We recently told you that government ministers were looking for the link between outdated fossil-fuelled vehicles, and super clean, modern vehicles; the link they found was brakes & tyres – the ultimate saviour of all road transport air pollution problems (the electric vehicle) would still be dirty (which of course means taxable).
In that article, I questioned just how many industry qualified engineers were sat on the panel of experts, for it seems that air pollution is the zeitgeist of the modern era, to the detriment of everything else.
This is exactly what happened when the government of the time incentivised us to by diesel; “much cleaner, less CO2, less pollution” – any automotive engineer would have told them that they’re selling a kipper to the public.
Rising CO2 levels
Similarly, it was our very own Jason Lloyd that spoke about the law of unintended consequences all the way back in 2017, in which it had become apparent even then, that CO2 levels were rising again, thanks to the demonisation of diesel fuel, the previously loved answer to all things air-pollution related.
Surely, getting on for almost two years later, lessons have been learned?
The British Vehicle Rental & Leasing Association (BVRLA) have just published their Q1 2019 Quarterly Leasing Survey; the average CO2 emissions for all new leased cars is 118g/km – a rise of 7% since 2017. So that’s a no then.
Further still, it isn’t just lease cars – the whole new car market has spiked at 129g/km for the same period, which is the highest recording of CO2 for just over a decade. It also shows that thanks to the ridiculous taxation (either directly or otherwise), diesel car sales are falling year on year, by around 15%. In 2017, the average values of diesels were down 26%. They’re still nose-diving.
Two problems for every solution
Realistically, there are a number of problems that have led to this situation, the first being a straight choice between an asthmatic 3-cylinder turbocharged petrol engine or something that can be used (safely) on motorways, lugging loads, carrying a full family … a larger-engined vehicle (petrol of course).
Despite their faults, the nature of diesel engines meant that torque was plentiful, you weren’t needing to wait until you hit ‘valve bounce’ (maxed into the red line) to change gear, and cruising along at motorway speeds was pretty lazy and effortless. To replicate that, you need that larger petrol engine.
Added to that, is the change over to the new WLTP regulations (World harmonised Light vehicle Test Programme), which aims to give a more realistic figure than what we’d come to expect when the manufacturers ruled the roost; CO2 figures were always going to rise because of this.
It’s more than likely the combination of both these factors that sees the CO2 levels spiking at such high numbers – cars are more fuel-efficient than ever, measured like for like, a modern car will always be cleaner than the same car from even just three or four years ago.
Electric vehicles
Until the majority of road transport is electric, we are always going to have an issue surrounding air quality, that’s simple fact. Of course there’s the issue of ever-moving goal posts in the fact that as soon as we get close to meeting one arbitrary limit, it gets changed to something else, and as we’ve seen, the politicians already have their eyes on what could be used next for a little revenue earner.
But no matter how much we clean up our vehicles, it’s never going to solve the issue of air pollution. Electric vehicles are extremely resource-heavy to manufacture, we also need to consider end-of-life plans for recycling, and of course, the elephant in the room is charging … electricity generation doesn’t come free from pollution.
Yes, there’s a movement toward ‘green’ or sustainable energy, but even with our existing grid, we’d struggle to cope with demand if we switched to all-electric, even over a period of time.
The Green Alliance is a British think tank, specialising in eco & environmental issues, they’ve warned that “if no action is taken by 2020, local clusters of the battery powered cars could lead to 1% of Britain suffering unplanned voltage drops, so-called ‘brownouts’, which can damage electronic equipment. It only takes six electric vehicles located close to one other to lead to such voltage drops.”
Other European countries are in the same dilemma.
So what is the answer? Should we impose a limit for pollution now, and stick to it? Or should we keep trying to find other ways of reducing pollution from our vehicles?
What do you think the solution could be? Do you think there will come a time when we’re pollution free? Or, do you think like Bob Dylan: The answer is blowing in the wind. Let us know in the comments.
What adds to co2 is a scrappage scheme where you scrap a working car and make a new to replace it. You create more co2 in building new car than you save on not using the old one.
Scrappage schemes take well maintained older cars of the road because they are the people that can afford them , while the lest well off still have to use older more poluting cars
It does of course depend how old your existing car is and how polluting it is compared to newer models.
Considering the sheer amount of pollution created in the manufacture of a new vehicle, the sensible decision in 99.9% of cases would be to keep running an old car for as long as it’s roadworthy. The CO2 issue is a complete red herring anyway – more CO2 means better plant growth and that is all. As for the climate, there is geological evidence of relatively cold periods during periods of relatively high atmospheric CO2 and relatively warm periods coinciding with relatively low atmospheric CO2… and one might then reason that CO2 isn’t a tremendous climate driver. What IS a tremendous climate driver is atmospheric water vapour – without it this planet would be something like 15 degrees Celsius colder and therefore uninhabitable. Worrying about current atmospheric CO2 concentration approaching 400ppm (0.04%!!) is ridiculous when there is geological evidence suggesting that it’s been as high as 1700ppm at times in the past (how do you think we got all the coal and oil we’re burning nowadays?) and that the bottom threshold for life sustenance is something like 150ppm. As far as the government is concerned, they will just grab onto anything as a measure that can be taxed – CO2 was useful for that purpose. Suggestions of noise being taxed instead?? The government needs to consider the effect of road surfaces in that respect – the type (quality) of surface makes a considerable difference to the road noise generated by a vehicle. Try driving down a stretch of motorway where little plots of high quality tarmac have been applied in places, or drive on the motorway east of Brussels heading into Holland, where you notice that the Dutch have better (quieter) motorways than the Belgians. I expect that government will tax car tyres according to their width and noise rating, irrespective of their own role in fostering a noisier environment.
So a climate denyer with the temerity to summarise and refute all the environmental science in a few lines. So the mass of evidence built up over decades by real scientists we should just ignore, right – what and listen to you?
@phillip, do your research mate before spouting … im in the oil and gas industry seeing geological samples every day and working with top bods in the field, we have only 150- 200 odd years of records thus far .. climate changes are natural.. and have been a hell of a lot worse in the past … its a natural cycle .. been going on for 1000’s of years , will go on for 1000s of years after we are long gone, now instead of being a sheep and reading what the environmentalists want you to read.. do some proper research with scientists not just snippets of what they are saying .. in fact talk to one….
