UK switching to electric vehicles discussion

[ExRes]

A modern EV battery is likely to be good for over a million miles, as has already been proven on many cars, so why do you think they'll be fried?

Battery chemistry is also improving year on year so will only get better, while you'll have third party options to refurbish batteries so you don't need to pay for a whole new battery at retail prices.

An EV really isn't that complicated. A battery and motor. Electric motors have existed for over a century and batteries have been powering your phone, tablet and laptop for decades - with the same sort of improvements (so you could buy the upcoming Realme GT3 240w that will charge from 0-100% in ten minutes and last 1600 full charges without a significant degradation).

How many EV batteries have done a proven million miles?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is the cost and complexity of attempting the live tracking of millions of vehicles, really worth the effort?

It’s already done….

 

[RailWonderer]

Which again, punishes the less well-off who can't afford to live in places with driveways. Or, increases the number of front gardens being concreted over to provide off-street parking, which increases the likelihood of flooding.

Going back to the charging issue, my own local authority has barely done anything to increase the number of charging points- the only ones are outside businesses such as supermarkets, there's nothing on residential streets at all so creating a trip hazard isn't even an option.

I stand by my point that battery vehicles are going to price poorer people off the roads unless there's a huge push towards providing such facilities, something that is barely talked about by the council themselves. All these so-called solutions are dripping in privilege.

Exactly, this forum keeps saying poorer motorists aren't being priced out and that's tabloid speculation but then mention the taxes and road pricing that is being put in place to do exactly that - price more motorists off the roads or restrict them from driving to places their older cars are not accepted.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Been reading The Sun or Mail again?

When in doubt, just smear.

 

[DC1989]

I also disagree with those saying many will buy an ICE vehicle in 2030 that will last for 20+ years will happen in volume. Yes it may occur in some rural areas but once that 'tipping point' is reached there will be mass closures / redevelopment of petrol stations. Clean air zones will proliferate and there will almost certainly be road pricing in place that disincentivizes ICE . Tax on petrol/diesel will go through the roof.

London already has plans to be Zero emission only in central London by 2025, and inner London by 2040.

 

[Energy]

Which again, punishes the less well-off who can't afford to live in places with driveways. Or, increases the number of front gardens being concreted over to provide off-street parking, which increases the likelihood of flooding.

Many local authorities already charge for parking permits, £25+ is pretty normal. The cost of £25 a year is nothing compared to the cost of concreting over a bit of your garden.

Going back to the charging issue, my own local authority has barely done anything to increase the number of charging points- the only ones are outside businesses such as supermarkets, there's nothing on residential streets at all so creating a trip hazard isn't even an option.

It really depends on the local authority. Mine have provided a 50kw rapid in town and many 7kw chargers by the flats ran by the council.

How many EV batteries have done a proven million miles?

Not many. There are many Teslas on hundreds of thousands of miles without too much degradation.

Once the rest of the car breaks the battery will still be good enough for grid storage.

Once the battery is truelly gone it will be recycled, not sure why people think they will go to landfill with so many expensive metals inside.

When in doubt, just smear.

Well your arguments have been disputed on this thread before or are to so with your local authority.

 

[AM9]

Which again, punishes the less well-off who can't afford to live in places with driveways. Or, increases the number of front gardens being concreted over to provide off-street parking, which increases the likelihood of flooding.

There is already legislation that defines the dgree of porosity required for all on-site paving for cars and planning authorities can enforce removal/replacement if it is not complies with.

Going back to the charging issue, my own local authority has barely done anything to increase the number of charging points- the only ones are outside businesses such as supermarkets, there's nothing on residential streets at all so creating a trip hazard isn't even an option.

That's what your vote is for. Once the general population wakes up to the necessity of charging facilities for EVs, there will be pressure for LAs to do something about it.

I stand by my point that battery vehicles are going to price poorer people off the roads unless there's a huge push towards providing such facilities, something that is barely talked about by the council themselves. All these so-called solutions are dripping in privilege.

