RE: UK (finally) registers millionth electric vehicle
Discussion
nunpuncher said:
Evanivitch said:
Miserablegit said:
One thing we don’t need are further tax breaks or further taxpayer funding for EVs. I say this as somebody who is looking at buying an EV because of the tax breaks.
If you're buying then tax breaks are few and far between. Private buyers don't get any perks at this time. Hence the suggestion to cute the rate of VAT.It's contributed to the rapid depreciation which in turn has made private buyers cautious. I would also imagine it's made PCP figures less attractive even on the cheaper EVs due to low expected GFV. If that continues could that start impacting company buyers? In any case it seems like it has created a used market that is top heavy with the wrong type of cars.
If they had balanced the tax break for company buyers better then they could have used the cash to continue to fund the grant for private buyers. Sure, it might have meant slower adoption but would that really have been a bad thing? Create natural time for infrastructure to develop. And prevent used cars hitting the market in swathes.
I just don't think halving VAT is going to cut it for most private buyers. it's a decent saving on a Taycan or similar but it'll only just cover charger installation on something like an e208 (not sure if that's included in the price). It's also still a drop in the ocean compared to the company/fleet buyer savings, less than the grant they abolished in 2022 and looks pretty rubbish compared to the 35% you can get off an electric motorcycle.
It's starting to look like all of this could have went better without the government creating a top heavy market. The EVs we have now suit the vast majority of private buyers much better than an ICE so why are they still buying ICEs? Is it habit, pricing, lack of understanding??
I think for non car people perhaps some of the terms are still confusing as well.
911Spanker said:
Yeah, a brilliant, balanced piece that’s well thought out and honest, basically aligns with my thinking but expresses it much better, and has more insight and real world experience.There are issues with EVs, it’s was never going to be a completely painless, overnight transition.
J4CKO said:
911Spanker said:
Yeah, a brilliant, balanced piece that’s well thought out and honest, basically aligns with my thinking but expresses it much better, and has more insight and real world experience.There are issues with EVs, it’s was never going to be a completely painless, overnight transition.
Imagine that, what would the good people of PH have to talk about then?
The weather? It's fecking rainy here.
nunpuncher said:
It's contributed to the rapid depreciation which in turn has made private buyers cautious. I would also imagine it's made PCP figures less attractive even on the cheaper EVs due to low expected GFV. If that continues could that start impacting company buyers? In any case it seems like it has created a used market that is top heavy with the wrong type of cars.
If they had balanced the tax break for company buyers better then they could have used the cash to continue to fund the grant for private buyers. Sure, it might have meant slower adoption but would that really have been a bad thing? Create natural time for infrastructure to develop. And prevent used cars hitting the market in swathes.
Early adopters don't go for the basic products. The manufacturers have started out with higher end EV models and pushing (heavily) the idea of EVs as being exciting and aspirational.If they had balanced the tax break for company buyers better then they could have used the cash to continue to fund the grant for private buyers. Sure, it might have meant slower adoption but would that really have been a bad thing? Create natural time for infrastructure to develop. And prevent used cars hitting the market in swathes.
What's important is to drive sales and that's what the business tax breaks are doing effectively. It doesn't matter in the larger picture if private buyers are a small share of EV buyers for some years at the beginning. EVs are becoming normalised, which is now creating room in the market for more mainstream EV models and ever-higher EV sales.
This is a long transition. No-one needs to panic about lack of range or lack of charging in 2024 as if it threatens the wholesale transition to EVs over the next 20 years....
"This is a long transition. No-one needs to panic about lack of range or lack of charging in 2024 as if it threatens the wholesale transition to EVs over the next 20 years..."
Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
irc said:
"This is a long transition. No-one needs to panic about lack of range or lack of charging in 2024 as if it threatens the wholesale transition to EVs over the next 20 years..."
Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
There is no ban. Just the ceasing of sales from 2035 which is 11 years away. Even after that ICEs can be bought and sold just not new. Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
90% of car trading is used models not new.
EV's do not have to be great just not chuck CO2 at the rate ICEs do over their lifetime and not damage our health . We learn, we move on unless like some resentful smokers who think it is so unfair.
irc said:
"This is a long transition. No-one needs to panic about lack of range or lack of charging in 2024 as if it threatens the wholesale transition to EVs over the next 20 years..."
Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
Obviously it's only new ICEs that are being banned.Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
The primary objective is a targeted reduction in passenger car CO2 footprint.
I'm not arguing for the existence of the target, but I do know that the target we have set is simply unachievable without a near 100% adoption of EVs by 2050.
There is no other viable, let alone affordable, renewable and sustainable option in that timeframe that gets anywhere near, so it's EV or pack up and go home.
It comes down to a simple mathematical situation of having 33 million cars on the road and a new car market of under 2 million cars.
You can't expect a million or so new car buyers to all understand the complex carbon footprint thing in detail.
If they choose a new ICE because they are convinced by a TV personality that EVs are a con, or whatever, all that happens is that the transition takes twice as long for no good reason.
By the time we get to 2030, the ZEV mandate is at 80%.
It needs to ramp up to that level so the 2050 target can be met.
At that point most manufacturers will have given up on ICE anyway, so the ban in 2035 will make little difference to what actually sells post 2035.
Making that crystal clear to the manufacturers lets people get on with their jobs and deliver what they've been asked to do.
Uncertainty just gets in the way of productivity and focus.
Unless the mandate is modified soonish, the endpoint, i.e. the ban, is moot.
Now, here's the question, what group of car buyers are going to be compromised by this approach at the time that they go to purchase a new or used car in the next 25 years?
