Europe Plans To Ban Petrol Cars From Cities By 2050 695
thecarchik writes "Can you imagine a future — thirty-nine years from now — where there are no engines humming, no exhaust smells, no car sounds of any kind in the city except the presumably Jetsons-like beeping of EVs? The European Commission can, and it has a transportation proposal aiming to do just that by 2050. Paris was the first city to suggest a ban on gas guzzlers in their city core, but this ban takes it to whole different level by planning to phase out all petrol cars completely from the city streets. While Paris was motivated by reduced pollution, the EU has broader aims of reduced foreign oil dependence, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, increased jobs within the EU, and improved infrastructure for future economic growth."
To expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
If we are truly at peak oil petrol will probably be too expensive by then to use in the average vehicle by then anyway.
Re:To expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Who ever said regulations had to be rational?
Wouldn't it just be better to keep tightening the emissions requirements on new cars until only electric cars qualify?
If everyone were forced to drive 100mpg cars or cars with near-zero CO2 output, wouldn't the result effectively be the same -- but without having to resort to a "ban"?
That way, people don't have to buy new cars immediately and we don't end up with landfills full of perfectly functional cars.
Re:To expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Works for lightbulbs. Dispite the popular ramblings of the internet, neither the EU nor US have actually banned incandescent bulbs - they just set efficiency standards high enough that no incandescent can achieve them.
Just because you don't use the word "ban", doesn't mean it's not really a ban.
LK
Re:To expensive (Score:4, Informative)
Come on man (Score:3)
Really? Are you picturing some Snidely Whiplash type lightbulb baron, sitting in his leather chair in the CFL Bulb, Inc. boardroom, smoking an El Presidente as he celebrates the completion of his master plan to get rid of his competition through an "energy efficiency law." He cackles maniacally as the money starts pouring through the vents...
Or maybe your bit about patents is full of shit. A quick look on the CFL wiki article shows that the patent on the very common spiral CFL bulb expired already. This isn
Re:Come on man (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is really better lighting, why do people need to be pushed towards it? Won't they adopt it as they become convinced that it is better? Further, how do you know it is better for all situations?
This basically comes down to some people thinking they know what is best for other people and using the power of government to force those people to behave according to their wishes. What happens when people who think they know what's best decide to force you to do something you don't want to do?
Re: (Score:3)
No one banned incandescents, they've increased the efficiency requirements for non-specialized applications. There are incandescents that actually hit that efficiency mark even. CFLs just happen to be a better technology both in terms of operating efficiency and longevity for the large majority of applications. This regulation simply helped bring a generally superior technology into a position where it could reach economies of scale and thus consumer uptake.
Your world view lacks a key element that ensure
Re: (Score:3)
In your world, Who Mines the Dilithium?
Robots and my enemies.
Re:To expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
it isn't the use of the bulbs that has been banned. it is the manufacture and sale of them that has been banned
Re:To expensive (Score:4, Funny)
Too bad, my shaving mirror depends on the heat of a traditional lightbulb to function (keep fog away).
It's a conspiracy by ZOG to make everyone grow beards like the Taliban. Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> Google lightbulbs and mercury and see that the result comes at a (possible unacceptably high) price though.
After following my own advice I come to the (certainly not expertly derived) conclusion that the benefits far outweight the drawbacks..It'll probably turn out very similiar for the electric vs. petrol fueled cars...
Re: (Score:3)
They are sold, in bulk, and if not properly disposed-of (most won't be), that mercury gets into the soil around landfills, possibly into the water supply, where it joins all those pharmaceuticals (and god knows what else) that were irresponsibly dumped down the drain/toilet.
Re:To expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
Per OSHA, and EPA regulations a broken CFL requires a hazmat team to properly clean up after it.
Recycling CFL's doubles their cost. Not recycling them guarantee's that the mercury will end up in your water table. CFL's can't be dimmed intelligently or fully. Dimming an incandescent to 75% of the output doubles the life, but halves the life of CFL's
CFL's are just stupid. LED's while harder to manufacture will be a far better replacement.
Re: (Score:3)
1) LED's are not harder to manufacture. They're actually on a par with CFLs for ease.