See my response above.

 

[DC1989]

Many local authorities already charge for parking permits, £25+ is pretty normal. The cost of £25 a year is nothing compared to the cost of concreting over a bit of your garden.

Indeed and many do it based on emissions. In Lambeth for 2023 a year permit will cost £120 for Zero Emission vehicles and £500 for the most polluting. That will only increase further for ICE vehicles as time goes on

 

[stuu]

Exactly, this forum keeps saying poorer motorists aren't being priced out and that's tabloid speculation but then mention the taxes and road pricing that is being put in place to do exactly that - price more motorists off the roads or restrict them from driving to places their older cars are not accepted.

It's not a right. People's right to health is far more important than people's right to drive anywhere they want in any vehicle they choose

 

[AM9]

I also disagree with those saying many will buy an ICE vehicle in 2030 that will last for 20+ years will happen in volume. Yes it may occur in some rural areas but once that 'tipping point' is reached there will be mass closures / redevelopment of petrol stations. Clean air zones will proliferate and there will almost certainly be road pricing in place that disincentivizes ICE . Tax on petrol/diesel will go through the roof.

London already has plans to be Zero emission only in central London by 2025, and inner London by 2040.

This is the nub of the issue. The anti EV/pro IC lobby funded by the oil industry, is getting ever more desperate trying to protect their own interests, but governments, both local and national across the developed world (yes even in the US) are rapidly moving towards dealing with the problem, and thankfully, ignoring the manipulation of poorer peoples' interests because they cannot acquire current EV vehicles as cheaply as polluting bangers.
There was a similar slant put on the deliberate policy of raising tobacco duty for health reasons, claiming that it was 'the poor man's only pleasure'. That clamour was organised by the tobacco industry.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

All this talk of "prices will come down, range will improve, there'll be chargers on every lamp-post in a couple of years" and so on aren't really anything more than "jam tomorrow". Also when we're talking about prices, Tesla really aren't the best example to use given their egotistical charlatan of a CEO keeps prices high (despite recent reductions) for reasons of prestige. By several accounts, build quality and reliability is patchy at best too, and don't get me started on the technological nightmare fuel that is the so-called "self-driving" feature.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All this talk of "prices will come down, range will improve, there'll be chargers on every lamp-post in a couple of years" and so on aren't really anything more than "jam tomorrow". Also when we're talking about prices, Tesla really aren't the best example to use given their egotistical charlatan of a CEO keeps prices high (despite recent reductions) for reasons of prestige. By several accounts, build quality and reliability is patchy at best too, and don't get me started on the technological nightmare fuel that is the so-called "self-driving" feature.

Tesla are premium cars. If you're not in that market they are no more for you than a BMW or Merc. What the mass manufacturers do is of more interest to the general population.

 

[AM9]

It's not a right. People's right to health is far more important than people's right to drive anywhere they want in any vehicle they choose

The milestone in national and local authority commitment to vehicle pollution was the coroner's conclusion that traffic emissions were in pert responsible for Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's death. That has not been challenged by any self-interest group in the UK or internationally AFAIK. So we can be sure that those able to legislate to limit/eradicate vehicle emissions on health grounds have taken that on board and drastic changes will become the rule.

 

[jon0844]

All this talk of "prices will come down, range will improve, there'll be chargers on every lamp-post in a couple of years" and so on aren't really anything more than "jam tomorrow". Also when we're talking about prices, Tesla really aren't the best example to use given their egotistical charlatan of a CEO keeps prices high (despite recent reductions) for reasons of prestige. By several accounts, build quality and reliability is patchy at best too, and don't get me started on the technological nightmare fuel that is the so-called "self-driving" feature.

Where have you been the last five+ years? Tesla is no longer the only kid in town for electric cars.

