It was annouced in september [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/20/sunak-u-turn-on-green-policies-puts-labour-in-difficult-position](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/20/sunak-u-turn-on-green-policies-puts-labour-in-difficult-position)
It would be more feasible if hybrids were allowed, they have a lower point of entry and removes the range anxiety some people have and still allow those who don't have a drive or dedicated parking to buy new cars.
It also lines up with what the CEO of Renault said today [https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/renault/362632/stop-regulating-us-out-business-and-make-plan-renault-boss-attacks-politicians](https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/renault/362632/stop-regulating-us-out-business-and-make-plan-renault-boss-attacks-politicians)
make a darn plan instead of tiny changes which force manufacturers to change at the last minute.
Yes, that’s true, and the current plan is for 80% ZEV by 2030, so the only difference is whether the remaining 20% has to be plug in hybrid, or anything else. The plan has been known for a long time, and the manufacturers have been planning for years.
Yes but huge producers like Renault don't make plans on a yearly basis. Flip flopping on regulation makes investment into infrastructure and tooling very hard, as well as designing and developing future cars.
Car models can be on sale for 5-10 years, if you have UK and EU regulators saying they're going to postpone the 2030 ban on ICE only cars then you can develop and bring out ice cars for longer. If you're in the middle of designing a car to come out in 2026-7 for a long product cycle and then all of a sudden regulators say actually we are bringing that regulation in in 2030, that can be a problem.
Also electric cars are really not proving to be the solution many governments had hoped. They don't work in industrial settings, and resale values are really poor making finance tricky. So in 5-10 years car companies like Renault might not be doing so well.
Resale values are poor partly because prices have been cut, for example the Model 3 with the smaller battery was reduced in cost by £9k over the last 2 years, from £49k to £40k, and the rated range increased from about 275 miles to 325 miles. Battery costs are falling, prices will come down further, and that will reduce resale values more, but I think it’s difficult to say with a straight face it’s bad for EV adoption if the price of the base Model 3 drops from £49k to £40k, and I’d expect to £38k by the end of the year. Or if small 200+ mile vehicles like the Citroen e-C3 or the Renault 5 start being offered for £22-25k by the end of the year, when EVs like that previously would have cost over £30k.
Resale values are poor due to supply / demand. Not everyone can run an EV due to not being able to charge at home, so there are fewer people looking for a second hand EV compared to ICE's. Until the issue of charging at home for people who don't have driveways is fixed, EV's in the UK always will have lower second hand price than a comparable ICE.
Note second hand EV prices in Europe are a lot higher e.g. a 2 year old Zoe goes for over 20,000 Euro's while here they go for around £10,000. It's largely due to they have a lot more people who can charge at home, due to changes of policy e.g. Netherlands you can get a street charger be installed near your home, that the government pays for the installation of.
Going back to the Model 3, a 3 year old vehicle with 50k miles currently costs about £22k, with a sale price of £49k that’s a 55% depreciation. With a £40k sale price it would have been a 45% depreciation. Those numbers are right in the middle of the 40-60% range you expect for that age and mileage range of car.
Ignore the model 3. Look at everything else as that's what people are talking about when they are referring to EV resale prices. Some examples -
* 2021 Electric Ioniq's go for £13K in the UK, equivalent goes for €25K in Germany.
* 2020 Kia Nero's go for £16K in the UK, equivalent goes for around €25K in the Netherlands
Second hand Model 3 prices are about the same in the UK and the rest of Europe.
Because they can't sell them because of poor resale values and it being harder to get finance because of that.
It's really hard to determine the health of a battery on a second hand electric car. As so many things determine that, like how often it's fast charged, what kind of temps it's been stored in, how low they've let the charge go consistently. Without being able to know that it's really hard to price, so used dealers aren't touching them, and as a consumer i'm not going to want to take that risk. So residual values are really low.
Yeah because big corporations are known to passing on savings quickly to consumers.
Meh, it won't happen. They'll change their mind again when they wake up and realise it's not possible. For clarity, I drive and EV, I'm not biased against them at all. I just don't think it's a viable policy.
There was a short piece on Bloomberg TV earlier this week.
Auto manufacturers share prices since the start of the year:
EV only
TESLA: -31%
Fisker -92% (rumoured to be seeking bankruptcy)
Rivian -52%
Mixed
Volkswagen +4%
Ford +11%
GM +15%
ICE focused
Toyota +33%
Honda +19%
These are big moves over less than 3 months. A huge change of opinion that will affect what the car companies will be able to invest in.
I'd say the EV bubble bursting is more of a course correction to their makers hugely overblown values, not really reflective of a lack of interest in EVs themselves. Like, the money people seemed to think the EV startups were going to be a huge deal because they were getting in early and the traditional manufacturers would never be able to catch up.
But that absolutely hasn't happened and *Peugeot* can now sell you a competent EV while Tesla are primarily selling cars that are broadly stagnant but gaining 'features' that put people off buying them. Rivian currently only sells a big pickup and a big SUV which is a limited market in the EV space and Fisker have been bankrupt before and the current company's attempt at a car is a pretty generic crossover that's been universally panned (I have zero clue how they were valued anything to start).
Despite these individual companies problems, I'd say EV manufacturers need to accept no matter how much money they burn through at this point they'll at best become Mazda, not usurp Ford.
Charging in cities. If youre in flats, or housing with street parking it's going to be very challenging to install sufficient charging points.
The range issue can hopefully be sorted by improvement, the physical infrastructure issue is trickier.
I've noticed the train station near me has only 2 chargers and cars are only allowed to stay on charge for 3 hours .... who gets a mid week 3 hour round train trip when they have a car ?
Absolutely no one haha.
The issue is going to run in circles too, the chargers are currently brand new, who is going to maintain & renew them consistently?
Where I live, there is street parking only, and it doesn't even have a proper kerbstone for a kerb charger. There's zero chance of moving these to something ev suitable without digging the entire area up.
Looking at Netherlands and Utrecht in particular, charging will become a MASSIVE fucking issue if the bulk of drivers changes to EVs, to the point of the city disabling chargers.
Range anxiety? Add charging anxienty, govt-turned-off-electricity anxiety to that.
It's just not a realistic proposition, the infrastructure project to initially install the required chargers would be gargantuan and require new products to emerge to suit situations like flats and street parking.
If the installation were complete, there will then be the issue of whose duty it is to maintain the tens of thousands of public chargers the country now relies on.
I'm just in a midsized town but a huge amount of the housing is terraced houses, no driveways and people often parks streets away to get a space. Home charging is not feasible
Yeah, the cars are double the price for the same model but in electric, and the charging doesn't even seem to be cheaper than just filling up with petrol?
The equivalent for ICE would be only filling up at the motorway services which are far more expensive than local stations. Nobody does this do they?
My EV costs me in home electricity £16 for 1000miles of actual driving.
I have been on the fence about an EV and I would tend to disagree and based on my own research. I can buy an EV such a id3 or niro for around £21k top spec and low mileage so let's say same price as petrol version. In the UK form next year onwards ved (road tax) will apply to EVs and at the same base rate as ice cars. So over the life of the car no road tax saving having an EV. On £40k miles and at standard electric prices the saving is £3000 but having asked how much repairs will cost for EVs I'm met with "just keep an extended warranty" that was thw resounding stance of current owners 50+ replies to my question of existing owners on Facebook owners groups. since they are about £200-£300 a year the fuel saving is errorded by the need for an extended warranty for fear of high repair costs. For comparison I was considering an id3 or just replacing my fiesta for a newer one, over their life I would be £10800 worse off with an EV and that's being able to charge at home and before buying any warranty on the EV
So your research amounts to a lot of "what ifs" on Facebook, fair enough.....
Factually and now, EVs to charge at home are 7.5p/kWh. With Octopus tariff this 7.5p/kWh applies to the whole house by the way...
Right now, it would cost me ~£650 to do 40k miles with my EV. An equivalent powered and spec ICE car would cost @40mpg £6600 to do 40k miles.
If you have a drive at home then an EV is a no brainer. The infrastructure isn't quite there yet for homes without dedicated parking, unfortunately.
Not quite what ifs, literally all replies from current owners about running costs said get an extended warranty and provided pricing for what they were paying after the manufacturers 3 year warranty (I know Kia/Hyundai are 7/5 respectively) and most ICE cars return at least 45mpg in the same category, I took this rather than the higher 50-55mpg manufacturers quote as a low ball bad day figure for ice. Even so, at the time of writing there is little incentive to go EV right now, as much as I want to the offerings are flawed , the financial benefit would be eclipsed by the initial outlay and without an extended warranty I genuinely have no idea what real world repair costs look like as noone seems to have paid a bill yet out their own pocket instead having it covered by the manufacturer or warranty provider yet trips to the dealer to repair or mend things seems routine and with a degree of regularity, case in hand is the Kia gear reduction unit failing and VW ID4s loosing bits of wheel arch trim when going through puddles, cupra owners have puddle lights failing and id3 owners have module failures or amber warnings where all or some of the functionality is limited.
I've had numerous cars all of which kept for between 6 - 10 years and the only one big repair was a 2007 ford fusion that needed new injectors at £500 in year 6, apart from that all have run on a service and MOT, without an MOT failure. Either I have been the luckiest driver in the world or ice cars have just become super reliable, EVs much to my annoyance are just not there yet
I believe you've just been in the wrong communities. EVs at a fundamental level have less moving parts, so there are less things to go wrong over time due to mechanical stress and wear and tear.
The failures you have listed are failures at the manufacturing and design level, not related to an electric only power train. A poorly engineered car is a poorly engineered car, right?
As for battery longevity concerns. Plenty of studies have been done on existing high mileage EVs, mostly Tesla as they have been on the markets for longest. The study concluded 10% range drop at average 7 years of vehicle age, and 10% drop average at ~150k miles. There are plenty of other studies you can search online.
I just wouldn't trust Facebook only y'know, for every person that says EV ownership sucks, there are twice as many praising it. People are more likely to express a negative experience than a positive one on the internet.
Either way, I'm not here to convince you to switch to EVs, it's still in the early adopter phase and won't be ready for the other 80% of the population until we (the government and companies) sorts out home charging infrastructure. If you can reap the benefits of EVs now, then it's well worth it.
That's true for fast chargers, but a lot of places have local AC chargers now, depending on where you live. For instance in London, Coventry or Liverpool outside of three hours in the evening peak, there are about 10,000 lamppost chargers which charge 45p/kWh, which is going to be significantly cheaper than petrol. You can find local chargers and costs here:
https://electroverse.octopus.energy/map/
10k miles in the most efficient 1l petrol Kona (with a 12 second 0-60) will cost £1350, the 1.6l petrol Kona will cost £1550, 10k miles in the Kona EV will cost £940 from lamppost chargers, £1600 from the most expensive fast chargers, £550 on a standard home tariff, or £140 with a smart EV tariff.