2) The reason the regs "require" a hazmat team is that there's a lot of things that "need" one per those regs- they've set the bar so low that saying this is silly.
3) Until LEDs got cheap enough and high enough performance (just about last year, if you're being honest with yourself...) CFLs were actually lower risk than the pollution (Mercury, Cadmium, etc...) that came from the coal fired plants needed to power the old an
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. But if you want to avoid Mercury, you only need to spend 3 or so times the price and get the first generation of LED units that'll outlast the CFLs (in a ratio that's similarly priced to the CFLs you'd buy for the application in question) that're instant on, dimmable in many cases, and has the same phosphor issues, but no mercury whatsoever.
Having said this, the mercury in the CFL, while a real and serious problem, is actually less than the Mercury and Cadmium we put into the environment to power t
Re: (Score:3)
It's how they're doing it in Germany.
Since a few years ago, all vehicles were classified as either "red", "yellow" or "green", according to their emissions.
Nowadays, if you want to go into a city, you have to have a sticker on your wind shield, and on the city limits there are signs telling you which classes are allowed.
At start, all vehicle classes were allowed, but the plan is to gradually restrict it until only green vehicles are allowed into the city limits (most cities are currently at yellow).
I suspec
Re:To expensive (Score:5, Interesting)
The hilarious thing about Germany is, thanks to the Greens being in government for ages and the constant propganda spewing from Greenpeace et al., the German public are stongly against nuclear power. They're even shutting down their existing nuclear plants. How they expect to meet the huge increase in electricity demand on the grid that electric cars will cause without nuclear is beyond me; they're already getting 80% of their energy from... coal and gas. With no nuclear, they can throw vast amount of money at wind/solar and I predict they will still be spewing tons of crap out into the environment because of... coal and gas power stations.
Re: (Score:3)
Man, you couldn't be more right.
Unfortunately the anti-nuclear lobby is milking the Fukushima problems for all they're worth, and it seems to be working quite well for them.
Oh well, another chance for China, Brazil and the other more practical nations to catch up.
Re: (Score:3)
That way, people don't have to buy new cars immediately and we don't end up with landfills full of perfectly functional cars.
39 years isn't exactly immediately.
Re: (Score:3)
Clean energy is *NOT* a free market issue, or even a regulated market issue. It is one of the greatest issues of our time, and it requires complete social support--as we defend our homelands from intruders--as we protect our liberty and freedom--we ought protect our lifesupport, our environmet.
There is a point where waiting for people to do the right thing on their own is not safe or wise.
Re:To expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
Clean energy is *NOT* a free market issue, or even a regulated market issue. It is one of the greatest issues of our time, and it requires complete social support--as we defend our homelands from intruders--as we protect our liberty and freedom--we ought protect our lifesupport, our environmet.
There is a point where waiting for people to do the right thing on their own is not safe or wise.
So says the guy using an coal powered machine to make the rest of us feel guilty about the car we drive.
Re: (Score:3)
With biofuels, I'm thinking more of diesel from algae than ethanol from corn. The Southwestern USA has all the desolate land it needs to put up huge tubes of algae cocktail to catch massive sunlight.
By 2050? (Score:5, Interesting)
39 years away is a LONG time. Many politicians will have a chance to overturn this during that time.
Or if you're an optimist, perhaps the free market will have beat them to the punch by then. Or you might point out that there already is a modern city without petrol cars. [wikipedia.org]
Venice (Score:5, Funny)
I am pretty sure Venice should be counted as "modern" and it is not just "petrol car" free but totally car free :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Amusing, but not surprising. The government of the UAE knows that the oil won't last forever. Right now they are rich almost beyond human comprehension, but it won't last. So they are using that oil money while they have it to try to kick-start other economic sectors with lavish projects, hopeing to become a future financial hub, tourist destination and resort for those of great wealth who seek privacy.
This is also why they don't (usually) enforce their strict Islamic law o
Re:By 2050? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With regard to the last article you cite, if religious laws left on the books but rarely enforced make a society un-modern, then Europe is still medieval, since blasphemy is still a crime in certain jurisdictions there.
By that logic you would rate the USA the same because Argentina and Canada have blasphemy laws.
