Maybe UK govt are not crazy

Hexane

So, picking up on a couple of things that joefizz has mentioned in discussions. Big problems! First, that a very high proportion of plug-in electric hybrids subsidised by the government (by a variety of means) have in fact never been plugged in, and therefore are worse for the environment than if the subsidy had never been given. Second, that in some Nordic countries the tax-subsidised car has simply become a second car in households that previously would have had only one car, and therefore the electric car replaces more efficient journeys that would otherwise have been made by cycle, foot, or public transport.

These are both very good points, and either by chance or by design (depending on how stupid you think UK policy-makers are), the upcoming 0% BIK rate deals with both. Assisted by other tax policies.

First, subsidies will no longer be for plug-in hybrids. This applies both to the up-front subsidy on the cost (no more cash subsidy for hybrids), and also to the company car tax BIK (the BIK 0% rate is only for BEVs, not any sort of hybrids).

Second, the nature of the tax benefit - company vehicles - ensures that this is a vehicle that will be used. It is not a househould's second car, instead it is the replacement for what the breadwiner would previously have driven, for example a BMW or an Audi or Mercedes dirty diesel.

Both problems solved, I think.

GreatApe

Silly subsidy hidden in lower income tax receipts

Rich folk don't need £10,000-£40,000 Government tax breaks to buy BEVs while kids are denied cancer drugs because it's too expensive

prowla

If it encourages the shift to electric, then it's good.
I don't know whether the 2nd car has encouraged people not to walk, though.
So far I've not seen anything to make me go electric.

joefizz

Hexane wrote: »

Both problems solved, I think.

I'll disagree with you. ;-)
We are the problem, not the policies. People will work anything to their own personal advantage regardless of whether its in the spirit of the policy or not.

Hexane

joefizz wrote: »

We are the problem, not the policies. People will work anything to their own personal advantage regardless of whether its in the spirit of the policy or not.

Any incentive has to provide an advantage, that's the nature of incentives. If it achieves the original aim - unlike, apparently, the previous incentive schemes - then it's worked. There aren't many loopholes in subsidising BEVs, unless people start buying BEVs for the tax saving and then only charging them with the output of a coal-fired private generator.

joefizz

Hexane wrote: »

There aren't many loopholes in subsidising BEVs, unless people start buying BEVs for the tax saving and then only charging them with the output of a coal-fired private generator.

Or we need to run up those emergency diesel stor facilities to power them.... ...or build/reopen a coal fired power station.


Plug in hybrids would have worked if people were taxed heavily (slightly more than a straight petrol/diesel) for running the FF bit. For a lot of people it would be necessary but you could offset that by running it on EV as much as you can and so charge would have been spread about a bit more (lower ranges).


I guess we'll find out what loopholes there are in about a year or mores time ;-)

leviathan

At the moment electric cars are just toys for those better off.
The lifespan of an electric car is not as long as an ICE vehicle.

Take the Leaf for example. They are being bought up early life and parted out for the batteries can be used in power banks and what not.
A leaf after 8 years might only have 80% range left in it, so thats 70miles or less in winter. But so few are getting that far.

Are you ever going to see an electric car for sub £1000 that still has 5yrs or more life in it like an ICE does? Not a chance if range is required. Battery replacement is far too expensive, and other exotic components are going to fail (see early life Tesla failures due to computer memory issues).

And lets not even get into the requirement to build 30 more nuclear power stations to power all swapping from ICE to electric.
And that doesn't include trucks or trains.

Electric is a stop gap until we figure something else out. It just wont scale fast enough without infrastructure investment which isn't happening at all.
More likely you will be taxed off the road.

Ectophile

leviathan wrote: »

At the moment electric cars are just toys for those better off.
The lifespan of an electric car is not as long as an ICE vehicle.

Take the Leaf for example. They are being bought up early life and parted out for the batteries can be used in power banks and what not.
A leaf after 8 years might only have 80% range left in it, so thats 70miles or less in winter. But so few are getting that far.

Are you ever going to see an electric car for sub £1000 that still has 5yrs or more life in it like an ICE does? Not a chance if range is required. Battery replacement is far too expensive, and other exotic components are going to fail (see early life Tesla failures due to computer memory issues).

And lets not even get into the requirement to build 30 more nuclear power stations to power all swapping from ICE to electric.
And that doesn't include trucks or trains.

Electric is a stop gap until we figure something else out. It just wont scale fast enough without infrastructure investment which isn't happening at all.
More likely you will be taxed off the road.

You seem to be finding all the problems with EVs and ignoring their advantages.


They are easier on brakes, because of regenerative braking. They have fixed ratio gears, so no gearbox to go wrong. No clutch or flywheel. Replacing a dual-mass flywheel on an old diesel can cost over £1000. Servicing is cheaper in general as there are fewer fluids to replace.


