Diesel and petrol car ban: Plan for 2040

[SignalJoe]

The simple thing the government and the eco extremists seem to overlook is feasibility.  Governments set unrealistic goals in spite of  the limitations of current technology and in hopes that it will force the advancement in technology to meet their pie in the sky demands.  While most of us are fond of the throaty rumble of a V8 or the torque produced by a good diesel we would be willing to use alternatives if they met three criteria:

Be equivalent in function to existing vehicles/energy sources

Be affordable for the consumer 

Be profitable for the manufacturer 

Until we get to that point it is just wishful thinking/legislation on the part of dreamers who refuse to acknowledge reality.  

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, SignalJoe said:

The simple thing the government and the eco extremists seem to overlook is feasibility.  Governments set unrealistic goals in spite of  the limitations of current technology and in hopes that it will force the advancement in technology to meet their pie in the sky demands.  While most of us are fond of the throaty rumble of a V8 or the torque produced by a good diesel we would be willing to use alternatives if they met three criteria:

Be equivalent in function to existing vehicles/energy sources

Be affordable for the consumer 

Be profitable for the manufacturer 

Until we get to that point it is just wishful thinking/legislation on the part of dreamers who refuse to acknowledge reality.  

... and furthermore it is more than just fuel economy! How about safety?

Vehicles convey everything from food to consumer goods. That is not going away, anytime soon...

You take your hybrid Toyota and face it off with my wife's (diesel) Excursion and the Toyota driver's life is in peril. My wife may not even feel the fatal accident...!

I have only been in one accident in my life and I was driving that car (truck). A kid blew a stop sign and broadsided me. I drove home, he was taken to the hospital (Ford Mustang). These laws governing MPG, COST PEOPLE THEIR LIVES... Please show me a central planner willing to admit that. They get a chauffer, and 6K lb. limo... but you and I are in the jungle with 80K GCVW semi trucks.

Yes, I own a small car too, a TDI Jetta and man I don't wanna' be hit in that thing either. I am a goner! Might as well ride my Harley...

-Piggy

[Ken Gargett]

2 minutes ago, PigFish said:

 Please show me a central planner willing to admit that. They get a chauffer, and 6K lb. limo... b

ray, that is where it really needs to start. if the politicians and bureaucrats won't touch them, a waste of time. when they start driving those vehicles, then we have a chance to get somewhere.

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

ray, that is where it really needs to start. if the politicians and bureaucrats won't touch them, a waste of time. when they start driving those vehicles, then we have a chance to get somewhere.

I don't know about Oz, but man we live a notion of oligarchs once more. These guys pin us with a government healthcare (centralized system) then the bastards actually exempt themselves and their staffs! These A-holes always preaching and pitching public transit... make them travel on it!

Totally agree with you here Ken. First rule is these folks need to live under the laws that they impose on others. Make legislatures part time and make these guys(gals) hold down regular jobs like the rest of us. Term limit them and make them return to the private sector... And if we can't get honest ones contract them to zero lobbying.

There is no way to keep them honest... Governments need to be limited in size and power because government are the largest and most damaging monopolies known to man...

How do some of these folks making 200K a year end up leaving government millionaires?? Here is how in a nutshell...

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-clinton-foundation-is-dead-but-the-case-against-hillary-isnt/

 

Rand over! -R

[Ken Gargett]

4 minutes ago, PigFish said:

I don't know about Oz, but man we live a notion of oligarchs once more. These guys pin us with a government healthcare (centralized system) then the bastards actually exempt themselves and their staffs! These A-holes always preaching and pitching public transit... make them travel on it!

Totally agree with you here Ken. First rule is these folks need to live under the laws that they impose on others. Make legislatures part time and make these guys(gals) hold down regular jobs like the rest of us. Term limit them and make them return to the private sector... And if we can't get honest ones contract them to zero lobbying.

There is no way to keep them honest... Governments need to be limited in size and power because government are the largest and most damaging monopolies known to man...

How do some of these folks making 200K a year end up leaving government millionaires?? Here is how in a nutshell...

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-clinton-foundation-is-dead-but-the-case-against-hillary-isnt/

 

Rand over! -R

rand? a freudian slip of sorts?

ray, on the perniciousness of politicians, we are as one.

(i got carried away and just had to remove all manner of things as i had transgressed no US politics.)

ours? we have just had the unedifying sight of one of our most malignant politicians, who was elected because we have the most insane system for our senate (one dimwitted moron was elected on, and i am not making this up, 70 votes, because of the trickle-down effect and needless to say, they are not going to allow that to change - and this imbecile genuinely believes that he speaks for all australians) all over facebook because she, at our expense, took herself and her daughter on a whale-watching trip (plus flights and accommodation). despite all the country telling her what a vile disgrace she was, her response was to tell us to bugger off because it was within the rules (the rules the politicians set for themselves).

few people make my skin crawl as much as she does. she is truly beyond stupid but has inserted herself into the system and is not going anywhere and our abhorrent system means it is almost impossible to get rid of her.

i could go on for hours.

[planetary]

Eating your own dog food.  Yes.

[PigFish]

44 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

rand? a freudian slip of sorts?

ray, on the perniciousness of politicians, we are as one.

(i got carried away and just had to remove all manner of things as i had transgressed no US politics.)

ours? we have just had the unedifying sight of one of our most malignant politicians, who was elected because we have the most insane system for our senate (one dimwitted moron was elected on, and i am not making this up, 70 votes, because of the trickle-down effect and needless to say, they are not going to allow that to change - and this imbecile genuinely believes that he speaks for all australians) all over facebook because she, at our expense, took herself and her daughter on a whale-watching trip (plus flights and accommodation). despite all the country telling her what a vile disgrace she was, her response was to tell us to bugger off because it was within the rules (the rules the politicians set for themselves).

few people make my skin crawl as much as she does. she is truly beyond stupid but has inserted herself into the system and is not going anywhere and our abhorrent system means it is almost impossible to get rid of her.

i could go on for hours.

... its alright mate. I have been seeing US politics creep into a lot of stuff here as of late. Most of the time I just ignore it, or make my own points with it if someone else brings it up. I am far from an innocent party! I am the last guy that should be calling out anyone on rules!

Cheers! -R

[clutch5150]

20 hours ago, Shaunster said:

Dont forget refining oil also requires energy, and a lot of it. Electric vehicles may be flawed, manufacturing the batteries is incredibly polluting and then there is a major disposal headache at end of life, that said its good to see intention to move to something cleaner in the future and 2040 is a long way into the future, think back 23 years and how much the world has changed, its not an impossible target by any stretch of imagination but it will require investment and the UK like most western countries cant afford it.

This nails it along with where are they planning to dump all those corrosive batteries when they die? Funny the things the clean air crowd forgets to tell everyone!

[PatrickEwing]

The way trends are running in the urban environs, it will be abnormal to even own a car sooner than later. With ride sharing, hourly subscriptions and automated driving, big changes are afoot. And I don't necessarily even mega cities, but anywhere that is dense enough for the economics to narrowly make sense. 

I feel for the rural crowd here. As auto sales and fuel sales dwindle, economies of scale decrease and your truck will be that much more expensive to own. Add in new taxes and regulations, along with potential changes to the insurance structure, and things might add up quick

 

[Guest Nekhyludov]

8 minutes ago, clutch5150 said:

Funny the things the clean air crowd forgets to tell everyone!

Unless some folks have gills instead of lungs, I would certainly hope that "the clean air crowd" is ... um, literally every human being on Earth?

[Ken Gargett]

31 minutes ago, Nekhyludov said:

Unless some folks have gills instead of lungs, I would certainly hope that "the clean air crowd" is ... um, literally every human being on Earth?

yes, i read that with some amazement. there are people who would prefer filthy polluted air?

i don't think i have ever heard anything so bizarre.

[PapaDisco]

Ha ha!  What a cantankerous, contrarian bunch!

I too would like more data, but my early hunch is that electric vehicles are going to be a positive move for all of us environmentally.  My biggest unknown is what the total environmental impact of battery production is, as we all know that rare earth mining is dirty; we just don't know precisely how big that problem is.  Is it worse than open pit coal mining?  Fracking?  Gold mining with leach heap?  Unknown.  However the glass electrolyte battery (to be in all Toyotas by 2020) will have a major benefit to that part of the equation, as well as dramatically lowering cost and increasing range.  The part I particularly love about that battery is that it was invented by a 90+ year old pHd/engineer (who had a hand in the earlier rare earth batteries as well).  He partnered with a younger woman engineer from Italy (?) IIRC?  Love those stories!  http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/does-new-glass-battery-accelerate-the-end-of-oil

20 years ago, Scientific American published an interesting article on the pollution effect of different modes of travel in the U.S.  Surprise, surprise the bicycle won by a massive long distance.  Amongst vehicles though, the result that stuck with me was that, based on the U.S. average mix of power generation then (almost no renewables, more coal, less gas at that point), a hybrid car was about as non-polluting as a pure electric (again not counting manufacturing impacts, just operational pollution).  Fossil fuel vehicles were last of course.  I went looking for that old article and found this 2016 update instead: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/  which looks at the topic on regional, rather than national, power generation makeup.  The more coal in a local grid, the worse electrics perform, and a hybrid can end up being cleaner than a pure electric.

I will miss my internal combustion engine.  I no longer do my own maintenance but loved overhauling engines when I was growing up.  Did everything from tractor engines to Mercedes, Porsches, Chevys, Fords and Ramblers.  I loved the machinery!  Electrics have none of that sophisticated gear head stuff, it's all finesse windings and bearings; electronic controls.   Working on an electric doesn't have the same feel as tuning a pair of double barrel sidedraft Solex carburetors.  Still, the new stuff is fascinating engineering, but the mechanicals are now playing second fiddle to the software.   And ultimately we'll all be stuck in driverless vehicles . . .   

I think the grid will do just fine, and since electricity is cheaper than gas at the end point we'll all end up being surprised at how quickly charging stations proliferate.  It will be one of those tipping point things and California is going to do the tipping.  Adding home batteries into the mix, and even cars as storage will be an interesting addition to the whole grid equation.  Contrary to Ray's free enterprise embrace, the major infrastructure still needs to be regulated.  We benefit from some minor competition (like being able to chose our generation source), but any endeavor that requires 90% utilization to be efficient (power, water, airlines, railroads) needs an 'appropriate' (yeah, I know, hard to define exactly what that is) level of regulation to justify capital expenditures.  Free market capitalism OTOH, works well when there is an abundance of over capacity (look at the stock in your average grocery store, shopping mall, or car dealer).  Lots of overcapacity isn't a good thing in capital intensive industries.  Finding a balance is important.

 

 

[polarbear]

Forgive my ignorance but why isn't there more of a move towards Hydrogen powered cars at this point?
From my meagre research I don't see why were aren't moving in that direction rather than putting all our proverbial eggs in the EV basket as it sounds like an easier move and just as environmentally friendly, if not more so

[gweilgi]

5 hours ago, PigFish said:

I don't know about Oz, but man we live a notion of oligarchs once more. These guys pin us with a government healthcare (centralized system) then the bastards actually exempt themselves and their staffs! These A-holes always preaching and pitching public transit... make them travel on it!

Beg to quibble on this point.

Whether we are talking about CEOs or government ministers, these are people whose work directly affects literally millions of people.  The last thing we should want is to see them waste their time on public transport being badgered or harassed by customers/voters.  

Secondly, politicians may have grand plans and ideological hobby-horses ... but the actual work of turning those pies in the sky into laws and policy is done by wonks, experts and assorted civil servants.  Thus, for me it is THEY who should be made to use public transport, to feel first-hand what it is like.  This may not stop the idiocy, but it would help to inject a dose of realism and first-hand experience into the process ... something that is sorely lacking.

 

5 hours ago, PigFish said:

Totally agree with you here Ken. First rule is these folks need to live under the laws that they impose on others. Make legislatures part time and make these guys(gals) hold down regular jobs like the rest of us. Term limit them and make them return to the private sector... And if we can't get honest ones contract them to zero lobbying.

There is no way to keep them honest... Governments need to be limited in size and power because government are the largest and most damaging monopolies known to man...

How do some of these folks making 200K a year end up leaving government millionaires?? Here is how in a nutshell...

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-clinton-foundation-is-dead-but-the-case-against-hillary-isnt/

 

 

The trouble with honest politicians is twofold: firstly, they are as rare as rocking horse shit.  Secondly, if and when we do find one such, chances are they will be honest because they are serving a higher cause.  In other words, we might get lumbered with idealists, visionaries ... fanatics.  Now that scares seven kinds of snot out of me ...  

[Warren]

Our state government has just announced that they are going to produce the longest electric road in the world. Fast charging stations all along the highway.

Continually fast charging batteries drastically shortens the life of a battery thereby making your lovely electric car vastly more expensive than you bargained for. Then there is the problem of all those expensive batteries that you now have to get rid of. The entire green religion is based on lies and false data.

 

[clutch5150]

12 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

yes, i read that with some amazement. there are people who would prefer filthy polluted air?

i don't think i have ever heard anything so bizarre.

Yes the same British scientist allied with the IPCC who falsified their global warming numbers(?), the same group who forget about the real pollutant the toxic waste batteries produce(?), the same Al Gore who so-called invented the internet that we all should be driving electric cars as his long line of limo's he owns takes him to all those clean air speaking engagements...(?) I can go on if you like, but the hypocrisy is deafening. 

I am all for clean air, but I am sick and tired of the knee jerk reactions and hypocrisy of the special interests crowd, I don't think I've heard anything so bizarre as these special interest folks and many others drowning in their own pool of crap....

[PigFish]

7 hours ago, gweilgi said:

Beg to quibble on this point.

Whether we are talking about CEOs or government ministers, these are people whose work directly affects literally millions of people.  The last thing we should want is to see them waste their time on public transport being badgered or harassed by customers/voters.  

Secondly, politicians may have grand plans and ideological hobby-horses ... but the actual work of turning those pies in the sky into laws and policy is done by wonks, experts and assorted civil servants.  Thus, for me it is THEY who should be made to use public transport, to feel first-hand what it is like.  This may not stop the idiocy, but it would help to inject a dose of realism and first-hand experience into the process ... something that is sorely lacking.

 

The trouble with honest politicians is twofold: firstly, they are as rare as rocking horse shit.  Secondly, if and when we do find one such, chances are they will be honest because they are serving a higher cause.  In other words, we might get lumbered with idealists, visionaries ... fanatics.  Now that scares seven kinds of snot out of me ...  

Not that I am arguing specific points here, I just quoted you because I am carrying forward a thought.

You may know that I have largely a libertarian mindset. In other words, I am largely an anti-socialist. This is neither here nor there but a statement of position.

In reading old philosophers I have concluded that any form of government can actually work, and yes, out of my mouth you will hear me say, even socialism, which is not a common occurrence for a libertarian. The problem is in the people. Are they a virtuous people? That is the beginning and ending of it.

Virtuous people will beget virtuous government. Virtuous people will see that a social safety net is used as such and not holding pattern for the lazy. Virtuous people will view social programs as social safety nets and not as means to strip those that make money and give it to others... but to move those will less, with some help but still under their own power, to a better position.

Why did I post this here? Because it is apparent that when governments go awry and are no longer comprised of the virtuous the electorate misunderstands why. Limitations on governments, unbreakable and concrete, are the only means to guard against governments that are not virtuous. This is of course where one brings in difficult to change constitutions and separation of powers. And of course a government that can be over-turned by the people that live under it.

The electorate should further understand that the a politicians job is not that important. It should be mundane and often boring... It should be part time.

The best government should be next the people that live under it. You should be able to knock on the door of the neighbor that put forth laws that are objectionable. He/she should not be able to hid from them. They should not be cloistered in a 'capitol' building! They should not hide from the people they affect. That is the only real accountability that will keep them in line.

We think completely differently. Politicians are not grand people. They are just people. There time is worth little. They create noting but heartache. There is no group of people on the earth that are wise enough, smart enough and honest enough to govern it. They solve very little. What they should be able to do to society should be written on one piece of paper. It is the view that they are more important than this, in themselves and in the electorate that brings us to this point. All MHO...

If they want war, their sons and daughters need to fight in it...

If they want public services they need to participate in them... first hand!

They need to put at the pointed end of the swords they yield, or never allowed to yield the sword in the first place!

Cheers! -R

[Corylax18]

Is it 1917 or 2017? Seriously. Who is going to compensate me for my now worthless horse? We are set up to provide water and feed for horses, how in the world can we build all these "petrol" stations? It certainly wont be possible to build enough to make these "horeseless carriages" feasible. The cost of drilling, refining and selling petrol is far higher than boarding a horse, not to mention the severe damage that every part of the process causes to the earth. Certainly these novelties wont be capable of moving large quantities of product long distance like we do with oxen team and steam power. 

The world is moving on, the world needs to move on. Does anybody here honestly believe we have reached the pinnacle of human transportation? In 10 years its going to be hard to find a gas/diesel car that you can drive yourself. Every car manufacturer in the world has invest 100s of millions if not billions of dollars in the future. Personal transportation may be the single most wasteful/inefficient aspect of the entire human race. Owning a car is already an inconvenience in the largest cities of the world and becoming more inconvenient by the day in an ever growing geographic ring around these cities I am still young, but by the time I die transportation will look nothing like it does today, despite the huge chunk of the population that is absolutely terrified of change. There are kids being born right now that will probably not even considering getting a drivers license. There will be no need. Automated, electrically powered (through fuel cells, batteries, whatever) cars and trucks WILL completely replace our current outdated technology, its just a matter of time. 

Somehow this thread has completely devolved into politics. Its depressing to me that this issue has been painted into a political/ideological corner, what an arrogant, self centered way to view our interaction with the planet. All this debate over a foregone conclusion. Regardless of how you view it lets stop acting like politicians/ 2 year olds and discuss the step change we are fortunate enough to be witnessing. There is no need or benefit to insisting the other side are wrong and must be stupid for believing what they do. 

[PigFish]

@Corylax18

You know Cory the egocentrism in me, leads me to believe that your post is aimed at least partially at me. Maybe not. I have no intention of fighting with you about it.

I would like you to re-read your entire post... and then read this...

47 minutes ago, Corylax18 said:

...what an arrogant, self centered way to view our interaction with the planet. All this debate over a foregone conclusion. Regardless of how you view it lets stop acting like politicians/ 2 year olds and discuss the step change we are fortunate enough to be witnessing.

Then please read this...

47 minutes ago, Corylax18 said:

There is no need or benefit to insisting the other side are wrong and must be stupid for believing what they do. 

Have I called you stupid? I don't think I have... If I have called you stupid, I am sorry. IF I HAVE CALLED ANY OF YOU STUPID, I AM SORRY!!!

I see this as a political thread.... The OP posted it as a political thread not a futuristic view of the wonderments of transportation. Perhaps I am wrong about this!

I don't fault the PRIVATE SECTOR from spending billions on a new means to make money, and IN THE PROCESS OF A CAPITALISTIC ENTERPRISE benefit my life in doing it. This is venture capital and it is how we got the automobile and the gas station in the first place. However I do fault the GOVERNMENT for perverting the tax code to fulfill the whims of their view of a perfect 'fossil fuel-less' society, regardless of what their idealistic view does to the economy. There is the difference as I see it. ONE IS DONE WITH PRIVATE MONEY and the force of the economy, THE OHTER IS DONE WITH MY MONEY with the iron fist of government... One is done with the consumer in mind as means to profit... History has show this benefits the most people (the industrial revolution). The other is done with idealism in mind with a means to control (and we go back to having cows pull plows [Cuba]). History has shown this benefits the least people.

That is my arrogant and self-centered view.

Cheers! -Ray

[SignalJoe]

The world is indeed moving on.  Much as it did with the invention of the automobile.  When it was first invented cars were hand built, labor intensive and costly.   Only the the wealthy benefited.  However when Henry Ford invented the assembly line the automobile become 1) a viable form of transportation 2) affordable for the average consumer 3) profitable for the manufacturer.  Even having accomplished that there are still many who can't afford to avail themselves of a personal automobile.  

It may be just a matter of time before the automobile is rendered obsolete however people will not adopt that technology until it offers the same functionality as their current mode of transportation.  That is where the politics enters in.  Technology moves as far and as fast as the minds involved and financing can carry it.  Government establishing arbitrary dates will not magically advance the development of technology or a produce a viable alternative merely because some legislative body decrees it.  This is putting the cart before the horse thinking and doesn't benefit anyone.  It may give some a warm and fuzzy feeling to envision such a future but ultimately accomplishes nothing.   

Once the technology is invented and the average person can load up their spouse, 2.6 children, family pet and their luggage and head off to see Marty Moose across the country without concern of locating a charging station or limitations on mileage then we can start legislating.  Even then there will still be those who cannot afford it or avail themselves of the benefits.  No we haven't reached the pinnacle of transportation but lets not outlaw the viable options we have now while looking to an arbitrary time where we hope or believe that the technology exists.  Henry Ford didn't need a government mandate to revolutionize the auto industry, neither do the current manufacturers and inventors.      

[JamesKPolkEsq]

1 hour ago, SignalJoe said:

The world is indeed moving on.  Much as it did with the invention of the automobile.  When it was first invented cars were hand built, labor intensive and costly.   Only the the wealthy benefited.  However when Henry Ford invented the assembly line the automobile become 1) a viable form of transportation 2) affordable for the average consumer 3) profitable for the manufacturer.  Even having accomplished that there are still many who can't afford to avail themselves of a personal automobile.  

It may be just a matter of time before the automobile is rendered obsolete however people will not adopt that technology until it offers the same functionality as their current mode of transportation.  That is where the politics enters in.  Technology moves as far and as fast as the minds involved and financing can carry it.  Government establishing arbitrary dates will not magically advance the development of technology or a produce a viable alternative merely because some legislative body decrees it.  This is putting the cart before the horse thinking and doesn't benefit anyone.  It may give some a warm and fuzzy feeling to envision such a future but ultimately accomplishes nothing.   

Once the technology is invented and the average person can load up their spouse, 2.6 children, family pet and their luggage and head off to see Marty Moose across the country without concern of locating a charging station or limitations on mileage then we can start legislating.  Even then there will still be those who cannot afford it or avail themselves of the benefits.  No we haven't reached the pinnacle of transportation but lets not outlaw the viable options we have now while looking to an arbitrary time where we hope or believe that the technology exists.  Henry Ford didn't need a government mandate to revolutionize the auto industry, neither do the current manufacturers and inventors.      

From where I sit, there seems to currently exist an extremely complex series of laws and regulations that currently favor internal combustion engines - a hurdle that Henry Ford did not encounter. Compounding this challenge, there also exist a series of centralized players who collectively wield tremendous power and influence that Ford also did not fight against. 

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, JamesKPolkEsq said:

From where I sit, there seems to currently exist an extremely complex series of laws and regulations that currently favor internal combustion engines - a hurdle that Henry Ford did not encounter. Compounding this challenge, there also exist a series of centralized players who collectively wield tremendous power and influence that Ford also did not fight against. 

... yet a new auto company need not be hamstrung with today's union and labor problems, contracts, locations near foundries and coal mines etc... There are gives and takes.

Frankly, if people want new technology made and developed at home the recipe is pretty simple. Lower corporate taxation, lower regulation and red tape and halt the onerous leveled of existing government entities that halt progress. Technology runs all by itself. We did not need government to invent the internet. AND frankly we don't need it regulated by it...! (just as an example).

Now I am not arguing with you here, but I am asking why this has come to be? (rhetorically) It is because government is too damn big... They have put themselves via the desire to control all aspects of human endeavor into a place where lobbyists are a must, as are teams of lawyers and tax pro's, expediters, red tape pro's.... etc., etc....

When you clean up the mess made by government you no longer need to believe that only they can create a better solution. A great place to start is in gutting the tax code!

People today like the 'idea' of a farmers market. This, simply put, puts a consumer (theoretically) at the source of the food he buys. What is wrong with this concept if we apply it not only to a farmers market, but to government, and industry to the consumer? Amazon is a prime example. A group of retailers consolidated to directly and conveniently deal with consumers in their own homes. We did not need government for this... Innovation followed technology. 

I am not saying that any system was ever perfect... But it worked. The industrial revolution created vast wealth for the greatest numbers of people ever to experience it. It truly does not need top down 'would-be leaders' to manage it.

Where I agree with you is that we once had situations were antitrust laws were developed. Big guys shutting down small guys. Now the 'big guys' are in bed with government (you alluded to this). By design... the true monopoly today is government! I am saying that if we learned anything from monopoly and antitrust laws, they should be applied to government today.

If you want electric cars and want them sooner, all I can say is get government out of the way of their development. 

Kodak and Polaroid did not, nor could they stop digital imagery. You move with technology or get run over by it. 

Frankly I cannot see you flying mach 3 with an electric plane. Fossil fuel is not going anywhere soon. But if the electric car is the next thing in transportation, when they show me one that fits my needs, like you and your Leaf (it fit your needs) then I will buy it.

I don't own but I have driven a Tesla... It is a pretty impressive ride! I is just too much money and too limited by too many factor to fit my life today. I am not against them, I am just not for them!!! I am against the idea of them being subsidized. They are not necessary for national defense and then not necessary for me as a tax payer. When they prove to me to be worthy of my dollars I will likely own one (or something like it).

Today fuel economy means I drive a diesel VW. At worst it gets about 40mpg... That is if my wife drives it. If I take it commuting I get 50+. It cost me new about 21K. It goes to Vegas and back on one tank of gas! As a consumer, if another car company made this electric I would have considered buying it instead. Until then, I really don't need a bunch of bureaucrats telling me that I need to change to meet their ideological leanings!

Stimulating conversation... Cheers -R

[Ken Gargett]

6 hours ago, clutch5150 said:

Yes the same British scientist allied with the IPCC who falsified their global warming numbers(?), the same group who forget about the real pollutant the toxic waste batteries produce(?), the same Al Gore who so-called invented the internet that we all should be driving electric cars as his long line of limo's he owns takes him to all those clean air speaking engagements...(?) I can go on if you like, but the hypocrisy is deafening. 

I am all for clean air, but I am sick and tired of the knee jerk reactions and hypocrisy of the special interests crowd, I don't think I've heard anything so bizarre as these special interest folks and many others drowning in their own pool of crap....

are you malcolm roberts?

this would be the Nobel prize winning IPCC, the organisation considered the world's leading authority on climate change (granted not perfect), about whom one of the criticisms has been that they have underestimated the impact that global warming will have?

things that are just so unlikely that they are beyond science fiction, in order of not likely at all to extremely, beyond comprehension that anyone could imagine otherwise, unlikely.

1. charlize theron is currently searching for for my number.

2. both trump and hillary clinton will be mentioned along with lincoln, jefferson, churchill et al, as great leaders and statesmen.

3. the skins will win the superbowl this season.

4. climate change is not real.

 

[SCgarman]

1 hour ago, Ken Gargett said:

are you malcolm roberts?

this would be the Nobel prize winning IPCC, the organisation considered the world's leading authority on climate change (granted not perfect), about whom one of the criticisms has been that they have underestimated the impact that global warming will have?

things that are just so unlikely that they are beyond science fiction, in order of not likely at all to extremely, beyond comprehension that anyone could imagine otherwise, unlikely.

1. charlize theron is currently searching for for my number.

2. both trump and hillary clinton will be mentioned along with lincoln, jefferson, churchill et al, as great leaders and statesmen.

3. the skins will win the superbowl this season.

4. climate change is not real.

 

#3 is an absolute impossibility. The Earth as we know it will end before that ever happens lol.

[Corylax18]

5 hours ago, PigFish said:

@Corylax18

You know Cory the egocentrism in me, leads me to believe that your post is aimed at least partially at me. Maybe not. I have no intention of fighting with you about it.

I would like you to re-read your entire post... and then read this...

Then please read this...

Have I called you stupid? I don't think I have... If I have called you stupid, I am sorry. IF I HAVE CALLED ANY OF YOU STUPID, I AM SORRY!!!

I see this as a political thread.... The OP posted it as a political thread not a futuristic view of the wonderments of transportation. Perhaps I am wrong about this!

I don't fault the PRIVATE SECTOR from spending billions on a new means to make money, and IN THE PROCESS OF A CAPITALISTIC ENTERPRISE benefit my life in doing it. This is venture capital and it is how we got the automobile and the gas station in the first place. However I do fault the GOVERNMENT for perverting the tax code to fulfill the whims of their view of a perfect 'fossil fuel-less' society, regardless of what their idealistic view does to the economy. There is the difference as I see it. ONE IS DONE WITH PRIVATE MONEY and the force of the economy, THE OHTER IS DONE WITH MY MONEY with the iron fist of government... One is done with the consumer in mind as means to profit... History has show this benefits the most people (the industrial revolution). The other is done with idealism in mind with a means to control (and we go back to having cows pull plows [Cuba]). History has shown this benefits the least people.

That is my arrogant and self-centered view.

Cheers! -Ray

I was certainly not aiming my post at you, or any one member in particular. I actually think you and I agree on a lot of whats being discussed here and in general. I don't know if my avatar is any hint, but I lean highly libertarian myself. Regardless of how you view this situation I agree the government should not be the driving force behind change.

That being said, the change is happening. Regardless of weather you are a flat earther, a tree hugger, or a fox news watcher you cant deny the change we are seeing in all that is transportation. Some of that has been spurred by government spending, but as you alluded to, its the private money that is making the change. The UK government is not revolutionary, their "goal" is well on its way to happening without any input from them whatsoever. 

I'm not debating the merits of moving from fossil fuels to an all electric fleet, or hydrogen, or unicorn farts. None are perfect, and we will eventually discover something better than each. I am saying the move to automated, alternatively powered vehicles is not going to take 2 and a half more decades to mature in a small highly developed country. Will a farmer in a rural village in africa or south america have an all electric fleet in 23 years? Probably not, but by then the next best thing will be just around the corner. 

I was not attempting to call anyone's views stupid, it was more aimed at the tone.  The issue at the heart of all this, is not and should not be political. We as a society can and should do better, and not just on this issue. Some politicians make a worthless and (in my estimation) eventually inconsequential announcement and for some reason we are debating political systems. Pols around the world have mastered the "hey look over here" trick. The shiny object (political theatre) seems to be distracting every one while little to nothing happens to actually execute progress. The Cubans with the embargo, the Russians still undermining the yankees at every turn, chinese imperialism in the pacific, the UKs ban of all fossil fuel vehicle production in 23 years. All tools being used by their respective governments to distract the masses from the governments rampant ineptitude. As you stated earlier any government is theoretically effective, it is in human execution of these systems where see a stunning failure rate. The politics of this announcement will undoubtedly be viewed as a failure, regardless of the policies actual effectiveness. The less political we keep the discussion the longer it will stay unlocked, hopefully.