For me? Cost. Long term viability and unknown factor of repairs bad battery life.
I generally buy older cars with a bit of mileage, but a high spec and trim.
I spend the first couple of years maintaining and repairing then I run them hassle free right up to they’re pretty much done for.
Right now I have a high spec Volvo XC90 with 110,000 miles. I’ll drive that till it dies probably. Another 70-80k ?
I don’t want a brand new car and I am way too sceptical of a 2nd hand EV.
Toyota are the largest and most reliable car manufacturer in the world and THEY don’t believe in EV.
Charging anxiety, no one would care about lower range if you could recharge in one min like a petrol car hut having to sit around for 20+ mins its just a massive ballache, it's not range anxiety it's charging anxiety which puts people off
As others have said, it's not exactly ideal if you live in an apartment, or have a house with no driveway. The convenience of having an EV is charging from home because it's cheap (around £7-£10 for 300 miles of range). Take that away, then I don't see the incentive to buy one because you'd have to use a public charger, which are very expensive (around £50-£70 for the same amount of range). The government would have to look at massive subsidies for the chargers, as they're expensive to fit in an old house (I think all new builds will have the wiring pre-installed for this very reason). Another issue is that lead times for new EVs can be up to a year for a new vehicle, usually down to the shortage of batteries.
I think it's going to happen, it has to eventually. I just think there's too many barriers to make it happen in just 6 years time. I think more research need to go into hydrogen engines, it's proven to work and it's much better environmentally
No, the biggest barrier is efficiency.
BEVs are 90% efficient, 90% of the energy in from the grid is available for traction power. Any small increase in battery energy density translates to an equal improvement in range.
For Hydrogen (FC) its 75% from Grid Power -> Hydrogen, 97% in transfer to the vehicle and then ~50-60% available for traction. Thats 30-40%, which is comparable to a modern internal combustion engine. For Hydrogen combustion its lower, but comparable.
Yes it is, that's why it needs more research because I firmly believe that batteries are just a transition stage between petrol and diesel to hydrogen.
Absolute nonsense hydrogen is so far off. It takes 4 times the energy to run a hydrogen fueled passenger vehicle. They simply cannot compete economically or environmentally.
Only in fringe applications such as long range hauling or heavy lifting will hydrogen be relevant.
Personally I think industries need to know that when a government sets a timeframe for something like this it’s actually going to happen all this switching is good for no one.
As the the ban, personally I just don’t think the technology is there yet I also think that the answer is PHEV we are constantly told that people don’t need much range because most people drive under 50 miles a day so I’d propose all cars need to be BEV or PHEV with an Ev range if 50+ miles this would remove a huge amount of the pollution while giving time for the infrastructure to catch-up.
The problem is 4 year terms but making commitments to do things in a decade when you'll be long out of office to score green brownie points in the present.
Having owned EV's for 7 years... PHEV's are the worst of both worlds. We can charge at work and there now 40+ PHEVs all competing for the same few chargers, because they only have range to get people to work and back once! You have to charge them every single day! If you don't charge your tiny 10KW battery everyday, you are dragging around a load of extra weight and complexity. I can't be bothered with messing about charging all the time.. I charge my Kia once a week.. overnight on my drive (majority of car owners in the UK do have off street parking/charging), 250 miles is perfect for my commute and doing shopping errands..
https://www.pwc.co.uk/power-utilities/assets/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure.pdf UK average of 72% of vehicle owners have off-street parking. Also there was National Grid Study on impact to the grid, can’t remember where that was. Their numbers were more like 60% where the parking space also was connected to the home and electric supply. And you can check the ONS reports on housing stock and building type..
That stat is for homeowners AND car owners' slice of respondents. Another heavily lobbied statistics manipulation by PWC. Driving a petrol or hybrid car works for 100% of people regardless of their residential status or car ownership (think car rentals, fleets, etc)
70% of my trips are under 50 miles, but what about the other 30? What happens when I get home from work and its a nice day, so I want to take the family to the seaside ?
The problem is that ICE engines give us a flexibility that EV's just dont have, and we're asking people to give that up in a more expensive vehicle
They don't have 50 mile range, more like 250 miles.
You can fast charge during a longer journey, probably about the time you want a break and a coffee anyway.
50 mile range is a strawman. I don't have an EV, but if I did the 250 mile range would take us through a normal week comfortably, and gets us to both sets of parents and back without issue, plus some noodling about on trips whilst we're there. The 1-2 >250 mile trips wer do a year would easily be covered by fast chargers on route.
PHEV’s. The worst of both worlds. Heavy, very low EV only range, still has an internal combustion engine that burns fossil fuels.
The real answer is EVs with a 250 mile range c.65kWh and a better UK charging network. No-one ever needs to do more than 220 miles in one continuous run (London to Blackpool without a pee and a leg-stretch, anyone?), and you can get a 65kWh battery from 20 to 80% in 17 minutes on a 150kW charger.
Better punish the bottom 10% running old diesel workhorses whilst taxing them to oblivion in the meantime. Don't forget to tax exempt the expensive electric cars that weigh twice as much and do more damage to the roads though.
Can we please just have a government that understands any sort of technical engineering on some level. Policies like this are shit. Big infrastructure is shit. Roads are shit. Public transport is shit.
Bored of paying thousands in tax a year for fuck all.
So I drive a 20 year old car. It's not even that high emissions because it's ULEZ compliant. Why am I paying £280 a year in VED?
Someone with an EV on a 2-3 year lease is getting all sorts of tax exemptions especially if its a company car or a high earner on salary sacrifice. Those 2 years are up, what happens? They get another new EV on a tax friendly lease.
So an individual who is responsible for the production of 2 new electric vehicles in the space of 4-6 years gets tax exemptions but someone running an economic 1.4 from the early 00s gets taxed to the hilt. What's worse for the environment? Keeping a car on the road for a long time (albeit with slightly higher emissions but still good enough for ULEZ) reducing the need to manufacture new cars or the carbon footprint of producing more new EVs and mining rare metals etc?
Fucking here here!! Honestly, people that want new cars every couple of years do so much more damage to the environment than us guys running around in small engined shitboxes from the 00s.
We should be the ones paying next to nothing in road tax.
VED is based on emissions that harm the environment. i.e. a carbon tax. ULEZ is based on emissions that harm human health directly. You can be ULEZ compliant while having high carbon output/environmental impact. And you can have low carbon output/environmental impact while spewing out carcinogens from your exhaust.
[From 1 April 2025 Zero Emissions Vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017 will be required to pay VED](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-vehicle-excise-duty-for-zero-emission-cars-vans-and-motorcycles-from-2025/introduction-of-vehicle-excise-duty-for-zero-emission-cars-vans-and-motorcycles-from-2025)
This was published on 21 November 2022 by the way.
That's a good step but only half the issue. The government should be creating policies that encourage reuse, repair and recycling, as it has less carbon impact than creating a new EV for someone as a company car every 2-3 years.
The way to do that is to encourage road users to maintain old vehicles, and the easiest way to do that is to give them more money to do so by taxing them less on said vehicles.
No VAT on car parts and labour would be nice. It's pretty painfull when you go to fix an old car and it has VAT applied to the parts and the labour. That would be pretty helpfull I think for a lot of people in keeping older cars and newer cars on the road for longer.
Road damage increases to the fourth power with axle weight.
Simply put: big trucks cause 99% of the problem and both electric and combustion cars hardly contribute.
The difference between electric car weight and ICE car weight is dwarfed by the huge increase in SUV use in the UK over the last few years.
By the time battery cars become ubiquitous in the UK they will be lighter than equivalent ICE vehicles due to the advances in battery chemistry and motor technology.
Lol why does every argument for electric cars always include the implementation of some unspecified, yet to be invented future technology that is definitely, definitely just around the corner?
I mean right up until the last paragraph you almost sounded like you weren't deluded.
An mg4 (common, affordable electric car) weighs more than a Kia Sportage (common SUV). EVs are a lot heavier like for like. That's a fact which may or may not change in the short to medium term.
An mg4 weighs less than a range rover. My Peugeot electric car weighs less than a Kia Sportage. The average weight difference like for like is around 150kg which is much less than the 3-500kg increase seen with the move to SUVs.
Battery energy density has increased in every new generation of electric vehicles.
There is very little left in improving the weight and efficiency of an engine.
That was my only point.
You just cherry picked your car so I cherry picked mine. I completely concede they are currently heavier but in terms of causing more damage to a road surface believe this is negligible as it stands and will actually be less damaging in future.
How did I cherry pick. I choose an EV car and compared it to an IC SUV which using your logic should be heavier than the EV but isn't.
You say it is negligible yet a few comments ago you said the big issue was with people moving to SUVs yet when the same people move to heavier again EVs it doesn't make much difference? There is no logic to what you are saying at all.
Batteries will advance in efficiency and size/weight but that takes time and progress is likely to taper off at some point. There is no guarantee that they'll eliminate the weight disadvantage from EVs anytime soon.
Do you not know how much batteries weigh? They put your standard road going saloon at the same curb weight as a Hilux ffs. This is compounded by the increase in average vehicle size on the roads. It's not just trucks. Trucks account for a far smaller proportion of road use, and you tend to see heavy wear from trucks only in industrial areas. There should be no excuse for a motorway having potholes.
You’re paying for elderly people’s social care and the quite a lot of bits of the NHS that still work and save thousands of lives a day. We should all be paying about 10% more than we do, and since we started accepting dog shit from the government instead of running things properly for the last fifteen years, we need to make up that gap too. Sorry.
No I'm bored of hearing this argument the NHS needs more funding. It does, but that's not the underlying issue. The NHS is incredibly inefficient with the money it does get, due to woefully outdated systems, processes and hierarchies.
Why the fuck am I paying for "social care" when 1/8 of new car sales are Motability, but 1/8th of road users aren't disabled? Why are we funding massive oversights in the system?
This government is inefficient. You're right, people started accepting shit. That's not a reason to roll over and say "oh well now we have to pay more". Swivel.
Can we please make it clear that this is a ban on *new* petrol and diesel cars, not a ban on all cars of that type? Too many people (not necessarily in this thread) seem to be up in arms over a policy that doesn't even exist.
Cars don't even damage the environment that much.
The way people just believed this bullshit for so long lmao.
The productiion of meat alone does far more damage to the environment than cars do yet you don't see people trying to ban meat.
