New goverment car tax rules from April 2017. Your thoughts?

Nasqueron

molerat wrote: »

So pixies deliver the carbon fuels to power stations ?

I don't think anyone is saying electric cars are not green but they are not as green as the pro lobby would have us think. I reckon they average somewhere around 120g/Km from pure CO2/Kwh generating figures without taking transmission losses and fuel transportation into consideration. What about the green status of battery manufacture ?

It would be nice if there was a CO2 cost figure to get a car to the point of sale but those in authority do not want us to know real facts, just their edited versions.

I said I was being facetious but it's still a valid point - saying that electricity needs power plants to produce is true, but producing fuel for a petrol or diesel also needs that power so that's not an argument against making electrics pay VED. Fuel for power stations is needed whether it's to charge an electric or to produce oil

Every argument against the electric car can be used against a fuel car - any which way, the fuel car pollutes more.

On your red question:

in 2014

• Gas: 30.2% (0.05% in 1990)
• Coal: 29.1% (67% in 1990)
• Nuclear: 19.0% (19% in 1990)
• Wind: 9.4% (0% in 1990)
• Bio-Energy: 6.8% (0% in 1990)
• Hydroelectric: 1.8% (2.6% in 1990)
• Solar: 1.2% (0% in 1990)
• Oil and other: 2.5% (12% in 1990)

16GW of power (4/5 of new capacity) in the last 5 years has been renewables


These figures don't cover local operations such as having solar panels on your house to charge your electric car

Nick_C

Nasqueron wrote: »

I said I was being facetious but it's still a valid point - saying that electricity needs power plants to produce is true, but producing fuel for a petrol or diesel also needs that power so that's not an argument against making electrics pay VED.

But you are missing the point. Probably deliberately.

People think they are saving the planet by buying electric cars, but they ignore the fact that that electricity was most likely generated by burning fossil fuels which could have been imported from the other side of the world.

If you could guarantee that the electricity you are using to refuel your electric car came from nuclear of renewable, then yes you would be helping to cut emissions. Unless and until we get to that point, I don't think electric vehicle should be VED exempt.

molerat

Nasqueron wrote: »

I said I was being facetious but it's still a valid point - saying that electricity needs power plants to produce is true, but producing fuel for a petrol or diesel also needs that power so that's not an argument against making electrics pay VED. Fuel for power stations is needed whether it's to charge an electric or to produce oil

Every argument against the electric car can be used against a fuel car - any which way, the fuel car pollutes more.

On your red question:

in 2014

• Gas: 30.2% (0.05% in 1990)
• Coal: 29.1% (67% in 1990)
• Nuclear: 19.0% (19% in 1990)
• Wind: 9.4% (0% in 1990)
• Bio-Energy: 6.8% (0% in 1990)
• Hydroelectric: 1.8% (2.6% in 1990)
• Solar: 1.2% (0% in 1990)
• Oil and other: 2.5% (12% in 1990)

16GW of power (4/5 of new capacity) in the last 5 years has been renewables


These figures don't cover local operations such as having solar panels on your house to charge your electric car

So around 65% of electric is generated by burning something. Although a small part how much hydro is pumped back up the hill by fossil fuel ? I believe most people will be charging their car overnight so home solar is unlikely a big player there.

almillar

Seems mad to me that "zero emissions" vehicles will pay no VED.

They started £0 VED based on CO2 emmissions - lots of small engined cars qualified for this, as well as hybrids and pure Electric Vehicles.

You can use a fashionable electric car,

Is a Leaf fashionable?!

charging it it home using electricity from a power station that burns coal or gas, imported from thousands of miles away. How is that zero emissions?

Yes, it's zero emissions - plug it into a solar panel. And even if the 'fuel' is from a dirty power station (not coal any more) - it uses less energy than petrol/diesel per mile - so still less emissions per mile. Assuming a car is going to be built anyway, in a factory on planet earth, they simply use less energy.

'Imported' - hold on, Beverly Hillbilly - did you just strike oil in your back garden, and happen upon a cheap refinery on eBay?!!

And if people to switch to electric cars in large numbers, where is the government going to raise the money lost through zero VED?

The upcoming change in VED acknowledges that so many £0 VED cars was unsustainable, hence cars will be 'taxed' based on value, rather than emissions. So the 'class' of vehicle that gets £0 is being reduced. If EVs are successful, the 'number' of cars paying £0 will go up, and the 'tax' system will be changed again.

You're just moving the emissions to some dirty old fossil fuel power station somewhere.

POTENTIALLY. And again, the emissions will be lower.

'Don't buy new cars'

Well, people do buy new cars. Should they maybe consider an electric car?

That will be the least of their worries, as our generating capacity proves inadequate and the lights go out across the country.

If people charge their cars overnight, that's off-peak. If they don't have to switch on/off powerplants, and make our national demand less 'peaky' it's beneficial.

but they ignore the fact that that electricity was most likely generated by burning fossil fuels which could have been imported from the other side of the world.

LESS fossil fuels than what comes out your tailpipe, per mile.

Nick_C

The electrical efficiency rating of biomass power stations using conventional technology is between 30 and 35 percent.

Less energy efficient than a diesel engine.

And how many people using electric cars are going to be charging them from solar panels?

In the last 40 years, I've spent less than two living in a property where I would be able to charge an electric car or plug in hybrid.

The people most likely to be able use electric cars - city dwellers with short commutes - are the ones least likely to have the means to charge them up at home, with or without solar panels.

ALIBOBSY

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it also covers optional extras.

It might open the way for dealerships to retrofit a lot of stuff though; buy a base car, and then once it turns up, pay for uprated components that just swap over.

Or manufacturers offering massive discounts in exchange for higher interest on the PCP payments.

Like you, I've very curious what'll happen with cars around the margin.



It's the fairest system, and it even increases your tax burden if you're speeding,don't maintain your car, drive when it's busy or drive in city centers (via increased fuel consumption). It's also impossible to dodge unless you're already using red diesel.

I asked my MP about it and he said it was unfair on haulage/fleet operators to add it to fuel. He's a muppet though and has been replaced, so it might ask my new MP who at least seems to be human.

A tax that bears no resemblance to the size of the vehicle, or how/where/much it's driven seems nuts.

That would be easy to sort though, allow haulage/fleet companies to offset a percentage of the tax on fuel against other taxes they pay such as corp tax or VAT when they do their tax returns.

Ali x

Iceweasel

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

That would be easy to sort though, allow haulage/fleet companies to offset a percentage of the tax on fuel against other taxes they pay such as corp tax or VAT when they do their tax returns.

Ali x

And do you seriously expect a former television programme editor or an ex-television production company manager who knows hee-haw about transport to come up with anything as sensible as that.

Na - it's not going to happen.

What qualifications does one need to be Secretary of State for Transport anyway?

How hard could it be?

You might as well appoint J Clarkson Esq.

movilogo

Looks very simple to me. For all (except zero CO2)cars you pay £140/yr and for cars costing > £40k you pay £450/yr.

Iceweasel

movilogo wrote: »

Looks very simple to me. For all (except zero CO2)cars you pay £140/yr and for cars costing > £40k you pay £450/yr.

It's nothing like as simple as that.

£450 / year from year 2 to 6 only - for cars over £40K

Did you look at the chart? - all different rates for the first year according to emission level.

buglawton

This also qualifies as another 'cliff edge' tax. These famously produce less revenue than expected, as well as generally damaging the economy.