You now have Kia and Hyundai, MG, Ora, BYD and countless more car makers offering vehicles - and the incumbents have also partnered up to make their own (Ford, Stellantis Volvo etc). Sports car makers are getting in on electric too. Porsche doing so well, that petrolheads are buying them over the petrol models.

Many car makers have already reduced the choices of petrol and diesel engines and will voluntarily stop selling them from 2025 onwards long before any 'ban'.

I have no love for Tesla and never did even before Elon revealed himself as a bad person, but Tesla is becoming less relevant every year.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's not a right. People's right to health is far more important than people's right to drive anywhere they want in any vehicle they choose

If something has been treated as a "right" for the best part of 70 years, such as the freedom that car ownership brings, removing it feels like an injustice. Besides if they can no longer drive, perhaps they can no longer work. If they can no longer work or have to take a lower-paid job, their health will likely suffer. It isn't a zero-sum game.

I'm not a climate-sceptic despite the attempts to smear me as such over the last few days, but this blind faith that so many have about how EVs will save the world is frankly a bit cultish. We really should be moving away from car-centric thinking for reasons besides carbon emissions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2023 ==

Where have you been the last five+ years? Tesla is no longer the only kid in town for electric cars.

Tesla was the example given a few posts back. Also I don't trust any of these dodgy Chinese (Communist Party) owned/controlled manufacturers and refuse to contribute to their human rights abuses, which narrows the field a fair bit.

 

[stuu]

If something has been treated as a "right" for the best part of 70 years, such as the freedom that car ownership brings, removing it feels like an injustice. Besides if they can no longer drive, perhaps they can no longer work. If they can no longer work or have to take a lower-paid job, their health will likely suffer. It isn't a zero-sum game.

People used to smoke everywhere too, a lot of people assumed it was a right. Turned out it wasn't

 

[AM9]

All this talk of "prices will come down, range will improve, there'll be chargers on every lamp-post in a couple of years" and so on aren't really anything more than "jam tomorrow". Also when we're talking about prices, Tesla really aren't the best example to use given their egotistical charlatan of a CEO keeps prices high (despite recent reductions) for reasons of prestige. By several accounts, build quality and reliability is patchy at best too, and don't get me started on the technological nightmare fuel that is the so-called "self-driving" feature.

The highlighted hyperbole doesn't really indicate any rationality in your argument, but nevertheless, just consider: the automobile industry, although in some decline in recent years, still has an extremely pressing desire to survive. That means selling lots of vehicles to many people, and in every major market, the number of lower income buyers far exceeds those who can afford the current range of EVs. *
Now conside its options:

1) ignore almost universal legislation banning the sale of new IC vehicles in the near future​

2) keep making the same high-priced EVs hoping that buyers will just cough-up​

3) produce EV vehicles that are in price terms the equivalent of current basic IC vehicles​

So in those cases, 1) - is an almost instant route to bankruptcy, 2) - is a certain route to waste away in a few years (possibly except for the premium manufacturers), which leaves 3) - just what several posters in this thread have been presuming (also backed up by a continuous stream of previews of models to came as they are terminating the existing IC ranges.
As far as 'self-driving' (autonomous) cars are concerned, these are a product of advances in computer and electronics technology, and if the imperative of removing IC vehicles wasn't here, they would be availble with self-driving features, so irrelevant to this EV discussion.

* Chinese manufacturers are already penetrating the western markets with EVs priced very near their low cost IC equivalents. You might consider what impact this has on the way ahead for western manufacturers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2023 ==

... Also I don't trust any of these dodgy Chinese (Communist Party) owned/controlled manufacturers and refuse to contribute to their human rights abuses, which narrows the field a fair bit.

