ICE's Banned

[out2kayak]

Interesting that Britain:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/25/britain-to-ban-sale-of-all-diesel-and-petrol-cars-and-vans-from-2040

France:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4670934/France-ban-sale-petrol-diesel-vehicles-2040.html

Germany (2030):
https://www.dezeen.com/2016/10/10/germany-ban-internal-combustion-engine-2030-bundesrat-support-electric-cars-design-technology/

Norway (2025):
http://fortune.com/2016/06/04/norway-banning-gas-cars-2025/

Holland (2025):
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/holland-wants-to-ban-gas-cars-by-2025-news-report/

California (2030):
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/08/california-air-resources-board-automakers/

Are all working to ban ICEs.

This is all due to the Paris Accord.

So... What do you think about driving either a nuclear or coal powered vehicle?

:cheers:

[out2kayak]

Before you mention Hydrogen as a fuel source, here is food for thought:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/12/difference-engine

Yep, they pollute more than the ICE.

Honda Clarity could travel 68 miles (109km) on a kilogram of hydrogen, it would cause 175 grams of carbon dioxide to be dumped into the atmosphere for every mile it was driven.

By way of comparison, Volkswagen’s small diesel cars produce 145 grams per mile. On that reckoning, even petrol-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius, which produces 167 grams per mile, are cleaner than the fuel-celled Clarity.

Before you mention wind and solar, realize that wind (and other similar technologies) require a significant amount of copper, which is not terribly environmentally sound to mine. As well, renewables do not scale particularly well.

Nuclear power is, at best, a long-term option but permits for new plants have been very scarce.

Thus, my assertion is that we will be running coal fired cars with a potential of nuclear if the EPA would allow it.

:cheers: