Gasoline, diesel and older hybrids may be banned in parts of East London during parts of work week

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Via GCC: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/01/20180128-len.html

The councils of the London boroughs of Hackney and Islington are consulting on a scheme which could see all but the cleanest vehicles banned from two zones in Shoreditch, an inner city district in East London. Gasoline, diesel and older hybrid vehicles would not be allowed to enter nine streets during the peak commuter periods of 7am-10am and 4pm-7pm Monday to Friday.

Ultra low emission vehicles such electric cars, e-bikes, the newest hybrids and hydrogen vehicles, as well as pedestrians and cyclists, would be allowed. ULEVs are vehicles that emit less than 75g/km CO2.

The streets around Shoreditch suffer from some of the worst air quality in London—ultra low emission streets will have reduced levels of air and noise pollution, make it easier and safer to walk and cycle and improve the character of the area for all residents and businesses. . .
.
 
Putting limits on CO2 emissions rather than pollution is one of the reasons London is currently one of the most polluted cities in the world. This confusion caused them to heavily promote diesel-powered vehicles over gasoline earlier this century. It seems they have not yet learned their lesson.
 
I could not find the proposal to read, so perhaps it is just the blog that is confused about CO2 rather than criteria pollutants.

To set the record straight, however, London is not smog city because of a focus on CO2. It is due to diesel cheating. All they have to do is ban diesels. I hope they do not throw out the baby (hybrids) with the bath water due to political expediency or some goose chase after money.
 
RegGuheert said:
Putting limits on CO2 emissions rather than pollution is one of the reasons London is currently one of the most polluted cities in the world. This confusion caused them to heavily promote diesel-powered vehicles over gasoline earlier this century. It seems they have not yet learned their lesson.

Don't forget to mention the pollution fraud by VW and others...
 
Latest diesel car models remain highly polluting, tests show:
The Guardian said:
The updated Equa Index, produced by the testing firm Emissions Analytics, shows that 86% of all diesel models put on to the British market since the 2015 Volkswagen emissions scandal failed to meet the official limit on the road, with 15% producing at least eight times more NOx emissions.
The simple fact remains: For over a decade, the UK pushed diesels to the exclusion of many much-lower-polluting options. They feigned ignorance of this fact while many observers commented on the insanity of pushing diesel-powered automobiles. It's the same type of confused thinking that makes them think that leveling and pelletizing forests in North Carolina, shipping them across the Atlantic (in diesel-powered ships, no less) and burning them in their largest electricity power plant is a good idea.
 
This seems to be like what they do in Mexico. Older cars are banned from driving during certain parts of the week, unless you're able to improve or eliminate the emissions, for an example: doing an EV conversion.

You can get better emissions in diesels. But it's more expensive to do so than in gasoline engines. But still, gasoline or diesel, prices will keep going up for the price of the car making companies impelled to cheat more if governments keep making tighter emissions requirements.

Diesel is not the problem. It's the way it's burned that's the problem. The 1920's Doble Steam cars ran on diesel and are said to get emissions that rival modern day Californian standards, and even got 15mpg despite weighing over 6,000lbs. But we are talking about a car that cost 10 times that of any other car on the road. Same thing today, they can make diesels and gasoline cars that get much better emissions than they are now. But the price is going to be several times what it costs now.

I say set the emissions standards super high and do extreme emissions testing on all vehicles and fine the living snot out of any company that doesn't comply with the standards. This should either make car companies find a way to get gasoline or diesel or whatever to meet the standards or a mas conversion to EV technology.
 
IssacZachary said:
This seems to be like what they do in Mexico. Older cars are banned from driving during certain parts of the week, unless you're able to improve or eliminate the emissions, for an example: doing an EV conversion.

You can get better emissions in diesels. But it's more expensive to do so than in gasoline engines. But still, gasoline or diesel, prices will keep going up for the price of the car making companies impelled to cheat more if governments keep making tighter emissions requirements.

Diesel is not the problem. It's the way it's burned that's the problem. The 1920's Doble Steam cars ran on diesel and are said to get emissions that rival modern day Californian standards, and even got 15mpg despite weighing over 6,000lbs. But we are talking about a car that cost 10 times that of any other car on the road. Same thing today, they can make diesels and gasoline cars that get much better emissions than they are now. But the price is going to be several times what it costs now.

I say set the emissions standards super high and do extreme emissions testing on all vehicles and fine the living snot out of any company that doesn't comply with the standards. This should either make car companies find a way to get gasoline or diesel or whatever to meet the standards or a mas conversion to EV technology.
We are already starting to see the beginnings of a mass conversion to EV technology, at least out here in Southern California. For some reason, Northern California, which is statistically more into saving the environment has been a lot slower to adapt to EVs compared to Southern California. Even Oregon is more on the EV bandwagon than Northern California, so much so that they are offering to pay for chargers (even solar powered ones) in Northern California just so that people from Oregon can drive their EV from Oregon to Southern California.
 
RegGuheert said:
Latest diesel car models remain highly polluting, tests show:
The Guardian said:
The updated Equa Index, produced by the testing firm Emissions Analytics, shows that 86% of all diesel models put on to the British market since the 2015 Volkswagen emissions scandal failed to meet the official limit on the road, with 15% producing at least eight times more NOx emissions.
The simple fact remains: For over a decade, the UK pushed diesels to the exclusion of many much-lower-polluting options. They feigned ignorance of this fact while many observers commented on the insanity of pushing diesel-powered automobiles. It's the same type of confused thinking that makes them think that leveling and pelletizing forests in North Carolina, shipping them across the Atlantic (in diesel-powered ships, no less) and burning them in their largest electricity power plant is a good idea.
The UK set CO2 tariffs and emissions limits.
The diesel manufacturers cheated to meet the emission limits.

Anything other reading is spin.
 
SageBrush said:
The UK set CO2 tariffs and emissions limits.
The diesel manufacturers cheated to meet the emission limits.
You fail realize this one little detail: Euro 5 emissions limits permit a diesel car to emit 3X as much NOx as a gasoline car. So even diesel vehicles which complied with the laws pollute more than gasoline cars. (And that wasn't even in place until 2011. Euro 4 standards before them were even higher with the ratio a bit more than 3X for diesel NOx.) And every diesel car is allowed to release 600 BILLION PARTICLES into the air every kilometer! Gasoline cars do not emit as much particulate matter. Again, the UK has been heavily subsidizing highly-polluting diesel vehicles over the lower-polluting gasoline alternatives to the point that the diesel sales overtook gasoline vehicle sales and the fleet of diesel cars grew from a 7.4% share to a 1/3 share in only nine years.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that subsidizing the highest-polluting option available will result in an increase in pollution.

London got the air quality that they paid for. All in the name of reducing the production of CO2, which is vital for all life on Earth.

Again, they have not learned their lesson, as they are trying to reduce pollution by putting a limit on CO2 emissions. If they want to ACTUALLY limit pollution, then they should put limits on pollution, not CO2.
 
RegGuheert said:
SageBrush said:
The UK set CO2 tariffs and emissions limits.
The diesel manufacturers cheated to meet the emission limits.
You fail realize this one little detail: Euro 5 emissions limits permit a diesel car to emit 3X as much NOx as a gasoline car.

I'm aware. You are failing to consider the air quality had the diesels met emissions regulations.
Paris has the same pollution story, by the way. And for years they argued over the reasons why their air pollution projections were so wrong.
 
cmwade77 said:
...
We are already starting to see the beginnings of a mass conversion to EV technology, at least out here in Southern California. For some reason, Northern California, which is statistically more into saving the environment has been a lot slower to adapt to EVs compared to Southern California. ...

It depends I guess on whether you consider the San Francisco bay area to be "northern California", and whether you're looking at straight registration numbers or per-capita. Normalized to comparable sales, the Bay Area leads by far, with rates of over 5% all the way up to 12% for Santa Clara county. LA and SD counties stand at 4%.

page 26: https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2017-10_CSE-SANDAG_EWG-handout.pdf
 
cmwade77 said:
IssacZachary said:
This seems to be like what they do in Mexico. Older cars are banned from driving during certain parts of the week, unless you're able to improve or eliminate the emissions, for an example: doing an EV conversion.

You can get better emissions in diesels. But it's more expensive to do so than in gasoline engines. But still, gasoline or diesel, prices will keep going up for the price of the car making companies impelled to cheat more if governments keep making tighter emissions requirements.

Diesel is not the problem. It's the way it's burned that's the problem. The 1920's Doble Steam cars ran on diesel and are said to get emissions that rival modern day Californian standards, and even got 15mpg despite weighing over 6,000lbs. But we are talking about a car that cost 10 times that of any other car on the road. Same thing today, they can make diesels and gasoline cars that get much better emissions than they are now. But the price is going to be several times what it costs now.

I say set the emissions standards super high and do extreme emissions testing on all vehicles and fine the living snot out of any company that doesn't comply with the standards. This should either make car companies find a way to get gasoline or diesel or whatever to meet the standards or a mas conversion to EV technology.
We are already starting to see the beginnings of a mass conversion to EV technology, at least out here in Southern California. For some reason, Northern California, which is statistically more into saving the environment has been a lot slower to adapt to EVs compared to Southern California. Even Oregon is more on the EV bandwagon than Northern California, so much so that they are offering to pay for chargers (even solar powered ones) in Northern California just so that people from Oregon can drive their EV from Oregon to Southern California.
I wish it were that way here. We have a pretty good tax credit on EV's from Colorado state and plans on the way for more charging infrastructure. But it just hasn't caught up yet and I'm finding myself having to go back to ICE technology and selling my EV. :cry:
 
Nubo said:
cmwade77 said:
...
We are already starting to see the beginnings of a mass conversion to EV technology, at least out here in Southern California. For some reason, Northern California, which is statistically more into saving the environment has been a lot slower to adapt to EVs compared to Southern California. ...

It depends I guess on whether you consider the San Francisco bay area to be "northern California", and whether you're looking at straight registration numbers or per-capita. Normalized to comparable sales, the Bay Area leads by far, with rates of over 5% all the way up to 12% for Santa Clara county. LA and SD counties stand at 4%.

page 26: https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2017-10_CSE-SANDAG_EWG-handout.pdf
Indeed. Also see:
ICCT analysis of California top EV cities finds link between EV uptake and many underlying factors
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=22554&p=469877&hilit=mountain+view#p469759

The cities with the highest uptake are in the Bay Area, with Saratoga #1 at 18%, and that's from over a year ago. From that thread:
Saratoga, actually, a higher income Silicon Valley suburb. Other cities that exceed San Jose are almost all high income Silicon Valley suburbs: Los Altos, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Fremont, Campbell, Mountain View etc. Per the chart, San Jose's down about 8%: http://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01bb09355f28970d-popup
Socal leads in total number of vehicles due to its much larger population, but not in percentage.
 
GRA said:
Nubo said:
cmwade77 said:
...
We are already starting to see the beginnings of a mass conversion to EV technology, at least out here in Southern California. For some reason, Northern California, which is statistically more into saving the environment has been a lot slower to adapt to EVs compared to Southern California. ...

It depends I guess on whether you consider the San Francisco bay area to be "northern California", and whether you're looking at straight registration numbers or per-capita. Normalized to comparable sales, the Bay Area leads by far, with rates of over 5% all the way up to 12% for Santa Clara county. LA and SD counties stand at 4%.

page 26: https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2017-10_CSE-SANDAG_EWG-handout.pdf
Indeed. Also see:
ICCT analysis of California top EV cities finds link between EV uptake and many underlying factors
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=22554&p=469877&hilit=mountain+view#p469759

The cities with the highest uptake are in the Bay Area, with Saratoga #1 at 18%, and that's from over a year ago. From that thread:
Saratoga, actually, a higher income Silicon Valley suburb. Other cities that exceed San Jose are almost all high income Silicon Valley suburbs: Los Altos, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Fremont, Campbell, Mountain View etc. Per the chart, San Jose's down about 8%: http://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01bb09355f28970d-popup
Socal leads in total number of vehicles due to its much larger population, but not in percentage.
From my vantage point, I am looking strictly at the number of public charging stations available, as there is usually a direct correlation between the number of available stations and the number of EVs on the roads.

Really Northern California, including the areas you mentioned have relatively few EV chargers. For example, it is impossible to make it from LA to San Francisco in a Leaf if the battery is even the least bit degraded.
 
cmwade77 said:
GRA said:
Nubo said:
It depends I guess on whether you consider the San Francisco bay area to be "northern California", and whether you're looking at straight registration numbers or per-capita. Normalized to comparable sales, the Bay Area leads by far, with rates of over 5% all the way up to 12% for Santa Clara county. LA and SD counties stand at 4%.

page 26: https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2017-10_CSE-SANDAG_EWG-handout.pdf
Indeed. Also see:
ICCT analysis of California top EV cities finds link between EV uptake and many underlying factors
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=22554&p=469877&hilit=mountain+view#p469759

The cities with the highest uptake are in the Bay Area, with Saratoga #1 at 18%, and that's from over a year ago. From that thread:
Saratoga, actually, a higher income Silicon Valley suburb. Other cities that exceed San Jose are almost all high income Silicon Valley suburbs: Los Altos, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Fremont, Campbell, Mountain View etc. Per the chart, San Jose's down about 8%: http://bioage.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef01bb09355f28970d-popup
Socal leads in total number of vehicles due to its much larger population, but not in percentage.
From my vantage point, I am looking strictly at the number of public charging stations available, as there is usually a direct correlation between the number of available stations and the number of EVs on the roads.

Really Northern California, including the areas you mentioned have relatively few EV chargers. For example, it is impossible to make it from LA to San Francisco in a Leaf if the battery is even the least bit degraded.
Uh, that works both ways, and mainly serves to show that a LEAF or any other sub-100 mile BEV is the wrong tool for the job. As to having relatively few EV chargers, while that's true along 5 and 101 between the two metro areas, it definitely isn't true for the Bay Area itself, especially per capita. From the same ICCT report already linked, page 9:
Figure 5 illustrates California cities electric vehicle uptake as compared with public
charging infrastructure per capita
, again highlighting the 30 cities with the highest
electric vehicle sales share. The U.S. and California averages are also shown in the figure
for additional context. As shown, 27 of the 30 cities have higher-than-U.S.-average
public charging, and 24 of those 30 have higher-than-California-average public charging
infrastructure. The 30 high-uptake California cities have, on average, 5 times the
charging infrastructure per capita than the U.S. average
, yet how extensive the cities’
public charging infrastructure is varies greatly. A few smaller cities in the top 30 have
little to no charging infrastructure, while seven cities have over 1,000 charge points per
million residents. Of note, Menlo Park has over 4,000 charge points per million residents
and 14% electric vehicle share and is not shown on the figure. The disparity in these
30 cities’ infrastructure availability largely dissipates when analyzed at the regional
metropolitan area level. For example, 12 of the cities are in the San Jose area, 12 are in
the San Francisco area, 5 are in the Los Angeles area, and 1 is in the Santa Cruz area—all
of which have high charging infrastructure per capita
(see Figure 2 above). The electric
vehicle market grows with its charging infrastructure.
As you can see, the Bay Area leads in both EV uptake and public charging per capita.
 
Back
Top