This is becoming a joke. It sounds like comment passed when the Japanese manufacturers first entered the UK market. Typically statements like "Jap Crap!" and never trust orientals to make reliable cars!" or even, "wouldn't trust the Japanese after what they did in the war!" So even though almost anything bought today is likely to have Chinese steel parts, Chinese batteries, Chinese (electronic) components etc., even if it was made by a company that has a 'British' name.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

This is becoming a joke. It sounds like comment passed when the Japanese manufacturers first entered the UK market. Typically statements like "Jap Crap!" and never trust orientals to make reliable cars!" or even, "wouldn't trust the Japanese after what they did in the war!" So even though almost anything bought today is likely to have Chinese steel parts, Chinese batteries, Chinese (electronic) components etc., even if it was made by a company that has a 'British' name.

That's a hell of a strawman, and I'm not sure I like what you seem to be trying to imply. Please elaborate...

For avoidance of doubt, my objection to Chinese-built products (particularly ones that have safety implications) are based on a distrust of that country's government/ideology and their willingness to use underhand tactics to score points against the West. Their human rights record leaves a lot to be desired too.

Not that it's easy to avoid Chinese-made products of course!

 

[DelW]

If something has been treated as a "right" for the best part of 70 years, such as the freedom that car ownership brings, removing it feels like an injustice. Besides if they can no longer drive, perhaps they can no longer work. If they can no longer work or have to take a lower-paid job, their health will likely suffer. It isn't a zero-sum game.

70 years takes us back to the 1950s, which I'm old enough to remember (just). At that time everyone had the rights to burn coal in their fireplace, drive cars without seatbelts, ride motorbikes without wearing helmets, drive at any speed on main roads, to name just a few that have been withdrawn. Those rights were removed because in time they came to be seen as antisocial or dangerous, and most people accepted that view, although not always immediately, and only a few would want to reinstate them. Driving diesel or petrol cars may well go the same way *in time*.

 

[Ediswan]

The new Galileo GPS system funded by the EU has the ability of bi-directional exchange of information of position

Bi-directional between what two devices ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

70 years takes us back to the 1950s, which I'm old enough to remember (just). At that time everyone had the rights to burn coal in their fireplace, drive cars without seatbelts, ride motorbikes without wearing helmets, drive at any speed on main roads, to name just a few that have been withdrawn. Those rights were removed because in time they came to be seen as antisocial or dangerous, and most people accepted that view, although not always immediately, and only a few would want to reinstate them. Driving diesel or petrol cars may well go the same way *in time*.

When those things were outlawed there were objections, misguided though they were. My point wasn't to make a value judgement on driving, simply to illustrate that an enforced change to people's well established habits won't come easy, particularly if it leaves them out of pocket (which banning of ICE cars almost certainly will at least initially).

 

[The Ham]

When those things were outlawed there were objections, misguided though they were. My point wasn't to make a value judgement on driving, simply to illustrate that an enforced change to people's well established habits won't come easy, particularly if it leaves them out of pocket (which banning of ICE cars almost certainly will at least initially).

All those things had a cost, for example buying of a gas boiler, fitting seatbelts, purchasing of safety equipment, etc.

Of course there's options for most travel within the UK and many of those are likely (when considered as a whole) not to be too different from car ownership, although they may have limitations.

However before I go further this needs covering:

Major urban areas you say. But there are vast swathes of the uk that are smaĺl towns, villages and isolated houses. Often historic. Often protected by conservation areas.

About 85% of the UK live with urban areas (a settlement of over 10,000 people) with probably quite a lot of the rest living in settlements of between 5,000 and 10,000 (for example you'd need 3 villages of 2,000 people to match that of one village of 6,000, whilst you'd need 12 villages of 500 to get to the same number, by the time you're down to hamlets of less than 50 people you'd need over 120 to get to the same number of people).

As such, whilst there's a LOT of the country which isn't urban there's very few people who live there.

As such why is it that there's currently more cars than there are people who pay income tax? Given that there's a good chance that many could replace their car with an e-bike for the majority of their day to day travel. Being urbanites out should be possible for there to be car clubs provided to cover most of the rest which isn't viable by public transport.

