Cheap ride for EV users coming to an end ??

[Bellow]

It would remove any link between tax revenue and usage though ... you'd pay the same whether the car was doing 2,000 or 20,000 miles a year.

Which is why it's unlikely, isn't what is being proposed by government, and why my preceding paragraph dealt with the usage factor - and without the need for intrusive surveillance of our journeys.

Directly measuring electricity used (as is the case with petrol/diesel/LPG) seems not be a feature of EV recharging. Only charging restrictions for the benefit of the grid and the ability to draw from the vehicle's battery when deemed desirable are covered by the proposed legislation for 'smart' recharging sets.

 

[Bellow]

But the same applies to ICE cars, no? Larger fuel tank means more weight (when full), meaning poorer mpg and more fuel (energy) consumed per mile. And yet we don't tax private ICE cars by weight. At all. Not even gross or net weight. We simply tax the fuel, the more the car consumers, the more the driver pays.

If you want to retain any credibility do not compare that which weighs tens of kg with that weighing hundreds (and never lessens).

It seems to me that what this boils down to, is the EV lobby trying to tax ICE cars off the road, while the traditionalists retort by trying to tax EVs off the road.

It is neither. But to expect those who for whatever reason cannot have an EV to continue to pay directly for their CO2 emissions via fuel duty and VAT and pay a levy based on the vehicle's tendency to create CO2 via VED and in the absence of any tax on EVs subsidise them in the current economic climate is short-sighted in the extreme.

But there's no need for extra creativity in taxing EVs... the only issue is that at current we don't know how to tax electricity from home chargers, otherwise it would have been very easy to put EV taxations on-par with ICE cars.

It will be as I've suggested a combination of battery capacity and mileage covered or, the recording of every journey undertaken.

This may soon be resolved, though - my understanding is that new building regulations will require the installation of home chargers that are fed from a different supply (and meter) which will enable utilities companies to match taxation to that currently only possible on public chargers.

The pace of house building makes that a non-starter - even if true.

 

[del320]

...and, no doubt, easily circumvented with a pair of crocodile clips...

 

[BTB 500]

Regarding the capacity of the UK power network, I saw this news story today:

How the National Grid could pay you to draw power from your electric car

Operator would draw energy from vehicles overnight to ensure Britain's power supply always meets demand

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Deleted member 126251]

Regarding the capacity of the UK power network, I saw this news story today:

How the National Grid could pay you to draw power from your electric car

Operator would draw energy from vehicles overnight to ensure Britain's power supply always meets demand

www.telegraph.co.uk

So charge up at work (or any point where it is free) during the day and sell it back to the grid at night. Adding unescessary charging cycles and shortening the battery life.

 

[BTB 500]

So charge up at work (or any point where it is free) during the day and sell it back to the grid at night. Adding unescessary charging cycles and shortening the battery life.

Of course you'd also find yourself with less range if you needed to use the car shortly after it had been partially discharged back into the grid.

As an aside, the 'export' rate (back into the grid) is pretty low, certainly from solar panels. On our feed-in tariff we get paid 3.95 pence per kWh ... so exporting 314.5 kWh over the last quarter earned us £12.42 In comparison we get paid 56 pence per kWh generated (despite the fact that we consume around half of that ourselves), which came to £352!

 

[markjay]

I never quite understood the whole Vehicle-to-Load (aka V2L) concept.

It sounds to me just like filling-up in one petrol station and then delivering half the tank to another.... while spilling some of it in the process

But from the online forums, V2L seems to be a big hit in the US and Canada, for some reason.

Not sure if they are actually selling it back to the grid though, or use it in another way. Maybe they use it in areas where the grid provides unstable power supply? No idea.

Personally, I am still mystified as to why EV manufacturers think that V2L is a selling point, but apparently it does seem to work in some markets.

 

[st13phil]

Personally, I am still mystified as to why EV manufacturers think that V2L is a selling point, but apparently it does seem to work in some markets.

It baffles me, too. The exception would be things like the electric version of the Ford F-series trucks where they can run power tools in locations without mains power.

