Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
With a scheduled opening of late 2024, 34 electric vehicles will be able to charge simultaneously at the GRIDSERVE Stevenage Electric Forecourt, with high power chargers that can deliver up to 360kW.
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.
Actually it can't be done. Not without all new cars and all new chargers, and nobody is going to declare a fixed incompatibility for either one. The only "cryptographically signed charging session" is ISO15118 Plug&Charge.
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.
Only congestion gets a lot worse very quickly with fairly small increases in traffic volumes.
The daily variation in traffic (so easy drive to work for no reason Vs a bad drive to work for no reason) is 2%. Most traffic junctions work at 85% of their capacity, at a few extra percent to that and the queues soon start to get more noticeable.
Effectively if there's measures which restrict traffic use (for example fuel duty), if that ceases to exist then even fairly small increases are likely to impact congestion for a lot of people.
If it goes the other way, with there being a very low cost implication for driving, then there's a good chance that congestion will get noticeably worse.
Extra costs for travel should arguably be applied in urban settings where congestion is already an issue and public transport is more viable to provide.
That's likely to mean more congestion charges rather than a true cost per mile rate. However it's also likely to be easiest to deliver (no need for ANPR on a country lane with 25 cars a day).
Actually it can't be done. Not without all new cars and all new chargers, and nobody is going to declare a fixed incompatibility for either one. The only "cryptographically signed charging session" is ISO15118 Plug&Charge.
When Amber Rudd went on a crusade against encryption and big tech told her to get lost, I suspect the reaction of automakers would also be "go away" if the gov tried to push an idea like that , unless it was actually led by the EU, and as you can see with Ireland vetoing everything you're never gonna get consensus in the EU on tax matters
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Only congestion gets a lot worse very quickly with fairly small increases in traffic volumes.
The daily variation in traffic (so easy drive to work for no reason Vs a bad drive to work for no reason) is 2%. Most traffic junctions work at 85% of their capacity, at a few extra percent to that and the queues soon start to get more noticeable.
Effectively if there's measures which restrict traffic use (for example fuel duty), if that ceases to exist then even fairly small increases are likely to impact congestion for a lot of people.
If it goes the other way, with there being a very low cost implication for driving, then there's a good chance that congestion will get noticeably worse.
Extra costs for travel should arguably be applied in urban settings where congestion is already an issue and public transport is more viable to provide.
That's likely to mean more congestion charges rather than a true cost per mile rate. However it's also likely to be easiest to deliver (no need for ANPR on a country lane with 25 cars a day).
Would not more bus gates make sense to discourage car use where it impedes public transport (only the non grade separated kinds), rather than punitively taxing everyone who drives even where it's empty?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
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?
Actually it can't be done. Not without all new cars and all new chargers, and nobody is going to declare a fixed incompatibility for either one. The only "cryptographically signed charging session" is ISO15118 Plug&Charge.
The number of chargers and cars in service today is miniscule compared to the number of chargers and cars required for a decarbonised transport systmem. Certainly the current fleet has no major impact on fuel duty income.
The government could eat the loss on those cars for the rest of their lives without issue.
In ten years electric car sales will dwarf those to date.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
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.
The reduction is not that significant outside of a handful of areas like Central London, where owning a car is physically impractical.
EDIT:
We have stats for this, in this case: National Travel Survey NTS0201 'Full car driving licence holders by age and sex, aged 17 and over: England, 1975 onwards', which shows that in the 17-20, 21-29 and 30-39 groups, proportions with driving licences have remained largely flat since there was a change in methodology in 2002. There has been a dip recently (around 2020) but it appears to be recovering and thus was likely largely coronavirus related disruption.
Indeed in 2019 it was 35% in the 17-20 category, which was higher than it was in 2002, 32%.
The data does not show increasing fractions of people not obtaining driving licences, so far as I can tell. And I'm not sure what other proxy we have for desire to start driving than that.
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.
The reality is that unless the charges are enormous, they won't have any serious impact on road use.
One of the primary advantage of the car is you can leave when you want.
In order to induce change sof behaviour in a big enough portion of the population to matter you will have to take away driving from a smaller but still substantial portion at the bottom end of the income scale.
Taxes like this don't actually incentivise changes in behaviour until they stress the person's financial resources.
For example, the tax on Coca Cola does not affect how much I drink, I just accept the additonal financial burden, whereas people with less money simply can't afford to drink Coca Cola any more.
All this sort of charging scheme will do is take car travel away from the poorest in society.
