UK Car Industry On Alert Over Reports Some Hybrids Face a Ban (bbc.com) 96
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The UK's car industry has hit out at the government over unconfirmed reports ministers will target hybrid vehicles as part of a new emissions crackdown. New cars unable to do at least 50 miles on electric power may be banned by 2040, a ruling that would hit the UK's best-selling hybrid, Toyota's Prius. The SMMT car trade body said "misleading" government messages were damaging the industry and hitting jobs. In a short statement, the Department for Transport denied plans for a ban.
The Financial Times and Autocar said that the government's Road to Zero car emissions strategy was due to be unveiled imminently. It follows last year's announcement by the government that it would ban the sale of all new diesel and petrol cars in the UK by 2040. But the position on electrified models was unclear, and Road to Zero is due to clarify the situation. The FT and Autocar reported that vehicles which could not travel at least 50 miles using only electric power would be outlawed. "Unrealistic targets and misleading messaging on bans will only undermine our efforts to realize this future, confusing consumers and wreaking havoc on the new car market and the thousands of jobs it supports," said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. "We cannot support ambition levels which do not appreciate how industry, the consumer or the market operate and which are based neither on fact nor substance. Consumers need clear information about the right vehicles for their driving needs and it is again disappointing for both industry and consumers that vitally important information about government policy is being communicated by leaks."
The Financial Times and Autocar said that the government's Road to Zero car emissions strategy was due to be unveiled imminently. It follows last year's announcement by the government that it would ban the sale of all new diesel and petrol cars in the UK by 2040. But the position on electrified models was unclear, and Road to Zero is due to clarify the situation. The FT and Autocar reported that vehicles which could not travel at least 50 miles using only electric power would be outlawed. "Unrealistic targets and misleading messaging on bans will only undermine our efforts to realize this future, confusing consumers and wreaking havoc on the new car market and the thousands of jobs it supports," said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. "We cannot support ambition levels which do not appreciate how industry, the consumer or the market operate and which are based neither on fact nor substance. Consumers need clear information about the right vehicles for their driving needs and it is again disappointing for both industry and consumers that vitally important information about government policy is being communicated by leaks."
Goes into effect, all the scum will have retired. (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians love to pass feel good laws for their successors to ignore. If it's effective date is after the next election, it's just posing.
This is simple: Either batteries 'moore's' law analog will holdup and battery powered cars will win on the market, or it won't and this law will be ignored. In either case, this law is an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Batteries are already good enough. It's just a question of time until prices come down even further and infrastructure gets built up.
Even if the government didn't set this target, by 2040 most cars on the market would be EVs anyway. The target just signals we won't be that far behind the rest of Europe and that infrastructure investments enjoy some government backing.
That's why it won't be abandoned. People with money will invest, and they won't allow their bought and paid for politicians to screw them.
Re: (Score:2)
Your not disagreeing, your just wrong that batteries are good enough already.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you just wake up from a decade long coma? Man, are you going to be surprised at how the world has changed......
Re: (Score:2)
By *2040* we have better batteries even now (Score:2)
This law requires the ban of selling such hybrids by 2040.
There are lots of different models of cars currently sold in 2018 that already have better batteries than that (I'm not only speaking of Tesla, I'm speaking about the Renault, Nissan, VW, Citroen, etc.)
Non plug-in hybrids where an interesting stop-gag measure back at a time when everybody was heavily relying on an existing infastructue/logistics for gaz, when battery were still small, and there was virtually no chargers infrastructure.
But plugin to c
Re: (Score:2)
What is this Moore's law of batteries of which you speak? The energy density of any particular battery technology depends only on the laws of physics. There is no Moore's law off batteries.
Having said that, it would be surprising ifs there are no breakthroughs in battery technology in the next twenty years - or alternatives like hydrogen fuel cells.
It's not something that really bothers me though. In 2040, I'll be in my mid 70's and unlikely to be buying a new car, unless it has fully autonomous self drivi
Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20 (Score:5, Informative)
It just NEW cars.
Indeed. TFA makes it sound like they are going to confiscate cars. The proposed ban is only on sales of NEW cars, and since the effective date is 22 years from now, it should be of no concern to anyone making or buying a car today.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
it should be of no concern to anyone making or buying a car today.
That's putting your head in the sand. 100 years ago, the same was said about Hong Kong coming back under Chinese control. In the end, it is bad legislation that will affect people.
/. know about my aversion against that Orwellian Police State anyway.
In other news: the U.K. is passing laws that the space industry must support interstellar travel by 2040, or be banned from entering the U.K.
Those stupid politicians need to understand that innovation cannot be legislated. But then again, frequent readers on
Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20 (Score:4, Interesting)
50 miles electric range is trivial to implement TODAY, zero innovation required.
Several countries are planning zero emission requirements 10-15 years earlier than the UK proposal for 50 miles electric range.
By 2040 it will be difficult to find a new car with a combustion engine anyway, regardless of that the UK government does.
Re: (Score:2)
50 miles electric range is trivial to implement TODAY, zero innovation required.
I agree with you on that, Tesla can do 400 miles.
But that is irrelevant to my complaint. My issue is that the U.K. (or any) government does not get to dictate how motor companies choose to innovate. What if by 2025 Nikola Motors' fuel cell technology gets adopted by the industry?
By 2040 it will be difficult to find a new car with a combustion engine anyway, regardless of that the UK government does.
Yes, so you agree with me that this law is irrelevant anyway. Indeed. This is one of those laws, made up by pink-sunglassed greenies looking to find another reason to masturbate in the mirror. "Oh look what a great law I passed to
Re: (Score:2)
"What if by 2025 Nikola Motors' fuel cell technology gets adopted by the industry?"
Then there will be more electric cars. I didn't see anything stipulating the source of the electricity.
Re: (Score:3)
My issue is that the U.K. (or any) government does not get to dictate how motor companies choose to innovate.
The people of the UK, through the actions of their Government, do however get to dictate which technologies are not permitted to be sold in their country.
If a car company doesn't wish to "innovate" by putting a 51 mile range battery in with the combustion engine then nobody will give a shit. They just wont be able to sell cars in the UK.
What if by 2025 Nikola Motors' fuel cell technology gets adopted by the industry?
Without seeing the wording of the law it's not yet possible to tell whether that engine would be allowed in 2040 or not. If not, there would still be plenty of time to updat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is they are only banning hybrids not capable of doing 50 miles on battery. The Prius can do 30 miles right now. The idea that in the next 22 years battery capacity will not have improved 60% is frankly ludicrous. In the last 22 years they have improved an awful lot more than that, and there a whole slew of battery technology innovations in the pipeline any one of which would provide the additional capacity required.
There is a long history in of needing to set targets to drive manufactures to innovate
Re: (Score:2)
So what innovation was lost when leaded gasoline was banned? Your entire line of reasoning here is invalid.
Re:Privately owned cars should be banned (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a lot of rural areas in the U.K., too. Sure, I can see a ban on private vehicles in areas with congestion issues. They could eliminate all urban parking entirely that way, which would allow for some really nice changes. Most urban dwellers won't likely need their own vehicles.
But there's no need to ban private vehicle ownership altogether.
Re:Privately owned cars should be banned (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure there is: Control.
People not utterly dependant on government just don't 'love the state' enough. They have a plan to fix that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the _dumbest_ thing posted on the net in the past decade.
Seriously: Disproven by one example. You can't you think of one? Try harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Defend your stupidity. Perfect!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cars getting more expensive is the only thing the government has done... And making cars more expensive only reduces people's quality of life as they become less able to travel, or are forced to spend more on travel they have no choice about.
Cars are arguably worse for the environment after government regulation... They regulated the amount of CO2 but not other emissions, the end result has been lots of diesel vehicles which emit little CO2 and plenty of other more harmful chemicals. Now they are starting t
Re: (Score:2)
Cars getting more expensive is the only thing the government has done...
Maybe your government. On this side of the pond, our government has been pushing safety standards forward. Sure, lots of what we find annoying about modern cars is due to those improved safety standards... but the cars have become more safe. You can't say that's not a benefit.
Cars are arguably worse for the environment after government regulation... They regulated the amount of CO2 but not other emissions, the end result has been lots of diesel vehicles which emit little CO2 and plenty of other more harmful chemicals. Now they are starting to realise the mistake, but there are millions of diesel vehicles on european roads now.
Yes, that's another place Europe should have followed America's example. We regulate diesels the same as gassers, for passenger vehicles. End result, our diesels are cleaner. Sure, we have less of them, but that's not a problem, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They regulated the amount of CO2 but not other emissions, the end result has been lots of diesel vehicles which emit little CO2 and plenty of other more harmful chemicals.
This is not true. For one, catalytic convertors were mandated. Secondly, diesels were also regulated, but particulates have been determined to be more damaging than realised, and a number of new regulations are being introduced across Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars getting more expensive is the only thing the government has done
In the last ten years average wages in the UK have risen 17%
The price of new cars has dropped over 5%
-- https://www.racfoundation.org/... [racfoundation.org]
If only the Government made everything that much more expensive.
