EV Discussion thread

JKenH

“Extreme electric car sales targets need a rethink”

It’s understandable to try and hustle EV uptake along, but 22 per cent of new cars in 2024, rapidly rising year by year, is way ahead of consumer desire. Desire, let’s not forget, that isn’t being promoted by Government in any meaningful way for private buyers. It’s going the other way, in fact, with London Congestion Chargeexemption ending from 25 December 2025 (Merry Christmas!), and EVs having to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (albeit at the lowest rate), rather than it currently being free, from 1 April next year.

Helping car makers to make EVs more affordable – be it by cutting VAT on new cars or scrappage-style grants – would go a long way to boosting public confidence, and therefore acceptance. The current approach – ending the few available incentives while bashing manufacturers for not selling cars to buyers that don’t exist – doesn’t seem to be working. Time for a rethink?

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/opinion/363169/extreme-electric-car-sales-targets-need-rethink

Is it time the government stopped flogging a dead horse? Despite the much reported technological superiority of EVs, the disruption S curve, the BIK/fiscal incentives and the ZEV mandate, EVs are just not taking off as they should be doing. All the other technological revolutions to which EVs have been compared - digital cameras, CDs, mobile phones, etc have proceeded without legislation and vast sums of public monies being thrown at the product. It is quite clear that the public as a whole do not yet see EVs as a suitable substitute/replacement. Yes they will work for a significant proportion of the population but we seem to have already reached that level of, what I call, natural demand.

Should we accept that neither the population nor the infrastructure is yet ready for the EV revolution and give BEVs a chance to prove themselves to the public before forcing them on us?

EricMears

JKenH said:

It’s understandable to try and hustle EV uptake along, but 22 per cent of new cars in 2024, rapidly rising year by year, is way ahead of consumer desire. Desire, let’s not forget, that isn’t being promoted by Government in any meaningful way for private buyers. It’s going the other way, in fact, with London Congestion Chargeexemption ending from 25 December 2025 (Merry Christmas!), and EVs having to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (albeit at the lowest rate), rather than it currently being free, from 1 April next year.

If it really was at the "lowest rate"  I don't think any EV owners would mind.  However it's going to be the 'standard rate'  (£180 or possibly £190 ?) whist some 'low emission' diesels will still be paying £20.

michaels

JKenH said:

“Extreme electric car sales targets need a rethink”

It’s understandable to try and hustle EV uptake along, but 22 per cent of new cars in 2024, rapidly rising year by year, is way ahead of consumer desire. Desire, let’s not forget, that isn’t being promoted by Government in any meaningful way for private buyers. It’s going the other way, in fact, with London Congestion Chargeexemption ending from 25 December 2025 (Merry Christmas!), and EVs having to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (albeit at the lowest rate), rather than it currently being free, from 1 April next year.

Helping car makers to make EVs more affordable – be it by cutting VAT on new cars or scrappage-style grants – would go a long way to boosting public confidence, and therefore acceptance. The current approach – ending the few available incentives while bashing manufacturers for not selling cars to buyers that don’t exist – doesn’t seem to be working. Time for a rethink?

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/opinion/363169/extreme-electric-car-sales-targets-need-rethink

Is it time the government stopped flogging a dead horse? Despite the much reported technological superiority of EVs, the disruption S curve, the BIK/fiscal incentives and the ZEV mandate, EVs are just not taking off as they should be doing. All the other technological revolutions to which EVs have been compared - digital cameras, CDs, mobile phones, etc have proceeded without legislation and vast sums of public monies being thrown at the product. It is quite clear that the public as a whole do not yet see EVs as a suitable substitute/replacement. Yes they will work for a significant proportion of the population but we seem to have already reached that level of, what I call, natural demand.

Should we accept that neither the population nor the infrastructure is yet ready for the EV revolution and give BEVs a chance to prove themselves to the public before forcing them on us?

Or perhaps the govt shouldn't give a fig about what people think they want and instead worry about what they actually want, a liveable planet and health in the medium term - much more important than being slightly inconvenienced in their transport choices.

JKenH

Building EVs but not selling them is only accelerating global warming. 

European ports turned into car parks as EV makers hunt buyers

However, Le Monde reported that at Calloo, near Antwerp, and Zeebrugge, the huge parking lots to accommodate 130,000 freshly shipped vehicles, are cramped now with Chinese models, including MG, BYD, Nio, XPeng, Lynk & Co, Omoda, Hongqi, among others. 

Anonymous sources say that in some instances, there are cars that have been parked at the port for more than a year.  