"It's cheap to drive to work at 4AM" is not very helpful when my job requires me to be there during set hours!
Furthermore, all travel, by any mode, causes "inconsiderade contributions to congestion" on that transport mode.
For example, the tax on Coca Cola does not affect how much I drink, I just accept the additonal financial burden, whereas people with less money simply can't afford to drink Coca Cola any more.
Or you could argue that one of the possible goals of sugar tax was to try to pressure companies to remove sugar from their soft drinks by artificially increasing the price of soft drinks containing sugar, resulting in companies changing their recipes to avoid the tax and keep the price of their product down (in order to compete with rivals who would do the same). And generally, that has been the exact outcome. Coca Cola is a bit an anomaly - it is one of the very few soft drinks that hasn't had a recipe change as a result. And in terms of people not drinking Coca Cola specifically anymore, or paying the extra - I've not seen either result, certainly I've just switched to Coca Cola Zero instead when I do have a Coke.
Except the poorest in society generally don't drive or own cars. The level above that do yes, and you are right that those will be affected, but if you a struggling to keep a roof over your head then it is unlikely you will at the same time have the money to run a car too. There are exceptions of course, mainly in very rural areas where there is no other choice, but the vast majority of people live in built up areas and the poorest in those areas won't be paying to keep a car on the road.
Now new EVs are plummeting in price (to around the £20k mark and likely dropping below for very basic spec cars that will suit city dwellers) and the second hand values are going to fall massively too, the fact people could be charging their EV at around 5-7p per kWh on some energy plans does mean there is a real risk that people are going to be able to afford to drive more - and that will add to congestion.
I expect the high cost of petrol and diesel has had an effect in reducing unnecessary car usage. There's even been a drop in street racing, and now people are more likely just parking up in a car park to show off their car than actually race it around.
If cars become super cheap to own, run and maintain, the Government really is going to have to do something.. or at least local councils will.
There will absolutely 100% certainly be road pricing. There is absolutely no way the Government will give up the fuel tax revenue. I think I worked it out a while back as being not dissimilar to a 10p increase on all income tax bands or VAT going to 30%.
Now new EVs are plummeting in price (to around the £20k mark and likely dropping below for very basic spec cars that will suit city dwellers) and the second hand values are going to fall massively too, the fact people could be charging their EV at around 5-7p per kWh on some energy plans does mean there is a real risk that people are going to be able to afford to drive more - and that will add to congestion.
I expect the high cost of petrol and diesel has had an effect in reducing unnecessary car usage. There's even been a drop in street racing, and now people are more likely just parking up in a car park to show off their car than actually race it around.
If cars become super cheap to own, run and maintain, the Government really is going to have to do something.. or at least local councils will.
Yep, I never think about the cost of driving somewhere now. Tyres probably cost more per mile than the electricity and the tyres seem to last longer then ICE vehicles anyway. It's great actually. Tomorrow I have to drop my father at the hospital, then drive to Peterborough for an interview, then come home. 200 miles all told and if I get away without having to charge (which I should pretty comfortably), it'll cost me a little over £4.
I would say my regular commute into London is continuing to get busier. Mondays and Fridays used to be very quiet and Tuesday busyish. Now Monday is usually busy, Tuesday can take nearly an extra hour due to congestion. Friday I haven't done for a while but my impression a few weeks ago was it's still quieter.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There will absolutely 100% certainly be road pricing. There is absolutely no way the Government will give up the fuel tax revenue. I think I worked it out a while back as being not dissimilar to a 10p increase on all income tax bands or VAT going to 30%.
Yes, it would be a superb way to seriously damage our economy, way in excess of @Bantamzen's fears about the damage that would be caused by stopping aviation.
I do wonder how long those energy plans will remain. Right now we are still in the period of encouraging people to move to electric cars instead of petrol / diesel so cheaper tariffs make sense, but at some point that period will end and we won't need as much encouragement, so I would expect that to be the end of the "cheaper than normal unit price" plans for EV charging.
Yes, it would be a superb way to seriously damage our economy, way in excess of @Bantamzen's fears about the damage that would be caused by stopping aviation.
Except the poorest in society generally don't drive or own cars. The level above that do yes, and you are right that those will be affected, but if you a struggling to keep a roof over your head then it is unlikely you will at the same time have the money to run a car too. There are exceptions of course, mainly in very rural areas where there is no other choice, but the vast majority of people live in built up areas and the poorest in those areas won't be paying to keep a car on the road.
