Forums

UK to ban sale of gas & diesel vehicles from 2040

UK to ban sale of gas & diesel vehicles from 2040

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40723581

This should probably drive up the share price and gain some additional coverage for M3 given how close we are to the delivery party.

DTsea | 26 July 2017

Ha ha! 23 years from now????

andy.connor.e | 26 July 2017

2040 is an aggressive goal. But if Elon expands at the rate he anticipates, shouldnt be a problem. Hes predicting "probably 4" new gigafactory sites this fall. Here come the EVs!

rbortins | 26 July 2017

Government shouldn't ban stuff like this... By 2040 it either won't be banned or won't have ever needed banding.

andy.connor.e | 26 July 2017

@rbortins

I agree However, some regions might not want to invest in the new technology. Just as a given example for sake of understanding, if a region relied 100% on gasoline, and the area was relatively rural, they may not have the capital to invest in a completely new technology. The government mandate will force areas like this to adapt, rather than letting small regions hang on to the old technology for the sake of not wanting to spend the money to change their infrastructure.

Otherwise i completely agree. If we're going to shift technology, by 2040, a law like this should practically be irrelevant.

Mike83 | 26 July 2017

Great news. Global Warming and Climate Disruption has dire consequences that are already happening. It is like a law requiring people to use toilets and treat the waste rather than popping all over. There are lots of people and cars who feel they have the right to pollute, not many of them are educated.

eeb9 | 26 July 2017

That's actually not that long in terms of a massive technology shift.

It's not much different in scope than the change from animal-based transport to motor vehicles. That one still isn't 100% done, over 100 years down the road.

Doing a 100% changeover in under 25 years for such a fundamental services as transportation Sounds doable, but I'm betting there will still be holdouts scrambling for exceptions and exemptions right out to and through the bitter end

andy.connor.e | 26 July 2017

@eeb9

Yes there was a Ted Talk where Elon said pretty much this exact thing. That just like today how some people still have horses, some people will still have ICE vehicles. Some people will still have non-autonomous EVs, but ultimately, the majority of the fleet will be autonomous no matter what.

ICE vehicles can remain competitive if they focus autonomy. Pretty much every aspect about an EV is better than an ICE vehicle. So in order for ICE to stay in the race (so to speak), they need autonomy. Regardless, by 2040 nearly all cars will be autonomous. Given current technology, and the life expectancy of ICE vehicles, the majority of them will be autonomous come 2040. No?

Shock | 26 July 2017

Every vehicle will be autonomous in fairly short order. It will be hopelessly noncompetitive to sell a car that isn't when most of the others are. Insurance rates and legislation will also quickly push out manual driving as a fringe activity.

Based on average lifespan of vehicles and the rate this technology is developing I'm positive the bulk of cars will be autonomous by 2040. Musk even mentioned the math: in 10 years basically every new car will be autonomous. It takes time for older cars to work themselves into the scrap heap and then the manual driving era is done.

I doubt Uk will have to force this. It will be like banning type writers; they died by themselves. And who really cares if a niche market exists for ICE vehicles? It's not going to really hurt anybody.

KP in NPT | 26 July 2017

Not impressed with pledges - an actual law would be nice. But the market will likely take care of it, anyway.

eeb9 | 26 July 2017

It's not the vehicles that are the question here - it's the roads and associated infrastructure that goes along with them.

Roads with easily-machine-readable markings/signage, including places where it's still not at all unusual to see horse-drawn farm wagons - this will be the 25-year challenge.

In this particular instance, the cars are by far the easiest part.

Atlanta09 | 26 July 2017

Just guessing, but I think the feasibility of this and whether it ultimately sticks will probably be based on the rate of battery technology advancements.

I don't know enough about the chemistry to argue confidently one way or another, but it feels like there would have to be some huge advancements in Li ion technology to support a complete ban. Electric vehicles are still almost completely unfeasible for a subset of users. For example the Tesla semi-truck probably makes sense for some truckers but I still think it will be significantly detrimental to the profitability of long-haul operators, not to mention the grid investments etc. that would be necessary. But maybe I'm stuck in a U.S. mindset and the UK is a much more appropriate market to make it work.

Why not just enforce super stringent MPG averages to still allow for some, efficient on average, ICE vehicles.

Better yet, ban the sale of meat by 2040 instead, it would cause a much greater reduction in greenhouse gases

bj | 26 July 2017

@Atlanta09 - what about kangaroo meat? It's very healthy and doesn't materially add to GHG because 'roos cannot be farmed, they have to be shot in the wild.

As to the banning thing... I sort of agree with rbortins however what this does is "send a signal" to the market about expectations. Governments love sending signals, whether its about law and order (these people should be put in jail to send a signal) or terrorism (this group should be banned to send a signal) or geopolitics (we should impose sanctions to send a signal). Ideally by 2040 no banning will be required, because the market will have taken care of it, having received the "signal".

noleaf4me | 27 July 2017

The natural advantage of EVs will automatically lead to the demise of ICE's -- likely WAY before 2040. Once the number of petro burners drop and demand for fuel and the economies of scale to build the ICE and all of its components drop.....the total cost to make and use an ICE will go WAY up......

Also - I'd be shocked if a hefty tax on ICEs will also be enacted further killing demand.

Go ahead and try to buy an old CRT TV -- anywhere......Not banned but just don't make sense any more. And how many years did that total conversion take? Even at a garage sale people try to give them away for free and nobody wants them.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 27 July 2017

Atlanta09 inquired/suggested, "Why not just enforce super stringent MPG averages to still allow for some, efficient on average, ICE vehicles."

That's already being done. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rating for various automakers are artificially inflated by offering a handful of fuel efficient cars, even though most of the vehicles they sell are not as frugal to operate -- it is average that allows them to get away with having gas guzzlers, not a minimum fuel economy rating for each individual vehicle. And those traditional automobile manufacturers, especially those that sell hundreds of thousands of gas guzzling pickup trucks each year in the U.S., have been vehemently lobbying against it for forty-plus years. And, with the aid of regulators who are in cahoots with them, they manage to reach those 'averages' with fewer and fewer compliance cars added to their fleet each year.

That's why a hybrid plug-in car with a 25 mile all electric range can be granted a 133 MPGe rating even though it only gets 54 MPG when running on gasoline. This means of 'gaming the system' in order to 'use less gas' doesn't change the fact that most vehicles sold still use a lot more gas, and that every gallon of gas burned causes the exact same emissions to be expelled. That is a health issue that has been ignored for far too long, simply because people do not keel over and die immediately from exposure.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=37309&id=38531&id=3...

These are measures that should have been put in place thirty years ago, so that we would be off petroleum by now. But politicians always give in to the number crunchers who claim it would be 'too disruptive' to act more quickly. Always, it is the financial effect on the economy that is deemed most important, as opposed to the health effects on the populace, or damaging effects to the ecology.

But those politicians still want to leave behind a 'legacy' of their accomplishments in office. So, once it becomes obvious something is going to happen anyway, they institute a change in policy or regulations to make it seem as if they were 'forward thinking' and made a contribution to the advancement of mankind and stuff. The reality is that they know full well they are instead kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with, and that whatever program or policy they set up will undoubtedly be dismantled and/or defunded within the coming decades.

ReD eXiLe ms us | 27 July 2017

Atlanta09: Oh, and I'm sure you were joking about the 'ban meat' comment, but... Those who claim that farm animals are a bigger contributor to carbon dioxide than burning petroleum and other fossil fuels are missing the point... Cows, lamb, pigs, and chickens don't dig thousands of feet underground to graze. They are part of the cycle of life here on the surface of the Earth. The ecological nature of the planet is already balanced to deal with them. It is the coal, methane, and petroleum that had been trapped for millions of years under the surface of the Earth that is being drilled, mined, expelled, and then burned by humans that changes the balance, putting things out of natural order. Sure, if there were only animals that existed in nature, without being domesticated or farmed, there might be fewer of them dropping piles of poo or farting. And if humans stopped breeding so quickly there wouldn't be so many of them that needed to be fed all the time... Or heated & cooled, or driven, or flown around so often. Maybe we should give rifles to the deer after all, to do a bit of culling?

eeb9: I have witnessed politicians campaigning for office with the very same standard issue plank in their platform for ages... "We've gotta fix these roads! The potholes are ridiculous!" Strange thing? No matter who takes office, the roads get worse and worse every year. Makes one begin to think that maybe no one actually wants to fix the roads for some reason. Y'know, except for those specific stretches in a particular neighborhood, that get torn up and replaced every other year... But just happen to be on the same street that the Mayor's church is on...

noleaf4me: I keep my 27" television monitor, which I bought around 23 years ago, because of my videogame nostalgia. Certain old light gun videogames do not work with either VGA or LCD/LED displays at all. It is nice to haul out videogames like 'Virtua Cop', or 'House of the Dead 2' from time to time and do some good ole blastin'.

eeb9 | 27 July 2017

@ReD - that thing about roads is exactly my point. L5 Autonomous Vehicles will be available long before the roads are ready for them, particularly outside of major urban centers.

You've got to have lane markers that can be properly interpreted by cameras and computers - at highways speeds - in all weather conditions. That doesn't necessarily imply paint - could be embedded wiring, radio signals, RFID chips every 50 feet or whatever - but the roads have to be ready for the cars. That's what will take the time.

25 years is really sort of aggressive if you consider how long it will take to ensure that every road is ready and that the charging infrastructure is prepared to support a wholesale conversion.

Even in Britain, a much smaller place than the USofA

SD Supercharger | 27 July 2017

As an update---France is banning the sale of ICE in 2040 as is Norway in 2025. GM and Ford should wake up and see the writing on the wall--Volvo already has. The US is likely to be the last holdout--seeing that we are having such a hard time emerging from the industrial age.

Atlanta09 | 27 July 2017

@Red: not joking per se, but yes I recognize that banning ICE cars is alot more realistic than banning meat, given the current state of public opinion on both topics. The statement I would take issue with is "The ecological nature of the planet is already balanced to deal with them.". I'm not exactly sure what "the cycle of life" if referring to, but the ozone layer is certainly not even remotely able to deal with the emissions (carbon dioxide, methane etc.) generated by livestock, particularly the energy required to grow the food to raise them for years. Factory farming of cows is certainly not the "natural order" and its not sustainable. I'm not sure if alot of people realize that the greenhouse gases generated from the livestock industry are not only higher than those from all cars, but its NOT EVEN CLOSE. There's nearly an order of magnitude difference between the greenhouse gas effects from the livestock industry and the total of gasoline powered personal vehicles.

Buy anyways, good point on the population growth topic. Population growth is certainly decelerating, and it could be the magic bullet that solves most of our ecological problems and prevents future generations from having to face reality and make lifestyle changes (including diet).

And fair point on CAFE. I was more concerned that an ICE ban seems extreme with technology where it stands today, but I imagine there will always be exceptions to be made for certain uses, especially if the technology doesn't advance in a way that makes up for all of the "issues" like range, changing speeds, infrastructure, etc. that continue to hold back adoption rates now.

rgrant | 27 July 2017

@SD Supercharger, I fully expect the USA to have a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to drive ICE vehicles :)