The UK plans to ban the sale of fossil fuel-powered vehicles by 2040

midian182

TechSpot Editor
Staff member

The UK is following in the footsteps of Norway, Holland, France, and several other countries by banning the sale of fossil fuel-powered vehicles. The plan, which will come into effect from 2040, is part of the government’s clean air initiative designed to deal with the problem of airborne pollution and the effect it has on people’s health.

The government was ordered to publish its plans after it lost a high court battle last year. Environmental law organization ClientEarth said its failure to implement policies that tackle air pollution was in breach of EU law and domestic regulations.

The judge in the case said nitrogen dioxide pollution, which primarily comes from diesel vehicles, is linked to 23,500 deaths in the UK each year.

There had been calls for ministers to introduce charges for entering “clean air zones,” or introduce taxes related to the amount of pollution a vehicle produces, but the government wanted to avoid anything that appeared to be punishing drivers.

"We can't carry on with diesel and petrol cars, not just because of the health problems that they cause, but also because the emissions that they cause would mean that we would accelerate climate change, do damage to our planet and to the next generation," said Environment Secretary Michael Gove on the BBC’s Today program.

France also intends to ban the sale of fossil-fuel cars by 2040, while both Norway and the Netherlands have considered introducing the policy by 2025.

Greenpeace told the Guardian that the government’s plan is “miles away” from its goal of reducing air pollution in the shortest possible time. 23 years is a long wait, and only the sale of the vehicles will be prohibited, meaning people can drive their non-EVs for a long time after that date. There’s also a lack of incentives for drivers to move to electric cars sooner.

Permalink to story.

 

Burty117

TechSpot Chancellor
Lack of incentive and lack of choice, I can't find an electric vehicle that's remotely similar to my Mazda MX-5 and costs the same. Hopefully, with a bit of luck, we might actually have some choices by 2040. Oh, and not to mention electricity isn't exactly cheap here in the UK and is expected to rise substantially in the next 10 years...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs and psycros
D

davislane1

"23 years is a long wait, and only the sale of the vehicles will be prohibited, meaning people can drive their non-EVs for a long time after that date. There’s also a lack of incentives for drivers to move to electric cars sooner."

Manual transmission sports cars are rapidly becoming investment vehicles. Just wait until ICE gets banned.
 

Uncle Al

TS Evangelist
Popular or not, it is the wave of the future. With the popularity of solar panels dropping and their efficiency rising, dependence upon large electrical grids will continue to decline.
 

dirtyferret

TS Evangelist
In the USA; Republicans will pass a law stating government can not pass laws banning fossil fuel vehicles as there is zero proof fossil fuel is bad for the environment thanks to the recent finding of "insert name of current lobbyists for Exxon-mobil".
 

OcelotRex

TS Guru
Lack of incentive and lack of choice, I can't find an electric vehicle that's remotely similar to my Mazda MX-5 and costs the same. Hopefully, with a bit of luck, we might actually have some choices by 2040. Oh, and not to mention electricity isn't exactly cheap here in the UK and is expected to rise substantially in the next 10 years...
The answer is "Miata"

But seriously there's no other car on the market like the Miata for the price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Theinsanegamer
This will definitely help to eliminate the effects of fossil fuels on global warming. After all, the electricity that powers electric vehicles comes from pixie dust.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psycros

Theinsanegamer

TS Evangelist
Popular or not, it is the wave of the future. With the popularity of solar panels dropping and their efficiency rising, dependence upon large electrical grids will continue to decline.
This comment is completely ignorant of the two major issues with Electric Vehicles:

1. Range. A golf TDI can easily go 700 miles on a single tank of fuel on the highway. The longest range EV is the tesla model S at only 335 miles, and even then many owners struggle to hit 300 under realistic scenarios. This is further compounded by

2. Charging rate. That golf TDI can be refueled in under 5 minutes. The tesla, OTOH, takes more then an hour and a half to fully recharge. Barring a revolution in battery technology, this problem will not be solved by 2040, and the likelihood of such a tech being developed and being economical for cars is very slim.

Solar panels and the grid have 0 to do with the lack of EV uptake. Current EVs dont jive with how we use vehicles as a civilization.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psycros

VitalyT

Russ-Puss
I don't think it will matter 23 years from now. I believe electrical vehicles will be in majority just 10 years from now. And in 20 years nobody will want to buy an non-electrical vehicle anyway.
 

ChrisH1

TS Addict
Popular or not, it is the wave of the future. With the popularity of solar panels dropping and their efficiency rising, dependence upon large electrical grids will continue to decline.
This comment is completely ignorant of the two major issues with Electric Vehicles:

1. Range. A golf TDI can easily go 700 miles on a single tank of fuel on the highway. The longest range EV is the tesla model S at only 335 miles, and even then many owners struggle to hit 300 under realistic scenarios. This is further compounded by

2. Charging rate. That golf TDI can be refueled in under 5 minutes. The tesla, OTOH, takes more then an hour and a half to fully recharge. Barring a revolution in battery technology, this problem will not be solved by 2040, and the likelihood of such a tech being developed and being economical for cars is very slim.

Solar panels and the grid have 0 to do with the lack of EV uptake. Current EVs dont jive with how we use vehicles as a civilization.
1. Most people don't >want< to drive 700 miles in one go. A lot of people simply couldn't, it's too hard, too much stress. Stopping every two or three hours for a rest is not particularly problematic, it is more of a necessity. I charge my car once a week, if that, and it gets done at night, when it's cheaper. When I do long trips (about once a month), the time to charge is irrelevant.

2. A Tesla will take 1.5 hours to charge (actually, 1.25), from zero to absolutely full. There is rarely a need to do this; when I do it, I do it at home, at night as above. No idea how long it takes, I'm asleep. A half-charge takes only 20 minutes, which as infrastructure is being designed, is very often all you need to get you to the next station. A 20 minute stop every couple of hours is a good idea.

You can always find a situation where car Z makes no sense. But if you're going to use it as an argument against that >type< of car, that situation needs to be a common one, the norm. A friend of mine would argue that the Golf TDI is a useless car because it doesn't have a winch, can't seat 8 people and can't pull a 3-tonne boat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs

ChrisH1

TS Addict
This will definitely help to eliminate the effects of fossil fuels on global warming. After all, the electricity that powers electric vehicles comes from pixie dust.
Have you ever seen a map of how much of the earth would need to be covered with solar panels to meet all energy needs? Here's one: http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

Now, how much will that cost, if we have the will. Silicon is one of the most common elements there is, glass is pretty easy to make. Economies of scale can drive, and are driving the cost per panel down. Once you get started, you use electricity from the panels to make other panels.

With the will to do it, even distribution and storage is not a problem that cannot be solved. It's just >cheaper< to burn coal and oil. Doesn't mean it's the best idea.
 

psycros

TS Evangelist
Thirty years on and still not one shred of proof that human beings significantly influence Co2 levels. But hey, I'm all for electric cars - it'll put lots of coal miners back to work since the enviro-freaks have outlawed hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear and about else that actually generates a useful amount of power. Solar and wind are a scam just like carbon credit exchanges.
 

ChrisH1

TS Addict
Thirty years on and still not one shred of proof that human beings significantly influence Co2 levels. But hey, I'm all for electric cars - it'll put lots of coal miners back to work since the enviro-freaks have outlawed hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear and about else that actually generates a useful amount of power. Solar and wind are a scam just like carbon credit exchanges.
Your icon looks like that used by an 'internet troll'. Tell you what, >prove< to me that you actually believe human beings do not significantly influence CO2 levels, and aren't just saying it for fun/trolling/attention, and then I'll give all the facts/figures that support the argument. But till you give me one shred of proof that you actually believe that, I'm not going to fall for it and waste my time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reehahs