Whats your strategy for year 2030 / ban of ICE vehicles?

[markjay]

Easy, i don't order a new car every 3 years

One of the issues with generous tax exemptions offered to drivers on business lease deals, is that it encourages a patern of replacing the car with new every 2 to 4 years. This is great news for the automotive industry, not so much for the planet.

 

[Dryce]

With a typical range of 300 miles, and an optimal charging regime of 10% to 80%, you're looking at charging the EV every ~200 miles. Can you work out how frequently will you need to charge it, given your daily mileage?

If you look at a 20 to 40 mile round trip commute - and with a '300 mile' range actually assuming on getting 240 miles - then it's not really an issue.

If you can charge - even slowly at home overnight - you can keep topped up. If you can charge at work then that's fine.

But if you have to organise a public charger ? Well convenience may vary - bit llke having to use a laundramat - heading out and spending some time to make sure that the chore is done.

Then there's trips. Need to drive to a relative 120 miles away - and back same day? After running down the battery with a few days commuting. Well you may need to think about finding a charger the niight before - how long does that take out of an evening? Or plan to find one en-route.

There's no doubt people can adapt. But there's also the reality that with a small ICE most poxy ones will do 400 miles or so off a trank - many will do 500+ and that means a lot of convenience - and when filling realiably takes a few minutes with less likelihood of queuing then that is convenient. The suggestion that stopping en route is OK and that you can have a cup of coffee is a nice idea - but doesn't reflect the reality of people getting from A to B without the option to meander and having to trade an hour getting charged against an hour they could be doing something else.

All the owners of EVs I personally know have charging facilities at home - and some have them have facilities at work as well.

 

[Dryce]

One of the issues with generous tax exemptions offered to drivers on business lease deals, is that it encourages a patern of replacing the car with new every 2 to 4 years. This is great news for the automotive industry, not so much for the planet.

Company cars have always been a bit flawed that way.

I recall in the past that we would see drivers with company cars deliberately putting on mileage to keep the annual mileage up for tax purposes.

A relative with a 'wet car' forgot a pullover while staying 200 miles away from home - and thought nothing of making a round trip just to pick it up.

I recall others figuring if they ramped up mileage they would reach the threshold where they were entitled to a new replacement more quickly.

 

[Deleted member 126251]

Easy, i don't order a new car every 3 years

Tell me how you are polluting less by driving a (~22 year?) old car! The linked article disagrees with you.

Buying A New Car Is Greener Than Driving An Old One...Really

You've probably heard it at some point: A friend claims his older vehicle is far greener than the new car with much higher fuel economy you just bought That's because, he says, the old car didn't require all the energy and natural resources your car consumed as it was built. But is that older...

www.greencarreports.com

 

[BPD07]

You guessed wrong! What dinosaur juice makes the electricity for your car? Renewable energy is still only 40% of UK consumption.

Probably less than 40% on a grey day like today. But it’s easier to manage emission control and ensure you get optimum use of fuel in a power station than it is in 10,000 or so cars.

 

[markjay]

You guessed wrong! What dinosaur juice makes the electricity for your car? Renewable energy is still only 40% of UK consumption.

The environmental argument here is an indirect one.

When all private vehicles are powered by electricity, it will be possible to swap the energy production method - in future - seamlessly in the background.

This is important, because if you look at the history of similar issues, environmental modifications to ICE cars can take decades to complete, with older 'non compliant' cars lingering on forever - just look at what happned things like getting rid of leaded petrol, or getting rid of polluting pre-EU6 Diesels.

This is because at current, each private ICE car is a small portable energy plant. The transition from ICE to electrical propulsion turns the car into an electric consumer instead, and moves the energy production to a much smaller number of locations where the electricity is produced centrally then distributed to the cars via the grid.

The move from local energy production to centrlised energy production for private vehicles has several benefits:

Firstly, as said, swapping to greener energy sources in future will be far easier and quicker. The counter argument, by the way, is that this is a bit like Cryonics - we don't have a cure, so we're freezing the problem in the hope that a cure will be found one day.

Then, emissions can be much better controlled and manged in national power plants than in motor vehicles' engines, even with the expensive and elaborate after-treatment systems.

And last, as I keep mentioning, centrally produced energy moves harmful exhaust emissions away from densely populated areas which is where most people live and work.

But, ultimately.... we just need to have less cars, and drive them less. That's the key for 'saving the planet'.

 

[Deleted member 126251]

Probably less than 40% on a grey day like today. .........

or when the wind does not blow as we have recently experienced...........

 

[markjay]

And disincentive EVs for those with no home charging option. A punitive cost to people who who's housing situation may be as it is due to lack of funds to buy a property and a further inflationary effect on houses that home charging is possible.
More public chargers that are affordable would be better than further distorting an already warped housing market.

Agreed, though isn't this what we've always been doing? This is exactly how charging for parking in cities has always worked. I live in a flat and pay an annual fee to Westminster Council for a Residents Parking Permit, so that I can park my car in the street. In the nearby posh neighbourhood of St John's Wood people have (expensive) homes and they have drives and don't pay Westminster Council for parking. Similarly, in nearby Paddington Basin people live in luxury flats in new residential tower blocks and all have private underground car parks, so pay zilchto the Council. And when I drive to Central London and park in the street, I pay and extortionate parking fee because I don't have access to the private car parks under the office building blocks. I can understand that the high cost of street parking is meant to deter people like me from driving into the city, but there's no such deterrent for wealthy business tyres. An injustice? Maybe, but not an EV issue as such - instead, it's a social, ideological, and political issue.

 

[DrNick]

You guessed wrong! What dinosaur juice makes the electricity for your car? Renewable energy is still only 40% of UK consumption.

That's a rather pessimistic view. You could say that renewable energy is already 40%

And we're going to get more from the currently installed base as climate change drives more extreme climate conditions. In other words, more wind, not less on average.

There is therefore then the perverse argument that people driving the polluting cars are thus driving efficiency gains in the renewable sector. So a win-win! (This argument is obviously complete bull and I include it only for completeness. Its not worth replying to! )

 

[grober]

Easy, i don't order a new car every 3 years

I would suggest that anyone currently contemplating the purchase of a new ICE or EV vehicle look seriously at leasing it for a maximum of three years. For those thinking of running an ICE vehicle post 2030 to "beat the system" I would suggest considering the current trend of built in obsolescence in modern cars heavily dependent on integrated circuit and microprocessor controlled units. Hell -- manufacturers can't even supply new cars due to shortages of electronic components at present , how concerned do you think they will be about older cars out of warranty in the future? With mass produced surface mount components many circuit boards are no longer repairable, meaning the days of cottage industry component repair are drawing to a close. Cars are entering the world of computers and phones- broken means replacement not repair!
For those owning even older non electronic dependent cars expect them to be legislated off the road as more polluting or restricted to the extent that they are no longer a practical daily transport solution.

 

[DrNick]

By the time 2030 comes around, off street charging wont even be a thing. There's no point in even trying to perpetuate the broken model that car ownership in cities is sensible.
You need to look beyond the "faster horse" argument to see what lies beyond.
Why do you think that non-profit making Uber is valued so highly? Because its the future! And by that I means that Uber (or similar) will be the controlling company for a fleet of self drive electric vehicles that you just summon. Some giant Ubercomputer will be controlling them and positioning them in convenient places so one is never more than 30 seconds away (quicker than you being able to walk to your car , parked several streets away). They will of course automatically recharge at out of town recharge centres, of which we already have loads (supermarkets will just be distribution centres so won't need giant carparks.)

Anybody feeling the need to drive 700 miles in one go can take a train or hire a vehicle - think of all the capital savings for individuals - transport as a service! We've done it for years with buses, trains and taxis. Surely just making that model work is the obvious solution - effectively a personal taxi.
If you live in the countryside, then there might be an argument for buying an EV, but then you can recharge at home (or just be a bit more organised in planning your uber).

Give it a while and people will be amazed that anyone ever thought that driving yourself about in a vehicle that you had to pay for as well was ever something that anyone even aspired to, let alone thought was a right.

Things do change. It wasn't so long ago that there was heated discussion about the relative benefits of VHS, Betamax and video 2000. These were destroyed by DVD, and now DVD is on the way out as we now have a digital infrastructure that allows on demand streaming in higher quality than any DVD. Exactly the same model - entertainment as a service, replacing the need to invest any capital in equipment. I don't hear anybody moaning about that.

 

[Tonye]

The linked article disagrees with you.

I disagree with your link. Weren't VW and others punished for their lies about emissions not so long ago

 

[Tonye]

The linked article disagrees with you.

I disagree with your link. Weren't VW and others punished for their lies about emissions not so long ago

 

[Tonye]

Surely just making that model work is the obvious solution -

That model has never worked properly.
PS sorry for the double post/wasting resources

 

[Bellow]

Agreed, though isn't this what we've always been doing? This is exactly how charging for parking in cities has always worked. I live in a flat and pay an annual fee to Westminster Council for a Residents Parking Permit, so that I can park my car in the street. In the nearby posh neighbourhood of St John's Wood people have (expensive) homes and they have drives and don't pay Westminster Council for parking. Similarly, in nearby Paddington Basin people live in luxury flats in new residential tower blocks and all have private underground car parks, so pay zilchto the Council. And when I drive to Central London and park in the street, I pay and extortionate parking fee because I don't have access to the private car parks under the office building blocks. I can understand that the high cost of street parking is meant to deter people like me from driving into the city, but there's no such deterrent for wealthy business tyres. An injustice? Maybe, but not an EV issue as such - instead, it's a social, ideological, and political issue.