The reason you won't find a sub-£1000 EV is that they are in such demand. Some people are even finding that their vehicles are going up in value.


At the moment, the only rival to EVs is hydrogen, and that has completely failed to take the market. The infrastructure to support hydrogen vehicles would cost too much.

ABrass

Theres no need for 30 more nuclear plants, smarter grids and more wind will sort that out easily.

I try not to infer malice from things that could easily be ascribed to bad luck. It seems only right to avoid seeing the results of the equivalent of a million monkeys writing legislation as a sign of a master plan or even joined up thinking.

Martyn1981

leviathan wrote: »

At the moment electric cars are just toys for those better off.
The lifespan of an electric car is not as long as an ICE vehicle.

Take the Leaf for example. They are being bought up early life and parted out for the batteries can be used in power banks and what not.
A leaf after 8 years might only have 80% range left in it, so thats 70miles or less in winter. But so few are getting that far.

Are you ever going to see an electric car for sub £1000 that still has 5yrs or more life in it like an ICE does? Not a chance if range is required. Battery replacement is far too expensive, and other exotic components are going to fail (see early life Tesla failures due to computer memory issues).

And lets not even get into the requirement to build 30 more nuclear power stations to power all swapping from ICE to electric.
And that doesn't include trucks or trains.

Electric is a stop gap until we figure something else out. It just wont scale fast enough without infrastructure investment which isn't happening at all.
More likely you will be taxed off the road.

I'm not sure anything you've said is true, but for fun I'll take a look at your 30 nuclear powerstations claim for cars alone. You seem to be making quite a specific statement, so I would of course be interested in seeing your calculations, but here are mine.

So assuming there is no reduction in car numbers, or car use, we can use today's figures of approx 30m cars and an average annual mileage of 7,900m pa.

That gives us 237,000,000,000 miles, which at 4m/kWh equals 59,250,000,000kWh, or 59.25TWh. [The UK currently consumes roughly 350TWh pa.]

If we divide that energy figure by days and hours, we get 6.76GW power. [The UK currently averages ~38GW.]

So that's roughly twice the power of Hinkley Point C (3.2GW). So 2 v's your 30 figure.

If you meant reactors, then that's 4 v's your 30 figure.

But, we aren't there yet. That 6.76GW is a gross figure, not net, we also have to consider the energy savings, and since refining a gallon of petrol/diesel consumes around 6kWh, then the gross figure (~+18% of current UK leccy demand) falls to approx +10%, or roughly 4GW, which is roughly one HPC v's your 30 figure, or two reactors v's your 30 figure.

Obviously a far better solution to the additional energy demand would be RE. It's also important at that point to compare the gross energy being replaced, since cars are only about 10-25% efficient, so the gross energy consumed, the energy in the petrol/diesel is vastly greater than the net energy received, so RE leccy energy production at the RE powerstation is a tiny amount compared to the oil energy production at the well.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm not sure anything you've said is true, but for fun I'll take a look at your 30 nuclear powerstations claim for cars alone. You seem to be making quite a specific statement, so I would of course be interested in seeing your calculations, but here are mine.

So assuming there is no reduction in car numbers, or car use, we can use today's figures of approx 30m cars and an average annual mileage of 7,900m pa.

That gives us 237,000,000,000 miles, which at 4m/kWh equals 59,250,000,000kWh, or 59.25TWh. [The UK currently consumes roughly 350TWh pa.]

If we divide that energy figure by days and hours, we get 6.76GW power. [The UK currently averages ~38GW.]

So that's roughly twice the power of Hinkley Point C (3.2GW). So 2 v's your 30 figure.

If you meant reactors, then that's 4 v's your 30 figure.

But, we aren't there yet. That 6.76GW is a gross figure, not net, we also have to consider the energy savings, and since refining a gallon of petrol/diesel consumes around 6kWh, then the gross figure (~+18% of current UK leccy demand) falls to approx +10%, or roughly 4GW, which is roughly one HPC v's your 30 figure, or two reactors v's your 30 figure.

Obviously a far better solution to the additional energy demand would be RE. It's also important at that point to compare the gross energy being replaced, since cars are only about 10-25% efficient, so the gross energy consumed, the energy in the petrol/diesel is vastly greater than the net energy received, so RE leccy energy production at the RE powerstation is a tiny amount compared to the oil energy production at the well.

The likelihood is that EVs will be driven during the day & charged overnight taking advantage of off peak tariffs. Between midnight & 6.00am there's already enough spare capacity to take care of our medium & possible long term EV leccy demand. Smart charging could actually assist balancing the grid & absorb the surplus energy generated by the roll out of more wind capacity. All we'll need are a few more gas turbines & inter-connectors for when the wind doesn't blow.