back to article UK electric car funding - another subsidy for the rich say MPs

The £11m of public money used to promote electric vehicles is mostly just helping rich Brits buy a second car, a group of MPs said. The Transport Select Committee has published a report questioning the value of spending millions trying to get electric cars on the road, claiming the money is only benefitting a "handful of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Pedigree-Pete
    Facepalm

    Plug in cars ain't green.

    You still have to generate the electrickery somehow.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

      Yep. I was given a lift in a Hybrid Lexus SUV in London... "I don't have to pay tax" remarked the owner. We noted that the engine hadn't stopped at some traffic lights. "Oh, it doesn't when the air-conditioning is on" he replied.

      I was impressed that the dashboard not only had an integrated DVD player as standard, but a cassette player too!

      1. Psyx
        Pint

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        "Yep. I was given a lift in a Hybrid Lexus SUV in London.."

        Those things are a joke. They're basically a mere nod to electric in order to dodge various taxes and tolls.

        1. Chris Miller

          Re: Lexus SUVs are a joke

          Jeremy Clarkson once commented that if the RX400h was a hybrid, he should be able to strap a couple of U2s (D-cells for you youngsters) to the engine of his Range Rover to avoid the congestion charge. Still, they must be green, our PM drives one.

    2. Richard 81

      Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

      Large scale power generation is always more efficient than small local sources, e.g. using an internal combustion engine. They may not be totally 'green', but they are greener.

      1. Giles Jones Gold badge

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        Plus transporting the fuel to where it is needed is done using wires, no huge tankers carting heavy tanks of fuel.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          FAIL

          Re: Plug in cars ain't green. @Giles Jones

          "Plus transporting the fuel to where it is needed is done using wires, no huge tankers carting heavy tanks of fuel."

          Distribution use and losses is far greater for electricity than it is for chemical fuels. From power station to socket electricity losses are around 16%, compared to around 7% for oil based fuels. That of course doesn't include the 60.4% conversion and losses at thermal power stations.

          Anybody foolish enough to believe that electric cars are good for the environment needs their head examining.

          1. This Side Up

            Re: Plug in cars ain't green. @Giles Jones

            "Anybody foolish enough to believe that electric cars are good for the environment needs their head examining"

            You need to differentiate between environment and ecology. Electric vehicles are good for the environment in town centres. Whether they are good for the planet depends on how the electricity is generated. At the moment they aren't.

        2. This Side Up

          Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

          "Plus transporting the fuel to where it is needed is done using wires, no huge tankers carting heavy tanks of fuel."

          There are transmission losses either way, though power lines don't usually contribute to traffic congestion.

      2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        I'll let you have: Large-scale electricity generation is always more efficient than small-scale electricity generation.

        I won't let you ignore the fact that a conventional car doesn't convert petrol to locomotive force via electricity.

        Back on the first hand, I will let you respond by noting that an electric car could (in principle) be running off carbon-free electricity, and it is CO2 we are trying to reduce rather than mere energy consumption.

        1. probatron.blogspot.com

          Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

          Why does everybody forget the poison that comes from cars. The CO2 is just part of the story, the legislation on emissions is not about CO2, but the other poison that comes from a car. NO3, CO and many others are deadly. One in every driveway. So long as you dont have it in an enclosed space or lots of them in the open air (oops, yes we do). Power stations don't, even the coal ones. Don't forget the poison.

          1. RichardB

            Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

            Poison? Here's an experiment for you... fill a big bag with CO2 and stick your face in. Inhale a few times.

            Let me know how you feel after.

          2. David 164

            Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

            NO3, CO and many others are deadly.

            Because the lobby opposing the introduction of electric cars has no answer to them, so they try an stick to the range issue and and try and make this just about CO2, two areas where they have reasonable sounding arguments. The newest argument about electric cars is that they are silent and that blind people will get run down,

            As the range issue get solve with better batteries, more efficient electric engines and lighter cars, you can expect them to start to attack the electric car more and more bizarre reasons. They will try anything to keep us hook on petroleum.

        2. h4rm0ny

          Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

          "Back on the first hand, I will let you respond by noting that an electric car could (in principle) be running off carbon-free electricity, and it is CO2 we are trying to reduce rather than mere energy consumption."

          I'm not entirely convinced about CO2 being the nightmare that many think it is, but for me, one of the big advantages of electric vehicles is that they reduce localized pollution in cities. And that's a very good thing. People forget what clean air actually smells like in a city. Also, they are quieter. A city of electric vehicles rather than internal combustion engines would be a quieter, cleaner and all round nicer place.

      3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        >Large scale power generation is always more efficient than small local sources,

        Multiplied by transmission losses, multiplied by charger efficency, multiplied by motor efficency

        Then that's only true for the same sort of power generation. Ultimately power generation efficency depends on the temperature of the combustion cycle.

        A diesel engine in a car could be more efficent than burning coal in a power station 1000km away

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        > Large scale power generation is always more efficient than small local sources,

        Generation -> transmission -> battery -> motion

        Each of the steps loses power. The internal combustion engine (ICE) converts the combustion directly into motion and has been steadily increasing in efficiency, especially over the last decade. Overall, the ICE is "greener".

        There is a study, that is often quoted, from 2006 that claims electric cars are greener. However, there are a couple of issues with it. For a start, it is 6 years old and ICE cars have improved significantly in efficiency since then (because of the subsides for electric and the penalties for being inefficient) . The cars chosen for the study weren't exactly the most efficient. The electric cars never used any heating or air conditioning which is unrealistic. There are other issues, but those three will do for now.

        So provided you swap your 6 year old Ford Mondeo for an electric car and never use any heating or air con you will be greener.

        1. David 164

          Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

          Someone better tell Mask that he better strip out those air con an heater from his Tesla electric cars as electric cars can never work with them.

          Actually his Telsa cars run just fine with both of them on an in test have done 200 miles with air con on, an that nice 19 inch screen running through out the journey.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

            > Actually his Telsa cars run just fine with both of them on an in test have done 200 miles with air con on, an that nice 19 inch screen running through out the journey.

            That is only for the high end $50,000 model.

            What you need to look at is the low end <20k models and compare them to less than 20k petrol cars. That is the market that is supposed to be replaced by electric cars.

      5. Fibbles

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        "Large scale power generation is always more efficient than small local sources, e.g. using an internal combustion engine. They may not be totally 'green', but they are greener."

        True, but then electric vehicles store that efficiently generated electricity in inefficient batteries made from very un-green materials.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

      Yes, in a power station, which keeps emissions out of the town centres and is more efficient than an engine.

      Much like electric trains - the French have nuclear powered trains, we could have nuclear powered cars. How cool would that be.

      1. Mad Mike

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        @AC

        The French have nuclear powered trains? Not directly. Maybe the electricity they use is generated by nuclear power, but that's all.

        Emissions are only an issue for methods of generation that give out emissions!! Proposals for small nuclear reactors with no emissions that would be suitable for deployment in towns are well documented. Also, green energy also doesn't give out emissions, so you're mostly talking about gas and coal powered. When considering the difference between centralised generation and more local, you also need to take transmission costs (as in losses) into account.

