Stuart Nathan
Features editor
If there were any doubt that the end of the conventional fossil fuel-powered vehicle was in sight, last night’s announcement should end the uncertainty, but there is still much we don’t know
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote that Volvo’s announcement that it would cease launching solely petrol and diesel-powered cars by 2019 could mark “the end of the beginning” of the demise of the type of motor vehicle that has dominated roads more than a century. Shortly after that, France’s environment secretary announced that his country would seek to stop the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040, along with a package of measures to encourage households and businesses to generate their own electricity. Last night, the UK government added to the chorus, indicating that it too would ban new petrol and diesel car and van sales by 2040, setting us on a 23 year countdown to the era of the electric vehicle.
Details of the new policy are a little thin on the ground at this early stage. Unlike in France, there seems to be no suggestion that owners of existing internal combustion engine vehicles will be incentivised to take them off the road; the word “new” in the announcement seems to indicate solely that vehicles coming off the production line and registered in 2040 will have to be electric, although scrappage incentives for diesel vehicles are said to be under discussion. The Queen’s Speech at the opening of parliament set out a goal; of making all new vehicles close to zero-emission at the tailpipe by 2050. The ban appears to also apply to hybrid vehicles, indicating that the 2040 fleet will be pure-electric.
The ban isn’t part of the government’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions; rather, it is part of a delayed announcement to improve air quality. The High Court ordered the government in May to publish details of a plan to reduce NO2 pollution, but the publication was delayed by the General election last month. However, we now know that the government plans to shift much of the responsibility for cutting NO2 levels to local authorities, and will make £255m available to help them do this, with possible measures including removal of speed bumps, changing road layouts and rephasing traffic lights to smooth out traffic flows. Undoubtedly, reducing the number of fuel-burning vehicles will help, though there has been no specific announcement on the larger vehicles, such as lorries and buses, which are responsible for most emissions from diesel.
As Volvo’s announcement and BMW’s announcement this week that it will make electric Minis in the UK both demonstrate, the automotive sector is already well on the way the transition into an all electric future, and it’s entirely possible that new internal combustion engine models would be extinct by 2040 without any government intervention. Certainly, the price of electric vehicles is falling and they may be on a par with conventional vehicles within the next five years. The automotive sector is the rather more nimble of the large manufacturing industries, generally taking about three years to take a new vehicle from a blank computer screen to the showrooms, so even companies unable or unwilling to match Volvo’s commitment will be able to bring several new lines of conventional vehicles to market within the 23-year changeover period.
But switching the UK’s car fleet to pure electric isn’t just about the automotive sector. Perhaps the most obvious challenge to the timescale is implications for the electricity sector; at the moment, it mostly doesn’t have to worry about transport, but obviously this will change and we will need charging infrastructure, extra generating capacity (possibly extra nuclear stations or a renewed look at carbon capture and storage to allow new gas-fired stations to be built) and probably a more robust transmission grid to handle the demands of many more households wanting to charge their cars overnight. This might have been a good opportunity for the government to announce its intention to shift towards a hydrogen-based transportation system, with incentives for fuel cell development and manufacture and the establishment of a refuelling infrastructure, as we set out in our recent feature; but if this is the plan, there is no sign of it as yet.
We can, perhaps, look at industry secretary Greg Clark’s announcement of funding for new battery development in this new context; the justification given by Mr Clarke was for storage from renewable generation, but it’s the same type of battery as those that power electric cars and involvement of the automotive sector in the research and development efforts will surely be welcome. “These are exciting times for the UK battery industry with the government providing supportive legislation and investment that will see an increase in the take up of electric vehicles,” commented Stephen Irish, founder of UK battery technology company Hyperdrive. “However, while there is a lot of focus on the car industry, batteries have a major role to play in other sectors including construction equipment, street sweepers, airport machinery and industrial machines.”
Looking at the air quality aspect, Alasdair Lewis, professor of atmospheric chemistry, at the University of York’s National Centre for Atmospheric Science, pointed out that eliminating fossil fuel vehicles won’t spell the end of harmful substances in the air. “Electric vehicles have no direct tailpipe emissions but they are still a source of fine particulate matter from brake and tyre wear and through agitating road dust,” he said. “There still remain many other urban sources of pollution not only from transport, but also heating, construction, domestic emissions, and external sources of pollution that drift into cities from outside, you are most notably from the agricultural sector. Some other urban sources of pollution are even on an upwards trend, most notably from wood burning stoves.”