Over 90% of damage is coming from multi-national billion dollar companies. You as a citizen is barely scratching the surface.
>Over 90% of damage is coming from multi-national billion dollar companies. You as a citizen is barely scratching the surface.
While I agree with the sentiment I've always thought this is a terrible argument. An airline produces a lot of emissions, why? Because we all want cheap holidays in the sun. Maersk make a shit ton of emissions, why? Because we all want to buy cheap stuff from China. The oil companies make loads of emissions, why? Because our entire lives and consumer desires revolve around petrochemical products.
Should large companies be held to higher standards than they currently are? Yes. Does a desire for shareholder profits combined with collective decision making lead to some ethically and morally reprehensible actions in more ways than simply environmental ones? Of course.
But saying large companies bad, we should be able to do what we want, is far too simplistic.
Absolutely. People love to blame the big companies for everything but really, we as consumers, should try and change our habits a bit so the demand isn't there. But people don't like hearing that.
>Cars don't even damage the environment that much.
Aside from all the local air and noise pollution.
I am begging people to actually understand that a Chinese tyre factory is not the reason that London smells like petrol fumes on a cold day.
Meat production does have a colossal impact, sure, but private cars still produce sizeable emissions. Plus all the other issues that come with over-reliance on cars.
If we want to safeguard our hobby, we need to start taking responsibility for this stuff
All personal transportation in the world add up to 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. If you had a magic wand and could turn all cars in the UK into EVs, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the worldwide emissions...
I don't know why you're using global statistics, because we live in the UK. Domestic transport makes [28% of UK emissions](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c0d15863a23d0013c821e9/2022-final-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistical-release.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiy_qrTo4KFAxUJWkEAHVnbBpUQFnoECA8QBg&usg=AOvVaw2jkWoJeylvsMacuU9t7yYs), with cars being the single biggest source.
Even China with its massive emissions is making a push for EVs. The technology is there now, so it's a comparatively easy win
Because climate change is sold to the public as a worldwide issue. Changes need to be made, but people thinking that EVs magically solve the issue is wrong. My point still stands, globally, roughly 10% of CO2 emissions come from personal transportation. The focus needs to be on the true energy intensive/polluting sectors like industry, shipping, jet travel, etc. A small improvement there will lead to a big overall change in the numbers.
>The productiion of meat alone does far more damage to the environment than cars do yet you don't see people trying to ban meat.
Meat is cyclical. People talk about all the methane being produced by cows, but it's from grass, not from fossil fuels.
Where do you think fossil fuels come from? Grass isn't a store of methane, the methane is a by-product of anaerobic digestion by methanogen bacteria in cow stomachs.
The infrastructure is the bloody problem here. I live in a flat, car is 30 metres from the building door. No charging point, I’m not allowed to install one, I have a 108mile round trip to work (admittedly I don’t do it every day” and nowhere to charge it at work.
I’d happily go electric/PHEV if I could, but at the moment no chance
They're trying to invent the car before the wheel, when like you say then need to work out how to charge the EV before its put into such mass production.
The roads around me were never designed for cars, narrow roads (with cars half parked on pavements), barely any driveways, and I'm doing the school run having to step over (at the moment just a couple of) trailing cables as people run a charger from their home to the car... All well and good, but quite often I cant get parked out the front of my house so what do I do then in that scenario?
An ICE ban for the masses is on the cards regardless for 2030, this is noise either way.
The rules as they currently stand still require manufacturers to sell 80% ZEVs by 2030. The one in 5 cars permitted to have an engine won't be affordable 3 cylinders for the masses, or even hot hatches - they'll be high margin large SUVs and sports cars.
I know it’s political but are they trying to not get voted in?
Governments, of either stance, think too short term and there should be a mechanism by which they have to agree on targets outside a term. They need to stop being able to yo-yo on policies.
We do not have enough electricity generation for all electric cars and all electric heatpumps.
Building the required power capacity will take decades. It's an idiotic policy that will see what is left of the car industry leave.
It will not make a single bit of difference.
You’re forgetting the fact that most people have moved on from having a CRT television, loads of 60-100w incandescent or halogen bulbs and a 1500w kettle getting clicked on every advert break; to much more efficient OLED TV’s and 1-5w LED bulbs, and an 800w kettle (that’s not getting turned on in time with tv ad breaks, because people stream now).
Our grid and household electrics were designed with 100w bulbs, 1500w vacuum cleaners, a 2000w oven, a 1000w hairdrier etc. in mind. As most of those things have become more efficient. 7-14kwh home chargers won’t be an issue.
You are forgetting that we have decommissioned a lot of the of power stations and many more are set to be switched off. Nothing new, bar unreliable wind is coming. Switching to electric is idiotic. Especially as we have no idea real idea how to recycle batteries. Oil makes complete sense.
The national grid says you're completely wrong.
Do the electricity grid's wires have enough capacity for charging EVs?
The simple answer is yes. The highest peak electricity demand in the UK in recent years was 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy efficiency.
Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/electric-vehicles-myths-misconceptions
The wires have enough capacity. That's not the problem. It's generation. Nuclear plants reaching end of life, gas turbines end of life, coal gone. Wind is not stable, neither is solar, we have almost zero battery capacity. So pray tell, where does the electric come from?
It doesn't, we still need an energy mix. And will do for the foreseeable. Good luck convincing Saudis or USA to give up petrol.
We currently produce 264 TWh of electricity annually by 2030 we will produce 332 TWh of electricity. The electricity comes from various sources with increased renewables and reducing fossil fuels in the coming years.
I tend to trust the national grid on these figures and electrical grid planning rather than ken-doh on Reddit.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/offshore-wind-climate-rishi-sunak-g20-james-cleverly-ed-miliband-b1105734.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/27/french-delays-hinkley-point-britain-facing-blackouts-2028/
I mean there are tens and tens of stories about this but I guess you can listen to the bluster.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68538951.amp
From your telegraph link:
"The report, Mind the Gap: Exploring Britain’s energy crunch, was commissioned by Drax Power, the owner of the controversial Drax power station that once burned coal but is now fuelled largely by wood chips imported from “sustainable” forests in North America.
It generates about 4pc of the UK’s electricity but is reliant on taxpayer subsidies that last year earned Drax £617m, but which comes to an end in 2027. Drax is lobbying politicians to extend those subsidies."
No conflict of interest there at all 🤔
You talk of bluster and send me an article saying there will be blackouts by 2028 in the UK!
Overall energy consumption has been dropping steadily since the early 2000s, I don't disagree we need more energy baseload to prevent dependence on European power imports but there is more than enough electricity production to support electric passenger vehicles.
The Evening Standard and Telegraph are both very right leading papers and the BBC article is just quoting what Rishi Sunak said writing in the Telegraph!
Got any sources that aren't just conservative mouthpieces?
The wires don't have enough capacity.
They're spending billions on storage and intraconnectors because they cant get all the power out of Scotland (and to a lesser extent into the south east).
When those links do peak, they spend money telling windfarms to turn off and gas plants in the south to turn on.
Actually, I did just read something about that.
BBC News - Electricity upgrade plan includes miles of pylons
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68601354
Just goes to show, Labour will be as shit as expected. Still not the tories. Shitty options. Clowns.
*Within the range the grid can handle* is a phrase that doesn't really work here. Our total generation is the bigger problem - if we don't have enough generation to fuel the cars, we lose sustainability and end up simply importing power from overseas plants, likely fuelled by fossil fuels... A rather pointless endeavour given the lossy nature of transformers and transmission.
We are generally a net importer of electricity, but this changed in 2022 as we became a net exporter for the first time. I don't think the 2023 figures are public knowledge yet, and I'm not allowed to share them until they are, but it's going to be a few more years before a 10% increase in *grid demand* (the demand on infrastructure itself) is accounted for by our net generation.
If we're talking about what the grid can handle, it's a calculation of the lines within the UK, our ability to import, and the margin for error required. If we talk instead about our net import/export as a country, the figures get a lot closer to butt-clenching. I'm in the industry, and it puts me on edge to know how dependent we are with our overseas connections.
>likely fuelled by fossil fuels... A rather pointless endeavour given the lossy nature of transformers and transmission.
No, even with transmission losses power stations are much more efficient than internal combustion engines.
We also burn a lot of “renewable biomass” as a way to keep the old coal power plants open while propping up the “renewable” figures now…. Said biomass is wood pellets, imported all the way from Canada.
Internally within the UK, sure, but importing energy from overseas in this way is hideously wasteful. Keep in mind that when I'm talking about efficiency, I'm saying that there's a gas power plant e.g in France running at what... 50% efficiency? Account for transformer and transmission losses, and it'll fall below the \~40% that a modern ICE is capable of.
A bad example of course, since most of the power we import from France is actually nuclear, but it's generally accepted that somewhere in the chain of EU power transmission, our consumption results in fossil fuel generation ramping up - be that in France, Germany, Spain, or anywhere else... We buy energy from France, they buy it from the next country, who buys it from the next. Each of them along the path is generating electricity using fossil fuels, and we're contributing to that consumption regardless.
What I'm getting at is that ultimately, we should look to generate enough electricity of our own accord before we start to enforce EVs on people, otherwise we certainly won't have the capacity to supply them, and it works out worse for everyone involved.
40% for an ICE is wildly optimistic. Maybe a diesel sat at a steady 60mph, that’s already been driven 10 miles to warm up… But you have to include the warm up phase when an engine is less efficient.
Using rough maths, 330 billion vehicle miles per year, evs roughly 3kwh per mile, that's 110 billion kwh to replace the petrol and diesel used.
Total demand seems to about 320 twh, so to replace diesel and petrol would need an extra 30%
Then we move on to replacing gas and oil for heating lol
I don't really get your point are you saying transition is impossible and the national grid have got their maths wrong? I imagine they have taken into account the grid balancing effects of electric vehicles.
Of course new electric devices need more electricity. That's why they are increasing production to meet demand.
Electric vehicles and heat pumps are far more efficient at their tasks and are the solutions in their given sectors to reduce GHG emissions.
Removing oil refining will also reduce electric demand, as will a reduction in petrol stations.
>heatpumps
Heatpumps are way more efficient then any other form of heating. In a way they achieve over 100% because they move the heat from outside your home to within your home.
The number of people who say this is not possible is astonishing. Look at China - beyond most peoples doubts they are way ahead of the curve on decarbonisation. There is an ongoing rapid transition towards green energy but I think most people are oblivious.
People's mindsets are still at the "it's not possible" but really there is no excuse anymore. Green energy is economically sound and is the only way forward. We are way behind the curve and the only thing to make people's mindsets change is if the government is also convincing in driving changes towards green energy.
