EV perks

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
View Threaded
Tue 16 Jun 2020 15:12
EV perks - sammy1

Here we go again. possibly more discrimination on the roads. The gov is considering free parking, bus lane use, free entry to restricted emissions zones as well as a possible grant of some £6k to buy the thing in the first place. This is all out of taxation which non EV drivers are paying. EV drivers are also getting subsidised fuel in the form of cheap electric. When will the average driver be able to afford and run a EV and until then carry on helping the well off with their motoring

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 16 Jun 2020 15:20
EV perks - _

But, It won't last long when the revenue loss starts to bite and london inside the North and south circular roads is full of electric vehicles and TFL lose most of their income.

Anyone remember promotion of diesel cars 20 odd years ago..

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 16 Jun 2020 16:02
EV perks - Bromptonaut

Here we go again. possibly more discrimination on the roads. The gov is considering free parking, bus lane use, free entry to restricted emissions zones as well as a possible grant of some £6k to buy the thing in the first place. This is all out of taxation which non EV drivers are paying. EV drivers are also getting subsidised fuel in the form of cheap electric. When will the average driver be able to afford and run a EV and until then carry on helping the well off with their motoring

People need an incentive to move over.

I'd oppose bus lane use but what on earth is wrong with vehicles that emit nothing at point of use being allowed in restricted emission zones?

And while electricity is certainly cheaper than oil based fuels I don't think it's subsidised.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 16 Jun 2020 17:36
EV perks - dan86

Here we go again. possibly more discrimination on the roads. The gov is considering free parking, bus lane use, free entry to restricted emissions zones as well as a possible grant of some £6k to buy the thing in the first place. This is all out of taxation which non EV drivers are paying. EV drivers are also getting subsidised fuel in the form of cheap electric. When will the average driver be able to afford and run a EV and until then carry on helping the well off with their motoring

People need an incentive to move over.

I'd oppose bus lane use but what on earth is wrong with vehicles that emit nothing at point of use being allowed in restricted emission zones?

And while electricity is certainly cheaper than oil based fuels I don't think it's subsidised.

It's not subsidised but it only attracts 5% VAT and no fuel duty like petrol and diesel.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 16 Jun 2020 17:44
EV perks - sammy1

And while electricity is certainly cheaper than oil based fuels I don't think it's subsidised.

the government are paying Drax a subsidy of some £1billion to set up and run biomass plants which burn wood pellets which are imported from around the world to help reduce its carbon footprint. I just see it as moving the footprint elsewhere!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 16 Jun 2020 22:15
EV perks - alan1302

@sammy1 - how would you encourage the switch over to electric vehicles?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 17 Jun 2020 11:23
EV perks - John F

And while electricity is certainly cheaper than oil based fuels I don't think it's subsidised.

the government are paying Drax a subsidy of some £1billion to set up and run biomass plants which burn wood pellets which are imported from around the world to help reduce its carbon footprint.

That is indeed scandalous. Drax are being paid around 12p a unit whereas North Sea wind turbines can do it for less than 5p per unit. It actually does little for its 'carbon footprint', merely postponing it a few decades depending upon how old the American trees it burns are. Still - can't complain. Electricity producers pay me over 50p per unit for the electricity I generate, thanks to an inflation linked tax free no-brainer inducement nine years ago.

Edited by John F on 17/06/2020 at 11:24

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 17 Jun 2020 13:24
EV perks - Terry W

Many new technologies need initial subsidies.

Domestic solar power was kick started by a feed in tariff of 43p per kwh. This is now 4p per kwh and likely to be stopped completely. It prompted a massive increase in PV capacity by reducing the unit cost of systems over time. PV systems are close to the point at which they need no subsidy to justify their installation.

The same may be largely true for EVs - initial subsidy and increased volumes will make them cheaper and better. The subsidy will be withdrawn eventually as the cost falls. If volumes are high enough ICE will be mandated off urban roads as there will be a viable non-polluting alternative.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 17 Jun 2020 14:34
EV perks - sammy1

sammy1 - how would you encourage the switch over to electric vehicles?

I remain unconvinced that EV is the answer, and I don't see the government really driving it with the infrastructure needed etc. I agree that we cannot go on polluting our cities with emissions.

To go back to the Drax subsidy, vast forests are being cut down reduced to pellets then roaded to the port for export to us. This alone does not happen without considerable emissions in the export country. You then have a dirty great big polluting ship to get it to the UK. It then has to be off loaded and roaded to the power station. I do not know the tonnage of the ship but biomass pellets are bulky so you can imagine the number of lorries required to fill and empty a ship. I wonder if there is a formula I polluting lorry verses X EVs =number of emission free miles driven by said EVs, or the dirty polluting ship verses xEVs. How many EV miles offset the initial pollution, and then you have to mine the mineral batteries and make the EV.

I think government needs to be more honest about carbon and pollution and at the end of the day it is all about driving the economy

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 17 Jun 2020 14:41
EV perks - alan1302

sammy1 - how would you encourage the switch over to electric vehicles?

