The EV fact thread

[Bellow]

I have to disagree, on two counts.

Firstly, as has been pointed-out on this thread before, a reduction in the price of new vehicles leads to an immediate reduction of the price of second-hand vehicles. If, say, Tesla dropped the price for their Model-Y by £20,000 tomorrow, then all second-hand Model-Y cars on dealers' fourscores and on Autotrader will also go down in price on the same day (though obviously not by the full £20,000), and any current owners of a Model-Y will have to adjust their expectation in respect of their cars' value. This is why a subsidy for new EV will benefit all EV buyers, old or new alike (though obviously not by the same amount).

Apart from those who bought at the high price then losing out in that scenario... have you canvassed their opinions? - those for whom an EV isn't viable (for whatever reason(s) benefit not one jot.

You could argue that people who do not own cars should not be participating in any subsidies given to any type of private motoring, but this is a different issue.

Only EVs are subsidised - elsewhere it's tax, tax, tax. Taxes raised from motorists are more likely subsidising the poorest - those too poor to afford a car and its running costs.

Then, a common argument against the government incentivising EV ownership is that the CO2 reduction attempts are pointless (because humans don't affect the planet's temperature, and/or because EVs do not produce less CO2 overall, and/or because nothing that we'll do in the UK will make any difference anyway because of America/China/India etc, and/or that saving the planet is important but not at an excessively high cost to the current generation, etc).

The public as far as I can ascertain are not convinced that EVs reduce CO2 significantly enough to justify their adoption. An immoral system of subsidising EV purchase by the wealthier in society is a tangible reality for them to reject. Can the net-zero agenda withstand that unscathed? - doubtful. As far as I can ascertain, the public are aware of the need to reduce CO2 emissions and want play a part in that. But the offered solutions have to be ones that are effective and affordable.

However, the CO2 argument ignores the totally-separate air quality issue. And the arguments here are much weaker (that when EU7 is introduced the toxic fumes will be minimal, and/or that there's no evidence that breathing car exhaust fumes causes health issues, that the cost for 'clean air' is too high, etc).

Regarding the air-quality issue, I do not personally think that using public money to incentivise the uptake of zero-exhaust-emissions vehicles for cleaner air in urban areas is unjustifiable. And, it benefits everyone.

If there were moves to prosecuting the supposedly ULEZs and LEZs compliant diesels which are running without EURO 6 emissions kit (ie, tampered with) then the clean air argument might have some weight. But that's not what's happening. As the years roll on, there will be many many diesels polluting worse than pre-EURO 5 diesels and not a damn thing done to stop it. The continuing poor air quality will be the clarion call for more ULEZ, LEZ and EVs - which will make no difference whatsoever to air quality.
Equip police with mobile road dynos (of the type at many car meets) and have them stop check (as they already do for fuel illegality) for NOX and particulates potential culprits and prosecute where appropriate. That of course won't happen - making the call for cleaner air both shrill and hypocritical.

 

[Dryce]

Air quality is a big bonus of course......but that's not the reason for the change at all and is rarely even mentioned .....its all for climate change and carbon output.

Trouble is that the didactic ULEZ / LEZ impositions are eclipsing the fundamental issue of CO2.

 

[ALFAitalia]

True.....but one has nothing to do with the other......hence very high carbon 6.2l M156 engine cars being ULEZ compliant.

.....and yes I did have to Google "didactic"!!!

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

I don't think you meant it to sound like that!!.....that's 80% of new cars sold in 2030 will/should be EV.......certainly a lot less than 80% of drivers will be in EV by then. Predictions currently are saying that no more than about 25% of drivers will be in EVs buy 2035.....its going to be a long slow changeover. Although I saw one wild one that said about 74% of drivers will be in EV by 2035.....Hmmm....cant see that myself!!

For sure, I didn't mean that 80% of the 34 million cars in the country will be EV,

only that "the EU's intention" is that 80% of the perhaps 2 million cars sold in the UK will be EV, i.e. 1.6 million EV's, with perhaps 0.4 million being "probably" the more expensive ICE.

