By on July 26, 2017

Exhaust pipe of running vehicle, Image: By Ruben de Rijcke (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Britain will ban the sale of all new gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040 as part of the government’s plan to reduce air pollution and copy France. The strategy, fronted by U.K. environment secretary Michael Gove and transport secretary Chris Grayling, would not only ban the future sale of internal combustion engines, but also provide a governmental incentive program similar to the United States’ Car Allowance Rebate System — colloquially known as “cash for clunkers.”

Because, as you know, nothing is better for the environment (or the used car market) than populating scrapyards with fully functional automobiles and having factories across the globe expend extra energy to replace them.

“We can’t carry on with diesel and petrol cars,” Gove told British television audiences on Wednesday. “There is no alternative to embracing new technology.” 

That’s doubly true, as the government was ordered in April to publish stringent new plans to tackle air pollution after the British high court rejected attempts by ministers to delay the policy until after the general election. Much of the U.K. believes it’s in the midst of a pollution crisis believed to be responsible for over 40,000 premature deaths every year.

However, pushing through legislation that makes EVs mandatory may be pointless. Manufacturers are already scaling down engine sizes and adopting hybridized powertrains to meet existing emissions guidelines. Volvo wants to make all of its vehicles hybrids or purely electric within a couple of years, Mercedes-Benz has begun widely adopting mild-hybrid systems, and practically every other automaker is investing heavily in battery development. The 2040 ban could be redundant by the time companies stand to face penalties.

That said, the 2040 deadline could be unrealistic if adoption progress more slowly. However, British demand for electrically powered vehicles grew a whopping 40 percent in 2015. While that only amounts to about 2.5 percent of the total market, it accounted for around 50,000 registrations in the final quarter of 2015. The number has nearly doubled by the first quarter of 2017 as EV market share closes in on 5 percent.

“Ending diesel and petrol car sales by 2040 is a step in the right direction but given that electric cars are coming anyway this is probably pretty irrelevant. It’s a bit like saying we’re banning the sale of steam engines by 2040,” said David Bailey, a professor of industrial strategy at the Aston Business School.

The real pinch of the plan will be felt by diesel drivers in the short term. From around 2020, specific jurisdictions will be able to levy extra charges on vehicles using the UK’s 81 most polluted routes if air quality fails to improve — and cars with the highest emissions will suffer the highest fines. According to The Guardian, the government wants taxes to be used as a last resort, fearing a backlash against any actions that punish motorists.

Other less stringent plans are afoot within the UK. The country hopes that by retrofitting buses, changing road layouts, and giving local governments agency in how to handle the pollution problem, it can increase air quality almost immediately.

For the United States, which has become less worried about automotive pollution in 2017, this means added pressure on domestic automakers hoping to sell a product globally. Diesel sales continue to trend downward and efforts exist in most developed nations to convince the public to adopt electric cars.

[Image: Ruben de Rijcke/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

156 Comments on “U.K. Prepared to Ban Internal Combustion Engines by 2040...”


  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    “Because, as you know, nothing is better for the environment (or the used car market) than populating scrapyards with fully functional automobiles and having factories across the globe expend extra energy to replace them.”

    Rather than just throw out an inflammatory comment, why don’t you first do a bit of research into how much energy it takes to produce a new car compared to how much energy it will use during its normal service life.

    Within the validity your point does have, there could be a program to move more inefficient cars to people who drive less. Or just quit fooling around and deal with all of it via a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      “Rather than just throw out an inflammatory comment”

      Why not? You do it nearly every time you post, including this one.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        Rather than accept your invitation for a pi__sing contest, I’ll contribute some content.

        The results of studies comparing embodied vs operational energy in cars vary. But yes the embodied energy is substantial.

        Given that the date of this mandate is 23 years away, and that few cars are used that long, and that electrification is in progress, there will be little need to start scrapping cars in 2040 just because they have the wrong drivetrain.

        Given that the mandate does not remove any cars already on the road in 2040, the idea the mandate would cause scrapping of existing cars is simply ridiculous. Read it again if you don’t understand it applies to sale of new cars only.

        And the fact everyone has 23 years notice of this would reduce even fictional impacts.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      The people who’ve actually done the research have drawn the same conclusion as the author. Cash for clunkers increases net pollution, and the problem will only get worse as time marches on because the vehicles slated for decommission will contain larger amounts of consumer electronics.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        Cash for clunkers has very little to do with the article. The article is about a country limiting sale of new cars to electrics 23 years from now. It does not require the future scrapping of any cars on the road now or sold in the 23 years.

        Cash for clunkers as rolled out was heavily flawed and as you say accomplished little beyond a small boost in sales of new cars. Cash for clumkers is a stupid but unthreatening way to do something revenue-neutral carbon taxes would do much better.

        I had a 1990 5-passenger sedan in very good condition that got 40mpg Imperial. It passed emissions testing but I was never able to get the emission numbers for newer cars to compare them to my old car.

        Some older less efficient cars could be shifted to people who drive less. Or have more efficient engines installed. There are people who convert all sorts of cars to electric systems.

        I wonder what the environmental impact is from cars being written off in crashes. Elimination of much of that waste would be a side benefit of adas systems.

        • 0 avatar
          Matt Posky

          Some info for clarity: The roadway bans for diesels could take place as early as 2020 and the scrapping program is also anticipated to take place well before the proposed 2040 deadline.

          The ban/push for EVs is currently facing some public criticism from the British Automobile Association concerns were raised over how the power grid would cope with after the evening rush hour when everyone plugged in their cars. It’s assumed the U.K. would need to produce an additional 30 gigawatts at peak hours to facilitate vehicle charging. That’s roughly ten times the energy the most advanced nuclear power stations can produce at any given time.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    I can see a new tourism industry in the US after the Europeans have banned everything fun in their countries. Come shoot guns, drive muscle cars and trucks across the American expanses, eat a greasy burger made with GMO wheat in the bun.

    • 0 avatar
      TwoBelugas

      Replace “Europeans” with “Californians” and “countries” with “state” it’s still a sound business plan.

      • 0 avatar
        carguy67

        There are plenty of muscle cars, trucks and greasy burger joints in California. And thousands of miles of the best driving roads you’ll find anywhere. And my 50-60 year-old British sports cars don’t have to pass smog (and no one ever hassles me about them). And plenty of shooting ranges, indoors and out, and you can shoot out in the country pretty much anywhere you want (but not close to houses). But, yeah, we don’t let psychopaths pack heat in McDonalds.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          “But, yeah, we don’t let psychopaths pack heat in McDonalds.”

          Are you implying people with concealed carry permits are somehow less sane than the general populace? Because statistically, the opposite is true. In fact CCW permit holders are some of the most law abiding people around (by the numbers). Of course in both cases the correlation is directly related to felons and the mentally ill specifically being excluded from obtaining said permits.

          • 0 avatar
            joeaverage

            I’ve walked this earth for many decades and traveled to many different parts of it. I even lived in Europe for several years.

            Not once did I see a need to carry a gun with me.

            I own guns and like guns but I don’t worry about people in quite the same capacity you and my peers do. A number of the people I know who have carry permits would be lucky if they did not get their gun taken away from them by their “rival” in a confrontation.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            joe come live in my old neighborhood in a formerly-working class area on the East side of Indianapolis and see if you still feel the same way. I agree, in that once I moved out of that environment, I no longer felt the need to carry, the environment didn’t warrant it. When I was with my wife at the Eiffel tower 2 years ago after dark, boy did I wish I DID have my CCW for peace of mind.

          • 0 avatar

            Just grab a firm day-old baguette!

    • 0 avatar
      Peter Voyd

      I think there was a story by about this by Robert Sheckley – “Pilgrimage to Earth” (also known as “Love, Incorporated”.)

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      And then go back to Europe to get your health problems treated.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      Or come to Australia, go hunting, fishing, fantastic Out Back treks for weeks on end driving an environmentally sound diesel 4×4, drive one of the largest ranges of performance vehicles in the world.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        Do some research into how soon Australia will be uninhabitable.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          brandloyalty,
          There has been lots of debate regarding the optimum population for Australia.

          The debate is similar to the Climate Change debate. There is a lot of bullsh!t information be put forward as scientific data.

          Some have place 15 million as the optimum and other over 200 million. So, I would assume 100 million is not unviable.

          Australia will suffer greatly from sea levels rising as many in Australia live along the coast.

    • 0 avatar
      SaulTigh

      We’ve got a UK company doing some work for us and they have a team based here now and they all do just what you describe.

    • 0 avatar

      I want extra bacon on mine.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    Just like all government lying.
    It’s about as real and trustworthy as promising to reduce budget deficits Or promise to balance the budget in 10 years…

    All just lies and bull.

    As if the government can promise anything even a year from today…all promises in sand.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      Ridiculous. Governments promise and deliver all sorts of things that somehow escape your attention. Education, policing, public infrastructure, national and personal safety, regulatory framework for business, justice system etc. Sure, none of these are perfect but things are a lot better than the free for all that would result from no government.

      • 0 avatar
        TrailerTrash

        “Education, policing, public infrastructure, national and personal safety, regulatory framework for business, justice system”

        You are joking…or Canadian.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          As I said the social systems in the US are far from perfect. But most things work well for most people most of the time. Why would you rather live in the US than Russia or the Middle East? How you can’t seem to grasp how much worse things could be, is beyond me.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            I can grasp.

            But what you can’t grasp is the decline of the services you are bragging about.

            Nobody said destroy the government and end all gov agencies and programs. That’s stupid and not what anybody is saying.

            But don’t crap me with a government promise of 20 years out when they can’t even master a yearly budget.

            Please….

            You are likely a young pup and still listening to the profs at school.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Agree. If the UK really cared, policymakers would probably stealthily subsidize electricity and tax gasoline/diesel until people felt like they were making the decision on their own. This sort of moral signaling is often vapid, and the mandate will not even be enforced by the people who are proposing it. The people proposing this change will do no work and will pay no political penalty because they will probably be dead or out of public service in 23 years.

      In 100 years America is going to give $10T to needy people, which is more than anyone has ever pledged to fight poverty. Worship us, we’re amazing.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “Britain will ban the sale of all new gasoline and diesel cars starting in 2040 as part of the government’s plan to reduce air pollution”

    I’m not very familiar on how laws and regulations are passed in the UK, but would this require a vote in Parliament or can the transport and environment secretaries just independently do this?

  • avatar
    JEFFSHADOW

    I think all that is required is a random tweet to make it law…

  • avatar
    TW5

    They are going to eliminate fuel tax revenue, and pay people to purchase electric vehicles. This should be interesting.

    All they are going to achieve is making life in the rest of the world better, particularly the US and Canada. We’ll be selling natural gas to the EU, and we’ll be fueling our 40mpg car fleet with $1.25 gasoline. Average fuel expenditures will plummet to 1% of personal income. Meanwhile, the EU will be fighting against battery supply shortages and rising vehicle costs.

    Personal income is how you fight economic barriers, not mandates and fickle subsidy programs.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      “They are going to eliminate fuel tax revenue, and pay people to purchase electric vehicles. This should be interesting.”

      Still cheaper than having your major cities flooded.

      • 0 avatar
        JohnTaurus

        Because its always sunny in the UK, so they’ll be no upstream emissions.

        Oops.
        http://www.energy-uk.org.uk/energy-industry/electricity-generation.html

        “Fossil fuels

        Most of the UK’s electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, mainly natural gas (30% in 2015) and coal (22%). A very small amount is produced from oil (under 1%). The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power stations changes each year, with some switching between the two depending on fuel prices.

        Nuclear

        21% of our electricity comes from nuclear reactors, in which uranium atoms are split up to produce heat using a process known as fission. The UK’s nuclear power stations will close gradually over the next decade or so, with all but one expected to stop running by 2025. Several companies have plans to build a new generation of reactors, the first of which could be running by 2018.

        Renewable energy

        Renewable technologies use natural energy to make electricity. Fuel sources include wind, wave, marine, hydro, biomass and solar. It made up 25% of electricity generated in 2015 – this will rise as the UK aims to meet its EU target of generating 30% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020”

        So even if they meet their target, the majority of electricity will likely still come from fossil fuels. This is especially as more nuclear stations are discontinued, and energy demand skyrockets when the mandate kicks in and EV sales in the mean time continue to rise.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          Perhaps the sun dosen’t shine a lot in the UK, but they still grow food there and solar generation does not require full sunlight. Maybe you haven’t noticed that the interior of your car warms up even on cloudy days.

          The UK has more than enough wind power potential, besides wave and biofuel generation.

          The Europeans are determined to reduce their emissions and are making progress that we shoukd emulate. Being able to support all new cars hitting the road as electrics 23 years from now, is not a stretch.

          You also overlook that building and operating cars with fossil fuel engines uses a lot of electricity.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ brandloyalty

            It would be most unfortunate if the UK mandated consumer spending on electric cars and then London flooded anyway because people in China and India couldn’t care less or because we can’t actually control the sea level.

            British policymakers are either terrible people or they don’t believe London will actually flood.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            @TW5
            Only flat earther types deny we can affect ocean levels.

            You should do some research before declaring the people of India and China don’t care about these issues. China especially is leaving the US in the dust.

            I don’t know the character of British politicians, but I do know about the Thames Barrier:
            http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26133660
            “It has closed 28 times since 6 December (2011). This represents one fifth of all the closures – about 150 – since it was inaugurated.(in 1982)”

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            TW5,
            Sort of like New Orleans?

            Or, the relocation of Gulf Coast communities in Louisiana?

            Or, Miami?

            It’s already occurring in the US.

        • 0 avatar
          jalop1991

          Watch it be WWII all over again, only the rationed product this time will be electricity.

          Plug in your car only 2 hours a day, even/odd day restrictions, etc.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        Move to higher ground.

        We can play the global warming sound bite game all day.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          So you put New York on Mt. Washington? Where does Miami go? Any idea of the cost?

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          Or just make a phone call to your Dutch friends. “How do we build a dike around London?”

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            Building a dike around some unoccupied land and then building a city on it is a lot easier than the other way around. Ancient cities tended to be built on flat ground at the mouths of rivers. For reasons of water transportation for war and trade.

