Part of the reason why retail EV sales are seen to have stalled is because of the success of salary sacrifice schemes. Cars that in previous years were privately bought are now paid for at source. They do the same school, work and supermarket runs as their predecessors but are classed as fleet purchases and not retail. BEV sales are up 9.7% YTD 2024 vs 2023, but the overall retail market is down 12.9% over the same period. The number of battery electric vehicles registered is going up month by month, year by year.
Perhaps, perhaps not. There's only so long Western firms and government organsisations can keep that subsidised living going, especially with real-world (not government figures) inflation very high and real-world wages dropping for decades now.
The other problem is that demand is not rising by anywhere near the amount dictated by governments to meet the unrealistic legislated sales targets (Stellantis have had a big moan to HMG about this and threatened to pull out - it'll get even worse with the more stringent targets once the new government gets in on 5th Jul), and thus the only ways manufacturers can meet them is to either:
Slash EV prices artificially, or;
Stop producing/selling (including pulling out altogether) better selling ICE models in a big way;
Either way, this will be VERY bad for their profitability, and I suspect many car firms will go to the wall within the next few years, leaving the Chinese to move in because they are heavily state-subsidised for this very purpose.
Amazing how this mirrors every other 'green' policy in the West. Unfortunately, other than reducing large swathes of their nation / populations to medieval penury, it won't be making any meaningful difference to carbon emissions and pollution worldwide, just exporting it.
|
|
especially with real-world (not government figures) inflation very high and real-world wages dropping for decades now.
I would prefer to go with the government numbers - they are professionally produced and subject to scrutiny. Beats unsupported assertions.
The other problem is that demand is not rising by anywhere near the amount dictated by governments to meet the unrealistic legislated sales targets the only ways manufacturers can meet them is to either:
Slash EV prices artificially, or;
Stop producing/selling ........... better selling ICE models in a big way;
It is entirely up to manufacturers to decided whether they want to be in the UK market and what products to sell. Those who remain will do so because it is in their long term business interest.
I suspect many car firms will go to the wall within the next few years, leaving the Chinese to move in because they are heavily state-subsidised for this very purpose.
I'm sure you are right about many going to the wall. Whether you like it or not, China manufactures EVs in large volumes, has a lower cost base, economies of scale, and manufacture increasing good cars.
UK consumers will vote with their wallets. The alternative is tariff barriers to protect domestic manufacturers - benefit for UK consumers is debatable - they will pay more for their cars, leaving less for other things.
Amazing how this mirrors every other 'green' policy in the West. Unfortunately, other than reducing large swathes of their nation / populations to medieval penury, it won't be making any meaningful difference to carbon emissions and pollution worldwide, just exporting it.
Aside from climate change issues associated with fossil fuels (you may or may not subscribe), reliance on them is economically short-sighted and leaves the UK vulnerable to international price shocks, conflicts. supply chains etc.
Only 17% of UK GDP now comes from manufacturing - a share that has been falling for decades. One may regret its passing but there is no future in manufacturing other than very high tech or to avoid strategic vulnerabilities.
|
especially with real-world (not government figures) inflation very high and real-world wages dropping for decades now.
I would prefer to go with the government numbers - they are professionally produced and subject to scrutiny. Beats unsupported assertions.
Unfortunately for people on your side of the debate (and which grows smaller by the day), the amount of 'government numbers' (including and especially from quangos) that can be trusted also reduces as time goes by - including that on 'green' issues.
Oddly enough, the list of 'vested interests' who fund (either directly or indirectly via 'payments' or 'jobs' on the side or after they 'retire' from such positions that subsequently gets (eventually) publicised by independent media outlets makes the voracity of such data produced less and less accurate and/or truthful.
In my opinion.
The other problem is that demand is not rising by anywhere near the amount dictated by governments to meet the unrealistic legislated sales targets the only ways manufacturers can meet them is to either:
Slash EV prices artificially, or;
Stop producing/selling ........... better selling ICE models in a big way;
It is entirely up to manufacturers to decided whether they want to be in the UK market and what products to sell. Those who remain will do so because it is in their long term business interest.
Those who get most subsidy or who already have the deepest pockets survive, eh? That was the same argument made by those not caring that high streets were decimated in the 1980s onwards by the big corporate retailers deliberately taking a hit in the short term by significantly undercutting smaller independents, leading to far less competition and lower quality products with poor customer service.
I suspect many car firms will go to the wall within the next few years, leaving the Chinese to move in because they are heavily state-subsidised for this very purpose.
I'm sure you are right about many going to the wall. Whether you like it or not, China manufactures EVs in large volumes, has a lower cost base, economies of scale, and manufacture increasing good cars.