In 2018 (the last year for which the data is available), car ownership was in the majority for households in nine of ten income deciles. Even in the lowest income decile it was 35%.
If we take a look at household types, car ownership is in the majority in all categories listed apart from single retired persons dependent on state pensions.
Which leads me to believe that people living in sheltered housing of various types, or other retired people, makes up a lot of the households without cars.
I'm not sure you can make the argument that there are not very large numbers of very poor people without cars.
Indeed in eight of ten income deciles the percentage of car ownership is above 70%.
EDIT:
As to "struggling to keep a roof over their heads can't afford a car", in a lot of cases they can't afford not to.
Public transport in the vast majority of Britain is terrible and expensive, and the technologies chosen mean it will always be so.
WIthout the car they will not be able to economically make it to their job or obtain food etc etc etc.
That would depend on to what extent it's market and demand led. It's certainly true that at times of the day (typically overnight) the generation exceeds the demand in particular because of industry, including but not limited to lighting office buildings. And generation of most types can't be turned off and on; it just keeps going. Something has to be done with the surplus and storage (via batteries or via refilling reservours or other) is only a partial solution. Steering non-time-critical demand, by dynamic pricing is part of the solution and EV charging is an extremely good example of non-time-critical demand.
It has the justification of reducing NHS costs through less pollution, and reducing (abeit a pretty tiny amount in the grand scheme) future climate change. Electric has neither of those externalities.
Well, at the moment bus is quite cheap. It will be interesting to see what happens at the end of the £2 scheme (other than just knocking it up with inflation). It may now prove impossible to get rid of it now it'll have been in place well over a year.
I don't think there's anything inherent in any present public transport technology which means it has to be expensive and bad. There are countries with the same sort of mix as us where it is neither of those things - typically ones where German (or something derived from it) is spoken. Even bus alone can provide an excellent quality system if run properly, but buses run properly are infinitessimally rare in the UK.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As it did with small-engined diesels, it will, in due course, be applied to EVs. It's presently being used as a nudge to encourage adoption, that's all.
That has the justification of reducing NHS costs through less pollution, and reducing (abeit a pretty tiny amount in the grand scheme) future climate change. Electric has neither of those externalities.
EVs still pollute, e.g. tyre particulates and any electricity used that isn't generated from renewables or nuclear. Plus cars in urban areas kill people and discourage active travel by their mere presence. And roads cost money to build and maintain. Thus there's no case to stop charging them.
And the Government simply will not give up that revenue, so you might as well accept that your present cheap EV motoring is simply a nudge to adoption and there is absolutely zero chance it will last.
You could certainly charge a variable rate of tax/duty based on things like the overall vehicle weight, or the efficiency of the car in terms of miles per KWh.
There would have to be a way to encourage smaller cars that will use less electricity then the huge SUVs that get their range through having massive batteries.
That's very dependent on the journey. It's about 12 miles from here to the Mall. Two fare payers would pay £16 to make that round trip.
There is no direct bus route. It takes 2 each way. 2 persons x 2 bus fares x 2 directions. £16. EV drive - 25p fuel + other costs whatever they are.
For public transport to have the remotest shout at being more attractive over self-driving, we would need to see
- transfer fares (second+ trip within a say 90 minute window) at no extra cost. Or better yet, £2 buys you a 90 minute "rover".
- no penalty when the journey involves several operators
- multiple persons (up to 4, say) carried for the price of one.
On the other hand, Leeds <> Scarborough for £8 (return x 2) is good value.
I do wonder how long those energy plans will remain. Right now we are still in the period of encouraging people to move to electric cars instead of petrol / diesel so cheaper tariffs make sense, but at some point that period will end and we won't need as much encouragement, so I would expect that to be the end of the "cheaper than normal unit price" plans for EV charging.
That would depend on to what extent it's market and demand led. It's certainly true that at times of the day (typically overnight) the generation exceeds the demand in particular because of industry, including but not limited to lighting office buildings. And generation of most types can't be turned off and on; it just keeps going. Something has to be done with the surplus and storage (via batteries or via refilling reservours or other) is only a partial solution. Steering non-time-critical demand, by dynamic pricing is part of the solution and EV charging is an extremely good example of non-time-critical demand.
It'll remain as a thing. I expect it'll move away from set times overnight to something more dynamic (Octopus already have a couple of tariffs like this).
Cheap overnight power such as economy 7 was about avoiding turning coal power stations off.
Cheap power now is about avoiding paying curtailment fees to wind farm operators.
