Car buyers should have 'long, hard think' about diesel

[Byker28i]

Are you a traffic warden? That has got to be one of the most illogical excuses I have come across. The warden would just as likely have issued the ticket if the vehicle was an EV as it wouldn't have been able to charge. The sensible thing to do is cover the signs until the chargers are in place and working. Until such time suspend any restrictions on who can use the space.

According to the appeal, the EV car would have also been presented with a penalty because the warden didn't observe the car being charged (which it couldn't have been if there was no charge point available).

 

[wyx087]

Another "fact" you have stated based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever other than some wild guesswork. Who knows what any Govt will do regards clawing back the tax they have lost from ICE vehicles in the future. Who knows if some new evidence might come to light that is currently being "hidden" that will result in todays no pollution at the point of use EVs may be guilty of in the future. Perhaps the Govt will decide that these older Evs were responsible for massive pollution in their construction and decide to levy a tax on them.
You really do come across as some sort of EV zealout unable to listen to any reasoned argument as you are so biased in your choice of vehicle that you seem to think it's the only solution.

Fact, current pollution tax are due to tailpipe emissions.
Fact, EV doesn't produce tailpipe emissions.
What does pollution tax on old cars achieve? To set the impression and get polluting cars off the road.
What does taxing old EV's achieve? More greenhouse emissions from manufacturing new cars, because majority of EV's pollution happens at production. Why would anyone want to do that?

So would you still say "EV won't be taxed for pollution tax" is wild guesswork?
If you want to do the calling out, at very least be logical in your reasoning.

Greenhouse gas emissions from cars has risen over the last 4yrs because of Deiselgate. Latest diesels since 2015 are clean, Diesels since September 1st last year cleaner still. But all diesels produce far less greenhouse gases. So it is only scaremongering and lack of knowledge that has caused the increase.

Indeed, internal combustion engine have improved over the last 30 years.

But so have the number of cars on the road and the amount of congestion. Minor, incremental improvements is no longer enough at traffic hot spots. What we really need is a step-change, something that drastically cut emission to almost zero.

Quite simple really. Car park space is reserved for Ev's recharging. Car park space doesn't have a charger, yet the council would rather support their traffic warden for issuing a ticket and have a vehicle driving around causing pollution instead of making use of the space.

I agree with you, the signs shouldn't be put up without charger in place. The council also shouldn't refuse the appeal.
But I also agree with Srichard, driver education is needed. Charging bays is for charging only (when the chargers are installed), no but's, no if's.

 

[Byker28i]

But I also agree with Srichard, driver education is needed. Charging bays is for charging only (when the chargers are installed), no but's, no if's.

Is this a big problem though? I've not seen any non ev cars parked in ev only spaces in the odd times I've seen those spaces.
In this example, it's one lazy guy, thought he'd park close because the spot wasn't available for charging. There's no right party in this, he was wrong, the warden was 'just doing his job', and the council were wrong to refuse the appeal, because there was just about enough gray area in this case.

 

[srichards]

The Leaf 30 is a poor EV. It's got a crap range and a slow charger.

Average daily mileage is still 20-30 miles a day.

Once most EVs are like the 300 mile Hyundai Kona it just isn't going to be an issue as you won't need to plug it in every single night and use most of the range every single day.

 

[wyx087]

We seem to be going in circles.

A 30Kw leaf gives around 115 miles of range. Currently you either get a 3.7kW or 7kW charger at home, so thats a 7kw charger at 4 hours for 28Kw max charge, probably nearer 25kw, so it's safer to assume 5 hours to be sure of a full charge, which you'd want to be fully topped up because of the limited range. Obviously charge required will depend on usage.

For us our economy 7 timescale is 23:30-6:30 each night - so 7 hours (hence the 7 in economy 7), which means that realistically everyone will set their smart charger to start at 23:30, so thats the start of peak time. But your 7 hours of cheap electricity, only approx 45Kw of charge, which is around 180 miles max, so again EV is range limited for an ICE alternative, unless you pay for the more expensive time.

Then as EV takes off as they become more mainstream, those smart meters will limit charging based on local demand, because the local grid won't be able to deliver.

So again, Ev's are good for short range, second car use type journeys, which would keep pollution down in towns etc, but aren't there yet for mainstream replacement of ICE without investment in infrastructure, increased range/performance and decreased cost.

The trial highlights a few things:

Initial findings show that EVs are plugged in for more than 12 hours on average, but are rarely charging for the full time. Other details discovered include that the average charging session started with the battery at more than 50%, and that pure-EV owners only charge their car three times a week.

30kWh Leaf have around 26-27kWh of usable capacity. Charing it (assuming 7kW spec'd car) fully in 4 hours is reasonable expectation.

Then, you say 180 miles is range limited. But do you actually drive 180 miles every single day? That would mean a visit to petrol pump every 2.5 days, a very tiresome exercise in itself.

Over 12 hours of your EV plugged in overnight. It will only need to charge 4 hours to allow 100+ miles of range. A third of the time it is plugged in. This 12 hours is where smart chargers come into play, combined with special EV charging smart tariff (not limited to pre-set 7 hours)

Is this a big problem though? I've not seen any non ev cars parked in ev only spaces in the odd times I've seen those spaces.

Parking in charging bays is a big problem. I have taken care to notice these things. If the bays are close to entrance, there's more than a third chance it'll have cars parked there, not charging (including EV's).

Think of how many times you see people park in family bays without getting a child out of the car?

 

[Byker28i]

Then, you say 180 miles is range limited. But do you actually drive 180 miles every single day? That would mean a visit to petrol pump every 2.5 days, a very tiresome exercise in itself.#

60-80 miles a day, but if out woth clients can be further. tomorrow will put me on a 120-140 mile return trip. Regular trips to Pembroke (every 10-14 days) is 160 miles each way with no charging facility.

Over 12 hours of your EV plugged in overnight. It will only need to charge 4 hours to allow 100+ miles of range. A third of the time it is plugged in. This 12 hours is where smart chargers come into play, combined with special EV charging smart tariff (not limited to pre-set 7 hours)

but the 7 hours of economy 7 will be the peak charge time - it's half price at the moment - not the full 12 hours.
I wouldn't go to a petrol station thats twice the price of fuel, why would I change with an EV?

Parking in charging bays is a big problem. I have taken care to notice these things. If the bays are close to entrance, there's more than a third chance it'll have cars parked there, not charging (including EV's).

Think of how many times you see people park in family bays without getting a child out of the car?

In which case thats a perfect time for a ticket and parking charge, especially seeing how few charging spaces there currently are.

 

[Byker28i]

I'd have an EV, can see the advantages but it would have to be used for a specific part of my families journeys, only based around our wiltshire home, currently around say 20% of our mileage and would have to be backed up with an ICE car or two. That makes it an expensive commodity.

 

[wyx087]

60-80 miles a day, but if out woth clients can be further. tomorrow will put me on a 120-140 mile return trip. Regular trips to Pembroke (every 10-14 days) is 160 miles each way with no charging facility.

but the 7 hours of economy 7 will be the peak charge time - it's half price at the moment - not the full 12 hours.

Apart from Pembroke trip, a 150 miles EV will suit you fine. From 40kWh Zoe/Leaf upwards. For Pembroke 320 miles return trip, you'll need to find a single rapid charger close to destination and best step up to a 200 miles EV.

I'm not saying you shouldn't charge during E7 hours. I'm saying a different, smart charger based tariff will mean you are no longer restricted to those 7 hours, enable EV charging in between peak demands while not putting too much stress on the grid. (which is what the trial was about)

E7 hours vary. My times are 12:30 to 7:30. Everyone's times are off-set to prevent sudden spike in demand. Similar idea is behind smart charging, except you won't need to wait until E7 to start getting electrons into your car. Perhaps your car will charge a bit during the gap between the TV show break (kettles) and people taking showers, this is where mass connected batteries can allow slow reacting generators such as nuclear to deal with sudden peak in demands, by soaking up the excess power between the peaks.

Vehicle 2 Grid takes this a step further, allowing power to go two ways. So instead of revving up that nuclear reactor during peak times, masses of battery can take the load.

 

[Nod]

Is this a big problem though? I've not seen any non ev cars parked in ev only spaces in the odd times I've seen those spaces.

Sometimes, yes. There are 6 charging slots at our local Sainsbury's and it's not rare foe 3 or 4 of them to be taken by non-charging ICE cars. It's getting better since the suppliers of the spaces and (currently free) charge points have someone policing it - £60 charge for transgressors.