J4CKO said:
911Spanker said:
Yeah, a brilliant, balanced piece that’s well thought out and honest, basically aligns with my thinking but expresses it much better, and has more insight and real world experience.There are issues with EVs, it’s was never going to be a completely painless, overnight transition.
His video doesn't start well though when he doesn't even do a comparison on a like for like basis. Even the interest rate is different.
irc said:
"This is a long transition. No-one needs to panic about lack of range or lack of charging in 2024 as if it threatens the wholesale transition to EVs over the next 20 years..."
Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
The merit is significantly lower CO2 - most customers can’t work this out because it’s invisible. The ban is being used (like many bans on dirty/old technology) to drive a better social outcome from people who can’t work the science themselves Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
D4rez said:
The merit is significantly lower CO2 - most customers can’t work this out because it’s invisible. The ban is being used (like many bans on dirty/old technology) to drive a better social outcome from people who can’t work the science themselves
I'd take cheaper cars and more CO2 myself. probably a fair number of lower income drivers would also prefer cheaper cars. D4rez said:
irc said:
"This is a long transition. No-one needs to panic about lack of range or lack of charging in 2024 as if it threatens the wholesale transition to EVs over the next 20 years..."
Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
The merit is significantly lower CO2 - most customers can’t work this out because it’s invisible. The ban is being used (like many bans on dirty/old technology) to drive a better social outcome from people who can’t work the science themselves Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
irc said:
D4rez said:
The merit is significantly lower CO2 - most customers can’t work this out because it’s invisible. The ban is being used (like many bans on dirty/old technology) to drive a better social outcome from people who can’t work the science themselves
I'd take cheaper cars and more CO2 myself. probably a fair number of lower income drivers would also prefer cheaper cars. Nomme de Plum said:
It's not just CO2 is it? Do the emissions not bother you when you must know by now how health damaging they are?
Nope.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions...
irc said:
Nomme de Plum said:
It's not just CO2 is it? Do the emissions not bother you when you must know by now how health damaging they are?
Nope.https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions...
I suppose a simple guide would be if a non nonbuoyant 1.8m person were to encounter a tide which had reduced from 3m to 2m they'd still have a problem.
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Friday 9th February 18:26
Edited by Nomme de Plum on Friday 9th February 18:26
It means pollutants are a fraction of what they were in the 70s. Of which
"12% from road transport"
Of that 12% a good part will be tyre and brake dust which EVs still emit.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-qua...
Maybe we should be banning wood burning fires?
"12% from road transport"
Of that 12% a good part will be tyre and brake dust which EVs still emit.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-qua...
Maybe we should be banning wood burning fires?
irc said:
It means pollutants are a fraction of what they were in the 70s. Of which
"12% from road transport"
Of that 12% a good part will be tyre and brake dust which EVs still emit.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-qua...
Maybe we should be banning wood burning fires?
So no you have no qualified person to advise you."12% from road transport"
Of that 12% a good part will be tyre and brake dust which EVs still emit.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/air-qua...
Maybe we should be banning wood burning fires?
84% of our population is urban based so vehicle emissions matter.
Tyre compounds are already under scrutiny and as you should know EVs use regeneration so particularly in cities need little use of friction brakes.
Because we cannot do everything simultaneously does not mean we should not act as and when we become more knowledgeable.
The clean air act was introduce in 1956 maybe it was before your time.
Miserablegit said:
I’m glad the EVs are being made in environmentally conscious countries like China.
"China on course to hit wind and solar power target five years ahead of time""In November, market research firm Trend Force projected 194 GW to 210 GW of new solar in China in 2023. Emboldened by China's “30-60” goal of reaching peak emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2060, the nation's energy-related state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have pledged 350 GW of solar generation capacity."
GT9 said:
irc said:
"This is a long transition. No-one needs to panic about lack of range or lack of charging in 2024 as if it threatens the wholesale transition to EVs over the next 20 years..."
Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
Obviously it's only new ICEs that are being banned.Why the forthcoming ban on ICE cars then? If EVs were so great they would be able to take the majority share of the market on their merits and the tax breaks and free parking they get in many places etc.
The primary objective is a targeted reduction in passenger car CO2 footprint.
I'm not arguing for the existence of the target, but I do know that the target we have set is simply unachievable without a near 100% adoption of EVs by 2050.
There is no other viable, let alone affordable, renewable and sustainable option in that timeframe that gets anywhere near, so it's EV or pack up and go home.
It comes down to a simple mathematical situation of having 33 million cars on the road and a new car market of under 2 million cars.
You can't expect a million or so new car buyers to all understand the complex carbon footprint thing in detail.
If they choose a new ICE because they are convinced by a TV personality that EVs are a con, or whatever, all that happens is that the transition takes twice as long for no good reason.
By the time we get to 2030, the ZEV mandate is at 80%.
It needs to ramp up to that level so the 2050 target can be met.
At that point most manufacturers will have given up on ICE anyway, so the ban in 2035 will make little difference to what actually sells post 2035.
Making that crystal clear to the manufacturers lets people get on with their jobs and deliver what they've been asked to do.
Uncertainty just gets in the way of productivity and focus.
Unless the mandate is modified soonish, the endpoint, i.e. the ban, is moot.
Now, here's the question, what group of car buyers are going to be compromised by this approach at the time that they go to purchase a new or used car in the next 25 years?
Can you confirm if what harry said in that video about all the private/passenger cars in the world accounting for around 6% of CO2 is true? If so, are we pissing in the wind in terms of making a noticeable difference? I mean, I don't agree with doing nothing but surely we could make a bigger impact by putting the same amount of effort in elsewhere. The old work smart not work hard.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff