No way. Impossible to achieve.

There's no way we can meet our climate objectives without moving away from ICE vehicles. Fortunately for us it's a non-issue, there will be plenty of ICE cars available for petrolheads to drive for a good 20 or 30 years after that - always assuming we can afford to buy the petrol and withstand the social disapproval. It won't be long before driving a petrol car will be as socially non-u as smoking.

I'm taking up smoking then...again

While we're on the subject of climate objectives, I heard someone talking about this n Radio 4 earlier this week. I'd be interested in your take about on this article on the Rolls Royce consortium to build small nuclear plants Tim, as you are so knowledgeable about the industry. It's an idea my dad (an ax submariner) has been banging on about for years, arguing that the experience Rolls Royce have garnered in producing the power plants for nuclear subs mean that should be less surprises and cost overruns than, say, Hinkley style projects as the technology and experience already exists.

It’s all a smoke screen.

Cars actually contribute very little compared to Ships, lorries, planes and vans.

Some of these will always have to be run by ICE and they’re the main polluters

Soft touch easy target that we are.

Electric cars ARE NOT GREEN. false economy

How on earth are they going to move most of the world's cargo from one side of the world to the other to achieve zero emissions...lets not mention the shipping and aviation industry....I forgot of course their pollution (as yet) isn't counted. Governments are just picking on the easy targets without dealing IMHO with the fundamentals as to how world trade can continue without producing polluting emissions in either the growing, production/conversion process and distribution network.

At a more local level the Government proposed 13 small nuclear generators (Rolls Royce) as part of the energy solution should prove interesting when they come to put them in people's back yards. Electricity generation and battery production are very far from clean and green technology.
regards

CO2 production has to be dramatically reduced.

28% of CO2 production is due to transport. To say that cars only produce very little, is a bit like saying that it is OK to carry on shoplifting because they do not steal as much as on line fraudsters.

I think it's a flippin' brilliant idea. Large scale nukes like Hinckley are ruinously expensive and take far too long to get into service. Smaller projects are much easier to cost and manage, and production can be industrialised much more easily. I just hope RR can stay solvent long enough to get the idea working.

Solution - put one on the Isle of Wight to serve the south of England, one in Wales for the Midlands, one on the Isle of Man for the north and one in the Orkneys to service Scotland! 🤪🤪🤪🤪
Seriously though, before Hinckley got the go ahead I remember reading an article which stated that a number of small “off the shelf” nuclear power stations would be a much better and more cost effective solution than selling our energy requirements out to the Chinese at exorbitant cost and also with, at the time, unproven technology insofar as one of this design had not been done before. When Teresa May was elected PM the need to make a decision on Hinckley was at the top of her agenda and she put a hold on it pending a full consideration of all the options. I was encouraged by this stance and hopeful that maybe she would go for the “off the shelf” proven solution which would create and support many thousands of jobs in this country and not mortgage our future to the Chinese. It would also provide more resilience insofar as one could be taken off line for maintenance without disrupting the generation from the others. It seemed a much better and more pragmatic option to me, who I stress knows nothing other than what I read! However, here we are, a few years later, now talking about going down this route.