Car industry pleads for delay to post-Brexit tariffs on EVs Automobile manufacturers are pleading with the EU to delay a 10 percent tariff on electric vehicle exports into Britain. The tariff, due to come into force on January 1, was part of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement that allowed the UK's departure from the trading bloc. The thinking at the time of the agreement in …
It has absolutely astounded me that the UK government didn't manage to incentivise a huge amount of battery manufacturing facilities to be set up in the UK. Instead, we have muppets in government *still* saying that the future might be hydrogen, due to having no science or engineering background to give them understanding of why that's not a particularly good idea, regardless of where the hydrogen is sourced from.
We need an organisation with the equivalent clout of the OBR to reign in uninformed science and engineering decisions by ministers.
"We need an organisation with the equivalent clout of the OBR to reign in uninformed science and engineering decisions by ministers"
I can't agree more with the sentiment of having political decisions driven more by science and engineering. But government ministers are already well advised in that respect. There is a fairly large cohort of scientific advisors to government across many disciplines, all ultimately responsible to Dame Angela MacLean, the current UK government Chief Scientific Advisor. The problem as I see it is getting ministers to act more on that advice rather than paying to the church of economics and the media.
Perhaps an organisation like the OBR would good, to have the clout to publicly call out politicians when they cherry pick the scientific advice they are given, simply to support their already entrenched position.
Some sensible thinking on the nature of public charging would also be welcome, and might be better directed by government than the private sector.
For example we do need more of the rapid and ultra-rapid chargers at particular locations. But we would also benefit from having slower but greater numbers of ones where people park for many hours at a time. And this could potentially ease the burden on local grid connections.
"Some sensible thinking on the nature of public charging would also be welcome, and might be better directed by government than the private sector.
"
The Government will put charging where it's politically expedient and the private sector will put them where there will be a stream of customers to use them. What's usually required from government is them getting out of the way. If companies could submit reference designs for stations/chargers and have the technical details approved by a national agency, local planning boards would only have a say in where and how large of a site they will approve. Putting some time restrictions on how long those planning boards can dither and how quickly they have to respond to come and inspect the construction would also moves things a long. If the builders are delayed a week while waiting for somebody to come and sign off on a stage of work, that's the whole crew assigned to another job to keep them working. If I was a sub-contractor on an installation job, any delay more than a day or two would have me off to something else to keep money coming in and I'd get back when I could schedule the first job again after approvals.
I know in the US there are cities with such horrible building departments that local contractors that will take jobs in that city will charge premium rates and put scheduling on second priority. It costs them far too much money in delays and nit picking downchecks that it's hard to make any money.
We need an organisation with the equivalent clout of the OBR to reign in uninformed science and engineering decisions by ministers.
Agreed that ministers have no clue and prefer to believe in magic thinking, especially when it comes to Net Zero, but I wouldn't expect an OBR-like body to fix that.
The OBR has minimal clout. It's an independent analyst supposed to inform government policy, but it often gets it wrong. Last November it said the UK was in recession, then changed its mind in March. For the past 5 months it's got government borrowing wrong, it's over £11bn less than OBR forecasts. Frankly, you might as well get the forecasts from Gartner, they're no more likely to be right.
What we need are engineers and scientists in government, but they've all got too much sense for that.
Johnson sacked any sensible ones, now they are pointing at the government saying told you so.
Johnsons achievements
Started the death of the Pound.
Tanked the economy.
Restarted hostilities in Northern Ireland.
Pushed many relocatable workers to work in Ireland or the Netherlands.
Ruined exports for many small businesses.
From your assorted comments, it looks like you have a slight distaste for Boris. I'm thinking that politicly (even physically) you might lean slightly to the left of centre?
I miss Boris. He was something we haven't had for quite a while - a strong leader. Sure, "the left" hated him because he did all the things they didn't like, but he did get a lot of good done. But hey, what is fair reporting when there are agendas to push. I morn that "the blob" engineered his departure. Was he perfect? Heavens no. He was the same as all politicians - corrupt and self-serving. He did bad things as well as good.
I'm honestly frightened for Captain U-turn to get in. Every day, he changes his mind depending upon the wind direction. Now imagine that if he was in charge of HMS UK. Hopefully the electorate will vote wisely, although the choice isn't that great.
Actually Johnson is an idiot.
Left of centre?, more like centre, would have been centre right a few years ago, changes in British politics have moved me to centre. put it this way I trusted John Major a lot more than Tony Blair. I also think the last chancellor of any note was Ken Clarke. Still not happy with the New Labour grab on pension funds, or their ID card madness.
Johnson does not have a clue, he makes stuff up, he is dangerously useless.
I hold out little hope on any of the major parties, all going after the same imaginary group.
Would like a coalition.with some ouliers involved.
"It has absolutely astounded me that the UK government didn't manage to incentivise a huge amount of battery manufacturing facilities to be set up in the UK."
I'd have been astounded if they had because that would have required them to remove thir heads from their arses and be able to spot the bleeding obvious.
Why would I want to spend all that extra money, and then have a vehicle which will lose value faster because the batteries conk out. (and will have greater carbon emissions if you include manufacturing for the first 80,000 miles or so)
I'll be sticking with my 2015 Diesel Kia for the foreseeable, but I can't imagine it will last past 2035 by which time I'll be looking for a petrol or diesel, unless there are very significant subsidies.
Not really got anything against electric, it would probably serve my needs but I just don't want to spaff that much extra money to move the emissions from my tail pipe to a gas fired power station. IF they have built a load of nuclear by then, it might be different.
There are a couple of standard pieces of anti-EV FUD in there.
The first is "batteries conk out." EV batteries are modular and, if a battery module fails, it can be replaced for hundreds rather than thousands. Compare your fossil-powered engine, where the failure of a piston ring will necessitate lots of labour to rebuild the engine, or a complete new engine for a similar price to a complete new EV battery pack.
The failure mode that is happening with EV batteries is wear: which means their capacity and so range reduces. So your EV which previously did 200 miles now only does 190 miles (about what has happened to mine after 50,000 miles and 5 years of driving.) But even when it has been driven 100s of 1000s of miles and is reduced to 100 miles range, it is still useful to someone. When your diesel Kia has a worn-out engine it will be scrap value.
The second piece of FUD is "move the emissions from my tail pipe to a gas fired power station." Firstly the gas-fired power station extracts far more work from a given amount of fuel than your car ever will, because there are no requirements for a power-to-weight ratio in a fixed power station. Secondly the emissions that are giving little Timmy next door his asthma attacks are best moved to the power station, where scrubbers can remove the nitrogen oxides from the exhaust in a way your car never can -- that power-to-weight ratio again.
But the last point is the big one. If you buy a brand new diesel car, it will spend the next few decades being powered by diesel. If you buy a brand new EV the fuel used will change according to the fuel mix used for the grid. So, even if it is fossil-powered today, who is to say it will still be fossil-powered in 20 years?
There are real problems with widespread EV adoption -- lack of affordable overnight charging is the biggest one -- but most of what you've read about EVs is FUD. Check it first!
Efficiency of a petrol engine - around 40%
Efficiency of a combined cycle gas power station - around 50%
National grid efficiency from powerstation to plug - around 92%
Efficiency of an electric car from plug to wheel - around 90%
Multiply those together and you get 41.4%, or basically it is the same. Gas emits less carbon than petrol. Other energy sources emit less carbon than gas, except for coal which mostly isn't used any more.
So the benefits are from using better fuel sources, not the fact that it is electric.
Do you have a source for that efficiency of a petrol engine?
Consider this: burning a litre of petrol gives about 9.5kWh of thermal energy -- source https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html
So my EV was built with a 40kWh battery that gives about 200 miles range: 5 miles per kWh. If your car can get 40% of the 9.5kWh out of a litre of petrol, and is not harder to push down the road than my EV, then it should get at least 19 miles per litre -- more if my EV is less than 100% efficient -- or 85 1/2 miles per gallon. Does it?
> If your car can get 40% of the 9.5kWh out of a litre of petrol, and is not harder to push down the road than my EV, then it should get at least 19 miles per litre -- more if my EV is less than 100% efficient -- or 85 1/2 miles per gallon. Does it?
My old 125cc motorcyle used to get over 90 miles to the gallon, no problem.
So my EV was built with a 40kWh battery that gives about 200 miles range: 5 miles per kWh
On paper, maybe. Just like a diesel might get 60MPG on the artificial test cycles that they have to legally quote. In practice, not so much.
A Renault Zoe has a 51kWh battery, official range 239 miles, but in practice it manages more like 180 in good weather, 150 in cold weather, and it's still considered one of the best.
"So my EV was built with a 40kWh battery that gives about 200 miles range: 5 miles per kWh
On paper, maybe. Just like a diesel might get 60MPG on the artificial test cycles that they have to legally quote. In practice, not so much."
If you want real world ranges, YouTube is loaded with EV owners and reviewers that will tell you exactly how efficient different models are in all sorts of weather. They even will track tire/wheel options. One vlogger changed the tires on his Bolt from the stock Michelin low rolling resistance to Continental and charted the difference.
I agree that the numbers from manufacturers often seem to be made up. Who would have guessed they'd do something so slimy?
40% efficiency for petrol engine is wildly optimistic. That's Formula 1 efficiency including the heat recovery.
Typical road cars are maybe 25% efficiency for petrol and a bit over 30% for diesel.
There are a couple of notable advantages to electric cars, even if grid were 100% fossil fuel
- At least as efficient as ICE, probably more efficient
- Exhaust can be centrally scrubbed, and what can't be scrubbed is not being emitted directly in people's faces
And significant advantages to decarbonise the grid that go beyond climate change, most notably less dependence on states like Russia and Saudi Arabia that I would not consider dependable
40% efficiency for petrol engine is wildly optimistic. That's Formula 1 efficiency including the heat recovery.
Typical road cars are maybe 25% efficiency for petrol and a bit over 30% for diesel.
Current figures I've seen are 30-35% for petrol, 40-45% for diesel. For petrol, that's a pure Otto cycle, something like an Atkinson cycle as used in hybrids can do slightly better, Toyota claim 41% for the Prius engine.
And significant advantages to decarbonise the grid that go beyond climate change, most notably less dependence on states like Russia and Saudi Arabia
To complete dependence upon states like China where the vast majority of rare earths and other vitals are sourced (source -> the article).
I really don't give a toss whether the exhaust "can be centrally scrubbed" I care more that it is centrally scrubbed. I would guess that is not overly the case at present. The main products of inefficient/incomplete combustion have largely been dealt with in new vehicles by DPFs, catalytic converters etc. CO2 is more the local issue here.
I call bullshit.
There's no way in heaven or earth you are going to get a replacement battery for hundreds. It might be fine at 50,000 miles, but it WILL conk out very badly before 100,000. My Diesel will probably be good for 250,000. At least my engine will have some scrap value. I'll have to pay to get rid of that dud battery.
I'm sorry but these scrubbers to remove the nitrogen oxides? Are they real, or just a wet dream from the Green Party? Wishful thinking? Also, hauling fossil fuels around is actually quite efficient. They pack an awful lot of power.
When that fuel mix changes, it changes the equation a bit (if you're environmentally minded) and so it changes things somewhat... for those of us that can afford it.
