The biggest seller of EVs here is the salary sacrifice schemes that give a huge discount to high earners, especially those with kids.
Imagine you're on taxable income of £120k and have two chidlren in nursery. Currently you get no help with childcare costs from the government. From my own experience it's ~£6000 subsidy per child.
You can currently take out an EV salary sacrifice scheme for ~£600 per month (pre tax), and that brings your taxable income down by £7200. Put another £13k in pension. Boom, you're now getting £13k in pension p/a, and your car is effectively free, because you get £12k back in childcare subsidies.
Your car isn't 'effectively free', because you could sacrifice all £20k into the pension, paying no tax on it, and get the £12k in childcare subsidies because your income is <=£100k. The EV is costing you £7000 pa out of this.
If you're at that income level, your employer pension contribution is already likely high and you've likely been stacking it for a while anyway. At some point there is a diminishing return to how much you should put in your pension too; it's tax on exit after all. You only need 2-3 years of maxed out contributions in your late 20s/early 30s to set yourself up very well for the future.
But how long until those children are no longer in nursery and you are not subsedised for it? In ~2 years you will no longer have this help, you will be paying through the nose for the outstanding amount on your new car, and your take home will be significantly less each month.
Yeah, but you're still taxed at 72% between £100 and £125k if you have a student loan (as most people in that age bracket will be), so even in that case the hit to your take home isn't that much.
There is no need to go that high in salary (a lucky very small minority). The higher income tax band (40%) kicks in at 50k. Salary sacrifice schemes offer huge savings to many people.
What I mean is that if salary sacrifice schemes on EV were only used, and very good deals, for people over 100k then it would be extremely niche as we're talking about the top 4% of earners whereas about 16% are higher band taxpayers...
People on higher salaries are disproportionately likely to be the ones doing it though - much much more likely to work for companies that implement the schemes for a start.
This oil crisis was a huge boon for EVs. In Brazil, despite the "hate" most people have against EVs, BYD went from breaking into the top 10 in March to taking the #1 spot in consumer sales for the first time ever.
Yeah, money talks. And every time you drop another $100 bill into the fuel tank, maybe you start to wonder what it is like to not pay that. Or to not drive to a gas station at all. Then you drive one and become one of the vast majority of people who suddenly have the epiphany "I will never go back, I like this way too much."
Curious as to why American EVs never took off. The US is the most advanced country technologically and has the greatest soft power in history to make deals.
1. Unlike the rest of the world, EVs were sold in the US as muscle cars for rich people (e.g. Tesla). Everywhere else they're cheap cars for urban commuters (e.g. BYD).
2. Republicans sabotaged every attempt from the Democrats to get EVs going on.
3. Space and demography: EVs do very well in small countries (e.g. Europe) or big countries with a concentrated population (e.g.Brasil, Nigeria). They do poorly in countries with big distances and a spread out population.
> The US is the most advanced country technologically
Certainly not in cars. The US car industry really more or less stopped even _trying_ to compete internationally in the 90s or so. The sole exception was Ford, but they went for an unusual approach where Ford Europe designed its own cars, using parts from Bosch etc. Ford Europe is now also all but dead in the consumer space, too. To a large extent the US car industry survives due to protectionism (notably this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax).
Incidentally, it's far from what you'd expect, but the US is actually probably more influential in public transport than private transport on an export basis; Cummins is very competitive in the diesel engine space for buses, and the ridiculously-named Wabtec (previously GE and Westinghouse's train-y divisions) is big in locomotive tech.
Though AIUI US companies are largely failing to keep up there, now, too; diesel city buses are on the way out, and electric bus powertrains are largely Chinese or European.
Incumbent American automakers had a hard time switching over. EVs require significant expertise that they didn't have, and didn't particularly want to acquire.
Only Tesla designed cars to be electric from a clean sheet. And they were doing extremely well for a long time, and had an enormous lead. But they squandered it in a variety of ways.
The automakers and oil interests spent a lot of effort badmouthing electric cars. To hear Americans talk about it, they need to haul giant boats on their daily 400 mile commutes into uncharted forest. They didn't come up with "range anxiety"; it was deliberately spread.
For a while there was a partisan divide about it, with electric cars seen as a hippie-liberal choice, much as hybrids used to be. Then circa 2020 Elon Musk began to systematically alienate that market.
Imagine how much faster electric car adoption would be if incumbent auto makers weren’t using them as dumping grounds for experimental, half-baked, and unsafe design experiments?
We never wanted their “electric cars” … we wanted their cars, but electric.
All of the German car makers, plus Hyundai, are very serious about making really good mainstream electric vehicles because they all believe that will be their core of their business sooner rather than later.
The basic Seat Leon combi is currently 22.000€ on promotion. And that's a spacious family car. No EV car exist at that price point in that size with a range that most people would be comfortable with it.
Yes they will exist in the future but we are still a decade away from that at least.
> No EV car exist at that price point in that size with a range that most people would be comfortable with it.
Disregarding the range because that's a different topic. Fundamentally EVs will be of a different size than ICEs because the big and heavy battery has to placed somewhere low, which is usually under the passenger area floor. Then the car must be higher to accomodate that and also sturdier etc., so at that point we have a bigger and heavier car for the same interior space. And also pricier of course. So it's better to forget the Seat Leon Combi and look at the EVs with fresh eyes.
Or you can retrofit an EN to a ICE shell, like Stellantis did with eg the Opel Astra TS which is also cheap for an EV, but mostly everyone agrees this is a dead end.
One more point regarding the price - that's our own (EU) making. Chinese EVs in China are much much cheaper.
Coulda fooled me. From what I’ve seen, it seemed like they were dragged to electric kicking and screaming after other options didn’t pan out - even with assistance from regulators. Germany has a severe problem with rational consideration of energy issues.
The Achilles heel of EV adoption, and why I think Tesla has had such a leg up, is that your classic dealership really doesn't like selling EVs.
The salesman aren't knowledgeable about them, they don't have ownership experience with them, and EV's generate dramatically fewer lifetime "service" visits and parts sales.
This was common with the f150 lightning, where salesman were pretty much "If you want it I can do the paper work, but let me show you the regular F150's we have here if you like to drive places without headaches."
We have a lot of big dealer groups who are not tied to a specific manufacturer. Independent franchisees tied to a single manufacturer are uncommon I believe.
Even within each sub-brand of the group, they often work with different manufacturers.
Though Sytner (the biggest) tend to have single-manufacturer dealerships.
Probably a mix of both on both sides of the pond I imagine?
And there's less rigmarole during the process. Less aggressive sales tactics I believe
In the US the standard thing is to have a car lot that's just a single manufacturer. In a given town there will be a Ford dealer, a Chevy dealer, a Subaru dealer, a Kia dealer, etc.
Often there will be multiple dealers on adjoining lots, owned by the same conglomerate- but they'll maintain some illusion of independence.
I bought a Hyundai recently and the Hyundai dealer was right next to a Volvo dealer and a VW dealer. They're all part of "Sheppard Auto Group" and they share a parking lot, but the buildings are completely disconnected. However when it came time to actually sign the paperwork they led me from the Hyundai dealer to an office in the VW building, because that's where the sales manager who was working that day was. They also share a service department.
However, if I'd wanted to buy a VW though and I went in to the Hyundai building I suspect they would've made me walk over to the VW building and talk to those salespeople, and all my paperwork has the name of the Hyundai dealer on it. The point is you'd never go to "Sam's Car Dealership" and find a Ford parked next to a Honda parked next to a Chevrolet.
Independent used car lots are a free-for-all though.
Yeah, the first EV I bought was an otherwise boring Hyundai Kona. Great car and great EV but you could easily mistake it for the gas version if you weren't paying attention.
And surprisingly to me it is even pretty damn efficient despite being originally designed as a gasoline-powered vehicle.
There are some where the EV is largely the same as the non-EV other than the necessary differences because it is in an EV such as instruments and menus.
For example Hyundai Kona EV differs inside from the Kona ICE and hybrid models by having the shifter on the column instead of on the center console and the floor is flatter from not needing to accommodate the transmission tunnel.