In my view, the Chinese use slave /forced labour or very poorly paid labour under bad working conditions in their own countries and where they source most of the raw materials for their products, especially lithium batteries.
The CCP heavily subsidises their manufacturing base and artificially lowers the exchange rate to make their goods cheaper.
The Chinese government's intel agencies and helpers in industry regularly indulge in industrious espionage to steal corporate secrets from foreign companies - it is well documented and is going on a scale that dwarfs that carried out by other nations and companies combined.
Hardly a 'level playing field'. In my view, their cars are mostly below average knock-offs of Western ones, often far too similar to be their own design.
UK consumers will vote with their wallets. The alternative is tariff barriers to protect domestic manufacturers - benefit for UK consumers is debatable - they will pay more for their cars, leaving less for other things.
If given all the facts, most people will accept paying a 'fair' price for a product. Especially if they see why buying elsewhere will eventually have a big and detrimental impact on their lives and especially those of their children, etc.
Amazing how this mirrors every other 'green' policy in the West. Unfortunately, other than reducing large swathes of their nation / populations to medieval penury, it won't be making any meaningful difference to carbon emissions and pollution worldwide, just exporting it.
Aside from climate change issues associated with fossil fuels (you may or may not subscribe), reliance on them is economically short-sighted and leaves the UK vulnerable to international price shocks, conflicts. supply chains etc.
The sudden reliance on so-called 'green' energy sources at the expense of fossil fuels (including pricing them out / artificially making them expensive via tariffs) such as solar and wind has caused countries that engaged in such policies to rely on foreign energy imports.
This, in turn, raises prices considerably (adding considerably to the problems caused by the fallout from the Ukraine War, etc) and where we just rely on other rather shady nations (e.g. IMHO Qatar for liquefied natural gas) or ones with their own problems (France with an ageing nuclear generation system and reduced output whilst they are repaired).
This means that our own base load (which will never come from solar or wind, because by its very nature is intermittent and cannot be relied upon unless we cover the entire country in them, which I'm sure you'll agree would be a very bad idea all around.
That the same advocates for such 'green' sources of electricity are in my view deliberately stymying home-grown nuclear power at the same time as unethically lobbying at all levels to push out fossil fuels (so they can earn more via their own 'green' businesses that are heavily taxpayer subsidised) rather makes the whole affair rather grubby in my opinion.
Only 17% of UK GDP now comes from manufacturing - a share that has been falling for decades. One may regret its passing but there is no future in manufacturing other than very high tech or to avoid strategic vulnerabilities.
A shame that industry (and any other owners of building with large roofspace footprints) isn't encouraged to generate electricity themselves via solar panels on the very large roofs of their manufacturing plants, rather than removing farmland and/or picturesque countryside spaces etc for solar 'farms' and wind turbines in not very reliably windy areas (like here in East Anglia).
Class.
|
|
Why do we need acres of land turned over to solar pv farms? Take a look outside there are thousands of acres of roofs that could easily have solar pv panels fitted.
It's a criminal waste that they aren't. Government needs to figure out a way to change that.
Ditto electricity storage for when the sun isn't shining. Eg pumping water up hill to storage then on demand releasing it thro turbines.
Rivers..instead of wind turbines what about water power. It is begging for investment. Totally ignored. Far more efficient than wind.
I've done my bit I have solar and home storage. All self funded. Why aren't grants available for this?
|
Rivers..instead of wind turbines what about water power. It is begging for investment. Totally ignored. Far more efficient than wind.
In what way is it more efficient? And what makes it better than wind?
|
Rivers..instead of wind turbines what about water power. It is begging for investment. Totally ignored. Far more efficient than wind.
In what way is it more efficient? And what makes it better than wind?
windcycle.energy/comparison-of-hydro-and-wind-powe.../
The industrial revolution used mostly water power. Not windmills.
Their not as hideously unpleasant on the eye nor do they mince the birds. Secondly they don't have days with no wind.
Edited by Ethan Edwards on 28/06/2024 at 22:31
|
|
<< The industrial revolution used mostly water power. Not windmills. They are not as hideously unpleasant on the eye nor do they mince the birds. Secondly they don't have days with no wind. >>
No, but they can have days, or even weeks, without water (drought, remember ?). It's less likely these days, but things used to freeze up occasionally too.
And many people quite like to see a traditional windmill - modern ones are a lot bigger, but they can be attractive, especially to an engineer. The 18-unit windfarm near us has a gap through the centre to allow birds to pass unscathed, too.
|
|
|
Rivers..instead of wind turbines what about water power. It is begging for investment. Totally ignored. Far more efficient than wind.
