UK and France will ban sale of all diesel and petrol cars from 2040

engineer

To improve air quality, Britain and France will ban all new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040 amid fears that rising levels of nitrogen oxide pose a major risk to public health.

BB.

This one of the problems with picking a policy (CO2 reduction to stop global warming) 20 years ago, and now the modern EU diesel car may be getting banned in some cities because of horrendous pollution issues (not sure if this is because of the the diesel test defeat software or also some relaxed standards for cars vs higher standards for heavy vehicles):

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/diesel-cars-are-10-times-more-toxic-than-trucks-and-buses-data-shows

In December, the European commission started legal action against the UK and six other EU states for failing to act against car emissions cheating in the wake of the dieselgate scandal. But later the same month, a draft European parliament inquiry found the European commission itself guilty of maladministration for failing to act quickly enough on evidence that defeat devices were being used to game emissions tests.

Evidence that some diesel cars emitted up to four times more NOx pollution than a bus was revealed in 2015. Catherine Bearder, a Liberal Democrat MEP and a lead negotiator on the EU’s air quality law, said “It is disgraceful that car manufacturers have failed to reduce deadly emissions when the technology to do so is affordable and readily available. The dramatic reduction in NOx emissions from heavier vehicles is a result of far stricter EU tests, in place since 2011, that reflect real-world driving conditions. If buses and trucks can comply with these limits, there’s no reason cars can’t as well.”

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/817610/diesel-cars-ban-Munich-air-pollution-government

Munich has announced that they will implement a ban on diesel vehicles in an ongoing attempt to combat illegal air pollution in the city. 

This move follows a court judgement ordering the city to improve its air quality plans. 

The court order came as the result of legal action pursued by Deutsche Umwelthilfe and ClientEarth. 

Environmental lawyers welcomed the move as a step in the right direction but have warned that excluding Euro 6 vehicles from the ban could become problematic.

CEO of Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) Jürgen Resch said: “The diesel ban in Munich should actually apply to most Euro 6 diesel vehicles.

“Current measurements show even the latest models chart record emissions of toxic nitrogen dioxide.

"Often these newer models are many times more polluting than 10-year-old Euro 4 diesels.

And so we have a polittical problem (in my humble opinion) with CO2 and future global warming vs actually (again if you believe the numbers) really killing people now:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/15/diesel-emissions-test-scandal-causes-38000-early-deaths-year-study

The global human health impact of the diesel emissions scandal has been revealed by new research showing a minimum of 38,000 people a year die early due to the failure of diesel vehicles to meet official limits in real driving conditions.

Researchers have created the first global inventory of the emissions pumped out by cars and trucks on the road, over and above the legal limits which are monitored by lab-based tests. Virtually all diesel cars produce far more toxic nitrogen oxides (NOx) than regulations intend and these excess emissions amounted to 4.6m tonnes in 2015, the team found.

This led to at least 38,000 premature deaths due to heart and lung disease and strokes. Most of the deaths are in Europe, where highly polluting cars are the main culprit, and in China and India, where dirty trucks cause most of the damage.

The work also shows that, even if diesel cars did meet emissions limits, there would still be 70,000 early deaths per year. Excess NOx emissions are rising, the researchers found, and strict pollution controls need to be put in place to avoid the death toll rising to 174,000 in 2040.

And in the mean time, UK will be using diesel power stations to make up for unreliable "green" power:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/06/uk-energy-bill-subsidies-driving-boom-in-polluting-diesel-farms

A spokesman declined to explain why one of the most carbon heavy fossil fuel capacity was being encouraged saying Decc was in “purdah” due to the general election campaign.

The need for demand response to meet peaks in power has become more acute because old coal and nuclear power stations have been retired and fewer than expected new gas-fired generation built.

Tim Yeo MP, the outgoing chairman of the House of Commons select committee on energy and climate change, described the diesel farm boom as “ridiculous” and campaigned for more to be done on demand reduction.

Tom Greatrex, the shadow energy minister, said earlier rounds of the capacity market had already rewarded mini fossil fuel power stations: “It was clear from the outset that the capacity market risked locking in a new generation of dirty diesel generators that were too small to be affected by carbon policies. Sure enough, 40MW of small diesel generators have now secured 15-year subsidies.”

"...40MW of small diesel generators have now secured 15-year subsidies"... What a surprise. That is what government is good for.

-Bill

mike95490

And fears of people exploding if they travel faster than 30mph ?    Well, the horseless carriage blew that one away.

Wait, what's in those blue mens pills - nitric oxide enhancer

westbranch

I could not confirm that there is a Nitric Oxide enhancer in them, I found that there is a Moderate interaction between NO and sildenafil , due to NO dropping blood pressure and affecting breathing.... Then I came across this interesting article...

 Nitric Oxide supplements, vitamins, herbs, natural ways to increase and enhance it for better results
November 11 2016 by Ray Sahelian, M.D.

Nitric oxide is a molecule that plays a crucial role in vascular disease. It has a number of actions that lead to relaxation of blood vessels, regeneration of the endothelium (the inner lining of arteries), and inhibition of platelet clumping which makes the blood thinner. The role of nitric oxide in vascular disease has been investigated over the past two decades and scientists have discovered that this molecule is involved in many cardiovascular diseases, including atherosclerosis and thickening of the endothelium. In addition, nitric oxide has been used as a therapeutic tool to treat diseases that range from recurrent narrowing of arteries to inhibiting clotting events. Many commonly used medications have their therapeutic actions through the production of nitric oxide.

Impotence and nitric oxide supplements, do they work?
One of the main physiological causes of impotence, or erectile dysfunction, is inability of the blood vessels in the penis to dilate enough to allow blood flow and engorgement. The most important chemical involved in this process is nitric oxide. Arginine, an amino acid available as a supplement, can help make more nitric oxide but the doses required are high and the effects may not last for long. L-Citrulline is a naturally occurring non-essential amino acid, an intermediate in urea cycle and conditionally essential in intestinal pathology. It is a potent hydroxyl radical scavenger and effective precursor of arginine and nitric oxide (NO).

mike_s

Is this posted here because you expect Brits to have solar powered cars?

Estragon

I'm not sure about France, but a fundamental concept in British democracy that a current parliament can't bind a future one. A current government can pass a law banning cars today, or in 2040, but can't stop a future government from reversing the ban. If people in Britain still want petrol and/or diesel cars in 2040, they'll elect a government that lets them.

bill von novak

Estragon said:

I'm not sure about France, but a fundamental concept in British democracy that a current parliament can't bind a future one. A current government can pass a law banning cars today, or in 2040, but can't stop a future government from reversing the ban. If people in Britain still want petrol and/or diesel cars in 2040, they'll elect a government that lets them.

I strongly suspect they will just water it down, as they did for the EV mandate in California. They'll do something like mandate that MOST cars are not gas-only (i.e. HEV's/PHEV's will be OK) and extend the time for compliance.  That way the green car people are happy and the car companies can adapt more slowly.

Estragon

You may well be right. When the time comes, they'll do whatever makes sense at the moment.

engineer

mike_s said:

Is this posted here because you expect Brits to have solar powered cars?

Mostly they will replace them with electric or hybrid cars. But they have 23 years to go. So maybe they will invent a sort of a super car with zero emission. Or maybe they will invent UFO with warp drives!

Solray

Auto exhaust kills more people than auto accidents do.
I like electric vehicles personally and we own 2 of them and 3 ICE vehicles.

softdown

People rarely recognize that the vast majority of electricity is still generated by burning coal and fossil fuels such as natural gas. Then you have very substantial line losses over the grid.

Most cars have one passenger. Seems like we could make a safe vehicle, for 1-2 passengers, that gets ~80mpg.

bill von novak

softdown said:

Most cars have one passenger. Seems like we could make a safe vehicle, for 1-2 passengers, that gets ~80mpg.

The first gen Honda Insight (2 seater) got 70mpg.  But it didn't sell very well.

mcgivor

When all the oil is used up, the air is so polluuted it's virtually unbreathable I'm sure that will be the time to make some major  changes, humans are the most pathetic creatures, the only ones with the intellect to know, but unwilling to actually do something about it, unless it's too late, to make matters worse we created the problems, mother earth is overdue for a good old purge of its current cancer, us, the human race......just a rant

Solray

> @softdown said:
> People rarely recognize that the vast majority of electricity is still generated by burning coal and fossil fuels such as natural gas. Then you have very substantial line losses over the grid.
>
> Most cars have one passenger. Seems like we could make a safe vehicle, for 1-2 passengers, that gets ~80mpg.

They already do and no one buys them. The best selling vehicles are SUVS because people need to move not just themselves but all their junk too.
Electric cars charged from solar or nuclear are less polluting to the air but both produce other solid toxic waste.

engineer

I think that hydrogen cars are more practical because you don't have to keep charging them for hours (this is the case of the electric car). You just fill it with the hydrogen and hit the road. But for now, they are expensive and there is a problem of infrastructure: only a few gas stations have hydrogen. And I like the fact that in the exhaust you only get water.

Solray

For now, but once MXene has been integrated into lithium and other chemical batteries, the charge time will be minutes instead of hours according to testing being done.

mike95490

engineer said:

I think that hydrogen cars are more practical because you don't have to keep charging them for hours (this is the case of the electric car). You just fill it with the hydrogen and hit the road. But for now, they are expensive and there is a problem of infrastructure: only a few gas stations have hydrogen. And I like the fact that in the exhaust you only get water.

and I think you stole your handle. There is no current safe (or future workable ideas) to store/carry Hydrogen around, let alone that  the energy density is so low, you have to carry a LOT of it.
Wait, hydrocarbon fuel is a pretty efficient way to manage transporting energy for controlled release.

Solray

Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is though as far as reflecting heat and trapping it near the surface.
What will all the global warming alarmists say to that? The Paris Accord would be pretty foolish to lower CO2 while allowing increasing water vapor into the atmosphere.

softdown

bill von novak said:

softdown said:

Most cars have one passenger. Seems like we could make a safe vehicle, for 1-2 passengers, that gets ~80mpg.

The first gen Honda Insight (2 seater) got 70mpg.  But it didn't sell very well.

People who buy new cars apparently do not have a need for 70mpg. I'll bet they hold their resale value pretty well. Seemingly they need to figure out a way to get new car buyers more interested in MPG.

We are still losing over 35,000 people/year on the nations roads. Mixing small cars with leviathans probably does not help. Then we have the speeders vs the MPG crowd that creates a lot of high speed lane changes. With seat belts and air bags, the continued driver fatality rate is pretty amazing. Perhaps a 70 MPH speed limit would have advantages over 75 MPH given that so many automatically drive 5-15 MPH over the limit.

bill von novak

Solray said:

Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is though as far as reflecting heat and trapping it near the surface.

Uh . . . right.  Anyone who has studied the topic for 30 seconds knows that, and is the reason that we have a reasonable climate.  Surely you didn't just realize that?

The Paris Accord would be pretty foolish to lower CO2 while allowing increasing water vapor into the atmosphere.

Given that switching from internal combustion engines to HEV's/PHEV's/BEV's is easier than banning oceans, that doesn't seem foolish at all to me.

bill von novak

engineer said:

I think that hydrogen cars are more practical because you don't have to keep charging them for hours (this is the case of the electric car). You just fill it with the hydrogen and hit the road. But for now, they are expensive and there is a problem of infrastructure: only a few gas stations have hydrogen. And I like the fact that in the exhaust you only get water.

Once you get the hydrogen to the fuel cell it's a great fuel.  But before that you have three problems.

1) Hydrogen is VERY hard to transport and store.  A hydrogen tanker, for example, would use almost all of its stored hydrogen transporting hydrogen 1000 miles.   (Which is why they use diesel instead of hydrogen for their engines.)  To get around that you can store at very high pressures - above 3000 PSI - but then you get into very high risks in collisions and fires.

2) Hydrogen leaks through everything, and embrittles metals while it's in tanks and fuel lines.  It's also combustible in almost any concentration, unlike natural gas.  Which means it's very hard to build safe fuel systems and fueling stations.  

3) (the big one) we don't have any, so we have to make it at great expense.  If, someday, we have high temperature gas reactors, then we might be able to make it cheaply via thermal dissociation.  But for now, you have to put a lot more energy into the process than you get out, so it's not an energy source.

In fact, if someday we do build HTGR's to make hydrogen, it will probably be more economical to combine the hydrogen with atmospheric CO2 to make methane via the Sabatier process.  It's safer and easier to store and transport.  And if at that point we still want fuel cell vehicles, then reform the CH4 back to hydrogen in the car.

Solray

> @bill von novak said:
> Solray said:
>
>
> Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is though as far as reflecting heat and trapping it near the surface.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Uh . . . right.  Anyone who has studied the topic for 30 seconds knows that, and is the reason that we have a reasonable climate.  Surely you didn't just realize that?
>

Evidently it keeps being forgotten by a few, if not you then no need to comment.


> The Paris Accord would be pretty foolish to lower CO2 while allowing increasing water vapor into the atmosphere.
>
>
> Given that switching from internal combustion engines to HEV's/PHEV's/BEV's is easier than banning oceans, that doesn't seem foolish at all to me.

I forgot oceans were man made.
There are also natural sources of CO2 in case we forget that, at last check, none had yet been banned. It seems the bans and caps are being put only on the man made sources so far but who knows how far extremists will go in the future.