I get 6 hours cheap every night, and extra cheap slots during the day if my car needs it to be charged when I want it for. Octopus decide when these additional slots are. I expect in a few years the fixed overnight bit will disappear, and it'll be totally dynamic. So long as I can continue to charge my home batteries on a cheap rate I'll be happy (I'm trying to find a way to automate altering the inverter settings, but I could just do it manually every day). 99% of my electricity usage is at the cheap rate.
That's very dependent on the journey. It's about 12 miles from here to the Mall. Two fare payers would pay £16 to make that round trip.
There is no direct bus route. It takes 2 each way. 2 persons x 2 bus fares x 2 directions. £16. EV drive - 25p fuel + other costs whatever they are.
For public transport to have the remotest shout at being more attractive over self-driving, we would need to see
- transfer fares (second+ trip within a say 90 minute window) at no extra cost. Or better yet, £2 buys you a 90 minute "rover".
- no penalty when the journey involves several operators
- multiple persons (up to 4, say) carried for the price of one.
On the other hand, Leeds <> Scarborough for £8 (return x 2) is good value.
A 5 seat EV with 4 or 5 people in it who need to travel* is an efficient use of roadspace and energy. There's not much case for public transport to really need to compete with it. Family cars with whole families in them are, with the odd exception**, not really the problem.
I agree the £2 should be a transfer ticket, but that aside, it's best to concentrate on the most harmful cars which are the ones with one or two people in them.
* Taking the kids with you to the chippy because they're bored doesn't really count.
** e.g. on the way to Cornwall in mid July, but that's honeypotting - full-and-standing 80x would be as much of an issue
Well, at the moment bus is quite cheap. It will be interesting to see what happens at the end of the £2 scheme (other than just knocking it up with inflation). It may now prove impossible to get rid of it now it'll have been in place well over a year.
I don't think there's anything inherent in any present public transport technology which means it has to be expensive and bad. There are countries with the same sort of mix as us where it is neither of those things - typically ones where German (or something derived from it) is spoken. Even bus alone can provide an excellent quality system if run properly, but buses run properly are infinitessimally rare in the UK.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
VED isn't going to go away.
As it did with small-engined diesels, it will, in due course, be applied to EVs. It's presently being used as a nudge to encourage adoption, that's all.
EVs still pollute, e.g. tyre particulates and any electricity used that isn't generated from renewables or nuclear. Plus cars in urban areas kill people and discourage active travel by their mere presence. And roads cost money to build and maintain. Thus there's no case to stop charging them.
And the Government simply will not give up that revenue, so you might as well accept that your present cheap EV motoring is simply a nudge to adoption and there is absolutely zero chance it will last.
While I would absolutely advocate for improved public transport and acknowledge that some sort of fuel duty replacement is probably required I think folk would be on a very sticky wicket if the justification for that tax is that EVs still pollute. Tyre particulate pollution is very overblown:
As for the EVs on the road today, their tyre wear is nowhere near as accelerated as some naysayers suggest. James Rooney, fleet engineer at British Gas, an operator of 800 electric vans (soon to be thousands) of electric vehicles, notes that their latest electric vans – which are large, heavy vehicles with traditionally tyre-chewing front wheel drive – have done 15,000 miles and not needed tyres or brakes replaced yet (with the exception of punctures, of course).
Ryan Todd has noticed something interesting about tyre wear on his taxis. When his Nissan LEAF electric taxis are delivered to him brand new, they are typically fitted with a high quality make of tyre like Michelin. The tyres usually last between 30,000 and 36,000 miles on the rear wheels, with the fronts lasting 20,000 miles.
While it is typical for front tyres to have shorter lifespans than rear tyres, Ryan notes that his diesel taxis do tend to get an extra 5,000 to 10,000 miles of lifespan out of their front tyres. This is because the LEAF is not only front wheel drive – so the front tyres are doing the steering as well as propulsion – but has a lot more torque from its motor than a diesel car, resulting in increased wear over time. If cheaper replacement tyres are fitted to his diesel or electric taxis, their lifespan of all four tyres is typically reduced by about 5,000 miles versus the original high-quality tyres – an important lesson for any vehicle driver.
Ryan notes, however, that the 30,000 to 36,000-mile lifespan of the rear tyres on his LEAF taxis is about the same as the rear tyres on his diesel taxis, since they aren’t propelling or steering the vehicle.