How long has the planet been around and we are taking 150 to 200 years of records. Sounds good to get a reliable answer for taxing people. It would great to go electric but there are problems with power stations (not enough) the grid not able to cope, not enough charging points. The list goes on. Oh and there is the increase in temperature just before an ice age. We are due one they say. You make perfect sense. We should be looking at better recycling because raw materials like oil will run out some day.
Dear Michael – please breed heavily to help wipe out these idiots!!!
Great to read. I’m a step nearer knowing why Doggerland was flooded. I keep asking people elsewhere who melted the ice and made the sea level rise 1000’s of years ago.
Alan, amazing how you can refute scientific knowledge so easily.
Scientists put themselves through open scrutiny and any such ideas have been refuted a long time ago.
You are making vague statements and anyone could argue the same or the opposite, you would need to show the data you are basing your statements on.
The vibration on some of the concrete sections of the M25 is fooling my tyre pressure sensors into reporting a drop in pressure and have to be reset.
And that’s what the manufacturers and government want you to think.
My friend has a 1969 Morris Minor in regular use – it’s had a couple of engine rebuilds and periodic bodyshell repairs to maintain it in a roadworthy condition.
Maybe it would have been more “green” to throw it away in 1976 and buy a new vehicle, throw that away in 1983 and buy a new one, then in 1990, 1997, 2004, 2011, 2018.
One vehicle, or eight manufactured and then scrapped with all the energy involved in those processes. Scrapping/recycling is far from energy free.
Aircraft are refitted with more up to date engine and avionics and kept for years. We could do the same with cars but oh, the economy and taxation. It’s never really about being “green”.
The problem with eco warriors, are that they rarely take into account the overall, net impact, from a holistic irrespective. It’s reported that the least impact to the environment occurs through running a vehicle into the ground, not scraping it prematurely, and creating another one to replace it. That will reduce overall emissions but it has a greater impact on environmental resources, including energy use.
Quite right Brian, it’s a known fact that you create more pollution making a new car than the pollution it pushes out of the exhaust throughout it’s lifetime. I use my 1963 Rover 100 quite a lot, and it’s probably outlived 7 new cars. When something wears out, I exchange it for a refurbished unit & my old unit is refurbished & sent out to someone else. Try doing that with a modern car. In some ways classic cars are the ultimate green vehicle. I still have it MOT’d & ask the tester to put it on the exhaust analyser & they’re always surprised how clean it is considering it’s nearly 60 years old.
Clive, the pollution pushed out the back doesn’t account for the “well-to-wheel” total pollution of running a car that burns in order to propel.
Your science is wrong.
No it’s not.
” the pollution pushed out the back doesn’t account for the “well-to-wheel” total pollution of running a car that burns in order to propel”
May-be not, but it does prove the point that electric cars are more harmful to the environment over their ‘well to wheel’ life.
Not according to this study by MIT, which concludes that 75 percent of a car’s lifetime carbon emissions stem from the fuel it burns, not its production. But, hey, what do they know. http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/weiss_otr2020.pdf
I have thought for a long time diesel is better than petrol. Cars and lorries last longer and as long as they are regularly serviced should be quite clean. Diesel is safer than petrol in cars coaches and lorries as it takes a lot to ignite.
I was in a coach once that caught fire. If it had been petrol, I would not be here to tell the tale.
We. Need to plant more deciduous trees along our motorways and A roads to cut pollution. We need also to encourage the planting of trees in our gardens. All would help cut pollution.
HAD THE SAME EXPERIANCE ON A COACH FROM UXBRIDGE TO BLACKPOOL MANY YEARS AGO-ON THE MOTORWAY-IT WAS ON THE TV NEWS THAT NIGHT.
COINCIDENCE-I WORKED FOR AN INSURANCE BROKER AT THE TIME AND THE COACH COMPANY WAS I CLIENT AND HAD TO PROCESS THE CLAIMS ARISING!
THE EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRE AND EXITING THROUGH THE EMERGENCY DOOR WAS CERTAINLY A BIT WORRYING
No need to SHOUT!
I DO NOT THINK HE WAS SHOUTING.
Maybe its a WHISPERED shout lol!
Why not plant fruit trees , deciduous and helps anyone who wants fruit and animals/insects benefit
What happened to the hydrogen powered vehicles where the emissions were water?
Problems.
The first is that it takes more energy to create Hydrogen from water than you get back from it.
The second is trying to store the smallest molecule in the Universe. It leaches through most other materials so that you might park up with a full tank and a day later it’s all gone. The only current way round that is to store it as a liquid but that means keeping it extremely cold and that takes a lot of energy.
As battery and electrical storage technology (such as Graphine) becomes better, you might as well just use all that energy to charge a battery.
Well done on the hydrogen reply. The first person on this chat who actually has some proper knowledge. The rest especially the journalist have no idea. To think the industry wasn’t aware of these issues!!! We’ve been working on it for decades. Yes diesel produces particulates that’s why we have particulate filters. Diesels are much more efficient than petrol and always will be, saving fuel and reducing co2. That’s why they became popular. People drive cars that’s where the emissions come from. Don’t like harming the planet?? Don’t drive a car, don’t fly on holiday, don’t buy meat, don’t travel by dirty trains etc. But most of all please get your facts right. Cars emissions have reduced massively so have their fuel efficiency. The progress in electric vehicles is incredible, while many other polluting industries do relatively nothing- shipping, construction, etc.
The most unpleasant vehicles to be behind in terms of emissions are the often petrol driven. Often not serviced properly. Modern diesels don’t seem to assault the senses like petrol engines do.
Japanese and Korean car makers are looking at producing Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars. The fuel cells produce electricity to power the car and water vapour. Chris Evans the DJ test drove one for the Mail on Sunday a couple of years ago. Present internal combustion engines can be modified to run on Hydogen. Emissions water vapour. But lower performance. The refueling technology with liquid hydrogen exists. Its the same as with NLG that powers a lot of taxis. Gas being stored in cylinders full of an absorptive material so if punctured leak and burn like petrol rather than explode. Convert petrol stations. No need for any other infrastrucure other than power stations that produce Hyrogen. Deliverd to the petrol/gas station by tanker. Convert existing vehicles (expensive) in the interim and produce all new cars with Hydrogen fuel cell technology. Watering the world as you drive.
Diesel engines can be made clean with AddBlue etc. and particle filters. Make washable particle filters instead of the expensive renewable ones people dont want to renew due to the cost.
