The EV fact thread

[markjay]

Pain now, jam tomorrow. Not many buying it.

With an EV, you're still getting 42% of your jam today, while with ICE you get zero.

Or are you saying that you'd rather have 100% jam or zero jam, but refuse to accept 42%?

 

[Bellow]

With an EV, you're still getting 42% of your jam today, while with ICE you get zero.

Or are you saying that you'd rather have 100% jam or zero jam, but refuse to accept 42%?

What I'm saying is there should be a recognition that an EV in use is not a zero CO2 emitter, that in light of that EVs should be lighter (heavy is all we've really seen thus far), should be driven in a manner that reduces their electricity consumption (in the same way that ICE drivers do to conserve fuel) and - possibly by deterrent - discouraged from recharging on days where generation from renewables is limited - such as overcast and windless days.
Recall, the amortisation of the significantly higher CO2 footprint of building an EV is predicated on its electricity being generated renewably. Quite a way to go on that and until it is realised, an EV is a CO2 emitter. If all EVs are going to be is an even cheaper way of running a heavier car then the pretention of it playing any part in meaningful CO2 reduction is just that - pretention. Instead of state funds being spent on tax breaks for EVs, perhaps it should have been spent on increasing renewable generation. Horse before the cart....

 

[clk320x]

I recently drove to Devon from Gloucestershire. I was delivering something to someone. It took 2.5 hrs there, 10 minutes to drop items off, turn around and came back. I could have repeated this three times without refuelling if I needed to, I didn't but as it happens I couldnt even complete it once in an electric vito.

So as has already been mentioned 100 times on here, if you’re a long distance delivery driver then an electric van at the moment is less convenient than an ICE one…. but seeing as the majority of the population don’t fit that narrative we can move on….

 

[clk320x]

Only because when I travel a long distance that's where EVs are sat, 55-65, heated seats on, heating low, wife looking angry, wallet feeling full ... But he might be an exception

I was taking your replies seriously until the above.

 

[clk320x]

What I'm saying is there should be a recognition that an EV in use is not a zero CO2 emitter, that in light of that EVs should be lighter (heavy is all we've really seen thus far), should be driven in a manner that reduces their electricity consumption (in the same way that ICE drivers do to conserve fuel) and - possibly by deterrent - discouraged from recharging on days where generation from renewables is limited - such as overcast and windless days.
Recall, the amortisation of the significantly higher CO2 footprint of building an EV is predicated on its electricity being generated renewably. Quite a way to go on that and until it is realised, an EV is a CO2 emitter. If all EVs are going to be is an even cheaper way of running a heavier car then the pretention of it playing any part in meaningful CO2 reduction is just that - pretention. Instead of state funds being spent on tax breaks for EVs, perhaps it should have been spent on increasing renewable generation. Horse before the cart....

I love how you completely skip over the arguably more important point, which is the zero emission of NoX and PM2.5 in cities.

Burning fossil fuel in a power station is far more efficient than in an ICE. Not to mention that power stations use natural gas which burns relatively cleanly in comparison to diesel for example.

Seeing as you are so concerned about electricity generation, I hope you have solar panels and battery storage at home for your electricity usage/to do your part to reduce usage of fossil fuel generated electricity…

 

[markjay]

What I'm saying is there should be a recognition that an EV in use is not a zero CO2 emitter, that in light of that EVs should be lighter (heavy is all we've really seen thus far), should be driven in a manner that reduces their electricity consumption (in the same way that ICE drivers do to conserve fuel) and - possibly by deterrent - discouraged from recharging on days where generation from renewables is limited - such as overcast and windless days.
Recall, the amortisation of the significantly higher CO2 footprint of building an EV is predicated on its electricity being generated renewably. Quite a way to go on that and until it is realised, an EV is a CO2 emitter. If all EVs are going to be is an even cheaper way of running a heavier car then the pretention of it playing any part in meaningful CO2 reduction is just that - pretention. Instead of state funds being spent on tax breaks for EVs, perhaps it should have been spent on increasing renewable generation. Horse before the cart....

What you are implying is that we should wait until 100% of electricity for EVs comes from renewable sources, and then make a complete switch from ICE to EVs in one go? Is such a sharp transition even possible?

 

[Bellow]

What you are implying is that we should wait until 100% of electricity for EVs comes from renewable sources, and then make a complete switch from ICE to EVs in one go? Is such a sharp transition even possible?

Not as absolutely as that. Spaffing taxpayer's money on tax breaks for fat EVs that have limited appeal to those they'll be offered to as three year old cars vs investment in renewable generation could have been biased a bit more to the latter. Maybe, if that had occurred, we'd have been spared the first generation of EVs with poor range that no one will buy secondhand. Rushing new products to market isn't without danger - ask NSU.

 

[markjay]

Not as absolutely as that. Spaffing taxpayer's money on tax breaks for fat EVs that have limited appeal to those they'll be offered to as three year old cars vs investment in renewable generation could have been biased a bit more to the latter. Maybe, if that had occurred, we'd have been spared the first generation of EVs with poor range that no one will buy secondhand. Rushing new products to market isn't without danger - ask NSU.

Not everyone agrees with your view, it seems:

Government ‘must’ keep vital tax incentives to maintain fleet EV momentum

BVRLA and AFP urge fleets to write to the new Chancellor urging him to keep BIK low.

www.fleetnews.co.uk

Government warned against raising BIK to claw back lost revenue

HMRC figures show company car decline, but industry confident salary sacrifice can halt slide.

www.fleetnews.co.uk

In any event, the reduced BIK tax was applied only around 4 years ago, at which point there were already many modern EVs available. The early EVs were simply classified at the lowest CO2 emissions brackets.

 

[Bellow]

Not everyone agrees with your view, it seems:

Government ‘must’ keep vital tax incentives to maintain fleet EV momentum

BVRLA and AFP urge fleets to write to the new Chancellor urging him to keep BIK low.

www.fleetnews.co.uk

Government warned against raising BIK to claw back lost revenue

HMRC figures show company car decline, but industry confident salary sacrifice can halt slide.

www.fleetnews.co.uk

What else would a body with a vested interest say than that?
Point remains - and it isn't only me that's noticed it - is that flooding the market with EVs their intended customers do not want is a taxpayer funded grade A clusterfuck.

 

[Dryce]

Not everyone agrees with your view, it seems:

But is seems that those that don't are admitting that BEV subsidy is needed to prop up the failing market?

I priced up a Model 3 on the Tesla site and it starts of suggesting that private buyers will make £3250 savings over petrol/diesel cars over 5 years.

The comparison cars start with a BMW 320d.

Click on the 'business; option' and that £3250 saving gets increased to £15846.

So if one was to throw that number back at those claiming that EV subsidies are necessary you'd pitch it £15046 of money in subsidy - after taking away £800 in fuel savings.

Both those numbers are worrying if not shocking. The subsidy is bad enough. But look at that £800 in fuel savings over 5 years - that means that even Tesla are only claiming £160 per year tangible benefit from running an EV.

 

[Alfie]

The debate is largely pointless. For some, clearly an EV works. For others it doesnt.

I see it very much like vegetarianism, fine for those who chose it but please dont force it upon the rest of us for whom its doesn't work.

 

[philnewmerc]

You can “observe” anger of the wife, the wealth of the driver, the heater settings?? Just reads like more anti-EV FUD from where I’m sitting

Observing the speed is accurate. The other items are for amusement*

*but also accurate

 

[philnewmerc]

I was taking your replies seriously until the above.

Is only an observation, not a criticism... EVs owners will have the last laugh, as you might see in my new thread

 

[SmartAmg]

The debate is largely pointless. For some, clearly an EV works. For others it doesnt.

I see it very much like vegetarianism, fine for those who chose it but please dont force it upon the rest of us for whom its doesn't work.