If driven more leisurely, as per most cars, the lifespan of the front tyres on his electric taxis would likely increase. Given that the taxi and van fleets mentioned above are examples of fleets that are likely driven a little more harshly than the average car, the fact that they have such vastly reduced brake wear, and similar tyre wear on the rear wheels in particular, bodes very well for controlling particulate matter pollution.
And AIUI an EV with two occupants will produce about 26.5g CO2e per passenger per km, but a train will typically average between 6 (for Eurostar) and 41g (for a highly polluting diesel train) CO2e per passenger per km. While there are clearly many variables here, as more wind, solar and nuclear comes onto the UK grid the EV will get even less polluting. With EVs the bigger issue is the economic and social harm that congestion causes.
Says who? Tax rates go up and down, even though it's not as much they are getting rid of the tobbaco cash cow with the age related ban. They also took a quite huge real term tax cut with not raising fuel duty with inflation
Says who? Tax rates go up and down, even though it's not as much they are getting rid of the tobbaco cash cow with the age related ban. They also took a quite huge real term tax cut with not raising fuel duty with inflation
Fuel duty raises about 25 billion per year and is likely to drop off a cliff in the next 2-3 decades.
So far you’ve not stated any practical or realistic alternative to replacing this lost revenue, only deflected (with tobacco which is completely irrelevant to this thread) or rather ridiculously stated the government should just print the money. Unless we accept a decline in services the lost money has to come from somewhere.
Fuel duty raises about 25 billion per year and is likely to drop off a cliff in the next 2-3 decades.
So far you’ve not stated any practical or realistic alternative to replacing this lost revenue, only deflected (with tobacco which is completely irrelevant to this thread) or rather ridiculously stated the government should just print the money. Unless we accept a decline in services the lost money has to come from somewhere.
And the level of money here is massive, so it wouldn't be a few bus cuts or something. The saving would need to be of the sort of magnitude of completely closing the rail system or the NHS, or abolishing all free education, or stopping all benefits.
None of these things are going to happen, nor is a 50% increase in income tax or VAT, thus there will be an equivalent tax on EVs as there is on ICEs.
Fuel duty raises about 25 billion per year and is likely to drop off a cliff in the next 2-3 decades.
So far you’ve not stated any practical or realistic alternative to replacing this lost revenue, only deflected (with tobacco which is completely irrelevant to this thread) or rather ridiculously stated the government should just print the money. Unless we accept a decline in services the lost money has to come from somewhere.
They do it for everything else , the government hasn't given a **** about balancing the budget since thatcher and she didn't succeed. They'll have to print much more to nationalize the trains or increase subsidies like people on here want. Mock MMT but it's basically just rebranded Keynesianism , the main government economic theory post war .
Not to mention they may not even have to resort to deficit spending if the increased mobility leads to more VAT revenue
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And the level of money here is massive, so it wouldn't be a few bus cuts or something. The saving would need to be of the sort of magnitude of completely closing the rail system or the NHS, or abolishing all free education, or stopping all benefits.
None of these things are going to happen, nor is a 50% increase in income tax or VAT, thus there will be an equivalent tax on EVs as there is on ICEs.
You'd only need a 7% raise on VAT to replace fuel duty like for like anyway,if my back of fag packet calculations are right and that's hardly the only tax source you can pick, nothing like your 50% hyperbole the take is 25 billion not 250 billion. Alcohol and tobacco take is not much less and theirs no handwrining over how we need to invent a new tax to account for younger generations being less likely to drink and smoke
They do it for everything else , the government hasn't given a **** about balancing the budget since thatcher and she didn't succeed. They'll have to print much more to nationalize the trains or increase subsidies like people on here want. Mock MMT but it's basically just rebranded Keynesianism , the main government economic theory post war .
A) This simply isn’t true. George Osborne (as you earlier acknowledged) spent 6 years repeatedly telling us we had to balance the budget.
B) Running at even higher deficit (adding about 15% to it) and adding more debt isn’t a practical or realistic alternative to the lost revenue, not matter how many times you claim it is. You are living in a reality distortion field.
A) This simply isn’t true. George Osborne (as you earlier acknowledged) spent 6 years repeatedly telling us we had to balance the budget.
B) Running at even higher deficit (adding about 15% to it) and adding more debt isn’t a practical or realistic alternative to the lost revenue, not matter how many times you claim it is. You are living in a reality distortion field.
We never actually got close to achieving it, nor did the government make any kind of move towards what would be necessary, Cameron vetod Osbournes more extreme austerity ideals
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