Hydrogen fuel cells produce water vapour – which will could also damage our air quality. Think of a permanent low level cloud sitting low over our cities stopping any sunlight reaching the ground.
doesn’t happen when it rains. can you evidence that please?
clouds have little effect on the essential components of sunlight, not only that most of the water condenses in the exhaust and simply drops onto the road, might be an icing problem in colder countries, maybe!
Well you could drink the water ,
Petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles also produce large quantities of water vapour, so as that isn’t regarded as a problem, I don’t think fuel cell vehicles will have a detrimental effect.
Hydrogen cells also produce Nitrogen Dioxide emissions, as does any other combustion process. The majority of AiR Quality Management Areas have been declared due to Nitrogen Dioxide emissions.
Where did you get that fallacy from, a hydrogen fuel cell does not use a combustion process, it uses a catalyst that combines the hydrogen with oxygen from the atmosphere to produce electricity and the simple chemistry is two molecules of hydrogen (H2) plus one of oxygen (O) give one molecule of water H2O. Nitrogen does not come into it anywhere.
Dave W not If carried out in atmospheric air instead of pure oxygen, as is usually the case, hydrogen fuel cells may yield small amounts of nitrogen oxides, along with the water vapor.
Very true, basic chemistry for junior school kids.
I think you mean fuel cells produce di-hydrogen oxide not nitrogen dioxide.
Di-hydrogen oxide in the atmosphere causes far more dramatic climate changing effects than C02 or methane could ever cause. If the whole world went fuelcell tomorrow then the climatic change would be accelerate a hundred fold. and cities like London would be even more like a sauna in the summer.
You mean the Ultra Low emmision zones dont you? Which as basically another method of taxation.
Do we not remember the statements we had when london introduced a Congestion charge? How it was goign to resolve the traffic probems in London…. well that happened didnt it..
Big companies can’t make money out of it. Governments can’t tax it. No chance of that getting promoted
We have had enough rain thank you
I think they worry in case a suicide driver gets in one!
Search Youtube for “Rasa Hydrogen” to see a UK co. (Riversimple) putting a hydrogen powered car into production.
Hydrogen powered is very green… BUT it costs a lot to convert water into hydrogen, which produces twice as much Oxygen (which is then wasted). Then… there is the safety issue. Involve a hydrogen car in an accident and it’s green credentials turn orange and red very fast!!!
They have changed the way they measure CO2 to something that is hopefully more accurate. Therefore if you want to make comparisons with last year’s cars, you need to re-measure them using the new methods.
We know that previous years numbers were completely fictitious, and the only conclusions we can draw from them are the amount of car registration tax the government would have collected from sales of new vehicles; not anything about pollution.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary (or his campaign ‘contributions’ or his foundation ‘donations’) depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, embellished and modernized
thats why manufacturers are required to produce both new and old figures and put them on the statement of conformity.
that way you can compare new and old on the same basis, but also see the difference with the new testing
We need to drive slower and less often (if at all). But who is willing to do this? For the sake of our children.
Agreed, David. As I read the article, I wondered if the government ministers who now are so allegedly concerned about pollution are the same ministers who, last week, were so busy trying to raise the speed limit to 80 MPH.
The air pollution in the fifties & sixties was a lot worse than it has ever been after two thousand, in those days most houses were heated with a coal fire with very heavy pollution so bad at times you were lucky if you could see more than a couple of hundred yards/meters. no body seemed to give a dam about peoples health back then.
The Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) Act 1853, Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) Act 1856, Public Health (London) Act 1891, Clean Air Act 1956, Clean Air Act 1968, and Clean Air Act 1993, seem to sugges tthat people have been trying to do something about air pollution for a long time.
Well maybe that period is why we have the problems we have now, old habits die hard don’t they. We seem to be picking up the pieces for what our country did in the not too distant past, exploiting people, like they do today, just for that other persons hunger for wealth and a comfortable life at others expense.
Yes, I remember the pea soup fogs in the 50’s caused by all the coal fires in London. Then the law changed so that only smokeless coal could be used. The air was a lot cleaner after that, and snot was no longer black when you blew your nose after walking outside.
Now the problem is thousands of homes with log burners or multi fuel burners, which has become a popular feature in the house. i livw in the village and often stand and see black smoke belching out of the chimney, and think what the hell are these people burning !!
You have a point even if it is a bit sweeping. The government really should have had the foresight back in the early 1980s to change income tax to take into account people’s distance from work, 2nd homes etc as so far they have done nothing to reduce needless commuting and the occupancy of 2nd homes which has put further demand on housing.
I’ve pointed out before this debacle is currently unsolvable and the only way forward will be the final solution; where the environment takes precedence over people. Perhaps not that dramatic but I think the idea of less people will gain future momentum.
I dint have kids… can I go faster?
Nobody mentions OVER POPULATION, so I will. Its all about the number of homo sapiens running around being pollutors. Curb numbers solve problem. SIMPLES!
Go gay
The government needs to stop lying about C02, trees and plants love it, global warming does not exist, I’ve listened to this rubbish for 40 years, the reality is we are not burning in hell and we are not flooded out of our homes, scaremongering and shaming the public about their transport choices in cars is a disgrace,I agree about rubber pollution and brake dust they were issues for me in the late 70s when I entered the motor trade,no one cared or thought about it, the government don’t want final solutions to this cash cow they love milking it that’s you and me
The government has no choice they were taken to court twice and lost on NOX emissions, yes petrol is not the best choice, but diesel is the problem, so until people start buying electric vehicles in large numbers we are in big trouble! Wind turbines are going up daily and will sort the power shortage issues of the future, but we need to cut down on travel of all forms, the reality is their is no clean transport just less polluting. If we don’t do this the problem (us) will go away.,..,.. Forever
Manufacturing and installing Wind turbines uses more energy than they will ever generate. When are people going to look up and see the cause of climate change, it’s been around a lot longer than us, it ended the ice-age without any help from us.
Edwards is dead right. The world has been through numerous ice ages. It seems to have escaped the attention of some that we aren’t still in one. This is because the temperature warmed up and the ice melted (to state the obvious). This happened many thousands of years before the industrial revolution and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Do industry and motor cars now contribute to pollution? Yes certainly, but very unlikely its anything like enough to cause climate change.
Oh dear, where do you get your facts from? The Trump book book of knowledge published by the Daily Mail?
The “fact” is that renewable energy is far cheaper to produce than any other and the big offshore wind turbines produce megawatts of electricity per day. How much energy does it take to build one I wonder? A quick 1 minute search on google will tell you – a typical wind turbine will produce 20 to 25 time more (free) energy than it took to build.
If only people would do a little bit more fact checking before repeating spurious information that they heard from a bloke down the pub . . .
Absolutely right Edward, and don’t get me started on the energy a wind turbine uses – from the grid- to keep turning on days which are not windy enough in this country, which are quite a few. This is for maintenance they say. I think the number of turbines are the UK’s government way of buying their way into the meeting targets. Cynical at my young age – never :o)
Ah, the voice of innocence when it comes to windpower. Filthy and detrimental to the environment due to build and installation emmisions and yet on average can only pump around 4-8% of the UKs needs. As I write this wind is contributing 2.1% (impressive?) Most power is still nuclear and gas powered. This means that
1. We don’t have generation capacity nor infrastructure to go all electric nor will we have for at least a decade.
2. Electric vehicles simply displace emmisions to generation source which quickly dispersed into all areas. Electric vehicles are not clean.
All the above is in the public domain, you simply need to look and take the so called clean EV blinkers off.
And in those 40 years of rubbish-listening, Mark, increasingly high record temperatures have been consistently set around the globe. It was 80+ °F in Alaska a couple of weeks ago. It would be somewhat counter-intuitive to call that “Global Cooling”.
And, with the deepest of the absolutely no respect that I have for my president, the rises in sea levels can hardly be wholly attributable to rocks falling off the cliffs of Dover.
What IS rubbish are statements like “Trees cause air pollution”, as was uttered by one of his equally respectable predecessors. Known as The Great Communicator and the Leader of the Free World Whose First Act Was to Remove President Carter’s Solar Panels from the White House, I believe he would have found in you an acceptable speech writer.
I must say that I am deeply impressed by how lively the discussions over petrol and air pollution are in the UK and elsewhere. Here in the US, we continue to flaunt our supposed moral superiority by allowing the Koch brothers to buy up town councils, state legislatures and governor’s mansions, Congressional seats, and, in this new millennium, the White House itself. This discussion sadly appears almost nowhere in our public discourse. We cannot seem to see the issues for the smog.
Alaska and Siberia have always had summer temperatures at and sometimes above your stated temperature. just because they are in their global position makes no difference
For a large number of people, scare mongering about Global Warming and then, Climate Change, provides a significant income, either through taxation or books, films or public talks. Just like home security, frighten people enough and they will spend money to try to stay safe. This has been a real money spinner for a number of cynical wagon jumpers, at the expense of the public.
I’m not saying we should not try to do more to improve our environment and our world, but scare tactics and higher taxation are a dishonest route.
WE NEED MORE NOT LESS TREES ETC. TO SOAK UP THE CO2 BEING PRODUCED. THE TROUBLE IS MANY COUNTRIES ARE RIPPING UP VEGETATION FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
SHOUTING at people uses more CO2.
he obviously has his capital lock on
No it’s whispered shouting lol!
The warmest years on record have all occurred since 2002 and yet most of the coldest were recorded were in the 1800s……. And global warming doesn’t exist? Your idea of ‘burning in hell’ and ‘being flooded out of our homes’ is very short sighted. Sea levels are rising….. Slowly…… Temperatures are rising…. Slowly. The climate is changing but slowly. 40 years is nothing in terms of ‘change’ for the planet and it may be a long time until natural disasters become common place…… But it’s people with your attitude that will bring that on for the future generations.
As the earth has beena round for billions of years and we have data (if somewhat dodgy) for around 150 Im not sure Im taking these Climate chnage facts at face value… In fact ther are c**p!
Our Politicians are as Thick as Pig Sh*t. There is no proof that man made CO2 is responsible for ‘Climate Change’ so why are they demonising motorists. We should continue to manufacture both Diesel and Petrol cars until they have some REAL Proof that these cars are damaging our climate. They then need to ‘Think’ before they leap regarding Electric Cars. I would suggest approaching electric cars slowly by introducing more Petrol Hybrids at a reasonable cost that we can ALL afford to break into the idea of using electric, then introduce all electric cars when we have more idea of the problems and how to reduce the cost to the user. It is no good if most of us can not afford these Electric cars and have to continue to drive around in old Petrol and Diesel cars.
Completely agree. 97% of the world’s scientists who have studied this question at length and in detail are way off the mark. The 3% who work for companies like Rex Tillerson’s ExxonMobil or who have ignored the data are spot on. Very logical conclusion, for which you and the high state of your blissfulness are to be heartedly applauded.
As for electric cars, you may relax and rest assured – ‘they’ ARE taking their time. I, too, say, “What’s the rush?!?!” It has only been a century and a half since Nikola Tesla lit up a light bulb from two miles away.
With your ‘green’ consciousness, just think of all the petrol you could save by staying home and watching the almost-killed “Who Killed the Electric Car?” on YouTube, Netflix, or DVD.
Fair points Mr Shilling.
In addition I would say that there is also the point that electric vehicles are not clean either. First they have to be made and this is a significant carbon footprint in itself. Not only that, but electric, vehicles rely on some pretty nasty pollutants to make them. They rely on lithium-ion batteries and require more materials and energy to produce them. The reason for this is that the mining process results in lithium and cobalt pollution downstream of the mines. This is a significant health hazard to the people and animals in that environment. Fish and wildlife over 100 miles downstream of these mines are being poisoned by the waste from these mines. But without these mines industry cannot produce the batteries for electric cars. These batteries are very expensive and will need careful disposal to dismantle batteries at the end of their lives. No doubt the vehicle owners will be subjected to high tax levels when that part of the life cycle becomes a reality in just a few more years.
Further down the line electric cars may not produce tailpipe pollutants but they do have to get their electricity from somewhere and that is still largely derived from fossil fuels. The Co2 may not go directly into the street, but it will make the carbon emissions problem of general air pollution worse. The gas has to go somewhere. Even if you do not believe in global warming, it does not make sense to continue adding to the increase of Co2 in our air.
That can only make the problem worse, whatever the true underlying cause of the current increase in global temperatures and worsening of big storms.
Furthermore the electricity supply infrastructure is nowhere near being capable of supplying the amount of electricity needed to fuel a large increase in the number of electric cars. The risk is that in Europe where failure of electricity supply is a rare even may find that it becomes common if the rise in electric cars continues. We will see electricity supply failing and causing damage to sensitive equipment and serious inconvenience to consumers across the country. Many electric car owners are using their regular supply to fuel their car at home. But fire brigades are concerned about this because the normal domestic supply is not designed to cope with the power supply needed for an electric car. There is a risk of causing fires if you simply plug your car into a normal socket rather than installing an expensive dedicated supply point for the car.
When you take into account to carbon footprint of making the new electric vehicle, putting in the entirely new infrastructure to supply the power to the batteries and the cost of safely disposing of the batteries in a few years time, the electric car might actually be more damaging to the Earth. So the electric vehicle is not the clean wondrous solution that governments and councils would have us believe.
Don’t forget it is only a few years ago that the British government was encouraging car owners to buy diesel because it put out less Co2 than cars. Now they have done a u-turn and is the ordinary driver who is being punished for the politicians stupidity. Typical!
Furthermore even if every single car was changed to electric at a huge cost then over 90% of the world’s transport would still rely on diesel because that is what powers much of industry. The global transport system relies very heavily on diesel from the farm where a diesel tractor is used in the fields to the diesel truck that takes the produce to market, to the factory that uses diesel power to process the produce to the diesel powered ship that brings to goods from abroad to the diesel truck that delivers it to your local store. That supply chain is almost entirely diesel and completely dwarfs the contribution of the car to this problem.
The only part of the international supply chain that does not rely on diesel is the aircraft industry and their exhaust fumes are ten times more polluting than diesel.
The reason diesels produce less Co2 is because they burn the fuel much more efficiently than petrol or coal engines. This efficiency means that there is less waste from a diesel internal combustion engine than that from a petrol fuelled internal combustion engine. Unfortunately the particular pollutants that diesels produce in higher quantities that petrol are the particulates. So petrol Co2 levels are higher in petrol cars while particulate pollution is higher in diesels.
The situation with diesel is not that it is more polluting, more that it pollutes in a different way. Co2 is very damaging to the environment and to human health. So too is diesel, especially the micro particles it produces called particulates. The most modern diesel cars with their exhaust filters fully working can be much less polluting than a car which is only a few years old. That’s not to say that its good to sit behind or next to any diesel, new or old because they are both still generating some level of pollution just as petrol cars do. However, the world will be a very different and much, much poorer place if we did not have diesels. We have to hope that there is a genius out there who can find an effective replacement for the diesel engine that has as much power output and scalability and is as cost effective as the diesel.
At present we have politicians pretending that they are addressing the problem by putting extra taxes on the motorist and banning diesels from towns and cities which in the current economic system will make barely scratching the surface of the huge problem that we face. As usual our politicians are not really bothered if they can solve the problem as long as they can make it look like they are tackling it. In the end all they will do is to continue to alienate the public when their excessive claims are shown to be invalid and in the meantime make the life of the public more difficult and more expensive. Well that what politicians normally do, isn’t it?
I agree with you. But there is something missing from all the arguments re electric v petrol or diesel. That is traffic flow. Why is it that most changes Local Councils make impede traffic flow? This encourages more pollution. I know if I drive anywhere late at night or in the early morning (when there is no traffic) my car drives better, fewer gear changes, fewer stop starts, hardly any stationary pollution. Yet our Councils seem obsessed with slowing cars down and making them stationary (causing stationary traffic pollution). Why is this? Has no one got any common sense? On any trip I make to a local supermarket I spend more time stationary at “dumb” traffic lights than I do driving. I drive a diesel (because I was advised to way back….) and it is automatic. My car does not cope well with multiple traffic lights, that are not smart and adjust their timing according to directional traffic flow, and therefore fails to change into a higher gear because I am forced to drive at lower speeds (less than the speed limit) because of traffic congestion. I have not seen one single instance of changes by local Councils that actually encourages traffic flow. Every change impedes it, to make traffic slow down or stationary. Who are these planners and what are they thinking? What about school runs? How much pollution do they produce? All of us that drive now see the difference now we have the Summer school holidays. How about actively encouraging parents to allow their children to get to school on School Buses that do not cost the “earth” for a Term pass if you have more than one child? Having had 3 children at school (now grown up) I know how expensive three school bus term passes were. This did not happen. I dropped my children off on my way to work and my wife picked them up. Yes, this is wrong (in my mind) but better for us financially. Our Governing bodies do not think sensibly and only think about how they can get more money out of us and care little about the damage to the planet. All of the Countries that have seen a massive shift in driving habits (check out Norway) have done so because they have actively and financially encouraged drivers to change. Here in the UK we just want tax drivers over and over again. Make no mistake, once electric cars become mainstream there will be massive taxes on them for some reason, as the government cannot afford to loose all the revenue from Petrol or Diesel tax!
Well said Barry. I have the same problem. As you say they think tax works well, after I’ve paid road tax, 320 quid, fuel tax, insurance tax, tax on repair costs, tax on me new tyres, then to right I’m gonna drive it! Not paying for a over priced taxi or bus ticket, any way, no bus comes within 3 miles of my gaff in the county so what I’m I ment to do?
It not just our politicians that are as Thick as sh*t -unfortunately its also the people who voted for them as well.
There is REAL PROOF that automobiles are increasing C02 however convincing people that want to believe something else is almost impossible. The only real problem preventing the take up of electric is the time taken to charge the batteries, and the failure of Government both Central, and local to put in the infrastructure that change needs. But local councils enjoy the revenue from rip-off parking charges, so arn’t going to make recharging you car an economical alternative that’s viable to the ordinary working population.
Not only the “time to charge” but the “massive” cost of the EV on day one….. I dont have 30k plus to buy a vehicle I have to nurse from charging point to charging point and then spend ages waiting for my little green light to show.
Once again I agree. But here is the problem. Governments advised us that Co2 was the problem, as you are saying. But then said we should all drive diesel cars as there was less Co2 pollution. Once we did that, now NOx is the problem being emitted from evil diesel cars and that is causing all the pollution…….WTF? So now they want penalise and tax all the people that drive the cars they told us to. Whilst implementing “traffic calming measures” that cause more pollution. Oh… and it is not thick people voting for Governments. It is an outdated voting methodology that allows a Government to be elected on a minority of votes cast and for the vast majority of voters having zero say in who our Prime Minister will be. We need to address that basic democracy issue before we start relying on what our “elected” Government tell us.
To be honest, I’m more concerned about Plastics and other detritus being dumped in the environment than any of this vehicle CO2 stuff. According to recent research, the Oceans are the Planet’s Lungs and we need to protect them more than us.
Fourteen (14!!!) little plastic shopping bags contain enough petroleum to power the average non-polluting, good-for-the-trees car for one mile. As one of our fearless and brilliant almost-leaders here in the US said not all that long ago (not all that long ago, unless you believe the clock is ticking down to the tipping point, that is), “Drill, Baby; drill!”
Do you have a source for the 14 bag hypothesis please? I’d be interested in reading about that.
Thank you 🙂
The problem there is the fulthy human race who believe that if the leave rubbish behned… then as long as they cant see it it no longer exists.. Get people to smarten up heir act as far as litter etc are concerned
Until battery technology improves and the ability to charge batteries improves (without causing brownouts) we need to realise that we are more transient than we ever were. So we need to look at what we can do now, whilst we try to find a viable solution for the future.
My father when he started work in another town was considered crazy by his friends, now we think nothing of an hours commute to work. So how do we minimise the impact we make.
The Lotus Evora 414E hybrid seemed to offer a good interim, a small Diesel engine with a single gear used purely to charge the batteries for 2 electric motors. 35 miles on battery only but when the diesel kicks in the car can go for a further 300 miles. Surely working on the efficiency and extending the range on a system like this would be helpful.
Don’t forget we’re running out of the necessary components to make batteries too!
dont think so, not at £51.000!
I cant find one under £100k… but it still is to expensive for your average man in the street.. and spare parts or a bit pricy with replacement electric drive units at £70k.. or basically 4 years salary!
And how much does it cost?
PEOPLE are the pollution problem. I hardly dare to say it, but more people living in a finite space, producing more offspring to reproduce greater numbers of offspring; all in turn requiring more sources of man-made energy producing the material things necessary to ‘live’, even if they all get to travel around in electric powered machinery is NOT going to reverse the pollution problem. Therefore: no answer.
I believe the issue about modern day diesel engines is a bit of a misnomer. For the last 10 years at least, diesels have got cleaner with good results on CO2 emissions.
You only have to spend a few minutes on the road before you are choked with some car, van, truck or bus moving off and smoke/particulates billowing out of the exhaust.
Condemn the vehicle completely because it is these people who are causing the spikes in the readings. I will continue to buy diesel, they are clean, get more mileage and last a good while. If my car started to rise in particulates then I will change it.
Why do electric cars have to be plugged in to charge……. surely they can all be self charging.
They all have 4 turning wheels that could be connected to a dynamo/ alternator on each wheel and there is also a big roof on top that could be a solar panel.
It just seems like a big con to make you pay for electricity which in it’s self will cause just as much pollution when we are all plugging our cars in at the same time every night when we get home from work as the demand will be huge
For heaven’s sake, I don’t believe what you have just said. What you seem to miss is where will the energy come from to turn those wheels to power the dynamo, this is the impossible, ‘perpetual motion.’ As for solar panels on the roof, you obviously did not see the ‘car’ that drove across Australia, a single seat flimsy vehicle, covered fully in solar panels which just managed to produce enough power to move it at around 30 mph.
Davew, your right, people again who are to silly talking about things they know nothing about, a generator needs more power to drive it than you get back. My small honda 3kw honda genny has a 4.2 kw output engine to drive it. You can’t get owt for nowt, you can gain a bit on a steep hill but even then at full load you may stop yourself from moving if you had a genny on every wheel.
In his defence the guys that won the solar challenge in Australia have developed a production car car (albeit a luxury expensive one) with solar panels that will self charge for about 10,000km. It still needs to be plugged in to charge but the idea is good, especially if you live in a sunny country/state leaving your car parked outside for most of the day.
The fact is that solar PV and battery technology is still in its infancy and costs will only come down down once they become mainstream and produced on an industrial scale.
An electric car does about 4 miles per KWh. A solar panel 1mx1.6m produces 0.3KWH maximum.. Yes a solar car might produce some power to top up a car but you can’t charge a car from momentum. Electric cars can retrieve energy when going downhill but you have to get the potential energy from somewhere .
The solution to charging spikes is smart charging at night increasing micro generation and energy storage to smooth out peaks.
You did not seriously just ask that question did you?
A few minutes online would give you all the information you can absorb.
I do not think that electric cars will last long anyway. The bubble will soon burst, and we can get back to using the abundant hydrocarbons we have, which over the life cycle of a vehicle are ‘cleaner’ than any current alternative.
No wonder I keep my 2L Mondeo estate 05 plate. high tax , yes, but great engine and 34 mpg no turbo to break and good value. No depreciation now either. Stuff your new cars , especially electric ones as I want a 400 mile range , no stopping.
My 12 plate 1.6 turbo diesel Focus, 55mpg on the computer for the 30,000 miles that I have covered since I bought it, and over 550 miles to a tank full. What’s not to like and as a pensioner I’ve better things to spend my savings on than an electric car.
What about aeroplane emissions?I read an article saying that one mile of flight is equivalent to a 1.6 petrol engine running constantly for twelve months .Both gave the same results in emissions.
The CO2 per plane passenger is about the same as a car, but in a plane you do travel much further.
The government would be wiser to introduce mandatory 8000 mile / 1 year maintenance and MoT for all vehicles, and stop the demonisation of diesels which comply with the euro six standard. Any vehicle, irrespective of age or fuel type that fails the test should be taken off the road immediately pending repairs or disposal. VOSA should be involved in completing spot checks on vehicle emissions to root out owners/operators of badly tainted vehicles the cause the majority of engine related emissions.
Why do we chase headlong into the electric vehicles when we appear to have the option of hydrogen power that is supposed to be the ultimate solution I don’t know enough about this fuel so I hope that someone can enlighten me it would also appear that electric vehicles are doomed within ten years and the recycling cost will be the next huge problem
Global warming and climate change has become a cash cow for governments to hit industry and car users, the introduction of electric cars will not solve the emissions problem if it at all exists. The materials required to manufacture the batteries, the actual manufacturing and then the disposal along with the constant daily charging will all have a similar affect. The mining of the base material is already destroying habitats and causing problems. If we had not experienced some kind of natural warming of the planet we would still be in the ice age .
Absolutely blowing in the wind on this one, like said nothing unless you walk or run will ever give clean air quality, whole scenario is just a revenue taxation for governments to just squander on their fat cat salaries, for sitting on their useless backsides squabbling amongst each other over things that don’t even matter like gay rights
And Brexit is we’re told, the reason for diesel production sales falling ?? Really ?
I have done 250000 miles in 2 large vehicles using LPG and perhaps a maximum 3% of petrol. I have never had as much as a blip from either engine and certainly no valve burn problems. The modern LPG pumps are faster and cleaner than the old ones and with the use of the apps detailing whereabouts of garages and stores stocking it there is no big issue finding LPG now. The engine switches seamlessly to petrol if you run out of gas before refilling. LPG all the way for me!
Surely in this day and age some sort of filter can be put on a diesel car or is that to simple even if it is expensive,it can’t be as expensive as a new car overall
There is. It’s a DPF (Diesel particulate filter) and it is expensive to replace
Stop having Bonfires and fire works you don’t hear people mention that think of how much damage that causes every year
Doesn’t matter how much you charge people for car co2 there still going to be driven so problem still going to be there
TREES ABSORB CARBON DIOXIDE, GIVE OUT OXYGEN , STORE CARBON AND TRAP POLLUTION. !!!!!!!
YET MORE AND MORE TREES ARE FELLED IN THE UK AND THE WORLD OVER.
THEY ARE THE LUNGS OF THE WORLD.
WHY CAN’T THE PEOPLE IN POWER UNDERSTAND THIS?
I LEARNT IT AT SCHOOL IN THE 60 s.
Also the world has gone through many extreme fluctuations in temperature and sea levels. I don’t think we can stop it.
Yes I’m really worried about how the grid will cope as the number of electric vehicles rises.
Diesel powered vehicles with Blue Water (urea) injection don’t get a mention yet I believe this ‘removes’ the harmful exhaust emissions?
Most truck friendly BP service stations have a Blue Water supply.
I have always supported Diesel power on the basis that you simply burn less fuel per mile – how can this not be relevant?
The only people getting TAXED on OLD Diesel engines are the POOR of this Land , Old Diesels should should be left to die on the Vine as they will in the end Fail MOT’s due to expensive faults . It costs more Carbon to recycle a old car and build a new one than leaving the old car to die of old age . SO STOP TAXING THE POOR .
OK electric cars for the inner city is the way to go. For long journeys and transport by heavy lorries then diesel is the only solution. (Batteries are not the way for transport of goods)
Now the main problem we have is the generation of electricity. Wind is NOT the answer and never will be, this is just silly politics. We have in Britain the obvious solution TIDAL. The whole of the UK is surrounded by estuaries that can be dammed, with NO effect to the environment. Check out the (RANCE TIDAL POWER ) in France. Now America and South Korea are developing similar technologies.
Again our politicians have caused confusion and used this problem for their own political agendas.
And that is without even considering that transport as a whole not even the largest polluter ~11% national and ~10% global pollution (that is including all types of pollutants and all types transport… ships, trains and planes). Light vehicles (that is all privater cars, taxis and vans) are estimated to contribute 2.4% in UK (2.1% diesel and 0.3% petrol). Obviously, one would ask – where government 50% pollution figures comes from. The answer sometimes they are outright fabricated, sometimes wrongly extrapolated e.g. they may take the 10% from pie chart graph and present it as whole 100% for transportation, finally they often use “kerb side” figures – they are kind of correct, but at the same time misleading (we do not spend all the time at kerb side, nor air pollution stays there).
Whole car pollution game is just justifications for tax revenues in the end – goverment have done nothing to actually reduce it.
A question I have had for many years. How are electric vehicles (and even the bigger petrol vehicles) going to pull livestock trailers?? or for those that have them, the beloved caravans??
EVs etc are fine for cities with small commutes / distances travelled. Those of us in more rural areas need the trusty diesel.
Cars are no more efficient on fuel usage if they are driven hard and fast.
Driven gently they are less polluting, but put your foot down, to accelerate as quickly as possible, no matter what size engines you have and you are getting less than 15 mpg. Travel at 80 mph + on the motorway and you are getting less than 36 mpg, no matter what size engine you have.
Thirty year old cars may not return the clean air and economy when driven reasonably, but will return the sane emissions and fuel consumption when driven hard.
Modern cars driven reasonably have much more acceleration than the Cortina, Anglian, original Minis, A40s , and used to there full will yield about the same pollution.
Whereas most of the older affordable cars would take an age to reach 70 mph,
Most modern cars will exceed 70 mph in 3rd gear and have 2 or 3 gears left.
Come on government advisors. Stand at traffic lights for a day, watch the majority of cars boot it , only to brake hard for the next stop.
That’s why pollution levels are rising, most people use the full performance most of the time.
And the reduction in low co2 diesels!!
Less than 36mpg if driven at that speed…only if it’s petrol. A diesel returns over 60mpg…., and to meet the latest regs they produce less toxics, so they are less polluting than a petrol car that uses more precious crude oil to cover the same distance at the same speed. Long live the diesel…
Cant see lorries or ships (all powered by guzzling diesels) being banned..no way will the Governments paymasters allow that to happen. Just screw Joe Public.
common assumption by many people is that electric vehicles are totally pollution free and use zero fossil fuels to make them go. This ignores the generation of electricity and the manufacture of equipment to supply it to the vehicle. If everyone switched to electric vehicles the supply to charge these would not exist with the current (no pun intended) system.
Fewer people is the answer. We need to discourage breeding, to a level the planet can cope with.
Go gay
So the plan is to get all into electric vehicles to reduce pollution . I’m already stockpiling candles so I can at least see to read when the power fails , for it will .
Lets keep this simple. Remeber the old saying, ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’. this is provable scientifically. Take a piece of magnesium, weigh it, put it in a gas chamber and light it. When it has gone out and cooled, weigh the ashes and the gas it has given off and hey presto, the strip of magnesium will weigh the same as the ashes and gasses combined. All that has been done is that the magnesium as you knew it has been destroyed, its place being taken by ash and gas. In other words you cannot destroy matter, you can only change its form. Whatever we do to solve this problem of pollution will only result in another problem arising somewhere else.
We can delay the end result, but modern technology as we know it has no answer to the problem. As long as we, now a parasite species on this planet, continue to act with greed and selfishness to the detriment of everything else, we will die out. Nature demands equilibrium and we have gone beyond that point so is taking over and there is nothing we can do to stop it except emigrate……………….to another planet.
Interesting reading on the other article linked to above (‘in the same dilemma’), but wouldn’t fancy the idea of having a ‘smart’ EV car/charger that decides it’s going to feed the power into the grid, rather than charge the car overnight!
The answer is the hydrogen cell, not electric cars.
In the USA they have recently road tested hydrogen cell lorries and the results exceeded expectations.
In relation to scrappage, it is interesting that in supper environmentally conscious New Zealand they keep cars on the road a lot longer than in the UK. I have seen many 20 y.o. plus cars on their roads. They will tell you that if you look at “whole of life” then it is a better policy. Very few people in the UK look at the total life cycle carbon footprint of cars, looking instead at just operational emissions.
Rather than setting a target purely for reducing pollution, why doesn’t the Government instead set a target for reducing total vehicle miles? This would not only help achieve the goal of reduced pollution, but also bring about many other benefits such as helping to give our streets back to the people. Going electric may be of some benefit in reducing street-level pollution, but of course does nothing to alleviate congestion. Much better would be to assign considerably more prominence to promoting walking, cycling and public transport than is currently the case.
I do 100 miles a day commuting…. If my “allocation” of the reduced miles doesnt cover my commute or my business miles when Im at work then what do I do?
I could pay a small fortune for travel by rail…. but need transport from hospital to hospital when Im at work….. I could stand at a bus in the hope the bus is going to turn up… but if your at my destination hospital waiting for me to roll up you are not going to be pleased when the bus goes missing…
The fundamental problem iis that there are too many people in the world and the numbers are rising exponentially whether its tinkling with vehicle emissions or planting a few trees the fact remains that more people equals more demand and more emissions of all types. A really major reduction in the world human population is urgently required otherwise the planet is doomed.
Changing all vehicles to electric certainly won’t save anyone money in the medium term, most governments rely heavily on revenue raised by taxes so it won’t be long before taxes on electricity skyrocket to compensate.
Better oils to reduce CO2 content.
15 yearl mini 1.4 diesel, after performing an oil flush and using Liqui Moly Oil, the co2 count was zero across the board! Cheaper oils will create carbon deposits in the engine. We have tried and tested LIQUI MOLY OIL on many vehicles, resulting in a quieter, cleaner and more efficient engine.
AS MOTORS
The debate on diesel by politicians was like Brexit – ill informed and highly misleading. My XF Jaguar with aluminium engine and body is massively lighter than my previous sreel XF and unbelievably more fuel efficient than my S type. S type all steel with 3 litre petrol engine doing about 35 mpg on motorway whereas my XF does over 60! Stop/start on XF also helps as does addBlue in exhaust. MPG on XF is even better in town and towing. Less pollution from XF and more efficient in every way. Politicians always get it wrong.
If manufacturers didn’t build cars and their parts to last only so long. Then this c02 issue wouldn’t be so bad. Maybe they should think of the environment before their profits?
Always said demonising diesel’s would increase CO2 with more petrol being sold still people know best don’t they….
Never mind about diesel vs petrol vs electric, never mind about climate-change, never mind about pollutants – the very bottom line is that human beings have become too successful, & are swamping the planet. Halve the number of people on Earth & most of the problems will go away pronto. Any volunteers?
Can I volunteer the repulsive rebellion idiots…? We could really do without them.
Did we see their protest in London where the glued / chained themselves to a building that was the HQ of Drax power?
Pity that Drax had moved out of the property over 12 months before. Taking them out of the gene pool is my suggestion
Is the article writer ignoring the fact that actually “asthmatic” 3 cyl petrol turbo engines have very similar torque bands/amounts to recent diesels…
Nature takes in CO2 and changes it back to Oxygen. Diesel gases are far more dangerous and are not taken in by trees and plants. But whilst the target always appears to be the producer of CO2, there should be more emphasis on why so much forestation is being destroyed for building on our small island.
There is a natural answer that we ignore in favour of finding a way to tax further.
So if co2 is going up since we stop buying diesel cars then that proofs that what I always said petrol cars do more damage so the answer is buy new diesel cars and stop petrol cars and it will go down
By an electric car and by a solar panel with batteries to recharge your car as needed. Then there’s no need to use the grid to charge your car! So you won’t cause a local blackout. Simple really!
Harry Austin from Whakatane New Zealand
If I have off street parking, where do I put my solar panel & batteries?
It doesn’t matter about driving up CO2 emissions. There is no evidence that rising CO2 emissions are causing warming, despite all the hype in the media.
Having changed to a Hybrid car, I still cannot work out if I am aiding or violating the atmosphere that we all need to survive. Can somebody out there please tell the real truth?
Hybrids are the worst possible solution. The battery manufacture and disposal is a major pollutant, really nasty stuff involved, and lugging around the extra weight seriously degrades range. The popularity is simply bad “box ticking”, and a way to export the pollution from urban to rural areas. Shame about the impact on food stuff grown in those areas. Recharging either using the on-board engine or off the grid leads to pollution. Nobody has the solution for recharging in terraced areas, or with flats.
CO2 is not a problem it is 0.04% of the atmosphere, of that just 3% is man made. The whole thing is a scam to make us pay more taxes. Sea levels are not rising in Dublin they have been stable for the last 100 years and actually dropping in Germany. 1911 was hotter than now with very little man made C02. In Britain if we all use electric cars the worlds supply of lithium will be gone, only a short while ago we were told the lights may go off as our coal fired power stations were closing. This year we have had a few hot days caused by high pressure drawing in Saharan air, can anyone remember June? mid way through I had the central heating on it was so chilly, lots of USA had snow. I live in Devon at nearby Dawlish a few years ago the railway line was destroyed in a storm, sea level rise they cried. The first time this line was shut was about 6 months after Brunel built it! If you get an easterly gale [unusual at Dawlish] combined with spring high tides, the railway has a problem. Try to go on a boat trip around the bay at spring low tide, the boat cannot get to the causeway same as 100 years ago!
Absolutely right. It’s good to see that there are people out there who haven’t been duped by this nonsense.