UK switching to electric vehicles discussion

[HSTEd]

I can't see how? Even with a smart meter it only measures the total power draw, so wouldn't know it was powering a bunch of convector heaters, oven, kettle, hot water cylinder or an EV (or indeed a home battery).

The Government will find other ways to raise money from car users.

The car could be hardwired to refuse to charge from any power supply without a state issued cryptographic signature.
If an attempt was made it would be reported by the car at the next MOT. The car would also record the serial numbers (and other charge charateristics) of all charging points used to allow fraudulent chargers to be detected.

It's pretty dystopian but it could be done and wouldn't even be that expensive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2023 ==

Mine is more complex but allows dynamic and advanced pricing.

Everyone* has a sat nav. When you put your journey in, you get told in advance how much it costs. You could do this weeks in advance for an APEX ‘toll’, which would allow demand responsive pricing on the strategic network (and help smooth the peaks). High mileage users could buy season tickets.

Of course there will be plenty of people talking about how this impinges on civil liberties etc, but the fact of the matter is every new car and every smart phone is already doing this, just not with the charging.

Even without considering civil liberties this would require the creation of an enormous new monitoring and charging apparatus, it would cost billions a year and require thousands of civil servents to administer.

The MOT solution costs essentially nothing.

 

[AM9]

The MOT solution costs essentially nothing.

Nor does it do anything to encourage responsible road use.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even without considering civil liberties this would require the creation of an enormous new monitoring and charging apparatus,

Vodafone managed to create one in a couple of years 3 decades ago…

it would cost billions a year and require thousands of civil servents to administer.

A bit like the railway then, but with a potential income 5 times as large?

 

[HSTEd]

Nor does it do anything to encourage responsible road use.

Unless the charging costs are raised so high as to render car travel impossible for a significant portion of the population, they will not meaningfully alter road use.

And since the social strife from effectively reducing the peasantry to serfdom, unable to leave their immediate area, would destroy hte scheme, the scheme cannot meaningfully be used for that purpose.
Sending tens of millions of people back to the 1920s in mobility terms will not be a vote winning strategy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Nov 2023 ==

Vodafone managed to create one in a couple of years 3 decades ago…

I don't recall mobile phones growing to 30 million charging accounts in a couple of years, with wildly varying fully dynamic pricing, but maybe I missed that!

A bit like the railway then, but with a potential income 5 times as large?

The actual net income, compared to the MOT based solution, will be nothing like that large.

It will turn into just as much of a money pit as the railway, without any of the social benefits.

 

[jon0844]

If you want to get more revenue from motorists when they're charging with cheaper (even free) electricity, the solution really is creating more congestion zones and maybe more toll roads. I am sure cars will still need to display some form of registration plate, so the tech is cheap and cheerful to manage both.

A simple, single account, that has charges debited as you incur costs would be simple and much easier than policing electric supplies, fitting every car with monitoring equipment and standardised software - akin to nationalising the car industry and building every vehicle on a common platform.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't recall mobile phones growing to 30 million charging accounts in a couple of years, with wildly varying fully dynamic pricing, but maybe I missed that!

45 million in about 6 years, with variable rate charging, but the principle is much the same.

The actual net income, compared to the MOT based solution, will be nothing like that large.

The charging system is but a small part - the rest of the cost base is very different (and much lower).

 

[AM9]

Unless the charging costs are raised so high as to render car travel impossible for a significant portion of the population, they will not meaningfully alter road use.

And since the social strife from effectively reducing the peasantry to serfdom, unable to leave their immediate area, would destroy hte scheme, the scheme cannot meaningfully be used for that purpose.
Sending tens of millions of people back to the 1920s in mobility terms will not be a vote winning strategy.

So much private vehicle travel is by its nature both optional and to a large degree counter productive in terms of road space occupation. In some areas there has already been a considerable reduction in jumping on the driving bandwagon by young adults and I doubt that they would see themselves constricted to a '1920s mobility lifesyle'. Still, it's a bit of a weak argument to,use such hyperbole.
There has already been considerable pressure on not only multiple car ownership from town planning at the housing level, but also with LTNs, which interestingly, even this car-addicted right wing government hasn't included in its final list of legislation.
Carefully shaped local charging, based on an extension of the ANPR camera system, and cameras on the strategic road network will produce an incentive to more effective use of road space that will ultimately drive down the level of casual inconsiderate contributions to congestion.

 

[Bantamzen]

So much private vehicle travel is by its nature both optional and to a large degree counter productive in terms of road space occupation. In some areas there has already been a considerable reduction in jumping on the driving bandwagon by young adults and I doubt that they would see themselves constricted to a '1920s mobility lifesyle'. Still, it's a bit of a weak argument to,use such hyperbole.
There has already been considerable pressure on not only multiple car ownership from town planning at the housing level, but also with LTNs, which interestingly, even this car-addicted right wing government hasn't included in its final list of legislation.
Carefully shaped local charging, based on an extension of the ANPR camera system, and cameras on the strategic road network will produce an incentive to more effective use of road space that will ultimately drive down the level of casual inconsiderate contributions to congestion.

Sounds wonderfully dystopian.

 

[AM9]

Sounds wonderfully dystopian.

Nowhere near as much as impending climate change impacts and continuing increasing congestion on roads. All vehicles can be tracked now and many/most of their drivers voluntarily facilitate their tracking by carrying mobile phones that can easily be tracked.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bantamzen]

Nowhere near as much as impending climate change impacts and continuing increasing congestion on roads. All vehicles can be tracked now and many/most of their drivers voluntarily facilitate their tracking by carrying mobile phones that can easily be tracked.

Its still a dystopian idea, but we all know how popular those are on these forums.

 

[AM9]

Its still a dystopian idea, but we all know how popular those are on these forums.

Ah, that much loved (and inappropriate) word, so loved by those here who imagine that everything we have today (good for some, bad for others) shouldn't be changed even when attempting to improve things for others. Just ignore the tabloid meaning of the word and see how daft it is when misused:

relating to or denoting an imagined state or society where there is great suffering or injustice. "the dystopian future of a society bereft of reason"

"great suffering or injustice", "society bereft of reason" - hardly relevant to charging drivers an appropriate amount for their use of the road system!

 

[Bantamzen]

Ah, that much loved (and inappropriate) word, so loved by those here who imagine that everything we have today (good for some, bad for others) shouldn't be changed even when attempting to improve things for others. Just ignore the tabloid meaning of the word and see how daft it is when misused:

relating to or denoting an imagined state or society where there is great suffering or injustice. "the dystopian future of a society bereft of reason"

"great suffering or injustice", "society bereft of reason" - hardly relevant to charging drivers an appropriate amount for their use of the road system!

Good for few, bad for most, just like so many "solutions" proffered up on these forums. Everyone already pays for the road system through general taxation. What you are proposing is more charges on top of those, which will in turn affect the least well off the most, a demographic that will find buying an EV difficult due to the higher purchase costs. And better still this will be enforced by a tracking system. I mean what's not to like?

 

[jon0844]

The Government needs to find a way to recover the lost duty on fossil fuel in the years ahead (it can't just bung it on the electricity unit rate), which I don't think anyone could see as a conspiracy theory - just simple economics.

However people do seem to have a vivid imagination on what lengths a Government would go to in order to raise more revenue.

The simple solutions are the most practical and could be done in almost no time at all, with the added 'benefit' being further cost increases for ICE car owners as congestion zones and toll roads would impact everyone, giving even more financial incentive for people to change car (or use their car less).

 

[Bald Rick]

If you want to get more revenue from motorists when they're charging with cheaper (even free) electricity, the solution really is creating more congestion zones and maybe more toll roads. I am sure cars will still need to display some form of registration plate, so the tech is cheap and cheerful to manage both.

Fairly sure this is what will happen, albeit the rosds tolled will be fairly widespread. I also expect car tax to go up.

 

[trebor79]

Maybe, just maybe, we will end up with a smaller state and thus less tax required anyway?
I really don't think we can go on as we are, spending ever more on an increasingly inefficient state apparatus and paying interest on an ever-burgeoning national debt.

 

[AM9]

Good for few, bad for most, just like so many "solutions" proffered up on these forums. Everyone already pays for the road system through general taxation. What you are proposing is more charges on top of those, which will in turn affect the least well off the most, a demographic that will find buying an EV difficult due to the higher purchase costs. And better still this will be enforced by a tracking system. I mean what's not to like?