Especially given there's about 50% of the population who now have the ability to do hybrid working, so getting to and from work isn't an every day issue.

Whilst public transport is expensive on a PAYG basis, it's often not if you can use season tickets of some variety when compared to the total annual cost of car ownership (the average of which is over £3,000, with few being able to achieve it for much under £2,000).

That's before you consider other costs, such as owning a driveway and/or a garage (the latter is often one of the largest indoor single spaces/rooms that people have) and how little actual benefit people get from it.

Yes there's a need for the poor and those in rural areas, however cars aren't the right answer.

The problem is, too many children have been brought up getting driven to school, which means as an adult their default is to then own a car and drive. To give one example a child was picked up by a friend's parent, the first question which was asked was "where's the car?" The plan was walk then the 1,200m to their home, as that's not an unreasonable distance for a child to be able to walk (the other children were going to be walking further as they then had to walk back to their home).

It wasn't raining or cold, there was no need to be somewhere at a given time, so it was fairly reasonable to walk it.

Now tell me that when that child grows up that they are not likely to default to driving for almost every trip even though walking may be a suitable option for at least some of those trips. (Yes it may be that they surprise me, however the likelihood is that I won't be surprised).

The reason being is that once you've taught a child something it's then hard to unteach the adult that they become. Even in a forum which is fairly pro rail, making the suggestion that people use their car less doesn't go down well (few because they are also not using their car very much).

Cars are a useful tool, however just because they are useful doesn't mean that they should be the only way people get around. The old adjudge that every problem looks like a nail when you own a hammer springs to mind. In that every trip looks like it needs to be driven when you have paid a lot of upfront costs to own a car and the extra for (almost) just the extra petrol isn't that much so why bother walking?

EV's are (realistically) no better or worse for a lot of people than ICE's (other than improved air quality) they just have different advantages and different disadvantages and so it's a case of how much will they impact you (probably less than many fear - in that on average 8 trips a year are over 50 miles), the answer is likely to be hardly at all.

As to the extra cost of EV's over ICE's if 20 years ago were told that all new cars were to be required by law to have AC installed there would be lots of fuss about only high end cars have it, or that those with it are more expensive than those without it and so many of the complaints about such a rule would be very similar to the ban on new ICE vehicles. However we are now at the point where AC is fairly hard to find not installed in a car, even cars which had it and it's failed, and yet more people own more cars than they ever did in the past.

I think I've probably said enough things to upset quite a lot of people (blaming their parents for making them lazy and unable to walk when they could do, just for starters - if that's how you choose to read what I've said).

 

[skyhigh]

All this talk of "prices will come down, range will improve, there'll be chargers on every lamp-post in a couple of years" and so on aren't really anything more than "jam tomorrow".

London has 6,000 lamppost chargers from one supplier alone. There are others. Brighton has around 250 with more planned to be installed. Same in other cities and towns. It's happening now.

You clearly have some sort of issue with the concept of electric (sorry, battery) cars for some reason, but a lot of your objections really are spurious or have been dealt with already.

 

[Ken H]

All those things had a cost, for example buying of a gas boiler, fitting seatbelts, purchasing of safety equipment, etc.

Of course there's options for most travel within the UK and many of those are likely (when considered as a whole) not to be too different from car ownership, although they may have limitations.

However before I go further this needs covering:



About 85% of the UK live with urban areas (a settlement of over 10,000 people) with probably quite a lot of the rest living in settlements of between 5,000 and 10,000 (for example you'd need 3 villages of 2,000 people to match that of one village of 6,000, whilst you'd need 12 villages of 500 to get to the same number, by the time you're down to hamlets of less than 50 people you'd need over 120 to get to the same number of people).

As such, whilst there's a LOT of the country which isn't urban there's very few people who live there.

As such why is it that there's currently more cars than there are people who pay income tax? Given that there's a good chance that many could replace their car with an e-bike for the majority of their day to day travel. Being urbanites out should be possible for there to be car clubs provided to cover most of the rest which isn't viable by public transport.

