2035 ban on petrol/diesel cars and the implications to boating?

"Assassin" ....

Diesel in fact has been found to contribute extremely high particulate matter into the air - causing respiratory problems greater than other fuel forms.

In terms of transition - its not like the change from Leaded to Unleaded .... this is a change of huge proportions..... for the road user.

Do not forget that Power Stations ... many industrial facilities have massive fuel requirements - so the fuels will still be available for foreseeable future.

When I talk to my clients - well known international oil and energy company's - their answer is basically ... not in our life-time !
 
Various points need considering :

1. How to service the increased Electrical requirements of society ?
2. Will it need further evolution of batterys to be able to supply the number of batterys required ?
3. Will this lead to further 'child and slave' labour in the mining areas to supply the battery industry ?
4. Can raw material mining be made environmentally acceptable and with due regard to health of miners ?
5. Can old batterys be disposed of safely and with regard to environment ?
6. Can old batterys be broken down to recycle back into the supply stream ?

At present we already see ridiculous setups to service electric cars .....

Remote charging stations being powered by big diesel generators hidden behind the 'hedge / screen' .....

Its one hell of an undertaking !
 
Electric cars produce a great deal less emissions through their complete life cycle
The study below compares BEVs withsimilar IC cars and assumes similar usage and lifetime, and a USA style electric power generation system - which still uses coal and oil. Operate a BEV in the UK the emissions are even less as we have more and more renewable energy. Also life times of BEVs is potentially between 2 and 5 times longer than an IC car as the electric motors don't wear out and the brakes last massively longer as they rarely get used, and despite the rumours the batteries are getting better and lasting longer and longer.
Gasoline vs Electric—Who Wins on Lifetime Global Warming Emissions? We Found Out

As for rare materials, lithium is not at all rare - its the 33rd most common element.
neodynium is very rare and used in magnets - however BEVs can use electric motors that do not have magnets in them. Tesla Model S uses an induction motor (hence the company name after the inventor of the induction motor), that contains, copper, aluminium, iron and steel. The next generation of BMW electric motors will not have magnets in them either. Cobalt is used in batteries at the moment but the % is reducing all the time. Battery development has far from stalled. There hasn't been a super fast charging battery yet but there have been a lot of incremental changes to increase efficiency and reduce resources used to make them. Why do you think they are getting cheaperand more energy dense.

As for using rare materials, the biggest consumer of Cobalt by far is the petrol chemical industry, who use cobalt as a catalyst to get sulphur out of diesel and petrol. The catalyst gets consumed eventually and ends up in the petrol, where it gets burned and blown out the exhaust- lost forever. At least in a battery it can be re-used and/or recovered and used again.

If the auto industry thought electric cars were no better overall don't you think they would have pointed it out? Making cars is not exactly a cottage industry.

Sorry, but the IC cars days are numbered, lorries will go electric too, and despite rumours about having enough electricity in the national grid, the power companies are paying attention too.
China is addressing its energy pollution issues, its also building the belt and road network to reduce shipping and use trains instead for huge distances. However the USA - teh worst polluter per capita - under don-don is doing nothing.
 
What a refreshing change ………..A subject without reference to ' Breakit ' ………………..!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1/ Just to turn this argument on it's head ……..What is going to make up the shortfall in 'Tax dollars ' that flow into the govt's pot from the huge tax levied on petrol ,diesel and gas …...to be squandered partly on a scheme enabling you to get from London to Leeds a tad quicker than at present ...That by the time it's in operation will be regarded as ' outdated and fossil technology ' by the ROW !!! Business needs it ? ….ffs use IT i.e. conference calls !!!

2/ I can remember Gov'ts inducement to convert to diesel cars as diesel was £ 1.50 a GALLON and A LOT cheaper than petrol ………….Everyone flocked and adopted diesel engine technology …………...And before you knew it DIESEL was DEARER THAN PETROL !!!!!!!!!!!!!! AGAIN IT'S A TAX DOLLAR THINGY ….