        In the green agenda, a lot are now proposing CHP systems where electricity is generated locally. Yes, centralised is still more efficient, but not by as much as assumed when average transmission losses are taken into account.

        Nuclear trains are potentially possible, but highly unlikely. Nuclear cars are several orders of magnitude less likely unless you're talking about non-reactor nuclear options. It's a bit like the proposed 'nuclear bomber' developments of the 50's and 60's where the Soviet Union spent a lot of money trying to get a nuclear reactor into a place before realising you couldn't do it!!

        1. Psyx

          Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

          "It's a bit like the proposed 'nuclear bomber' developments of the 50's and 60's where the Soviet Union spent a lot of money trying to get a nuclear reactor into a place before realising you couldn't do it!!"

          Silly Russians: The Americans could.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

            Yes they did:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-119

            Killed off by the ICBM.

            1. Mad Mike
              FAIL

              Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

              @Mike Richards.

              "Yes they did:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-119

              Killed off by the ICBM."

              No they didn't. The Tu-119 might have carried a nuclear reactor aloft, but even the article you yourself identify has three very important parts to it. Firstly, it carried insufficient shielding leading to untimely deaths for most of the crew. Secondly, the reactor took up the bomb bay which is rather pointless given it was a bomber. Finally, it didn't actually power the aircraft. The informations quite amply states that the powerplant was 4 x turboprops. So, fail on all counts.

        2. Richard 81

          Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

          "It's a bit like the proposed 'nuclear bomber' developments of the 50's and 60's where the Soviet Union spent a lot of money trying to get a nuclear reactor into a place before realising you couldn't do it!!"

          Yes they could. They just couldn't fit in/get it to lift any radiation shielding.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Plug in cars ain't green.@Mad Mike

          How do you get so many downvotes for that?

          Anyway, the point I was going to raise was that the benefit of CHP isn't so much the transmission losses, but the conversion losses which are four times greater. Burn coal at Drax (officially middle of nowhere), and the heat goes up the chimney, wasting 55% or more of your input. Burn gas in a small urban gas turbine scheme offering CHP and you can make use of most of the waste heat, reducing your losses to perhaps 15% of the input energy. The difference in transmission losses is probably a further 5% of input energy that favours the CHP.

          You

          1. David 164

            Re: Plug in cars ain't green.@Mad Mike

            They should build some green houses around Drax, they could use them absorb green house gasses and use the excess heat.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Plug in cars ain't green.@David 164Mad Mike

              "They should build some green houses around Drax, they could use them absorb green house gasses and use

              the excess heat."

              In principle you're right - the largest UK coal plants that will stay open post 2015 and should be mandated to pump their waste heat into district heating. Scandinavians have proven this can be done even as a retrofit. However, there's a couple of problems - district heating systems can run longish distances, but around (say) Drax or Longannet (the UK's two largest coal stations) the distances are too great for the running insulated pipes to suitably large urban areas to use the heat.

              The second problem is that (if you're worried about CO2) then it doesn't make that much difference, because the coal plant still emits just as much, and the offset reduction of domestic heating is usually much more efficient gas.

              Having said that, no reason that Ratcliffe couldn't provide heat to *all* of South Nottingham, other than the disinterest and inertia of the owners.

        4. hayseed

          Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

          > proposed 'nuclear bomber' developments of the 50's and 60's where the Soviet Union spent a lot of money

          > trying to get a nuclear reactor into a place before realising you couldn't do it!!

          Oh, it's doable, just not healthy for the crew. Google info on nuclear jet engines developed in the U.S.

          1. Psyx
            Mushroom

            Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

            Those things weren't ever intended to *have* a crew, though.

            They were also 'designed' to irradiate everything in their flight path, too! :oO

        5. h4rm0ny

          Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

          "The French have nuclear powered trains? Not directly. Maybe the electricity they use is generated by nuclear power, but that's all."

          Yes, that's what they meant and there's no "but that's all" about it. The French trains move because of an energy source that is clean and is cost-effective and is statistically safe. The fact that they don't actually have onboard nuclear reactors is irrelevant.

      2. TechnicianJack
        Mushroom

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        Nuclear powered cars? Don't be silly! Haven't you played Fallout?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

      More importantly building a one and a half ton electric car isn't exactly environmentally friendly to start off with.

      "Hello Canada, Africa, China, Australia and others, I need large amounts of rare and prescious metals. Please send them all to Japan, where I will assemble them and then ship them off to England"

      1. Robert Leeming
        Stop

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        "Hello Canada, Africa, China, Australia and others, I need large amounts of rare and prescious metals. Please send them all to Japan, where I will assemble them and then ship them off to England"

        The electric car is only *borrowing* those materials. You only get to burn the oil once.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

    5. DrXym

      Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

      Electricity can be generated by any number of means. Decoupling a car moves from the source of energy that powers it is a good thing.

      What's no so good at the moment is how expensive and heavy some electric vehicles are. They carry lots of battery to give them a reasonable range comparable to a combustion engine but then become hideously heavy and expensive as a result. I think for the short term hybrids are the only way to go with cars perhaps having storage for 15-30 miles on battery after which an engine kicks in. That would amply satisfy the typical usage pattern of most vehicles and could mean owners could plug them in at night. Think Chevy Volt.

      But the engine in hybrids doesn't have to be combustion either. It could be a turbine or something else. Turbines look especially promising since they're more efficient than combustion engines so the turbine could kick in to deliver electric to the motor when necessary and be idle otherwise.

      1. blah111
        Meh

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        The Chevy Volt is as bad as pure electrics. Even priced at $40k and with a $7500 tax credit they still lose money on every sale. The Cruz is half the price, profitable at that price and nearly as fuel efficient. Imagine if they put a diesel in the Cruz...

        And turbines ARE combustion engines. I think you meant reciprocating piston engines. We'll ignore the Wankels for now.

    6. Martin Budden Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

      @ original poster Pedigree-Pete "You still have to generate the electrickery somehow."

      I have a large number of PV panels on my roof, so if I were to charge a plug-in car from those it would be green. There are plenty of ways to generate green electrickery.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.@ Martin Budden

        "I have a large number of PV panels on my roof, so if I were to charge a plug-in car from those it would be green."

        Only if your roof is the size of a small factory, and you leave your car at home during the day.

        At least we agree that EV's are fabulous for rich night shift workers who don't have to drive far.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Plug in cars ain't green.

        "I have a large number of PV panels on my roof, so if I were to charge a plug-in car from those it would be green."

        And if you are lucky the charge you can get the your PV panels might get you to end of the road.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Err...

    "We were warned of the risk that the Government is subsidising second cars for affluent households; currently plug-in cars are mostly being purchased as second cars for town driving"

    Surely that's the point? The range and efficiencies suit town driving more. You're not going to buy one as a primary car because of the range. They aren't cheap enough for people who don't have a good income to buy, the discount is to help start the market so prices come down and less well off people can afford them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Err...

      The point being made is that these subsidies are benefiting people who can afford second cars.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Err...

        That was my point - you aren't going to buy them as a first car (yet) but if you need a second car and may families do - an electric one is better. The person buying the car helps kick off the electric car market and ultimately the prices come down, eventually everyone wins.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Err...

          But is that money well spent? The sort of people who buy them are the sort of people who can probably afford them anyway. The technology isn't mature enough to reach out to average motorists driving in an average way, so subsidising it now - before that stage - is simply creating a market where none would exist. Prices won't fall as a consequence of the creation of this market, prices will fall when the technology matures.

          No, it's money poorly spent. The only winners here are the Greener-Than-Thou urban elites.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Err...

            At the moment, electric cars represent a false market. There is no demand for them, because they're expensive and need further devlopment. They're expensive and need further development because there is no demand for them, so government investment is required to kickstart the market. This is very much like the arguments around the initial development of the national grid "there's no demand for one, because it's expensive and there aren't that many people who use electricity and anyway, they'll be rich urban elites." which was countered with "There won't be any demand for electricity until people can get it at a reasonable price." in the end the National Grid was built, electricity became cheaper and the market was kick-started.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Err...

          "The person buying the car helps kick off the electric car market and ultimately the prices come down, eventually everyone wins"

          What, like where we had subsidies on compact fluorescent lamps which used to be four or five quid a pop (retail, single pack), were subsidised for a decade, and when the subsidy was removed the price went right back up again?

          Governments (and other misguided people) really believe that subsidies can kick off a new market. There's few instances of this really working, and lots more where an industry thrives purely on subsidies, to wither when the pumped cash dries up. Look at solar, and how the whole plan was to remove subsidies when they'd made the industry able to stand on its own two feet. And then when the government try and do that, the industry starts carping and whining that it can't cope, and that it isn't fair. You might think that's a British phenomenen, but the same thing has happened in Germany and the US.

          And the subsidies do further damage. Germany has carpeted half of Bavaria with solar cells, and on a quiet sunny day at the height of summer can produce about half of total power demand. Sounds good, eh? Well no, not really, because their electricity bills are 40% higher than ours primarily to fund all those solar cells, they've got the same social incidence problems that our solar programme has, and because the excessive build out has made existing thermal generation uneconomic. Therefore the consumers are going to have to pay yet more money to keep thermal plant on line ("capacity payments") for the days when it is cloudy, or during the long winter months.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Err...

            The issue with solar was that the subsidy was removed early and without time for planning when the industry had built its business model round the subsidy.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Err...no, not really.

            "Germany has carpeted half of Bavaria with solar cells, and on a quiet sunny day at the height of summer can produce about half of total power demand. Sounds good, eh? Well no, not really, because their electricity bills are 40% higher than ours primarily to fund all those solar cells!

            As a German living in Britain I can tell you that this is utter rubbish. Depending on what you get your electricity for (domestic, industrial) the German prices are 15% to 25% *LOWER* than in the UK.

            "they've got the same social incidence problems that our solar programme has, and because the excessive build out has made existing thermal generation uneconomic. Therefore the consumers are going to have to pay yet more money to keep thermal plant on line ("capacity payments") for the days when it is cloudy, or during the long winter months."

            More nonsense. No offense but unlike Britain Germany did (and still does) support renewable energy mostly successfully, simply because, unlike Britain, Germany has actually understood that green technology is the future and not just some dream from la-la land as it's mostly considered here in the UK. In fact, Germany is a technology leader in renewables and quite successful in exporting its green technology around the world.

            And Britain is in a double dip recession. Go figure.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Err...no, not really.@ German AC 22:14

              Your wholesale electricity price is lower, but the charges that your government add on remove that advantage, which I believe we've already covered round here. But as you're not up to speed, let's ask a German company about this to check, shall we?

              Page 136, 137:

              http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablob/en/108808/data/114404/36/rwe/investor-relations/factbook/Facts-Figures-2011.pdf

              If Germany is such a leader in renewables, why has your solar industry gone bust? Do a google on "germany solar, bankruptcy" as you're evidently out of touch (and a trifle arrogant).

              The reason Germany is doing so well economically is because it is enjoying a huge relative under-valuation of its currency, caused by the Southern Europeans entering the euro at too high a rate. That's why Greece is in flames, 40% of Spanish youth is unemployed, Portugal has needed a bailout, and Italy is looking very vulnerable unless the ECB print up some money and dish out some inflation. Germany has enjoyed this advantage for a decade, but when the time comes to sort the mess out, the Germans are sticking their fingers in their teutonic ears, demanding that they don't have to bail out the other Eurozone members, that there shouldn't be any inflationary money printing, and that their idiot banks should get back the money they foolishly lent to every piss pot project in Greece.

              As for understanding green technology, look at the German decision to close your nuclear plants because you all got scared by a tsunami on the other side of the world? Big threat on the Baltic coast, is it? Net result, you're needing to generate with CO2-heavy lignite, proper coal, gas, and other people's nuclear output. And then people like you choose to lecture us. What a bunch of stupid hypocrites.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Err...

        Or it suits those who want to drive locally and then catch a train long distance.

        Some people use public transport locally and then drive long distances. Others do the reverse.

      3. This Side Up

        Re: Err...

        "The point being made is that these subsidies are benefiting people who can afford second cars."

        But if toffs are driving around town in plug-in electric vehicles and leaving their Porsche Cayennes in the garage then that benefits everybody.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    --> helping rich Brits

    "The £11m of public money used to promote electric vehicles is mostly just helping rich Brits buy a second car, a group of MPs said."

    The poor subsidizing the rich - the very essence of socialism! Ling live Soviet England!

    And just wait till you run out of electricity and they start rationing it - you chumps will really enjoy the feeling of purity you'll get from it!

    1. Richard 81

      Re: --> helping rich Brits

      Idiot.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: --> helping rich Brits

      The rich pay more tax than the poor, so really it's the rich subsidising the rich.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: --> helping rich Brits

        Yes, but people like redistribution of wealth in this country. This isn't the USA (yet).

        This chart shows who pays what:

        http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46940000/gif/_46940074_blastland_tax1_466.gif

        1. Alan_Peery

          Re: --> helping rich Brits

          Interesting diagram -- but it's missing a middle bit.

          The graph you include was

          Segments of population -> tax paid

          I want

          Segments of population -> income -> tax paid

          I think that middle bit is rather important.

      2. HMB

        Re: --> helping rich Brits

        "The rich pay more tax than the poor, so really it's the rich subsidising the rich."

        You've clearly never seen how much tax some rich people pay when they get a small wage and large dividends all worked through clever accounting and a separate limited company. All made possible by a government that frowns on the practise in public but hasn't changed the game.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: --> helping rich Brits

          @HMB - you may want to look at the graph in the above post then...

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: --> helping rich Brits

          > You've clearly never seen how much tax some rich people pay when they get a small wage and large dividends

          Dividends are counted as income and subject to income tax so if you add their wages and dividends together they will pay 10% up to £8,105, 20% up to £34,370, 40% up to £150,000 and 45% for anything over that.

