Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

What is driving Chinese EV exports and their price competitiveness?

China produces EVs more cheaply than anywhere else.

That is mainly due to Beijing's decade-old industry promotion policy of incentives and subsidies 

AIUI, USA EV manufacturers also enjoy some certain incentives / tax breaks at the moment.  They have made big news.  I have no idea whether the USA tax breaks (IRA - is that what the programme is called?) are similar in magnitude to the incentives available in China.

I suppose the Chinese brands also benefit from lower labour rates.

Should Japan, Europe, UK, Korea, etc. subsidise their EV car industry in the same way?
Do these manufacturers receive subsidies in any case and managed to keep the news mostly below the radar?

It would seem a folly if EV production globally is to grow, but only ever on the back of subsidies from whichever country happens to be hosting the manufacturing facility.  The same outcome could be achieved if there were simply no subsidies.

But then EVs would be even more expensive and uncompetitive. China subsidising EVs has been a stategic move. TBH I am surprised any ICE cars sell there. 

See this article. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/21/1068880/how-did-china-dominate-electric-cars-policy/

EricMears

JKenH said:

Guardian opinion piece on the 20 mph limit in Wales - “If elected, Labour should use this experience to adopt similar measures for the whole of the UK”

If elected, Labour should use this experience to adopt similar measures for the whole of the UK, and show the same courage Drakeford has done.

Those of us old enough to remember 'Yes Minister'  (or indeed who have viewed the repeats ! ) will remember Sir Humphrey's  views on  "Courageous policies"  

silverwhistle

zeupater said:

 so if average economic activity is reduced by something akin to not being bothered to take just one journey in which £10 is spent every other month, then the anticipated budget is blown.

Gosh! I didn't realise only journeys by motorists resulted in extra spending!

The argument seems a bit similar to all the objections by traders against pedestrianisation which turns out beneficial to their trade.

Your argument that long distance travel will be tedious is equally misleading when the limit is being introduced for ressidential roads, unless of course you've been in the habit of using rat-runs and racing through villages.

You consider £20m per death too expensive, so I'd like to know what your price is for a road death, and perhaps also for a life-changing injury? I'm not sure I know what the equation should be, but objecting to the measures on the grounds of personal inconvenience is not a great look.

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

But then EVs would be even more expensive and uncompetitive. 

Not necessarily.
How often is a tax increased or reduced but the effect to the retail price is nil?
Incentives are nothing more than reverse taxes.
The retail price is set by affordability.

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

I had thought, naively, that price parity meant EVs getting cheaper to match the lower price of ICEvs.  Looks like I was wrong. 

Tbf, we've been talking about this for many years, since the middle to late 2010's. In short, as the sales of BEV's increase, the industry benefits from all of the effects of the 'virtuous circle', the best known one, being economies of scale. As sales of ICEV's fall, as they have been doing now for ~5yrs, the industry 'suffers' the effects of the 'vicous circle'. ICEV's also have the cost of higher emissions standards pushing up prices in the short/medium term.

Obviously subsidies for BEV's would help to bring the costs to parity sooner, but another way to achieve that would be to remove the large subsidies on ICEV's (the unpaid externalities of CO2(e) and pollution emissions), that artificially make them appear cheaper than they are. Perhaps those externalities are partly seen in the higher running costs, such as fuel duties, and the higher BiK on ICEV's, rather than in the purchase price? However, I appreciate that we'd all like to see them meet at a lower, rather than higher, parity point.

But, again tbf, ICEV's aren't 'evil', their externalities were an acceptable cost for individuals and nations, it's just that we now have a viable alternative.

So parity will be met first, when BEV's fall down to the rising cost of ICEV's, but they will still get cheaper over time, as production costs fall, most likely mainly due to economies of scale, the learning curve, and batteries getting cheaper. 

JKenH

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

But then EVs would be even more expensive and uncompetitive. 

Not necessarily.
How often is a tax increased or reduced but the effect to the retail price is nil?
Incentives are nothing more than reverse taxes.
The retail price is set by affordability.

The retail price is a function of supply and demand, not simply affordability. During the pandemic prices rose as cars were in short supply. When there is oversupply prices fall. Tesla famously manage demand by adjusting their prices to suit the availability. Other manufacturers raised their prices. They haven’t lowered them since supply improved, like Tesla, but are now offering discounts. The Vauxhall Corsa E is an example. 

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

I had thought, naively, that price parity meant EVs getting cheaper to match the lower price of ICEvs.  Looks like I was wrong. 

Tbf, we've been talking about this for many years, since the middle to late 2010's. In short, as the sales of BEV's increase, the industry benefits from all of the effects of the 'virtuous circle', the best known one, being economies of scale. As sales of ICEV's fall, as they have been doing now for ~5yrs, the industry 'suffers' the effects of the 'vicous circle'. ICEV's also have the cost of higher emissions standards pushing up prices in the short/medium term.

Obviously subsidies for BEV's would help to bring the costs to parity sooner, but another way to achieve that would be to remove the large subsidies on ICEV's (the unpaid externalities of CO2(e) and pollution emissions), that artificially make them appear cheaper than they are. Perhaps those externalities are partly seen in the higher running costs, such as fuel duties, and the higher BiK on ICEV's, rather than in the purchase price? However, I appreciate that we'd all like to see them meet at a lower, rather than higher, parity point.

But, again tbf, ICEV's aren't 'evil', their externalities were an acceptable cost for individuals and nations, it's just that we now have a viable alternative.

So parity will be met first, when BEV's fall down to the rising cost of ICEV's, but they will still get cheaper over time, as production costs fall, most likely mainly due to economies of scale, the learning curve, and batteries getting cheaper. 

Another way governments can move manufacturers to balance EV and ICEV prices is to set quotas. If EVs have to make up 22% of what manufacturers have to sell next year and demand isn’t at that level manufacturers will have to cut EV prices to stimulate demand or alternatively face a £15k penalty per car on the shortfall. 

Conversely the quota will restrict ICEV sales and if supply is less than market demand ICEV prices will rise as they did in the pandemic. That will help the premium OEMs as they are 

then better able to absorb the EV shortfall penalties in their rising ICEV prices. 

NigeWick

silverwhistle said:

You consider £20m per death too expensive, so I'd like to know what your price is for a road death, and perhaps also for a life-changing injury? I'm not sure I know what the equation should be, but objecting to the measures on the grounds of personal inconvenience is not a great look.

The causes of crashes are Braking, Acceleration, Steering, inappropriate Speed and poor vehicle maintenance. All initiated by the driver or owner of any vehicle involved. Roads are inanimate objects that just lay there on the ground. 

Exiled_Tyke

silverwhistle said:

You consider £20m per death too expensive, so I'd like to know what your price is for a road death, and perhaps also for a life-changing injury? I'm not sure I know what the equation should be, but objecting to the measures on the grounds of personal inconvenience is not a great look.

Although it feels distasteful in a world of limited resources it is necessary to work out the cost of a life. There is an equation produced by HM Treasury which takes into account all the impacts of a lost life and attempts to value them. The figure (I think from memory) is around £2.4m per life.  Any project (e.g. road construction and in theory this situation of changing speed limits (although I doubt this happened in this instance)) should be assessed for all the benefits and costs using the HM Treasury Green Book. Only in cases where the benefits outweigh the costs should a proposal be implement I would guess that reduction in deaths, injuries, emissions etc.. may well produce a sound business case for the decision to reduce speed limits. 

On a personal note many roads around me have been reduced to 20mph and I haven't liked it but after a while I have finally got used to it. It feels particularly strange driving through London on some big wide busy roads where the limit is now 20.  I'm sure we'll all get used to this in time as 20mph becomes the new norm. 

Martyn1981

Quite a big increase in targets for Toyota as they start to get on board the BEV train. I think their old target was around 1.7m BEV's in 2030, which based on approx 10m current annual sales would be around 17%, so clearly far too low.

Toyota Triples Electric Vehicle Production Target, 600K Units In 2025

Shortly after revealing its high-tech next-generation electric vehicle production line in Japan, Toyota has now shared an ambitious plan to boost its EV output to lock horns with its surging American and European rivals.

Toyota has informed its major suppliers of a new target of making 600,000 EVs in 2025, a three-fold increase from its earlier goal of churning 190,000 EVs in 2024, reported Japanese publication Nikkei. The auto giant sold 24,000 EVs in 2022 and aims to sell 150,000 EVs in 2023, as per the report.