22 Years Out (Score:5, Interesting)
So banning cars that can't do 50 miles all electric over twenty years from now is unrealistic and damaging for the industry now? That makes no sense. Perhaps if they were going to ban existing cars that can't do 50 miles all-electric in twenty years, then people would be just starting to think about that, as some cars last that long, but on average cars only last ten years. But that's not what they're talking about. The article clearly says it's for new vehicles.
I doubt making changes in requirements for cars in ten years would be a problem. Most cars get a major refresh every five years or less, so there's plenty of time for manufacturers to adjust.
Sure, the Prius is horrible as a plug-in hybrid, as it doesn't do a decent job of running all-electric (or so I've heard), but Toyota has decades to fix that.
This proposed rule looks to be more descriptive than proscriptive. Does anyone really expect any manufacturer will still be selling vehicles for general use in twenty years that aren't at least mostly electric? That's not what the manufacturers themselves are saying. At the rate things are shifting, I doubt there will be many cars with tailpipes being sold new by 2030, let alone 2040 (but I'm an optimist).
Re:22 Years Out (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anyone really expect any manufacturer will still be selling vehicles for general use in twenty years that aren't at least mostly electric? That's not what the manufacturers themselves are saying. At the rate things are shifting, I doubt there will be many cars with tailpipes being sold new by 2030, let alone 2040 (but I'm an optimist).
Hell, no. Electric vehicles are the future and they will kill off fossil fuel powered cars just the PCs killed off the typewriter. I'm sure that in 20 years there will still be a few niche markets where fossil fuels are still relevant but not much more. The fossil fuel industry in the US is already lobbying hard for legislation against solar and wind energy as well as electric vehicles which is a sure sign of desperation. Any car company CEO who thinks they'll still be making fossil fuel cars with token electric hybrid drives 20-30 years from now should be fired because he'll run the company into bankruptcy.
Re: (Score:2)
For emergency services it's really more like .1% - 1% of vehicles. Sure out of millions of vehicles is certainly a large number, but it's fair to call that "niche" as in you're not going to be selling these to general consumers. They will be purpose built fleet vehicles often made on contract.
I think electrics won't displace off-road trucks either. But if I have to go to a special place to buy one instead of a Jeep or Land Rover dealership that is not really the end of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the trends in EV range it is clear that the potential range of EV will exceed ICE vehicles at some point in the future
Right. Come back when a car with a fuel tank as large as those batteries doesn't go further.
Car fuel tanks balance weight, interior space and range. Electric cars will need to do the same - you aren't going to sell many Chevvy Suburbans with the boot full of batteries in the UK where they wont fit into parking spaces.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
800km? A high end touring car has a range of 800 miles right now.
I'm not saying 800km is insufficient range, I'm just challenging the "EV range is on track to beat ICE". It's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ambulances are a great candidate for electrifying. An ambulance goes out maybe fifty miles max and returns. Then it has to be sterilized, restocked, etc., for the next person, and it can be on the charger.
Police cars typically don't need really long range. Eight hours at 30mph is 240 miles, and they'll be back to be charged. (Or eight hours at 60mph, and recharge during lunch.) We could do that today.
Fire trucks are somewhat different. The fire truck needs to drive to a fire and continue providin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that in 20 years there will still be a few niche markets where fossil fuels are still relevant but not much more.
Are the millions of 250cc (or smaller) motorcycles they use in Asia a large enough niche market? Today, something like the Honda PCX or Click 125 sells for the equivalent of USD1800-2200 in places like Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia... Are those guys all going to spend extra for a battery version of these "work horses" and then have extension leads trailing from shops, rather than selling petrol in glass bottles?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they are considered vehicles that require annual inspections, taxes and road insurance in Europe (and requires you as the importer to make them pass inspection); in Asia where they are considered bicycles they are very convenient indeed.
Given that Chinese road traffic deaths are over six times as high (per 100k population) as the UK, maybe some of that regulation is actively saving lives (plus various economic benefits).
(could be worse, I could have used Thailand as the comparator)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure that in 20 years there will still be a few niche markets where fossil fuels are still relevant but not much more.
Are the millions of 250cc (or smaller) motorcycles they use in Asia a large enough niche market? Today, something like the Honda PCX or Click 125 sells for the equivalent of USD1800-2200 in places like Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia... Are those guys all going to spend extra for a battery version of these "work horses" and then have extension leads trailing from shops, rather than selling petrol in glass bottles?
Dunno about your corner of the world but in mine the scooter market is already dominated by Asian made electric scooters. I expect the 250-500 cc motorcycle market is next (take comfort in the fact that the part of the motorbike market that doesn't cater to the Copper and 1200-2000 cc racing bike niche markets will still use fossil fuels). It's precisely the Asian manufacturers who are leading the charge on electric bikes.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds encouraging. Where is that? What are the most popular models? I'd love to ride electric, but not at Zero Motorcycles inc. prices.
