London pollution & ULEZ

Associate
Joined
30 Sep 2008
Posts
2,035
reducing polluting cars into cities will work.... of course it will. So IF it isn't having much of an effect then that can only mean one thing...... it does not go far enough.
Be careful what you wish for because if powers that be decide it's not good enough maybe polluting cars will be banned from London full stop, or maybe what qualifies as compliant will be tightened

IF it is slower traffic making ICE cars less efficient that is a problem everywhere because like it or not (I am unconvinced personally) more and more 20mph zones are being rolled out country wide in residential areas. Personally I would prefer more enforcement of 30 other than outside schools and perhaps places like elderly people homes because I believe most fatal accidents occurs by cars.initially travelling faster than 30, but that is just a gut feeling.
but like it or not it's happening.. . pollution wise not an issue however with EVs. the opposite in fact.

Speed cameras everywhere guess? In my town a lot of folks go 35/30 so maybe now they'll do 25/20 better than nothing I guess.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,533
Location
Surrey
reducing polluting cars into cities will work.... of course it will. So IF it isn't having much of an effect then that can only mean one thing...... it does not go far enough.
Be careful what you wish for because if powers that be decide it's not good enough maybe polluting cars will be banned from London full stop, or maybe what qualifies as compliant will be tightened
What qualifies as compliant is going to be "tightened" anyway because it's an easy source of tax. We will also see road charging in the near future for the same reason, but again under the guise of green issues (won't somebody save the children).
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
21,986
it does not go far enough ..
even if Khan/population can't follow the science - maybe a pareto analysis is required to see what are the most important contributors to Metropolitan childrens(&adults) health - diet , exercise ?
thought chemical inside the home and lack of ventilation was a player too
e: vaping - now if Khan bans that he gets my vote.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,315
it does not go far enough ..
even if Khan/population can't follow the science - maybe a pareto analysis is required to see what are the most important contributors to Metropolitan childrens(&adults) health - diet , exercise ?
thought chemical inside the home and lack of ventilation was a player too
e: vaping - now if Khan bans that he gets my vote.
The most polluting HGVs and PSVs have effectively been banned from London for years. The old LEZ started 2008 and cost £100+ a day…

P.S. Google searching ‘London old LEZ’ does not return the result one expected….
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,755
What qualifies as compliant is going to be "tightened" anyway because it's an easy source of tax. We will also see road charging in the near future for the same reason, but again under the guise of green issues (won't somebody save the children).
Well someone has to pay for road maintenance once fuel duty is irrelevant and since everyone despises general taxation... shadow taxes it is.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,533
Location
Surrey
Well someone has to pay for road maintenance once fuel duty is irrelevant and since everyone despises general taxation... shadow taxes it is.
Yep. Electric cars will be taxed soon, probably via road charging. But it wouldn't surprise me if there is a tax on their battery capacity in the name of the rare earth metals that have to be extracted for them.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,315
Well someone has to pay for road maintenance once fuel duty is irrelevant and since everyone despises general taxation... shadow taxes it is.
Most roads are maintained by councils funded by council tax, only national highways are funded from central government.

Fuel duty is just a revenue raising tax, it has no bearing whatsoever on how much or little is spend on road maintenance, the same applies to VED.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,315
Yep. Electric cars will be taxed soon, probably via road charging. But it wouldn't surprise me if there is a tax on their battery capacity in the name of the rare earth metals that have to be extracted for them.
There are no rare earth metals in lithium iron batteries used in fully electric cars….

There are rare earth metals in some electric motors but that’s nothing new.

They are also used in catalytic converters used in every single ICE vehicle on the road (unless it’s been nicked of course!). Rare earths are used in some NI-MH batteries used in hybrid ICE cars.

Can we please do some basic fact checking before smashing our keyboards…
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,533
Location
Surrey
There are no rare earth metals in lithium iron batteries used in fully electric cars….

There are rare earth metals in some electric motors but that’s nothing new.

They are also used in catalytic converters used in every single ICE vehicle on the road (unless it’s been nicked of course!). Rare earths are used in some NI-MH batteries used in hybrid ICE cars.

Can we please do some basic fact checking before smashing our keyboards…

Are you saying that lithium batteries don't require mining of lithium to create them?
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,315
Are you saying that lithium batteries don't require mining of lithium to create them?
No, you said they’ll be a tax on battery capacity because they have rare earth elements in them.

What I said is that lithium ion batteries don’t have rare earth elements in them.

For the avoidance of doubt, lithium is not a rare earth element.

Or the cobalt and graphite.

Neither is cobalt or graphite.

Cobalt is also used in fossil fuel production to remove sulphur, let’s not get on our high horse on that one.

You don’t even need to click into a a page from a basic google search on this, Google literally embeds a list of all the rare earth elements into the search results.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
14 Feb 2007
Posts
678
I was wondering to myself if a vehicle tax/ved based on weight would work. Light cars generally have small engines, large cars generally big engines. Smalls EV's would be cheap but big heavy SUV EV's expensive. You could have a depreciating scale as well so that the older a car gets the cheaper it becomes to encourage people to keep their cars for longer meaning less raw materials used.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,533
Location
Surrey
No, you said they’ll be a tax on battery capacity because they have rare earth elements in them.

What I said is that lithium ion batteries don’t have rare earth elements in them.

For the avoidance of doubt, lithium is not a rare earth element.
Couldn't care less whether Lithium is rare or not and that isn't the point. It needs mining and has a big environmental impact. It will also be used as an excuse to tax EV's in one shape or another.

Rarity is irrelevant.
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Aug 2010
Posts
3,516
Location
glasgow
The above mentioned elements are indeed rare, they do not ha e to be o. The periodic table of rare elements to be rare.

There is only a handful of places that lithium is extracted from in viable quantities and those locations aren't popular with the western market. So this makes it rare.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,315
Couldn't care less whether Lithium is rare or not and that isn't the point. It needs mining and has a big environmental impact. It will also be used as an excuse to tax EV's in one shape or another.

Rarity is irrelevant.
Of course it does, the point you were making was simply incorrect.

The infographic at the top of this page may help you with the scale of mining and why being concerned about lithium is a bit of a non issue compared to say iron ore which makes up the vast majority of a car.


To add further perspective, we also mine 4.4 billion metric tons of oil every year.

100k tones of lithium is literally a rounding error and it can be recycled and reused unlike oil.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 May 2006
Posts
6,893
No, you said they’ll be a tax on battery capacity because they have rare earth elements in them.

What I said is that lithium ion batteries don’t have rare earth elements in them.

For the avoidance of doubt, lithium is not a rare earth element.



Neither is cobalt or graphite.

Cobalt is also used in fossil fuel production to remove sulphur, let’s not get on our high horse on that one.

You don’t even need to click into a a page from a basic google search on this, Google literally embeds a list of all the rare earth elements into the search results.
indeed..... cobalt is being phased out in batteries now anyway.... but at least with cobalt in batteries it can be recycled and reused, unlike that used elsewhere.

hopefully lithium can also be replaced at least in some batteries........... (and it isnt just car batteries either, there are plenty of other batteries where lithium is used)
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
29,533
Location
Surrey
Of course it does, the point you were making was simply incorrect.

The infographic at the top of this page may help you with the scale of mining and why being concerned about lithium is a bit of a non issue compared to say iron ore which makes up the vast majority of a car.


To add further perspective, we also mine 4.4 billion metric tons of oil every year.

100k tones of lithium is literally a rounding error and it can be recycled and reused unlike oil.
No my main point was that EV's will be taxed in one way or another soon. Maybe they are worse for the environment or maybe they are better. I'm not an expert on that so perhaps that fact is wrong. But regardless, they will be taxed more highly soon, probably with the environment as the excuse, and that was what I was getting at
 
Back
Top Bottom