In what way is it more efficient? And what makes it better than wind?
windcycle.energy/comparison-of-hydro-and-wind-powe.../
The industrial revolution used mostly water power. Not windmills.
Their not as hideously unpleasant on the eye nor do they mince the birds. Secondly they don't have days with no wind.
That's about Hydro power (lakes and dams) - when you said use rivers I thought you meant something more like a watermill.
Not sure why what was used in the industrial revolution would be relevant to now though - a lot has changed since then.
I like the look of wind turbines so happy to see them...I'm sure that people don't like dams though to look at and building the dam/lakes that go with them does destroy a lot of nature/animal habitats.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do we need acres of land turned over to solar pv farms? Take a look outside there are thousands of acres of roofs that could easily have solar pv panels fitted.
It's a criminal waste that they aren't. Government needs to figure out a way to change that.
Ditto electricity storage for when the sun isn't shining. Eg pumping water up hill to storage then on demand releasing it thro turbines.
Rivers..instead of wind turbines what about water power. It is begging for investment. Totally ignored. Far more efficient than wind.
I've done my bit I have solar and home storage. All self funded. Why aren't grants available for this?
They did figure out a way to change it - feed in tariffs. Then they cancelled it because it was costing money.
|
|
|
|
|
<< If given all the facts, most people will accept ... >>
Here we go again ! Presumably the 'facts' are selected according to particular criteria, to suit personal opinion. 'Facts' should mean provable, accepted, reproducible data, not whatever numbers happen to fit one's argument best.
|
|
|
, the amount of 'government numbers' (including and especially from quangos) that can be trusted also reduces as time goes by - including that on 'green' issues.
New scientist (a serious and worthy publication) - "it is easy to dismiss conspiracy theories as unhinged beliefs held by a small number of paranoid i****s, but that seriously underestimates them. Belief in conspiracy theories is very widespread, the product of normal human psychology, and extremely influential and dangerous".
That you reject formal statistics in favour of an unevidenced source is your choice. I will stick with evidenced based analysis unless you can point me to something with equal credibility.
In my view, the Chinese use slave /forced labour or very poorly paid labour under bad working conditions in their own countries and where they source most of the raw materials for their products, especially lithium batteries.
The CCP heavily subsidises their manufacturing base and artificially lowers the exchange rate to make their goods cheaper.
The Chinese are suspected of using forced labour to a limited extent. This has happened in the UK too - remember the lives lost with cockle pickers in Morcombe Bay.
I don't doubt there is some truth to the allegations, but the principle reasons for the growth over the past two decades in per capita Chinese GDP is:
- low labour costs
- a government with a clear strategic intent rather than a democratic UK shambles
- more limited environmental, H&S and employment rights legislation
- management of strategic raw material resources
- economies of scale
The world changes and we need to respond. There is no more empire. Our global influence will decline - overtaken by larger trading blocs - China, India, EU etc. UK manufacturing failed as it was uncompetitive - consumers voted with their wallets.
Hardly a 'level playing field'. In my view, their cars are mostly below average knock-offs of Western ones, often far too similar to be their own design.
The Chinese are now capable of putting people in space, building iPhones, nuclear power and weapons systems etc. They educate their young to very high levels. It is pure arrogant nonsense to assert they produce mostly "below average knock-offs".
Get real. They produce quality competitive products consumers are happy to pay for. In the next decade the UK will lag US, China, India (probably) and the EU. We need to find a place in the world order but it will not be at the top of the tree.
This means that our own base load (which will never come from solar or wind, because by its very nature is intermittent and cannot be relied upon unless we cover the entire country in them, which I'm sure you'll agree would be a very bad idea all around.
Wind and solar could provide more than twice the forecast annual UK demand by 2050, nor would it require the entire country to be covered in turbines. That it is intermittent could be an issue.
There are solutions - eg: an EV with a 60kwh battery could power the average house for 3 or 4 days, domestic battery packs, high temperature energy storage systems etc.
That the same advocates for such 'green' sources of electricity are in my view deliberately stymying home-grown nuclear power at the same time as unethically lobbying at all levels to push out fossil fuels (so they can earn more via their own 'green' businesses that are heavily taxpayer subsidised) rather makes the whole affair rather grubby in my opinion.
I would agree with nuclear to meet a limited base load requirement. That initial subsidies are required to kickstart so fundamental a change seems unavoidable, without which the status quo would be perpetuated. Grubby or good sense is a matter of opinion.
That was the same argument made by those not caring that high streets were decimated in the 1980s onwards by the big corporate retailers deliberately taking a hit in the short term by significantly undercutting smaller independents, leading to far less competition and lower quality products with poor customer service.
