UK Officially Bans Sale Of Fossil Fuel Vehicles By 2040

Typical idiotic thinking by Liberals. Just make a law. That solves everything. Is the UK going to also build more power plants so as to be able to charge all those EVs? The dimwit making the proposal probably didn't think of that.

Hey...dumbass MDarringer...Britain is still run by Conservatives with their new coalition and Prime Minister....but thanks for proving what a mental klutz you are, why do you insist on making every issue political and full of Trump BS? Stick to automotive comments, the topic of this website, or continue to show what a jackass you are.

BobM you're an idiot

@BobM You're probably right.

@pentupnrgy69 The UK is the classic example of a nanny state, safe spaces, total expectation of politically correct behavior...hence Liberal in thought. The UK's conservatives really aren't.

MDarringer.. you're an idiot as well

Yo!

"Sales of hybrid and plug-in hybrid models will still be permitted, however."

If you're going to quote an article at least read it first. That's in the first paragraph, for hybrids' sake!

Last time I checked, hybrids and plugin-hybrids are still petrol and diesel powered.

Any sort of ban shouldn't be needed, the market will move this way regardless. I think it is more of a political/marketing move to get companies to speed up development of new EVs.

Yeah, MDarringer, that was about as stupid as your contradictory argument against diesels. Both revolve around government and EPA type control. Yet you're okay with the diesel attack, but not the vehicle ban.

Makes no sense.

They are in no way related.

When I was a kid everyone was talking about fossil fuels running out. Funny thing is that the planet will never, ever run out of fossil fuels. We'll just slowly switch to alternatives.

supermoto: So true :-) There is a saying, "We left the Stone Age not because we ran out of rocks, but because we found a better way to do things."

23 years is a long time out to be predicting things. Remember that in the 1940s, we were promised "clean electricity that's too cheap to meter" from nuclear energy. That promise never came true, and so far, 70 years later, we're still no closer to it coming true.

The desire to get off fossil fuels is a noble one, but it's an absolute necessity to have a viable alternative to replace that energy source. We're nowhere close.

If you take "well to wheel" impact of gasoline vs electricity -- that is ALL impacts of all things needed, from raw energy source, to extracting and refining raw materials, to manufacturing, to moving car -- pure EVs in a typical US city are only 3% to 6% cleaner (total emissions from all sources, "well to wheels") than a similar gasoline-powered vehicle. That's a mere *incremental* change; not a game changer. And to get that 3% to 6% cleaner car, you have to take on some serious setbacks, like a relatively short range and long recharge times to get that full (short) range.

Are EVs the wave of the future? Likely, but who knows how long it'll be before we make more than a 6% (best case) pollution reduction by getting off fossil fuel and onto "clean" electricity.

Well- the first problem here is that the article and the Auto Spies blurb do not say the same thing - where clearly the article does indeed say that Hybrids and Plug-ins would still be allowed.

Also remember that during the 70's we were told that we only had 20-30 years of fossil fuels left - turns out we have no problem at all. However - it also turns out that we do not have production of sufficient Lithium to support all of these EVs much less the other markets that those style batteries are being used in. Lithium extraction uses Toxic chemicals. Worse - demand will outstrip supply in 2025 unless something is done. Lithium extraction also uses Toxic chemicals - and as you noted - is not significantly "greener" than ICE engine cars.

A ban will be a problem because even at that time - there will still be Millions of ICE cars on the road - and unless something is done to make EV's affordable - and to produce the needed infrastructure - most car buyers simply will not be able to afford a "new" EV. (AND Battery life cuts into buying a used one too).

Steve wrote: "... pure EVs in a typical US city are only 3% to 6% cleaner (total emissions from all sources, "well to wheels") than a similar gasoline-powered vehicle. That's a mere *incremental* change; not a game changer."

@Steve: not sure where you pull that "3% to 6%" number - but it's TOTALLY OFF. The DoE data clearly disagrees with you: national averages show gasoline vehicle emits more than twice electric vehicle, hybrids fare a little worse than EVs but are still far better than gas vehicle by a large margin.

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

Here in VA electricity during off peak at night is still over 90% nuclear from the two nuclear power plants (4 reactors) in the state as they cannot throttle down much. Guess when most EVs charge?

What's mucking up electricity production is not renewables or EVs, it's all the new data centers that have appeared in the last decade that run non-stop and use immense amount of power. As a result new nat. gas pipelines and new combined cycle power plants are being built, but guess what? EVs power by those are still much cleaner than ICE vehicles in CO2, NOx, SOx and particulates.

HenryN: Read my post. I speak of "well to wheel" emissions (see post for details on what that means). I do **NOT** speak strictly about only that final stage: Tailpipe emissions of ICE vs electric generating emissions required to charge EVs. That's the optimistic numbers that pro-EV folks like to cite, ignoring all other related pollution and toxicity.

Steve: maybe you rushed to reply and did not read the DOE link - yes the emission data they use does include "well-to-wheel". Here's a sample paragraph from the site. They even have a separate section for the definition of "well-to-wheel".

"EVs and PHEVs running only on electricity have zero tailpipe emissions, but emissions may be produced by the source of electrical power, such as a power plant. In geographic areas that use relatively low-polluting energy sources for electricity generation, PHEVs and EVs typically have a well-to-wheel emissions advantage over similar conventional vehicles running on gasoline or diesel. In regions that depend heavily on conventional fossil fuels for electricity generation, PEVs may not demonstrate a well-to-wheel emissions benefit."

While I don't have any problem with your anti-EV view, I cannot accept your made up numbers as if they were facts. Remember you cited the numbers as "typical" so they should reflect the averages of the large samples, not a convenient use case to support your view.

I am pro-EV, that's true - but that does not mean I am not aware of or deny the challenges facing EV and environmental impacts it has - both positive and negative. The technology is still very young (in its current application, ie. Lithium battery), and is still very much dependent on non-renewable sources. However, with renewable energy sources now widespread and expanding at a fast pace, plus reduced prices of residential solar, independence from fossil fuel is becoming a reality.

Using your own quote "We left the Stone Age not because we ran out of rocks, but because we found a better way to do things." - EV is the "better way" in comparison to ICEV with respect to GHG emission and pollution.