On the whole, today’s announcement indicates unequivocally that the UK is much further along the path to being an electric vehicle nation, but on the detail of what this will mean for the engineering sector we are still left with more questions than answers. We hope that we will get much more clarification in the coming weeks and months, and expect the situation would be much more clear by the time of the Budget in the autumn.
Do you think that anyone in government actually realises that electric cars are only as ‘clean’ as the power station that generated the electricity? Potentially this is ‘moving’ the polluting emission, not ‘removing’ it.
A full lifecycle assessment of electric cars, compared to more conventional vehicles, may also make interesting reading.
I would love to read the scientific analysis that led to this announcement.
Generally emissions are higher for manufacturing an equivalent EV to its ICE stablemate, but then the emissions are much lower when you start driving it as electricity is produced more efficiently from fossil fuels. As the grid gets cleaner with renewables and nuclear obviously the advantage of the EV becomes greater
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions#.WXiXcITytaR
What happened to Hydrogen fuel cell technology? Why isn’t that the way to go in future?
The article contains a link to a feature which explores that very question.
It would be an interesting analysis to see the emissions of a conventional car Vs the emissions of the electric car (the emissions from the power plant which has come to provide the sufficient electrical energy to the car).
Electric cars are extremely efficient so I would expect there to be less emissions compared to the conventional, fuel based car.
With the current looming crisis in power generating capacity and the apparent lack of any coherent policy to address this, I cannot see how the extra load on the generating and transmission network will be accommodated. We have problems with Hinkley, a country which is unable to afford to build these desperately needed nuclear plants without huge sums of foreign money and as for the “new” generating station adjacent to Sellafield that looks more and more like a non-starter given the Westinghouse situation. Where is all this electricity going to come from, the magic electricity tree?
To refine a 5 Litres of petrol requires approximately 5 – 7.5 Kwh of electricity, which will power the average EV 20 miles or more. Therefore no new power stations are required, the challenge is to smooth out the load on the grid using smart charging and even vehicle to grid technologies, which have proven to be beneficial to EV batteries.
https://www.cleanenergynews.co.uk/news/storage/v2g-found-to-improve-the-lifetime-of-electric-vehicle-batteries
With some modern cars capable of achieving 4 times that number of miles from 5 Litres of petrol, and lets say the national average from petrol cars is perhaps only 2 – 2.5 times that, I would definitely still be worried about where the “extra power” is coming from…
So in 22 1/2 years time the governments income from car tax will start to dwindle. They also announced this week that home owners should start producing and saving electricity in the home using batteries. Gas is going to run out and oil producers will stop looking for reserves, resulting in job losses. So where are the government going to get their money from? Your earnings , at least I’ll have retired by then (hopefully).
Back on topic…
Electric cars are a great idea, the clock is now ticking to get all the infrastructure in to support these vehicles.
Electric vehicles aren’t the answer – but they do form a part of the solution. Why is no one here thinking seriously about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles – Honda (http://www.honda.co.uk/cars/new/coming-soon/clarity-fuel-cell/overview.html) and Toyota (http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/environmental_technology/fuelcell_vehicle/) are already well underway with very credible solutions, yes there is an infrastructure issue right now, but I suspect that issue will be an easier one to resolve than that required for an all-electric vehicle infrastructure.
I agree with Andy Denton’s point above.
Also – I wonder what this really means for people who like to run a classic car (i.e. a petrol head like me!)
I believe fuel cell is the future.
Why would we invest in the necessary upgrades to electricity infrastructure to support battery powered vehicles, only to have them become ‘obsolete’ in the near future?
I am hopeful that dominance of electric vehicles will result in an oversupply of petrol and a reduction in the price. Than you and I can enjoy our V8s until we, too, are ‘phased out’!
Hydrogen fuel cel is a very viable option. The infrastructure and technology is presently lagging but if transport were to go this way thent here would be the necessary demand to put into place the hydrogen fueling infrastructure necessary and also to drive fuel cel development.
