Banning combustion engines in the UK, is it worth it..?

[Stuart]

Thieves won't nick em if they have no scrap value

[pistonbroke]

55 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Thieves won't nick em if they have no scrap value

They will if there expensive ( which they are)  and easy to sell on , Ebay ? 

[Mark (smokey mow)]

6 hours ago, Stuart said:

 AFAIK you can't recycle them either. Nor carbon fibre.

Carbon Fibre recycling has been possible for quite a while now, particularly for non structural applications. i was at an intersting lecture on it about 5 years ago now.

http://www.elgcf.com/about/what-we-do

[Stuart]

Mark I used to do business with the guy who set that business up before I retired. He's retired now too. Recycling of discreet streams is technically possible but separating from a mixed stream from, say, a car isn't. And if you can't separate it then you can't recycle it. And technically feasible doesn't necessarily mean commercially so on a huge bulk basis.

[Nick Algar - Competition Secretary]

On 27/07/2017 at 15:04, Man On The Clapham Omnibus said:

Interesting. My initial thoughts were that it was just another perpetual motion scheme, but it seems to be more credible than that according to the references. I'm surprised that the Americans are adding 10 - 15% ethanol to fuel. We're using 5% currently, with 10% on the cards for later. Of course gin is 37% ethanol...

But I'm running 100% Methanol in my race car and it works very well. Ethanol is less corrosive so should work better in a normal car. My biggest problem is gunking up the fuel system. 

[Thrustyjust]

One of my engineers runs his motorbike on alcohol and nitrous and he doesnt seem to worry about too much, except hanging on !!

Its an old clip, but he's been building a new bike to go faster..........

 

[dombanks]

Have you ever tried to buy pure ethanol? The duty is huge. They would have to change that system or put an adadtive in to stop people drinking it. (which you can get out with a creative chemist) 

[jeff oakley]

The government will be getting advice from the same advisors that told them diesel was the answer. The reality is that there are a lot of things being played out here and we are getting caught in the middle of it. Oil is increasingly becoming a problem to get as most of it is in the hands of despot regimes that we no longer trust, Russia and the Saudis for example. Add in the incessant climate change lobby groups and politicians feel they have to act.

Now they are not banning the Internal combustion engine, just that all new car sales will not be allowed to be powered by them from 2040. We will still be able to use our cars long into the future but mainstream car sales will be electric or hydrogen from 2040.

There is a lot to do infrastructure wise and this will be the big issue as there will be massive investment needed which will be a stumbling block as there has been no thought as to who will pay.

I am attending an industry meeting in September where much of this will be discussed but the reality is a bit like the Betamax VHS debate, certain leaders have decided one thing is better that the others and is now going headlong towards electric. interestingly only France and The UK have decided to ban ICE sales the big one Germany has not yet done so. 

[Man On The Clapham Omnibus]

I am of the inclination to believe that the man-made climate change lark is a method of weaning the people off hydro carbons but not because of any environmental issues, but purely for the reasons you state Jeff. That is because the major sources of supply are variously unfriendly, unstable, or unreliable. That would never sell reduction in use, so a more emotive and frightening reason was dreamt up. A lot of otherwise intelligent people have actually swallowed it too.

[DonPeffers]

With no Government wanting to attempt to control population growth, probably because of Human Rights and the right to family life, I wondered if the Climate Change agenda was designed to lessen the growth of energy usage (every new human requires a lot of energy in terms of food, water, heat, infrastructure like schools/jobs/transport etc) as a means of population control.

Could also be about political control of energy sources.

IIRC after the 2004 Indonesian tsunami killed 250,000 people it was said that owing to the rate of population growth their numbers would be replaced in less than 3 days.

See http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Declining male fertility (possibly caused by pollution) could of course slow population growth.

The 21st century was predicted to be about major conflict over resources and none more important than food, fresh water and energy.