The point is that a module failure is not a replacement battery. It is a replacement module. The battery on my EV is 96 modules. The overall battery costs about 8000 euros, so an individual module ought to cost 80. In real life, motor parts don't work like that, but it's certainnly not thousands.
The overall battery doesn't fail, it fades away. The range goes down. If my car has 75% of the range at 100,000 miles, that is not "conked out," it's just less range. If it has 25% of the range at 500,000 miles, that will also not be "conked out," either. And, if your local battery recycler won't pay you for the battery, find another one. Lithium is valuable and is going to get more valuable as time goes by. You don't pay to have lead-acid batteries taken away, do you?
I am not sure exactly of your anti-pollution measures in your power stations, but it's a lot easier to fit a scrubber to a power station than to a Kia diesel. But a quick Google talks about a 74% reduction in NOx emissions from Britain's energy sector: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-nitrogen-oxides-nox
The battery on my EV is 96 modules. The overall battery costs about 8000 euros, so an individual module ought to cost 80.
The problem is that batteries aren't designed to have replaceable modules. Some new cars are even using the battery as a structural component to save space and weight, so there's no way to replace it wthout a complete teardown, never mind just replacing one module.
"The problem is that batteries aren't designed to have replaceable modules. Some new cars are even using the battery as a structural component to save space and weight, so there's no way to replace it wthout a complete teardown, never mind just replacing one module.
The early Tesla Model S had very modular battery packs and are in high demand second hand for that reason. The newer Model 3's appear to have the cells glued together which is a massive problem and should raise flags with regulators who should be mandating that the battery packs have a reasonable path to recyclability.
I'd never get an EV where the battery pack is structural. That would mean that if the pack needs to be removed for any reason, the repair shop would need a special fixture to bolt the car to so it doesn't bend. That will limit how many places there will be to have the car serviced and how much those places have you by the short and curlies when it comes to what they charge.
It could be tough for smaller shops to do repairs on a battery pack to the component level, but I expect there will be larger shops that will specialize in refurbishing packs once there are enough out of warranty packs in the wild to make it worth the investment to set up to do it.
The point is that a module failure is not a replacement battery. It is a replacement module. The battery on my EV is 96 modules. The overall battery costs about 8000 euros, so an individual module ought to cost 80. In real life, motor parts don't work like that, but it's certainnly not thousands.
And each module contains many actual batteries. Trick is to find the one that's faulty, and replace it with a <$10 cell. But although a BMS could, in theory do this, the way the battery packs and modules are constructed makes this a difficult and labor intensive process. So the manufacturer will flog you an entire battery pack rather than a replacemen cell, then ship the old pack off to be re-worked. Or not, and just flogged on to some other sucker.
Lithium is valuable and is going to get more valuable as time goes by. You don't pay to have lead-acid batteries taken away, do you?
Vaguely true. Lithium metals and carbonates are getting more expensive. If they're 'going to get more valuable' then that implies scarcity, which then means EVs are going to get more expensive, or the TCOE is going to rise even faster than it already is. Plus at the moment there's no real economically viable way to recycle batteries and make 'fresh' lithium.
>” Lithium metals and carbonates are getting more expensive.”
Part of that is due to there having been a glut of lithium. The ore extractors started to ramp up production in anticipation of EV demand, which did happen when forecasted, so there has been a period where ore has been cheap. Now with increased production we are starting to see demand catch-up with supply, from a report I read a few years back the expectation was that lithium supply would actually dictate EV production levels. Obviously, a big hope is that before 2030 there is a sufficient supply of “dead” batteries (and economic and energy efficient way to recycle) to ease the pressure on lithium ore supply.
You've highlighted the true problem there. All this "net zero by 2030/35/50/whatever" is based on "big hope" that if the designated "bad" stuff is banned some solution to all the problems will magically appear. What we need is joined-up planning, not hoping for unicorns.
"So the manufacturer will flog you an entire battery pack rather than a replacemen cell, then ship the old pack off to be re-worked. Or not, and just flogged on to some other sucker."
The manufacturer will also want to sell you updated electronics to go with the pack as well. That's what they do. On the other hand, The third party replacement parts companies will be perfectly happy to sell you a reman'd pack and give you a credit for your core. Maybe some places will repair your original pack, but that leaves you waiting to get your car back while they do that.
> You don't pay to have lead-acid batteries taken away, do you?
Yet…
Years back I could take the battery to a scrap yard and get paid, now the expectation is I take it to the recycling centre and receive no direct payment, if I let one of the fast fit places swap the battery they will typically add a “disposal” charge.
That's interesting. Any idea how far they can go now? I mean I've got an old laptop that basically lasts seconds on the original battery from around 2016 IIRC (I just leave it plugged in when I use it), but technically it's still working. In my experience batteries fail slowly, then all at once. But it could be different for cars. I've never owned one.
Conk out before 100,000? I've done 75,000 in my EV. No noticeable battery degradation. They're too expensive and don't go far enough on a charge but battery degradation on newer EVs is no more an issue than an ICE engine deteriorating. Service costs so far for 75,000? Nothing. I'm sure that has an environmental footprint as well.
"No noticeable battery degradation
As independently reported by the vehicle itself? Colour me sceptical on that one."
Two things that may be going on there. The first one is the actual capacity of the pack was larger than advertised and as it degraded, software unlocked that reserve so there is the appearance of no degradation. The second is the person doesn't often drive their EV to depletion. I suppose a third option is the person never pays attention in the first place.