          1. Chris Miller

            Re: --> helping rich Brits

            "Dividends are counted as income and subject to income tax"

            Not quite. To over-simplify (naturally, the actual position is hugely complex and demands highly-paid tax-lawyers and accountants): dividends are subject to higher-rate tax only, they are assumed to be basic tax paid, since the business that paid them will have been subject to Corporation Tax. So they don't allow you to make vast tax savings unless you've got a partner that has a tax-free allowance that can be used.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: --> helping rich Brits

              > To over-simplify (naturally, the actual position is hugely complex and demands highly-paid tax-lawyers and accountants)

              Nope. There is a box on your tax return where you write in the amount of dividends you have received, no need to involve tax lawyers and accountants.

              > dividends are subject to higher-rate tax only, they are assumed to be basic tax paid

              They are basic tax paid, no assumption is involved. As for only being subject to higher rate tax, if your total income falls below the basic rate then you will get a tax rebate.

              Dividends (and interest) used to be paid gross until the Conservatives (in the 1980s I think) changed it so they are now paid net of tax. This was specifically targeted at those avoiding/evading their tax liability.

  4. Gashead

    Spend it on paint instead

    A far better use of the money would have been to paint a strip of blue along the side of the roads like they do in London. These blue strips are very useful for drivers, they indicate how far you can poke your car out from a side road when waiting to join the main traffic flow without getting clipped by another large box of metal driven by somebody else too posh to take public transport or cycle or walk.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "how far you can poke ... out"

      or you could just stop behind the line, as that's what it's there for.

      1. Gashead

        Re: "how far you can poke ... out"

        That's what I used to think but every morning and evening cycling along those so-called Superhighways I see the true purpose of the blue paint.

        1. Wize

          Re: "how far you can poke ... out"

          We don't have the blue lines up here, so the lanes are generally used for parking in.

          There are some crazy bits of road with cycle lanes painted on them and traffic islands squeezing the lane so tight that a car cannot avoid the cycle lane even if it wanted to.

          1. Gashead

            Re: "how far you can poke ... out"

            The key aim of cycle lanes in many areas is not to achieve a safer means for cyclists to get around but merely to add to the mileage of cycle lanes the council can boast about. I've seen bits of lane as short as 2 metres, utterly pointless but 2 more metres added to the green credentials so that's OK!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Spend it on paint instead

      When cyclists start paying road tax and stop riding on the pavements every time they hit a red light, I'll start listening to their complaints.

      1. handle
        Facepalm

        Re: Spend it on paint instead

        When some motorists (you - I'm not stereotyping) realise that there has been no such thing as Road Tax since 1937, then someone might start listening to them.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Spend it on paint instead

          'When some motorists (you - I'm not stereotyping) realise that there has been no such thing as Road Tax since 1937, then someone might start listening to them.'

          They changed the name to Vehicle Excise Duty and ended the link between tax revenue and spending on roads (so that they could build expensive motorways using debt). This doesn't mean the tax has ceased to exist.

      2. gaz 7
        Thumb Down

        Re: Spend it on paint instead

        You do realise that electric cars done pay any vehicle tax either you fucking retard!

        Stop having a trollish dig at cyclists and moan about leccy cars not paying tax...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Spend it on paint instead

          Hit a nerve have I?

          I'm moaning about anybody who uses the roads and doesn't pay for them. The previous comment just happened to mention cyclists.

  5. Richard 81

    Charging

    Electric cars aren't going to take off until they're (almost) as easy to recharge as a petrol car is to refuel. Also, the price has to come down a lot. Also, since batteries have a limited life, I'd imagine electric cars aren't that attractive as second hand cars.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Charging

      How about putting in electric wires above the streets (like trams or dodge-'ems) and letting cars use them?

      Then you can run electric in the city where petrol is inefficient and you don't need to carry batteries.

      1. WonkoTheSane
        Go

        Re: Charging

        Surely safer to put down inductive charging loops next time the roads are resurfaced.

        1. Matthew 25

          Re: Charging

          "Surely safer to put down inductive charging loops next time the roads are resurfaced." - but very wasteful.

          1. Lee Dowling Silver badge

            Re: Charging

            I love the way people talk as if miles of heavy-duty high-current-carrying copper along public streets is not only free, but unlikely to be the target of thieves either.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Charging

              @Lee - Yes, it's a good job three is no precedent for running high current electricity in towns to prove you wrong.

              1. Lee Dowling Silver badge

                Re: Charging

                @Anon: Wow... your town is wired with copper that was not only free for the original purchaser but thief-proof too? Wonderful. A lot of people would want to know how you achieved that. British Rail, power networks, BT, you name it. Because they all have lots of VERY EXPENSIVE copper installations, with lethal current running through them at some points, and ALL cite that metal theft is costing them millions alone in affecting their business (not to mention the cost of replacement!)

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Charging

                  Tell us about it.

                  2000+ lines down in the area with another several days before they are restored...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Charging

        "How about putting in electric wires above the streets (like trams or dodge-'ems) and letting cars use them?"

        For traction purposes you'd need a minimum of 415V across the system, you'd need clearance for HGVs and the like, so that's a wire 20 feet above road level. Now think about the pantographs used by trains to collect power, and imagine one of those fifteen feet or more tall on top of your car, built to be robust, idiot driver proof, safe, crash worthy and fit for British weather. There's probably system capacity issues around demand in instances like the traffic lights changing, and one hundred cars trying to accelerate at the same time.

        The principle is nice, just not very practical (and that's before we get into any real electrical issues).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Charging

      Newer battery technologies / chemistries like LiFEPO4 / A123 Systems can be charged much quicker than many older types of batteries and has a much longer life - typically 2000+ full cycles until the cells lose perhaps around 20% of their rated capacity (which still does not mean they are dead). Even if you fully discharged the battery every single day that is still about 5.5 years - partial discharges would extend it further.

      I admit with current technology you can't really 'refuel' a battery as quickly as you can refill your tank with petrol - for that you would need replaceable battery packs. I prefer the idea of an all electric car myself but hybrid options (with a petrol motor) may be a decent option for many people who travel further each day.

      Battery technology is best suited to applications where you know the range required each day - i.e. busses / some delivery vehicles probably do the same distance every day +/- 10-20% - so you can install sufficient batteries. Plus they usually return to a central depot which makes recharging overnight simpler.

    3. Wize

      Re: Charging

      I'm sure the battery packs can be replaced. But it will cost a pretty penny, along with disposal of the old ones.

      Charging is always going to be an issue. When I had a flat in town, there was no way I could park near enough my flat to dangle a cable out the window to the car. I was lucky if I even got it in the same street.

      As it now stands, I have a driveway for one car. Car number 2 gets randomly parked in the street, so only one could get charged at a time.

      1. Turtle_Fan

        Re: Charging - The ultimate answer

        Agree on a uniform battery chemistry, size and container.

        Have batteries much like you have propane bottles today. Stop at any gas station, pop out your current battery, put in a freshly charged one, paying just the electricity you purchased.

        - RFID keeps track of batteries

        - Massive economies of scale

        - On-board circuitry can alter the basic output to whatever each car needs

        - Should a new chemistry or better performing battery be made available, you can still utilise it by paying an upgrade fee.

        Only problem: needs government sanction as otherwise, there is insufficient motive for all suppliers to conform, plus no-one working on next-gen batteries will be too keen on standardising and opening their patents to FRAND licencing. Too precious a competitive advantage.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Charging - The ultimate answer

          The issues with batteries can probably be overcome.

          Maybe rent the battery and change it for a charged one at the "petrol" station (perhaps for a battery containing a mix of older and newer cells so you get roughly the same amount of stored energy each time) and charge the customer on a metered basis for the juice that's withdrawn.

          Also, don't buy the batteries, rent them with a deposit like calor gas cylinders and make them of a common standard.

        2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          Re: pop out your current battery, put in a freshly charged one,

          You're ignoring two things:

          1) The amount of storage space needed to keep all those batteries waiting to be swapped. A filling station could see 1000 vehicles a day, that's perhaps 500 batteries (full of hazardous materials) on charge at one time.

          2) The amount of energy that you would need to suppy to the 'filling station" to charge all the swapped batteries. Level 2 chargers can draw 20kW. 500 batteries all drawing that much power would take a hefty extension from the grid to each station, or a local gas/diesel power station.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Charging - The ultimate answer

          @Turtle_Fan

          Just like that - "pop out your current battery"? You make it sound so easy, and maybe it is for you. But how about for someone with a bad back, or the elderly, or pregnant women? A normal car battery is heavy enough & maybe beyond the capability of some to carry, and for electric cars you're talking about more and/or heavier batteries. Then factor in the dirt & grime you'll get on them & work out if you'd like to have to do that on your way to an important business meeting or a wedding, anywhere you need to look clean & smart.

          The other option would be have employees at the battery changing stations to do all this, vastly increasing the cost.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Charging

      It's not just the charging that is an issue, they have a limited mileage and it decreases with use of heater, lights, wiper etc.

      Next time you're in a winter hold up due to busses stacked 15 back on islington upper st / essex road, feel sorry for the G-Wiz driver shivering whilst unable to use his headlights in case they cant make it to the next stop and the people cursing him for not being able to accelerate quickly enough for them to get through the lights before they turn red again in 30 seconds.

      This is the reality of why leccy cars are not selling.

      Also when you buy a secondhand one at 3 years old, remember to budget for a new battery pack at £5K plus

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's like home solar - subsidy for the rich(er) paid for by the poor(er).

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. J Lewter

      Think!

      "It's like home solar - subsidy for the rich(er) paid for by the poor(er)."

      No it is not.

      Solar subsidys cost add less than 2% to each persons electricity bill. Since Jan electricity bills have gone up by about 9%. Over the past 6 years prices have gone up by about 95%. If prices double in the next 6 years then solar subsidys will cost about 1% of each persons electricity bill. I forked out £15k for solarPV because of the subsidy and it should work out to be a highly profitable investment.

      If you really wish to get rid of subsidys then lets dump the £5bn or so that we give to the Gas and Oil industry.

      If someone is "Rich" then it is doubtful that they are really looking to put down £10-15k to just get back a paultry £1,500 a year.

      And just to be curious. Do you really think that someone earning £300,000 a year is driving a GWiz ?

      EV's are not the same as Hybrids and those are not the same as Plug-In Hybrids.

      The EV subsidy is abused for "Hybrids", but Plug-In Hybrids and full EV cars are different. I would like to see the subsidy move to be for 100% EV vehicles ONLY.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Think!

        Yes it is. Rich(er) people and companies can afford to install solar systems and benefit from a subsidy paid for by everyone else. Regardless of how much electricity bills have gone up they have gone up MORE as a result of solar subsidies.

        At least with other subsidies (for instance on a nuclear power station) everyone benefits from the electricity it generates - with solar the person with the panels benefits - everyone else pays. Remember many people can either not afford the panels themselves or do not have a suitable roof - so they cannot benefit.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Think!

        Exactly - you installed a solar system as an investment - being 'green' was not the primary objective. Yet everyone else pays for it in higher bills - people who can't afford the install (i.e. most people!), people who do not have a suitable roof (not south facing / flats) and people who rent.

        So YES solar subsidies benefit richer people who can afford the £10-15k charge and are paid for by other people who can either not get solar at all or can't afford it.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Think!

        I'd call someone relatively 'rich' if they can afford £10000-15000 for a solar installation and certainly anyone who regards £1500 per year as paltry (not paultry!) is clearly not seeing this from 'most' peoples point of view.

        1. davtom

          Re: Think!

          And that £1500 is tax free!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Think!

            Which of course is of (even) more benefit to richer people who typically pay a higher rate of tax.

            People who buy these solar systems do it as an investment with little regard to being green. Take away the subsidies and these systems typically generate £200-400 worth of electricity per year - not much return on your £10000-150000 'investment'.

            By the time you add in insurance / warranty / maintenance costs you would be losing money (without the subsidy). It's the same as people who buy a Prius - WHY - the car does less MPG than some other similar conventional cars and is expensive. Purely a case of conspicuous consumption - i.e. you want people to 'see' you are being 'green' regardless of whether or not you are...

            1. J Lewter

              Re: Think!

              They probably generate closer to £500+ PA directly.

              15k£ is not "richer"... Many people on benefits are getting well in excess of that amount yearly, even the lowest on benefits get that every two years. It is also worth noting that now my £15k install can be had for about £3.5k.

              I did get it to be "green", but I would not have done so unless it would have at least broken even. Do you think people "who work, and own homes" should try to be green while giving subsidy to all of the benefit-ites out there who can enjoy cheap carbon based fuel?.

              No one did seem to answer the question. How many gwiz owners are actually at the top of the income tree, no one will touch that because you know it is not a car for the "rich". And to me £1,500 isnt paultry, but to someone who is deemed "rich" it will be, but perhaps those of you AC's who collect your gov money every friday cant see the difference. Everyone had (and still has) a chance to buy into this scheme. If you really want to be excluded from it then have your electricity cut off.

              1. Ben Tasker

                Re: Think!

                Some may well be getting more than 15,000 from benefits, but what defines it as 'richer' is that you are able to spare 15k for PV. I earn a lot more than 15k a year, but I also pay a lot more than that on bills and living expenses. So, yeah, if you have 15k disposable income (or the flexibility to free that up) then you fall in the 'richer' category (based on comparison to my own means).

                I don't spend 15,000 on a car because I don't have the cash, so being able to splash on PV is way out of the question!

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Megaphone

        Re: Think!@ J Lewter

        "If you really wish to get rid of subsidys then lets dump the £5bn or so that we give to the Gas and Oil industry."

        Ooh, look, we actually take around ten billion quid a year tax revenuse from this sector:

        http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11-11.pdf

        On solar, if you want to pay 2% extra for your electricity, feel free. On my own account I don't want to fund eco-bling for tw@ts, and I rather be left to decide how to spend that money myself.