Of course only Muslim countries have a death sentence for blasphemy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure which "certain jurisdictions" you refer to, but assuming those countries participate in the European Convention on Human Rights, any such remants are void anyhow.
Note that though blasphemy per se is legal, that doesn't mean it's use is always; e.g. incitement to violence can be a crime and might contain blasphemy.
More money for public transport I hope? (Score:3)
Because some countries (the UK) will probably just be one huge city by 2050.
UK already rejected (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK, don't you mean the current tory government?
I liked this in the summary "no exhaust smells", sounds so much more cuddly than "breathing in carbon monoxide" and whatever else they spew into the city atmosphere.
In Soviet Russia (Score:3)
The Soviets had so much success with their five-year plans.
We're going to try and better them with our 40-year plans!
Re:In Soviet Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
In your fantasy they were.
The first five year plan, 1928-1933, was the collectivization of agriculture in order to promote a headlong rush to industrialization. It ended in a famine in which millions starved.
The twelfth plan, 1986-1990, was intended to accelerate economic development, which was lagging disastrously after the second through eleventh plans. It ended in an economic crisis so profound and pervasive that it led to the failure of the Soviet system and a breakup of the Soviet Union.
In between, there was mostly persecution, misery, national alcoholism, a sense of hopelessness, and periods of vast premature loss of life. If that is you definition of successful, then yes, the plans were were successful.
Re:In Soviet Russia (Score:4, Funny)
"...mostly persecution, misery, national alcoholism, a sense of hopelessness, and periods of vast premature loss of life."
Welcome to Scotland!
Re: (Score:3)
When they came to power, Communists said that they will bring electricity to every corner of the country in ten years. Considering the size of Russia, and backwardness of most regions, no-one believed that to be humanely possible. Until they actually did it - with what would later morph into Five-Year Plans [wikipedia.org].
But never mind that, let's look at the other plans. Do you remember why Soviet Union could stand up to Germany in WW2? It's because it had such well-developed heavy industry that, even after the disastro
UK govt blocked it. (Score:5, Informative)
The UK government has already said they don't like the plan. From the BBC UK rejects EU call for city centre ban on petrol cars [bbc.co.uk]:
It's certainly an interesting idea. And it seems, using the example of London's congestion charge, that it wouldn't be a bad thing. I certainly encourage more people to use public transport, and ride bikes.
And for the Yanks who will complain they live in the suburbs, maybe lobby your local government for better public transport? And stop complaining, this is an article from Europe.
Re:UK govt blocked it. (Score:4, Insightful)
"We will not be banning cars from city centres anymore than we will be having rectangular bananas,"
Another politician outed himself as a retard who doesn't have any real arguments, so he resorts to stupid rants.
Just another stupid Eurosceptic (Score:3)
"We will not be banning cars from city centres anymore than we will be having rectangular bananas,"
Another politician outed himself as a retard who doesn't have any real arguments, so he resorts to stupid rants.
A lot of Tories are against the EU, his rant is snide dig at supposed EU regulations. Unfortunately the regulation on "straight bananas" wasn't quite what the Eurosceptics thought it was - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6481969.stm [bbc.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as someone who generally likes and supports cars and road transport in general; I'd be pretty damn AMAZED if by 2050 there is still a significant number of cars powered by petroleum left to ban, regardless of any targets (and yes, I do consider that to be a good thing).
You might as well 'ban' broadband connections of less than 512kbps by 2050. This is just some politician making themselves look and feel important by legislating something that's going to happen anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Western Europe is crowded, fragmented (Score:2, Interesting)
and too far in the north.
In other words, a rather bad place to live and do agriculture.
But then this permanent disadvantage has become our strength.
We have to do things right, because we don't have the space for "badlands".
We have to do things efficient, because we don't have resources to waste.
And while cultural diversity makes trade difficult, it also serves as a constant reminder that there is more than one way to do it.
In the long run the economy flourishes when it has to overcome challenges.
European ca
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What are you talking about?
Even though Europe is quite far in the north, its climate is perfect for agriculture thanks to the Gulf Stream.
It is actually one of the most agriculturally privileged regions in the world, which is one of the reasons for its important role in the development of civilization and culture (if you don't have to worry too much about having enough to eat you can spend your time on making life easier and more enjoyable in other ways).
Good idea (Score:2)
The EU area controls about 16% of the total world economy. That may sound small, but when an area like that takes a considered and coordinated stance like the one in the OP, and (knowing EU) is prepared to put significant legislative effort behind the decision, it would have a significant impact. 16% of the world market is too much to ignore, even discounting the manufacturers actually living in the EU area (for you foreign barbarians, about 500 million people lives here).
A decision like this would cause gr
Outraged! (Score:5, Funny)
Fake Environmentalism (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot of this going on in Europe and to a lesser extent, N. America. Make a commitment, but put it so far off into the future that you can take credit for being "green" or visionary without having to actually do anything or make any hard choices. If the technology works out, you get to take credit for it. If the technology fails, then it's some other person who gets to repeal the law, but you'll be long gone by then.
Good stewardship of our natural resources is a good thing, but the problem with environmentalism is it has become a movement which can do no wrong and knows no self-criticism. Any inconvenience or failure is either a misunderstanding (stupid people), or poor implementation (the people are too stupid to to it right, so we have to make it simpler). So the EU will go on mandating Ethanol-based fuel additives which deplete the rain forests, energy-saving lightbulbs, which contain mercury and need to be properly disposed of, etc.
Re:Fake Environmentalism (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's the real story on this: Actually solving the environmental problems we collectively have is really expensive and inconvenient. But thanks to a lot of hard work by a lot of environmentalists, the masses generally believe that the environmental problems like climate change exist and should be fixed, but at the same time don't want to pay for fixing them. What's happened over the last decade or so is that the PR and business types have figured out that it's far cheaper to pretend you're doing something about it than it is to actually do something about it. The public wants environmentalism at little-to-no personal cost, so what these folks are doing is pretending to give them just that.
I'll give you a good example of this: thanks to the efforts of a lot of farmers and hippies going back since the 1970's, organic produce has developed a reputation (deservedly or not) for being tastier, more environmentally friendly, healthier, and better for small farmers. However, you could really only get the stuff at farmer's markets or food coops. So what the big agribusinesses did was went to the USDA, got words like "organic" and "free-range" defined for marketing purposes, put together farms that technically met that definition but were nothing like what the hippies were doing, and started selling the stuff in grocery stores as if it were the same thing (and in some cases, lying about that too, and just slapping the"organic" label on non-organic produce).
Except the UK (Score:3)
Except the UK said "No", basically.
But then, that's nothing new. Anyone who thinks that the UK is part of the EU in anything other than writing probably should visit here sometime.
Why is that hard to imagine? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, how is it a stretch to imagine a future where the primary source of energy is not derived from burning dead dinosaurs and plants?
Dont get me wrong, I love my Jeep! It is a hobby for me, but I certainly do not expect it will be my primary mode of transport in 20+ year. At least I hope to god we would have progressed a bit faster than that.
The move off fossil fuels is just like anything else that's hard; if you don't start at some point, you will never get there.
Is it that hard to do? (Score:3)
The Real Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Real Problem (Score:4, Interesting)
The internal combustion engine was and for the near future still is the most economically viable, everyday practical and most lightweight means of generating motive power for cars and motorcycles.
That may change within the next 20 years or so, in fact I personally hope it changes withing the next 5 or 10, so we can use what oil we have left for things we have yet to develop alternatives for.
Electric power is close, but it's still not quite there for everyday usage. For a lot of people it's perfectly fine and the percentage will grow larger as battery tech and electric drivetrains are developed further. But for some things, motorcycles in particular, electric power is simply too heavy and too cumbersome to "refuel". For now.
Re: (Score:3)
And for Diesel? (Score:3)
Now, if they were to instead ban cars with internal combustion engines, that would be a huge shift.
Good! (Score:3)
Laws like this are the only way to force car manufacturers to truly innovate with new technologies.