Especially given there's about 50% of the population who now have the ability to do hybrid working, so getting to and from work isn't an every day issue.

Whilst public transport is expensive on a PAYG basis, it's often not if you can use season tickets of some variety when compared to the total annual cost of car ownership (the average of which is over £3,000, with few being able to achieve it for much under £2,000).

That's before you consider other costs, such as owning a driveway and/or a garage (the latter is often one of the largest indoor single spaces/rooms that people have) and how little actual benefit people get from it.

Yes there's a need for the poor and those in rural areas, however cars aren't the right answer.

The problem is, too many children have been brought up getting driven to school, which means as an adult their default is to then own a car and drive. To give one example a child was picked up by a friend's parent, the first question which was asked was "where's the car?" The plan was walk then the 1,200m to their home, as that's not an unreasonable distance for a child to be able to walk (the other children were going to be walking further as they then had to walk back to their home).

It wasn't raining or cold, there was no need to be somewhere at a given time, so it was fairly reasonable to walk it.

Now tell me that when that child grows up that they are not likely to default to driving for almost every trip even though walking may be a suitable option for at least some of those trips. (Yes it may be that they surprise me, however the likelihood is that I won't be surprised).

The reason being is that once you've taught a child something it's then hard to unteach the adult that they become. Even in a forum which is fairly pro rail, making the suggestion that people use their car less doesn't go down well (few because they are also not using their car very much).

Cars are a useful tool, however just because they are useful doesn't mean that they should be the only way people get around. The old adjudge that every problem looks like a nail when you own a hammer springs to mind. In that every trip looks like it needs to be driven when you have paid a lot of upfront costs to own a car and the extra for (almost) just the extra petrol isn't that much so why bother walking?

EV's are (realistically) no better or worse for a lot of people than ICE's (other than improved air quality) they just have different advantages and different disadvantages and so it's a case of how much will they impact you (probably less than many fear - in that on average 8 trips a year are over 50 miles), the answer is likely to be hardly at all.

As to the extra cost of EV's over ICE's if 20 years ago were told that all new cars were to be required by law to have AC installed there would be lots of fuss about only high end cars have it, or that those with it are more expensive than those without it and so many of the complaints about such a rule would be very similar to the ban on new ICE vehicles. However we are now at the point where AC is fairly hard to find not installed in a car, even cars which had it and it's failed, and yet more people own more cars than they ever did in the past.

I think I've probably said enough things to upset quite a lot of people (blaming their parents for making them lazy and unable to walk when they could do, just for starters - if that's how you choose to read what I've said).

300 live in my village and that's well spread out.
Its a mile to the small town with shops. But its over 100 ft of height gain.
3 buses a day. from the main road 1/2 mile away from me.
We go to the supermarket just over a mile away and usually need to get milk (2 large bottles) yogurt, veg (taties), fruit. All quite heavy. No, they dont deliver.
And no, the bus doesn't go near the supermarket.
In winter we need to get fuel for the multifuel stove.
Everyone in the village drives. Its considered essential. Most of the cars are quite old. They are workhorses.
No EV's. No charging points. Nearest is a mile away but not in the town, but another village. And they expect you to pay and display while using the charger.

 

[DelayRepay]

All this talk of "prices will come down, range will improve, there'll be chargers on every lamp-post in a couple of years" and so on aren't really anything more than "jam tomorrow".

Probably five or so years ago, I didn't know anyone who owned an electric car. They were something of a 'fad' in that if you saw one, it stood out.

Now I can look out of my window and see two electric cars parked on neighbours' drives. When I park outside my office, there's a row of chargers provided by the council. All the supermarkets I use have chargers and our Parish Council is talking about installing chargers by the village hall. The last few minicabs I've used have been EVs or hybrids.

