UK Car Industry On Alert Over Reports Some Hybrids Face a Ban (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The UK's car industry has hit out at the government over unconfirmed reports ministers will target hybrid vehicles as part of a new emissions crackdown. New cars unable to do at least 50 miles on electric power may be banned by 2040, a ruling that would hit the UK's best-selling hybrid, Toyota's Prius. The SMMT car trade body said "misleading" government messages were damaging the industry and hitting jobs. In a short statement, the Department for Transport denied plans for a ban.

The Financial Times and Autocar said that the government's Road to Zero car emissions strategy was due to be unveiled imminently. It follows last year's announcement by the government that it would ban the sale of all new diesel and petrol cars in the UK by 2040. But the position on electrified models was unclear, and Road to Zero is due to clarify the situation. The FT and Autocar reported that vehicles which could not travel at least 50 miles using only electric power would be outlawed. "Unrealistic targets and misleading messaging on bans will only undermine our efforts to realize this future, confusing consumers and wreaking havoc on the new car market and the thousands of jobs it supports," said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. "We cannot support ambition levels which do not appreciate how industry, the consumer or the market operate and which are based neither on fact nor substance. Consumers need clear information about the right vehicles for their driving needs and it is again disappointing for both industry and consumers that vitally important information about government policy is being communicated by leaks."

Comments

Goes into effect, all the scum will have retired.

[HornWumpus]

Politicians love to pass feel good laws for their successors to ignore. If it's effective date is after the next election, it's just posing.

This is simple: Either batteries 'moore's' law analog will holdup and battery powered cars will win on the market, or it won't and this law will be ignored. In either case, this law is an ass.

2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 2040?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just NEW cars. I have no problem with them setting high standard for future hybrids (future as in 22yrs).

Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Public transport is the future. Fully automated vehicles will free up parking space and revolutionize city planning.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[crow]

There are a lot of rural areas in the U.K., too. Sure, I can see a ban on private vehicles in areas with congestion issues. They could eliminate all urban parking entirely that way, which would allow for some really nice changes. Most urban dwellers won't likely need their own vehicles.

But there's no need to ban private vehicle ownership altogether.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[HornWumpus]

Sure there is: Control.

People not utterly dependant on government just don't 'love the state' enough. They have a plan to fix that.

Re: Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, vehicles like cars need and foster more government, not less.

Trillions in spending for a reason. If you truly supported freedom, you would instead pursue a liberating path rather than paving the road to tyranny.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure there is: Control.

People not utterly dependant on government just don't 'love the state' enough. They have a plan to fix that.

Government is not the problem. It never was. It is, after all, composed of people that one way or another are there at the consent of the rest of the people. Not even North Korea could hold up if a majority of its population said they have had enough. The solution to government that is substandard is always the same. Better people need put in charge. That often requires the population to be better informed as part of the solution. Some places like North Korea make that remarkably different, but other places like America, well people are lazy and easily spoon fed. Not everyone fits the profile of course, but sometimes enough do and you get crap results as a result.

In the case of government mandates, well, they can be a good thing, by setting standards where economies of scale can apply. They can also say it is in the long term interest to push for higher fuel efficiency and lower pollution.

Over time cars have gotten
1. Safer
2. More fuel efficient
3. Less bad for the environment.
4. More expensive.

Now, at the end of the day you gotta have your priorities. All four of those have been pushed by government actions. You can take that all away and deal with the consequences, much like we do with all gun crimes, or you can admit that the first three have value and just figure out what that value is.

How much are we willing to pay not to die horribly in small wrecks, spend a fortune on fuel, or not to destroy our environment?

The Trump and similar answer is nothing. It is the same answer they give when standing in front of the NRA, even though they say only with more guns will they be safer, yet oddly enough no guns are allowed when they are around.

A lot of short sited policies are being pushed both in America and around the world. The particular policy is apparently something 22 years out and it is unrealistic? This is just crazy talk. We should set difficult goals and work towards them not throw our hands up and just give up even trying..

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

You’re a fucking retard.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[HornWumpus]

Government is not the problem. It never was.

That's the _dumbest_ thing posted on the net in the past decade.

Seriously: Disproven by one example. You can't you think of one? Try harder.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiots like you should be banned.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[Bert64]

Cars getting more expensive is the only thing the government has done... And making cars more expensive only reduces people's quality of life as they become less able to travel, or are forced to spend more on travel they have no choice about.

Cars are arguably worse for the environment after government regulation... They regulated the amount of CO2 but not other emissions, the end result has been lots of diesel vehicles which emit little CO2 and plenty of other more harmful chemicals. Now they are starting to realise the mistake, but there are millions of diesel vehicles on european roads now.

Cars getting more fuel efficient and safer never needed government regulation, car manufacturers are doing this on their own. People actually want to buy cars which are safer and use less fuel.

Re: Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me? Your own posting record on Slashdot has thirteen examples of dumber statements just this weekend, meaning it's now fourteen since you are so dumb you don't know how dumb your own posts are.

If I'd bothered with your Twitter, it'd be sixty or more, but I don't want to read the comments. And your Gab.ai presence is ludicrous even compared to your Voats.

Re: Privately owned cars should be banned

[HornWumpus]

Defend your stupidity. Perfect!

Re: Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Government is responsible for well over 100 million death between war/genocide and state imposed forced abortions in communist nations.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[drinkypoo]

Cars getting more expensive is the only thing the government has done...

Maybe your government. On this side of the pond, our government has been pushing safety standards forward. Sure, lots of what we find annoying about modern cars is due to those improved safety standards... but the cars have become more safe. You can't say that's not a benefit.

Cars are arguably worse for the environment after government regulation... They regulated the amount of CO2 but not other emissions, the end result has been lots of diesel vehicles which emit little CO2 and plenty of other more harmful chemicals. Now they are starting to realise the mistake, but there are millions of diesel vehicles on european roads now.

Yes, that's another place Europe should have followed America's example. We regulate diesels the same as gassers, for passenger vehicles. End result, our diesels are cleaner. Sure, we have less of them, but that's not a problem, right?

Cars getting more fuel efficient and safer never needed government regulation, car manufacturers are doing this on their own.

False. They have been doing it due to pressure from the US and Japan.

Re: Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

And there's fifteen dumber posts. From you alone. On slashdot. Imagine how high it would be if I examined your fellow trolls.

Re: Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

They regulated the amount of CO2 but not other emissions,

Wrong. Not only is CO2 regulated, so is Carbon Monoxide, as well as Nitrogen Oxides, Particulate Matter, and various other hydrocarbons, and of course, lead.

Remember that? For decades, they injected TEL into gasoline, lied about the effects, then whined when they were made to stop.

Ah, capitalism. It killed the electric car.

Re: Privately owned cars should be banned

[q_e_t]

Ultimately people commit the murders, though. It doesn't take many psychopaths for it to be a problem, but we've also all heard of Milikan.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[q_e_t]

Most European cars exceed the minimum safety standards, which suggests that it is consumer demand, not government.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[q_e_t]

They regulated the amount of CO2 but not other emissions, the end result has been lots of diesel vehicles which emit little CO2 and plenty of other more harmful chemicals.

This is not true. For one, catalytic convertors were mandated. Secondly, diesels were also regulated, but particulates have been determined to be more damaging than realised, and a number of new regulations are being introduced across Europe.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[q_e_t]

Cleaner on NOx and PM, but not CO (leaving aside CO2), but I suspect that European cars will soon match the USA, as most new diesels in Europe already exceed newly proposed European standards. Whether that will mean they will comply with USA standards, I do not know. Europe tends to have more frequent inspection of existing cars, so the emission profile in any given year might vary from official targets.

Re: Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

It is fortunate that private industry has never joined in or supported all this war/genocide/killing otherwise the toll could be even higher.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[Cederic]

Cars getting more expensive is the only thing the government has done

In the last ten years average wages in the UK have risen 17%
The price of new cars has dropped over 5%
-- https://www.racfoundation.org/...

If only the Government made everything that much more expensive.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Government is not the problem. It never was.

That's the _dumbest_ thing posted on the net in the past decade.

Seriously: Disproven by one example. You can't you think of one? Try harder.

The parent post points out that government is composed of people. The solution is not abolishing government, but getting the right people in government. Sure government's limits can be debated, but without it your back to the law of the jungle.

Still, nice try to take a tiny fraction of the whole as your straw man. It's what a typical politician would do, and those are the people that _are_ the problem.

Re:Privately owned cars should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars getting more expensive is the only thing the government has done... And making cars more expensive only reduces people's quality of life as they become less able to travel, or are forced to spend more on travel they have no choice about.

Yeah! Who needs seat belts, air bags, ABS, and traction control?

Cars are arguably worse for the environment after government regulation...