Can canada follow please??? (Score:3)
Would be nice to have Canada follow in their footsteps
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
here in holland petrol is significantly more expensive then germany/belgium, enough that people in border areas fuel up abroad.
and all that money doesnt even go into roads and such, like it should, most of the road network is very much low capacity, and we are only just starting to build extra roads
damn politicians
Also, i wouldnt care about having an electric car for the daily drives and such as long as the infrastructure is up to scratch (long enough range + near instant "refueling"), but hobby-wise, they
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Luxembourg, some gas stations have queues every damned weekend from non locals filling up. While I have a gas guzzler (~9l/100km to 7.5l/100km... it's a 11 year old car by now, which I bought new back in the day. It suits my needs and I see no reason replacing it with something new, even if it would be more economical... Breaking even would take years), I would applaud if they matched gas prices in neighbouring countries.
As a matter of fact, this is one of the places where the EU should step in an
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, someone from Luxembourg calling someone from another European country a tax dodger? I hate to break this to you but that defies certain stereotypes the rest of us have about Luxembourgers...
Re: (Score:3)
[...] and all that money doesnt even go into roads and such, like it should, most of the road network is very much low capacity, and we are only just starting to build extra roads [...]
Road network is low capacity??? In the Netherlands???
You have your facts wrong. The main problem is that the Dutch are in the EU's top-3 of the people who commute the most. The roads are fine, but the Dutch travel too far to work!
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3085647.stm [bbc.co.uk]
On topic again: a plan to ban something in 39 years is of course ridiculous. A whole new generation of politicians will have taken over by then, and assuming that we have the same system, they will make their own plans to impres
Far more to it than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus we have a double insulation against fuel cost uncertainty; there is capacity for the Government to reduce taxation in a fuel price shock to maintain economic stability, and we use less of it anyway and so are less exposed. The policy has succeeded; Europe doesn't have exurbs with collapsed property values, and we have a much smaller park of uneconomic passenger trucks which represent a future drain on the US economy.
Re: (Score:2)
In forty years, the world will be almost entirely identical to this one. In 1960, the world expected flying cars and jetpacks and bases on the moon and mars by 2000 and other than the internet, the world of 2000 was pretty much the world of 1960. The world of 2050 is going to pretty much be the world of 2011.
Re:Typical Euro politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, 2000 is pretty much 1960.
With microwave ovens. ...etc
And teflon kitchenware.
And mobile phones
And digital cameras
And the world wide web
And slashdot
With commonly distributed measles vaccine
And mass-produced insulin
And VCR's & DVR's
And The Pill (approved in 1960)
And barcodes
With some understanding of genetics & proteomics
Having found Cosmic microwave background radiation (aka confirming the big bang)
Really, 2000 is pretty much 1960 indeed!
I bet the changes in 40 years will be similarly... unimpressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right. We don't have flying cars or jetpacks. But in other areas, the world has changed a lot -more- than anyone imagined.
Probably the biggest thing since 1960 is the rise of computers and networks. Today, the average person uses computers and networks all the fucking time, and it was basically not even on the radar in 1960. Infact a modern cellphone kicks the shit out of a StarTrek "communicator", and StarTrek started in 1966. (and portrays a future much more than 50 years out.)
And we may not have fly
Re: (Score:3)
The USA has invested so little in public transit since the 1960s, that the average american doesn't see it. In fact, the existing infrastructure back then (street cars, rail) has mostly crumbled and gone to shit. The only public transit to have expanded are buses.
But what is so new about ferries? They existed a long time before the 60s.
Re: (Score:3)
We already do tax petrol very heavily [petrolprices.com].
Re:Typical Euro politics (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to admit, I'm struggling to understand what exactly defies physics about banning petrol cars or even economics for that matter with the growing costs of oil and the decreasing volumes of it available on the planet.
"Europe should spend money on basic research, experimenting with new ideas and taxing petrol if different forms of transportation are desired."
Yeah, it does all that too.
Re: (Score:2)
So I think this kind of "bans" or
Re:Typical Euro politics (Score:5, Insightful)
It's entirely possible to ban petrol cars from cities.
Thousands of towns and cities in Europe have car-free areas in their centre, sometimes just a couple of streets, sometimes the whole city centre. A few charge cars to drive in/near the centre. Some ban highly-polluting vehicles (LEZs, e.g. for Greater London).
Euro politics ignoring realities (Score:2)
Given that the oil peak has probably already passed us by, and given the brilliant level of foresight, planning and innovation we're putting into reducing our energy usage, I'm predicting that I'll be using my legs as my primary mode of transportation. If I'm lucky it might be some horse's legs.