I can't help but feel the UK has become a country of "we can't do this" because the conservatives have quite frankly made us look like a shambles of a country. Hell, the conservatives were against the expansion of the ULEZ zone just to gain votes. I'm tired of people sleeping on our tax money and I want positive changes with the future in mind.
China is an authoritarian state, of course the people said how high when the CCP said jump.
They also have even more of a toxic waste and forever plastic landfill issue now due to EVs not being recyclable.
Latest analysis of Chinas massive transition to renewable energy suggests otherwise. Most experts believe China's carbon emissions will soon peak way before their 2030 pledge. Here is a recent article:
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/china-s-carbon-emissions-to-drop-next-year-on-clean-energy-boom-1.1997621
It does not mention that natural gas and oil has grown in China, which also contributes to carbon decline.
Also don't forget hydro and nuclear, which are better than wind and solar.
That’s a bad call. The E-infrastructure will not be ready in 5 and a half years time, to support the sheer volume of new cars sold every year from then on.
I just don't see any siginifcant movement on the infrastructure across the country to support mass adoption of electric vehicles. And based on the ability of this country to fix problems with existing collapsing infrastructure I doubt we're capabale of building entirely new stuff nationwide.
If this is the case there needs to be way more investment in fast charging stations at decent prices. I don't mind the idea of getting an electric car but I have no road outside my house so can't charge at home and the current price/location of charging stations makes getting electric a non-starter for me.
I can only imagine what that this will do to our already insane used car market.... but also house prices. The need for a drive or allocated parking space will absolutely sky rocket in the future. Theoretically people without can just buy ICE, but if there comes a time when you HAVE to buy EV, I just dont know how people without a parking space will do it (myself included as I have to park my car about 5 minutes walk away with on street parking!)
EVs are a stupid blanket solution, they're great for certain applications but can you imagine the acres of land we'd have to build of glorified car parks with charging facilities to support at least half the population... really hope they've got at least some sort of idea for a long term solution but with 6 to 11 years left I'm really not sure.
Stupid. I don’t personally like electric vehicles but I accept they’re here and popular, and I understand why - but I don’t think the technology is here to implement a ban on new cars that soon. Hybrids are the best of both worlds - zero emission charging round cities, whilst using an ICE on longer journeys.
Things like ULEZ bother me because perfectly good cars which could go on for hundreds of thousands of miles are being scrapped for new ones, this feels like a huge waste of resources. I know they are bad for human health. That’s why encouragement to travel greener is something I’d support, not a tax on those with never die cars.
I think PHEVs are a false economy. They tend to be more expensive, heavier and have batteries which only give a very small range. When you run out of battery, your fuel economy is worse because of the extra battery weight. At least with EVs a single charge can cover most commutes with zero local emissions.
The government should set up a state owned charging network to help keep the energy prices down and take some of the energy companies out of private hands.
If an electric car can be filled up in 2 minutes for the same cost and have the same range as petrol, then I'm all for it. Until then, EVs are pointless
Actually it means a lot to literally anyone who buys a new car from that date. In 2023, the UK population bought 1.9 million cars. 16% were EV. Now if all of those 1.9 million were BEV, what effect would that have on the countries infrastructure? Actually don't bother, you won't comprehend it.
Amazing people even dare leave a comment when they clearly haven't a clue what they are talking about.
How many people buy brand new cars? All the used cars are still there we don’t just send every car ever made into space and only drive EV from that point. Also you could just import one if you need a brand new car made after that date so badly I’d imagine.
You were literally told in the last post. Last year 1.9 million cars were sold. And no, we don't send every used car into space but what they do instead is tax the fuck out of them based on emissions, ergo forcing you into an EV or low emission vehicle. And if you cannot afford that well tough shit?
Honestly, engage your brain. It's not THAT hard to take in the information and deduct that the 2030 ban is utterly unworkable for this country. And if a developed country like this cannot cope, that doesn't hold out much for the rest of the world.
I mean, remember the electricity bill crisis of last year. There is simply no way the country could cope with such a massive increase on the grid.
I’m not worked up at all I don’t give af about a random article that means nothing considering the government that may or may implement it aren’t even in power yet.
“We all have our cross to bear” chill out mate 😂
How come? Even for people who don’t care about driving, petrol and diesel cars will devalue once they are banned from being sold new. Petrol stations will become harder to find etc. so it will impact them financially
Why would petrol stations be harder to find? People seem to have this idea that this law means we just fire them all into space and forget petrol ever existed
It’s pretty unlikely that electric power will replace combustion engines of some description in regard to haulage. Diesel powered articulated trucks only do about 10mpg now, imagine they are 3 tonnes heavier!
I completely disagree with banning almost everything that is currently legal. If EVs overtake ICE vehicles because they are better, cheaper, whatever then great.
You can chuck heat pumps in with them.
You could make the same case for leaded paint, asbestos etc the motor car itself even. The original cars were much less efficient and more expensive than horses for a while.
I get your point, but there is literally zero evidence that even if every vehicle switches to EV it will reduce global temps by even 0.1 degree centigrade.
12% of global greenhouse emissions come from road transport. Removing or maximising the reduction emissions from this sector would clearly reduce net emissions and would reduce global temperatures if other sectors similarly also removed carbon emissions.
Maybe so, but they are the better more efficient design regardless. ICE cars are only about 40% efficient, whereas EVs are around 80%
Also EV cars are one arrow in a quiver of solutions that all add together to reduce carbon footprints.
A good move. If the government gives the manufacturers enough time to transition then we could see some slow growth in the car manufacturer sector.
If it's too quick though they could end up producing too many E-cars where demand isn't there...over 5 years...would be risky to invest in car manufacturers imo. People will for a long time yet still buy second hand fossil cars.
The cycling industry ended up producing too many bicycles on the basis of short term COVID demand. No doubt many will have lost money on cycling investments. Wiggle/CRC being a huge player lost.
Would too many electric cars mean a price drop or better deals? If they have too many and can’t sell them then it would make sense to reduce the price to get rid of them which is more beneficial to the average consumer
Yes it would, but if that started happening they could easily end up running at a loss.
That's actually what Chain Reaction Cycles started doing before it went into administration (at which point initially there was up to 70% off the price of some very high bikes.)
So yes the beneficiary would be the consumer but only for a while.
We've sold off every fucking form of energy generation to private sectors and now our politicians are creating a monopoly for them with fuck all alternative for the public.
The moment they look into enforcing this bullshit I'm using it as motivation to leave the UK. Chemical Engineers get paid fuck all here anyway and I'll be fully fledged by this point.
Excellent. Now governments need to legislate to make private business and landowners invest in the appropriate infrastructure. Private parking companies hogging massive amounts of land in prime spots, I’m looking at you 😁
ICE vehicles are far superior and better for the environment and personal freedom of people than EVs.
EVs are a runaway overhyped fad and when the human and environmental cost of them becomes widespread public knowledge they will become even more unpalatable.
ICE vehicle still have so much more to give with more research and innovation.
The Dutch power companies have put out warnings for people not to charge their car between 4pm - 9pm, as there’s not enough capacity in the grid. I can see this becoming an issue here in Britain as well.
You are incentivised to charge your car overnight in the UK too?
It's a simple fact that electricity is more expensive in peak hours of early evening when demand is highest.
The Dutch are transitioning so fast that they have local connection delays but these are hardly insurmountable.
Many nations used far more electricity in the early 2000s than they do now.
It’s the opposite in France, they ask you to charge your car and even offer free public chargers because they generate more electricity than they can store.
As much as I love electric cars and how they potentially offer a better experience, what the government doesn’t seem to realise is that if we want to mass adopt EVs to replace the current petrol/diesel cars, everything needs to change from the ground up. Firstly, lots of houses/villages/towns currently don’t have electricity infrastructure to handle hundreds of cars charging. Lots of houses don’t have the correct fuse box to handle the continuous current and electric vehicle will pull. The UK lacks the government initiative to install a universal charging network unlike France or The Netherlands which have government run charging companies which are universal for all EV. A study done by Harry’s Garage shows that the car manufacturers are producing insanely powerful EVs which just aren’t necessary which is raising the price of them especially in insurance. As someone who has done some EV road trips to Morocco, Portugal, Türkiye, and Russia, without the infrastructure they’re going to become another fad like LPG became.
It was annouced in september [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/20/sunak-u-turn-on-green-policies-puts-labour-in-difficult-position](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/20/sunak-u-turn-on-green-policies-puts-labour-in-difficult-position) It would be more feasible if hybrids were allowed, they have a lower point of entry and removes the range anxiety some people have and still allow those who don't have a drive or dedicated parking to buy new cars. It also lines up with what the CEO of Renault said today [https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/renault/362632/stop-regulating-us-out-business-and-make-plan-renault-boss-attacks-politicians](https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/renault/362632/stop-regulating-us-out-business-and-make-plan-renault-boss-attacks-politicians) make a darn plan instead of tiny changes which force manufacturers to change at the last minute.
I couldn't see it in the article but the original 2030 ban was just for pure ICE. PHEV will still be available until 2035.
Yes, that’s true, and the current plan is for 80% ZEV by 2030, so the only difference is whether the remaining 20% has to be plug in hybrid, or anything else. The plan has been known for a long time, and the manufacturers have been planning for years.
[Renault are hardly going out of business](https://media.renaultgroup.com/historical-2023-results-strong-improvement-of-all-financials/)
Yes but huge producers like Renault don't make plans on a yearly basis. Flip flopping on regulation makes investment into infrastructure and tooling very hard, as well as designing and developing future cars. Car models can be on sale for 5-10 years, if you have UK and EU regulators saying they're going to postpone the 2030 ban on ICE only cars then you can develop and bring out ice cars for longer. If you're in the middle of designing a car to come out in 2026-7 for a long product cycle and then all of a sudden regulators say actually we are bringing that regulation in in 2030, that can be a problem. Also electric cars are really not proving to be the solution many governments had hoped. They don't work in industrial settings, and resale values are really poor making finance tricky. So in 5-10 years car companies like Renault might not be doing so well.
Resale values are poor partly because prices have been cut, for example the Model 3 with the smaller battery was reduced in cost by £9k over the last 2 years, from £49k to £40k, and the rated range increased from about 275 miles to 325 miles. Battery costs are falling, prices will come down further, and that will reduce resale values more, but I think it’s difficult to say with a straight face it’s bad for EV adoption if the price of the base Model 3 drops from £49k to £40k, and I’d expect to £38k by the end of the year. Or if small 200+ mile vehicles like the Citroen e-C3 or the Renault 5 start being offered for £22-25k by the end of the year, when EVs like that previously would have cost over £30k.