I agree: let's get rid of emission standards, because fuck clean air. /s

Re: Privately owned cars should be banned

[Barsteward]

private industry just says "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and other such stupid quotes

22 Years Out

[crow]

So banning cars that can't do 50 miles all electric over twenty years from now is unrealistic and damaging for the industry now? That makes no sense. Perhaps if they were going to ban existing cars that can't do 50 miles all-electric in twenty years, then people would be just starting to think about that, as some cars last that long, but on average cars only last ten years. But that's not what they're talking about. The article clearly says it's for new vehicles.

I doubt making changes in requirements for cars in ten years would be a problem. Most cars get a major refresh every five years or less, so there's plenty of time for manufacturers to adjust.

Sure, the Prius is horrible as a plug-in hybrid, as it doesn't do a decent job of running all-electric (or so I've heard), but Toyota has decades to fix that.

This proposed rule looks to be more descriptive than proscriptive. Does anyone really expect any manufacturer will still be selling vehicles for general use in twenty years that aren't at least mostly electric? That's not what the manufacturers themselves are saying. At the rate things are shifting, I doubt there will be many cars with tailpipes being sold new by 2030, let alone 2040 (but I'm an optimist).

Re:22 Years Out

[Freischutz]

Does anyone really expect any manufacturer will still be selling vehicles for general use in twenty years that aren't at least mostly electric? That's not what the manufacturers themselves are saying. At the rate things are shifting, I doubt there will be many cars with tailpipes being sold new by 2030, let alone 2040 (but I'm an optimist).

Hell, no. Electric vehicles are the future and they will kill off fossil fuel powered cars just the PCs killed off the typewriter. I'm sure that in 20 years there will still be a few niche markets where fossil fuels are still relevant but not much more. The fossil fuel industry in the US is already lobbying hard for legislation against solar and wind energy as well as electric vehicles which is a sure sign of desperation. Any car company CEO who thinks they'll still be making fossil fuel cars with token electric hybrid drives 20-30 years from now should be fired because he'll run the company into bankruptcy.

Re:22 Years Out

[Anonymous Coward]

That "niche" is going to be the military and probably police, fire department and medics etc. so not such a small amount in the end.

Re:22 Years Out

[OrangeTide]

For emergency services it's really more like .1% - 1% of vehicles. Sure out of millions of vehicles is certainly a large number, but it's fair to call that "niche" as in you're not going to be selling these to general consumers. They will be purpose built fleet vehicles often made on contract.

I think electrics won't displace off-road trucks either. But if I have to go to a special place to buy one instead of a Jeep or Land Rover dealership that is not really the end of the world.

Re:22 Years Out

[bazorg]

I'm sure that in 20 years there will still be a few niche markets where fossil fuels are still relevant but not much more.

Are the millions of 250cc (or smaller) motorcycles they use in Asia a large enough niche market? Today, something like the Honda PCX or Click 125 sells for the equivalent of USD1800-2200 in places like Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia... Are those guys all going to spend extra for a battery version of these "work horses" and then have extension leads trailing from shops, rather than selling petrol in glass bottles?

Re:22 Years Out

[ukoda]

Looking at the trends in EV range it is clear that the potential range of EV will exceed ICE vehicles at some point in the future, probably around 10 years from now. Once the range exceeds exceeds what driver can handle or needs the trend will switch from increasing range to reducing cost. Just as you now buy cheaper car for city use and a larger more expensive car for across country trip you will by cars with smaller cheaper batteries for commuting and larger more expensive batteries if you need it. The emergency service vehicles will fall in the later category.

For off road use decent EVs design for the job are going to be an awesome game changer that will shake things up the way Suzuki did in the late 1970s. No more extra weight and cost for triple limited slip diffs or diff lockers. No more selecting the right mode for the auto transmission or riding the clutch on a manual, just pick your line and go for it!

Re:22 Years Out

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are VERY easily replaced with e-bikes RIGHT NOW. Frankly, I don't know why someone with very little money would spend $2000 on what is basically a souped up moped when they could spend $500 on a sturdy e-bike. I guess they have their reasons and I suppose I'm missing something, but I don't know what.

Re:22 Years Out

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Go to China and you see electric bikes/trikes/tuktuk everywhere. Often with some place for storage or passengers. The range is quite good (~100 km at 35 km/h, 4~6 passengers runs you around $1000). Too bad they are considered vehicles that require annual inspections, taxes and road insurance in Europe (and requires you as the importer to make them pass inspection); in Asia where they are considered bicycles they are very convenient indeed.

Re:22 Years Out

[q_e_t]

I keep thinking about getting an electric tricycle as they are more stable in ice, or with a heavy load of shopping than my pedal power bicycle. I would never feel the need to drive to the supermarket.

Re:22 Years Out

[Cederic]

Looking at the trends in EV range it is clear that the potential range of EV will exceed ICE vehicles at some point in the future

Right. Come back when a car with a fuel tank as large as those batteries doesn't go further.

Car fuel tanks balance weight, interior space and range. Electric cars will need to do the same - you aren't going to sell many Chevvy Suburbans with the boot full of batteries in the UK where they wont fit into parking spaces.

Re:22 Years Out

[Cederic]

Too bad they are considered vehicles that require annual inspections, taxes and road insurance in Europe (and requires you as the importer to make them pass inspection); in Asia where they are considered bicycles they are very convenient indeed.

Given that Chinese road traffic deaths are over six times as high (per 100k population) as the UK, maybe some of that regulation is actively saving lives (plus various economic benefits).

(could be worse, I could have used Thailand as the comparator)

Re:22 Years Out

[Freischutz]

I'm sure that in 20 years there will still be a few niche markets where fossil fuels are still relevant but not much more.

Are the millions of 250cc (or smaller) motorcycles they use in Asia a large enough niche market? Today, something like the Honda PCX or Click 125 sells for the equivalent of USD1800-2200 in places like Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia... Are those guys all going to spend extra for a battery version of these "work horses" and then have extension leads trailing from shops, rather than selling petrol in glass bottles?

Dunno about your corner of the world but in mine the scooter market is already dominated by Asian made electric scooters. I expect the 250-500 cc motorcycle market is next (take comfort in the fact that the part of the motorbike market that doesn't cater to the Copper and 1200-2000 cc racing bike niche markets will still use fossil fuels). It's precisely the Asian manufacturers who are leading the charge on electric bikes.

Re:22 Years Out

[bazorg]

That sounds encouraging. Where is that? What are the most popular models? I'd love to ride electric, but not at Zero Motorcycles inc. prices.

Re:22 Years Out

[ukoda]

Yes, but you will sell them with a floor full of batteries where the thickness of the floor determines the cost and range. You are not going to see a boot full of batteries like you do with EV conversions. Have a look at the new VW Combi, the ID Buzz, at YouTube for an idea of where things are heading, its already impressive what they can do today. I have no idea what a Chevvy Suburban but my guess is that in time a small entry level city car will have about 200km range and a large high end touring car will have a 800km range. The price difference will be huge but that is the case with ICE cars today anyway.

Re:22 Years Out

[Cederic]

800km? A high end touring car has a range of 800 miles right now.

I'm not saying 800km is insufficient range, I'm just challenging the "EV range is on track to beat ICE". It's not.

Re:22 Years Out

[ukoda]

I picked 800km as an arbitrary figure that would represent the maximum distance you would travel without stopping. Most people are likely to want stop and eat before you have done 800km and I am assuming you will charge the car while you eat. 800km not far enough? Wait another 10 years and get 1600km. My point is right now today, not the future, there are EVs that have enough range for the bulk of the journeys people make and every year EVs become a practical and affordable. There are transition point coming, the first is when EVs are cheaper then ICEs, my guess in the next 5 to 10 years that transition will happen. The next transition is when EVs ranges exceed ICEs, you are looking at 10 to 20 years, but that is a softer transition as people will trade range for cost. The day an EV can travel 10km than an ICE people will go 'meh, whatever'. The day and EV is is $10 cheaper than an ICE they will switch. Yes a simplification but you get my point.

About range in general the trend is clear, if you look at it over the last few decades, the range is doubling every 10 years. That doesn't need to go on indefinitely. Just like PCs and phones rapidly increased in speed in the early years, making a huge difference, now they are fast enough for normal use the speed is seldom the big issue it once was. Same with EVs, range was a big issue but we are approaching a point where it is not anymore.

Re:22 Years Out

[david_thornley]

Ambulances are a great candidate for electrifying. An ambulance goes out maybe fifty miles max and returns. Then it has to be sterilized, restocked, etc., for the next person, and it can be on the charger.

Police cars typically don't need really long range. Eight hours at 30mph is 240 miles, and they'll be back to be charged. (Or eight hours at 60mph, and recharge during lunch.) We could do that today.

Fire trucks are somewhat different. The fire truck needs to drive to a fire and continue providing power for pumps and such. It's possible to have a bad fire, so the truck could have to be active for quite some time. They're also extremely specialized vehicles.

As far as the military goes, well, fuel has been a big logistical issue since WWII, and if the Army can substitute solar panels for bringing in fuel that would be a big win in many places. It won;'t work everywhere, so I'd expect plugin hybrids for a long time to come.

No panic, the technology is already close

[Lonewolf666]

The current Plug-in Prius already can do 50 km (30 miles) on an electric charge. If battery technology improves or Toyota is willing to accept a bit more weight for a larger battery, they can match the new requirements. And they have another 22 years to get there.

Re:No panic, the technology is already close

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Lugging that extra battery weight around for 100% of the time is much greener than 100% battery 10% of the time.

Re:No panic, the technology is already close

[AmiMoJo]

I can't see the Prius being around in 22 years time. Why would you bother with all that complex drive train and management system when huge batteries and ultra fast charging will be commonplace? At most you might include a little petrol generator, but it wouldn't drive the wheels directly like the Prius one can.

Re:No panic, the technology is already close

[Drethon]

Sounds like a good use for a owner swappable extended range battery. Though I would think manufacturers would have looked into it. Maybe it is like phone manufactures not wanting to let owners replace batteries. Though it may simply be considered too dangerous, in case 1 out of 100000 users manages to blow up a battery.

Technology exists today

[Anonymous Coward]

Unrealistic targets and misleading messaging on bans will only undermine our efforts to realize this future

Just got back for the grocery store in my 2012 Nissan Leaf which gets 108 MPG equivalent. The claim that this technology is in our future is quite amusing. By the time 2040 rolls around, my car will be 28 years old!

Re:Technology exists today

[Bing Tsher E]

By the time 2040 rolls around, two or three sets of batteries from your car will be leaking chemicals in a landfill.

Re:Technology exists today

[Dog-Cow]

Car batteries are almost 100% recyclable.

Re:Technology exists today

[Computershack]

However due to the cost of doing it in comparison to just digging more lithium out of the ground they don't bother.

Re:Technology exists today

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, someone probably broke the law. These particular batteries are in categories that require proper disposal which will in general always end up somewhere other than in a landfill. Recycling them is not difficult.

They don't get consumed by the age. All of the original elements are still there, they've just moved into physical and chemical configurations that have reduced the charge they can hold.

More importantly though, a battery that can still hold an 80% or even a 50% charge has other applications that could multiply its useful lifetime. Once enough used ones become available, someone will figure out that they can do things like build cheap household or utility-scale backups from them. They won't be as compact as units using all fresh batteries, but they will be in an application where that is no longer important.

Re:Technology exists today

[Anonymous Coward]

BS.

Re:Technology exists today

[whoever57]

... and you just showed your ignorance.

There isn't actually much Lithium in a Lithium-ion battery. In a Tesla, for example, there is somewhere around 10kg total in the battery pack.

Re:Technology exists today

[drinkypoo]

Car batteries are almost 100% recyclable.

Traditional flooded lead-acid car batteries are basically 100% recyclable, except for the labels. Even the chemistry is recycled.

EV batteries are not very recyclable. You can get most of the steel, all of the cobalt and most of the lithium, but the electrolyte is mostly neutralized and then incinerated or landfilled. They contain sealants and adhesives which cannot be recycled at all.

Re:Technology exists today

[drinkypoo]

https://seekingalpha.com/artic...

Re:Technology exists today

[q_e_t]

A 50% capacity battery, sold cheaply enough, would be great for backing up PV.

Dinosaurs

[Anonymous Coward]

If they don't move the Chinese will eat them all alive as they are going electric full steam ahead.
  I think that here the UK gov is helping them to adapt by setting more than realistic deadlines.

Current capability should not dictated future

[Anonymous Coward]

So many comments regarding battery capability needing to catch up, or whether it is even possible. All of it based on a belief that in order to be practical an electric car must match ICE performance when it comes to miles per fillup and speed to fillup.

Just because an ICE powered vehicle can travel 300 to 400 miles per tank of fuel does not mean that electric powered vehicles must achieve that. Fillup speed is also less relevant when you consider that fillup can become opportunistic.

A 50 mile charge is a perfectly reasonable goal. Most commutes are shorter than 50 miles round trip, let alone one way.

When we have a majority electric vehicles on the roads charging at destinations will follow. Cities can generate revenue at each street parking spot, businesses as well. It will be common to pay a small fee everywhere you park for the space and the energy.

Arguing for ICE engines to continue to dominate is like arguing for coal power and pollution spilling industry to remain in our cities.

It is lazy thinking to believe ambition is what drives this. It is necessity. Many people live their entire lives in cities and are exposed to constant pollution from vehicles and heating systems. It does not have to be this way if we push electric vehicles and high efficiency heating.

Re:Current capability should not dictated future

[mikael]

An electric car should be able to recharge using solar panels and thermoelectric systems. The number of times, we've parked our car in a supermarket parking lot and we come back to find the metalwork burning hot.

Re:Current capability should not dictated future

[HornWumpus]

You could put a windmill on top of the car and use that to recharge the batteries as you roll down the road... /sarc

Re:Current capability should not dictated future

[viperidaenz]

I know, right!
They should make the body out of solar panels!

That's got to be at least 7 square metres of area facing the sun. In the middle of the day, that's about 7kW of energy they're pissing away.
The Prius PIH has an 8.8kW battery that gives it 25 miles range, 350Whr per mile. With 21% efficacy panels, that's about 1.5kW of power, or 4 miles range per hour.

You could drive 5 miles to the movies, park in the sun, watch your movie, drive home, and by the time you get back, your battery has the same charge as when you left.

You could also look at it as extending the range by 10%. More if you're stuck in slow traffic.

Re:Current capability should not dictated future

[drinkypoo]

An electric car should be able to recharge using solar panels and thermoelectric systems. The number of times, we've parked our car in a supermarket parking lot and we come back to find the metalwork burning hot.

A really, really good [automotive] rooftop solar panel produces about 350W. Don't even ask about thermoelectric, because that's even less realistic.

Re:Current capability should not dictated future

[Anonymous Coward]

I do like to imagine what decade might see a crossover of the performance curves where someone into back-country exploration might prefer an e-bike or e-jeep where they can fold out a solar array on the rocks and recharge to continue their multi-day trip, instead of hauling jerry-cans of fuel or planning returns to civilization to purchase fuel in the middle of a holiday.

Re:Current capability should not dictated future

[Cederic]

We're talking about the UK here. The sun does appear occasionally but on average a car roof solar panel isn't going to do much more than power the radio. If that.

Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20

[ShanghaiBill]

It just NEW cars.

Indeed. TFA makes it sound like they are going to confiscate cars. The proposed ban is only on sales of NEW cars, and since the effective date is 22 years from now, it should be of no concern to anyone making or buying a car today.

Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20

[sabri]

it should be of no concern to anyone making or buying a car today.

That's putting your head in the sand. 100 years ago, the same was said about Hong Kong coming back under Chinese control. In the end, it is bad legislation that will affect people.

In other news: the U.K. is passing laws that the space industry must support interstellar travel by 2040, or be banned from entering the U.K.

Those stupid politicians need to understand that innovation cannot be legislated. But then again, frequent readers on /. know about my aversion against that Orwellian Police State anyway.

"Unrealistic targets and misleading messaging"

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone hit these assholes with a fat cluebat over the head.

"Just let us do", says the industry, "because we have such a stellar track record of 'realizing this future' and 'protecting jobs'".

It is so chock-full of arrogance it's nauseating.

I myself look forward to see Winterkorn's ass rotting in an US prison (and no, usually I'm against that kind of treatment for most of the people).

12 years from now...

[b0s0z0ku]

12 years from now gives a long time for automakers to catch up...

Re:12 years from now...

[Ost99]

12 years should have been more than enough. The car companies whining about it when it's 22 years is just shameful.

Re:12 years from now...

[b0s0z0ku]

I read it as "2030" for some reason -- even more reason to not whinge now.

What goes in landfills?

[OrangeTide]

We should probably regulate the disposal of car batteries so they don't go into land fills.

You know like we've done with lead acid batteries found in nearly every current automobile.

Re:What goes in landfills?

[Bing Tsher E]

It's a problem to be solved. Perhaps there should be a tax imposed on EVs to cover the eventuality of resolution of the unsolved problem.

Re:What goes in landfills?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the EU, there is already such a tax (on all electronics).

Re:What goes in landfills?

[OrangeTide]

It's harder to say such broad things about the US because each state handles things differently. But in California I've definitely paid an electronic waste recycling fee on some of my electronics.

Lead acid batteries are kept out of the landfills by federal regulation. See Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 266, Subsection G. Most of what is in there has to do with how states and businesses must conduct their operations. And such a regulatory document wouldn't be able on its own to add a tax. It could probably limit what kinds of fees a state might charge, but I can't think of any examples.

Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20

[Ost99]

50 miles electric range is trivial to implement TODAY, zero innovation required.
Several countries are planning zero emission requirements 10-15 years earlier than the UK proposal for 50 miles electric range.

By 2040 it will be difficult to find a new car with a combustion engine anyway, regardless of that the UK government does.

That's terrible!

[viperidaenz]

A car that's only existed less than 21 years would be banned in 22 years from now, unless it can extend its electric only range from 11 miles to 50 miles.

That's a huge ask for Toyota to be able to push their technology that much.

Wait... that 11 miles it the first gen plug in hybrid. Their second generation does 25 miles. I think they might be able to hit 50 miles by 2040.

Re:That's terrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

As Toyota refuse to sell 'plug-in' vehicles here and actually promote their Hybrids as not needing to be plugged in, I can't help but wonder if this move might get Toyota onto full EV track rather than sticking with Hydrogen powered vehicles and their faux hybrids?

They are right to require a minimum mileage

[nekrecart]

Many European countries are closing in on "fake-hybrids". If you care about electrification of cars this is a good thing. People were/are buying expensive hybrid (sport) cars with tax incentives but never bothered to charge the batteries or use the cars properly. The Netherlands cancelled hybrid tax incentives. In Belgium, in order to be classified as a hybrid, they introduced a minimum battery/weight ratio starting from 01-01-2018. Other EU countries have similar plans. Here in Belgium the Porsche E-Hybrids and BMW edrive models were very popular. For 2018 those sales will plummet. Hopefully the car manufacturers will update their hybrid models and increase the battery packs.

Re:They are right to require a minimum mileage

[Cederic]

That doesn't surprise me at all.

The Mercedes C and E hybrids are basically combustion engine cars with electric assist to give them better acceleration and cheaper tax. Very popular on company car schemes that heavily factor emissions into prices.

Entirely irrelevant when real-world emissions are taken into account.

Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20

[sabri]

50 miles electric range is trivial to implement TODAY, zero innovation required.

I agree with you on that, Tesla can do 400 miles.

But that is irrelevant to my complaint. My issue is that the U.K. (or any) government does not get to dictate how motor companies choose to innovate. What if by 2025 Nikola Motors' fuel cell technology gets adopted by the industry?

By 2040 it will be difficult to find a new car with a combustion engine anyway, regardless of that the UK government does.

Yes, so you agree with me that this law is irrelevant anyway. Indeed. This is one of those laws, made up by pink-sunglassed greenies looking to find another reason to masturbate in the mirror. "Oh look what a great law I passed today *fapfapfap*". But in the end, they accomplished nothing.

Re:Goes into effect, all the scum will have retire

[AmiMoJo]

Batteries are already good enough. It's just a question of time until prices come down even further and infrastructure gets built up.

Even if the government didn't set this target, by 2040 most cars on the market would be EVs anyway. The target just signals we won't be that far behind the rest of Europe and that infrastructure investments enjoy some government backing.

That's why it won't be abandoned. People with money will invest, and they won't allow their bought and paid for politicians to screw them.

Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20

[Godwin O'Hitler]

"What if by 2025 Nikola Motors' fuel cell technology gets adopted by the industry?"

Then there will be more electric cars. I didn't see anything stipulating the source of the electricity.

Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20

[Cederic]

My issue is that the U.K. (or any) government does not get to dictate how motor companies choose to innovate.

The people of the UK, through the actions of their Government, do however get to dictate which technologies are not permitted to be sold in their country.

If a car company doesn't wish to "innovate" by putting a 51 mile range battery in with the combustion engine then nobody will give a shit. They just wont be able to sell cars in the UK.

What if by 2025 Nikola Motors' fuel cell technology gets adopted by the industry?

Without seeing the wording of the law it's not yet possible to tell whether that engine would be allowed in 2040 or not. If not, there would still be plenty of time to update and modify the law.

But in the end, they accomplished nothing

Laws on agricultural use of pesticides and other chemicals have had a material impact on the quality of food.
Laws on emissions from cars have had a material impact on air quality.
Taxes (enabled by laws) have had a massive impact on car fuel economy.
Subsidies (enabled by laws) have been essential to companies like Tesla.

Why would laws suddenly stop working on this occasion?

Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20

[jabuzz]

Thing is they are only banning hybrids not capable of doing 50 miles on battery. The Prius can do 30 miles right now. The idea that in the next 22 years battery capacity will not have improved 60% is frankly ludicrous. In the last 22 years they have improved an awful lot more than that, and there a whole slew of battery technology innovations in the pipeline any one of which would provide the additional capacity required.

There is a long history in of needing to set targets to drive manufactures to innovate and sometimes even just implement existing technology.

Re:Goes into effect, all the scum will have retire

[Zorpheus]

This law could still be rubbish even with much better batteries. German car manufacturers are asking that the laws should rather regulate total carbon footprint or the efficiency of the whole progress, instead of enforcing which technology is chosen. Other ways can be more efficient than electric cars.

By *2040* we have better batteries even now

[DrYak]

This law requires the ban of selling such hybrids by 2040.
There are lots of different models of cars currently sold in 2018 that already have better batteries than that (I'm not only speaking of Tesla, I'm speaking about the Renault, Nissan, VW, Citroen, etc.)

Non plug-in hybrids where an interesting stop-gag measure back at a time when everybody was heavily relying on an existing infastructue/logistics for gaz, when battery were still small, and there was virtually no chargers infrastructure.
But plugin to charge your car's battery while it's not in use is definitely the long term target to go to.

By 2040, probably all car will be able to do well more than 100km at least, with maybe some still featuring gaz-powered range-extenders for the few occasions when people need to drive for prolonged distance without ever seeing a charger. (e.g.: using their cars to drive in remote/backwards area where ubiquitous public chargers aren't yet a thing, the gaz station are still the most common energy delivery, and the user isn't interesting in fork whatever the cost of a 200-200hWh battery will be by then).

The Society of Motor Manufacturer are only panicking because some of their members are realizing that they are left with lots of soon-to-be-dead assets (stock, manufacturing capacity, etc.).

Most sane car manufacturers have started thinking about this for quite some time, and will probably be more-than-ready by 2040.

News?

[asylumx]

Wait, so this is an article about a reports that some people are nervous because they heard someone might consider this ban. What? As far as I can tell, and what the UK government has directly confirmed, they aren't even considering such a ban. That's not even considering what a lot of other commentators have pointed out, which is that 20 years is a LOT of time to figure out how to fix it.

Much ado about nothing.

Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is they are only banning hybrids not capable of doing 50 miles on battery. The Prius can do 30 miles right now. The idea that in the next 22 years battery capacity will not have improved 60% is frankly ludicrous. In the last 22 years they have improved an awful lot more than that, and there a whole slew of battery technology innovations in the pipeline any one of which would provide the additional capacity required.

There is a long history in of needing to set targets to drive manufactures to innovate and sometimes even just implement existing technology.

The Prius PRIME can do 30 miles right now. The better selling Prius vehicles can only do 1 mile or less , IIRC.

Re:Goes into effect, all the scum will have retire

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians love to pass feel good laws for their successors to ignore. If it's effective date is after the next election, it's just posing.

Or, if the effective date is after the next election, politicians know it will take time to implement solutions.

Or do you think that the Ministry of Magic exists and a wand can be waved to solve problems?

Giving car manufacturers over twenty years (2018 to 2040) to design a solution for 50 miles (~75km) is hardly onerous. Perhaps an 'effective date' of 2020 could be reasonable groups for objections, but IMHO even 2030 would be reasonable.

Re:Goes into effect, all the scum will have retire

[HornWumpus]

Your not disagreeing, your just wrong that batteries are good enough already.

Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20

[Uberbah]

In the end, it is bad legislation that will affect people blah blah Those stupid politicians need to understand that innovation cannot be legislated.

So what innovation was lost when leaded gasoline was banned? Your entire line of reasoning here is invalid.

Re:Goes into effect, all the scum will have retire

[jeremyp]

What is this Moore's law of batteries of which you speak? The energy density of any particular battery technology depends only on the laws of physics. There is no Moore's law off batteries.

Having said that, it would be surprising ifs there are no breakthroughs in battery technology in the next twenty years - or alternatives like hydrogen fuel cells.

It's not something that really bothers me though. In 2040, I'll be in my mid 70's and unlikely to be buying a new car, unless it has fully autonomous self driving.

Re:Goes into effect, all the scum will have retire

[apoc.famine]

Did you just wake up from a decade long coma? Man, are you going to be surprised at how the world has changed......

Re:2040! Do they plan to sell the same Prius in 20

[Barsteward]

They can legislate to stop the pollution from cars etc which this basically is all about. In reality is just a target for the industry to aspire to, if you don't set the target you'll get complacency from the industry.