Service costs so far for 75,000
So the average EV user doesn't get their brakes checked at all, wheel alignment checked, wheel balancing performed (because you've definitely gone through tyres in an EV)? Nice. All items that should be checked in that time frame. They are all EV "servicing" items. If you honestly think waiting for the brake light to come on to get the brakes done is a good idea...it really isn't.
This is a false equivalence. Electric motors are indeed significantly simpler that internal combustion engines. Batteries, on the other hand, are considerably more complex than fuel tanks. What I personally hope to see is a shift from dead-end batteries to fuel cells that are both more efficient and energy dense than either alternative. By then we might even be producing hydrocarbons from renewable sources at competitive prices. Though I wouldn't count on this given how hard to industry is avoiding the issue and clamouring for subsidies for almost anything else.
That could be supply and demand but hydrogen is certainly tricky stuff to handle. But I've no doubt supply and demand is operating between EV sales and public charging infrastructure is holding back EVs. It's not just range concerns, it's the huge percentage of properties with no private car parking where home chargers an be located and to a lesser extent charging times. I can always find a choice of petrol pumps with minimal queuing and only occupy one of them for a few minutes at a time. I can point to rows of houses near home with no chance of installing private charging facilities with numbers of vehicles parked outside far in excess of the capacity of the few local chargers. If government is serious about getting a move to EVs they need to take action to ensure that is remedied. The only effect of banning sales of ICE vehicles will be to grossly extend the working lives of the existing fleet and/or create an underclass who have no means of transport, bus services being a fraction of what they were 60 years ago. It's no use passing legislation that is little more than a pius hope greenwashing.
" I can point to rows of houses near home with no chance of installing private charging facilities with numbers of vehicles parked outside far in excess of the capacity of the few local chargers."
You've pointed out yet another problem, the dichotomy of population density. On one hand you can have "15 minute" cities with most things one needs regularly within an easy walk or bike ride. That has to be balanced with humans being much like rats when it comes to packing them in too tightly. Everywhere I've ever lived there has been at least one neighbor with no regard for their neighbors. Loud stereos at 2am, undefinable smells, no property maintenance, seedy friends hanging about all of the time or a household with lots of people all with old, large cars taking up every bit of street parking day and night. It is said that good fences make for good neighbors, but so does some distance.
The choice might be the same as it is with private car ownership in dense cities as it is now. If you want to live someplace with no off-street parking or parking at all, you won't be getting an EV and perhaps not even an ICEV. I had a friend that moved to San Francisco and had to sell her car. The cost for parking was as much as the room she was renting. She bought a scooter, used public transportation and had a stock of friends that would loan her a car if she really needed one. If we are going to continue having large, very dense cities, useful public transportation will be required. As the population continues to age, there will need to be many more options as well. I used to race triathlons, but that was decades ago and a moderate distance on the bike to fetch groceries can be too much if the weather isn't really nice. I've also had enough bikes stolen in my lifetime that I'm not keen on leaving one anywhere even with a stout lock and chain.
"Electric motors are indeed significantly simpler that internal combustion engines. Batteries, on the other hand, are considerably more complex than fuel tanks. What I personally hope to see is a shift from dead-end batteries to fuel cells that are both more efficient and energy dense than either alternative. "
You would then have a considerably more complex infrastructure external the the car to produce Hydrogen, most likely, to feed into the fuel cell at a massive total energy loss.
And There are a couple of pieces of EV FUD in your response.
>modular batteries
A battery might be made out of modules, but none of the battery packs I’ve seen have been designed for easy “local garage” module swap out, unlike replacing piston rings. I suggest from experience the replacement of both battery modules and piston rings can be simple or depending on other factors a big job with a big ticket price. I expect in a few years the norm for EVs will be complete battery replacement, with module replacement being performed in specialised factories and definitely not something to be done on the owners drive at the weekend by a couple of amateur/hobby mechanics.
>wear
My ICE has done 200k miles (it does circa 35k per annum) without engine rebuild, I still average circa 45 miles per gallon and 500+ miles per tankful, okay it likes a tipple of oil now (1 litre per 20k miles). So to me if it were to only handle half a tank of fuel and so go 250 miles between refills, it would cause problems; although given the vehicles age and known degradation in EV batteries being able to do 100 miles between refills would be considered good.
> When your diesel Kia has a worn-out engine it will be scrap value.
Given how much of an EVs value is in the battery, much the same can be said of EVs. Having a high annual mileage, I have tended to keep my cars until they are scrap, the reason for scrapping the cars hasn’t been the engine but everything else wearing out; doing £2,000+ worth of work on a car with 250k miles compared to buying a newer version with only 50k miles for £2,000…
I expect similar will apply to EVs, your 2023 state-of-the-art EV will look a poor choice against a 2030 Mainstream EV.
>"move the emissions from my tail pipe to a gas fired power station."
Yes the primary driver for EVs has been tail pipe emissions. The trouble is whilst much is possible to make our power stations more environment friendly, we’ve been very slow in doing any of them, preferring greenwash to action. We also need to take account of the distribution infrastructure upgrade that will be necessary to support large scale EV usage.
> the last point is the big one.
There is plenty of evidence that an ICE vehicle will last 20 years, EV’s give it few generations… However, the big problem for current versions of both is the IT equipment which will be pushed to last 10 years. Which means the costs of production are a larger part of total energy consumption, which given we need to massively reduce emissions in the next 10 years gives us a problem…
Personally, I think governments want EVs to maintain their premium price to encourage less car usage, without having to directly confront people, because a 1-to-1 replacement of ICE vehicles with EV’s isn’t going to give the multiple step change in emissions we are needing to achieve by 2030…
"definitely not something to be done on the owners drive at the weekend by a couple of amateur/hobby mechanics."
Actually, I think what you might see is exactly that AND the larger central refurbishing facility with no middle ground. It will be more cost effective for a repair shop to just order in a replacement pack and do a swap rather than component level repair. Many repair shops already send parts out to be refurbished (cylinder heads, etc) rather than doing the work in-house since it can be hard to find people qualified to do the work. Using them for those skills ever once in a while is a waste. From a time perspective, it's faster for me, the car owner, to get a replacement engine fitted than to wait for my original engine to be rebuilt. If I factor in hiring a car for a week, it's going to be cheaper too.
"The trouble is whilst much is possible to make our power stations more environment friendly, we’ve been very slow in doing any of them,"
KW to KW, power stations are already much cleaner than a vehicle engine. What's being bandied about right now is taking what's left of the emissions, adding national budget sums of money to them so to reduce them a wee bit more. Principally CO2 reduction.
"So, even if it is fossil-powered today, who is to say it will still be fossil-powered in 20 years?"
All of that and you still gloss over things like oil leaks dripping toxins all over the country, additional oil needing to be used in engine blocks for lubrication that has to be replaced several times a year. Local air quality is also affected by petrol fumes in addition to tailpipe emissions.
The emissions control devices on a power plant are monitored in real time, all of the time where a car might get an annual inspection with more allowance for pollutants. In the mean time, there are lots of petrol/diesel engines everywhere that aren't maintained in peak condition with regards to emissions. If somebody is going to tinker, they'll optimize for performance.
" I can't imagine it will last past 2035 by which time I'll be looking for a petrol or diesel, unless there are very significant subsidies."
Regardless of subsidies and tariffs, battery costs have been going down and battery longevity, power density and energy density have been going up slowly but steadily. By 2035 you will have another 10 years of research and manufacturing experience, it's highly likely that the cost of an electric car would be the same or less than a diesel equivalent. If you were buying a car now, maybe diesel is still more economical and reliable (or maybe not, depends on your circumstances). And either way, there are many other reasons to buy electric, any of which may or may not affect you. Bottom line, it's a mug's game thinking now of whether it's better diesel or electric in 2025, let alone 2035. These things can change very quickly
But there is still the charging issue.
It is no use have fast charging 10% to 80% in 15 or even 10 minutes because most people still park then whilst they do something else.
ICE refuelling is transient so turnover at the point of dispensing is quick.
This is not the case for electric so you need far more charging points. This now brings new issues.
Until charging times are on parity with refuelling, the ratio of chargers to users needs to be far higher.
Agreed. There should be cheap (=domestic night rate) AC charging everywhere cars are left overnight. That is the missing piece. Get onto your politicians, your local council, your landlord if you have one. That is the blocker for the EV adoption that the governments want.
Fast charging is not the answer: it wears the battery, it loads the grid at a time when it is already loaded, and the chargers are expensive. Overnight AC charging is the answer, and it needs to be ubiquitous if EVs are going to be widely adopted.
Domestic night rate power would only generally be cheap in locations where heating is provided by gas i.e. gas-fired central heating in the UK. Most governments are trying to move away from domestic gas use in order to meet emissions targets. This means greater use of electricity for heating/cooling needs, which in turn will mean cheap night rates disappear.
The way I look at it is this:
At my local Tesco, there are 16 petrol pumps, and 500 parking spaces.
There's generally a queue for the petrol station, but it doesn't take too long to get through.
4 of the parking spaces have chargers, and they are always fully occupied, so at the moment, 4 is clearly not enough.
Basically, all of the parking spaces in use would need to have chargers. People would park, plug their car into the charger, do their shopping, and hopefully come out to a fully charged car.
I'm not sure we actually need 500 parking spaces, but definitely we need 250, maybe 350 to allow for really busy shopping periods before Christmas.
So about 20 chargers for each pump.
I'm not sure we actually need 500 parking spaces, but definitely we need 250, maybe 350 to allow for really busy shopping periods before Christmas.
I think this is the plan. For years, people have been complaining about congestion and too many cars on the road. A modest proposal! Make cars unaffordable for many, and impractical for many more due to not having on or off-road charging facilities. Obviously this will greatly reduce congestion for the wealthy middle class. There may still be some local issues to resolve, eg congestion around schools at school-run time, but that could be solved by electric delivery pods.
Of course that ignore the question of why all these cars are driving around. A lot of modelling and, even worse, policy seems to assume it just happens for no reason other than that it can. A very great deal of it is conveying people to and from employment and a great deal of that is the consequence of half-arsed planning legislation (at least in the UK) for the last 70 years or so. One of the principles of that was to separate where people live from where they work for reasons which may have seemed good in the days of heavy industry but which are irrelevant today. Couple that with the inadequacy of public transport and the economy depends on people driving cars into congested centres.
Nothing can be acieved until that gets unravelled and the unravelling has to start with government. Government should be incentivising a mixture of WFH which would include working AT home but also the possibility of fragmenting work spaces into smaller units which can be located close to where people live. Not just incentivising but setting an example. Instead we have numpties demanding to see bums on seats in HMG offices in central London. That's how bad it is.
"So about 20 chargers for each pump."
Sounds about right, though I would think that you probably don't need *all* the spaces to be electrified because many people will have home chargers and will arrive at the car park with a full-ish battery. So you need maybe 100-150 charging spaces. Clearly 4 charging spaces is ridiculously inadequate. The good thing is, with this model, you don't need these chargers to be 100-200kW+ superchargers, 20-30kW max will be quite sufficient (and also better for the batteries)
"Sounds about right, though I would think that you probably don't need *all* the spaces to be electrified because many people will have home chargers and will arrive at the car park with a full-ish battery."
