https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/petrol-ban-motorbikes/
It’s all over the news and we’ve certainly had some opinions here. I can’t say this has come as a surprise but I didn’t expect an extension so early. Not a mention of motorcycles (as bloody usual) but it would be difficult to justify not having the extension applied to two-wheeled ICE vehicles as well.
I think people are starting to wake up and see that electric cars are not the answer in multiple different ways.
Yep, not a surprise that bikes were left out of the announcement, I’d have been stunned if we’d been mentioned.
Perhaps I can understand the UK’s early stance on the ban of sales on new fossil fuel cars. Maybe they were trying to get others to also join in the 2030 ban, but every other major nation/bloc seems to have settled on 2035 or later. So it seems unreasonable for us to keep trying for 2030. We’ve now aligned with other major nations/blocs.
Bikes were previously 2035 anyway, so I assume they stay the same.
Moving the ban back and aligning with the EU seems eminently sensible to me.
Let’s not get excited: whatever the current government may propose for 2030 or 2035 can be changed again by any subsequent government anyway.
What worries me is how long petrol will still be available after that date. It might well deliberately be made prohibitively expensive by the government to further discourage the continued use of petrol vehicles, and in any case dwindling demand will probably make it uneconomic for anyone to sell it. I’m not optimistic. Carpe diem.
I can remember in the early 2000’s that the government said we will not be fitting gas boilers in new houses after 2016. Guess what we still are and they’ve extended that again……
No government invests in alternatives as they don’t have the budget and they don’t have the long term incentives to do so as it will alienate the voters. Hence the status quo remains.
I read somwhere that if each and every car on UK roads was converted to electric we’d save as much CO2 as 1% that China emits.
A mere drop in the ocean.
I’m certainly not anti climate change but my god we could waste billions for absolutely no nett effect at all.
And that’s probably just going by exhaust emissions? Take building the dam things into account and its likely way more harmful
I see that the governments quota system currently remains unchanged. Manufacturers must sell at least 22% EV’s in 2024 and rising year on year to 80% in 2030 and of course 100% in 2035. Given that average prices of EV’s are about 40% more than ICE vehicles, this probably means that either EV prices are going to have to drop substantially over the next few years or ICE prices will have to increase substantially.
This is why I’m sceptical about the dates being achieved. There’s a lot to balance out before the costs fit in with many people’s economic situations. Not to mention the infrastructure challenges.
And all these electric cars need to be charged up using electricity generated using inadequate grid infrastructure and probably fossil fuels.
It does seem impossible to have a reasoned debate about this switch to electric vehicles - for example, what actual difference is it going to make to global CO2 emissions, or even just the UK’s CO2 emissions?
For example, Volvo produced figures showing that the break even point for an EV’s CO2 emissions is between 60,000 and 90,000 miles depending on how the electricity is generated, because EV’s generate considerably more CO2 during the manufacturing process. Of course, the vast majority of new cars sold in the UK won’t be manufactured in the UK so locally it’s a ‘win’ even if globally it doesn’t achieve very much.
Is there a definitive answer on whether the UK electricity grid can actually cope with the extra demand and is there a point where it can’t?
Can the extra demand be met by existing power stations or will we have to build additional nuclear power stations to cope - how long will that take and how much will it cost the taxpayer? Is it worth it if the global CO2 saving is minimal?
For me, there’s lots of unanswered questions that aren’t being asked in the places that matter. It’s as if the environment is the new religion - question it and be condemned as a heretic - something that no politician can afford to do.
It would be nice if we could have an informed discussion between reasonable adults. However we all know how extremes on both side get jumped on and the seemingly reasonable voices get drowned out. Just to clarify, I don’t mean here, but in the general population.
I spent a bit of time reading the volvo documents, checking the uk electricity mix and came to the conclusion that it would take me many years, probably in excess of 10 years to break even on CO2, when compared to my existing cars emissions and usage. So, if I was buying a new car, it seemed that I would be front loading my CO2 usage to now and slowly clawing back that in the next 10 years. It just didn’t seem logical to me to do it for environmental reasons. Especially when you consider that batteries don’t last forever and will drop in range over that time. Although I believe the newer batteries with heat management last a lot better than the older ones. However I’ve read you better not let your aircon system fail in these as it’s needed to cool the batteries!
I will admit to being someone who like the idea of electric vehicles, simply for the excess of grunt from low down that I’d get. Plus the bonus of no tailpipe emissions.
Then there’s the issue of bikes, I like to tour so long recharge times would be a real problem.
I believe the UK’s target for 100% non fossil fuel generated electricity is 2030. Over the last year we’ve generated approx 94% of our needs (imported 6%). Of that 94%, 37% has been gas, and 1% coal. So we’d have to increase our other sources by around 62% by 2030 just to fulfill current needs. So it’s a big old task ahead.
There are lots saying that co2 isn’t even a concern, its just what we hear about.
There’s always someone with a different opinion but the data is extensive and uncontested by the vast majority of climate scientists who’ve spent decades studying what’s going on. It would take a strong argument to prove the whole thing wrong at this point.
We have to be careful about the provenance of any information, for or against, making sure it’s from sources that don’t have a vested interest in the results. Not easy for us ordinary folk but we all know what happened when the tobacco companies funded research in to the effects of cigarettes.
There’s no question about the increasing quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s measurable. What we seem to be in now is a period where the scenarios unfolding around the world are potentially what we’ve been warned about. What I don’t know is, do we have more extreme events happening globally or is it just that the extreme events are reported more frequently on the front pages? A climatologist would probably throw their arms up at that statement but it’s true, I don’t know, and I’m not using it to deny or undermine their message. As @wattie says, we should be able to ask reasonable questions without hysteria ensuing.
If the scientific community is right, it’ll get to a point where the effects on the planet are demonstrably and undeniably caused but our activities since the industrial revolution. If they’re wrong, we can all enjoy the internal combustion engine until the oil runs out. 
Only by then it will probably be too late to do anything about it.
On energy generation, I was talking to a guy in work who was told when doing his engineering degree during a lecture about wind turbines, that there was no need to worry about them as they are so inefficient they will not be used!
A third of the time the wind is too strong, another third it is not strong enough and the other third maybe when the demand isn’t there.
Looking back in history there have always been extreme weather events and the world has been warming or cooling in cycles over millenniums.
I find it difficult to know if what we are seeing is not just part of that natural warming getting faster as the temperature rises?
On electric cars I don’t think the infrastructure is there to support full electric cars and it won’t be for some time. Hybrid cars do provide a stepping stone to getting to full electric, which is where I would go. They provide a large proportion of driving electric, without have to plug in to get it.,
Scientists can be bought the same way politicians can and are. I don’t believe a lot of the hype going around. Not denying it, of course we are having an impact. But we’re only hot because its measured from the coldest point. There have been much hotter periods than this. Its a far far bigger puzzle than just co2 but we are lead to believe that is the problem. This global warming thing is making lots of money for those in power, so I don’t trust their decision making for the right reasons
What the world didn’t have then is a large, industialised civilisation with 7 billion people to sustain. The amount of change has historical precedents but the rate and the impact it’ll have on our global society is what creates the headlines. Significant changes to ecosystems, reduced inhabitable land mass, more extreme weather events causing damage and loss of life, mass extinction, flooding coastal areas causing huge population migrations, goodbye Netherlands etc. 
XKCD explained this better than I could. It’s very long image. 