        1. Nev
          Thumb Up

          "Eco-Bling for tw@ts"

          An upvote for that one!

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Think!

        > If you really wish to get rid of subsidys then lets dump the £5bn or so that we give to the Gas and Oil industry.

        What £5bn? It doesn't exist. It is in fact a bit of creative accounting by green lobbying groups.

        The £5bn is largely comprised of only charging the consumer 5% VAT for energy. This 5% VAT is irrespective of whether the electricity is generated by hydro, nuclear, wind, coal, gas or oil and it is not a subsidy.

        What you are proposing is that the government increase VAT on fuel to 20%.

        Finally, if you are going to count 5% VAT on fuel as a subsidy then you should count the £28bn in fuel duty as a penalty to the Oil industry.

      6. peter_dtm
        Flame

        Re: Think! J Lewter

        here we go again

        TAX RELIEF is NOT a subsidiy

        Solar and wind subsidies involve millions of pounds being GIVEN to the subsidee - so winmill owners get PAID money to build and operate; as well as GUARENTEED above market rate payment for calculated generation (no; the payments made when the grid does not want or need irregular supplies is always paid at faceplate value; despite the fact that the useless things only average <<30% of faceplate leccy)

        So called '£5bn or so that we give to the Gas and Oil industry' is tax that is not collected - Oil & Gas companies pay NETT tax into the system; non collection of tax by the government is NOT and can never be a subsidy.

        Lets state that again to see if this will be understood

        TAX relief is NOT a subsidy. EVER. What it is is LESS tax; so the government gets £5 instead of £10.

        1. MR J

          Re: Think!

          So if the guv gives solar panel owners £2,500 tax credit through relief (£6,250?) every year for the next 25 years then that is different?..

          Sure the funding sources are different, but when the guv has lost money through tax and add on tax in othe rplaces then doesnt it all just average out?...

  7. Matthew 25
    Coat

    Government Committee discovers bloody obvious

    Poor people aren't paying £30000 for a small, poorly equipped car which can only do 100 miles before you need to recharge it for 4 hours. Well fancy that!

    Mine is the one with a hydrogen fuel cell in the pocket.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Government Committee discovers bloody obvious

      Where did you get your hydrogen from?

      How was it transported to you?

    2. David 164

      Re: Government Committee discovers bloody obvious

      Tesla model S Sedan is not poorly equip.

    3. Steve Renouf
      Boffin

      Re: Government Committee discovers bloody obvious - @Matthew 25

      "Mine is the one with a hydrogen fuel cell in the pocket."

      Forget the hydrogen fuel cell - use the "Joe's" cell and generate your own H + O as you drive!

  8. All names Taken

    Basic principle:

    No elitism on public spend of public money?

  9. Hairy Spod

    no, don't get started on fuel cells.

    Fuel cell devleopment schemes are just a way for rich and poor tax payers alike to support large industrial giants to produce limited runs of technically feasible but massively prohibitively expensive vehicles that can never be mass market..... which suits them rather well as in the mean time they can keep selling you normal cars and masses of spare parts.

  10. This post has been deleted by its author

  11. This post has been deleted by its author

  12. ElNumbre
    Joke

    The auto-velocitator

    I'm not up on my 'turn of the 20th century' motoring history, but I do wonder if our great great grandfolks had a similar argument when the infernal combustion engine was invented.

    Actually, that sets me thinking - in the interests of safety and the whole 'silent running' thing that they've got going on with these electramawhatsits, how about making the jobless run in front of electric cars with a red flag to warn other road users?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The auto-velocitator

      Very few people jump in front of cyclists, they're silent running. Also, a bycicle at full speed is going to do a potentially fatal amount of damage, so not too different from a car.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The auto-velocitator

        So make cyclists procede with an unemployed person walking, carry a red flag.

      2. Ben Tasker

        Re: The auto-velocitator

        @AC

        And when the car/bike swerves to avoid the idiot who stepped out in front? Who does the most damage then?

        A cyclist going into a car is going to end badly for the cyclist. A car swerving into another is potentially going to end badly for the occupants of both cars. No doubt whilst the idiot who caused it gawps and films the carnage on his phone!

        So, yeah, assuming the pedestrian gets hit, the damage could potentially be much the same, it's what happens if the cyclist/driver attempts to avoid the pedestrian that you need to think about.

  13. RyokuMas
    Megaphone

    I'd go electric...

    ... except for the fact that even with the government grants, you're looking at 20k+ for an electric vehicle. Maybe if the prices become reasonable - but until then, I'll stay where I am. Literally. I have to. Taxed off the road.

  14. Aaron Em

    SHOCK: RICH PEOPLE CAN AFFORD NEW THINGS FIRST

    Also: Water wet, fire hot. Film at eleven.

    1. peter_dtm

      Re: SHOCK: RICH PEOPLE CAN AFFORD NEW THINGS FIRST

      Bigger shock

      And new stuff that works will be bought by rich people - with NO subsidies needed.

      It is only the crap engineered rubbish that the ignorant politicians think is good; that get subsidies (ie rob other people to help pay for useless bling)

  15. Nev
    Stop

    Bwahahahaha!

    The UK doesn't even have enough projected capacity to power the lights let alone a large fleet of private cars.

    Especially when all the dirty old oil fired power stations start to shut down to meet the UK's eco-commitments after 2015.

    These will remain tax payer subsidized toys.

    1. peter_dtm
      Flame

      Re: Bwahahahaha!

      it just shows how little sense there is

      IFF you cut down on the amount of lecky generated to below that needed to keep the lights on...

      HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GOING TO POWER THOSE ELECTRIC CARS ????

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Like the scrappage scheme.. Money for the "haves".. its a scheme that should be culled with all the Austerity talk.

  17. TeeCee Gold badge
    Facepalm

    Same old......

    Can you afford to lash out a few grand on covering your roof in photovoltaics? If so, the 'leccy companies will buy your surplus power and this is paid for by those who can't afford to do it.

    Can you afford to splash out on a new car with a trendy CO2 figure on it? If so, we'll cut your tax and this is paid for by those struggling to keep their 10 year old Mondeo going for another year.

    etc ad nausem.

    All the "green" taxes fall disproportionately on the poorer end of society. Oddly, even the Socialist governments out there seem all too happy with this new "tax the poor" strategy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Same old......

      "Oddly, even the Socialist governments out there seem all too happy with this new "tax the poor" strategy."

      That's because "socialism" these days doesn't mean the ownership by society of productive assets, it means the centralised spending of as much money as possible by governments who obviously know better than you do how to spend your money. And under that new definition, all three main UK political parties, and the Welsh & Scottish nationalists are socialists, as are the two parties in the US. This explains why we have elections and nothing changes.

      Personally I didn't vote for any of the c***s, and I'd like not to have to pay taxes for any of them or their cr@phead ideas, but I'm evidently in a minority on that.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Takes pollution out of polluted areas

    Anything that gets some of the smog out of places where people live gets my vote. So what if it's not necessarily more fuel efficient, el reg doesn't believe in climate change or peak oil anyway.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Takes pollution out of polluted areas

      They should be banning private DERVs as a priority then....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Takes pollution out of polluted areas

        Why private ones? Buses, taxis and commercial vehicles are generally speaking older and dirtier than most private DERVs. The air on London's Oxford Street Street is usually pretty fetid, and that's got no private vehicles.

        And if air quality is an issue you want to tackle, then you'll be shutting down the Underground, too?

  19. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    FAIL

    "no list of chargepoints installed at the public's expense "

    Are you f***ing kidding me?

    If the UK govt does *nothing* else this should be the thing it does.

    A *publicly* accessible map of UK charge points (and what kinds they are) *should* encourage any borderline buyers that buying an EV is a feasible concept.

    Or not. But at least they'd have a solid picture of the current state of the country instead of "I haven't seen a charge point, there can't be any near me I won't bother."

    Without out that the fail is already strong.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "no list of chargepoints installed at the public's expense "

      Unfortunately as things currently stand, a publicly accessable map would put most people off as they could then see the lack of convenient charge points!

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

        Re: "no list of chargepoints installed at the public's expense "

        "Unfortunately as things currently stand, a publicly accessable map would put most people off as they could then see the lack of convenient charge points!"

        But it would be an *informed* choice rather than a knee jerk reaction.

        And if HMG were *really* keen to encourage this they might have people vote for where they would *like* charging points to go, so points would be put where there was *known* demand, rather than "I think it would be a good idea to put one here..."

        Just a thought. People taking control of their choices, that sort of thing.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Subsidies

    MPs are complaining about taxpayers subsidising the lifestyles of the rich. How much did they claim in expenses again?

  21. nemo20000
    Facepalm

    You are almost all talking bollocks

    The amount of ignorance or wilful misinformation in these comments is staggering.

    If you think that an internal combustion engine is more efficient than electric along the whole supply chain, you are wrong. Stop repeating that shite.

    If you think electric cars would melt the grid, require more power stations or cause rationing, you are wrong. Stop repeating that shite.

    If you think that hydrogen fuel cells are "the answer", you are not only wrong, you have absolutely no grasp of the laws of physics or are paid by the fossil fuel companies that manufacture the vast majority of available hydrogen supply.

    If you think ALL people who have electric cars are richer than you or vainer than you or that solar panels only exist to assuage privileged people's guilt, then you have issues that no forum post can cure, so I won't bother.

    Writing this is the ultimate in futility but I'm calling you out anyway. You're an idiot, whether you know it or not.

    1. Ben Tasker

      Re: You are almost all talking bollocks

      If you think electric cars would melt the grid, require more power stations or cause rationing, you are wrong. Stop repeating that shite.

      Oh, please do explain this one! Last I heard, we were likely to have rolling blackouts in 2014 because our demand is going to exceed supply capacity. And that's without taking into account the idea of swathes of the nation plugging their cars in.

      The cars may not be the cause, but they'll certainly contribute to demand outstripping supply if/when it does happen.

      If you think that hydrogen fuel cells are "the answer", you are not only wrong, you have absolutely no grasp of the laws of physics or are paid by the fossil fuel companies that manufacture the vast majority of available hydrogen supply.

      Fuel cells could one day be a feasible solution, but they aren't yet and look to be a very long way off. Of course, you can say the same for EV's too.

      If you think ALL people who have electric cars are richer than you or vainer than you or that solar panels only exist to assuage privileged people's guilt, then you have issues that no forum post can cure, so I won't bother.

      Of course not all, that'd be ridiculous. But there does seem to be a good proportion, and as others have already said, the PV subsidies in particular favoured those who had the money to spend and a suitable roof, to the cost of those who didn't.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      Re: You are almost all talking bollocks

      "If you think that an internal combustion engine is more efficient than electric along the whole supply chain, you are wrong. Stop repeating that shite."

      Err, no, how about YOU stop talking shite?

      Modern ICE car would be about 35%+ thermal efficiency (source JSME), knock off 7% for supply usage (source DECC), and we're talking in rough terms about 28% efficiency.

      Now take the electricity supply industry, 60% losses on conversion (source DECC), 16% distribution use and losses (source DECC), 20% battery charging, storage, discharge losses (source Wikiepedia, I'm afraid), and 1 kW induction motor inefficiency of 20% (source BIS), all of which approximate to the low 20%s.

      Unlike you, I work in the power sector. I can assure you that there is no way that the distribution network could support the widespread adoption of EV's, because it is built on assumptions of much lower concurrent use than would be the case with mass use of EVs. Having the only Nissan Leaf in the road isn't a problem. But when every household in the road has one, then it is certainly melt down time. To explain this to a thicky like you, the average level of demand is 0.4 kW per domestic property, and even at a slow 16 amp charge rate an EV is sucking out ten times the average demand for around eight hours. Your household electrics will cope fine, but the distribution network wasn't built for this sort of prolonged high demand from every house at once (if you put the kettle on, even during Corrie, it won't be at the same time as everybody elese in the land, similarly your immersion heater won't click in simultaneously with every other).

      Generation wise we *might* just cope if we didn't close any of the 12 GW of LCPD opted out plant, continued to commission all CCGT's in planning or build stages and we ran all of our nuclear and thermal plant as baseload to support overnight charging. Even then you'd need central control to stop any cars being charged during triads, and perhaps to limit charging to 23:00 - 05:30. You'd also need a new electricity market structure, because if everything were to run as baseload then system marginal pricing would bankrupt the country.

      So thank you for calling me and other commentards idiots, when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. For myself I'll file you under "A" for arsehole, or maybe "I" for ignorant twat.

  22. tekHedd

    What did you *think* the subsidy is supposed to do?

    My immediate reaction was "well, yes, of course." Until electric cars are a commonplace, affordable standard, they will be a luxury item. If you use a subsidy in the hopes of increasing sales volumes and help boostrap the industry, you're not going to be giving that to the poor. Obviously, the idea here is to tempt those who *do* have disposable income to dispose it in the direction of a technology you'd like to see commonplace.

    So the real question is one of whether the goal of "electric cars" is worthwhile. Notice how the comments threads immediately discuss its merits, while the classic "oh the government did something, and since you can't do anything for free it is by definition socialism" argument is generally not interesting.

    Sure, giving money to the rich/upper-middle may be difficult to defend considering the current economic climate. If the goal was to provide efficient transportation for a broad range of classes, a better program might be to subsidize the purchase of scooters. :)

  23. The Envoy
    Thumb Up

    IGY

    I.G.Y. (International Geophysical Year)

    Donald Fagen

    Standing tough under stars and stripes

    We can tell

    This dream's in sight

    You've got to admit it

    At this point in time that it's clear

    The future looks bright

    On that train all graphite and glitter

    Undersea by rail

    Ninety minutes from New York to Paris

    Well by seventy-six we'll be A.O.K.