You'd need to avoid the situation of arriving in the car park to find all the electrified places occupied but not all the chargers not being used because the car gets charged at home. It might still not be 100% but for locations such as motorway service stations it would need to approach it. I almost invariably manage to avoid buying petrol at a motorway service station because of the price but for charging an EV on a long journey it might be inevitable. And how does the infrastructure for a concentration of rapid chargers get put into place?
"So you need maybe 100-150 charging spaces. Clearly 4 charging spaces is ridiculously inadequate. The good thing is, with this model, you don't need these chargers to be 100-200kW+ superchargers, 20-30kW max will be quite sufficient (and also better for the batteries)"
100 chargers in one place is not a good idea. Most of those people are going to be looking for food and other things to do while their car charges so it would be better to have 20 or less spaces dotted about an area so there's some choice in what shops and eateries are close by to where you charge your car.
For a motorway services location, 350kW chargers should be the norm. More and more cars are coming out that can charge at that rate. With the size of many battery packs, the "C" rate (capacity/charge rate) isn't very high and those that can take those rates have been designed for it. 20-30kW would be glacially slow for somebody on a long trip that just needs a top up while they visit the loo and buy a fresh supply of snacks for sit down for a meal. Provided you aren't doing nothing but fast charging at high power levels, your battery pack will be just fine.
"Until charging times are on parity with refuelling, the ratio of chargers to users needs to be far higher."
That's making a whole bunch of assumptions. How much charge does the car need, how fast can it charge, how powerful is the charger and how long will the person be spending on their shop. It might make more sense for Tesco to install more level 2 charging stands so more people can add 25 or so miles of range while they shop over 6-8 fast chargers that are often blocked or even being used. Initially, power generation won't be the limiting factor, it will be distribution. Whenever the branch circuit was planned for where Tesco is sited, there wasn't any thought about needing vastly more to accommodate EV charging.
If the area is less dense than a big city where most people have off-street parking, the number of public charging spots and their max power can change a lot.
"It is no use have fast charging 10% to 80% in 15 or even 10 minutes because most people still park then whilst they do something else. ICE refuelling is transient so turnover at the point of dispensing is quick."
I'm not sure this matches the reality on-the-ground. Of course 'at-the-pump' refueling is quicker for ICE than electric, however fast the electric fast charging gets. But for anyone who can charge their car at home, going to an 'external' charger will likely happen once every few weeks or even months. If a car is used for local transport, shopping and commuting within a 100-mile radius, it could go through it's whole usable lifetime without hardly ever needing to be charged anywhere else but home. And if it's happening very occasionally, I doubt people would worry that they have to spend 20-30 minutes at the motorway charging station once every few months, compared to the convenience of never having to visit a petrol station in the 'day-to-day' life.
Now, I'm not sure what percentage of use-cases fall into that category (and it will vary greatly based on location), but I'm willing to bet it's a fairly large chunk in vast swathes of city and suburban living.
And in that case of course there need to be infrastructure upgrades to get all that charging power to people's homes, driveways or streets.
"Now, I'm not sure what percentage of use-cases fall into that category (and it will vary greatly based on location), but I'm willing to bet it's a fairly large chunk in vast swathes of city and suburban living.
And in that case of course there need to be infrastructure upgrades to get all that charging power to people's homes, driveways or streets."
The use cases will be individual. I fit in very well and wish I could justify even a second hand EV. The biggest benefit to me is not having to visit a petrol station to fill up and having a full charge (or however less I set if for) every morning for the cost of 30 seconds to plug in.
At the moment, there isn't a lot of infrastructure upgrades needed for people to charge off-peak at home. If the government forces adoption, that accelerates the timeline and utility companies will have to make huge investments (tax payer subsidized) to rip out and replace lines and transformers with lots of life left in them to be able to cope with the load. If it's just allowed to progress naturally, power companies will be able to make upgrades more organically as needed. I can see a big bottleneck being the time it takes the power companies to get planning permission to do the upgrades. 12 months to get permission, 2 weeks to do the work.
"Until charging times are on parity with refuelling, the ratio of chargers to users needs to be far higher."
The great thing about that is electricity is everywhere and fitting an EVSE is pretty simple. It's even more simple if it's just an outlet and the EV owner needs to provide their own cordset. Payment would be based on time since Level 2 charging is going to be at the circuit capacity the whole time. It just doesn't allow for charging management.
Lots of slow chargers in places like train stations, sports arena, cinemas, etc can mean it's possible to give everybody some charging rather than only having a couple of very fast chargers that nobody can use (they'll not be able to move their cars when done). If all a hotel had was a row of 2kW chargers, a person could do a fast charge elsewhere to 70-80% and top up to 100% overnight so the car has maximum range when they'll be leaving in the morning. They could even be smaller or the smaller ones can be free while higher capacity spots are charged a premium. With some management software, a hotel could offer several tiers of charging at each space for different prices and systems can regulate the power being used to stay within the power allocated for all of the chargers.
By 2035 you will have another 10 years of research and manufacturing experience, it's highly likely that the cost of an electric car would be the same or less than a diesel equivalent.
I doubt it, not without taxation/penalties against ICE vehicles and subsidies for EVs. The cost of the batteries will keep rising as market penetration increases - just ask the head of lithium/rare earth mining at Rio Tinto. The forward looking supply simply isn't great enough. Increasing power prices will also take the gloss off of EVs as will per mile taxation (Governments don't let you stiff them on their income). If you don't believe me then look at Victoria in Australia which has enacted per km charges for EVs. New South Wales is looking at following suit.
The problem with a lot of EV drivers (who are realistically still early adopters) is that they are making use of cheap power and/or solar charging. Whilst this is possible with low adoption rates it will not be the case with mass adoption. Not everyone can have solar. Not everyone can charge at home. Upgrades to the grid and extra power demands will need to be paid for and that is through higher power prices but nobody is going to say to you "buy an EV that looks cheaper now and get f*cked by power price rises and new taxes in future".
" it's highly likely that the cost of an electric car would be the same or less than a diesel equivalent."
The utility of an EV can be much higher. My trips are mostly well within the range of a single charge so being able to not need to visit a petrol station would be great. It's one less thing to do when I'm already running late. Every couple of years I make a long road trip, but the journey is part of the outing or I'd take the train (I don't fly commercial anymore) so needing to stop more frequently for charging on those long trips dovetails nicely into needing to stop more frequently to spend a penny as I get older.
I suspect you are referring to the EV version of the 2Cv and not your typical Chelsea tractor EV…
Not seen an informed debunking of the figures given out by Volvo or Mercedes, but then not much detail behind the figures given out has been released to do a proper assessment.
I'm not normally a Cite Everything sort of post here. It's not a Serious scientific forum. But I'd like to see where that particular datum comes from.
AIUI, a BEV has an 80% higher carbon cost in manufacture vs. an ICEV, but manufacture only counts for something like 15% of the lifetime emissions of an ICEV.
An EV can repay its "manufacturing carbon debt" within around 16,000 miles.
Depends on the EV and it depends on the grid carbon footprint. None of this "but I can charge off of solar" nonsense as that isn't possible at population scale. In Australia currently, an EV with a ~70kWh battery breaks even with a V6 diesel Ranger around the 60,000km mark. If you change your vehicle every 4-5 years, that's a bit of an issue.
I am running through a few possibilities.
A new IC car is unlikely due to reliability, especially stop start and latest Diesels.
So going to life extend current car until it is 30, or spares not available, as it is last year of manufacture and earl ones still on road, why not?
Then do I give up driving, depends on biology and medical care.
If not would like a mid sized electric, would suit me for my journies, went on holiday last year, local filling station shut but loads ot charging points.
Because they can!
Top minds in London and Brussels negotiating the deal agreed to "rules of origin" dictating that a 10 percent tariff would apply to any vehicle that was less than 45 percent made in either the EU or across the Channel.
Which then drills down into 'made in' vs 'assembled in' and as very little stuff is made in either the UK or EU, the 10% tariff applies. But kinda intended to incentivise 'green' UK to build EVs and components, and the EU doing the same to protect it's automotive industry. Overlooking that manufactures might just go 'screw this noise', build wherever it's cheapest and pass the 10% tariff onto consumers.
The battery thing is also a challeng, ie what battery, and for which vehicles? And then dives into the small print of whether a battery can be >45% 'Made in Britain' when we're not well known for our lithium production, or all the other raw materials that go into a battery.
But fear not! Our politicians are saving the planet!
"But kinda intended to incentivise 'green' UK to build EVs and components"
The KISS explanation is it's a way they can asses more tax. The green washing is just a good sounding excuse. Is it really so important that all cars in Britain are >45% component sourced and assembled in Britain? Wouldn't it be better to put more emphasis on all of the things that Britain and the whole of the UK are really good at over car manufacturing? The London double-decker busses are built on BYD platforms. London electric black cabs are made by the Chinese company Geely. It's always best to play to your strengths and I don't see auto manufacture as the UK's greatest strength. It would be like advocating to rebuild all of the lost textile manufacturing. Having some is good, but mandating that all clothes sold in the UK are made in the UK or suffer from protectionist tariffs is silly.
The tariff was put in as the UK Brexiteer politicians thought it would be a good wheeze if the UK imported cheap stuff from China etc. slap a “Made in Britain” sticker on it and re-export it to the EU, thereby undercutting EU production…
I am a little surprised they didn’t do this with Huawei, perhaps the US have sufficient leverage to keep the UK in line…
The real issue is needing to untangle the sophisticated supply chains between the EU and the UK after Brexit. For many years now parts have gone to and fro before the final product emerges. This is no longer possible because the UK no longer wants to be part of a customs union. Hence, to prevent vehicles made elsewhere from entering the EU via the UK under preferential terms the tariff is applied.
"they were intended to catch Teslas but ended up hitting domestic industry."
The big joke is that lots of bits on a Tesla are imported. There's very little electronic component manufacturing in the US and no displays being made. Some years ago there were people getting photos of crates labeled in Chinese at the Tesla California plant. The translation showed the parts to be metal parts (forgings) for regular production. Now, with Tesla having manufacturing in countries outside the US, it makes sense that some components will be more efficient to produce from a central location to achieve some economies of scale and shipped to the US as assembled modules ready to be bolted on to a car.
And even the European manufacturers can't have EU-manufactured batteries. And even if the factories are opened, the raw material supply chain is hopelessly compromised. So, the EU commission opts for Cuba-style automotive stagnation, instead of just moving the whole "thou shalt make only EVs" out by enough years.
Logic goes out of the window when religion is involved.
If 45% of the car's value comes from components made in either the EU or the UK, there's no tariff in either direction. If less than 45% comes from UK or EU components, for example if the battery is Chinese, there's a 10% tariff between EU and UK, in either direction.
The aim was to encourage manufacturers to build batteries in either UK or EU, but so far that's not happening.
Pick one.
They did. Nationalism. Way, way, way more important than that hippy globalised climate change stuff. [You are supposed to wave your flag now and sing the national anthem.]
The Tories delayed phasing out ICE vehicles not just as a cheap vote grab, but because there won't be enough EVs in the continent of Europe for decades.
The UK government have already had to cough up half a billion quid to retain some sort of steel industry, and most of the car plants are only staying on with subsidies that would bring a nostalgic tear to the eye of a British Leyland exec. Nationalism isn't free, but I'm sure you are loving the Brexit-originated inflation, deep down. After all, the more you pay for something, the more you love it. So, lots of extra love in the UK now.
@Tron
"They did. Nationalism. Way, way, way more important than that hippy globalised climate change stuff."
Of course the only way to win is to not play the game, do neither. The wet fart that is the green dream is becoming increasingly exposed for the sham it is regardless of your belief in the MMCC co2 theory. Nationalism brought us the glory days of British Leyland so lets not do that. Instead drop the targets that are nothing but a pipe dream, build some energy generation and watch the country improve almost by magic (of not shooting ourselves in the foot).
"The Tories delayed phasing out ICE vehicles not just as a cheap vote grab, but because there won't be enough EVs in the continent of Europe for decades."
EV's, charging infrastructure, energy supply. All that money blown and we are heading down the path Germany is going down.
"but I'm sure you are loving the Brexit-originated inflation"
I did laugh at that nonsense but I am sure those who followed a similar covid strategy all left the EU including those who wernt even in the EU.
" most of the car plants are only staying on with subsidies that would bring a nostalgic tear to the eye of a British Leyland exec."
I see part of the problem in trying to produce mainstream consumer vehicles. There are some firms in the UK making specialized electric vehicles that are filled with great ideas. Some are for trades, some for delivery and others really drill down to specific needs of a few customers. The one niche I've noticed are the laboratory companies that get patient sample from doctors to run tests. They pick up a standardized container either daily or on call, drop off an empty container and take the materials back to the lab. Since they work with standard sized parcels, it would be easy to build a vehicle for the purpose on a standard 'skateboard'. Seating for two, limited entertainment, fleet management software (route maps programmed from the dispatching office) and not a lot else. A phone charger with a BT link to the stereo to play music and a backing up camera would be about as fancy as necessary. Every time I go to the doctor they want to extract something from me and send it off for testing. I guess it's a good way to pad the bill since insurance is paying the cost. The labs must be operating loads of vehicles that we never notice. There are also handling stuff that isn't so good to be putting through the post.
So, if someone in an EU country builds an EV with a Chinese battery and sells it in another EU country: no harm, no foul.
If that EU EV is sold in a 3rd country that has an agreed FTA (you know who), the 3rd country has to slap a 10% tariff on it.
And vice versa.
And, if the EU EV has an EU battery, then the aforementioned 3rd country can't slap a 10% tariff on it.
And if the 3rd country with an FTA can't muster its own batteries then they still get lumbered with the 10% tariff when they try to flog the 3rd country EV in the EU.
So the people of the 3rd country will end up paying more for their EV than Johnny Foreigner and selling less of their home made EVs because of the EU FTA.
I ask myself, could this possibly be something to do with Brexit?
with carmakers finding themselves still hopelessly reliant on components from China and elsewhere to meet demand.
Now that's a lie. Components from China are much cheaper, which means companies can maintain much higher profit margins. It has nothing to do with "meeting demand", just greed.
Maybe not just greed but the consumer want the cheapest possible price for everything regardless of actual cost or quality of the product.
That has been a huge driver with the result we have huge mountains of all sorts of "waste", much of which is not actually waste but just been slung out because people have replaced it with a new shiny thing when the old one still worked.
"It has nothing to do with "meeting demand", just greed."
Greed doesn't even enter into it. If something is allowed that gives your competitor an advantage such as sourcing cheap components or finished items from another country, it you don't do it too, they'll have you for lunch. In the US, a publicly traded corporation could see its directors charged with crimes for not managing the company for maximum benefit of the shareholders. I have to laugh at people that cry that the big companies need to pay a "fair share" in taxes or some such nonsense. They pay what is legally required. Any problems with that should be taken up with those politicians that have been in office for far too long.
Is the EU is merely following what it agreed and signed up to.
The real story should be why such a course of action is so unpalatable to the UK. After all, it has a spotless track record of honouring treaties.
Note to the dim: if you insist on pissing off your nearest neighbours on the hour, every hour, then don't be surprised when they lose any interest in playing nice.
After all, it has a spotless track record of honouring treaties.
That's debatable. To name a few:
Anglo-Irish Treaty (1921)
Anglo-Polish alliance (1939)
Suez Crisis (1956)
Chagos Archipelago (1960s-2000s)
Hong Kong (1984)
Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances (1994)
"The real story should be why such a course of action is so unpalatable to the UK."
It's unpalatable to half of the UK because we told the other half and they didn't want to listen or didn't believe it so we're lumbered with it. It's unpalatable to the other half because they were told and didn't want to listen, didn't believe it and probably in many cases still don't so they've lumbered themselves and us with it.
@Doctor Syntax
"I should have added "and some of them really don't like being reminded about it"."
On the other hand some of us do like reminding the other half that protectionism is expensive and its a good job we are outside the protectionist bloc. The same stupidity as having tariffs on orange imports while not having an orange growing industry anyway.
"By long haul I mean 3000km + trucking routes."
I don't expect there are that many people making 3000km trips in their car very frequently.
There are still many applications for large electric trucks. Given how poorly the ports are run in the US, lots of drivers picking up containers to take to distribution centers, customs offices and railheads would save loads of fuel by not being sat idling away ready to pull forward another 50m to the next union paperwork checker in line. For long runs, rail is far more cost efficient. What's lacking is good logistical planning so containers get on and off the trains quickly so the the train can move on to the next stop. It might also make sense to have trains that are 100% containerized freight and others that are "break bulk" box cars, tanks, hoppers and lumber carriers rather than a mish mash of everything. It might cut down on the need to continuously reconfigure.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