            The problem is that even if you somehow dike off the sea, you also have to dike the river banks. Because the tides back up the river. You cannot just stop the river, so there has to be an opening for it to the sea. In the face of rising oceans and high tides, you can block the river’s exit for a while. But not forever. Heavy rain upstream reduces even further the amount of time you can block the river.

            Cities around the world are already doing this. Such as London and Venice. Poorer nations can’t afford to even start. These structures are fabulously expensive and humanity does not have the resources to raise the defenses as high as will be needed. Raising streets, as Miami is doing, is an even more hopeless measure.

            The Duch have more expertise in these things, but they are aware building dikes has limitations that will be exceded unless emissions are cut back.

        • 0 avatar
          hreardon

          Ha – that’s exactly what I told a pollster who called me in late October last year when she got irate when I told her that I don’t vote on environmental issues: “Ms., I appreciate a clean environment as much as the next person, but I can hike, fish, hunt and fix things with my hands. I’ll just move to higher ground.”

          She didn’t appreciate my cheeky response.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            A cute quip. Where would you move from and to?

            There is less space the higher you go. Where do you grow food or put airports in the mountains?

            Moving many of the world’s major cities is not viable. How do you move London or New York? Or the population of Bangladesh? Sheesh, we can hardly deal with Shishmaref Alaska. Or Tuvalu.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      TW5,
      Your comment is an uneducated assumption.

      No one, even the UK government would have a clue on how to implement this.

  • avatar
    zip89123

    The loonies have won. No offense Canadians.

  • avatar
    TTCat

    What a laughable little foray into virtue signalling – now back to your regularly scheduled reality…

  • avatar
    slavuta

    I don’t know why but they will fail. They will close gas stations, mechanic garages (electric cars will have less maint), they will need to build more nuke power plants and will generate more nuke waste. The cargo ships full of oil will not pay port charges anymore. The dock workers will not be unloading oil into trucks or oil pipes. Refineries will be abandoned. But the refugees will keep coming. With so many jobs lost, and so many people unoccupied, its only time when riots begin

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      Reminiscent of the sentiments of many back when the automobile appeared in the horse scene. Somehow humanity survived. (Docking fees for tankers!)

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        It only took two world wars for Europe to transition from mercantile colonialism to democratic capitalism. That’s pretty efficient warring from a European perspective.

        Based upon time-value of life calculations, it seems that Europe’s transition away from fossil fuels should only cost the globe about 1 billion lives. I think it’s worth the investment personally.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          @TW5
          How do you figure that?

          People in Europe are already dying from heat waves and diesel particulates but I know of no deaths resulting from climate change mitigation. For comparison have you tried to figure out how many Europeans will die from the effects of global warming?

          • 0 avatar
            RobertRyan

            @brandloyalty
            How may in the US die from pariculates and petrochemical smog in Los Angeles?
            Outside if of some Central Asian countries hace to be the most deadly ” soup” around

          • 0 avatar

            They will die from global warming because the money spent to lower the temp a few tenths could have been spent to feed, clothe, house and provide medical care for those people. Look into the actual figures on money spent for amount of degrees lowered. Not very cost effective imo.

      • 0 avatar
        joeaverage

        All this about the same time that automation kills off the blue collar jobs? This will be fun…

  • avatar
    Geekcarlover

    Que Red Barchetta.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    The UK could start by banning all diesel cars, trucks and buses, (not just sales) pre “Euro 6”, **IMMEDIATELY**! It’s a full blown, diesel catastrophe, so why wait???

    Diesel mistakes were made. Why not fix diesel problems NOW??? Unborn babies are being SNUFFED as we speak!!!

    Never mind the “still breathing”, and yes Euro 6 is still a joke, but it’s a place to start.

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      They are doing that and all Gas engines in 2040.
      Germans banning all ICE engines by 2030.
      California will follow suit. Rest of thecUS not far behind

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        Talk is cheap.

        Wait for those bans to be “delayed”, repeatedly, indefinitely.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          Sigivald,
          It’s all talk at the moment. There are still quite a few elections for the UK to go through.

          This doesn’t even consider whether the UK can pull off the Brexit.

          I do believe the UK will be worse off under Brexit, like the US is under Trump.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        2040 is a long way off, especially if you’re a UK unborn fetus, or about to become one.

        And it’s a long way off for anyone that breathes. But why not get to the root of the problem… *Diesels* …immediately?

        Gasoline cars aren’t angels, but they all have catalytic converters, required since 1992 in the UK/EU.
        The problem is diesels, no doubt about it. The pre emission, un-filtered diesel variety, to be specific, and clearly 99% of the problem, or more.

        Is it taboo to admit they F’d up?? Could policy makers be held liable??? Either way, they have blood on their hands. Fix things now.

        • 0 avatar
          hreardon

          EU governments created the diesel fiasco by distorting the market to begin with: they penalized gas burners in the belief they were saving the environment by reducing the CO2 emissions while paying no attention to the NOX emissions that were the trade-off.

          The run-up in gas prices and the economic collapse in ’07-09 did more to improve overall fuel efficiency in the US than any government program did – then Cash for Clunkers succeeded in distorting the market even more.

          Government does knee-jerk, it rarely does nuance. I’d love to see what the transportation lobbies and trade unionists will have to say about this, and I love how nobody has paid any attention to the fact that compared to large trucks and worse – massive cargo and cruise ships – modern cars are a relatively minor contributor to pollution, writ large.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            ” modern cars are a relatively minor contributor to pollution, writ large.”

            http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-pollution-from-cars.htm

            “The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) estimates that on-road vehicles cause one-third of the air pollution that produces smog in the U.S., and transportation causes 27 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. has 30 percent of the world’s automobiles, yet it contributes about half of the world’s emissions from cars.”

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            hreardon,
            I do believe in it’s haste to reduce CO2 the EU overall screwed up it’s emissions policy via diesel.

            The new Euro6 diesels are on par with a gasoline engine from an emissions perspective.

            Where they do excel is far less CO2 emissions. Gasoline is nice, but it’s the cheap option.

            This is where the US is behind the eight ball. The US’es support and protection of large vehicle production still allows for large CO2 emissions in comparison to the EU and pretty much the rest of the world.

            Now with Euro6 the EU and US emissions are more or less on par, with very minor differences.

            What we need now is for the US to use fuel tax as an instrument to manage fuel consumption to reduce CO2 and dismantle CAFE.

            The pickup truck yokels can still have their big V8s or even a transition to fuel efficient clean diesel torque monster pickups, but, using fuel price will alter vehicle purchasing behaviour for the majority.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @BAFO – Yes CAFE isn’t perfect but, Europe’s version of CAFE is killing its citizens, and seriously harming the health of millions upon millions of Europeans.

            High fuel taxes is one of the major things that caused Europe’s Diesel Disaster. The US doesn’t need to go down that road.

            We’re not Europe, thankfully, but the US was built up around “cheap fuel”, read “urban sprawl”, lack of public transportation infrastructure, and personal mobility. And yes fullsize pickups.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      DenverMike,
      The UK has a far better health system than the US.

      The UK has lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancy.

      Looking at the OECD data in the link below it appears the US infant mortality rate is over 50% greater than the UK.