I remain unconvinced that EV is the answer, and I don't see the government really driving it with the infrastructure needed etc. I agree that we cannot go on polluting our cities with emissions.

So - if there was an alternative that you did like and agree with - how would you encourage people to start using it?

Edited by alan1302 on 17/06/2020 at 14:41

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 17 Jun 2020 14:40
EV perks - Engineer Andy

Many new technologies need initial subsidies.

Domestic solar power was kick started by a feed in tariff of 43p per kwh. This is now 4p per kwh and likely to be stopped completely. It prompted a massive increase in PV capacity by reducing the unit cost of systems over time. PV systems are close to the point at which they need no subsidy to justify their installation.

The same may be largely true for EVs - initial subsidy and increased volumes will make them cheaper and better. The subsidy will be withdrawn eventually as the cost falls. If volumes are high enough ICE will be mandated off urban roads as there will be a viable non-polluting alternative.

It's only worth subsidising a new technology if it is properly green from start to finish, which EVs patently (currently) are not. As I've said in other (similar) threads, we shouldn't be subsidising the (already) rich (making them even richer and more powerful) out of taxation mainly of those who aren't.

It doesn't help that very few people on lower incomes will be able to benefit personally from this due to them not being physically able to have charging points installed at their home.

As has been said, the Drax power station issue is a disgrace, and also many wind farms get paid when idle, seriously enriching their owners whilst (and with PV farms) blotting the landscape and (onshore) reducing the land available for farming.

We need to be careful not to subsidise everything that is new and ad-infinitum - in many ways it can stifle innovation because (if set too high) allows firms to make too much money early on in the development phase (which most green tech is still in) and not invest in innovative new tech that would mean subsidies are not needed.

Why is it that government subsidies for home PV panels has effectively ended, but commercial ones and wind turbines still do, especially as both can never be used to form the grid base load because one only works when the sun is shining and the other is highly variable, including not being able to generate electricity when the wind is too strong (not as high as you might think)?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 20 Jun 2020 04:09
EV perks - Warning

We need to be careful not to subsidise everything that is new and ad-infinitum - in many ways it can stifle innovation because (if set too high) allows firms to make too much money early on in the development phase (which most green tech is still in) and not invest in innovative new tech that would mean subsidies are not needed.

Sometimes, the Government needs to provide an incentive to get the ball rolling. They have reduced subsidy, but over that time solar has got better. However, now feed-in tarrif (the cost of selling electricity to the electric company) is so low, people are storing surplus energy in batteries, which is n't environmentally friendly. If there is a clean way of storing energy, then it is will change the world.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 20 Jun 2020 12:24
EV perks - Engineer Andy

We need to be careful not to subsidise everything that is new and ad-infinitum - in many ways it can stifle innovation because (if set too high) allows firms to make too much money early on in the development phase (which most green tech is still in) and not invest in innovative new tech that would mean subsidies are not needed.

Sometimes, the Government needs to provide an incentive to get the ball rolling. They have reduced subsidy, but over that time solar has got better. However, now feed-in tarrif (the cost of selling electricity to the electric company) is so low, people are storing surplus energy in batteries, which is n't environmentally friendly. If there is a clean way of storing energy, then it is will change the world.

Oh I agree that sometimes firms need an extra helping hand to get the ball rolling - unfortunately, all to often, especially over the last 20 years, it has become a whole industry in itself, enriching a small number of people and benefitting the public and the planet a lot less than the promises made by both policy makers and firms involved.

I mean, why are governments STILL paying wind farm firms money when their turbines are not working because it's not windy enough or too windy? The tech has been around long enough that it should have matured so that it needs no subsidy if used in the right way. Unfortunately, it isn't.

What subsidies SHOULD have been mainly used for over the last decade was to seriously encourage (including through the planning system for new build projects, far more than was/is the case) home owners and businesses, especially factory owners (who have large expanses of roof space going unused) to install PV/solar HW panels to make a major daytime contribution to the electricity grid on a permanent basis, reducing our dependence on oil and gas, especially from unstable areas of the world and hostile nations such as Russia.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 20 Jun 2020 04:02
EV perks - Warning

"electric cars may be cancer-causing as they emit extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic fields (EMF)."

I suppose breathing car pollution is n't any better.

Yes, they will find a way to tax road users. It will move away from fuel to road pricing, which may be linked to demand.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 20 Jun 2020 12:58
EV perks - Terry W

First question: is it "greener" to have EV or ICE as the principle motive power source. If the answer to this is EV, then:

Second question: how does the government motivate people to change behaviours. They could ask nicely (rarely works if it costs more), but normally money (like it or not) is the solution.

Third question: at what level is the subsidy set and is it worth doing. The costs may be prohibitive even though there are evident benefits.

Fourth question: what other changes could be made to reinforce the message - eg: emissions free zones, recharging infrastructure subsidies etc.

There is no right answer to all this as a large part of the decision making process is about political judgement, expediency alternative claims on public spending etc which cannot be expressed in simplistic figures.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link