 

[nilagin]

Fact, current pollution tax are due to tailpipe emissions.
Fact, EV doesn't produce tailpipe emissions.
What does pollution tax on old cars achieve? To set the impression and get polluting cars off the road.
What does taxing old EV's achieve? More greenhouse emissions from manufacturing new cars, because majority of EV's pollution happens at production. Why would anyone want to do that?

So would you still say "EV won't be taxed for pollution tax" is wild guesswork?
If you want to do the calling out, at very least be logical in your reasoning.


Indeed, internal combustion engine have improved over the last 30 years.

But so have the number of cars on the road and the amount of congestion. Minor, incremental improvements is no longer enough at traffic hot spots. What we really need is a step-change, something that drastically cut emission to almost zero.


I agree with you, the signs shouldn't be put up without charger in place. The council also shouldn't refuse the appeal.
But I also agree with Srichard, driver education is needed. Charging bays is for charging only (when the chargers are installed), no but's, no if's.

Depends how old you are talking. Pre 72 cars don't pay any emissions tax.

Congestion isn't so much the number of cars but lack of proper road planning and allowing cities and towns to become overcrowded.

The only evidence of parking education being needed is EV drivers parking their cars in designated charging places even though they aren't charging. They just figure a space has been saved specifically for them as they have an EV.

 

[PaulF]

The wording is very clear. The parking bays are for EVs while they are charging. If there are no charge posts there then that means no car at all can park there. Not that some twonk with a diesel can.

'some twonk' happened to be a 72 year old doctor taking his mother shopping and used the disabled ev bay that had no charger while displaying a disabled blue badge, quite reasonable to most people I would have thought.

 

[neil_g]

What does taxing old EV's achieve? .... Why would anyone want to do that?

Once upon a time there was a group of people called the Tories....

Seriously though, where do we think the loss in revenue from tax on fuel and VED be recouped from? It's the same reason why cigarettes aren't flat out banned, the revenue income is pretty handy for the budget.

 

[MatBin]

Fact, current pollution tax are due to tailpipe emissions.
Fact, EV doesn't produce tailpipe emissions.
What does pollution tax on old cars achieve? To set the impression and get polluting cars off the road.
What does taxing old EV's achieve? More greenhouse emissions from manufacturing new cars, because majority of EV's pollution happens at production. Why would anyone want to do that?

So would you still say "EV won't be taxed for pollution tax" is wild guesswork?
If you want to do the calling out, at very least be logical in your reasoning

just because there is a tax regime based on tailpipe emissions today doesn't mean the tax regime in 10 years time will be based on the same thing. As ICE car numbers are reduced it's inconceivable that tax will be based on the same philosophy, so to assume it will be and to state it will be a fact that old EVs wont be taxed is ridiculous, they might not be or they might be, but you have no more proof one way or the other than anyone else and to do so really is illogical. If history tells us anything it is that Governments can an do whatever they want when they need more revenue.
You then state production of a new EV is producing pollution during manufacture, so is it better to run a current ICE for some more years or scrap it and create pollution by buying a new EV, be nice to know which vehicle produces the most total pollution from the time when thinking about replacing one's car to the point of scrapping, albeit some of it conveniently in someone else's back yard in the EV's case.
Double standards?

 

[wyx087]

just because there is a tax regime based on tailpipe emissions today doesn't mean the tax regime in 10 years time will be based on the same thing. As ICE car numbers are reduced it's inconceivable that tax will be based on the same philosophy, so to assume it will be and to state it will be a fact that old EVs wont be taxed is ridiculous, they might not be or they might not be, but you have no more proof one way or the other than anyone else and to do so really is illogical. If history tells us anything it is that Governments can an do whatever they want when they need more revenue.

Alright, let me rephrase: old EV's won't be targeted by pollution-based tax.

There's every possibility a new form of tax (not pollution) will be introduced, perhaps on public charging (I think most likely), perhaps yearly like current VED (but VED are never applied retrospectively), who knows. But one thing is for sure, those tax will not target older EV to get them off the road. Simply because it makes no logical, environmental sense, will be a political suicide.

Current toxic tax (on just 5 years old diesels) or fuel duty are favoured by groups promoting greener future (mostly quoted by the Independent article I posted earlier). Those kind of tax makes sense for the government: pleases one group and rakes in the cash.

You then state production of a new EV is producing pollution during manufacture, so is it better to run a current ICE for some more years or scrap it and create pollution by buying a new EV, be nice to know which vehicle produces the most total pollution from the time when thinking about replacing one's car to the point of scrapping, albeit some of it conveniently in someone else's back yard in the EV's case.
Double standards?

There's no definite answer to this one. It will depend on your car's age and condition. But if you are looking to change (for example, your current car is beyond economical repair, or you just fancy a change), EV is well worth considering.

For example, if you are driving an old polluting diesel (Euro 4 or earlier) on mostly local stop/go traffic, a lot of time less than 20 miles. EV is perfect replacement and will help cut down toxic local pollution hugely. You can then keep the EV long term, like you did with the 12 year old Euro 4 diesel, and the longer you keep it the less pollution it generates per mile.

The manufacturing pollution of EV is offset within first few years of using it. The Bloomberg published, obviously biased research, shows if EV were powered by a grid that is 40% coal, 10 years later, EV will produce less pollution than ICE cars. That is completely ignoring any grid level improvement over next 10 years.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/the-dirt-on-clean-electric-cars

Congestion isn't so much the number of cars but lack of proper road planning and allowing cities and towns to become overcrowded.

The only evidence of parking education being needed is EV drivers parking their cars in designated charging places even though they aren't charging. They just figure a space has been saved specifically for them as they have an EV.

Congestion charge is different though. Its aim is to reduce congestion, reduce pollution is a nice by-product. At places with good public transport, congestion charge is a fantastic way to change the driving mentality.

Yes, parking EV in charging bays is no better than ICE car parked there, in fact, it's the same. I just wish chargers are more reliable and ticketing those people happens more often.

 

[neil_g]

Alright, let me rephrase: old EV's won't be targeted by pollution-based tax.

I'd like to see a tax on older less efficient and environmentally damaging to manufacture batteries as technology develops.

 

[nilagin]

Congestion charge is different though. Its aim is to reduce congestion, reduce pollution is a nice by-product. At places with good public transport, congestion charge is a fantastic way to change the mentality.

I wasn't referring to congestion charge. I was referring to your comment about although ice emissions have fallen on a unit basis, the fact that the growth in the number of cars and subsequent congestion has had a negative effect on improvement.
If a better road infrastructure and improved traffic flow was implemented when over populating an area there would be less congestion and the emissions levels would improve.

 

[wyx087]

I'd like to see a tax on older less efficient and environmentally damaging to manufacture batteries as technology develops.

2 points here:

First, environmentally damaging manufacture of batteries. The majority of such damage happens at manufacturing. Unlike ICE cars, the damage has already been done. As other people have said, it's always more environmentally friendly to continue drive an older car, more so with EV's due to very low env. damage at point of use. So why introduce tax to try to get them off the road?

Second is regarding "older less efficient" EV's. If this is the case, likes of brand new I-Pace and ETron are very inefficient, they will need to be more heavily taxed than my 4 year old Nissan Leaf. There isn't as much efficiency improvement headroom as early ICE. Such inefficiencies is also a lot less damaging than ICE.

If efficiency is key, then any future hydrogen cars ought to be taxed more than double compared to first generation, old EV's. I can't see this happen, do you?

I wasn't referring to congestion charge. I was referring to your comment about although ice emissions have fallen on a unit basis, the fact that the growth in the number of cars and subsequent congestion has had a negative effect on improvement.
If a better road infrastructure and improved traffic flow was implemented when over populating an area there would be less congestion and the emissions levels would improve.

Totally agree. Free flowing traffic is always more efficient in every sense (energy, time)

On the other hand, prohibitively bad traffic with excellent public transport does have an effect on people's mentality.

For example, I live in North London, I'll be taking my 10m son to a hospital appointment in central London tomorrow afternoon. I have 2 options: drive or public transport. For me, drive the EV is cheaper, will only cost £5 in parking fee inside congestion charge zone. But I am willing to spend £18 for wife and myself to take the tube, because it's so much easier, quicker, less stressful. Step-free access on all stations we'll use except a few stairs at my home station.

 

[nilagin]

On the other hand, prohibitively bad traffic with excellent public transport does have an effect on people's mentality.

For example, I live in North London, I'll be taking my 10m son to a hospital appointment in central London tomorrow afternoon. I have 2 options: drive or public transport. For me, drive the EV is cheaper, will only cost £5 in parking fee inside congestion charge zone. But I am willing to spend £18 for wife and myself to take the tube, because it's so much easier, quicker, less stressful. Step-free access on all stations we'll use except a few stairs at my home station.

To me driving even in London is less stressful than relying on public transport. At least you are in the comfort of your own environment, rather than having to share everyone else's.
I'd much rather drive and have to walk a distance from the car park than resort to a train and or bus.

 

[MatBin]

Alright, let me rephrase: old EV's won't be targeted by pollution-based tax.

You cant possibly know that. As an example, tax is being levied on ICE cars based on their tail pipe pollution and it has changed in terms of cost to the motorist significantly over time as the Govt tries to get older cars off the road, so when they were bought new the tax take was modest but over time it has increased, who is to say it wont happen with EV.

Hypothetical case
You buy an EV now in good faith in 2019 but as time goes on the Govt decide to hit you with an increased tax burden based on the fact you have to charge up more frequently than say a 2030 built car because battery efficiency has vastly improved and your "old" car takes 3 times as long to charge (to the same potential power) as a new car, so you are using more gas/coal/nuclear power or whatever to generate the electricity you are using (bear in mind renewables will probably never be our sole method of electricity generation in the UK and even if it is there's a cost involved that must be recovered in building new power plants), so the Govt has a perfect reason to increase/create a tax for older EVs.

Call me cynical but I don't believe the vast amount of tax revenue the Govt collects from ICE vehicles will be allowed to decline without something taking it's place, and we all know who gets a hit at every budget, smokers (I don't smoke), drinkers (I drink very little) and motorists, or do you really think motorists wont continue to get hammered because we have all gone green?

 

[MatBin]

First, environmentally damaging manufacture of batteries. The majority of such damage happens at manufacturing. Unlike ICE cars, the damage has already been done. As other people have said, it's always more environmentally friendly to continue drive an older car, more so with EV's due to very low env. damage at point of use. So why introduce tax to try to get them off the road?

Because we need to continue to manufacture and purchase new stuff to keep the economy going.
Because people who keep old cars cant afford to replace them, I know that's a generalisation but in a lot of cases it's true, myself included, I would love to buy a newer car, so the Govt has you and me over a barrel.

 

[wyx087]

You cant possibly know that. As an example, tax is being levied on ICE cars based on their tail pipe pollution and it has changed in terms of cost to the motorist significantly over time as the Govt tries to get older cars off the road, so when they were bought new the tax take was modest but over time it has increased, who is to say it wont happen with EV.

Hypothetical case
You buy an EV now in good faith in 2019 but as time goes on the Govt decide to hit you with an increased tax burden based on the fact you have to charge up more frequently than say a 2030 built car because battery efficiency has vastly improved and your "old" car takes 3 times as long to charge (to the same potential power) as a new car, so you are using more gas/coal/nuclear power or whatever to generate the electricity you are using (bear in mind renewables will probably never be our sole method of electricity generation in the UK and even if it is there's a cost involved that must be recovered in building new power plants), so the Govt has a perfect reason to increase/create a tax for older EVs.

Call me cynical but I don't believe the fast amount of tax revenue the Govt collects from ICE vehicles will be allowed to decline without something taking it's place, and we all know who gets a hit at every budget, smokers (I don't smoke), drinkers (I drink very little) and motorists, or do you really think motorists wont continue to get hammered because we have all gone green?

The assumption you've made is that future cars will be vastly more efficient by thinking in ICE terms. But the truth is that efficiency won't increase in similar fashion. Old cars taking 3 times as long to charge will mean it puts 1/3 of stress on the grid comparing to fast charging cars. Overall energy used to drive a certain distance will not significantly change. Electric cars today from the plug to wheels is already highly efficient, 90% at every conversion.

With EV, apart from the argument of keeping the economy going, there really is no excuse to tax older cars different to new cars for the reasons I've listed in previous posts. You are free to think of further hypothetical counter cases.

Because we need to continue to manufacture and purchase new stuff to keep the economy going.
Because people who keep old cars cant afford to replace them, I know that's a generalisation but in a lot of cases it's true, myself included, I would love to buy a newer car, so the Govt has you and me over a barrel.

I don't buy the bit about keeping the economy going. As you've said in your second paragraph, if people who keep old cars cant afford to replace them, then how does taxing it will make people buy newer cars?

With regard to covering the reduction in tax revenue. There are more than one way to skin a cat:
- Rapid charger duty, people who use rapid chargers are generally those drive beyond range of their EV. So levy a large tax here will either push people to buy bigger battery cars (see next point), or drive less.
- Big battery production pollution tax, 40kWh is enough for 150 miles, more enough for most people's daily use. Manufacture 80kWh cars produce more pollution only to cater for that few trips away. So an exponentially tiered tax on battery size will get people to actually think about how much range is actually needed. This tax can be very expensive, like thousands for excessively big battery.
- Then, to please the voting public, a medium battery EV (eg. up to 40kWh) that is slowly charged overnight won't be taxed. So majority will not be faced with £££ for their daily commute and majority will not have excess battery capacity just sitting there for once a month trips.
It's a vote winner for majority AND pleases the green crowd.

 

[Nod]

It's a vote winner

This is the bottom line! Screw the economy, environment, etc. just get us into/ keep us in power.

 

[PaulF]

The assumption you've made is that future cars will be vastly more efficient by thinking in ICE terms. But the truth is that efficiency won't increase in similar fashion. Old cars taking 3 times as long to charge will mean it puts 1/3 of stress on the grid comparing to fast charging cars. Overall energy used to drive a certain distance will not significantly change. Electric cars today from the plug to wheels is already highly efficient, 90% at every conversion.

With EV, apart from the argument of keeping the economy going, there really is no excuse to tax older cars different to new cars for the reasons I've listed in previous posts. You are free to think of further hypothetical counter cases.


I don't buy the bit about keeping the economy going. As you've said in your second paragraph, if people who keep old cars cant afford to replace them, then how does taxing it will make people buy newer cars?

With regard to covering the reduction in tax revenue. There are more than one way to skin a cat:
- Rapid charger duty, people who use rapid chargers are generally those drive beyond range of their EV. So levy a large tax here will either push people to buy bigger battery cars (see next point), or drive less.
- Big battery production pollution tax, 40kWh is enough for 150 miles, more enough for most people's daily use. Manufacture 80kWh cars produce more pollution only to cater for that few trips away. So an exponentially tiered tax on battery size will get people to actually think about how much range is actually needed. This tax can be very expensive, like thousands for excessively big battery.
- Then, to please the voting public, a medium battery EV (eg. up to 40kWh) that is slowly charged overnight won't be taxed. So majority will not be faced with £££ for their daily commute and majority will not have excess battery capacity just sitting there for once a month trips.
It's a vote winner for majority AND pleases the green crowd.

The assumption you have made is that batteries will not be developed further nor EV motors, and that is a massive assumption and shows no faith in the intelegence of the human race.
I used to race radio control cars, used nicad batteries, then lipo were developed and brushless motors which were a lot more efficient. If you believe we have reached the limit, or close to it, of development on EV technology then I feel you are mistaken.

Ref VED, there is an awful lot of revenue raised via motorists, that is not likely to stop without an alternative source of revenue being available, extortionate taxation of rapid charging in my opinion would not come anywhere near enough nor taxing the higher range vehicles. It would be more likely in my opinion to levy taxation on the vast majority rather than the few. How that could be done we will need to wait and see.

Note, the above is an opinion only as I have no factual information of what will happen in the future in the mid to long term.

 

[Mr Bump]

JLR going down like BHS
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47155145

 

[nilagin]

JLR going down like BHS
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47155145

Are they? Only a loss of £273M for the last quarter due to the changes in the Chinese market. Other car manufacturers have seen losses in the 4th quarter for the same reason.

 

[wyx087]

The assumption you have made is that batteries will not be developed further nor EV motors, and that is a massive assumption and shows no faith in the intelegence of the human race.
I used to race radio control cars, used nicad batteries, then lipo were developed and brushless motors which were a lot more efficient. If you believe we have reached the limit, or close to it, of development on EV technology then I feel you are mistaken.

Ref VED, there is an awful lot of revenue raised via motorists, that is not likely to stop without an alternative source of revenue being available, extortionate taxation of rapid charging in my opinion would not come anywhere near enough nor taxing the higher range vehicles. It would be more likely in my opinion to levy taxation on the vast majority rather than the few. How that could be done we will need to wait and see.

Note, the above is an opinion only as I have no factual information of what will happen in the future in the mid to long term.

So we ought to put disclaimers in posts just to avoid being lawyered?
Note, I wasn't going to say your posts are all factual, because as well know, future is unpredictable.

NiCad to LiPo is more improvement in battery energy capacity than efficiency. If you used 0.5kWh to charge NiCad, and put the same 0.5kWh into modern LiPo with brushless motor, will it go much further?
Efficiency is really difficult to improve, especially difficult when each conversion is already at 90% efficiency. Nothing can be made 100% efficient. The only way to vastly improve on current electric car architecture would need to reduce the number of energy conversions, for example DC charge the battery from solar panels directly (still need a DC-DC converter though) rather than DC->home AC->DC. Within the car, there is only 2 energy conversions: DC to energise the motor and motor converting electric energy to kinetic, you can't take any one out of the equation. Even if you do, it'd be a 10% efficiency improvement at most.

You are probably right in tax. Unfortunately the little people always get shafted.
But looking back, annual VED has never been applied retrospectively. So buy EV's now? Haha

 

[Byker28i]

Sometimes, yes. There are 6 charging slots at our local Sainsbury's and it's not rare foe 3 or 4 of them to be taken by non-charging ICE cars. It's getting better since the suppliers of the spaces and (currently free) charge points have someone policing it - £60 charge for transgressors.

 

[Byker28i]

Apart from Pembroke trip, a 150 miles EV will suit you fine. From 40kWh Zoe/Leaf upwards. For Pembroke 320 miles return trip, you'll need to find a single rapid charger close to destination and best step up to a 200 miles EV.

Current limitations means having an EV car would only suit our local journeys, but thats a small fraction of our mileage, so doesn't work really on cost for us.

I was speaking to my friends with the 30Kw leaf yesterday, the ones we were trying to work out how to get toe Pembroke. They are looking to replace with a petrol qashqai. The wife says they get about a 90 mile range on the Leaf in current weather which I thought was low, so even when they travel to their boat in Windsor (70 miles) they then have to find somewhere to charge it at the moorings, which means it's a day out because the car needs charging.
They've had enough of it, it's their only car. I just suggested they hadn't done their homework relating to the journeys they do.

 

[neil_g]

Second is regarding "older less efficient" EV's.

I said batteries, not eV. Older batteries may degrade and require more frequent charging is my point. Although it would increase the damand on battery production so I'm torn there. We really do need cleaner battery production. Or accelerate the hydrogen path.

 

[srichards]

As an only car you really need a Tesla or the Hyundai Kona. Every other EV is a second car. Even the IPace is as it does about 160 motorway miles in colder weather so you spend a lot of time charging it up on longer journies. It does charge at 70kw though so if you can find the faster chargers then it's not so bad.

The Zoe 40 can be an only car if you do under 150 miles (120 winter) in a day and never do further than that.

Your leaf 30 friends bought the wrong EV. If their regular trip is 140 miles then they need an EV that will do that all year round and with charge to spare so they're looking at the Hyundai Kona as the only sensible option that isn't Tesla money.

The leaf can rapid charge though so they don't need to spend all day unless they also happen to use a route that has no rapid chargers at all on the entire length of it.....

Electric Leaf Man managed 600 miles in a day in a Leaf 30 so it is possible to do long journeys.

View: https://youtu.be/UPX0R5O3h3E

 

[PaulF]

NiCad to LiPo is more improvement in battery energy capacity than efficiency. If you used 0.5kWh to charge NiCad, and put the same 0.5kWh into modern LiPo with brushless motor, will it go much further?

Yes, and faster due to to being a different type of battery, made from different materials. The LiPo ones had a higher voltage output per cell so less cells were needed to make up the 12v required for the RC Cars.

I would hope that the EV battery technology would advance to using different materials that would hopefully be cleaner to produce, hold more charge, produce more voltage and be lighter in construction which would help EV's become more mainstream.

 

[Nod]

I just suggested they hadn't done their homework relating to the journeys they do.

So true! Although we have an EV, we wouldn't have the one we have as our only car. For a lot of our wants/needs, it's perfect but for the rest, it's far from it. If I was going to have one as an only car, it would probably be a Tesla but until we have to go that way, we'll be keeping the ICE cars too. Quite tempted by an Energica Esse Esse 9 but they're a bit pricy for a toy.