      This will hopefully enlighten you.

      https://data.oecd.org/healthstat/infant-mortality-rates.htm

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      DenverMike,
      After some thought and consideration do you realise;

      The people in the EU don’t sit around their little diesel cars having a session, like pulling cones from a bong.

      Do you think they start their diesel cars with a hose running into the house and everyone has a toke?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        “…a far better health care system…”

        That’s of any consolation? Free health care??
        Nothing’s for FREE mate, and like anything else, you get what you pay for.

        I’d rather not get asthma, blood disease, etc, and cancer in the 1st place. Never mind a premature baby or worse! These are some of the consequences of Europe’s cheap version of CAFE.

        TOXIC diesel exhaust saturates where Europeans live. Not just out in public, streets/shops/schools/parks, but in their homes.

        While Europe has been COMPLETELY ignoring the underlying catastrophe, I’ve been waiting, watching, the last 10+ years, to see when this diesel thing would blow up in Europe’s face.

        This is gonna get ugly..

        “Yabut FREE Health Care, ZERO Red Tape!!!…”

  • avatar
    manbridge

    More marching towards regressiveness…

    The U.K. Where following is an art form….

  • avatar
    thelaine

    First they shove diesel down consumer’s throats…

    • 0 avatar
      RobertRyan

      Leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Preferable to Petrol/ Gas sniffing though

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Euros have their mouths wide open and will slurp down whatever their governments shove in.

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          thelaine,
          I would read up on liberties and freedoms within the global community.

          The US ain’t as free as you would like to assume. There are quite a few freer EU countries than the US.

          Having a V8 or very slack gun control doesn’t equate to personal freedoms.

          This is a fallacy that is forced upon the children in US schools.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Your condescension is wasted Al. You have me confused with someone else. I do not tout American freedom to cosmopolitan Aussie sophisticates, I bemoan the steady loss of it.

      • 0 avatar
        joeaverage

        Also improves the safety of very small cars in accidents. No explosions.

    • 0 avatar
      asapuntz

      now that everyone’s BP is elevated … according to the BBC, hybrids are exempt.

      so there will still be gas stations.

      i don’t think many consumers will be upset by improved fuel economy and reduced emissions. if Prius is any guide, the longevity and reliability will also be appreciated (more constant RPMs, fewer engine hours, less brake usage).

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        Pitch perfect condescending, paternal tone. Well played. Your Mandarin overlords know that you will appreciate your Prius, unless you are just being emotional. As a matter of fact, we will allow you the choice between an electric car and a Prius, so you should count yourself lucky! Now run along and let the goverment experts take care of you.

        Leftism: it never stops sucking.

  • avatar
    deanst

    The ban is totally irrelevant – all the politicians currently proposing it will be long gone by then. Either the technology will allow it, or it won’t.

    That being said, people usually underestimate the rapid adaptation of new technologies. 10 years ago the iPhone was something that nobody really understood – including Steve jobs. Today, 90% of people in North America have a smart phone. At some point, electric cars will experience similar growth.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      The adoption of the iPhone was rapid because the slow adoption of the cell phone was already complete. Battery revolutions or powertrain revolutions will be rapidly adopted, assuming the slow transition to EV’s is complete.

      • 0 avatar
        joeaverage

        The battery is really the only part still evolving. The driveline is pretty well sorted and everything is well integrated into the chassis.

        The average EV batteries are good and will continue to improve.

        The EV won’t satisfy those who want to dislike it anytime soon but for the rest of us, I think it is a very capable vehicle for commuter duty or shopping duty.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    11 years ago Al Gore won an Oscar by telling us we had 10 years to stop global warming and avoid environmental disaster. Virgin Air owner Richard Branson tells us that Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the Paris climate agreement is a disaster for the future of the planet. This is serious stuff, and all the politicians can come up with is to force us to wait another 13 to 23 years to ban those dirty gasoline and diesel cars? If it is such an emergency, why not ban them next week? And those dirty coal and gas powered electricity generation facilities – lets not mess around – shut them down immediately. And Branson should immediately shut down Virgin Air to show solidarity for the cause. Sure it will mean mass unemployment and lost tax revenues, but if shutting down all fossil fuel use saves only 1 life its worth it isn’t it?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      A quarter century has passed since Al Gore make his wild prediction of a 20-foot rise in the sea level over 100 years.

      Where is the 5-foot rise we should have experienced by now? The actual rise since then is about 3 inches, or 0.25 feet – 5% of what the fear-mongering VP warned us about.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        “A quarter century has passed since Al Gore make his wild prediction of a 20-foot rise in the sea level over 100 years.

        Where is the 5-foot rise we should have experienced by now? The actual rise since then is about 3 inches, or 0.25 feet – 5% of what the fear-mongering VP warned us about.”

        There are feedback loops and tipping points. Read up on melting permafrost if you want to lose some sleep.

        You need to read the literature about how Gore’s prediction may be correct despite the present change rate. Collapse of systems is often not linear, you know. A building that will soon fall usually first exhibits cracks and falling bits.

        100 years has not passed so you can’t say Gore is wrong. Gore never said the rise would be linear.

        You say the oceans have risen 3 inches in 25 years. Many deniers say there has been no rise. Who should I believe?

        Depending on how informed and capable of reasoning individuals are, some will recognize patterns and dangers before others. Some, like Gore, can warn long before the effects are substantial. Some don’t clue in until the ocean comes through their front door or washes their Charger away.

        • 0 avatar
          hreardon

          brandloyalty –

          I don’t dismiss climate change, and I agree that less pollution is better. Here’s the problem: the vast majority of environmentalism comes across as the leftwing equivalent of “doomsday porn” that grips some right wingers who thought Obama was going to use FEMA to stage a coup precipitated by a false flag nuclear or biochemical attack.

          The problem that environmentalists don’t grasp is that they believe government to be the answer to the planet’s ecological ills whereas I believe that many of these ills are created by/and/or advanced by the centralization of power. I simply do not trust that any central authority is going to have my interests in mind when writing and *enforcing* policies that to be effective (in the eyes of many environmentalists) will require strong arm tactics and not-so-subtle force.

          Believe it or not, most human beings are incredibly rational and will make the right decision when their hand is forced. I believe we’re resilient, that we’ll deal with whatever climate changes head our way, and that we don’t need some draconian upheaval of the social and economic order for us to continue as a viable species (and the minimum), or to enjoy the liberties afforded us by our very existence.

          With that all said, I have no problem with regulations to improve pollution, investment in clean technologies and incentives to nudge people in the right direction. These are all good things since less pollution is better for everyone.

          I’d just love to see how the EU will enforce these environmental standards on the developing world. Are the EU members willing to go to war for the environment and take the fight to the Asian, African and Latin American countries whose environmental standards are a pittance of those in the EU?

          • 0 avatar
            hreardon

            A few additional examples I want to add: recall that it was the FDA who created the “food pyramid” that for decades promoted carbohydrates and simultaneously demonized beef, pork, eggs and dairy.

            What doctors and nutritionists are discovering today is that this push led to the food industry doing things like substituting sugar, salt, corn syrup, etc., for natural fats. The obesity epidemic is the result of many things, but government food guidelines were a significant contributor to this epidemic.

            The FDA pushes prescription drugs, not “healthy lifestyles”, which would have a far greater positive effect on healthcare than pharmaceuticals.