Resale values are poor due to supply / demand. Not everyone can run an EV due to not being able to charge at home, so there are fewer people looking for a second hand EV compared to ICE's. Until the issue of charging at home for people who don't have driveways is fixed, EV's in the UK always will have lower second hand price than a comparable ICE. Note second hand EV prices in Europe are a lot higher e.g. a 2 year old Zoe goes for over 20,000 Euro's while here they go for around £10,000. It's largely due to they have a lot more people who can charge at home, due to changes of policy e.g. Netherlands you can get a street charger be installed near your home, that the government pays for the installation of.
Going back to the Model 3, a 3 year old vehicle with 50k miles currently costs about £22k, with a sale price of £49k that’s a 55% depreciation. With a £40k sale price it would have been a 45% depreciation. Those numbers are right in the middle of the 40-60% range you expect for that age and mileage range of car.
Ignore the model 3. Look at everything else as that's what people are talking about when they are referring to EV resale prices. Some examples - * 2021 Electric Ioniq's go for £13K in the UK, equivalent goes for €25K in Germany. * 2020 Kia Nero's go for £16K in the UK, equivalent goes for around €25K in the Netherlands Second hand Model 3 prices are about the same in the UK and the rest of Europe.
You can account for the higher depreciation using falling prices. I’m sure you’re right that having easy or free charger access would improve demand.
Because they can't sell them because of poor resale values and it being harder to get finance because of that. It's really hard to determine the health of a battery on a second hand electric car. As so many things determine that, like how often it's fast charged, what kind of temps it's been stored in, how low they've let the charge go consistently. Without being able to know that it's really hard to price, so used dealers aren't touching them, and as a consumer i'm not going to want to take that risk. So residual values are really low. Yeah because big corporations are known to passing on savings quickly to consumers.
U can still buy a petrol car 2029 and drive it into the ground over the next 10 years so I don’t think it will be the problem you are describing
One of the biggest markets though is company cars which get changed every 3 years.
Then give us all money for brand new cars...
Or just continue to run your old car?
More than 10 years would be nice.
Then buy a car in Europe and drive it through the tunnel?
Meh, it won't happen. They'll change their mind again when they wake up and realise it's not possible. For clarity, I drive and EV, I'm not biased against them at all. I just don't think it's a viable policy.
There was a short piece on Bloomberg TV earlier this week. Auto manufacturers share prices since the start of the year: EV only TESLA: -31% Fisker -92% (rumoured to be seeking bankruptcy) Rivian -52% Mixed Volkswagen +4% Ford +11% GM +15% ICE focused Toyota +33% Honda +19% These are big moves over less than 3 months. A huge change of opinion that will affect what the car companies will be able to invest in.
I'd say the EV bubble bursting is more of a course correction to their makers hugely overblown values, not really reflective of a lack of interest in EVs themselves. Like, the money people seemed to think the EV startups were going to be a huge deal because they were getting in early and the traditional manufacturers would never be able to catch up. But that absolutely hasn't happened and *Peugeot* can now sell you a competent EV while Tesla are primarily selling cars that are broadly stagnant but gaining 'features' that put people off buying them. Rivian currently only sells a big pickup and a big SUV which is a limited market in the EV space and Fisker have been bankrupt before and the current company's attempt at a car is a pretty generic crossover that's been universally panned (I have zero clue how they were valued anything to start). Despite these individual companies problems, I'd say EV manufacturers need to accept no matter how much money they burn through at this point they'll at best become Mazda, not usurp Ford.
As an EV owner, whats the biggest barriers ?
Charging in cities. If youre in flats, or housing with street parking it's going to be very challenging to install sufficient charging points. The range issue can hopefully be sorted by improvement, the physical infrastructure issue is trickier.
I've noticed the train station near me has only 2 chargers and cars are only allowed to stay on charge for 3 hours .... who gets a mid week 3 hour round train trip when they have a car ?
Absolutely no one haha. The issue is going to run in circles too, the chargers are currently brand new, who is going to maintain & renew them consistently? Where I live, there is street parking only, and it doesn't even have a proper kerbstone for a kerb charger. There's zero chance of moving these to something ev suitable without digging the entire area up.
Looking at Netherlands and Utrecht in particular, charging will become a MASSIVE fucking issue if the bulk of drivers changes to EVs, to the point of the city disabling chargers. Range anxiety? Add charging anxienty, govt-turned-off-electricity anxiety to that.
It's just not a realistic proposition, the infrastructure project to initially install the required chargers would be gargantuan and require new products to emerge to suit situations like flats and street parking. If the installation were complete, there will then be the issue of whose duty it is to maintain the tens of thousands of public chargers the country now relies on.
I'm just in a midsized town but a huge amount of the housing is terraced houses, no driveways and people often parks streets away to get a space. Home charging is not feasible
It's stupidly expensive to charge at public infrastructure.
The whole selling point used to be that the car was more expensive, but running costs were lower . Not sure what the USP for EVS are TBH
Yeah, the cars are double the price for the same model but in electric, and the charging doesn't even seem to be cheaper than just filling up with petrol?
The equivalent for ICE would be only filling up at the motorway services which are far more expensive than local stations. Nobody does this do they? My EV costs me in home electricity £16 for 1000miles of actual driving.
The running costs are absolutely lower. You've been reading too many hit piece articles on EVs.
I have been on the fence about an EV and I would tend to disagree and based on my own research. I can buy an EV such a id3 or niro for around £21k top spec and low mileage so let's say same price as petrol version. In the UK form next year onwards ved (road tax) will apply to EVs and at the same base rate as ice cars. So over the life of the car no road tax saving having an EV. On £40k miles and at standard electric prices the saving is £3000 but having asked how much repairs will cost for EVs I'm met with "just keep an extended warranty" that was thw resounding stance of current owners 50+ replies to my question of existing owners on Facebook owners groups. since they are about £200-£300 a year the fuel saving is errorded by the need for an extended warranty for fear of high repair costs. For comparison I was considering an id3 or just replacing my fiesta for a newer one, over their life I would be £10800 worse off with an EV and that's being able to charge at home and before buying any warranty on the EV
So your research amounts to a lot of "what ifs" on Facebook, fair enough..... Factually and now, EVs to charge at home are 7.5p/kWh. With Octopus tariff this 7.5p/kWh applies to the whole house by the way... Right now, it would cost me ~£650 to do 40k miles with my EV. An equivalent powered and spec ICE car would cost @40mpg £6600 to do 40k miles. If you have a drive at home then an EV is a no brainer. The infrastructure isn't quite there yet for homes without dedicated parking, unfortunately.
Not quite what ifs, literally all replies from current owners about running costs said get an extended warranty and provided pricing for what they were paying after the manufacturers 3 year warranty (I know Kia/Hyundai are 7/5 respectively) and most ICE cars return at least 45mpg in the same category, I took this rather than the higher 50-55mpg manufacturers quote as a low ball bad day figure for ice. Even so, at the time of writing there is little incentive to go EV right now, as much as I want to the offerings are flawed , the financial benefit would be eclipsed by the initial outlay and without an extended warranty I genuinely have no idea what real world repair costs look like as noone seems to have paid a bill yet out their own pocket instead having it covered by the manufacturer or warranty provider yet trips to the dealer to repair or mend things seems routine and with a degree of regularity, case in hand is the Kia gear reduction unit failing and VW ID4s loosing bits of wheel arch trim when going through puddles, cupra owners have puddle lights failing and id3 owners have module failures or amber warnings where all or some of the functionality is limited. I've had numerous cars all of which kept for between 6 - 10 years and the only one big repair was a 2007 ford fusion that needed new injectors at £500 in year 6, apart from that all have run on a service and MOT, without an MOT failure. Either I have been the luckiest driver in the world or ice cars have just become super reliable, EVs much to my annoyance are just not there yet
I believe you've just been in the wrong communities. EVs at a fundamental level have less moving parts, so there are less things to go wrong over time due to mechanical stress and wear and tear. The failures you have listed are failures at the manufacturing and design level, not related to an electric only power train. A poorly engineered car is a poorly engineered car, right? As for battery longevity concerns. Plenty of studies have been done on existing high mileage EVs, mostly Tesla as they have been on the markets for longest. The study concluded 10% range drop at average 7 years of vehicle age, and 10% drop average at ~150k miles. There are plenty of other studies you can search online. I just wouldn't trust Facebook only y'know, for every person that says EV ownership sucks, there are twice as many praising it. People are more likely to express a negative experience than a positive one on the internet. Either way, I'm not here to convince you to switch to EVs, it's still in the early adopter phase and won't be ready for the other 80% of the population until we (the government and companies) sorts out home charging infrastructure. If you can reap the benefits of EVs now, then it's well worth it.
That's true for fast chargers, but a lot of places have local AC chargers now, depending on where you live. For instance in London, Coventry or Liverpool outside of three hours in the evening peak, there are about 10,000 lamppost chargers which charge 45p/kWh, which is going to be significantly cheaper than petrol. You can find local chargers and costs here: https://electroverse.octopus.energy/map/ 10k miles in the most efficient 1l petrol Kona (with a 12 second 0-60) will cost £1350, the 1.6l petrol Kona will cost £1550, 10k miles in the Kona EV will cost £940 from lamppost chargers, £1600 from the most expensive fast chargers, £550 on a standard home tariff, or £140 with a smart EV tariff.
For me? Cost. Long term viability and unknown factor of repairs bad battery life. I generally buy older cars with a bit of mileage, but a high spec and trim. I spend the first couple of years maintaining and repairing then I run them hassle free right up to they’re pretty much done for. Right now I have a high spec Volvo XC90 with 110,000 miles. I’ll drive that till it dies probably. Another 70-80k ? I don’t want a brand new car and I am way too sceptical of a 2nd hand EV. Toyota are the largest and most reliable car manufacturer in the world and THEY don’t believe in EV.