The Financial Times, which first reported the congestion in European ports, puts the problem down to the fact that Chinese models are shipped to Europe without a sales network on the continent or onward transportation. Consequently, Chinese models were not sold in Europe as fast as was expected.

https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/05/15/european-ports-turned-into-car-parks-as-ev-makers-hunt-buyers

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

“Extreme electric car sales targets need a rethink”

It’s understandable to try and hustle EV uptake along, but 22 per cent of new cars in 2024, rapidly rising year by year, is way ahead of consumer desire. Desire, let’s not forget, that isn’t being promoted by Government in any meaningful way for private buyers. It’s going the other way, in fact, with London Congestion Chargeexemption ending from 25 December 2025 (Merry Christmas!), and EVs having to pay Vehicle Excise Duty (albeit at the lowest rate), rather than it currently being free, from 1 April next year.

Helping car makers to make EVs more affordable – be it by cutting VAT on new cars or scrappage-style grants – would go a long way to boosting public confidence, and therefore acceptance. The current approach – ending the few available incentives while bashing manufacturers for not selling cars to buyers that don’t exist – doesn’t seem to be working. Time for a rethink?

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/opinion/363169/extreme-electric-car-sales-targets-need-rethink

Is it time the government stopped flogging a dead horse? Despite the much reported technological superiority of EVs, the disruption S curve, the BIK/fiscal incentives and the ZEV mandate, EVs are just not taking off as they should be doing. All the other technological revolutions to which EVs have been compared - digital cameras, CDs, mobile phones, etc have proceeded without legislation and vast sums of public monies being thrown at the product. It is quite clear that the public as a whole do not yet see EVs as a suitable substitute/replacement. Yes they will work for a significant proportion of the population but we seem to have already reached that level of, what I call, natural demand.

Should we accept that neither the population nor the infrastructure is yet ready for the EV revolution and give BEVs a chance to prove themselves to the public before forcing them on us?

Or perhaps the govt shouldn't give a fig about what people think they want and instead worry about what they actually want, a liveable planet and health in the medium term - much more important than being slightly inconvenienced in their transport choices.

I understand your concerns about global warming but at the risk of repeating the age old argument - forcing our car manufacturers only to sell a fixed quota of ICEs, when the rest of the world is not so limited, is unlikely to have any significant impact on global warming. It is damaging our economy disproportionately. The EU are not being so prescriptive. Yes, curb emissions with tightening CO2 limits as the EU is doing, to encourage manufacturers to sell greener vehicles, but imposing quotas on manufacturers is, as with most well intentioned policies from governments of all hues, likely to have unintended consequences. 

As we have already seen, as they are unlikely to be able to meet their EV quota, Ford have said that they will have to restrict the number of ICE cars they sell. Which cars are they likely to restrict sales of: big high margin/high CO2 models or small hybrids? Ford have already dropped the Fiesta, and the Focus is on the way out, as they can’t make these cars profitably because of the higher emissions standards demanded already. Kia have dropped the Rio and Nissan, the Micra, for the same reasons. 

The UK EV quotas are only going to lead to more of the wrong sort of ICE cars hitting our streets. Alongside the EV quota the UK also implements weight based emissions standards - the bigger the average weight of the car the higher the emissions allowed so the natural tendency will be for manufacturers to push their bigger higher margin/more polluting cars to fund the penalties arising from the EVs they can’t sell. The alternative is to do what Stellantis is doing - import cheap Chinese EVs to sell in the EU and UK.

Personally I don’t think undermining the UK/EU car industry is the answer but I accept others may see this as a good thing. I am pretty sure though that wasn’t the intention behind the UK EV quota policy. 

JKenH

Despite the statistics suggesting EV fires are far less frequent, fires involving EVs continue to make the news - even if the cause is still under investigation. 

BYD Showroom Burns to the Ground After One Electric Car Bursts Into Flames

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/byd-showroom-burns-to-the-ground-after-one-electric-car-bursts-into-flames-234010.html

Electric vehicle 'possibly caused' dealership blaze

Lee Alford, station manager at Avon and Fire Rescue Service, said crews have "reason to believe" it was started by an EV, but added that investigations were ongoing and no conclusions had been reached yet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2544ndvkepo

JKenH

And, yes, diesel buses catching fire also make the headlines - at least in the Telegraph. 

Bus reduced to burnt-out shell after catching fire in London

A Transport for London bus has been reduced to a burnt-out shell after catching fire in south-west London on Saturday.

The single-decker diesel vehicle burst into flames in Richmond Road, Twickenham, on Saturday afternoon.

So far this year there have been at least four fires on TfL buses, three in January. Two happened in electric vehicles and one in a hybrid.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/18/bus-reduced-burnt-out-shell-after-fire-london/

JKenH

Australian fire authorities are playing it ultra safe over EV chargers but the EV industry is lobbying against strict fire regulations specifically aimed at EVs. 

Vehicle or hazard: New rules treat EV chargers like firework factories

Property developers say new requirements from fire and rescue services are making electric car chargers almost impossible to install in apartment buildings at a time they are in highest demand.