 

[wyx087]

I said batteries, not eV. Older batteries may degrade and require more frequent charging is my point. Although it would increase the damand on battery production so I'm torn there. We really do need cleaner battery production. Or accelerate the hydrogen path.

More frequent charging doesn't mean it is using more energy, the total energy used to cover a certain distance will remain similar. Imagine a slowly shrinking fuel tank.

I agree, we do need better batteries (lighter, more energy dense, safer), cleaner if possible.

I personally don't believe hydrogen is the answer, due to its low efficiency. But then, history is full of failed better technologies, beaten by more widely accepted or better marketed alternatives.

What would be good is when hydrogen fuel cells are as cheap as ICE, allowing a consumer choice: either full battery EV at 40-80kWh, or FCEV at 30-50kWh (for example). On long journey you can fall back to the range extending fuel cell, which can be refilled as quickly as fossil fuel.
Basically, like i3 REx but with hydrogen fuel cells instead. The key is battery has to be big enough to cover most people's daily commute on electricity.

Yes, and faster due to to being a different type of battery, made from different materials. The LiPo ones had a higher voltage output per cell so less cells were needed to make up the 12v required for the RC Cars.

I'm interested, what sort of percentage difference in distance (or efficiency) are we talking about between the two RC?
Remember, both must be charged the same amount of energy to be comparable.

 

[PaulF]

I'm interested, what sort of percentage difference in distance (or efficiency) are we talking about between the two RC?
Remember, both must be charged the same amount of energy to be comparable.

Never did a scientific experiment, but, at a race meeting you had several races (heats) and then the finals. There were short'ish breaks between the heats after you had completed your marshalling duties for the heat after your own. This left a short time period to charge any batteries. With the Nicad batteries they would need to be charged (topped up) after one heat otherwise they would lose performance during the second heat, LiPo's would do 2 heats without a performance drop.

 

[wyx087]

With the Nicad batteries they would need to be charged (topped up) after one heat otherwise they would lose performance during the second heat, LiPo's would do 2 heats without a performance drop.

Thanks for the information.
That last part sounds more like capacity and voltage drop characteristic difference rather than a major change in efficiency though.

Though motor technology does have room to improve in some EV's. I know Leaf and IPace both use PM motors, which is why both are so inefficient at higher speeds. SR motors used by Tesla Model 3 and I believe also by Hyundai are ideal. Dyson are experts in SR motors, which I suspect is why they are looking to enter into EV sector.

 

[Byker28i]

So true! Although we have an EV, we wouldn't have the one we have as our only car. For a lot of our wants/needs, it's perfect but for the rest, it's far from it. If I was going to have one as an only car, it would probably be a Tesla but until we have to go that way, we'll be keeping the ICE cars too. Quite tempted by an Energica Esse Esse 9 but they're a bit pricy for a toy.

The new Kia's look interesting - certainly pushing more towards an ice replacement

 

[Byker28i]

The leaf can rapid charge though so they don't need to spend all day unless they also happen to use a route that has no rapid chargers at all on the entire length of it.....

I think this was the issue only boat connections at the moorings so 3.5kw? But you're right - wrong EV for an only car

 

[Byker28i]

Thanks for the information.
That last part sounds more like capacity and voltage drop characteristic difference rather than a major change in efficiency though.

Though motor technology does have room to improve in some EV's. I know Leaf and IPace both use PM motors, which is why both are so inefficient at higher speeds. SR motors used by Tesla Model 3 and I believe also by Hyundai are ideal. Dyson are experts in SR motors, which I suspect is why they are looking to enter into EV sector.

There's quite a lot of talk now about heat management in the new EV's. As a technology, EV development is certainly interesting

 

[Byker28i]

Model 3 does look interesting

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXHyjXaVWF8&feature=youtu.be


Range:
120 km/h = 450 km (281 mi)
150 km/h = 315 km (197 mi)
180 km/h = 250 km (156 mi)
200 km/h = 180 km (113 mi)

 

[Byker28i]

As does the Kia e-Niro
https://www.whatcar.com/awards/cont...verall-winner/kia-e-niro-first-edition/n18631

but only 900 for the UK for 2019 and sold out already