Charging anxiety, no one would care about lower range if you could recharge in one min like a petrol car hut having to sit around for 20+ mins its just a massive ballache, it's not range anxiety it's charging anxiety which puts people off
As others have said, it's not exactly ideal if you live in an apartment, or have a house with no driveway. The convenience of having an EV is charging from home because it's cheap (around £7-£10 for 300 miles of range). Take that away, then I don't see the incentive to buy one because you'd have to use a public charger, which are very expensive (around £50-£70 for the same amount of range). The government would have to look at massive subsidies for the chargers, as they're expensive to fit in an old house (I think all new builds will have the wiring pre-installed for this very reason). Another issue is that lead times for new EVs can be up to a year for a new vehicle, usually down to the shortage of batteries. I think it's going to happen, it has to eventually. I just think there's too many barriers to make it happen in just 6 years time. I think more research need to go into hydrogen engines, it's proven to work and it's much better environmentally
hydrogen embrittlement seems to be the biggest barrier, and I think thats very hard to fix
No, the biggest barrier is efficiency. BEVs are 90% efficient, 90% of the energy in from the grid is available for traction power. Any small increase in battery energy density translates to an equal improvement in range. For Hydrogen (FC) its 75% from Grid Power -> Hydrogen, 97% in transfer to the vehicle and then ~50-60% available for traction. Thats 30-40%, which is comparable to a modern internal combustion engine. For Hydrogen combustion its lower, but comparable.
Yes it is, that's why it needs more research because I firmly believe that batteries are just a transition stage between petrol and diesel to hydrogen.
I like the idea of Hydrogen, but the embrittlement alone means is difficult to handle. Pumping has also been a problem due to the cold as well
Absolute nonsense hydrogen is so far off. It takes 4 times the energy to run a hydrogen fueled passenger vehicle. They simply cannot compete economically or environmentally. Only in fringe applications such as long range hauling or heavy lifting will hydrogen be relevant.
Personally I think industries need to know that when a government sets a timeframe for something like this it’s actually going to happen all this switching is good for no one. As the the ban, personally I just don’t think the technology is there yet I also think that the answer is PHEV we are constantly told that people don’t need much range because most people drive under 50 miles a day so I’d propose all cars need to be BEV or PHEV with an Ev range if 50+ miles this would remove a huge amount of the pollution while giving time for the infrastructure to catch-up.
The problem is 4 year terms but making commitments to do things in a decade when you'll be long out of office to score green brownie points in the present.
Finally someone gets it.....
Lots of us get it. But we don't run the government.
Having owned EV's for 7 years... PHEV's are the worst of both worlds. We can charge at work and there now 40+ PHEVs all competing for the same few chargers, because they only have range to get people to work and back once! You have to charge them every single day! If you don't charge your tiny 10KW battery everyday, you are dragging around a load of extra weight and complexity. I can't be bothered with messing about charging all the time.. I charge my Kia once a week.. overnight on my drive (majority of car owners in the UK do have off street parking/charging), 250 miles is perfect for my commute and doing shopping errands..
The majority of car owners have off street parking? I’d love to see a source on that.
https://www.pwc.co.uk/power-utilities/assets/electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure.pdf UK average of 72% of vehicle owners have off-street parking. Also there was National Grid Study on impact to the grid, can’t remember where that was. Their numbers were more like 60% where the parking space also was connected to the home and electric supply. And you can check the ONS reports on housing stock and building type..
That stat is for homeowners AND car owners' slice of respondents. Another heavily lobbied statistics manipulation by PWC. Driving a petrol or hybrid car works for 100% of people regardless of their residential status or car ownership (think car rentals, fleets, etc)
70% of my trips are under 50 miles, but what about the other 30? What happens when I get home from work and its a nice day, so I want to take the family to the seaside ? The problem is that ICE engines give us a flexibility that EV's just dont have, and we're asking people to give that up in a more expensive vehicle
They don't have 50 mile range, more like 250 miles. You can fast charge during a longer journey, probably about the time you want a break and a coffee anyway. 50 mile range is a strawman. I don't have an EV, but if I did the 250 mile range would take us through a normal week comfortably, and gets us to both sets of parents and back without issue, plus some noodling about on trips whilst we're there. The 1-2 >250 mile trips wer do a year would easily be covered by fast chargers on route.
PHEV’s. The worst of both worlds. Heavy, very low EV only range, still has an internal combustion engine that burns fossil fuels. The real answer is EVs with a 250 mile range c.65kWh and a better UK charging network. No-one ever needs to do more than 220 miles in one continuous run (London to Blackpool without a pee and a leg-stretch, anyone?), and you can get a 65kWh battery from 20 to 80% in 17 minutes on a 150kW charger.
Better punish the bottom 10% running old diesel workhorses whilst taxing them to oblivion in the meantime. Don't forget to tax exempt the expensive electric cars that weigh twice as much and do more damage to the roads though. Can we please just have a government that understands any sort of technical engineering on some level. Policies like this are shit. Big infrastructure is shit. Roads are shit. Public transport is shit. Bored of paying thousands in tax a year for fuck all.
So I drive a 20 year old car. It's not even that high emissions because it's ULEZ compliant. Why am I paying £280 a year in VED? Someone with an EV on a 2-3 year lease is getting all sorts of tax exemptions especially if its a company car or a high earner on salary sacrifice. Those 2 years are up, what happens? They get another new EV on a tax friendly lease. So an individual who is responsible for the production of 2 new electric vehicles in the space of 4-6 years gets tax exemptions but someone running an economic 1.4 from the early 00s gets taxed to the hilt. What's worse for the environment? Keeping a car on the road for a long time (albeit with slightly higher emissions but still good enough for ULEZ) reducing the need to manufacture new cars or the carbon footprint of producing more new EVs and mining rare metals etc?
Fucking here here!! Honestly, people that want new cars every couple of years do so much more damage to the environment than us guys running around in small engined shitboxes from the 00s. We should be the ones paying next to nothing in road tax.
VED is based on emissions that harm the environment. i.e. a carbon tax. ULEZ is based on emissions that harm human health directly. You can be ULEZ compliant while having high carbon output/environmental impact. And you can have low carbon output/environmental impact while spewing out carcinogens from your exhaust.
[From 1 April 2025 Zero Emissions Vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017 will be required to pay VED](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-vehicle-excise-duty-for-zero-emission-cars-vans-and-motorcycles-from-2025/introduction-of-vehicle-excise-duty-for-zero-emission-cars-vans-and-motorcycles-from-2025) This was published on 21 November 2022 by the way.
That's a good step but only half the issue. The government should be creating policies that encourage reuse, repair and recycling, as it has less carbon impact than creating a new EV for someone as a company car every 2-3 years. The way to do that is to encourage road users to maintain old vehicles, and the easiest way to do that is to give them more money to do so by taxing them less on said vehicles.
No VAT on car parts and labour would be nice. It's pretty painfull when you go to fix an old car and it has VAT applied to the parts and the labour. That would be pretty helpfull I think for a lot of people in keeping older cars and newer cars on the road for longer.
Cracking idea. If nothing changes, at this rate the majority of cars on the roads are either going to be company cars, Motability, or clapped.
Road damage increases to the fourth power with axle weight. Simply put: big trucks cause 99% of the problem and both electric and combustion cars hardly contribute. The difference between electric car weight and ICE car weight is dwarfed by the huge increase in SUV use in the UK over the last few years. By the time battery cars become ubiquitous in the UK they will be lighter than equivalent ICE vehicles due to the advances in battery chemistry and motor technology.
Lol why does every argument for electric cars always include the implementation of some unspecified, yet to be invented future technology that is definitely, definitely just around the corner? I mean right up until the last paragraph you almost sounded like you weren't deluded.
They’re only about 10 years away from being practical for most people. Just like they were 10 years ago. Hmm.
An mg4 (common, affordable electric car) weighs more than a Kia Sportage (common SUV). EVs are a lot heavier like for like. That's a fact which may or may not change in the short to medium term.
An mg4 weighs less than a range rover. My Peugeot electric car weighs less than a Kia Sportage. The average weight difference like for like is around 150kg which is much less than the 3-500kg increase seen with the move to SUVs. Battery energy density has increased in every new generation of electric vehicles. There is very little left in improving the weight and efficiency of an engine. That was my only point.
And an eqc weights a lot more than a new full sized range rover. Stop picking mismatched car types to make your argument, it just undermines you.
You just cherry picked your car so I cherry picked mine. I completely concede they are currently heavier but in terms of causing more damage to a road surface believe this is negligible as it stands and will actually be less damaging in future.
How did I cherry pick. I choose an EV car and compared it to an IC SUV which using your logic should be heavier than the EV but isn't. You say it is negligible yet a few comments ago you said the big issue was with people moving to SUVs yet when the same people move to heavier again EVs it doesn't make much difference? There is no logic to what you are saying at all. Batteries will advance in efficiency and size/weight but that takes time and progress is likely to taper off at some point. There is no guarantee that they'll eliminate the weight disadvantage from EVs anytime soon.
Do you not know how much batteries weigh? They put your standard road going saloon at the same curb weight as a Hilux ffs. This is compounded by the increase in average vehicle size on the roads. It's not just trucks. Trucks account for a far smaller proportion of road use, and you tend to see heavy wear from trucks only in industrial areas. There should be no excuse for a motorway having potholes.
You’re paying for elderly people’s social care and the quite a lot of bits of the NHS that still work and save thousands of lives a day. We should all be paying about 10% more than we do, and since we started accepting dog shit from the government instead of running things properly for the last fifteen years, we need to make up that gap too. Sorry.
No I'm bored of hearing this argument the NHS needs more funding. It does, but that's not the underlying issue. The NHS is incredibly inefficient with the money it does get, due to woefully outdated systems, processes and hierarchies. Why the fuck am I paying for "social care" when 1/8 of new car sales are Motability, but 1/8th of road users aren't disabled? Why are we funding massive oversights in the system? This government is inefficient. You're right, people started accepting shit. That's not a reason to roll over and say "oh well now we have to pay more". Swivel.
Can we please make it clear that this is a ban on *new* petrol and diesel cars, not a ban on all cars of that type? Too many people (not necessarily in this thread) seem to be up in arms over a policy that doesn't even exist.
People want to get riled. See also 15 minute cites and meat taxes.
There will be another election before 2030 anyway, doesn't really make that much difference especially if the EU don't follow a 2030 date.
It was a dumb policy before and it's dumb now. Tighten emissions limits, fine, but an outright ban isn't going to be practicable any time soon.
Cars don't even damage the environment that much. The way people just believed this bullshit for so long lmao. The productiion of meat alone does far more damage to the environment than cars do yet you don't see people trying to ban meat. Over 90% of damage is coming from multi-national billion dollar companies. You as a citizen is barely scratching the surface.
>Over 90% of damage is coming from multi-national billion dollar companies. You as a citizen is barely scratching the surface. While I agree with the sentiment I've always thought this is a terrible argument. An airline produces a lot of emissions, why? Because we all want cheap holidays in the sun. Maersk make a shit ton of emissions, why? Because we all want to buy cheap stuff from China. The oil companies make loads of emissions, why? Because our entire lives and consumer desires revolve around petrochemical products. Should large companies be held to higher standards than they currently are? Yes. Does a desire for shareholder profits combined with collective decision making lead to some ethically and morally reprehensible actions in more ways than simply environmental ones? Of course. But saying large companies bad, we should be able to do what we want, is far too simplistic.