The failure of independent retail has nothing to do with subsidies to big corporate. They simply delivered what the public wanted - bright, clean, spacious shopping centres with decent access, free parking, and lower prices.
The price paid was the death of the traditional high street. I regret this possibly as much as you. But it needed innovation and change - the mindset that perpetuating the familiar and comfortable status quo was in many ways the reason for its failure.
|
|
Have a look at new Hyundai Inster. I am impressed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s125wXljonI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT7swFbkdV4
|
Have a look at new Hyundai Inster. I am impressed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s125wXljonI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT7swFbkdV4
I watched the Fully Charged review the other day and also really like the Inster (if not the name!)
|
|
|
Have a look at new Hyundai Inster. I am impressed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s125wXljonI
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT7swFbkdV4
Looks very similar to the current (ICE) Suzuki Ignis in terms of exterior appearance.
Only a city car though for those who can:
a) afford it new (the Ignis, for example, costs £5k less [not that it is 'cheap', any more], has about 60% [min] more range and probably costs a good deal less to insure) and;
b) who have reasonable access to a fast charger, which most city dwellers do not, except those wanting a 'second/shopping' car, although I suspect a good deal may go for something which is more 'pretty'.
Note how few Honda e's have been sold in the UK. Perhaps both are more suited to the Far Eastern market where size over styling (or 'quirky' styling) appeals and where infrastructure is better, at least for the next 20 years or so.
|
|
|
|
, the amount of 'government numbers' (including and especially from quangos) that can be trusted also reduces as time goes by - including that on 'green' issues.
New scientist (a serious and worthy publication) - "it is easy to dismiss conspiracy theories as unhinged beliefs held by a small number of paranoid i****s, but that seriously underestimates them. Belief in conspiracy theories is very widespread, the product of normal human psychology, and extremely influential and dangerous".
That you reject formal statistics in favour of an unevidenced source is your choice. I will stick with evidenced based analysis unless you can point me to something with equal credibility.
Given how many supposedly (or actually, but now a good number of years ago) 'serious and worthy' publications have gone 'woke' and have been 'got at' by 'funding' from certain wealthy activists, I'm less and less inclined to believe in their 'output', especially when more of what they produce is being proven to be wrong and often downright falsehoods in favour of green lobbyists by the day.
In my view, the Chinese use slave /forced labour or very poorly paid labour under bad working conditions in their own countries and where they source most of the raw materials for their products, especially lithium batteries.
The CCP heavily subsidises their manufacturing base and artificially lowers the exchange rate to make their goods cheaper.
The Chinese are suspected of using forced labour to a limited extent. This has happened in the UK too - remember the lives lost with cockle pickers in Morcombe Bay.
Citing one incident where home grown business owners transgressed when compared to an industrial scale by the CCP & their crony corporations and, for that matter foreign-owned UK businesses (all those 'lovely' factories in the Midlands,m if I recall, all getting away with it because people are scare of reporting it due to malicious accusations of 'racism'.
I don't doubt there is some truth to the allegations, but the principle reasons for the growth over the past two decades in per capita Chinese GDP is:
- low labour costs
- a government with a clear strategic intent rather than a democratic UK shambles
- more limited environmental, H&S and employment rights legislation
- management of strategic raw material resources
- economies of scale
That is only true in part. Many Chinese industrials (e.g. defence, as well as cars) have in my view made huge strides precisely because they undertook extensive industrial espionage, which was either allowed, encouraged or even conducted on their behalf by the Chinese government, and has been well-documented to dwarf the scale by all other countries combined, and including within the Cold War era, which is saying something.
The world changes and we need to respond. There is no more empire. Our global influence will decline - overtaken by larger trading blocs - China, India, EU etc. UK manufacturing failed as it was uncompetitive - consumers voted with their wallets.
Indeed - but that doesn't make what they've been up to 'right' or conduct that we personally on the West generally should be rewarding by 'voting with our wallets' in buying it, or really letting a lot be imported here at all.
Whatever happened to moral and ethical behaviour, especially when it is on issues that impact the planet and a large number of people in a very negative way?
Hardly a 'level playing field'. In my view, their cars are mostly below average knock-offs of Western ones, often far too similar to be their own design.
The Chinese are now capable of putting people in space, building iPhones, nuclear power and weapons systems etc. They educate their young to very high levels. It is pure arrogant nonsense to assert they produce mostly "below average knock-offs".
It is well-known that there is industrial-scale cheating by Chinese students (I saw this even in the mid 90s when it first started) at Western universities to obtain degrees, and on scientific papers (published in those same 'serious and worth' publications) where it subsequently comes to light, often years later. Money does play a big part.
Get real. They produce quality competitive products consumers are happy to pay for. In the next decade the UK will lag US, China, India (probably) and the EU. We need to find a place in the world order but it will not be at the top of the tree.
A good deal of the product R&D is either done abroad, with (cheap labour) manufacturing plants (designed abroad), like iPhones. Many of their companies have been subject to big fines when actually caught stealing competitors information.
This means that our own base load (which will never come from solar or wind, because by its very nature is intermittent and cannot be relied upon unless we cover the entire country in them, which I'm sure you'll agree would be a very bad idea all around.
Wind and solar could provide more than twice the forecast annual UK demand by 2050, nor would it require the entire country to be covered in turbines. That it is intermittent could be an issue.
Which means you can have 10x the base load and still not have any capacity when it's most needed, especially in winter. There is no tech on the horizon (not even theoretical) to be able to reasonable and safely store all that energy, hence why solar and wind on farmland and in the countryside should never be expanded.
Funny how nuclear, especially home-grown modular, is barely spoken of in this debate. It seems some are more interested in outsourcing every last vestige of our technical capability and manufacturing base abroad, especially to enemies or direct competitors.
There are solutions - eg: an EV with a 60kwh battery could power the average house for 3 or 4 days, domestic battery packs, high temperature energy storage systems etc.
Not every home can take (space of capacity of system without lots of upgrades) that or is safe. This can't be done in just a few years, not even close by 2050. We do also have to contend with the scarcity of the materials in those batteries and the mostly unethical and environmentally unfriendly way they are sourced and even recycled.
That the same advocates for such 'green' sources of electricity are in my view deliberately stymying home-grown nuclear power at the same time as unethically lobbying at all levels to push out fossil fuels (so they can earn more via their own 'green' businesses that are heavily taxpayer subsidised) rather makes the whole affair rather grubby in my opinion.
I would agree with nuclear to meet a limited base load requirement. That initial subsidies are required to kickstart so fundamental a change seems unavoidable, without which the status quo would be perpetuated. Grubby or good sense is a matter of opinion.
The problem is that such 'businesses' have been lapping up 'kickstart incentives' for decades now. How long are they going be in the 'startup' phase? Much of the tech is being touted as 'mature', but seemingly can only ever make 'profit' when huge taxpayer subsidies are paid to them, often via equally huge (and growing) levies on fossil fuel competitors.
That was the same argument made by those not caring that high streets were decimated in the 1980s onwards by the big corporate retailers deliberately taking a hit in the short term by significantly undercutting smaller independents, leading to far less competition and lower quality products with poor customer service.
The failure of independent retail has nothing to do with subsidies to big corporate. They simply delivered what the public wanted - bright, clean, spacious shopping centres with decent access, free parking, and lower prices.
I never said that big corporate retailers were subsidised - I said they took a short-term financial hit by subsidising the products (loss-leaders) they sold to artificially undercut local / small interdependent to drive them out of business. This also includes them doing so on their own filling station forecourts via 'spend £50 in store, get 5p a litre off fuel, if I recall.
The price paid was the death of the traditional high street. I regret this possibly as much as you. But it needed innovation and change - the mindset that perpetuating the familiar and comfortable status quo was in many ways the reason for its failure.
Change for change's sake or because 'other' do so is not required, especially when there are bad motives behind it and often the new tech / methods are a) not as well advanced as they are touted to be, and b) cost far more, both financially and to the community, than planned, often because they are (deliberately unreasonably) optimistic in order to gain media, government and funding support.
Change can be managed and modified so that the best of what was is largely retained. Unfortunately, that is increasingly not happening in the West, as is shown on a daily basis.
|
|
Which magazine have reported dangerous problems with the lane assistance system on the MG 4 EV .
|
|
Not only the MG. The new Vauxhall Mokka , Fiat500e equally dangerous. That's why I disable it every single time I get in the car. Lane Keep Assist violently grabs the steering and sends you off where it thinks you ought to be.
I'm not having that.
When the new speed limiters come in, I'm disabling that too. If possible.
If I make a mistake they're going to be my mistake.
|
|
|
Which magazine have reported dangerous problems with the lane assistance system on the MG 4 EV .
The failure of a lane assistance system probably has a lot more to do with the software and sensors controlling the system, and very little to do with how the car is powered.
|
|
|
Which magazine have reported dangerous problems with the lane assistance system on the MG 4 EV .
Are they going to report dangerous problems with every single one of these accursed systems on every single car? It's the worst idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