I say this because what was "jam tomorrow" a few years ago is now actual jam. Yes, there's a lot more change needed before EVs outnumber ICE, but I don't think it's that far away.

 

[Bald Rick]

Exactly, this forum keeps saying poorer motorists aren't being priced out and that's tabloid speculation but then mention the taxes and road pricing that is being put in place to do exactly that - price more motorists off the roads or restrict them from driving to places their older cars are not accepted.

The taxes already exist. All that will happen is that road pricing will replace the tax revenue gained from fuel duty. Except that it will most likely be more flexible, and charge people more for using the busiest parts of the network at the busiest times, which will help ease congestion.

If something has been treated as a "right" for the best part of 70 years, such as the freedom that car ownership brings, removing it feels like an injustice.

No one is suggesting removing the right to car ownership.

 

[reddragon]

Do you believe that electricity for battery vehicles will continue to be taxed at the current 5% Vat?
Fuel duties are a significant and lucrative source of revenue for the Chancellor How will the Chancellor plug the gap of fuel duty revenue by the relacement of IC vehicles by EVs?

A substantive proportion of this tax is to pay subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, reported today to amount to $1trilloion in 2022 worldwide.

More money is spent on Fossil fuel subsidies in the UK (one of the worst offenders of this) that they collect in car tax revenue.
The NHS cost of air pollution is also massive & certainly greater than the tax collected too.

Purchase tax & an annual fee, supported by congestion charges is all that is needed.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No one is suggesting removing the right to car ownership.

Not in so many words, as that would be electoral suicide... but unless (a) prices of new EVs drops a fair bit more; or (b) battery tech evolves to a level where the useful lifetime of a battery is 10-12 years rather than the 5-6 at present, then those whose only viable method of car ownership is "bangernomics" will no longer have that option.
That also leaves aside the secure charging issue. It's all well and good to say posh places like Brighton and Kensington have been installing loads of rapid chargers, in Dewsbury and Batley there's no sign of anything like that from the local council, and if there was I wouldn't trust the locals to not tamper with it just for "s***s and giggles". I'm going to hazard a guess that those Brighton chargers aren't in places like Moulsecomb where the dreaded poors live.


By the way- I'd like nothing more than to be entirely wrong about my fears for the future of car ownership. If it turns out that in ten years time all these issues have been solved and even low income people are able to get affordable and reliable electric cars, and charge them securely I'll be over the moon. I'm not anti-EV in principle (lithium mines notwithstanding) but at the moment they're only really an option for the comfortably middle class.

 

[reddragon]

Which again, punishes the less well-off who can't afford to live in places with driveways. Or, increases the number of front gardens being concreted over to provide off-street parking, which increases the likelihood of flooding.

Going back to the charging issue, my own local authority has barely done anything to increase the number of charging points- the only ones are outside businesses such as supermarkets, there's nothing on residential streets at all so creating a trip hazard isn't even an option.

I stand by my point that battery vehicles are going to price poorer people off the roads unless there's a huge push towards providing such facilities, something that is barely talked about by the council themselves. All these so-called solutions are dripping in privilege.

I do not agree. Cities where the poorer tend to live that have significantly reduced parking on street & racked up charges for car parks & LTNs have seen a huge growth in safe cycling, public transport and short term rental EVs which has benefitted even those who today cannot afford the parking permits let alone a car!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2023 ==

Not in so many words, as that would be electoral suicide... but unless (a) prices of new EVs drops a fair bit more; or (b) battery tech evolves to a level where the useful lifetime of a battery is 10-12 years rather than the 5-6 at present, then those whose only viable method of car ownership is "bangernomics" will no longer have that option.
That also leaves aside the secure charging issue. It's all well and good to say posh places like Brighton and Kensington have been installing loads of rapid chargers, in Dewsbury and Batley there's no sign of anything like that from the local council, and if there was I wouldn't trust the locals to not tamper with it just for "s***s and giggles". I'm going to hazard a guess that those Brighton chargers aren't in places like Moulsecomb where the dreaded poors live.

An EV costs less to own than an ICE, I know we still have both, but not for much longer as we can no longer afford the cost of the ICE.

You're quoting the Daily Mail again!

A - EV prices are already lower than ICE cars to own
B - Battery life is already 25 years and LFP batteries are expected to last much longer. Only the LEAF models due to the lack of BMS have any degradation issues. My car has a 7 year / 100k miles warranty!

Chargers are going in where demand exists. The poor have never bought new cars or often any cars and we are a few years away for EV bangers as they last so much longer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2023 ==

How many EV batteries have done a proven million miles?

How many ICE engines & gearboxes have done 1 million miles?

No EV has yet done 1 million miles on one battery but a Tesla model S has done it after it's 1st battery failed at 600k. The new LFP batteries have test simulations of over 1 million miles, just nobody has done that yet but some MG5 taxis on double shift / 24 hour usage are racking up 350,000 kms a year!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2023 ==

If something has been treated as a "right" for the best part of 70 years, such as the freedom that car ownership brings, removing it feels like an injustice. Besides if they can no longer drive, perhaps they can no longer work. If they can no longer work or have to take a lower-paid job, their health will likely suffer. It isn't a zero-sum game.

I'm not a climate-sceptic despite the attempts to smear me as such over the last few days, but this blind faith that so many have about how EVs will save the world is frankly a bit cultish. We really should be moving away from car-centric thinking for reasons besides carbon emissions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2023 ==


Tesla was the example given a few posts back. Also I don't trust any of these dodgy Chinese (Communist Party) owned/controlled manufacturers and refuse to contribute to their human rights abuses, which narrows the field a fair bit.

Why should a minority have the right to pollute & clog up our towns & cities? The world will follow the likes of Amsterdam, Utrecht & Oxford in weeding out car use to the benefit of those who want to travel by the best means, which in a city is public transport or walk / cycling.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2023 ==

That's a hell of a strawman, and I'm not sure I like what you seem to be trying to imply. Please elaborate...

For avoidance of doubt, my objection to Chinese-built products (particularly ones that have safety implications) are based on a distrust of that country's government/ideology and their willingness to use underhand tactics to score points against the West. Their human rights record leaves a lot to be desired too.

Not that it's easy to avoid Chinese-made products of course!

I suggest that you read about British history, enslaving, slaughtering & colonising the planet and today it's heavily fossil funded greed that kills & harms so many more than the Chinese do!

We have also off shored our manufacturing to China to fuel our own greed too!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You're quoting the Daily Mail again!

A - EV prices are already lower than ICE cars to own
B - Battery life is already 25 years and LFP batteries are expected to last much longer. Only the LEAF models due to the lack of BMS have any degradation issues. My car has a 7 year / 100k miles warranty!

Chargers are going in where demand exists. The poor have never bought new cars or often any cars and we are a few years away for EV bangers as they last so much longer.

Firstly I've never read the Daily Mail in my life. It wasn't a clever jibe earlier and it still isn't.
Secondly, you're talking new car prices- for those who can only ever afford second or third-hand cars there simply aren't any electric vehicles available in their price range yet.
Thirdly, none of the EVs on the road today have been around that long, so at best that's an estimate and presumably comes from the manufacturers. Car makers have never lied or embellished about the performance or economy of their vehicles before, so why would they start now?

Again, I'd like nothing more than to be proven wrong and find that an EV is both viable and affordable for my current living arrangements. But so far I'm simply not buying the hype. A relative who is VERY environmentally minded got a Mercedes-Benz EV 10 months ago, subsidised by her employer. Even with her best intentions it hasn't lived up to the promises of the manufacturer, and she's had to hire an ICE vehicle for work trips several times. Perhaps she's just been unlucky, but when someone with the best intentions finds they fall short, it shows there's still room for improvement.