UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Just_a_fan]

What will people do when oil becomes too scarce (and thus expensive) to waste moving personal metal boxes around on the road? I.e. what are the alternatives to the use of fossil fuels for personal transport?

At some point, that question will have to be answered. Maybe that might for the next generation but I'm guessing it'll need to be answered sooner than that. Why? Because there are 7+ billion humans on this rock and they mostly aspire to the profligate lifestyle of the west (as typified by the lifestyles enjoyed by the US, beamed in to their homes by the TV). Can 7+ billion people (it'll be 10 billion within perhaps 30 years (i.e. one generation)) all have cars that run on fossil fuel? Got to say the answer is "no". So what are we going to do?

Maybe, the answer is "we'll scrap personal transport" or "we'll do what we evolved to do: walk" or "we'll fight increasingly nasty wars" or "we'll come up with a clever way of motivating personal transport that doesn't require the burning of fossil fuels in the device itself".

If the last answer is the one we go for, why not try to develop it now? Why not try things now?

Or do we just shrug our shoulders and say "I don't care, I want my gas guzzler today and I don't care about tomorrow".

[AJI]

...Or do we just shrug our shoulders and say "I don't care, I want my gas guzzler today and I don't care about tomorrow".

It's more like:
"Absolutely I care about the environment! Let's go for a nice drive to the country this weekend."

[Brake Horse Power]

Just-a-fan i agree with you. There is a problem fossil fuels run out. Also there are quite clear indications of climate change. So why not act now? Why wait? The technology is there, so lets go! Happy to see the car industry starting to make steps, Hyundai is actually most ambitious, which is cool to see. A lot of different industries, if not all, here in the Netherlands are working on reducing their footprint. I think it is needed, if you just look at the scale of our emissions it is just incredibly huge. It makes me sometime ashamed to use my car for a short ride. If I look to our country, the climate targets, and the mega energy consumption we have I can only conclude: There is a mega task ahead, and it is exciting to see how things develop over time. Electricity consumption will go sky high with the electric cars coming up. Also the new houses don't have a gas connection. We need to build thousands of windturbines to supply enough power for the houses, but also for (hydrogen) electric transportation. The whole distribution needs to be re-thinked. Mammoth task but very exciting

[AJI]

...If I look to our country, the climate targets, and the mega energy consumption we have I can only conclude: There is a mega task ahead…
...Electricity consumption will go sky high with the electric cars coming up. Also the new houses don't have a gas connection. We need to build thousands of windturbines to supply enough power for the houses, but also for (hydrogen) electric transportation. The whole distribution needs to be re-thinked. Mammoth task but very exciting

Mammoth and expensive! All of this can be achieved, but only if the world economy is stable. We're just a GFC away from chucking every climate change target in the bin. Add to that some kind of global conflict and we'll have a perfect example of how amazingly fast the human race can react when it has to, albeit in the opposite direction...

[Brake Horse Power]

Yes it costs money, but it is inavoidable. If your country only has a small term vision for future investments because a financial crisis will come I guess you are doomed. You know the next crisis is coming, probably within 2.5 years now, and the next one will follow after someday. You can see it as a risk or as an oppertunity for the government to invest and to keep the economy going. And it costs money in first instance but hey, its all long term investments, it will pay out some day.

Oh yes don't underestimate the costs like health care because of air pollution. Economical damage due to climate change. Not to speak of environmental refugees from for example Africa. How long will they have water? Please think 50~100 years ahead. Not 2,5...

[Big Tea]

Yes it costs money, but it is inavoidable. If your country only has a small term vision for future investments because a financial crisis will come I guess you are doomed. You know the next crisis is coming, probably within 2.5 years now, and the next one will follow after someday. You can see it as a risk or as an oppertunity for the government to invest and to keep the economy going. And it costs money in first instance but hey, its all long term investments, it will pay out some day.

Oh yes don't underestimate the costs like health care because of air pollution. Economical damage due to climate change. Not to speak of environmental refugees from for example Africa. How long will they have water? Please think 50~100 years ahead. Not 2,5...

Its all cyclic guys. Every 'new' generation finds a hook to hang on and tubthump. From suffrage to unions communism CND ------- today it is global warming and air, when those that are kids today get into gear it will have passed on to contaminating space or what ever.

Once it moves from 6 word headline grabs and bandwagons , the real work will begin. What happens the next few years will be showboating and not really relevant. I see the next step as genuine arcologys designed and built from the ground up (and down), but this is 50 years down the line.

Also BHP, I can not follow how ones side claims rise in sea levels and the other water shortage? (edit, not on to you, just kidding )

[Tommy Cookers]

re. the hydrogen fuelled electric train ......

why isn't it battery powered ? - the train is much better suited to battery power than is the car
answer - because commerce won't accept economically inefficient equipment (but Joe Public can be forced to)
doesn't this show how economically inefficient the EV car is ?

and 40 years ago someone pointed out that combustion of hydrogen produces some oxides other than dihydrogen oxide


re. the purported oil shortage
we're now swimming in gas and there's 500 years worth of methane hydrate on the ocean bed

btw Vivergo is now closing its ethanol-from-wheat plant as the law raising to 10% the bio content of car fuel hasn't happened

[AJI]

...You can see it as a risk or as an oppertunity for the government to invest and to keep the economy going....

I admire your romantic ideals, but idealism is the first thing to be binned in any crisis. Short term damage control is generally the first course of action, for everyone.

