"Come 2032, not all cars will be ultra-low emission, but Scotland hopes that the majority will either be powered purely by electricity or have a hybrid option."
Does any manufacturer make 'simple' EVs? I mean that as in fewer computers. My current car is about 18 years old and besides the ECU there's not that much going on. No touchscreen controls, no telemetry. I hope that one day I'd be able to switch to an EV but I'm disappointed by most of them (and yes I understand I'm a minority in disliking smart everything)
You're not as alone as the media might lead you to think. There is a lot of hype and marketing going on with EVs to get people to adopt this change in technology that is consumer funded.
I agree with you, there are too many nice-to-have features in cars that add to the [unnecessary] complexity of these vehicles. Late 90 cars started with this, adding air-bag suspension and corner-leveling systems and it has since grown into automatic windscreen wipers when it rains, automatic lights when it gets dark (like you aren't sitting there looking out the big window), touch screens and gadgets. Some things are useful, for example electric mirrors, others not so much for example 5 different memory positions for the driver's seat where before you just pulled the lever under the seat to move it forward or back. IN case you think this is not a problem it can cause problems with other critical electronic components: I had a dealership's workshop turn off my electric seats in the BCU (BCU = body control unit, the PC of the car) and this meant that because the ABS is linked through the seat, something to do with collisions and the seat moving, the ABS warning light came on leading to a MOT/EU-control fail. I had to buy a code-reader machine to turn it back on myself. On models of this car without electric seats this is not a problem. So many other things I could mention like this example. Simplicity, as I a m sure HN coders and the like will agree, is best.
The real push for electric cars is coming from China, the world’s largest. They are requiring 8% of cars next year need to be electric or plugin hybrid. They want to get that to 20% by 2025.
Oh man that will be glorious, I can't wait for future trips to Beijing without getting respiratory sickness. So far I'm like 7 for 7 on getting sick in Beijing.
All the "plans to do stuff by 2050" are completely useless. The one who did the plan will not be in charge till that date, someone else will take over and change/destroy the plan (or worse, add +20 years), and in politics this is simply the way to go.
This is procastination at his finest and means "doing nothing now".
I see the point, but this doesn't necessarily mean its an empty gesture as there is a precedent. Back in 2005 the Scottish government aimed for 18% of electricity consumed to be generated by renewable sources by 2020 (later adjusted to 50%). This was met and exceeded in 2015 (59%). Granted this is a smaller timeline but there is real backing for renewables here, especially since the collapse of oil prices hit the local oil industry
If you introduce a ban on petrol vehicles that starts immediately (or within the life of one parliament) people will bitch that that you've destroyed the value of the car they expected to drive for years, the world doesn't have enough EV production capacity, that the mechanics aren't set up for it, that there aren't enough charge stations, that there isn't enough electricity production capacity, etc etc.
I agree it's politically difficult to do this slowly - but it's even harder to do it quickly :)
The price of batteries is falling steadily. EV prices are falling as a result. By 2022 a new EV will cost less to buy than an equivalent ICE car. It would be foolish to get to that point and have people wanting to buy the cheaper option but not feel able to do so due to lack of charging points etc.
Of course, if you take into account the lowered fuel costs and maintenance, then the EV car becomes cheaper even earlier (though it depends on exactly how far you drive and the relative costs of electricity and gasoline) but figures like 2020 are mentioned for the TCO to be lower on a new EV.
Of course that figure doesn't take into account costs/benefits like reducing pollution in cities, health impacts, higher imports of fuel, meeting carbon obligations, balancing grid electricity and other externalities, which is why governments are currently subsidizing EVs to make them cheaper than ICEs (and should probably continue to do so, even after they are cheaper than equivalent ICE cars pre-subsidy, though it probably makes more economic sense to further raise gasoline prices and introduce a carbon tax).
I'm very much in favour of this, but the article alludes to one of the problems: the "long tail" of remote life.
The majority of the Scottish population lives in commuter range of Glasgow or Edinburgh. Here in Edinburgh we already have some hybrid buses so I can see a change to pure electric happening gradually as they become available. There's also no shortage of renewable energy to power the things.
But there are also some people who live remarkably remote lives in the Highlands and Islands. In the Highlands "range anxiety" is very real if your nearest large shop is 100 miles away. Whereas the islands may have limited generation capacity. I can see there being a range of exemptions for these circumstances, although once petrol cars start to become unusual the petrol pump prices will go up.
Islands are generally good for EVs, precisely because you can't drive that far. Orkney in particular has so much renewable energy that they're encouraging people to get EVs to soak up the excess because they have limited connectivity to export the excess back to the mainland:
One immediate consequence of transportation revolutions of the past is that some regions that were considered un-inhabitable before suddenly became viable possibilities. It stands to reason that if in the future the 'energy budget' per person gets reduced to the point where vehicles that can do 800 Km un-interrupted are extremely expensive that such locations will only be affordable to the rich with poorer folks condemned to living in or around the cities.
I wonder if the new pumped storage schemes announced for the Highlands (e.g. Coire Glas above Loch Lochy) will eventually be rendered obsolete by everyone charging their electric car overnight?
Sounds like you're assuming a ban on combustion engines is the only thing a government can do, but they have plenty of other options. They could offer tax incentives for EVs, for example, or fund research into EV technology.
Great to see the Scottish Government leading on renewable energy again. I was worried that adding over 30 million cars to the grid would cause problems but having looked into it it looks like it would add less than half a percentage point onto UK energy consumption at current utilisation rates.
I do wonder how it will affect the PCP market though as the future value of petrol and diesel cars will presumably become more difficult to predict?
I've heard that these future 'bans' on ICEs are actually just bans on pure ICEs and apparently vehicles with even just stop-start technology are classed as 'Micro-Hybrids' which would be allowed after these 2032, 2040 dates.
The article didn't say what the source of the energy powering those charging stations will be in 2032. Presumably much of it will still be carbon-based.
Nah, less than 30% of their electricity is carbon based today. They won't have any problem decarbonizing entirely over the next 15 years. They actually just shuttered their last coal plant in 2016, so I'm curious what last year's generation numbers looked like.
Scotland is something of a leader in renewable technologies. Mostly wind, although there have been various attempts to extract power from the tides and waves that have not yet been competitive.
A headline/goal is unlikely to come without practical, supporting actions which nudge people towards that goal. The headline is something though that spreads and is repeated frequently, getting more and more people thinking about their actions - collectively these things will get people to that goal.
Banning all FFs sounds like a worthy objective overall but it seems like bikeshedding to ban small ICEs yet trains, tractor trailers, farm and mining equipment, jet aircraft and industrial sources receive little regulation. Instead, the average person is taxed, penalized, inconvenienced and regulated for the tiny amount of pollution they produce in comparison to greater polluters.
> ...the tiny amount of pollution they produce in comparison to greater polluters
A quick google search found this article with numbers pulled from a 2012 US Energy Information Administration (eia.gov) report: https://www.c2es.org/energy/source/oil
Transportation is the main consumer of petroleum, accounting for 70% of usage, of which 58% is light vehicles alone - so that's 40% of total - that's still far higher than "industrial" use of 25%. Tack on medium/heavy trucks which I assume includes F-150 trucks and giant off-road dump-trucks alike and it's more than half of total petroleum consumption.
So no - eliminating fossil-fuels from personal transport alone, while leaving industry alone, will still have a huge beneficial impact on greenhouse gas production.
But you forget the halo and knock-on effects: as the market adapts to service non-petrol consumers (e.g. fast EV chargers, battery-swap stations, etc) then industries will adapt to take advantage of them too - it wouldn't surprise me this meant the introduction of an EV John Deere tractor powered the same hot-swappable EV battery pack that might power a hypothetical Ford truck.
Banning is easy. Right now the ban is irrational, the EV tech is in it's infancy and nowhere near ready for mass adoption, it needs to be on pair or better than the current solution otherwise it makes no sense to enforce it.
I recommend watching "Who Killed the Electric Car?" - it explains most of the history of EV cars in California. I disagree with its conclusion that battery technology was not to blame - I feel that range-anxiety is a real concern and the GM EV1's range of under 100 miles using bulk lead-acid or 140 miles using NiMH batteries was, and remains, inadequate. Compare to today's Telsa's S and X 250-300+ mile range.
[+] [-] djrogers|8 years ago|reply
"Come 2032, not all cars will be ultra-low emission, but Scotland hopes that the majority will either be powered purely by electricity or have a hybrid option."
Good goal, bad headline.
[+] [-] cag_ii|8 years ago|reply
If the goal as the article claims is to "phase out all petrol and diesel car sales", then obsolete seems about right.
[+] [-] andygates|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] therealidiot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kagamine|8 years ago|reply
I agree with you, there are too many nice-to-have features in cars that add to the [unnecessary] complexity of these vehicles. Late 90 cars started with this, adding air-bag suspension and corner-leveling systems and it has since grown into automatic windscreen wipers when it rains, automatic lights when it gets dark (like you aren't sitting there looking out the big window), touch screens and gadgets. Some things are useful, for example electric mirrors, others not so much for example 5 different memory positions for the driver's seat where before you just pulled the lever under the seat to move it forward or back. IN case you think this is not a problem it can cause problems with other critical electronic components: I had a dealership's workshop turn off my electric seats in the BCU (BCU = body control unit, the PC of the car) and this meant that because the ABS is linked through the seat, something to do with collisions and the seat moving, the ABS warning light came on leading to a MOT/EU-control fail. I had to buy a code-reader machine to turn it back on myself. On models of this car without electric seats this is not a problem. So many other things I could mention like this example. Simplicity, as I a m sure HN coders and the like will agree, is best.
[+] [-] louhike|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pamqzl|8 years ago|reply
Maybe not Tesla-level yet, but in five years I'd be surprised if most new cars weren't filled with screens in the place of traditional instruments.
[+] [-] melling|8 years ago|reply
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/renault-nissan-to-set-up-new...
[+] [-] sien|8 years ago|reply
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/06/china-will-delay-electr...
But this is far more significant than politicians legislating 'All bad things to end 10+ years away when many of us have retired'.
[+] [-] dmoy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yCloser|8 years ago|reply
This is procastination at his finest and means "doing nothing now".
[+] [-] smcl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelt|8 years ago|reply
I agree it's politically difficult to do this slowly - but it's even harder to do it quickly :)
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|8 years ago|reply
The price of batteries is falling steadily. EV prices are falling as a result. By 2022 a new EV will cost less to buy than an equivalent ICE car. It would be foolish to get to that point and have people wanting to buy the cheaper option but not feel able to do so due to lack of charging points etc.
Of course, if you take into account the lowered fuel costs and maintenance, then the EV car becomes cheaper even earlier (though it depends on exactly how far you drive and the relative costs of electricity and gasoline) but figures like 2020 are mentioned for the TCO to be lower on a new EV.
Of course that figure doesn't take into account costs/benefits like reducing pollution in cities, health impacts, higher imports of fuel, meeting carbon obligations, balancing grid electricity and other externalities, which is why governments are currently subsidizing EVs to make them cheaper than ICEs (and should probably continue to do so, even after they are cheaper than equivalent ICE cars pre-subsidy, though it probably makes more economic sense to further raise gasoline prices and introduce a carbon tax).
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
The majority of the Scottish population lives in commuter range of Glasgow or Edinburgh. Here in Edinburgh we already have some hybrid buses so I can see a change to pure electric happening gradually as they become available. There's also no shortage of renewable energy to power the things.
But there are also some people who live remarkably remote lives in the Highlands and Islands. In the Highlands "range anxiety" is very real if your nearest large shop is 100 miles away. Whereas the islands may have limited generation capacity. I can see there being a range of exemptions for these circumstances, although once petrol cars start to become unusual the petrol pump prices will go up.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|8 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rybpaqhg5Qg
[+] [-] jacquesm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arethuza|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gozur88|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iainmerrick|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StephenMelon|8 years ago|reply
I do wonder how it will affect the PCP market though as the future value of petrol and diesel cars will presumably become more difficult to predict?
[+] [-] edh649|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nmeofthestate|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afsina|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] merrua|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkingsbery|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeyouse|8 years ago|reply
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Business/TrendE...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment...
[+] [-] pjc50|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fish_fan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stretchwithme|8 years ago|reply
That's right. I'm setting this goal.
But then it's easy to set goals in the distant future when there are inevitable trends that will already make it happen.
[+] [-] prawn|8 years ago|reply
I don't think it's without value.
[+] [-] trapperkeeper74|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DaiPlusPlus|8 years ago|reply
A quick google search found this article with numbers pulled from a 2012 US Energy Information Administration (eia.gov) report: https://www.c2es.org/energy/source/oil
Transportation is the main consumer of petroleum, accounting for 70% of usage, of which 58% is light vehicles alone - so that's 40% of total - that's still far higher than "industrial" use of 25%. Tack on medium/heavy trucks which I assume includes F-150 trucks and giant off-road dump-trucks alike and it's more than half of total petroleum consumption.
So no - eliminating fossil-fuels from personal transport alone, while leaving industry alone, will still have a huge beneficial impact on greenhouse gas production.
But you forget the halo and knock-on effects: as the market adapts to service non-petrol consumers (e.g. fast EV chargers, battery-swap stations, etc) then industries will adapt to take advantage of them too - it wouldn't surprise me this meant the introduction of an EV John Deere tractor powered the same hot-swappable EV battery pack that might power a hypothetical Ford truck.
[+] [-] tobyhinloopen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ManlyBread|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|8 years ago|reply
IIRC CA had a similar target about electric cars for 2000ish and we all know how that worked out.
It's easy to dream big. That dirty thing called reality likes to get in the way. Being an early adopter is expensive.
[+] [-] DaiPlusPlus|8 years ago|reply
That - and the program was open to easy sabotage.