Electric cars

agrinnall

buglawton wrote: »

Subsidy on hybrids to be cancelled in November and on all-EVs, reduced from £4,500 to £3,500.

I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been much comment on this yet, so here goes - my opinion may be contraversial, but we'll see.


I think cancelling the subsidy on hybrids is a good thing, they do very little to aid the environment and I believe they are hampering the development of better battery technology because it allows manufacturers to pay lip service to reducing their contribution to climate change. I would have preferred that subsidy to instead have gone towards increasing the subsidy on full EVs, if manufacturers can see that consumer demand is switching that will incentivise them to do something sooner rather than later to phase out fossil fuel vehicles of all types.

zeupater

agrinnall wrote: »

I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been much comment on this yet, so here goes - my opinion may be contraversial, but we'll see.


I think cancelling the subsidy on hybrids is a good thing, they do very little to aid the environment and I believe they are hampering the development of better battery technology because it allows manufacturers to pay lip service to reducing their contribution to climate change. I would have preferred that subsidy to instead have gone towards increasing the subsidy on full EVs, if manufacturers can see that consumer demand is switching that will incentivise them to do something sooner rather than later to phase out fossil fuel vehicles of all types.

Hi

However, there are plenty of alternative solutions with a both a better fit for the transition to vehicle electrification and a much faster positive impact on emissions ... for example, remove the BEV subsidy on vehicles above a price threshold (say ~£25k), increase the PHEV subsidy (EV range dependent) & increase the initial road-tax on all new non-hybrid/non-EVs ...

Yes, it certainly looks counter-intuitive, but an approach such as this would act to front-load a move to an intermediate form of EVs whilst battery supplies are constricted & prices are high ... the same battery capacity for each 250/300 mile BEV could place around 7 PHEVs on the road, dilute the cost of the batteries over total vehicle costs & act to remove range anxiety whilst charging infrastructure is rolled out ....

To keep the automotive sector honest on their ongoing development of BEVs, the subsidy could be linked to an assessed cost of battery technologies, the state of the charging infrastructure and the role played by the manufacturers in building that infrastructure ... as costs fall & infrastructure improves the subsidy could be migrated from PHEVs to BEVs with the initial tax on new ICE(only) vehicles ramped up on an annual basis - OEMs assessed to not be fairly playing their part through investing in infrastructure or developing full BEVs could reasonably have their vehicles excluded from the subsidy scheme ...

Just an example, but it's one which would likely accelerate transport carbon reductions ... as always, there are numerous options available for the government to consider, but, as normal, it looks like they've simply chosen an approach which didn't tax their brains too much!

HTH
Z

silverwhistle

zeupater wrote: »

Yes, it certainly looks counter-intuitive, but an approach such as this would act to front-load a move to an intermediate form of EVs whilst battery supplies are constricted & prices are high ... the same battery capacity for each 250/300 mile BEV could place around 7 PHEVs on the road, dilute the cost of the batteries over total vehicle costs & act to remove range anxiety whilst charging infrastructure is rolled out ....

Bearing in mind the daily average mileage of many motorists (including myself) this would lead to more miles being done under electric power.

I'm not very mechanical at all, but I implicitly see that a BEV is a more elegant solution. For single vehicle households like myself range is a factor, so the real question is what do I need to do x% of my maximum/average range where x isn't fixed and nor is my range! To what extent do I compromise, bearing in mind that I don't drive around even now with a heavy full tank of petrol. Do I cost in a few B&B overnight stays for longer journeys which will be very infrequent, do I accept a few car hire solutions?

The basis for much of our car usage is convenience, and PHEVs and BEVs will both be solutions. Many of us pay a lot for that convenience and as I was never very good at simultaneous and other equations working out the optimum solution may end up with a "sod it"..

To keep the automotive sector honest

Aye, there's the rub.

buglawton

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Flippin eck. Norway got within spitting distance of BEV's being a majority of car sales in September - 46%.

Plug-In Cars = 60% Of New Car Sales In Norway In September

Norway an incredibly wealthy country per capita that steers the spare money into long term goals and not personal consumption. Norway can afford to rig car prices so that petrol cars cost more to own/run than EV if you believe the numbers here:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/02/norway-electric-cars-subsidies-fossil-fuel
e.g. £10,000 tax on a small engined petrol Golf and zero tax on an EV.