...Oh yes don't underestimate the costs like health care because of air pollution. Economical damage due to climate change. Not to speak of environmental refugees from for example Africa. How long will they have water? Please think 50~100 years ahead. Not 2,5...

Why don't you just say, 'can't you please think of the children!' Fact is, I do.
The world has always been in turmoil and it always will be, because of humanity. That's not about to change...

Honestly, I'm not against your ideology, it all sounds quite reasonable, but there is a much simpler singular solution to the problems you have outlined...

[strad]

From NASDAQ

Oil is one of the earth's most valuable non-renewable resources, and these types of resources are named so because they are-well, non-renewable. Although there is plenty of organic matter that could potentially become oil over the next few million years, it is likely that humans will one day see the end of black gold as we know it.

So just how much oil do we have left? For decades, oil production has been steadily increasing, and energy experts have been attempting to calculate when we might run out. Those that have been following along will note that, despite the warnings of many would-be Nostradamuses, production is still on the rise and previous dead-end predictions have been pushed back.

The difficulty with estimating the amount of oil available for human use comes from varying definitions about how we should calculate our potential reserves. For example, one of the most-cited estimates comes from BP's BP prediction made on World Energy Day in 2014; based on reserve estimates of 1,687.9 billion barrels, BP claimed the earth has enough oil left for about 53 more years at current production levels.

However, BP's estimate relies heavily on "proved reserves." This is a method of calculating how much drillable oil that we know of is under the ground. Every country calculates their proved reserves differently, but the figure is typically a representation of the amount of oil that companies think they can bring up using existing technology while still turning a profit.

Previous predictions that would have had oil reserves completely tapped by now were wrong because both production and proved reserves increased consistently. To clarify, the amount of oil that actually exists on the planet is significantly larger than the amount of oil that we currently think we can drill. Therefore, we may have significantly more than 53 years of oil remaining if drilling technologies can improve to the point that recovering the more difficult to reach oil becomes economically feasible
One need only to look at the advent of fracking and the increase in shale oil production to realize just how much these methods can change in a relatively short period of time.

Another thing to consider is that we are still discovering massive deposits of oil that were otherwise not known of. Just this week, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that it discovered the biggest deposit of untapped oil in the United States. Located in the Wolfcamp shale formation in Texas, the new oil field has an estimated average of 20 billion barrels of oil.

To put that in perspective, the Prudhoe Bay formation in Alaska-the largest producing oil field in North America to date-has only produced roughly 12 billion barrels of oil in the past 43 years. The East Texas Field, which is the biggest producing oil field in the lower 48 states, has produced just over 7 billion barrels of oil since the 1930s.

[Big Tea]

There is also a question mark over if oil is actually a non renewable.

I looked at several locations in relation to this, but I do not feel that I can post a link to any, but do think maybe some do have a point. if you have spare time, well worth looking up

[Brake Horse Power]

...You can see it as a risk or as an oppertunity for the government to invest and to keep the economy going....

I admire your romantic ideals, but idealism is the first thing to be binned in any crisis. Short term damage control is generally the first course of action, for everyone.

...Oh yes don't underestimate the costs like health care because of air pollution. Economical damage due to climate change. Not to speak of environmental refugees from for example Africa. How long will they have water? Please think 50~100 years ahead. Not 2,5...

Why don't you just say, 'can't you please think of the children!' Fact is, I do.
The world has always been in turmoil and it always will be, because of humanity. That's not about to change...

Honestly, I'm not against your ideology, it all sounds quite reasonable, but there is a much simpler singular solution to the problems you have outlined...

I am very much curious about this solution, mainly because what I personally see is that everything can only work with multiple solutions.

You are of course right that under economical pressure these kind of processes are questioned. I think from a state regulated view most will continue. More a delay would be caused by consumers or companies who don't invest in it due to financial headwinds. Some companies wouldn't have a choice due to stricter laws, others will.

I read the conclusion of DNV GL's energy prediction look ahead report. What they basically said is large investments will need to be done in the next 10~15 years or so. Once everything is there global energy prices will drop 40%! So I guess the sooner a country develops this, the sooner they benefit. The sooner their competition position will increase compared to other countries. Only this could be making an arms race, not the actual climate itself?

[Just_a_fan]

One benefit for many countries of moving away from fossil fuels to renewables, is security of supply. Major oil reserves are generally found under countries of questionable political / religious motives. Having to be nice to said countries in order to get your oil fix makes it impossible to put pressure on them to be "nicer" to their own people, neighbouring countries etc.

Of course, the other benefit of weening yourself off oil is that you don't have to invade oil-rich countries and implement "regime change" to keep your fix going.

Win-win, it seems.

[djones]

I can't help think what will happen is places like China (who don't care about the planet) will just turn into the ones needing the oil. All of a sudden they will be in wars 'helping' people and crushing 'terrorists' etc.

[Big Tea]

I can't help think what will happen is places like China (who don't care about the planet) will just turn into the ones needing the oil. All of a sudden they will be in wars 'helping' people and crushing 'terrorists' etc.

Unless politically motivated people and governments will always go for the lowest cost option.
At the moment its oil/gas, but if it becomes electricity that is what will be used.

Example. telephone. In most developing countries you hardly see a telephone or line or pole, the jump was made directly to cellphones. Often charged by panels or even hand.

[Greg Locock]

You do realise that we are burning MORE fossil fuels worldwide than ever before, don't you? this is not the latest data but the 2018 report is much the same.