So you want to tax those who don't use the roads* more just so that those who do aren't making any attempt to restrict unnecessary driving can carry on regardless? That will affect many elderly, poor and disabled people disproportionately.
* Of course everybody pays for roads already, through general taxation, bus fares and goods that at some part of their cycle are transported by road, but those that frequently drive by choice are the predominant contributors to congestion and ultimately the root cause of expansion of the existing road system.

 

[Bantamzen]

So you want to tax those who don't use the roads* more just so that those who do aren't making any attempt to restrict unnecessary driving can carry on regardless? That will affect many elderly, poor and disabled people disproportionately.
* Of course everybody pays for roads already, through general taxation, bus fares and goods that at some part of their cycle are transported by road, but those that frequently drive by choice are the predominant contributors to congestion and ultimately the root cause of expansion of the existing road system.

And what would constitute "unnecessary driving"? Do you see yet where I am going with this?

 

[AM9]

And what would constitute "unnecessary driving"? Do you see yet where I am going with this?

A levy on hydrocarbon fuels acts as an influence of decision to drive. In that way, the driver makes the decision on what is essential and what is not (i.e. is 'unnecessary'). With EVs, as is being discussd here, there may be little or no mileage-related cost to act in the same way, so in recovering the lost revenue, an ideal mechanism would be road charging, (as is specifically being discussed here). In such a system the driver still has the same decision to make: do I want to pay this cost or avoid it by not using the car on this occasion. Those who like to do high mileages obviousl;y are happy to have a hike on their annual car tax leaving them with little other costs to pay (essentially just maintenance, and very little energy cost). In those circumstaces that means that somebody who does minimise their driving pays the share for the high mileage drivers, ie. That's not fair.
I see where you are going with this, - but we've dealt with the "distopian" rubbish, I just don't accept your ideas as a fair way forward for the long term of the majority.

 

[renegademaster]

The Government needs to find a way to recover the lost duty on fossil fuel in the years ahead (it can't just bung it on the electricity unit rate), which I don't think anyone could see as a conspiracy theory - just simple economics.

However people do seem to have a vivid imagination on what lengths a Government would go to in order to raise more revenue.

The simple solutions are the most practical and could be done in almost no time at all, with the added 'benefit' being further cost increases for ICE car owners as congestion zones and toll roads would impact everyone, giving even more financial incentive for people to change car (or use their car less).

That every tax has to replaced 1 to 1 is thatcherite pish posh, government has plenty of other ways to raise funds than introduce an electric driver tax

 

[Harpers Tate]

And what would constitute "unnecessary driving"? Do you see yet where I am going with this?

I'd suggest that, with increased costs (however they are levied) that becomes a matter of priority for the car user. Do I need to take little Timmy 1/2 mile to school by car? Yes/No. If yes - is that because of a time constraint? If yes - can I adjust my behaviour such that I have time to walk him there and back. etc.

 

[renegademaster]

I'd suggest that, with increased costs (however they are levied) that becomes a matter of priority for the car user. Do I need to take little Timmy 1/2 mile to school by car? Yes/No. If yes - is that because of a time constraint? If yes - can I adjust my behaviour such that I have time to walk him there and back. etc.

Do you *need* to post on a rail forum? No, but the government shouldn't be engineering society so we only ever able to do the bare necessity to survive.

The current justification for VED is that it's a carbon tax , and electric drivers are already indirectly taxed on the carbon via electricity prices of which carbon credit costs are a part of

 

[jon0844]

That every tax has to replaced 1 to 1 is thatcherite pish posh, government has plenty of other ways to raise funds than introduce an electric driver tax

Perhaps, but electric cars only get rid of the pollution - not the congestion. As the population rises, we will need to impose more restrictions on their use, and road tolls and congestion zones seem like fair ways to do it.

There is a lot of money to be lost, so what other tax increases (or new taxes) do you think people would accept instead?

 

[AM9]

Do you *need* to post on a rail forum? No, but the government shouldn't be engineering society so we only ever able to do the bare necessity to survive.