It sounds to me just like filling-up in one petrol station and then delivering half the tank to another.... while spilling some of it in the process

Haha

I think there's a "mystique" element in it, and also a bit of virtue signalling.

On a related note, I see that trials of "surge pricing" for electricity are getting underway. It's being spun as "good for the consumer" of course, but it's the first stage in admitting the UK's power generation and distribution network won't be up to the task of providing enough power to heat homes and charge electric vehicles, nor deal with periods of low input from intermittent renewables.

 

[optimusprime]

Soon be lettered EVSS meaning Electric Vehicle Soon Stopped ,,,. The way the electric is on the rise .

 

[markjay]

..On a related note, I see that trials of "surge pricing" for electricity are getting underway. It's being spun as "good for the consumer" of course, but it's the first stage in admitting the UK's power generation and distribution network won't be up to the task of providing enough power to heat homes and charge electric vehicles, nor deal with periods of low input from intermittent renewables.

I think that the issue about surge pricing is a little different.

It's not so much the lack of capacity as such. Instead, the problem with a grid operates provides full capacity is that it's very wasteful, and obviously polluting. This is because at full capacity it cannot prioritise supply from cleaner and/or cheaper sources.

The idea is that surge charging will allow for more even demand, thus enabling the grid to use only the cleaner and/or cheapest energy sources, and avoid using less clean sources.

I had a few meetings with these chaps some time ago, and they explain it well, see from 0:30:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Their business model is based on paying businesses to reduce energy consumption during peak times, which amounts to the same thing as surge pricing, essentially.

 

[markjay]

It baffles me, too. The exception would be things like the electric version of the Ford F-series trucks where they can run power tools in locations without mains power.

Interesting comments about Vehicle-to-Load (V2L) and Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) at 5:30:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Apparently V2G is predicted to become a huge market..... see 6:35.

I still don't get it though.....

 

[Wolfie1]

There is such a simple way to tax all vehicles, so simple in fact that that it has never been mentioned, tax vehicles on the weight, the heavier the vehicle the more thats paid as it damages the roads more and then change the name to what everyone calls it anyway- road tax

 

[markjay]

There is such a simple way to tax all vehicles, so simple in fact that that it has never been mentioned, tax vehicles on the weight, the heavier the vehicle the more thats paid as it damages the roads more and then change the name to what everyone calls it anyway- road tax

The counter argument would be that a heavy vehicle that does 10,000 miles a year will cause far more damage to the roads than another vehicles of the same weight that does only 1,000 miles a year, and yet both pay the same amount of road tax. Or that a family with 5 kids will be penalised because they own a heavy people carrier. And then you have farmers who need 4x4s, people who have a horse box and need a car capable of towing, etc etc.

I am not actually opposed to the idea of taxing cars by weight, I am just trying to point-out that any form of car taxing will always have an arbitrarily element, there's no simple solution that's fair for everyone. We just need to decide on a tax system, then go ahead with it, and ignore those who complain that it's unfair, otherwise we'll never manage to tax vehicles.

Personally, I prefer the PAYG model, I.e. paying for road usage per-mile, with varying rates (e.g. people doing long journeys in the countryside will pay less per mile than those driving in congested city centres etc). But this in turn raises concerns regarding privacy and 'big brother' etc, which is an issue for some.

Either way.... we should just go ahead and tax cars, one way or another, and move on. The perfect tax system has not been invented yet.

 

[ChipChop]

There is such a simple way to tax all vehicles, so simple in fact that that it has never been mentioned, tax vehicles on the weight, the heavier the vehicle the more thats paid as it damages the roads more and then change the name to what everyone calls it anyway- road tax

A logical approach which makes perfect sense to me. Heavier vehicles are also less efficient expending energy hauling around all that (battery) weight.

As for V2G it reads as if it is just energy market speculation. Fill you battery up at off peak times sell that energy back at peak time. I assume with smart technology in play determining what is off peak and peak could vary constantly.

What effect will that have on electricity prices? I assume the energy consumer will pay the cost of this new XXBillion$£ V2G market.

 

[Wolfie1]

The punter argument would be that a heavy vehicles that does 10,000 miles a year will cause far more damage to the road than another vehicles of the same weight that does only 1,000 miles a year, and yet both pat the same amount of road tax. Or that a family with 5 kids will be penalised because they own a people carrier. And then you have farmers who need 4x4s, people who have a horse box and need a car capableof towing, etc etc.

I am not actually opposed to the idea of taxing cars by weight, I am just trying to point-out that any form of car taxing will always have an arbitrarily element, there's no simple solution that's fair for everyone. We just need to decide on a tax system, then go ahead with it, and ignore those who complain it's unfair, otherwise we'll never manage to tax vehicles.

Personally, I prefer the PAYG model, I.e. for road usage per-mile, with varying rates (e.g. people doing long journeys in the countryside will pay less per mile than those driving in congested city centres etc). But this in turn raises concerns regarding privacy and 'big brother' etc, which is an issue for some.

The thing is its the same way as it is now, i have 2 cars a daily driver and a classic, the classic maybe does at the very most 1000 miles through the summer at the very most, probably less and for 6 months tax i am the same as a car doing a million miles in the same time frame, its just the way it is and its simple to implement and police and works

 

[st13phil]

This is because at full capacity it cannot prioritise supply from cleaner and/or cheaper sources.

It's not that simple.

The big issue is around supply frequency stability, which is the big decider when it comes to power transmission efficiency. And renewables are terrible in that respect.

Their business model is based on paying businesses to reduce energy consumption during peak times, which amounts to the same thing as surge pricing, essentially.

Around 40 years ago I was involved in a project at my then employer’s to implement and deploy an energy management system that encompassed all aspects of electrical and oil (for heating) consumption across the site. It was a medium sized manufacturing facility with around 600 employees and a 200+ pool of machine tools.

One issue we had was that the electricity was charged on a “maximum demand” tariff which meant that if our maximum consumption rate in any given week fell below a floor level, our entire consumption for the period was charged at a higher rate. Why? Because load balancing was the supplier's single biggest issue, not the absolute load. That problem still exists due to the laws of physics.

 

[markjay]

A logical approach which makes perfect sense to me. Heavier vehicles are also less efficient expending energy hauling around all that (battery) weight.

As per my previous post, I am not opposed to taxing vehicles by weight.

However - to those who see this as a way to 'tax EVs off the road', or to 'penalise the wealthy who can afford them' etc - all I can say is be careful what you wish for.

I have said before that EVs are inherently cheaper to make than the ICE cars of old, and that they are also inherently far cheaper to run (even with tax benefits being equal). And, EVs are also inherently more reliable due to the significant reduction in moving parts. I am aware that many on here will not accept this, so let's set this particular discussion aside for the moment.

But, I will add to that, that EVs are also inherently lighter than ICE cars. I say 'inherently', because with ICE cars, in over a hundred years of development, we've now exhausted our ability to come-up with ever more clever lightweight alloys to reduce the weight of engines, transmissions, driveshafts, and differentials. However, with EVs, we are only at the beginning of the long journey, during which batteries will get lighter and lighter over time.

Just compare the battery size, weight, and capacity on the Motorola 'brick' cellphone of the eighties, with a modern iPhone battery. Or look at how laptop batteries became smaller and lighter over time, giving more hours of operation.

This, coupled with increasing efficiencies of ICE technology (meaning that in future a smaller battery will be able to provide the same range), will see EVs that are lighter than current ICE cars. It will take 10 years at least, but it will happen.

In essence, the current situation with EVs is akin to how it was when Quartz watches were first developed. These days, a Quartz watch can cost under a tenner, and be more reliable and more accurate than the best of Swiss watches of old. I do like watches, BTW... and I admire the craftsmanship. But let's face it - while there are many reasons for owning an expensive watch these days - accurate timekeeping isn't one of them. *

* I should add that a mechanical watch will work even without battery, for those concerned about the aftermath of Armageddon, but then a solar watch will work for as long as we can see the sun.

As for V2G it reads as if it is just energy market speculation. Fill you battery up at off peak times sell that energy back at peak time. I assume with smart technology in play determining what is off peak and peak could vary constantly.

What effect will that have on electricity prices? I assume the energy consumer will pay the cost of this new XXBillion$£ V2G market.

Agreed.

 

[Markw70]

The thing is its the same way as it is now, i have 2 cars a daily driver and a classic, the classic maybe does at the very most 1000 miles through the summer at the very most, probably less and for 6 months tax i am the same as a car doing a million miles in the same time frame, its just the way it is and its simple to implement and police and works

Absolutely, keep it simple any fancy methods of tracking vehicles on usage on a mass scale, will more than likely cost multi millions to introduce. I also agree what you say about road tax. With any taxes there’s winners and losers, a working couple with no kids get less out the system than someone with school age kids, or someone that pays for private health cover, but still pays national insurance, but we fully accept thats the way it is, so I don’t see why road usage should be any different from how it now is really. The only change I think that needs to happen is bringing all vehicles that are currently exempt road fund back onto the system, so everyone pays something.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

The Government doesn’t tax for profit or for fun, they do it because it’s needed. The route the tax takes to get from your employer, bank account, wallet - or box under your bed - to HMRC changes over time, but it’s still got to get there.

With a few anomalies, you’ll pay your fair share - or unfair share depending upon your point of view - regardless of the route it takes. The Government could scrap fuel duty and VED altogether, but they’ll have to make it up through another form of tax.

Unless you choose to minimise - or avoid - tax, then you’ll be taxed about the same. Some will win some will lose. I’d prefer that they don’t add it to income tax though as that benefits the tax dodgers and penalises the hard working and honest majority.

 

[Dryce]

As per my previous post, I am not opposed to taxing vehicles by weight.

However - to those who see this as a way to 'tax EVs off the road', or to 'penalise the wealthy who can afford them' etc - all I can say is be careful what you wish for.

It would drive manufacturers to shift their products - and possibly to make EVs available that would have a genuine;y reduced whole life emissions impact.

I have said before that EVs are inherently cheaper to make than the ICE cars of old,

The prices of EVs clearly contradict this statement. Unless there is profiteering going on.

and that they are also inherently far cheaper to run (even with tax benefits being equal).

And I have stated before there is clear evidence that this is not the case.

ICEs are inherently cheaper at this time. And that's with a huge penalty tax on fuel.

And, EVs are also inherently more reliable due to the significant reduction in moving parts. I am aware that many on here will not accept this, so let's set this particular discussion aside for the moment.

Possibly.

But it should be noted that modern cars are very reliable.

So in practical terms would an ordinary owner notice any difference?

But, I will add to that, that EVs are also inherently lighter than ICE cars. I say 'inherently', because with ICE cars, in over a hundred years of development, we've now exhausted our ability to come-up with ever more clever lightweight alloys to reduce the weight of engines, transmissions, driveshafts, and differentials. However, with EVs, we are only at the beginning of the long journey, during which batteries will get lighter and lighter over time.

A large EV with decent range carries 450kg + of batteries.

Just compare the battery size, weight, and capacity on the Motorola 'brick' cellphone of the eighties, with a modern iPhone battery. Or look at how laptop batteries became smaller and lighter over time, giving more hours of operation.

Two factors at work here: (1) the shift to Li-ion. (2) reduced power of mainstream electronics.

EVs already have the advantage of the first. Basic physics mitigates the second.

This, coupled with increasing efficiencies of ICE technology (meaning that in future a smaller battery will be able to provide the same range), will see EVs that are lighter than current ICE cars. It will take 10 years at least, but it will happen.

Except legislation and subsiidies are impacting the market now.

In essence, the current situation with EVs is akin to how it was when Quartz watches were first developed. These days, a Quartz watch can cost under a tenner, and be more reliable and more accurate than the best of Swiss watches of old. I do like watches, BTW... and I admire the craftsmanship. But let's face it - while there are many reasons for owning an expensive watch these days - accurate timekeeping isn't one of them. *

Poor analogy.