            The government pushes “medical coverage for all” and does nothing about the biggest contributors to healthcare costs in the US: poor lifestyles (diet and exercise) and a complete disregard for breaking up the medical monopolies that prevent any kind of competition in the market.

            Same for the housing and student loan markets: once government started selling the idea that “everyone should own a home” and “everyone should go to college”, those markets became completely unglued. The result was the mortgage bubble in ’07 and the student loan bubble brewing now.

            In these examples, once a government policy was set there were very willing participants who latched on, took advantage of the new policy direction and then created a self-reinforcing feedback loop by supporting those government officials who kept these industries fat and happy.

            This is precisely what is happening with the environmental movement today: opportunists have taken a solid idea and turned it into a great way to profit from government support on their behalf.

            The old adage “follow the money” is as true now as it ever was.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Truth, and you can add the subprime mortgage crisis and welfare dependency to an endless list.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            @hreardon
            Thanks for raising contentious arguments in a civil manner.

            Unlike you, I do not generally consider “the government” to be some separate entity like a corporation that wss somehow foisted on the public. I regard governments as efficient mechanisms for the population to get needed things done. Govermnents are all we have to protect ourselves against greedy and selfish corporations, some of the wealthy and some other governments.

            The mass media owned by the 1% bombards us with messages of government waste, incompetence, ill-will etc. So people are separated from and cynical of THEIR government. The powerful private interests then step into the power vacuum. Government may be imperfect, but I prefer it to feudalism. We already tried that.

            Liberty to buy an ICE car as opposed to an electric car is such small potatoes compared to the conditioning done by those with the means to control marketing.

            We don’t know if we can deal with the climate change forces we’ve already set in motion. The warnings from environmentalists are beginning to look like they underestimated and understated the issue. Should the warnings be understated just so that no one is upset? As a tornado approaches should the warning be that there might possibly be a problem?

            As evidenced by the Paris meeting, virtually all nations are aware of the problem and are acting. If there is going to be a conflict over ignoring the problem, it may be between the rest of the world and the US. A certain small segment of car enthusiasts is just going to have to have a tantrum and then get over it.

            As for misguided government policies, every one you cited can be traced back to undue influence by private parties in politics. These examples are not proof of anything intrinsically wrong with democractic governments. The main solution is strict political funding laws. Something more difficult to handle is false information industries funded by folks like the Koch brothers.

          • 0 avatar
            I_like_stuff

            “Govermnents are all we have to protect ourselves against greedy and selfish corporations,”

            LOL. Yes those eeeeevil greedy corporations. I always love it when people rail against corporations on an Apple laptop, using Verizon to connect to the internet, all powered by electricity generated by a publicly traded utility company. Oh and isn’t WordPress an evil corp too? Why yes it is! And who built the home/apartment than you’re in while you write this?

            But yeah man…down with capitalism!!!

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            @i_like_stuff
            “Govermnents are all we have to protect ourselves against greedy and selfish corporations,”

            LOL. Yes those eeeeevil greedy corporations. I always love it when people rail against corporations on an Apple laptop, using Verizon to connect to the internet, all powered by electricity generated by a publicly traded utility company. Oh and isn’t WordPress an evil corp too? Why yes it is! And who built the home/apartment than you’re in while you write this?

            But yeah man…down with capitalism!!!”

            Great examples of reductio ad absurdum.

            Nothing I said states that all or even most corporations act against the public good. I never said anything about capitalism, let alone putting it down. If you equate effective government with pure socialism, those are your thoughts, not mine.

            Your mention of electric utilities points out one example of something done better by government than private corporations.

            Thanks for raising the issue of where high tech comes from. These days many on the far right denounce experts and the educated “elite”. They use Twitter to do this. Who do they think invented computers and software and the Internet? Cows?

        • 0 avatar
          hreardon

          @brand –

          “As for misguided government policies, every one you cited can be traced back to undue influence by private parties in politics.”

          And this is precisely my argument in favor for limited government: it is a massive instrument that can be wielded by whomever controls the levers at the moment – for both good and evil. Human nature is a real biznatch and the founders understood this. It is why they set the gears of government in opposition.

          I don’t have a dog in the “Koch brothers are evil” or “Left Coast Liberals” sound bite bologna, but government will always represent those who manage to influence it the most. The people who need government the most, or who see a way to profit from it will then do whatever is necessary to propagate that system.

          I’ve seen it all too often in my business dealings at the local and state level and I can assure you, it influences the road salt and janitorial contracts as much as it does the education and judicial contracts. To think that environmental issues are being managed (manipulated) any differently simply because it is “science” is naive.

          I’m not referring to anyone here as such, but like tulip, housing, gold, or even beanie baby mania – once the herd moves in any particular direction, ‘logic’ generally gets run over.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            Well if we’re going to limit government power because of the influence in it of corporations, then we better have some means to vontrol corporate power also. Or we are really screwed.

            No, I think the solution lies more in limiting campaign funding and lobbying. And improved education. A well educated population will stay away from either too much or too little government.

            The misapprehensions evident in the comments on this website alone indicate a problem with education. Not just a lack of knowledge and the skills to learn, but also a propensity to conflict.

            (Such as the common inability to make constructive contributions and explore the subject matter in a respectful way. We can’t solve our problems via ignorant brawling. Though some seem to think any shortage of brawling is the most pressing issue.)

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “in a respectful way”

            “We can’t solve our problems via ignorant brawling.”

            Aren’t you the fellow that refers to many commenters collectively as the “Worst & Dumbest”?

            thetruthaboutcars.com/2017/05/snatching-away-perk-tesla-returns-free-electricity-owners/#comment-9284220

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            @ajla
            Didn’t see that coming. Thanks for the contribution.

        • 0 avatar
          TrailerTrash

          Hey…Brand…

          Who ARE you and where do you get your facts?
          Nothing you are saying is true…other than generalized nonsensical words.

          “100 years has not passed so you can’t say Gore is wrong. Gore never said the rise would be linear.” So now I have to wait 100 years to prove a guy wrong who has been wrong on his 10 year warnings????!!!

          Jesus is coming. Can’t say when. But hell…he is coming!!!

          And here are the facts from NASA itself.

          https://climate.nasa.gov/

      • 0 avatar
        tekdemon

        I don’t think you get how melting temperatures work. Once you hit that temperature everything will melt and the rise will happen quickly. Kinda like how snow sticks around after a snowfall until the day it’s finally warm enough for it to suddenly melt. So your argument is basically like sitting around a bunch of ice cubes in a 31.5 degree room saying that everyone else is crazy and that the ice isn’t melting, as the temperature keeps climbing towards 32. When the temperature in the regions where most of the ice actually exists tips over the melting point of the ice you’ll have a ton of melting occur rapidly, so looking at current sea level rise is moronic.

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      This reminds me of critics of an anti-pipeline rally who criticized the protesters both for being jobless bums and for driving expensive suv’s to the event. Actually most of them walked, took transit or ride bicycles. Addicted to the rush of conflict, the right feels no need to make sense.

      One of the primary weapons used against environmentalusts is to accuse them of being utterly stupid, as evidenced by their call to end all use of fossil fuels immediately. This is a false accusation. No influential environmentalist ever called for that. Because it would be disastrous and is both impossible and unnecessary. Yet the accusation’s popularity never diminishes.

      Your post is a twist on that intentionally destructive lie.

      In a democracy the politicians can generally only do what the majority of the public want. And there are too many people like many of those who post here acting as a drag on what needs to be done.

      It may already be too late to avoid climate catastrophy. To cling to crude dirty outdated technology out of immature habit or just playing with noisy toys, seems a bit silly. Just ask the residents of Tuvalu or Shishmaref. Or the insurance industry, the US military or even some of the oil industry giants.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “To cling to crude dirty outdated technology out of immature habit or just playing with noisy toys, seems a bit silly.”

        Maybe. But it’s a hill I’m willing to die on.

        Make me a vegan that can only eat things grown within 500 miles, have me live in 300 sq ft, and limit me to 5000 miles a year, but please don’t take away my engine.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @ brandloyalty

        It is obviously the protest industrial complex are the people addicted to conflict, hence their chosen profession and reluctance to find real work.

        Regarding the lack of intelligence within the ecological community, it is objective and demonstrable. Fracking is providing the cheap, low-carbon energy that is reducing our reliance on coal, yet many people want to shut down fracking even in remote locations. The same people also tend to fight pipeline projects, which merely cause geopolitical problems and economic problems, while also increasing the amount of pollution to transport oil.

        From an economic standpoint, these people understand little or nothing about environmental economics and microeconomic behavior. Their methods are antithetical to their goals, and they often support policies that would worsen the problem or create new corrupt industries that negatively impact our lives (e.g. cap-and-trade).

        Many people within the ecology non-profit industry are vestigial appendages. At best, they will exist in peace with the rest of us. At worst, they will threaten our existence.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          @TW5

          Funny to call it the protest industrial complex when the pay for individual oil company executives exceeds the annual budgets of entire environmental organizations.

          You have no idea of what it takes to climb a Russian oil drilling platform compared to your likely armchair existence. What work could be more real than protecting the things humanity and life depend on?

          Opposing fracking is not stupid. Do some reading about the pollutants that escape into the air and are pumped into the ground. Consider the earthquakes resulting from fracking. The long term contamination of precious groundwater. The use of vast amounts of clean water. Add it all up and fracking not only is not the boon it appears to be, it may actually, like corn ethanol, be a net loss. And this doesn’t even include the downstream effects of burning the products. The vast capital that goes into fracking would provide more jobs and cleaner energy if it went into renewables and energy efficiency. Those are facts.

          So I see the business-as-usual types as being the ones whose ignorance threatens our existence.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      @ stingray65

      This is a battle for the hearts and minds of the livestock. Your critical thinking and professional skepticism will not be tolerated.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        TW5 – I’ve written 6 peer reviewed papers in the past 4 years on the environmental movement. What is apparent when looking at the “green” literature is the low quality of the work – nobody on the “save the planet” side of the issue has any interest in economics or science, they think that good intentions will solve everything. When my papers question the small environmental impact or negative financial implications of commonly utilized green subsidies, I often get reviewers who recommend my paper be rejected because it doesn’t fit their flower power narrative, even though they seldom have any criticisms of the actual data or analysis – they just don’t like the conclusion and don’t want anyone else to see it either. Fortunately I have had some journal editors and reviewers that share my skepticism and they have been eventually published. Science is supposed to be about professional skepticism and debate, but the global warming fear mongers aren’t actually willing to debate any scientist or economist who is skeptical about the environmental and financial implications. As Al Gore says “the debate is over”.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          @stingray65
          By implication you dismiss the emvironmental science work of agencies ranging from the IPCC to the insurance industry to the US military. That is just plain shocking and completely undermines your credibility.

          The cons on the right mistakenly believe everyone else is dishonest or incompetent, so it’s ok for them to be dishonest and incompetent. I have asked you before to provide links to your work so I can judge the quality of it myself. Your papers could be utter rubbush like the study that claimed to prove a Hummer has less impact than a Prius.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Brand Loyalty – It is also important to note that the IPCC and government studies you use to support your view, are not peer reviewed, but funded by politicians that want a certain outcome (the Hummer study was also not peer reviewed). Lefties put so much trust in politicians, but I ask you what is easier to corrupt: A few dozen political decision makers OR millions of consumers and businesses working in their own self-interest?

            As for providing links to my studies – post your e-mail address and I’ll send them to you, otherwise you’ll have to pay for them.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            @stingray65
            Finally you have said something that removes any doubt I had about your integrity and competence. Or lack of it.

            You may hear about the IPCC through politicians, but that is only because they are, besides the press, at the top layer of the IPCC cake. At the base are thousands of scientists, all over the globe, working within their expertise and who base their input on peer-reviewed science. To debase the findings as junk because the final paper itself is not peer-reviewed, is idiotic.

            From Scientific American: “Thus, whereas the authors are responsible for the final report, the process ensures that it is firmly based on peer-reviewed scientific literature and takes account of the full range of expert views.”

            That you claim to be active in this area and yet have such a preposterous incorrect view of something you should know in depth, obviously casts your claims and views in doubt. There are people happy to pay for garbage masquerading as science. I’m not one of them.

            If you think posting one’s email on this site is ok, why don’t you post your own? Or post some excerpts from your articles.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            So much for the high road.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            @stingray65

            As for who funds the IPCC, from Wikipedia:

            The scientists contributing to the IPCC are not paid by the IPCC.

            “The IPCC receives funding through the IPCC Trust Fund, established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Costs of the Secretary and of housing the secretariat are provided by the WMO, while UNEP meets the cost of the Depute Secretary. Annual cash contributions to the Trust Fund are made by the WMO, by UNEP, and by IPCC Members”

            Yet you say the IPCC is funded by biased politicians. Again, no honest informed person in this field would make such a claim. Go away, troll.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Off comes the mask.

  • avatar
    Duaney

    Wow!! Some very in depth analysis in these comments! I for one find it amazing that the Europeans are in this panic mode. The climate change hysteria is beyond belief. The next few decades will prove to be very interesting. When the Earths climate was a hot steamy jungle, for an incredible length of time, during which dinosaurs walked around, there was no snow, no cold, this should be considered the Earths “natural” climate. Now, we’re in more of an ice age, but have had a temperature increase of maybe 1 1/2 degree F. You would think that naturalists would be thrilled that we’re perhaps moving towards the Earths natural climate.

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      In all honesty it is odd how Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord, has discussion, great discussion with really, really great people like Macron, Merkel and May.

      This is after Trump makes those ignorant comments on why the Germans don’t buy many American cars.

      Seems to me the EU is going to force tje US to play ball.

      The Chinese will love this as they will become the largest exporters of vehicles within a decade or so. Especially EV exports.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        True, the Chinese are “way ahead.” They are building hundreds of coal plants to support their growing economy. So is India. Even Germany has started constructing them again. Coal is the new solar, and wind power can blow me. Fossil fuel powers the world and will continue to do so for a 100 years or more and there is not a damned thing any gaia scientologist can do about it because: economics. People do not want to be cold and poor. If the burning of fossil fuels and thetans are going to cause the Apocalypse, then bring it on, because you cannot wish away the awesomeness of not being poor. Fossil fuels powered the industrial revolution, which liberated untold millions from disease and poverty. The rest of the world wants some of that sweet obesity epidemic. Preach all you want. Poor people will not be converted, and Chinese rulers don’t want to go Clear, they want power.