The current justification for VED is that it's a carbon tax , and electric drivers are already indirectly taxed on the carbon via electricity prices of which carbon credit costs are a part of

A totally irrelevant comparison:

a) posting on a forum does not impact on anybody else's health, safety, convenience or the environment​

b) any cost incurred is covered by whatever channel members here use to post their messages, I.e. nobody is posting at the (monetary) expense of others.​

I've seen some pathetic strawman arguments raised here but that one beats the lot!

 

[Noddy]

Good for few, bad for most, just like so many "solutions" proffered up on these forums. Everyone already pays for the road system through general taxation. What you are proposing is more charges on top of those, which will in turn affect the least well off the most, a demographic that will find buying an EV difficult due to the higher purchase costs. And better still this will be enforced by a tracking system. I mean what's not to like?

You seem to be entirely missing the point that fuel duty alone will raise about £24 billion in 2023-24 (about £850 per household) plus there’s VAT on top of this. While it would be nice to pay less tax, those pot holes won’t fix themselves and this money will have to be replaced (unless we accept a decline in services somewhere). What is your suggestion for replacing this lost fuel tax revenue?

 

[renegademaster]

You seem to be entirely missing the point that fuel duty alone will raise about £24 billion in 2023-24 (about £850 per household) plus there’s VAT on top of this. While it would be nice to pay less tax, those pot holes won’t fix themselves and this money will have to be replaced (unless we accept a decline in services somewhere). What is your suggestion for replacing this lost fuel tax revenue?

Money printer goes brrrrr
It's how the government pays for everything else, I don't know why people here suddenly turn into George Osbourne when it comes to road tax

 

[Harpers Tate]

Do you *need* to post on a rail forum?

No, but I have a choice in the matter and I know what the consequences are on my pocket (or anything/anyone else for that matter - in this case nil) and on balance, I choose to do so. If they charged me every time I posted, I may very well come to a different decision.

 

[trebor79]

Perhaps, but electric cars only get rid of the pollution - not the congestion. As the population rises, we will need to impose more restrictions on their use, and road tolls and congestion zones seem like fair ways to do it.

There is a lot of money to be lost, so what other tax increases (or new taxes) do you think people would accept instead?

Congestion with EVs in and of itself isn't a massive issue. It's not like congestion at the moment with petrol and diesel vehicles spewing out carcinogens. Provide decent alternative public transport options and let the market take care of it - people won't want to sit in congestion if they have an alternative - you don't need to tax people to change their behaviours in that way.
For example, I could drive to my work office in London. I don't, because it would involve me sitting in traffic for an addition 2 to 4 hours per day. SO I park on the outskirts and get the tube in. That actually costs me MORE than driving all the way would, but it's a price worth paying.

 

[bspahh]

Congestion with EVs in and of itself isn't a massive issue. It's not like congestion at the moment with petrol and diesel vehicles spewing out carcinogens. Provide decent alternative public transport options and let the market take care of it - people won't want to sit in congestion if they have an alternative - you don't need to tax people to change their behaviours in that way.
For example, I could drive to my work office in London. I don't, because it would involve me sitting in traffic for an addition 2 to 4 hours per day. SO I park on the outskirts and get the tube in. That actually costs me MORE than driving all the way would, but it's a price worth paying.

The problem is if the congestion slows down the public transport. If there are too many people looking for a limited number of parking spaces, then you get more traffic from people driving around trying to find a space, or parking somewhere bad that causes more congestion.

 

[AM9]

Congestion with EVs in and of itself isn't a massive issue. It's not like congestion at the moment with petrol and diesel vehicles spewing out carcinogens. Provide decent alternative public transport options and let the market take care of it - people won't want to sit in congestion if they have an alternative - you don't need to tax people to change their behaviours in that way.

Providing decent transport costs money. Losing the equivalent of IC vehicle Car Tax means there will be less money than there is now for the 'not so decent' public transport that clearly doesn't persuade drivers to not sit in congestion.

 

[Bald Rick]

Everyone already pays for the road system through general taxation.

But fuel duty and the VAT charged on fuel is general taxation. Taxation in this country has evolved over centuries, and will continue to do so. Charging for road use on a per mile basis is really little different to charging for fuel use on a per litre basis. The more you use it, the more you pay.