Germany have some of their trains running on hydrogen now and hopefully the UK will follow. We already have bus fleets fuelled on Hydrogen in Aberdeen and London (all be it a small one). Yes the Hyrdrogen itself is not yet 100% ‘green’ but this will come in time… suply & damand and all that
I’m not even convinced we need much of an “infrastructure”. This could be another application for modular technology – small, self contained hydrogen plants for communities, or even one per domestic household. Powered by PV panels, filling a tank during the day while owners are out at work. Simple technology, so could be low cost – especially in volume production which is something the pro-modular folk are always shouting about!
Investing in hydrogen and electric infrastructure seems a much better way of spending money than building HS2. What will happen when HS2 gets overcrowded, are we planning ahead for HS3? And by this time nobody will be employed in a job because robots will be doing them so where will the money come from for the fares?
Am I the only one that reads the statement as “electric cars” so can be either battery powered (Elon Musk and his crew) or hydrogen fuel cells (Toyota and Honda) which also produce electricity. Its going to be like VHS and Betamax (for the wiser generation and HD-DVD/Blu-ray (for the youthful generation) all over again. This can only be a good thing as technologies compete….surely?
The main Hydrogen Fuel Cell car manufacturers Hyundai, Honda and Toyota are starting to realise the shortcomings of this complicated and expensive technology and are now looking to jump on the BEV band wagon. Creating hydrogen from natural gas does not solve climate change as you still need to capture the CO2 and electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen using renewable electricity is inefficient although good for rocket fuel, but that’s another story.
http://www.energypost.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Hydrogen-vs-EV-redlight.jpg
“The High Court ordered the government in May to publish details of a plan to reduce NO2 pollution, but the publication was delayed by the General election last month.” Actually the Supreme Court’s ruling about a year before was the key: and I just happened to be in London then and sat in to hear the arguments. I did note (and complimented and received thanks for doing so) that the Judges appeared to have grasped the main points of the case, rather quicker and more effectively than the QC briefed by HMG to present its case. So nothing new there.
I re-iterate what I have said so many times before: unless and until we follow almost all sensible countries and Nations and replace our ‘present’ adversarial process of settling all disputes with an ‘inquisitorial’ one -as used by the vast majority of our competitor nations, we will continue to decline. There is another quasi-political view, which I hope passes successfully by our Editor’s red-pencil!
Bring back the Sinclair C5!
Clive Sinclair’s nephew is trying to do exactly that: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/sinclair-c5-revamped-by-sir-clives-nephew/
Totally agree with Andy Denton & Geoff Batemans’ comments. I have also commented before that electric cars are only as clean as the power plants that produce the electricity in the first place. This is not removing the problem, merely moving it further up the chain – albeit out of urban areas.
When is this or any government going to start some joined up thinking on our current & future power requirements.
The Engineer has seen numerous reports from governmental and non-governmental organisations over the past few years setting out low-emission electricity generation scenarios that take into account increasing numbers of electric cars, so this is very unlikely to be an attempt to merely ‘shift’ the emissions problem as the comment implies.
Many studies exist but the policy remains dominated by the rush to unreliables. The much needed Hinckley station is a fiasco and other nuclear looks stagnant. The power generation policy for the UK seems to be going up a blind alley of hope over experience. The main fuel in the UK is now gas and over 50% is imported – at present low cost but we all know how volatile the fuel supply market is! The answer is not “Blowing in the wind”.
More irresponsible green nonsense to be paid for by the working man – Cur Philip Greedy and Mike Cashley will certainly not be worrying! Pollution abatement is about sensible investments and benefits, not draconian legislation that will achieve little reward.
Banning I/c engines from city centres would be good provided that the infrastructure was put into place. However, what about delivery vehicles and lorries: battery power is no use there.
We would need to replace about 30m cars and increase our reliable generation by about 50% in 23 years time: looks easy if your glasses are rose tinted or green. In the winter more electricity would be needed yet negligible solar and often little wind: where is it coming from, especially given the Hinckley fiasco.
The answer to Paul is : when the public stop putting their heads in the sand about nuclear power. We need more nuclear power stations starting now. Then we need more research into fusion and hydrogen technology. Meanwhile where can I find information on electric or hydrogen vehicles to buy ? I have had a hybrid vehicle since 2002, a Honda Insight and a Honda Civic, but now I am thinking about changing, the information on what is available is surprisingly sparse.