Mind you, it's a bloody long way from Cape Town to Paris on foot...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Euro politics ignoring realities (Score:4, Interesting)
True. And you can extend the reach, speed and comfort of a bicycle by help of a small electric engine-and-battery. Because bicycles are amazingly energy-effective. On level ground, a bicycle needs aproximately 40 wh (or 0.04Kwh) of energy for each mile traveled.
A modern lithium-ion battery holds 300-600wh/litre, thus a 3-litre battery weighing around 10kg, holds sufficient energy to propel bike and rider over aproximately 35 miles. If you use the battery merely as "support", doing most of the pedaling yourself, but letting it help out with the trickier parts, that range gets even better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are short and narrow sighted. Europe doesn't make a decision like this just because of what they expect to change, but because of what they expect to have. By 2050 a lot of projects concerning green energy will have bore fruit and it won't be the same concern as it is today. You're only seeing 2050, while stuck in 2011, try to put it all together and form the big picture of 2050.
Re: (Score:3)
If petrol's going to get (more) heavily taxed - or banned altogether - that's a good incentive to make your next car one that doesn't use petrol. You may even find you prefer them.
You got 39 years to decide; no rush.
Re: (Score:3)
1. this is bigger issue than you.
2. what country do you live in? I've lived in Frankfurt and Stockholm and the public transport is extremely useful and almost always on time.
3. the EU is socialistic and if you don't like it, move to America where you don't have any social programs/systems ... that way you can drive everywhere you go ... even to the mailbox to receive your daily mail.
Re: (Score:2)
In Finland we're working towards the impossible when price of gas consists of 100% tax. It's at about 70% at the moment if I remember correctly + VAT, which is 23%. We pay about 6.5€/Gallon or 1.6€/liter. I guess that is a
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Typical Euro politics (Score:4, Insightful)
. I do it because it's less not fun than taking public transportation.
Well, then we'll change that, one way or the other.
So either you make it so that I don't have to go to work that far away or you shut the fuck up about how I get there.
Fine, I'll pick option 1, and I'll do it by making it impossible for people to commute that far. Then the free market will sort it out - companies will move to where there are people living, or affordable housing will be built closer to where there is work, or whatever.
And no, getting another job somewhere else is not an option. Changing my profession is not an option. Sacrificing what little comfort in life I have for your stupid ideas is NOT a FUCKING OPTION!
Pfft. Typical whiney driver. If you're actually so close to the poverty line that you can't afford the taxes, maybe you'd be better off on welfare. Otherwise, quit your bitching.
People should stop expecting everyone else to bend over backwards for their nutcase ideas.
Exactly backwards; you're making the world worse for everyone else for the sake of your own personal comfort.
What you are doing now is telling the nigger-slave to work harder or else he gets the whip.
Actually it's very much like telling the overseer to stop using slave labour. If you look at what slaveowners were writing you'll find very similar complaints to your own - "I can't afford machines or paid labour. Changing the way I farm is not an option, changing professions is not an option. Either make it so I don't have to harvest or shut the fuck up about how I do it."
Re: (Score:3)
This here is really just about petrol cars and their emissions. Emissions which have effects that provably accumulate a lot of varied damage all over society. The health costs alone are quite insane, but not the only cost.
It is damage which so far peop
Re: (Score:3)
And no, getting another job somewhere else is not an option. Changing my profession is not an option. Sacrificing what little comfort in life I have for your stupid ideas is NOT a FUCKING OPTION!
Not to be a troll, but why are ideas that conflict with yours "stupid?" I'd say many, many things are changeable options in your life you just don't have the will or means to overcome the obstacles. I think way up top I saw a good analysis of the situation. Come 2050 gas will be so expensive that you will be BEGGING your government to solve your problems for you. "Get me to work! Changing my job is not an option! Changing where I live is not an option! CHANGING POLITICIANS that don't give me what I NEED now
Re:That all makes sense for SUVs . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's easier to replace 2 coal power plants than 100k privately owned cars.
Replace them with what? Solar and wind don't cut it now. They certainly won't stand a chance once all of our cars are added to the grid. That leaves unicorn farts and pixie dust, both of which are in extremely short supply.