The rules, in Queensland and NSW, even indicate electric cars should not be allowed inside car parks without significant fire protection, including sprinklers and smoke management systems.

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/19/vehicle-or-hazard-new-rules-treat-ev-chargers-like-firework-factories/

Fire department wants restrictions on EV parking and charging in big buildings

“FRNSW does not recommend EV parking and/or charging to any building not protected by an AS 2118 fire sprinkler system, including a building protected by an FPAA101D or FPAA101H fire sprinkler system which have lesser performance,” it writes.

“Any request for consultation or referral to FRNSW relating to any new building that intends to incorporate EV parking and/or charging, should adequately identify the hazards and risks and demonstrate how they are being address within the design.”

The EV industry is concerned that this is a case of over-reach, and while the FRNSW position is yet to be formally incorporated into new building standards, they effectively already are because developers are being told that approval will not be forthcoming without them. The industry says the costs to smaller apartment buildings could be prohibitive.

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/06/fire-department-wants-restrictions-on-ev-parking-and-charging-in-big-buildings/

michaels

JKenH said:

Australian fire authorities are playing it ultra safe over EV chargers but the EV industry is lobbying against strict fire regulations specifically aimed at EVs. 

Vehicle or hazard: New rules treat EV chargers like firework factories

Property developers say new requirements from fire and rescue services are making electric car chargers almost impossible to install in apartment buildings at a time they are in highest demand.

The rules, in Queensland and NSW, even indicate electric cars should not be allowed inside car parks without significant fire protection, including sprinklers and smoke management systems.

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/19/vehicle-or-hazard-new-rules-treat-ev-chargers-like-firework-factories/

Fire department wants restrictions on EV parking and charging in big buildings

“FRNSW does not recommend EV parking and/or charging to any building not protected by an AS 2118 fire sprinkler system, including a building protected by an FPAA101D or FPAA101H fire sprinkler system which have lesser performance,” it writes.

“Any request for consultation or referral to FRNSW relating to any new building that intends to incorporate EV parking and/or charging, should adequately identify the hazards and risks and demonstrate how they are being address within the design.”

The EV industry is concerned that this is a case of over-reach, and while the FRNSW position is yet to be formally incorporated into new building standards, they effectively already are because developers are being told that approval will not be forthcoming without them. The industry says the costs to smaller apartment buildings could be prohibitive.

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/06/fire-department-wants-restrictions-on-ev-parking-and-charging-in-big-buildings/

This needs to get sorted quickly, after the cladding fires it does not surprise me that buildings would apply a precautionary principle.  EV fires are much rarer than ICE fires but if the former could (but we don't know due to less experience) take out a building whereas the latter we have lots of experience of and they don't take out buildings then we need to plan accordingly.  If it is a false alarm then we need the evidence to prove it.

Perhaps the most likely reason for an EV to catch fire is that the ice car next to it catches fire, if that threatens a building where an ice to ice fire spread would not then it is a problem.

JKenH

michaels said:

JKenH said:

Australian fire authorities are playing it ultra safe over EV chargers but the EV industry is lobbying against strict fire regulations specifically aimed at EVs. 

Vehicle or hazard: New rules treat EV chargers like firework factories

Property developers say new requirements from fire and rescue services are making electric car chargers almost impossible to install in apartment buildings at a time they are in highest demand.

The rules, in Queensland and NSW, even indicate electric cars should not be allowed inside car parks without significant fire protection, including sprinklers and smoke management systems.

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/19/vehicle-or-hazard-new-rules-treat-ev-chargers-like-firework-factories/

Fire department wants restrictions on EV parking and charging in big buildings

“FRNSW does not recommend EV parking and/or charging to any building not protected by an AS 2118 fire sprinkler system, including a building protected by an FPAA101D or FPAA101H fire sprinkler system which have lesser performance,” it writes.

“Any request for consultation or referral to FRNSW relating to any new building that intends to incorporate EV parking and/or charging, should adequately identify the hazards and risks and demonstrate how they are being address within the design.”

The EV industry is concerned that this is a case of over-reach, and while the FRNSW position is yet to be formally incorporated into new building standards, they effectively already are because developers are being told that approval will not be forthcoming without them. The industry says the costs to smaller apartment buildings could be prohibitive.

https://thedriven.io/2024/05/06/fire-department-wants-restrictions-on-ev-parking-and-charging-in-big-buildings/

This needs to get sorted quickly, after the cladding fires it does not surprise me that buildings would apply a precautionary principle.  EV fires are much rarer than ICE fires but if the former could (but we don't know due to less experience) take out a building whereas the latter we have lots of experience of and they don't take out buildings then we need to plan accordingly.  If it is a false alarm then we need the evidence to prove it.

Perhaps the most likely reason for an EV to catch fire is that the ice car next to it catches fire, if that threatens a building where an ice to ice fire spread would not then it is a problem.

I think that sums it up well.