I agree and accept that electric vehicles are “the future” BUT (i.e. big BUT!) we have to look at the whole problem as an engineering issue if this future is to be a practical proposition. Do we have the sheer electricity generating capacity to cope with large-scale EV use? The present answer is a resounding “no”. Are local electricity distribution systems strong enough for several kW of load to be added to every house? Again the current answer is a resounding “no”. Unless we have a policy and a deliverable plan to resolve these issues then the recent political announcement is just hot air. The “hydrogen economy” is no better in this respect as it too is critically dependent on electricity generation. We need to take the politics and the Utopian thinking out of the air quality and climate questions and start doing some honest engineering calculations.
Could we maybe have some meaningful discussions about Thorium based nuclear reactors for power generation as a means to fuel electric transportation? This has been deliberately ignored for over 60 years as I believe it was inconsistent with also making fuel for nuclear weapons. I would also be very interested in statistics on the uptake of domestic wind turbines in the UK as I am currently putting a 2KW system on my roof in Australia where our electricity rates are becoming outrageous due to government “privatisation” of the electricity sector.
Why doesn’t some one produce a steam powered car. It could have an alternator to charge the battery & an electric boiler which recirculates the steam back through a condenser so you don’t have to keep refilling with water. It can produce far more torque than diesel & is relatively inexpensive to make. There’s no pollution except water vapour. You basically run it the same as an ICE system!
Perhaps one option to protect the grid network, if every house were to own an EV, would be for DNOs or electricity suppliers to provide and fit a “smart charger” to every household. Every smart charger on a substation would communicate with each other and effectively load-balance the charging cycles to reduce the peak load. Yes, there’d still need to be extra generation capacity as you can’t get more out of a pot than you put in, regardless of how you take it out. But, at least the current infrastructure might be up to the job (or need much less substantial works carrying out)
I agree that external control of domestic chargers will be essential to prevent a huge surge in load when everybody gets home from work and puts the car on charge as this would coincide with the existing peak demand in winter and nothing would cope – local infrastructure or overall generation. I don’t think that any of the issues of large-scale EV use are not solvable but we need a proper, practical and deliverable plan. I get very frustrated with politicians (of all persuasions) who think that fancy rhetoric is all it takes to make problems go away. For all the talk, if we can’t make the sums work then the lights go out. EV’s still run out of fuel just like petrol and diesel cars and you still need to get that fuel from somewhere and deliver it to where you need it.
The days of the internal combustion engine are far from over. With a vehicle average lifespan of around 10 years, the average motorist will be replacing their car 3 times bofore 2040, all powered by petrol or diesel.
Emissions of Nox and particulates for road transport has been decreasing year by year since the 1990s. see http://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ap-overview
Putting aside the saga of new cars not meeting Euro 6 requirements (VW and others), technologies of emission reduction do exist to achieve further reductions.
In terms of meeting climate change targets (reduction in CO2 emissions), the content of biofuel could be increased ( currently 6-10%).
The electic car still has a long way to go to usurp the position of ICE vehicles.
Considering the speed that prices of hybrids and all-electric vehicles are falling, it’s a bit moot whether most vehicle replacements up to 2040 are going to be petrol- or diesel-powerered, but your point is valid.
Price is only one factor. Practicality in terms of range and charging facilities are a major issue, as commented by others.
If your post was a wind-up joke, I have to admit you suckered me. Well done!
It is long overdue to close the bad detour we took with ICE. The beginning of automobiles was electric and it should have stayed that way. From simple design, to high energy efficiency (at max ~37% ICE is an embarrassing technology), low maintenance, lower material usage, zero air and noise local pollution and low climate change impact, multi-functionality (two-way electric grid exchange) EVs are without doubt the winners.
2040 chosen by France and UK is too late for the urgent reversal in fossil fuel usage, but I hope that market forces, other large scale policy targets (cities, regions, countries) and people’s rational choices will accomplish the full switch back to EVs much sooner, let’s say 2025.
If you want to know what Edison thought in 1903 about EVs and ICEs visit the Automotive Hall of Fame in Dearborn, Michigan and read his poster promoting his EV yourself. Then reflect about where we would be today, from a sustainable living point of view, if, at that particular fork in automotive technology history, we would have chosen the better path.
The quote below is a good proxy for the content of Edison’s poster.
“Electricity is the thing. There are no whirring and grinding gears with their numerous levers to confuse. There is not that almost terrifying uncertain throb and whirr of the powerful combustion engine. There is no water-circulating system to get out of order – no dangerous and evil-smelling gasoline and no noise.”
Source: https://www.wired.com/2010/06/henry-ford-thomas-edison-ev/
The announcement re electric cars did not appear to make any mention of how this might apply to trucks and delivery vehicles. Was this an oversight? The headline grabbing announcements on a quiet news day failed to mask the delusional position whereby rail electrification is being deemed to be too difficult (it obviously is for the DfT and Network Rail) leading to cancellations of good projects in favour of some whimsical future based on batteries (still too heavy and without the required energy density) fuel cells (this year, next year, sometime, never) or bionic duckweed. This plus the focus on autonomous vehicles is all becoming unbelievable. The absence of a robust and joined up national strategy on energy, transport and spatial planning by various recent governments is deeply concerning.
Until buses, lorries, trains and planes become clean the removal of petrol/diesel cars is like putting a sticking plaster on a shark bite. Buses are by far the worst polluters; the other vehicles go into towns and cities and park up or deliver then leave, two journeys. the bus keeps going all day polluting the towns/cities.
A little good news for the petrol heads, the government is only stopping the sale of new IC cars in 2040, second hand they will be still available, or even buy abroad and import.
Surely electric is the future, but not with the use of battery power.
It has taken decades to get battery energy density anywhere near what is viable. The only way to reduce the issue is to deliver the power wirelessly through the road to the car and limit the allowable transfer of energy to the vehicle (say maximum power required to move a car of a certain mass at 70mph). This would cut out the excess weight introduced by batteries that has to be lugged about. It would be more expensive (cost of batteries is pushed to the consumer, electrifying roads goes to the government) but once its in place it would be a much more sustainable system. It would mean larger vehicles could still be electrified as well.
I find the whole thing crazy, I cannot see how the power grid can handle the extra load and as has been said, you just move the problem somewhere else…
The other main issue is the infrastructure! How are we going to charge these cars?
Its reasonable if you live in a house with a drive, but what if you live in a terraced house with no designated parking space? You may have to park up the road or another street, not by your house.
How about flats with communal parking, multi storey car parks?
For this to work there would have to be a massive investment in infrastructure to put charging locations outside every house, in every car park etc. etc… then, who pays for the electricity?
We will have to have some kind of card system or credit cards to charge it too. What if you are a foreign drive or driving abroad? etc… there are so many implications the more you think…
I have to say that the Hydrogen fuel cell looks more promising as time goes on… You can use existing petrol stations and switch them over, allowing car to fill up in the conventional sense, ie: arrive at the garage and drive out 10 mins later with all the range you are used to (or similar) all the charging issues go away.
Its my favourite at the moment.
And… we only have 23 years!
Just thinking on from my post above.. this weekend one of my neighbours had a party, about 20+ cars arrived, all of which would need charging and take up all (if available) charging locations used by residents, I can see people fighting over the available charge point!
Also, things like festivals, with non permanent venues, all these cars parked in fields, many needing charging for the return trip… how?
As I say, the more you think about it the bigger the problem becomes.
Until buses, lorries, trains and planes become clean the removal of petrol/diesel cars is like putting a sticking plaster on a shark bite. Buses are by far the worst polluters; the other vehicles go into towns and cities and park up or deliver then leave, two journeys. the bus keeps going all day polluting the towns/cities : http://toyotadimalang.com
A little good news for the petrol heads, the government is only stopping the sale of new IC cars in 2040, second hand they will be still available, or even buy abroad and import.
Totally agree with Andy Denton & Geoff Batemans’ comments. I have also commented before that electric cars are only as clean as the power plants that produce the electricity in the first place. This is not removing the problem, merely moving it further up the chain – albeit out of urban areas.
When is this or any government going to start some joined up thinking on our current & future power requirements.
Source : http://www.toyotatangerang.co