Re:That all makes sense for SUVs . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do all these electric cars get their power from? It's okay to pollute wherever the power plants are built, just as long as it's not in the city limits, eh?
If people insist on polluting, then having the pollution in one place, away from large numbers of people, where it can be more easily managed (reduced), sounds good to me.
I wish the West End, City and East End of London would be pedestrianised.
Re: (Score:3)
smoking is being phased out... it's a dying habit
Re:That all makes sense for SUVs . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
"Pedestrianised" - where will the bikes and buses go then? Walking is not a replacement for either of these, for distances over a mile.
I mean to change [almost] all the white roads on this map [google.co.uk]: restrict them to pedestrian and cyclists (and similarly for the City and the East End). Or, just change them so there are no through routes for car-sized vehicles, i.e. by blocking roads with bollards wide enough to let a bicycle pass (but I think signs and a little enforcement should be sufficient).
It would be a much nicer place to be at all times of the day.
Re:That all makes sense for SUVs . . . (Score:4, Informative)
It's normal for these areas to be open to delivery vehicles at a specific time (e.g. at night, before 9, whatever).
Westminster already has a policy [westminster.gov.uk] for HGV loading times. Traffic congestion in London encourages deliveries at night at the moment anyway.
This really isn't anything new: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_zone [wikipedia.org]
London is one of very few cities I've been in (as a resident or visitor) without a significant car-free area, relative to its size.
Re: (Score:3)
"Moving it farther away from me on any day that it's raining or snowing would just plain suck. "
Are you made of sugar or do you just hate coats?
Re:That all makes sense for SUVs . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Where do all these electric cars get their power from? It's okay to pollute wherever the power plants are built, just as long as it's not in the city limits, eh?
It isn't China or the States. There is MUCH more green and nuclear energy in the Europe.
Re:That all makes sense for SUVs . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Where do all these electric cars get their power from? It's okay to pollute wherever the power plants are built, just as long as it's not in the city limits, eh?
Why do the power plants need to be polluting? This proposal does come from the continent that leads the way on alternative energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear power.
Re:That all makes sense for SUVs . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a lot easier to control the pollution at one large power plant than tens of millions of tiny ones.
Additionally, electricity acts as an abstraction layer. If there were a breakthrough in fusion generation, the EV fleet wouldn't have to change, in fact nothing would have to change, merely by putting the new fusion station on the grid, the entire fleet becomes a lot less polluting.
Re:That all makes sense for SUVs . . . (Score:4, Informative)
It's the old "you're just shifting emissions from tailpipe to powerplant" myth:
In the EU today:
France 85% from Nuclear
UK 25% from Nuclear/Renewables/Hydro
Germany 25% Nuclear and renewable combined
Austria 70% renewable
For the future the EU has a target of 20% renewable energy by 2020, and something like 80% or 90% by 2050. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_European_Union [wikipedia.org]
This describes EVs running on the UK's current electricity generation mix in comparison with small, fuel efficient petrol cars:
"If we look only at the three smallest categories of conventional car, average exhaust pipe emissions from new cars in 2009 were about 130g CO2/km. Emissions from producing the fuel (extracting and refining the oil) typically adds another 10% to 18% on top, bringing the total for new small cars in 2009 to 145155g CO2/km. Based on these figures, electric cars currently emit about a third less carbon on average than small conventional cars."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/electric-vision/electricity-supply-fossil-fuels [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
The safest and most effective way to deal with nuclear waste in storage pools is to not have huge quantities of it to begin with - burn [wikipedia.org] it! [nationalcenter.org] if it's so hot that it has to be cooled, it's hot enough to use as fuel. IFRs and other 'burner' technologies can reduce the waste's quantity by a factor of 100 and storage requirements by thousands of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Forced abortions? Forced vasectomy for all men? (Maybe forced castration, that would probably also reduce the number of wars, and definitely reduce the number of rapes.)Or maybe just don't provide government support to anyone with a child, enabling only the rich to reproduce, and producing more property "crime" as the poor have to steal to support their families.
Consider all the other option, Voluntary [vhemt.org] measures.
Personally, I think simply raising the living standard of everyone will be far better. Demonstr
Re:The real problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)