No panic, the technology is already close (Score:3, Informative)
The current Plug-in Prius already can do 50 km (30 miles) on an electric charge. If battery technology improves or Toyota is willing to accept a bit more weight for a larger battery, they can match the new requirements. And they have another 22 years to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
Lugging that extra battery weight around for 100% of the time is much greener than 100% battery 10% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good use for a owner swappable extended range battery. Though I would think manufacturers would have looked into it. Maybe it is like phone manufactures not wanting to let owners replace batteries. Though it may simply be considered too dangerous, in case 1 out of 100000 users manages to blow up a battery.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see the Prius being around in 22 years time. Why would you bother with all that complex drive train and management system when huge batteries and ultra fast charging will be commonplace? At most you might include a little petrol generator, but it wouldn't drive the wheels directly like the Prius one can.
Re: (Score:2)
By the time 2040 rolls around, two or three sets of batteries from your car will be leaking chemicals in a landfill.
Re: (Score:3)
Car batteries are almost 100% recyclable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://seekingalpha.com/artic... [seekingalpha.com]
Re: (Score:2)
... and you just showed your ignorance.
There isn't actually much Lithium in a Lithium-ion battery. In a Tesla, for example, there is somewhere around 10kg total in the battery pack.
Re: (Score:2)
Car batteries are almost 100% recyclable.
Traditional flooded lead-acid car batteries are basically 100% recyclable, except for the labels. Even the chemistry is recycled.
EV batteries are not very recyclable. You can get most of the steel, all of the cobalt and most of the lithium, but the electrolyte is mostly neutralized and then incinerated or landfilled. They contain sealants and adhesives which cannot be recycled at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If so, someone probably broke the law. These particular batteries are in categories that require proper disposal which will in general always end up somewhere other than in a landfill. Recycling them is not difficult.
They don't get consumed by the age. All of the original elements are still there, they've just moved into physical and chemical configurations that have reduced the charge they can hold.
More importantly though, a battery that can still hold an 80% or even a 50% charge has other applications tha
Re: (Score:2)
What goes in landfills? (Score:2)
We should probably regulate the disposal of car batteries so they don't go into land fills.
You know like we've done with lead acid batteries found in nearly every current automobile.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a problem to be solved. Perhaps there should be a tax imposed on EVs to cover the eventuality of resolution of the unsolved problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's harder to say such broad things about the US because each state handles things differently. But in California I've definitely paid an electronic waste recycling fee on some of my electronics.
Lead acid batteries are kept out of the landfills by federal regulation. See Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 266, Subsection G. Most of what is in there has to do with how states and businesses must conduct their operations. And such a regulatory document wouldn't be able on its own to add a tax. I
Re: (Score:2)
An electric car should be able to recharge using solar panels and thermoelectric systems. The number of times, we've parked our car in a supermarket parking lot and we come back to find the metalwork burning hot.
Re: (Score:3)
You could put a windmill on top of the car and use that to recharge the batteries as you roll down the road... /sarc
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right!
They should make the body out of solar panels!
That's got to be at least 7 square metres of area facing the sun. In the middle of the day, that's about 7kW of energy they're pissing away.
The Prius PIH has an 8.8kW battery that gives it 25 miles range, 350Whr per mile. With 21% efficacy panels, that's about 1.5kW of power, or 4 miles range per hour.
You could drive 5 miles to the movies, park in the sun, watch your movie, drive home, and by the time you get back, your battery has the same charge
Re: (Score:2)
An electric car should be able to recharge using solar panels and thermoelectric systems. The number of times, we've parked our car in a supermarket parking lot and we come back to find the metalwork burning hot.
A really, really good [automotive] rooftop solar panel produces about 350W. Don't even ask about thermoelectric, because that's even less realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about the UK here. The sun does appear occasionally but on average a car roof solar panel isn't going to do much more than power the radio. If that.
12 years from now... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
12 years should have been more than enough. The car companies whining about it when it's 22 years is just shameful.
Re: (Score:2)
That's terrible! (Score:3)
A car that's only existed less than 21 years would be banned in 22 years from now, unless it can extend its electric only range from 11 miles to 50 miles.
That's a huge ask for Toyota to be able to push their technology that much.
Wait... that 11 miles it the first gen plug in hybrid. Their second generation does 25 miles. I think they might be able to hit 50 miles by 2040.
They are right to require a minimum mileage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't surprise me at all.
The Mercedes C and E hybrids are basically combustion engine cars with electric assist to give them better acceleration and cheaper tax. Very popular on company car schemes that heavily factor emissions into prices.
Entirely irrelevant when real-world emissions are taken into account.
News? (Score:2)
Much ado about nothing.