Looking at the back of this cigarette packet,

with one million EV's currently in the country, of which only 0.3 million were sold in 2023,
straight line EV sales growth and 1.6 million EV's sold in 2030, it's reasonable to estimate that we're looking at another 7 years at an average of 0.65 million,

which suggests....a total of no more than 5.5 million EV's running around in the UK by 2030.

(Call it just one in seven cars (not drivers), mainly driven in the "affluent" Cities and South East.

From 2030, we "might" see another 10 million EV's by 2035, making at total of 15.5 million EV's on the road. Call it 40% of all vehicles.
(ignoring those that have been scrapped because they caught fire in airport car parks)


But loads of assumptions in here which are open to change: state of the Economy, innovations in EV technology, success in Chinese innovation and pricing, attitudes of "Millenial" and Gen Z drivers etc.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Sounds reasonable to me.....

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

True.....but one has nothing to do with the other......hence very high carbon 6.2l M156 engine cars being ULEZ compliant.

.....and yes I did have to Google "didactic"!!!

Does didactic mean "greenwashed tax-raising"

or is it something about teaching people stuff....?

 

[markjay]

Apart from those who bought at the high price then losing out in that scenario...

But this is equally an argument against affordable housing - if new homes become more affordable, then current home owners will take a massive hit on their homes' values - and for some, their mortgage might actually end up in negative equity. So should we resist any reduction in house prices in order to protect those who already bought a house?

 

[ALFAitalia]

Its not even claiming to be green or have any link to climate change at all....just to reduce pollution and NOX levels in cities. Cant have all the kiddies dying......unless you pay your £12.50.....then its fine "come on in and damage as many asthmatic's lungs as you can....its all good"!

 

[markjay]

Trouble is that the didactic ULEZ / LEZ impositions are eclipsing the fundamental issue of CO2.

What would be the public's reaction if all EV subsidies were dropped, and the ICE ban cancelled, however cars were charged s ULEZ-type charge simply based on overall harmful exhaust emissions (not just NOx)? This will mean the EV drivers will pay little or nothing at all, while ICE drivers will pay a daily charge (to varying degrees, depending on exhaust pollution). I do appreciate that it's in fact a 'pay to pollute" policy replacing the ban on sale of new ICE cars. But, if we're not going to ban pollution, and nor will we charge for it, then nothing changes - and we keep breathing toxic fumes?

 

[Bellow]

But this is equally an argument against affordable housing - if new homes become more affordable, then current home owners will take a massive hit on their homes' values - and for some, their mortgage might actually end up in negative equity. So should we resist any reduction in house prices in order to protect those who already bought a house?

Instead of a round of whataboutery, whatabout addressing the bodged diesels?

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Its not even claiming to be green or have any link to climate change at all....just to reduce pollution and NOX levels in cities. Cant have all the kiddies dying......unless you pay your £12.50.....then its fine "come on in and damage as many asthmatic's lungs as you can....its all good"!

Sad iq has always claimed that it's not easy being green

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

 

[Dryce]

If there were moves to prosecuting the supposedly ULEZs and LEZs compliant diesels which are running without EURO 6 emissions kit (ie, tampered with) then the clean air argument might have some weight. But that's not what's happening. As the years roll on, there will be many many diesels polluting worse than pre-EURO 5 diesels and not a damn thing done to stop it. The continuing poor air quality will be the clarion call for more ULEZ, LEZ and EVs - which will make no difference whatsoever to air quality.
Equip police with mobile road dynos (of the type at many car meets) and have them stop check (as they already do for fuel illegality) for NOX and particulates potential culprits and prosecute where appropriate. That of course won't happen - making the call for cleaner air both shrill and hypocritical.

It was reported a few days ago that NOx measurements inside and adjacent to the Glasgow LEZ have been higher after imposition of the Glasgow LEZ. (With details that the measurements have increased on one of the really bad streets where private cars were already banned long before the LEZ was imposed - they had claimed that the buses - which were the main culprits - would be upgraded to reduce emissions).

When I looked at the LEZ plans a lot of the information was actually based on modelling. I think measurements at a few locations were used to extrapolate a (probably false) wider picture. Models also tend to get tuned to achieve desired outcomes. People proposing the LEZ wanted to justify it. (You don't make a career in sustainable transport or as a consultant or academic unless you get with The Programme).

 

[Bellow]

What would be the public's reaction if all EV subsidies were dropped, however cars were charged s ULEZ-type charge simply based on overall harmful exhaust emissions (not just NOx)?

Not just NOx? You mean CO2 which is in no way injurious to human health?

This will mean the EV drivers will pay little or nothing at all, while ICE drivers will pay a daily charge (to varying degrees, depending on exhaust pollution).

And on the bleak windless days where EVs are recharged with electricity generated from fossil fuels?

 

[BPD07]

And on the bleak windless days where EVs are recharged with electricity generated from fossil fuels?

It’s still easier to control and account for the emissions from a fossil fuel power station than it is to manage 10k Cars in various states of repair and tune.

 

[ALFAitalia]

You mean CO2 which is in no way injurious to human health?

LOL....really?.....not directly......but it certainly is indirectly!!!

 

[ALFAitalia]

It’s still easier to control and account for the emissions from a fossil fuel power station than it is to manage 10k Carson various states of repair and tune.

.......and way more efficient with WAY less carbon per mile. And that would be the case if all our power was fossil fuel derived......but by a much smaller margin of course.

 

[Bellow]

LOL....really?.....not directly......but it certainly is indirectly!!!

It's breathable without harming. Indirectly - obviously.

 

[Dryce]

What would be the public's reaction if all EV subsidies were dropped, and the ICE ban cancelled, however cars were charged s ULEZ-type charge simply based on overall harmful exhaust emissions (not just NOx)? This will mean the EV drivers will pay little or nothing at all, while ICE drivers will pay a daily charge (to varying degrees, depending on exhaust pollution). I do appreciate that it's in fact a 'pay to pollute" policy replacing the ban on sale of new ICE cars.

The subsidies have created the 40K price trap where manufactures take the easiest route to selling EVs - take existing battery technology and stick it in a large vehicle and take advantage of the buyers' tax concessions - with the additional bit of help where customers are herded towards change by a snarling councils and government.

A better route would have been to impose a VED system based on weight and a gentle push towards a (Japanese) K car type market.

Then build infrastructure. Nice car parks around urban centres - with easy access and charge while you shop - or charge while you park and ride. Provide parking and access incentives. And encourage a bottom up market development. Wean people off ICE and also to accept lower range urban/suburban cars. (One of the advantages of smaller cars is greater density of charging facilities - smaller batteries means less time at the charger).

 

[ChipChop]

It doesn't really matter whether the vehicle is a EV or ICE.

Cars (generically) have had quite advanced digital processors and internal networks since the late 80s. Self parking as a feature has been around for what ? 20 years ? MB had 'brake by wire' with SBC over 20 years ago. Automatic transmissions with electronics and hydraulics - and versions with automatic clutches have been around for longer.

I accept that since the introduction of electronic fuel injection, abs, esp etc cars from around the 80's to date have become more reliant on technology. However i would suggest the data gathering technologies built in to EV's are at another level compared to ICE's. Not least because they require plugging in to be fuelled whereas ICE do not. A whole other level of SMART tech.

 

[markjay]

Instead of a round of whataboutery, whatabout addressing the bodged diesels?

Lock them all up and throw away the key, for all I care.

And the same goes for all those driving around on cloned plates, or fake foreign plates, and pay nothing.

If you're asking why the DVSA and the police are not doing more to crack down on these, then my answer is that you are 100% right - but given that the police do not even catch car thieves these days, or mobile phone muggers, or shoplifters - I wouldn't hold my breath.