cyclists because of the lack of fumes inhaled on the road, although it might be tricky to hear them!

    When everything is done by robot, we will have more time on our hands and cycling may become even more popular, as there is no rush to get anywhere
    There is always a rush to get somewhere. Futurologists of the past believed that one of the biggest problems of this (current) autonomated era would be what to do with all our free time. We find stuff to fill it up with.

    As for cycling, yes, there may be an uptick in usage if air pollution is reduced but the facts remain that you still turn up sweaty wherever you're going, you're still vulnerable to other road-users wielding heavy, fast metal boxes, and you're still at the mercy of the weather.
    Why does there need to be a rush to get anywhere other than in emergencies?

    As for the 2nd para, you don't necessarily turn up sweaty, (and so what if you do?), the advent of cycle paths and pedestrianisation means you are not at the mercy of metal boxes (I cycle through a country park as opposed to driving to the same destination on roads) & when you bike it everywhere ypou find plenty of off road short cuts, and the weather has barely ever been bad enough to stop me (once or twice maybe in the last year?)

    When I cycled to work I showered there rather than before I left
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,229
    kjh said:

    What idiot thought that was good selection of colours to use. Yellow ok then green, shades of green, greeny blue, bluey green, shades of blue, ....
    Yes, it's not helpful - I had to zoom in - looks like Canada clearly ahead, UK/Germany tied for second, EU/France tied for fourth & Italy clearly last....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,919
    Sandpit said:

    That's what it will look like eventually, but it I was agreeing with @JosiasJessop that it will take longer than expected for the technology to mature.

    Yes, an autonomous car is useless if it can't work like a taxi. In fact, an autonomous car than will hand control back to the human driver in an emergency is probably more dangerous - as the human may not be paying sufficient attention.

    That's what Google think: Level 5 or nothing.

    There are three broad approaches towards autonomous cars:
    1) go for level 5 with no immediate steps. The Google approach, and fair enough.
    2) go for high levels, publicise it as 'driverless' and make it the driver's duty to remain alert. Unworkable.
    3) Bring in increasing numbers of drivers' aids, perfect them, and move on. What Merc, Volvo etc are doing.

    1) and 3) are the honest options. Tesla goes for option 2 which is, IMO, a dangerous lie.

    And that matters: it is as much an education of the public as it is technology, and Tesla's pushing the PR of their tech far further than the tech can currently stand.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,849
    FF43 said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    Good point. Some car manufacturers are printing LPG as a poor man's enviro-friendly transport.
    Printing LPG? Blimey technology eh!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,520
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Sandpit said:

    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:

    JonathanD said:

    2040 doesn't sound particularly ambitious. If and when it happens, it could transform urban living for the better.

    The UK probably needs time to build the power stations that are going to support all these electric cars. Also is it just petrol and diesel cars being banned in which case there are still going to be plenty of vans and trucks that batteries aren't yet powerful enough to power.
    And pretty much every street parking space will need a car charger. There's a LOT of infrastructure required, compared to the petrol station network we have now.
    Autonomous cars will drastically reduce ownership in urban areas.
    Perhaps. The onset of truly level-5 autonomous cars will utterly alter travel patterns, yet alone ownership. Rentals would, I think, be more common than ownership, which is one reason Uber are so keen to get in on the act, albeit incompetently.

    Although as regular readers will know, I'm very bearish about the likelihood of true level-5 cars in the immediate future.
    Agree on the fully autonomous cars. The difficulty will be where they drive differently to human-driven cars, for example sticking to speed limits. It will also be really easy for humans driving other cars to play games, cutting them up and not letting them out, for example. They'll probably have to start with dedicated lanes or roads.

    Uber are a bunch of scumbags who are losing a lot of money. They'll probably fold this year but the idea of fleets of rental autonomous cars as taxis is probably realistic. There's a lot of money going into the technology.
    "Playing games" sounds fun, but I would expect them to have always-on 360 deg video cameras, both for navigational purposes and as an updated version of the man with a red flag law.
    Oh, they're covered in cameras, but there's no law that says you have to let someone out when they've got a 'Give Way' sign in front of them. The autonomous cars will be very conservatively programmed, so it will be slow progress in the city rush hour for the self driving car - and for whoever is behind it!
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,439
    TGOHF said:
    Since when did they start releasing GDP data on Wednesday and not Friday? :(

    #GDPDAY
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Electric cars: some very interesting links on here, if you ignore the snarky tone of the article.

    https://cleantechnica.com/2016/08/11/50-tips-slowing-electric-car-revolution/
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,439

    GIN1138 said:

    Can someone show where the UK is on that graph? Most of the colours look the same?
    +1 Why do they doe these things in five shades of effin blue-green!

    I take it it's Italy at the bottom?
    Italy on the bottom and France (yellow) in the middle then I'm lost?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    As for cycling, yes, there may be an uptick in usage if air pollution is reduced but the facts remain that you still turn up sweaty wherever you're going, you're still vulnerable to other road-users wielding heavy, fast metal boxes, and you're still at the mercy of the weather.

    I looked into a pushbike or a moped a few years ago as an alternative to the Tube, and concluded I'd end up paying for both.

    If I have to go to a 9am meeting at someone else's office I am not going to cycle in to arrive at mine at 7.30, change, and commute over to their office. I'm going to Tube it straight there, which means I'll Tube it home again. So either I pay the maximum daily whack for a Tube ticket or I buy a season ticket and under-use it while also paying for the two wheels.

    I think it only really works for people who work flexi hours in one place all the time.
    To be fair I do work flexi hours from one place!

    But I would think more people will do that in the future. I cant see why so many people have to commute to the city when you can do it from home. If it wasn't the way it had always been, we wouldn't expect people to go and sit in large offices together to do work that doesn't require being in the same room as anyone else
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,439

    kjh said:

    What idiot thought that was good selection of colours to use. Yellow ok then green, shades of green, greeny blue, bluey green, shades of blue, ....
    Yes, it's not helpful - I had to zoom in - looks like Canada clearly ahead, UK/Germany tied for second, EU/France tied for fourth & Italy clearly last....
    Thanks for deciperhing Carlotta.

    How can Canada be ahead when it's not in the EU and only has limited "access" to the the single market?

    (Yeah, yeah I know Canada has loads of natural resources... Still pretty funny though)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,879

    jayfdee said:

    I have driven a plug in hybrid now for 3 years, and it is a very nice vehicle to drive.
    However, I pay no excise duty, no congestion charge, and no fuel duty on the electricity I use, so how are the Gov going to replace this lost revenue.
    I do about 30 miles for £1.10 worth of electric and manage about 7000 miles per year on pure plug in electric. They only appear more economical because of these incentives.

    Indeed. You can be reasonably confident that if the move to electric becomes a flood rather than a trickle then the tax base will follow.

    On the other hand, as the market expands, the efficiency of electric should improve markedly as more money goes into R&D in search of the returns on offer in such a bigger market.
    The national grid in GB has a capacity of ~61 GW. Mass elec. cars will melt it. Badly thought out, driven by industrial lobbying. The nuclear industry is desperate for a level load; cars are used as much in summer to winter.

    IMO if elec cars are the answer it's the end of private motoring and the car industry. One might as well summon a driverless electric taxi to get to the train station ... or supermarket. Electric taxis could be charged off the 11 kV system, avoiding the huge cost of replacing all the small 230 V cables to houses.

    I'll be 87 in 2040. Although I think I'll still be around, I'll be past caring.

    Most cars in 1900 were electric. If you think they'll improve, look at the past. The range is similar then and now.
    To be honest, declaring something as a goal for 2040 is a little more than a statement of intent.

    It might just be the Government following where the market is going anyway, and pretending it's leading policy, as much as anything else.
    +1
This discussion has been closed.