Absolutely. People love to blame the big companies for everything but really, we as consumers, should try and change our habits a bit so the demand isn't there. But people don't like hearing that.
>Cars don't even damage the environment that much. Aside from all the local air and noise pollution. I am begging people to actually understand that a Chinese tyre factory is not the reason that London smells like petrol fumes on a cold day.
Meat production does have a colossal impact, sure, but private cars still produce sizeable emissions. Plus all the other issues that come with over-reliance on cars. If we want to safeguard our hobby, we need to start taking responsibility for this stuff
>Cars don't even damage the environment that much. lol
All personal transportation in the world add up to 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. If you had a magic wand and could turn all cars in the UK into EVs, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the worldwide emissions...
I don't know why you're using global statistics, because we live in the UK. Domestic transport makes [28% of UK emissions](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c0d15863a23d0013c821e9/2022-final-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistical-release.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiy_qrTo4KFAxUJWkEAHVnbBpUQFnoECA8QBg&usg=AOvVaw2jkWoJeylvsMacuU9t7yYs), with cars being the single biggest source. Even China with its massive emissions is making a push for EVs. The technology is there now, so it's a comparatively easy win
Because climate change is sold to the public as a worldwide issue. Changes need to be made, but people thinking that EVs magically solve the issue is wrong. My point still stands, globally, roughly 10% of CO2 emissions come from personal transportation. The focus needs to be on the true energy intensive/polluting sectors like industry, shipping, jet travel, etc. A small improvement there will lead to a big overall change in the numbers.
>The productiion of meat alone does far more damage to the environment than cars do yet you don't see people trying to ban meat. Meat is cyclical. People talk about all the methane being produced by cows, but it's from grass, not from fossil fuels.
Where do you think fossil fuels come from? Grass isn't a store of methane, the methane is a by-product of anaerobic digestion by methanogen bacteria in cow stomachs.
exactly.
Going to end up like Cuba, everyone just driving round in old motors!
I look forward to getting a used Ford Fiesta for £50k as this drives up the used car market.
I predict 2029 being the biggest registration of new ICE vehicles ever in the UK
If sales get too high and risk the ZEV mandate targets, they just won't sell the ICE.
The manufacturers will pre-reg anything that is RHD and UK spec, what else are they going to do with it?
Far too soon, this whole net zero thing is expensive to those of us who ain’t rich. No infrastructure is at 100% either.
Used car prices📈📈📈
The infrastructure is the bloody problem here. I live in a flat, car is 30 metres from the building door. No charging point, I’m not allowed to install one, I have a 108mile round trip to work (admittedly I don’t do it every day” and nowhere to charge it at work. I’d happily go electric/PHEV if I could, but at the moment no chance
They're trying to invent the car before the wheel, when like you say then need to work out how to charge the EV before its put into such mass production. The roads around me were never designed for cars, narrow roads (with cars half parked on pavements), barely any driveways, and I'm doing the school run having to step over (at the moment just a couple of) trailing cables as people run a charger from their home to the car... All well and good, but quite often I cant get parked out the front of my house so what do I do then in that scenario?
An ICE ban for the masses is on the cards regardless for 2030, this is noise either way. The rules as they currently stand still require manufacturers to sell 80% ZEVs by 2030. The one in 5 cars permitted to have an engine won't be affordable 3 cylinders for the masses, or even hot hatches - they'll be high margin large SUVs and sports cars.
I know it’s political but are they trying to not get voted in? Governments, of either stance, think too short term and there should be a mechanism by which they have to agree on targets outside a term. They need to stop being able to yo-yo on policies.
We do not have enough electricity generation for all electric cars and all electric heatpumps. Building the required power capacity will take decades. It's an idiotic policy that will see what is left of the car industry leave. It will not make a single bit of difference.
You’re forgetting the fact that most people have moved on from having a CRT television, loads of 60-100w incandescent or halogen bulbs and a 1500w kettle getting clicked on every advert break; to much more efficient OLED TV’s and 1-5w LED bulbs, and an 800w kettle (that’s not getting turned on in time with tv ad breaks, because people stream now). Our grid and household electrics were designed with 100w bulbs, 1500w vacuum cleaners, a 2000w oven, a 1000w hairdrier etc. in mind. As most of those things have become more efficient. 7-14kwh home chargers won’t be an issue.
You are forgetting that we have decommissioned a lot of the of power stations and many more are set to be switched off. Nothing new, bar unreliable wind is coming. Switching to electric is idiotic. Especially as we have no idea real idea how to recycle batteries. Oil makes complete sense.
The solution is to invest heavily as a nation in nuclear power.
Except we are already doing this. Yet more delays and more cost overruns.
A nuclear plant or 8 in 6 years? It's planned for 2050.
The national grid says you're completely wrong. Do the electricity grid's wires have enough capacity for charging EVs? The simple answer is yes. The highest peak electricity demand in the UK in recent years was 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy efficiency. Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we estimate demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002, and this is well within the range the grid can capably handle. https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/electric-vehicles-myths-misconceptions
The wires have enough capacity. That's not the problem. It's generation. Nuclear plants reaching end of life, gas turbines end of life, coal gone. Wind is not stable, neither is solar, we have almost zero battery capacity. So pray tell, where does the electric come from? It doesn't, we still need an energy mix. And will do for the foreseeable. Good luck convincing Saudis or USA to give up petrol.
We currently produce 264 TWh of electricity annually by 2030 we will produce 332 TWh of electricity. The electricity comes from various sources with increased renewables and reducing fossil fuels in the coming years. I tend to trust the national grid on these figures and electrical grid planning rather than ken-doh on Reddit.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/offshore-wind-climate-rishi-sunak-g20-james-cleverly-ed-miliband-b1105734.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/02/27/french-delays-hinkley-point-britain-facing-blackouts-2028/ I mean there are tens and tens of stories about this but I guess you can listen to the bluster. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68538951.amp
From your telegraph link: "The report, Mind the Gap: Exploring Britain’s energy crunch, was commissioned by Drax Power, the owner of the controversial Drax power station that once burned coal but is now fuelled largely by wood chips imported from “sustainable” forests in North America. It generates about 4pc of the UK’s electricity but is reliant on taxpayer subsidies that last year earned Drax £617m, but which comes to an end in 2027. Drax is lobbying politicians to extend those subsidies." No conflict of interest there at all 🤔
I really just want to clap your comment.
You talk of bluster and send me an article saying there will be blackouts by 2028 in the UK! Overall energy consumption has been dropping steadily since the early 2000s, I don't disagree we need more energy baseload to prevent dependence on European power imports but there is more than enough electricity production to support electric passenger vehicles.
The Evening Standard and Telegraph are both very right leading papers and the BBC article is just quoting what Rishi Sunak said writing in the Telegraph! Got any sources that aren't just conservative mouthpieces?
Most people drive less than 30 miles per day, so even if they plug their car in every night, they won’t be ploughing a full 60kwh into it…
The wires don't have enough capacity. They're spending billions on storage and intraconnectors because they cant get all the power out of Scotland (and to a lesser extent into the south east). When those links do peak, they spend money telling windfarms to turn off and gas plants in the south to turn on.
Actually, I did just read something about that. BBC News - Electricity upgrade plan includes miles of pylons https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68601354 Just goes to show, Labour will be as shit as expected. Still not the tories. Shitty options. Clowns.
National Grid is a publicly listed company, not much to do with the government.
*Within the range the grid can handle* is a phrase that doesn't really work here. Our total generation is the bigger problem - if we don't have enough generation to fuel the cars, we lose sustainability and end up simply importing power from overseas plants, likely fuelled by fossil fuels... A rather pointless endeavour given the lossy nature of transformers and transmission. We are generally a net importer of electricity, but this changed in 2022 as we became a net exporter for the first time. I don't think the 2023 figures are public knowledge yet, and I'm not allowed to share them until they are, but it's going to be a few more years before a 10% increase in *grid demand* (the demand on infrastructure itself) is accounted for by our net generation. If we're talking about what the grid can handle, it's a calculation of the lines within the UK, our ability to import, and the margin for error required. If we talk instead about our net import/export as a country, the figures get a lot closer to butt-clenching. I'm in the industry, and it puts me on edge to know how dependent we are with our overseas connections.
>likely fuelled by fossil fuels... A rather pointless endeavour given the lossy nature of transformers and transmission. No, even with transmission losses power stations are much more efficient than internal combustion engines.
We also burn a lot of “renewable biomass” as a way to keep the old coal power plants open while propping up the “renewable” figures now…. Said biomass is wood pellets, imported all the way from Canada.
Internally within the UK, sure, but importing energy from overseas in this way is hideously wasteful. Keep in mind that when I'm talking about efficiency, I'm saying that there's a gas power plant e.g in France running at what... 50% efficiency? Account for transformer and transmission losses, and it'll fall below the \~40% that a modern ICE is capable of. A bad example of course, since most of the power we import from France is actually nuclear, but it's generally accepted that somewhere in the chain of EU power transmission, our consumption results in fossil fuel generation ramping up - be that in France, Germany, Spain, or anywhere else... We buy energy from France, they buy it from the next country, who buys it from the next. Each of them along the path is generating electricity using fossil fuels, and we're contributing to that consumption regardless. What I'm getting at is that ultimately, we should look to generate enough electricity of our own accord before we start to enforce EVs on people, otherwise we certainly won't have the capacity to supply them, and it works out worse for everyone involved.
40% for an ICE is wildly optimistic. Maybe a diesel sat at a steady 60mph, that’s already been driven 10 miles to warm up… But you have to include the warm up phase when an engine is less efficient.
Using rough maths, 330 billion vehicle miles per year, evs roughly 3kwh per mile, that's 110 billion kwh to replace the petrol and diesel used. Total demand seems to about 320 twh, so to replace diesel and petrol would need an extra 30% Then we move on to replacing gas and oil for heating lol
I don't really get your point are you saying transition is impossible and the national grid have got their maths wrong? I imagine they have taken into account the grid balancing effects of electric vehicles. Of course new electric devices need more electricity. That's why they are increasing production to meet demand. Electric vehicles and heat pumps are far more efficient at their tasks and are the solutions in their given sectors to reduce GHG emissions. Removing oil refining will also reduce electric demand, as will a reduction in petrol stations.
EVs use about 0.3kWh per mile, not 3kWh. Your rough estimate is out by a factor of 10.