In essence, you are justifying an additional unfairness (rather than invest in the required charging facilities) by citing an existing unfairness - and one that has little in common.
If '' this what we've always been doing'' with parking then it won't be new to anyone. The imposition of higher than strictly necessary and higher than the wealthier pay costs for fuel will be new. Currently, the pauper's petrol or diesel is no more expensive than a prince's. Further, the analogy would require that cost savings could accrue from having hydrocarbon fuel delivered in bulk and stored at home and drawn from when required - something that just does not happen. No precedent means this is new - and most definitely ''an EV issue as such''.
So, the poorest will have to accept higher 'fuel' costs than others pay on top of their parking charges. You personally may not object to these costs but are clearly not as impoverished as some. Expecting them to pay for the laziness of not investing in charging facilities merely in order that they can get to their place of work and participate in other now essential functions the car enables, to punitively charge them extra for their essential mobility - isn't going to be well received. Neither will telling them to take a bus.
Perhaps this is a good time to recall the poll tax riots - a consequence of foisting increased costs by choice on the most impoverished while the more affluent could be seen prospering from the policy.
And, as the initially free re-charging offered by supermarkets etc recently undoubtedly enhanced EV take-up, a good time to realise that going in the opposite direction will reverse the trend.

 

[Bellow]

I would suggest that anyone currently contemplating the purchase of a new ICE or EV vehicle look seriously at leasing it for a maximum of three years. For those thinking of running an ICE vehicle post 2030 to "beat the system" I would suggest considering the current trend of built in obsolescence in modern cars heavily dependent on integrated circuit and microprocessor controlled units. Hell -- manufacturers can't even supply new cars due to shortages of electronic components at present , how concerned do you think they will be about older cars out of warranty in the future? With mass produced surface mount components many circuit boards are no longer repairable, meaning the days of cottage industry component repair are drawing to a close. Cars are entering the world of computers and phones- broken means replacement not repair!
For those owning even older non electronic dependent cars expect them to be legislated off the road as more polluting or restricted to the extent that they are no longer a practical daily transport solution.

There are so many possible methods by which ICE vehicles can be discouraged and eliminated if deemed necessary due to slow EV take-up that it is surely in the interests of those that want to continue with ICE that the EV roll-out continues at pace.

 

[markjay]

There are so many possible methods by which ICE vehicles can be discouraged and eliminated if deemed necessary due to slow EV take-up that it is surely in the interests of those that want to continue with ICE that the EV roll-out continues at pace.

I think that the challenge here is how to differentially discourage car ownership and use.

I think we should discourage all avoidable car use, but we need to create an order of priority where the more polluting vehicles are discouraged more.

At current, with Congestion Charge and ULEZ (in London), this seems to be what TfL are doing. However, to actively encourage EVs is wrong, in my view. Buying (or leasing) a zero-exhaust-emissions private vehicle should be the least punitive of all, but punitive it should be.

And, as I said before, I am all in favour of exemptions from any anti-car punitive measures for the 20% or so of the UK pollution that do not live in an urban environment, as well as other specific groups such the disabled, or people with certain work shift patterns or on call (the NHS is a good example), etc.

 

[markjay]

There are so many possible methods by which ICE vehicles can be discouraged and eliminated if deemed necessary due to slow EV take-up that it is surely in the interests of those that want to continue with ICE that the EV roll-out continues at pace.

True. And, do you not agree that a responsible government should use the powers it is given by parliament, to shape the public's behaviour?

 

[flowrider]

Did you even read the article I linked to that stated over 1000 chargers had been installed already and more were planned?

If every car was an EV there wouldn't be enough lamp posts to charge them.

 

[flowrider]

No they are not banning all ICE engines by 2030, they are simply aiming not to sell any new ones. The millions of existing ICE cars simply won't dissapear overnight there will be a phasing from ICE to EV which is currently the aim. The idea that the entire infrastructure has to be up running and absolutely complete in 2030 for every household to run an EV is nonsence.

Also remember that as battery technology advances, which it is doing rapidly there will come a point at which EV ranges are so large they start to make ICE vehicles look inappropriate. The range increases also reduces charging requirement capacity and therefore the charging infrastructure would not have to grow at the same rate as present.

Fundamentally you don't require 2.5 million EV charges for 2.5 million EV vehicles in the same way you don't require 2.5 million petrol pumps for 2.5 million ICE vehicles. It's just not logic. They aren't all plugged in at the same time as ICE cars aren't all filling with fuel at the same time.

Imagine the length of the queue though, all those cars waiting for a 40min charge instead of a 5min fill up.