    What a beautiful world this will be

    What a glorious time to be free

    Get your ticket to that wheel in space

    While there's time

    The fix is in

    You'll be a witness to that game of chance in the sky

    You know we've got to win

    Here at home we'll play in the city

    Powered by the sun

    Perfect weather for a streamlined world

    There'll be spandex jackets one for everyone

    What a beautiful world this will be

    What a glorious time to be free

    On that train all graphite and glitter

    Undersea by rail

    Ninety minutes from New York to Paris

    (More leisure time for artists everywhere)

    A just machine to make big decisions

    Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision

    We'll be clean when their work is done

    We'll be eternally free yes and eternally young

    What a beautiful world this will be

    What a glorious time to be free

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogYgHlNnqo

  24. Cupboard
    FAIL

    interesting maths...

    How have we managed to spend £11 million on 1000 £5000 subsidies and not much else?

  25. David 164

    We spend 11 million pounds subsidising electric cars, the NHS spend 1 billion a year on just treating Asthma patents. 11 million pounds to start the conversion of the UK transport system to electric seem like a good use of money.

    3,000 deaths a year in London are link to air pollution, mainly from cars, busses an lorries.

    I got to wonder if the MPs actually looking at all the costs, including subsidies that the oil industries have attach to it, an how 11 million pound is a insignificant sum of cash.

    1. peter_dtm
      Pint

      repeat after me

      TAX relief is NOT a subsidy - it is taking LESS money from the TAX PAYER

      A subsidy is a PAYMENT of MONEY to the recipient such that the recipient has a NETT INCOME

      Go and look up the amount of NETT TAX INCOME the UK government RECEIVES from the oil industries.

      Of course; if you still think other wise -I will quite happily give you a SUBSIDY of £5 for every £10 you give me; and you can start by giving me £100 000 - then I will happily give you a subsidy of £50 000

      (beer - as I'd be able to afford some)

  26. Steve Renouf
    WTF?

    And what about all the EMF

    and magnetic field increases that this is going to create? No-one seems to be taking THAT into account in the drive to electrify everything.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And what about all the EMF

      What about it? It's tiny compared to the magnetic field of Planet Earth.

    2. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: And what about all the EMF

      I'm going to hope you meant Radio Frequency emissions, as only a moron would have meant actual EMF, which would be unfortunate.

      EMF is merely another way of saying Voltage, and the voltage does not 'escape' in any way.

      The RF emissions may however be significant, which will have exactly zero direct effect on humans but may make listening to radio and TV broadcast, and wireless Internet considerably more difficult. EMC is a very serious and quite difficult issue at these power levels.

  27. Rory8

    Talk about stating the obvios

    We do have a thick bunch of MP's "rich Brits buy a second car, a group of MPs said.". Who in there right mind would have thought anything other than that would have happend. After all I cant think of many people who are willing to fork out 20k+ on a car that only has a range of 100 odd miles. The reality is the whole point in this is to try and create electric cars more viable, after all you arent going to spend a lot of an electric car if there arent charge points and you arent going to invest in charge points if there are no cars.

  28. bob_bob
    Childcatcher

    £5k which manufacturers have priced into the OTR price

    Most plug-in cars seem significantly overpriced so it needs a £5k subsidy before anyone would think of buying them and even then....

    At some point this subsidy will end and a month after that the OTR price of all of the eligible cars will be £4k cheaper as otherwise no-one will buy them.

  29. Terry de Winne

    Here we go again!

    A re-run of the failed Powershift scheme of some 10 years back. But that included gas conversions - useful for all the soft toy salesmen belting up the motorways!

    Has nobody thought of solving the most inefficient use of fossil fuels known to man - the postal service? My postman travels 31 miles on his daily route - well within cheaper the lead acid battery range - and spends most of his time either accelerating, braking or ticking over whilst he delivers.

  30. Roger Mew

    Electric cars!

    How many people will they kill, let alone animals, I was nearly hit by one, what was I doing, walking along a country lane with my dog, he never heard it, the new tyre law ensured that, it was raining, the wind was in our faces along with the rain, the car was coming around a bend behind us. The first we knew was a squeal of brakes. These type of vehicle should be made to emit a sound of some sort, or put noisier tyres on.

    I have a 20 year old motorbike and when I go along kids look and see me, cats run out of the way. So how long is it before kids are killed!

    Milk floats were OK they travelled at 12 MPH, 40MPH in one of these things...they are silent killers.

    The next thing is a 10MPH limit, I cannot safely go as low as 20MPH on my bike continuously, my proper vehicle has to be in first to accelerate from 20MPH. So, is the whole world going to slow down for these dangerous vehicles. This IS a case for a man in front with a red flag!

    All blind people are to stay indoors, or have a monitor, because the dogs for the blind will not hear them!

    They are not economic, they are not green, they are not safe in with other traffic, those who remember trolley buses will remember the acceleration, 0-30 in no time, then little traffic, now!!!

  31. Brian Allan

    Motorists aren't stupid...

    Motorists will change to electric vehicles when there is value! At present they are overpriced, battery replacements are a fortune, the miles per charge is far too low, charge times are ridiculous, etc.

    Fix the problems and motorists will adopt an electric future!

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Electric cars

    OK

    1) Yes I bought a new electric car on the Government scheme

    2) Yes it is a second car

    3) Yes it is a second ELECTRIC car

    4) Yes I use it around town

    5) Yes I use it to visit people all over the country

    6) Yes I used it to take my 3 children (and hubby) to France last summer

    7) Yes I use it in the same way I used the Diesel car it replaced.

    8) No I do not have a fossil fuelled car.... We are 100% electric for our everyday needs

    9) No - we're not 'rich' - I'm a stay at home mum, we make sacrifices for me to be able to do that for our 3 children. Also the car has saved us massive amounts on tax, insurance and the fuel costs - even with the repayment plan

    10) My car is powered by our 3kW Solar panels

    11) Please ask the people who use the cars what they use them for before making sweeping generalisations.......

    thanks

    Stay at home mum of 3.....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I don't believe you

      Sorry, but I just don't.

      Which electric car is this, and what kind of magic fairy dust does it run on?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Happy

        Re: I don't believe you

        Hi

        Sorry was this aimed at me???

        I have a Nissan Leaf. 110 mile advertised range, 70-80 mile actual range.

        I live in South West UK - (near the Severn Bridges), and I can visit my out-laws near Oxford and other relatives on south coast in 1 'hit'. Further length trips involve going via Nissan Dealerships to fast charge in 20 minutes (to 80%) - 30 mins for 100% - enough time to take kids to loo and have a cuppa.

        Trip to France

        100% charge at home

        Charge at relatives on south coast

        100% at Nissan Bournemouth

        ferry Poole/Cherbourg

        Further charging in France - at campsites

        then reverse route home (going via Nissan Wincanton rather than relatives)

        This is 100% true - I use 100% electric car for my everyday usage - we do have a petrol motorcycle with a sidecar which takes all 5 of us (yes that's true too) for motorcycle rallys. And occasional trips when we feel 'naughty' and want to burn fossil fuels!

This topic is closed for new posts.