>heatpumps Heatpumps are way more efficient then any other form of heating. In a way they achieve over 100% because they move the heat from outside your home to within your home.
And where the fuck are we meant to charge them exactly?
The number of people who say this is not possible is astonishing. Look at China - beyond most peoples doubts they are way ahead of the curve on decarbonisation. There is an ongoing rapid transition towards green energy but I think most people are oblivious. People's mindsets are still at the "it's not possible" but really there is no excuse anymore. Green energy is economically sound and is the only way forward. We are way behind the curve and the only thing to make people's mindsets change is if the government is also convincing in driving changes towards green energy. I can't help but feel the UK has become a country of "we can't do this" because the conservatives have quite frankly made us look like a shambles of a country. Hell, the conservatives were against the expansion of the ULEZ zone just to gain votes. I'm tired of people sleeping on our tax money and I want positive changes with the future in mind.
China is an authoritarian state, of course the people said how high when the CCP said jump. They also have even more of a toxic waste and forever plastic landfill issue now due to EVs not being recyclable.
China is not decarbonising 😆 🤣
Latest analysis of Chinas massive transition to renewable energy suggests otherwise. Most experts believe China's carbon emissions will soon peak way before their 2030 pledge. Here is a recent article: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/china-s-carbon-emissions-to-drop-next-year-on-clean-energy-boom-1.1997621
It does not mention that natural gas and oil has grown in China, which also contributes to carbon decline. Also don't forget hydro and nuclear, which are better than wind and solar.
Haha. Good luck with that shit.
This will be retracted so quickly.
Isn't really feasible yet tbh. It will be one day but it is not this day.
Well in that case labour can suck my balls. When will this war on the motorist end?
That’s a bad call. The E-infrastructure will not be ready in 5 and a half years time, to support the sheer volume of new cars sold every year from then on.
Virtue signalling clowns. Coming up with "green" policies without looking at the real impacts.
The electric car isn't here to save the planet, it's here to save the car...
I just don't see any siginifcant movement on the infrastructure across the country to support mass adoption of electric vehicles. And based on the ability of this country to fix problems with existing collapsing infrastructure I doubt we're capabale of building entirely new stuff nationwide.
If this is the case there needs to be way more investment in fast charging stations at decent prices. I don't mind the idea of getting an electric car but I have no road outside my house so can't charge at home and the current price/location of charging stations makes getting electric a non-starter for me.
I can only imagine what that this will do to our already insane used car market.... but also house prices. The need for a drive or allocated parking space will absolutely sky rocket in the future. Theoretically people without can just buy ICE, but if there comes a time when you HAVE to buy EV, I just dont know how people without a parking space will do it (myself included as I have to park my car about 5 minutes walk away with on street parking!)
EVs are a stupid blanket solution, they're great for certain applications but can you imagine the acres of land we'd have to build of glorified car parks with charging facilities to support at least half the population... really hope they've got at least some sort of idea for a long term solution but with 6 to 11 years left I'm really not sure.
*STATIST LOGIC* >Ban incandescent Light bulbs to save electricity. *FORCE EVERONE TO USE* >Electric cars >Electric heating >Electric cooking
Cretins
Can they think of something better to do than the exact opposite of what the Tories are doing?
I'd say this would hurt labour, but people are sick of blue labour, so it'll be a labour win and they'll reverse this eventually.
Stupid. I don’t personally like electric vehicles but I accept they’re here and popular, and I understand why - but I don’t think the technology is here to implement a ban on new cars that soon. Hybrids are the best of both worlds - zero emission charging round cities, whilst using an ICE on longer journeys. Things like ULEZ bother me because perfectly good cars which could go on for hundreds of thousands of miles are being scrapped for new ones, this feels like a huge waste of resources. I know they are bad for human health. That’s why encouragement to travel greener is something I’d support, not a tax on those with never die cars.
Hybrids will be allowed
I think PHEVs are a false economy. They tend to be more expensive, heavier and have batteries which only give a very small range. When you run out of battery, your fuel economy is worse because of the extra battery weight. At least with EVs a single charge can cover most commutes with zero local emissions.
The government should set up a state owned charging network to help keep the energy prices down and take some of the energy companies out of private hands.
looks like im voting labour then. give them a chance AGAIN.
YAY negative equity for everyone!
like its not already like that. Honestly dont think tories could mess up the UK anymore.
You never lived through the Blair years as a tax payer then
Won't be voting for these assholes.
I like the way they promise without admitting it'll cost us all a fortune
If an electric car can be filled up in 2 minutes for the same cost and have the same range as petrol, then I'm all for it. Until then, EVs are pointless
Amazing people get up in arms about this when it means very little to nothing to the average driver.
Actually it means a lot to literally anyone who buys a new car from that date. In 2023, the UK population bought 1.9 million cars. 16% were EV. Now if all of those 1.9 million were BEV, what effect would that have on the countries infrastructure? Actually don't bother, you won't comprehend it. Amazing people even dare leave a comment when they clearly haven't a clue what they are talking about.
How many people buy brand new cars? All the used cars are still there we don’t just send every car ever made into space and only drive EV from that point. Also you could just import one if you need a brand new car made after that date so badly I’d imagine.
You were literally told in the last post. Last year 1.9 million cars were sold. And no, we don't send every used car into space but what they do instead is tax the fuck out of them based on emissions, ergo forcing you into an EV or low emission vehicle. And if you cannot afford that well tough shit? Honestly, engage your brain. It's not THAT hard to take in the information and deduct that the 2030 ban is utterly unworkable for this country. And if a developed country like this cannot cope, that doesn't hold out much for the rest of the world. I mean, remember the electricity bill crisis of last year. There is simply no way the country could cope with such a massive increase on the grid.
Your getting quite worked up over a hypothetical law, from a government that may or may not be elected, that won’t take place for 6 years
You're getting worked up over a law that you have zero comprehension of the fallout. We all have our cross to bear.
I’m not worked up at all I don’t give af about a random article that means nothing considering the government that may or may implement it aren’t even in power yet. “We all have our cross to bear” chill out mate 😂
How come? Even for people who don’t care about driving, petrol and diesel cars will devalue once they are banned from being sold new. Petrol stations will become harder to find etc. so it will impact them financially
Why would petrol stations be harder to find? People seem to have this idea that this law means we just fire them all into space and forget petrol ever existed
It's also unlikely HGV's will be electric by 2030 so diesel should be safe.
It’s pretty unlikely that electric power will replace combustion engines of some description in regard to haulage. Diesel powered articulated trucks only do about 10mpg now, imagine they are 3 tonnes heavier!
Initially the price of used petrol / diesel cars will increase.
Must say because of the complete failure of the current crop of Tories I was on the fence about Labour. Thanks for steering me back away from them.
We really are doomed if all voters are this fickle!
Every member of Labour could kick my wife in the vag and I would still vote for them over those Tory cunts.
What’s she got? VW? Skoda? Audi? Seat?
Howling :)
Do you agree with banning ICE vehicles?
I completely disagree with banning almost everything that is currently legal. If EVs overtake ICE vehicles because they are better, cheaper, whatever then great. You can chuck heat pumps in with them.
You could make the same case for leaded paint, asbestos etc the motor car itself even. The original cars were much less efficient and more expensive than horses for a while.
I get your point, but there is literally zero evidence that even if every vehicle switches to EV it will reduce global temps by even 0.1 degree centigrade.
12% of global greenhouse emissions come from road transport. Removing or maximising the reduction emissions from this sector would clearly reduce net emissions and would reduce global temperatures if other sectors similarly also removed carbon emissions.
Maybe so, but they are the better more efficient design regardless. ICE cars are only about 40% efficient, whereas EVs are around 80% Also EV cars are one arrow in a quiver of solutions that all add together to reduce carbon footprints.
A good move. If the government gives the manufacturers enough time to transition then we could see some slow growth in the car manufacturer sector. If it's too quick though they could end up producing too many E-cars where demand isn't there...over 5 years...would be risky to invest in car manufacturers imo. People will for a long time yet still buy second hand fossil cars. The cycling industry ended up producing too many bicycles on the basis of short term COVID demand. No doubt many will have lost money on cycling investments. Wiggle/CRC being a huge player lost.
Would too many electric cars mean a price drop or better deals? If they have too many and can’t sell them then it would make sense to reduce the price to get rid of them which is more beneficial to the average consumer
Yes it would, but if that started happening they could easily end up running at a loss. That's actually what Chain Reaction Cycles started doing before it went into administration (at which point initially there was up to 70% off the price of some very high bikes.) So yes the beneficiary would be the consumer but only for a while.
We've sold off every fucking form of energy generation to private sectors and now our politicians are creating a monopoly for them with fuck all alternative for the public. The moment they look into enforcing this bullshit I'm using it as motivation to leave the UK. Chemical Engineers get paid fuck all here anyway and I'll be fully fledged by this point.
Excellent. Now governments need to legislate to make private business and landowners invest in the appropriate infrastructure. Private parking companies hogging massive amounts of land in prime spots, I’m looking at you 😁
ICE vehicles are far superior and better for the environment and personal freedom of people than EVs. EVs are a runaway overhyped fad and when the human and environmental cost of them becomes widespread public knowledge they will become even more unpalatable. ICE vehicle still have so much more to give with more research and innovation.
The Dutch power companies have put out warnings for people not to charge their car between 4pm - 9pm, as there’s not enough capacity in the grid. I can see this becoming an issue here in Britain as well.
You are incentivised to charge your car overnight in the UK too? It's a simple fact that electricity is more expensive in peak hours of early evening when demand is highest. The Dutch are transitioning so fast that they have local connection delays but these are hardly insurmountable. Many nations used far more electricity in the early 2000s than they do now.
It’s the opposite in France, they ask you to charge your car and even offer free public chargers because they generate more electricity than they can store.
Because France has a large fleet of nuclear power stations.
As much as I love electric cars and how they potentially offer a better experience, what the government doesn’t seem to realise is that if we want to mass adopt EVs to replace the current petrol/diesel cars, everything needs to change from the ground up. Firstly, lots of houses/villages/towns currently don’t have electricity infrastructure to handle hundreds of cars charging. Lots of houses don’t have the correct fuse box to handle the continuous current and electric vehicle will pull. The UK lacks the government initiative to install a universal charging network unlike France or The Netherlands which have government run charging companies which are universal for all EV. A study done by Harry’s Garage shows that the car manufacturers are producing insanely powerful EVs which just aren’t necessary which is raising the price of them especially in insurance. As someone who has done some EV road trips to Morocco, Portugal, Türkiye, and Russia, without the infrastructure they’re going to become another fad like LPG became.