Electric cars.

I fully understand @Kristen .

I think this is a perfect case of (Max) Planck's Principle . In short: new ideas don't catch on because people adopt them, but because naysayers and disbelievers eventually die out.

The discussion is ruled by the heart and fear of someone changing or taking away the lifestyle we are used to. Or to say it with Newton's words "actions generate counteractions". So the harder a new idea is being pushed the more stubbornly it is being dismissed and ridiculed. Some famous examples would be:
- round earth theory
- bacteria as a source of infection
- particle physics
- women/black/commoners/gay rights
- lightbulb to LED transition
- metric system
- seatbelts

We will face the exact same arguments again, once self-driving cars become available.

Until then there will be a transition period where old ICE cars are still allowed on the streets. They will also still be available for those who want them either as second hand deals or imports (probably with a hefty price), but enough to satisfy those who reject EVs completely and fill a few gaps that can't be properly filled by them.

Regarding energy production I also think wind energy will be the way to go until we maybe one day find out way to cold fusion or something we can't imagine as of now. There is a ton of space left in the north sea. Even more space in the Sahara Desert (Desert Tech) to generate solar energy. But political instability won't let us utilise that for a couple more decades.i
Offshore wind turbines are a good deal to satisfy various different interests. They don't take up land better used for farming, don't interfere with local residents and whatever extra cost they have because of their inaccessibility they make good for by having a vastly increased efficiency compared to land based wind turbines.
Furthermore they don't "shred wildlife" as is depicted in most horror stories and are in the contrary sought after resting places for seagulls and other maritime birds. Additional tests with heaps of rocks loosely dumped around the base of wind turbines showed they even increase the amount maritime wildlife like lobsters, fish and everything in between because they give them places to hide and breed usually found mostly near shores.

And yes we know, not every day is a windy day but surprisingly often it is windy enough for a turbine to move and generate energy even if it isn't at its peak performance. But even my 60+ year old father in law was sly enough to buy something between 10 and 20 kWh worth of battery storage to make use of his newly acquired solar roof. Enough to last for a few snowy days and definitely enough to last the nights in between. So why not utilise the storage capacity of those cars to stabilize the grid, even if I think it won't even be necessary. Probably might be more cost efficient to switch a few gas turbines off and on depending on the weather forecast.

 

Blimey @Back Dog, that's a bit extreme!

I'm in complete agreement with you of course ... on the other bits. Energy Security would be good, but so would Food Security. Then UK PLC could build a nice big drawbridge.

 

If we all drove electric cars running on 2p/mile electricity (including 5% VAT), the Exchequer would have a massive shortfall in fuel duty @ £0.70 incl VAT and VAT @ 20% on petrol/diesel. If other taxes were increased to make good that shortfall there would be no overall saving, just the extra cost of the electric vehicles.

It may not be true, but I've read that 'smart' metering can detect electricity being used for car charging, which would enable VAT (& duty?) to be levied on that used for charging electric vehicles.

I doubt if we'll get away with charging overnight on 'cheap' Economy 7, and wonder if it will lead to the discontinuation of that tariff when we're supposed to be changing over to electric heating.

 

My crystal ball says "charge for road usage". Fuel Duty kinda does that ... drive more, pay more. Smart Road Usage charging (i.e. not just "how many miles did you drive last year" but "charge as you drive") could have discount for off-peak with the benefit that that would move some traffic out of "peak"

maybe, but I charge from excess PV off my roof, sometimes from 13AMP (I'd just look like an electric fire) and at work off the 3-phase-supply which has "all sorts" running off it, some of them big kW items, so I am sceptical this is possible, and could not be easily bypassed.

"I see Sir is using Red Electricity on the public roads"

I think that will still be a thing; when wind blowing in North Sea and every one asleep. But "Time of Use" tariffs will sort that out. Use Leccy when everyone else is and it will be more expensive than when everyone is not. When lots of PV is producing, during the day, and the Wind is blowing, then daytime will become the cheapest rate.

Cars will have option to charge-when-rate-is-cheap, in effect those will mop-up excess supply, and not charge during peak demand (indeed, they could discharge during peak demand which would stop us having to have "peaker-plant" gas turbines continuously spinning just to be "ready" for a surge, during Coronation Street Advert "Polly, Put the kettle on please"

They are all going to get "Living Wage" FC ... I read it somewhere

 

yeah, that's the one, thanks.

We need the Forum Rules changed to disallow that ...

 

Very much mirrors my experience @JWK

I'm not sure it will be an issue (by then). The rollout of fast 3rd party charging is well under way. My main gripe with it is that some of the players are only installing, say, 4 stalls. It won't need much in the way of EV sales before such sites will have a queue ... and if the average dwell time is, say, 20 minutes then 4 stalls and a queue is a LONG wait.

I hope the likes of Gridserve will prosper. Loads of stalls, and "facilities" on site to while away the time - e.g. a gym, as well as shopping and so on.

 

Oh come on @shiney . You are better than that. You even cut my sentence in half to make it sound like I am some kind of devil after I shortened a complex quote into a few tongue in cheek words.

New ideas are always contested, and I even gave a few examples later in my post. Most of them even had the "inventors" chased off, burnt or (at the nicest) being ridiculed.

I understand a lot of politicians are greedy, lying pieces of compostable organic matter that will try to make money. But I the second or third piece of an argumentative chain is being dismissed as being too vague (less LOCAL pollution of EV --> Less lung conditions caused by it --> less money needed to treat those conditions) than the chain (less fuel burnt --> less tax gains on fuel --> more taxes will be charged at other places) ist also pretty vague.

Some values can't be supported by numbers because those number don't exist yet. We know as a fact EVs are a lot less noisy as ICEs. We know as a fact they produce less pollution because they brake less often with conventional brakes and can be fed with 100% renewable energies. Those are upgrades no matter how hard people want to dismiss them ("better put a speaker in or people will get hurt").

My questions would be "how far does the price have to drop until the cashier from the supermarket, the cleaning lady or the garbage man can afford them?". And wouldn't you say that prices for NEW cars have always been outside the comfortable range of workers in the lower wage classes if they look at them economically?

Again, no one is forcing anyone to scrap their well oiled car and buy a new electric one. Used cars with ICE will be available for decades after a ban on new sales. But with prices dropping and new models coming every month there will be a tipping point in sales within the next decade or so. After that, EVs will become the norm.

Back to my starting quote which caused a little bit of a ruckus. The green party in Germany had testers go incognito to various car dealerships and ask for vehicles that fit into their tailored backstory (family, friends and work within a 50km radius, no heavy duty like pulling a giant cart). They found out that almost none of those dealerships would even offer if not explicitly asked. And even then a lot of them would actively discourage potential buyers. This was directly linked to the age of car dealerships owner. Things change as soon as the ownership is transferred to the owners children, which more often than not transform the business and give EVs a prominent place in the front of the show room. So Planck's Principle holds in this specific example.

 

Well then let me apologize to you and the other members. It definitely wasn't my intention to belittle them or their opinion on that matter.

I only find it infuriating if any argument, study or experience is simply dismissed by cracking a joke and back it is to bashing something because the bigger the expressed dislike, the more support you get.

 

Doesn't matter to me whether I drive an ev or not as I don't commute to work and therefore have low mileage.

But one thing is quite evident.

The big difference is the price tag and who is able to afford it.

Just my opinion/feeling but it seems to basically come down to - Wealthy vs Poor

That's why being a gardener, a responsible gardener, is so great. You don't have to be rich to be a good custodian of your part of the earth!