Your first point, totally agree with, if you want an EV get One, if you don't, then don't, simple's.
Your second point I don't agree with, nobody is forcing anyone to get an EV. Again simple's.

 

[markjay]

But is seems that those that don't are admitting that BEV subsidy is needed to prop up the failing market?

I priced up a Model 3 on the Tesla site and it starts of suggesting that private buyers will make £3250 savings over petrol/diesel cars over 5 years.

The comparison cars start with a BMW 320d.

Click on the 'business; option' and that £3250 saving gets increased to £15846.

So if one was to throw that number back at those claiming that EV subsidies are necessary you'd pitch it £15046 of money in subsidy - after taking away £800 in fuel savings.

Both those numbers are worrying if not shocking. The subsidy is bad enough. But look at that £800 in fuel savings over 5 years - that means that even Tesla are only claiming £160 per year tangible benefit from running an EV.

Just to point out (and not directed at yourself) that many of those who are now opposed to low tax on EV business users to help meet Net Zero, are members of the Dieselrati and were quite happy to keep shtum when Diesel cars were cheap due to the government's incentives for company car drivers in low-CO2 emissions cars (the tax benefits trickling into the second hand car market via oversupply of cars coming off their lease).

 

[Dryce]

Just to point out (and not directed at yourself) that many of those who are now opposed to low tax on EV business users to help meet Net Zero, are members of the Dieselrati and were quite happy to keep shtum when Diesel cars were cheap due to the government's incentives for company car drivers in low-CO2 emissions cars (the tax benefits trickling into the second hand car market via oversupply of cars coming off their lease).

I was annoyed by the Diesel psychosis of the 2000s to mid 2010s. I've ended up with two diesel cars because one was a lot cheaper to lease because of this nonsense and my current Touareg was only available in the UK as a diesel at the time I purchased because of this nonsense. It evolved from nonsensical to immoral when workplaces started charging for parking based on CO2 where SWMBO could turn up in my BMW 640d on the low rate while a colleague on a lower grade could turn up in an old family Ford or Vauxhall and get charged a higher rate.

My feeling is that for EV subsidies to work structurally the government has to limit them to cars under £30K. This would be brutal to manufacturers in combination with the 2035 ICE sales cut off - but it would force them to confront getting more cost effective products to the market - or educating politicians on what can be delivered and force them to recalibrate policy (which to some extent they already did in the UK - but not such that they solve the underlying problem). Instead we have the manufacturers being squeezed but responding by taking the easiest option which is targeting EV products higher up the market and being able to further boost this higher price point with government backed subsidies for specific customers.

 

[BTB 500]

yes, some elements of running an EV are an inconvenience when compared to the ICE cars of old, but we'll all get used to it, and manage. It will be fine.

I agree. I just object to being told that there isn't any inconvenience at all!

 

[BTB 500]

Depends who it is I suppose. Most people will offer to pay for it (but usually a friend/family member will understandably refuse to accept payment) - payment is usually graciously accepted in alcoholic beverages though.

Was talking recently to a friend who does B&B - till now she's always allowed people to run a granny cable for free, but enough people are doing it now that she's going to have to start charging (pun intended ) in some way.

 

[SmartAmg]

Was talking recently to a friend who does B&B - till now she's always allowed people to run a granny cable for free, but enough people are doing it now that she's going to have to start charging (pun intended ) in some way.

Don't blame her, fair enough.

 

[PXW]

I agree. I just object to being told that there isn't any inconvenience at all!

I think the inconveniences are different - but both ICE and EV have their own, and how big the inconvenience is will depend on individual circumstances. For example, in my own case the occasional inconvenience of the odd 10 minute charge on a longer journey (and, really, most times that is all it is) is minor compared to the inconvenience of regular trips to the petrol station (which probably take a similar length of time - per oil co data - but have to be done every time fuel is needed). For other people the balance of inconvenience may well be different.