3/ Just a thought ' I we banned or phased out everything that man/ woman has invented since time began ' THAT WAS BAD FOR GOOD OLD URF 'and revert back to ' Cave dwelling and going out to pummel prey with a club ( already incepted in most inner cities !! ) ' Would the benefit be that the world will last 500 million years instead of 495 million years ' Thinkin ahead like , for the benefit of our childrens, childrens, childrens, childrens,childrens, childrens, childrens,childrens,childrens.childrens. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc 's SAKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4/ What will the FU's policy be on Lecky cars in the future and will we benefit by allegedly being able to tell ourselves what to do !!! Or perhaps goods lorries will be able to cross to France via diesel ...then have the engine whipped out and a Lecky one fitted to complete the journey supplying bratwurst to Germany !!!!!!!!!

5/ Wish I had a ' Wind farm' in my back yard today as would be able to store enuff 'lecky ' for my fleet of 5 ' Gas guzzling , emission spewing vehicles ' :):)
 
What puzzles me as an aging dinosaur with average intelligence, why is not more development put into the capture of co2? I understand that a facility could be built that would extract co2 from the air and convert it into a fuel to power transport and power plants. Technology exists that converts the co2 into a carbon neutral fuel that is compatible with all petrol fueled vehicles, airliners, ships etc and filling stations so no changes required to the infrastructure. I am guessing that using this “fuel” won’t reduce co2 levels but would certainly stabilise emissions until the next stage in the science.
I just guess I am too simplistic!
 
moresparks said:
What puzzles me as an aging dinosaur with average intelligence, why is not more development put into the capture of co2? I understand that a facility could be built that would extract co2 from the air and convert it into a fuel to power transport and power plants. Technology exists that converts the co2 into a carbon neutral fuel that is compatible with all petrol fueled vehicles, airliners, ships etc and filling stations so no changes required to the infrastructure. I am guessing that using this “fuel” won’t reduce co2 levels but would certainly stabilise emissions until the next stage in the science.
I just guess I am too simplistic!
Click to expand...

Grow more trees ................... it won't cure the problem ... but it helps.
 
moresparks said:
What puzzles me as an aging dinosaur with average intelligence, why is not more development put into the capture of co2? I understand that a facility could be built that would extract co2 from the air and convert it into a fuel to power transport and power plants. Technology exists that converts the co2 into a carbon neutral fuel that is compatible with all petrol fueled vehicles, airliners, ships etc and filling stations so no changes required to the infrastructure. I am guessing that using this “fuel” won’t reduce co2 levels but would certainly stabilise emissions until the next stage in the science.
I just guess I am too simplistic!
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what is happening now. CO2 was captured in trees, buried in
Refueler said:
Grow more trees ................... it won't cure the problem ... but it helps.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t help much. Covering the little available land we have in trees does not capture much CO2. To reverse the situation we are now in is not easy at all. The trees that were burnt as coal since industrialisation and turned into CO2 represents huge amounts of timber. To put that back in the ground requires growing trees not just once, but burying each 80 years of growth in top of each layer repeatedly for 100m years, then covering it in rock a mile deep to seal up the job. After a thousand years you might notice the effect. We need a better solution. It’s here already. Electric cars, wind turbines, solar panels, insulation, cheap batteries and nuclear.
 
oldgit said:
r have emmissions kit fitted,
Click to expand...

There is no emission kit for any pre euro 3 engine.

Neither is there anything effective to turn EU5 into 6.

EU4 onwards is common rail & electronics. If it could have been made to work without the cost, it would have happened at that time. I cant see anything available to help with the last gen of mechanical injection engines, never mind those of the 80s and 90s that are still common afloat. Yet in limited number to cover the costs of development.

sadly I think motorboating is going to be very different in the not too distant future.
 
There is an awful lot mis informed (and dis-informed) comment on the subject generally. Whilst all here make valid observations and comment, the “full” picture has not yet been mentioned. I’ll try a brief summary. About 60% of crude oil is fuels, the rest is used for plastics, detergents, synthetic fibres, pharmaceuticals, electronics and a plethora of lubricants and obscure chemicals that essentially do extremely important jobs in the production or makeup almost EVERYTHING used in the modern world that isn’t an animal or plant derivative. Think about that for a moment, without oil, there would be NO plastic, no industrial processes to create all things we need to maintain production of electronics, metals, household appliances, even our actual boats themselves! Take fossil fuels out of the equation and two enormous questions arise, 1 if we continue to use the non fuel part of crude for all the good stuff (still a polluting and dirty activity) then financial viability of an activity dictates that prices of everything will have to rise massively to offset the losses to oil companies, creating global runaway inflation of the price of EVERYTHING. Almost nothing inThe modern world has not been either produced or moved without fossil fuels at some point.
2. What the hell do we do with the billions of gallons of unusable fuels? I don’t think dumping it in the ocean or burying it on land is going to go down very well.
Yes we need cleaner air and less pollution generally, but as other posters have alluded to in this thread, if the exploration and extraction of oil stops because it is no longer a financially viable activity, due to over zealous legislation, then we will truly be back in the dark ages
 
Ban is on new cars and vans, commercial vehicles are excluded. It won't happen anyway, as there will not be enough electricity to go round! Artificial photosynthesis on an industrial scale answers all our current 'problems'.
 
Last edited:
Refueler said:
"Assassin" ....

Diesel in fact has been found to contribute extremely high particulate matter into the air - causing respiratory problems greater than other fuel forms.

In terms of transition - its not like the change from Leaded to Unleaded .... this is a change of huge proportions..... for the road user.

Do not forget that Power Stations ... many industrial facilities have massive fuel requirements - so the fuels will still be available for foreseeable future.

When I talk to my clients - well known international oil and energy company's - their answer is basically ... not in our life-time !
Click to expand...
The particles issue really only applies to engines of outdated design, which sadly includes the vast majority of trucks, container ships, cruise ships and tanker ships. These , though small in number in comparison to the number of cars on the roads are the actual culprits of this type of pollution. My own car is a deisel (2016) modern design, with particulate filter system, much cleaner. I have a 4.5 litre 7.5 ton truck and a 2.4 liter Transit van, which do think is the cleaner running? Actually, it's the Truck! Newer tech in the engine and exhaust system makes it extremely clean, and less than half the cost in VED. Our boats though, are generally not as advanced and the incentive for manufacturers to add it is just not there as competition dictates that it must go faster and faster. Whether or not this type of 'clean' tech can be retrospectively fitted to your boat is another matter., though I believe it is entirely possible. Ultimately water is a tough thing to push stuff through, so you need lots of power. If we can settle for a slower pace and less power, then we can use smaller, cleaner engines. Whats wrong with trolling along at 5 - 10 knots? Not as exciting, but it does save many gallons on even a short trip.
 
kashurst said:
Electric cars produce a great deal less emissions through their complete life cycle
The study below compares BEVs withsimilar IC cars and assumes similar usage and lifetime, and a USA style electric power generation system - which still uses coal and oil. Operate a BEV in the UK the emissions are even less as we have more and more renewable energy. Also life times of BEVs is potentially between 2 and 5 times longer than an IC car as the electric motors don't wear out and the brakes last massively longer as they rarely get used, and despite the rumours the batteries are getting better and lasting longer and longer.
Gasoline vs Electric—Who Wins on Lifetime Global Warming Emissions? We Found Out

As for rare materials, lithium is not at all rare - its the 33rd most common element.
neodynium is very rare and used in magnets - however BEVs can use electric motors that do not have magnets in them. Tesla Model S uses an induction motor (hence the company name after the inventor of the induction motor), that contains, copper, aluminium, iron and steel. The next generation of BMW electric motors will not have magnets in them either. Cobalt is used in batteries at the moment but the % is reducing all the time. Battery development has far from stalled. There hasn't been a super fast charging battery yet but there have been a lot of incremental changes to increase efficiency and reduce resources used to make them. Why do you think they are getting cheaperand more energy dense.

As for using rare materials, the biggest consumer of Cobalt by far is the petrol chemical industry, who use cobalt as a catalyst to get sulphur out of diesel and petrol. The catalyst gets consumed eventually and ends up in the petrol, where it gets burned and blown out the exhaust- lost forever. At least in a battery it can be re-used and/or recovered and used again.