I'm assuming the UK economy would collapse or there'd be riots before a British government could try a similar policy.

NigeWick

zeupater wrote: »

Just an example,

You make good points but I disagree with you. Norway is showing the way with their incentives and the UK could use some of these, and others, to promote BEVs.

My view is that PHEVs are just traditional manufacturer/s and fossil fuel's (FF) way of keeping their easy profits up. I'd double VAT on FF vehicles and use that cash to offer incentives to BEV buyers. I understand that there's a battery shortage at present but if there were a million BEV orders, I expect investment would rapidly produce the goods. And yes, I know this would cause problems but I see pollution and climate breakdown as a much bigger one.

NigeWick

silverwhistle wrote: »

For single vehicle households like myself range is a factor,

I think it is for most of us. The new Hyundai Kona has a realistic range of about 260 miles and when the new super fast rapid chargers are rolled out, will be able to get from 20% to 80% in less than 20 minutes. 80% of 260 is 200 odd miles and I don't think many would want to drive more than that without a rest. I know I get bladder anxiety at 120-140 miles.

agrinnall

NigeWick wrote: »

I know I get bladder anxiety at 120-140 miles.

:rotfl:


Great term! My bladder certainly needs to be emptied much sooner than my petrol tank needs to be refilled on a long trip.

buglawton

NigeWick wrote: »

You make good points but I disagree with you. Norway is showing the way with their incentives and the UK could use some of these, and others, to promote BEVs.

My view is that PHEVs are just traditional manufacturer/s and fossil fuel's (FF) way of keeping their easy profits up. I'd double VAT on FF vehicles and use that cash to offer incentives to BEV buyers. I understand that there's a battery shortage at present but if there were a million BEV orders, I expect investment would rapidly produce the goods. And yes, I know this would cause problems but I see pollution and climate breakdown as a much bigger one.

Doubling VAT would bring tax on FF vehicles to be similar to Norway. But Norway has a very long culture of high vehicle purchase tax. We don't. Additionally that doubling would increase the incentive to game the system with commercial vehicle exceptions.

agrinnall

buglawton wrote: »

Doubling VAT would bring tax on FF vehicles to be similar to Norway.

I believe any such action would have to wait until after Brexit anyway as my understanding is that it's not possible for a member state to introduce a higher rate of VAT than the standard one, although lower rates (such as the UK's 5% on energy) and exempt goods are possible.

zeupater

NigeWick wrote: »

You make good points but I disagree with you. Norway is showing the way with their incentives and the UK could use some of these, and others, to promote BEVs.

My view is that PHEVs are just traditional manufacturer/s and fossil fuel's (FF) way of keeping their easy profits up. I'd double VAT on FF vehicles and use that cash to offer incentives to BEV buyers. I understand that there's a battery shortage at present but if there were a million BEV orders, I expect investment would rapidly produce the goods. And yes, I know this would cause problems but I see pollution and climate breakdown as a much bigger one.

Hi

Yes, but that's not the point of the example ...

Norway is the undoubted leader, but Norway is Norway with a total population little more than Scotland or the combined counties of Yorkshire which, whilst battery manufacture & supply constricts the production of EVs, becomes a major issue when looking at the global picture ...

Silverwhistle seems to have recognised what was being conveyed in the example ... the Hyundai Kona you raised in an earlier post may have a range of 260+ miles with a 64kWh battery pack whereas the PHEV version of the Toyota Prius has 8.8kWh, thus allowing 7x more vehicles to be built whilst there are supply constraints ... with average UK daily mileage being less than the range of the Prius PHEV, the emissions & climatic impact of displacing ICE vehicles would be 'up to' 7x as great, with no argument on range anxiety and a cheaper product can be delivered to market whilst battery costs remain high ...

It's a case of looking at the relative emissions (/climate) impact of an ideology led (zero emission) strategy vs one which is based on resource availability to see which one would be more effective overall ... at the moment the evidence would suggest that the logical approach would necessitate an interim stage involving PHEVs as this would dilute the effect of current supply chain bottlenecks ...

HTH
Z