        “When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to ‘bring back coal’ in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change,” the Times reported. “But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants,” the story continues, “paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.”

        “Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries,” the Times reports. And Chinese companies such as SPIC, China Datang, Shenhua, China Huadian, China Huaneng, and China Guodian account for 45 percent of the construction. The Times story continues:

        These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

        Then the Times makes the startling admission: “The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord.”

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      @Duaney

      Only one of the Earth’s great “ctrl-alt-delete” species dieoffs was caused by a meteorite. The rest were caused by climate change. The rate of change we are seeing now is rapid, speeding up and correlates to the amount of fossil fuel burned.

      Humanity has prospered because of a relatively long term stable moderate climate. There may have been palm trees in the arctic at one time, but at the same time the zones near the equator were too hot for vertebrates.

  • avatar
    TomHend

    Does that include the military too?

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    OMG! Gasoline engines pollute!

    It’s not just diesels. Wow. Who would of thought so!

  • avatar
    I_like_stuff

    The UK is just thinking about the children. So it’s all good.

  • avatar
    markf

    So where is all this extra electricity going to come from? How is it going to be generated? Are they upgrading the already crumbling and decrepit power infrastructure?

    Just passing the tailpipe emissions from the tailpipe to electricity plant……

    More left wing nonsense, give it a date just far enough in the future so that it seems attainable and won’t cause folks to panic right away.

    • 0 avatar
      joeaverage

      Extra capacity?

      Most people would charge their EVs at night.

      There is already ALOT of surplus electricity at night. Its tough to throttle nukes and coal plants back at night and still be ready for the morning rush. So alot of electricity gets wasted.

      Read more books. Avoid the 24 hr news cycle – any source. Avoid talk radio.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        @joeaverage
        Thank you for posting the standard response to the standard “where is the electricity going to come from” challenge.

        This diversion and the response to it have been posted repeatedly on ttac. How many times must this loop be repeated?

        People use little electricity at night and mostly don’t drive while asleep.

        Markf, while you are hitting the books and Internet searches you might want to look into the growth of renewable energy sources, means to store electricity, grid interties, and energy efficiency opportunities. And the number of good jobs generated per unit of capital invested in these things compared to fossil fuel power plants. It’s not rocket surgery.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Brand Loyalty – growth in renewable sources is entirely driven by huge subsidies – the industry collapses overnight if the subsidies disappear. The reason renewables don’t work economically is because you need almost 100% redundancy with conventional power plants for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. Power needs tend to be highest when it is very cold (winter) or very hot (summer), which are precisely the times that wind and solar are least likely to be inactive (i.e. not much sun in the winter/panels covered by snow, not much wind when extremely hot or cold). The variability of renewables also means the conventional power plants must run inefficiently, and ironically the most flexible type of backup power is coal or nuclear, which the greens hate and try to ban. There is currently no economical way to store electricity except for pumping water into reservoirs for later use to generate hydro power, but greens don’t like reservoirs either and reservoirs aren’t available everywhere. Other means of electricity storage are likely decades away from being technically and economically viable. The number of “green” jobs is also totally dependent on subsidies, and the high numbers relative to fossil fuels is just another indicator of their inefficiency and consequent need for subsidies. If you are truly worried about the imminent dangers of climate change you better be prepared to be poor and live in the extreme cold and/or heat and darkness because renewables are just not capable of providing cheap reliable power in the amounts needed to run a modern economy.

          • 0 avatar
            TTCat

            Bravo Sir on this and your previous posts, but you need to stop making rational arguments based on non-manipulated data, you are going to confuse the sheep…

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            @stingray65
            Nonsense. Hard to believe anyone is still beating this dead horse.

            Long ago the Dutch found windmills useful enough to build hundreds of them even though the wind doesn’t blow all the time. You’re smart enough to figure out why that was so.

            A variety of grid-connected wind, solar, tidal, biomass generation connected to storage systems ranging from reservoirs to water pumping to fake trains to electric car batteries to standby batteries, will smooth the load/demand balance.

            Rather than ramping generation up and down, increasingly common autonomous systems can be run when power is available.

            Solar and wind are on track to become so cheap there will be a surplus usable for variable things like desalinating saltwater.

            Efficiency gains will reduce base load to begin with.

          • 0 avatar
            JEFFSHADOW

            I am into my second month with Solar City panels at my home. My electrical cost from Southern California Edison for 27 days in July was $3.70. With air conditioning on four hours a few days a month the bill will reach $4.40 for the month. My daily average kWh usage went from 14.79 to 2.39.
            I also qualified for NEM1 in time for the June 30, 2017 deadline and am able to sell my excess production to the grid.
            The money I save puts fuel in the Oldsmobile 455s.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Too cheap to meter.

            spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/too-cheap-to-meter-nuclear-power-revisited

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            it would also be nice if we would sack up and build nuclear power reactors which aren’t still 60-year-old designs. even evolutionary designs like AP1000 and ESBWR, while not perfect, would have survived what took out Fukushima I.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            True, but post Fuku up I am anti-nuke.

            AP1000 orders have mostly been canceled btw, a handful still in the US and I think over ten or more in China. I was told Westinghouse (and Toshiba) went bankrupt because of some bad division purchase by the Westinghouse division (purchased company cooking books or something to the effect). Once they weather the storm they will complete their remaining orders but beyond that employees were unsure. My personal guess is Fedgov will either bail them out or nationalize them if need be for national security reasons.

            Source: Two Westinghouse employees who used to work with me at another company in Cranberry Woods.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            True Stingray, that is why nations around the world will be constructing over 1,500 coal plants in the coming years. Chinese construction companies will do much of the work. China has great expertise in this area, and will be building hundreds in China as well in the next several years. They have to pay the bills, so they do not worship in the Church of Gaialogy. China talks a good game and knows that feelings are more important than facts to the watermelons, who will insist that China is “way ahead” while cheering on a Hugo Chavez speech. When China needs support from greenies, they expel CO2 from their mouths, but when they want power, they burn coal.

      • 0 avatar
        hreardon

        Being involved in the development phase of one of the largest solar power plants in the world on the Nevada/California border, I can tell you that the relative inflexibility of the current electric grid in the US is indeed a *major* concern. Not insurmountable, and certainly not a reason to shoot down renewables, but it’s one of those significant “reality checks” that those who propose to eliminate traditional power generation need to understand.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          hreardon – have you had any delays or cost over-runs because of environmental impact study requirements, lawsuits by environmental groups that want to protect some insect, rodent, or reptile your solar farm will displace, or difficulties getting approvals for grid connections to your plant?

          • 0 avatar
            hreardon

            Funny you should say that, Stingray: the project start was pushed back by a year, then halted for almost eight months for an environmental impact study related to it being built on a migratory path of some sort. The firm spent close to $18 million to engineer and construct a diversion system.

            It was all moot: the company went bankrupt in mid-2012 due to a flood of Chinese solar panels hitting the market, depressing prices, plus California and Nevada being unwilling to pay market rates for the electricity that would be produced.

            At the risk of making this sound like an anti-government screed, I can tell you that the management team sincerely believed that the non-stop permitting delays and construction stop-orders were a major factor in them losing momentum (and investment dollars).

            But hey, at least the birds/turtles/whatever they were got a nifty man-made migration path out of the deal.

        • 0 avatar
          brandloyalty

          @hreardon,
          Is there a compelling case for these huge solar farms that lead to distribution issues, as opposed to more decentralized solar? Down to the scale of rooftop panels?

          I can see there are economies of scale for the big installations but obviously there are big costs also.

          The recent Tour of California bicycle race went past a huge solar farm. The one you were involved with?

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        So no one charges during the day and there is SO MUCH extra juice that transferring every car from gas to electric will be no problem.

        “Read more books. Avoid the 24 hr news cycle – any source. Avoid talk radio.” Translation: Get all your news from impeccably Liberal outfits. Got it.

        Also, a lot is not one word. Maybe read some more books?

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        So no one charges during the day and there is SO MUCH extra juice that transferring every car from gas to electric will be no problem.

        “Read more books. Avoid the 24 hr news cycle – any source. Avoid talk radio.” Translation: Get all your news from impeccably Liberal outfits. Got it.

        Also, a lot is not one word. Maybe read some more books?

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Energy poverty and mobility restrictions for all!

  • avatar
    stuki

    Everyone should hold hands and ban everything non-PC sometime after they’re dead. Then they can all “invest” in it. And leave it to the money printers to pump up their “investments” with loot stolen from those stuck doing productive work for a living. Lest their “investments” don’t pay off anymore, and then the “system” will “collapse.”

    • 0 avatar
      brandloyalty

      I have investment advice for you: oil companies and seaside real estate. Me, heavy construction equipment, renewable power and companies that make water bombers.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    By 2040, the third-world invaders will have taken over the UK and most of Western Europe. It’s likely these 7th century types will call BS on climate change and be generally more amenable to fossil fuels.
    .
    .

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      True, regression to barbarism due to cultural destruction is far more likely than any scenario promoted by the catastrophic global warming gaia cult.

      • 0 avatar
        brandloyalty

        There is reason to believe this is already well under way.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          “By 2040, the third-world invaders will have taken over the UK and most of Western Europe. It’s likely these 7th century types will call BS on climate change and be generally more amenable to fossil fuels.”

          Yup. Pretty the cult of Global Warming is not high on list of ISIS grievances…..

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            Your comment should not stand without rebuke.

            Calling the current predominant background of immigrants to Europe “7th century types”, “third world invaders” and “ISIS” is false, racist and damaging. Spreading this sort of hatred plays into the hands of the real terrorists and should not be tolerated on this website.

            You also have no clue where they stand on climate matters. Indeed, part of the Syria refugee crisis is due to climate change, if you knew anything about what you spew about. You are a piece of work.

          • 0 avatar
            usernamealreadyregistered

            “Your comment should not stand without rebuke.”

            And you’re just the schoolmarm to deliver that rebuke.

            “Calling the current predominant background of immigrants to Europe “7th century types”, “third world invaders” and “ISIS” is false, racist and damaging.”

            Why are you an FGM denier? I can’t take you seriously if you’re an FGM denier.

          • 0 avatar
            brandloyalty

            @usernamealreadyregistered

            If by what I said you assume I am a female genital mutilation denier, then you are a nut case. You’re probably a nut case anyway for bringing up the subject here.

            You don’t even have the guts to spell out your foolishness.

            There are aspects of most or all cultures and even individuals including family and friends that I don’t like. That does not give me the right or make it advisable to objectify them or consider them a threat. I’m making an exception for you:-)

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            The inevitable leftist call for speech suppression. Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. Yes, barbarians are invading Europe. Too bad for your religion and ideology. Save the planet, get blown up by an electric car bomb.

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    Two gearheads compare the Volt and Bolt.

    “Still, the Bolt proved surprisingly enjoyable, even to a pair of ardent gearheads. Maybe the future of performance won’t be so bleak after all. Just different — and quieter.”

    http://driving.ca/chevrolet/volt/auto-news/news/bolt-vs-volt

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    Shell ceo says his next car will be electric.

    https://www.google.ca/amp/business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/shell-ceo-says-his-next-car-will-be-electric-sees-oil-demand-peaking-before-2030/wcm/db58247f-bd6a-4984-9c50-a08d1187869c/amp

    ““The whole move to electrify the economy, electrify mobility in places like northwest Europe, in the U.S., even in China, is a good thing,” Van Beurden said in an interview on Bloomberg TV Tuesday. “We need to be at a much higher degree of electric vehicle penetration — or hydrogen vehicles or gas vehicles — if we want to stay within the 2-degrees Celsius outcome.””

    The car fans who deny the electrification of cars and energy in general are out of touch even with Shell’s ceo. This is getting into flat earther territory.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @brandloyalty: The car fans who deny the electrification …

      Definitely. I’m a car fan and have substantial oil and natural gas investments. I’m also a huge fan of EVs. I know there are a lot of benefits to them, but when you get right down to it they’re just plain awesome to drive. Perfect smoothness, quiet, and tremendous power. Everyone gets lost in all of the politics and forgets or denies the awesome performance aspects of EVs.

      For anyone that’s against EVs and ranting and raving about green politics, just take some time out and actually test drive a Tesla and find out what they’re all about. Test drive an EV before you start complaining about them. Sure, there may be reasons you can’t go out and actually buy one. Just understand that they are fantastic cars for those of us able to actually own one and it isn’t always because we have a green agenda. We’re car enthusiasts to the core and want the best we can get regardless of politics.

  • avatar
    NMGOM

    Brits are suffering from Euro-think, an especially damaging virus that can be economically fatal.
    And here I thought that “Brexit” was going to be the cure!
    Now I see they have succumbed to Frenchitis…

    Good God, man, how are we to hear the gusto of a roaring engine in the morning?!
    When the racing MC announces, “Gentlemen, start your engines!”, are we to hear the whine of pathetic E- motors, who, like the littlest piggy, will go “wee, wee, wee” all the way home?

    ==================

  • avatar
    markf

    “You also have no clue where they stand on climate matters. Indeed, part of the Syria refugee crisis is due to climate change, if you knew anything about what you spew about. You are a piece of work.”

    Yes, I am sure the region awash in oil is VERY concerned over Global Warming. What’s the official ISIS stance on Global Warming? Maybe somewhere in their policy paper between enslaving and raping Yazidi women and chopping off heads of infidels.

    And yes, barbarians are chopping off heads, raping women and killing children because Global Warming. Global Warming, what CAN’T it do!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: “In the good ol’ days” *we* did not need to worry about seatbelts, car seats, play pens and...
  • Runfromcheney: This has long been known to be a common issue with these cars.
  • jkross22: This is cartoonishly overpriced. The profile from the side looks like a Stinger knock-off in the front and...
  • Kyree S. Williams: It has become abundantly clear that the Delta-platform cars (with the lone exception of the Astra...
  • Lou_BC: I did wonder why FCA employees were paid lower wages than Ford or GM. Generally speaking we tend to see...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber