Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TheBritishVillain

Petrol & Diesel cars to be BANNED by 2040

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, beeny said:

i find this stupid as most of the UKs energy comes from non renewable sources. this push would only make sense if all or most of the energy was from renewable sources as the extra electricity needed will polute. also the disposal of batteries is not very eco friendly so i dont see how this could help unless there are majour chnges from now till 2040

 

As of 2015, the UK got 25% of its electricity from renewables, and 21% from nuclear power. Gas and coal accounted for 52%. Renewables are growing fairly rapidly though, so pretty soon fossil fuels will supply less than half of the UK's electricity. Even today, using an electrical car instead of petrol/diesel essentially moves half the energy usage away from fossil fuels, and by 2040 that will be considerably more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

 

As of 2015, the UK got 25% of its electricity from renewables, and 21% from nuclear power. Gas and coal accounted for 52%. Renewables are growing fairly rapidly though, so pretty soon fossil fuels will supply less than half of the UK's electricity. Even today, using an electrical car instead of petrol/diesel essentially moves half the energy usage away from fossil fuels, and by 2040 that will be considerably more.

fair enough although renewable will most likely relplace nuclear first as we are decomissioning most of the nuclear staions here

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, beeny said:

fair enough although renewable will most likely relplace nuclear first as we are decomissioning most of the nuclear staions here

Odd, I'd target nuclear last. Whats the reason for that? Not enough load to deem them viable to run?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, leadeater said:

Odd, I'd target nuclear last. Whats the reason for that? Not enough load to deem them viable to run?

theyve been running for long and need to be decomissioned anyway but they are not replacing them.

nuclear waste is still a bitch to get rid of so thats also a reason they dont want to deal with it

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2017 at 8:00 PM, Oshino Shinobu said:

It was bound to happen eventually. Hopefully setting a date and making the intention clear will help push forward advancement in technology and development of the infrastructure. 

 

This should start to put pressure on the development of faster charging and generally improvements to battery technology which has been mostly stagnant for the past few years. 

We should be investing in hydrogen fuel cell technology, not batteries.  Batteries are terrible, and the materials used in their production are incredibly hazardous to the environment.  Banning gasoline powered cars to encourage the adoption of battery powered cars is just swapping which toxic materials we're attacking the Earth with.


i7-5820k  |  MSI X99S SLI-Plus  |  4x4GB HyperX 2400 DDR4  |  Sapphire Radeon R9 295X2  |  Samsung 840 EVO 1TB x2  |  Corsair AX1200i  |  Corsair H100i  |  NZXT H440 Razer

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Orblivion said:

We should be investing in hydrogen fuel cell technology, not batteries.  Batteries are terrible, and the materials used in their production are incredibly hazardous to the environment.  Banning gasoline powered cars to encourage the adoption of battery powered cars is just swapping which toxic materials we're attacking the Earth with.

Well, maybe not batteries, but at least other means of storing energy that are clean, or at least cleaner than burning fuel. Still, a push in the direction away from combustible fuels should help force companies into developing alternative ways of storing and delivering energy. Ultimately, we're going to need a better way to store electricity, so pushing advancements for batteries may help find a solution that is less damaging. Having such a massive industry as the automotive industry also pushing advancements in battery technology will end up benefiting pretty much all fields that use electronics, which at this point is pretty much everything. By the time the ban actually comes into effect, it likely will be everything. 

 

While pushing for hydrogen based power (which really makes sense, given the abundance of Hydrogen) may be good for the future of cars and other large equipment, there's also the matter of how well it works or if it even can work in a miniaturised form small enough to fit into consumer electronics. If you ask me, the way we should be pushing is advancement in batteries first as it benefits so many fields, then when it is at an acceptable level, push towards "better" forms of power (such as Hydrogen). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2017 at 7:56 PM, Max_Settings said:

America will never do this. 

Even when going outside in America is equivalent to a pack of cigarettes every 5 minutes they still wouldn't. My gosh what will they fight about if it isn't oil?


♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

My entire life is references to TV shows and Memes.

Dell Optiplex GX1, Pentium 3 @ 450MHz, 512MB PC133 RAM, Windows 98SE, Office 97' Professional

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 11:46 AM, leadeater said:

Origins of climate change science:

"Boy the weather on average is getting worse"

"What can effect the weather?" "Hmm temperature"

Theory: Temperature is causing climate change

"Evidence gathered so far says shows average temperatures are rising, there is a correlation with that increase and the change in weather"

"I wonder if this is a natural increase in temperature or if human activity is impacting it"

Theory: Human activity is having an effect on the increase in average temperature

"Evidence gathered so far shows that the increase in temperature is a higher rate of increase than natural" "Yes we believe humans are having an impact on the climate"

 

Super summarized basic flow of events.

 

Origins of climate change deniers:

Theory: We don't think humans can have an effect on something as massive as the whole planet. This is all natural.

"We need to find evidence to back up our theory" "This fits our model view that we are looking for, here is our evidence"

 

Notice the difference?

 

Edit:

Another important aspect of scientific data is it is collected in an impartial way and in full, no filtering. Most often collected by multiple different people not involved at all with your research. It's just pure data.

 

You take that data and model it to see if it fits your theory, it does or it doesn't.

 

If you go looking for data to support your theory you have instantly failed and invalidated your research. This is the most common reason for scientific theories to be incorrect, bad data collection.

Remembered reading your thoughts on this subject while going through this thread last week after reading a related article, and I figured that sharing the related article that seems pertinent to the subject would give you some actual opposing thoughts on the subject, and some reasoning as to why others disagree.

 

"Origins of climate change deniers:

Theory: We don't think humans can have an effect on something as massive as the whole planet. This is all natural.

"We need to find evidence to back up our theory" "This fits our model view that we are looking for, here is our evidence""


The article can be found: Here

Edited by Maxxtraxx
Grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×