If the auto industry thought electric cars were no better overall don't you think they would have pointed it out? Making cars is not exactly a cottage industry.

Sorry, but the IC cars days are numbered, lorries will go electric too, and despite rumours about having enough electricity in the national grid, the power companies are paying attention too.
China is addressing its energy pollution issues, its also building the belt and road network to reduce shipping and use trains instead for huge distances. However the USA - teh worst polluter per capita - under don-don is doing nothing.
Click to expand...
Many valid points and observations, but the reality is simply that the pollution and emissions are simply pushed to the extremes of the life cycle and system, e.g. Mining raw materials and power production to charge.
 
moresparks said:
What puzzles me as an aging dinosaur with average intelligence, why is not more development put into the capture of co2? I understand that a facility could be built that would extract co2 from the air and convert it into a fuel to power transport and power plants. Technology exists that converts the co2 into a carbon neutral fuel that is compatible with all petrol fueled vehicles, airliners, ships etc and filling stations so no changes required to the infrastructure. I am guessing that using this “fuel” won’t reduce co2 levels but would certainly stabilise emissions until the next stage in the science.
I just guess I am too simplistic!
Click to expand...
Back in about 1860 ish a man called William Armstrong (Invented hydraulic cranes,big guns, built ships etc) made a very prescient speech about coal and efficiencies. He and his associates had calculated that the UK would start running out of easily accessable coal in the 1960s. He predicted that technologies would advance and alternative energy sources - including renewables, would come available and coal and steam would be eventually superceded. He was pretty much correct and sure enough steam engines largely got replaced by IC engines, coal largely got replaced by oil. All that will happen next is some IC/oil driven engines will be replaced by batteries, some will be replaced by hydrogen fuel cells, a few things will still run on diesel - a few things will run on batteries but still have an onbaord diesel/petrol IC engine as back up. Someone has made machines to convert CO2 into fuels - great, its still very emergent, hopefully they will succeed commercially. In the mean time burn less oil and coal, plant trees.

There doesn't have to be an overall dominant technology, we can easily use all of them- just use them appropriately.
Also humans will never stop using electricity, so what ever vehicles we buy in future more and more will be PHEVs or full on BEVs and in that technology base there are solutions for everyone already.
 
Last edited:
I've always been under the delusion, woo woo alarm and all , that electric vehicles is just the sweetner for the rather more unpalatable objective of no private vehicle ownership at all.

And it's doable. With the march of technology I've gone from 30k business miles p.a. plus 6 social to about 1k business and 1.5k social as business practise adopts more video conferencing and work from home policies and everything is bought in via internet. In fact the only real use I have for a car is to drive the 10 minutes to the boat with the family and half a ton of consumables they're inclined to bring. Superb. I can now live in the country and the suburban commute is well in the past. Things have changed so radically that my annual service is done every 2.5k miles and my car is now 14 years old and has virtually no miles on it.
Even if working practices largely changed then there might be an argument that carbon emissions may be significantly curtailed as to not warrant a complete migration to electric
 
Assassin said:
Countering this is very easy Mike, the plain facts are that at the present time large cargo ships import a lot of goods ranging from food to consumer goods and they are consuming an average of 60 tonnes of heavy oil per day and if the Government wants commerce to continue then they simply cannot do away with these large ships;
Click to expand...
Who's talking about shipping which is of course essential to economic growth? We are talking about non essential pleasure boating which has a far smaller effect on economic growth and not only that but pleasure boating takes place much closer to the coastline often in areas which have been designated delicate marine environments. We have already seen attempts to ban certain types of pleasure boating activities in certain areas both in the UK and the Med and it is only a matter of time before some of those attempts succeed in a world in which there is increasing awareness of emissions and environmental protection. All I'm saying is that the pleasure boat building industry better be working on methods of propulsion which use less fuel and spew out fewer emissions otherwise there wont be a pleasure boating industry in the future
 
kashurst said:
There doesn't have to be an overall dominant technology, we can easily use all of them- just use them appropriately.
Click to expand...

That's a good thought.
I hope using a boat entirely as a leisure activity is included in the definition of ''appropriately''.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top