A mix of Googling and LLMing suggests that BMW, Genesis, Mini Cooper, Volvo, and VW also have some EVs that are very similar to their non-EV cars.
VW tried that, particularly with the eGolf (which was pretty much indistinguishable from a normal Golf); it didn't really work. A lot of people thought VW didn't even _make_ electric cars until the weirder-looking id3 and 4 came out years later.
I think they were trying to say that it's surprising the Lightning sold so poorly considering the popularity of the ICE version.
I do think F-150 buyers tend to be more conservative than average car buyers and more receptive to anti-EV FUD for both political and cultural reasons.
What's galling is Tesla's influence. Why do electric cars need to have screens besides (or instead of) the dashboard? WHY? Or any other of Tesla's misfeatures.
I own a Kia Rio hachback. It was incredibly cheap for the features and has been incredibly reliable. I just want an electric version of that with as much range as possible and a heat pump for cabin climate control and battery management.
But nope, can't have that, instead we have a market full of cars 4+ times the cost with a bunch of stupid, useless, asinine bells and whistles.
I assume they'll eventually sell that, in about 10 years time, which makes me sad.
> The increase reflects a rebound from an unusually weak April last year, when buyers pulled purchases forward to March to beat incoming vehicle tax increases
I am so confused by the categorisation of cars: BEV, HEV, PHEV and so on. I think the industry insiders who write some of these articles don't realise how hard it is for some of their readers to keep track.
To be fair, the article is written on a website for the auto industry, so it's reasonable for them to assume their target audience is familiar with these terms. I argue the onus is on OP for explaining these since they're sharing it to a different audience than it was written for.
> Same as a hybrid but you can charge up the hybrid battery at home
And, in practice, the battery tends to be much, much bigger. Some PHEVs are basically mediocre-range electric cars which happen to have a petrol generator.
Its time to call a spade a spade - the bulk of the PHEV category sold to date (with a few exceptions like toyota) has been an emissions scam, designed to skirt EU fleet emission laws.
In practice, most are mediocre range, low-speed only evs that effectively no one bothers to charge regularly because its impractical and annoying. The manufactures claim 80% reductions in emissions, and use those credits to allow them to sell more gas cars in the EU market. But real world emission reduction is 20%. They know this, they've known for years. Its a scam.
Some newer toyotas, newer BMWs and the coming EREVs will actually be able to be electric cars most of the time, and might live up closer to the claims. Doesnt change the fact the category has been mostly fraud until now.
In theory, a PHEV is the perfect middle ground for someone that wants to drive electric but has major range anxiety about road trips.
Something with a 60 mile electric range will likely satisfy all of their day-to-day driving. The generator means they don't have to charge though, so they can still take road trips without worrying about electric range.
In practice though, they're somewhat impractical. You still need an entire ICE drivetrain AND a moderately sized battery and electric motor, driving the price up.
My Prius Prime PHEV has a range of about 25 miles on battery. My daily commute to work is about 10 miles each way, so I can get to work and back on electric alone. If I happen to need to make a longer trip, then my car switches to gas. I plug in the car when I get home from work and I only need to refill the tank every few months. And even then, it's extremely fuel efficient because it's still a Prius.
This has been a perfect car for my use case, but the big caveat is my short commute. If your daily commute fits inside that short range (or one way commute if there's a charger at your workplace), this can be a great fit. A+++, highly recommended.
If your work commute is significantly longer than a PHEV's battery range, or if you don't have a convenient place to charge it, then it's a much less attractive proposition.
Most people don't end up charging their battery because it still has an ICE so why bother? So now they have the worst of both worlds. Complex ICE machinery that needs regular service and heavy battery that doesn't end up being used.
Small batteries mean heavy cycling of those batteries. When on pure EV, the oversized battery means most days you sit in the middle third of the battery which is great for battery longevity.
I wouldn't be sure if that's often the case, most PHEVs are just minor upgrades over existing hybrids. The electric motors on most hybrids, except the Nissan system, tend to only cover zero to city speeds. They need the gas engine connected to handle highway and ramp situations.
It is true. most are much worse at being EVs than the toyota prime models. Toyotas were the top of the euro data on real world EV-only use. Every other manufacturer ranges from worse to hilariously worse. Toyotas are not over half of sales, so therefore "most" applies.
A colleague drives a BMW 3something hybrid and as far as i know has a 14kWh battery..
Thats good for about a 100km, but i very much wouldn't consider that a "fully" electric car by any means (edit: did you edit your post? couldve sworn you said "fully electric" instead of "mediocre range"?)...
Also, what most people don't realize: if you're only (or mostly) driving it electric, you're putting many more cycles onto that tiny battery.
...which usually costs as much as a "regular" EV battery, x times the size.
The latest Honda Civic Hybrid (and its Prelude cousin). The ICE is a generator under most use cases - it's decoupled from the drivetrain most of the time. That said, the battery capacity isn't great - you aren't going to complete many trips out of your immediate neighborhood on EV power alone.
That's because hybrids aren't designed to do so. The battery is small in terms of both energy and power. Sometimes, if the car is initially pointed the right way, you could complete a very short downhill trip at low speeds without the engine starting. But hybrids are designed to run the engine often. The batteries are sized to capture approximately the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle when stopping, and discharge the same energy when starting to move again, and that's it. It's a great system, they all get 45+ MPG.
...and apparently most owners never plug them in, so people just burn expensive fuel to charge their battery, while offering little or no savings over a hybrid or just the gas version.
> PH = Plug-in hybrid (Same as a hybrid but you can charge up the hybrid battery at home)
Surely that's the "same as a battery but you can use petrol on long journeys"
The only energy input for a "hybrid" is from petrol. It's slightly more efficient. A Toyota Yaris 1.5 hubrid gets about 65mpg rather than the 45mpg on a Skoda Kamiq
> Surely that's the "same as a battery but you can use petrol on long journeys"
Not really. The petrol drivetrain takes up so much room there's no space for a large battery, so the much smaller battery will only take you a short distance if you used it alone, plus now it's much less efficient because you're carrying around a heavy engine with you.
Which is ~enough to cover the vast majority of commutes, and the majority of US commutes.
Keep in mind that even if 20% of your commute is done on petrol, the other 80% isn't.
---
[1] Yes, there are PHEVs with shorter ranges, but those tend to be weird luxury models that for some compliance reason have a battery strapped to them.
IIRC, the latest Honda Civic Hybrid has the ICE decoupled from the drivetrain most of the time (even if it is running to generate power), but it can couple to the drivetrain under some conditions?
That sounds like what the Chevy Volt did back in the day. Turns out that it just was not feasible to achieve higher efficiency through the generator when cruising on the highway than just direct driving the wheels.
Almost certainly why nearly all hybrids have been parallel hybrids up to now. What is changing, I think, is that a significant number of people are warming to the idea of a BEV, and want all of the benefits of that, but want to fall back on gasoline in a pinch. Thus EREV, or series hybrid, which provides that crutch. Expensive, though.
I'm curious why exactly they haven't made 2-3 speed trans typical in EVs already, like Porsche did. Single gear is too inefficient at freeway speeds. Tesla supposedly solved this with dual-motor models where the second motor has a different final drive ratio, but I feel like that's more expensive than 2WD w/ trans, which doesn't need to be nearly as advanced as the ICE-driven kind.
Depends on how you use it. Some never plug in. Some always do. I save a ton of money without worrying about range since there is always gas when I make a roadtrip
> PH = Plug-in hybrid (Same as a hybrid but you can charge up the hybrid battery at home)
You can, but in practice most people don't. And I can understand why -- it's inconvenient to have to plug in after every short trip, and the short electric range of most PHEV's means you do have to plug in after every short trip.
I plug in my EV around once a week, and it's more convenient than going to the gas station, but I'm not sure I'd want to have to plug it in every time I come home from even a short trip to the supermarket.
They vary widely. Some have 1 mile (and the plug is therefore fairly pointless and usually just to qualify for some subsidy), whilst others do 200 miles and are effectively full EV's with a petrol generator to travel further.
It still allows regen braking down a hill or at traffic lights in town, so you get a decent efficiency gain. It also gives you a bit more horsepower when overtaking (depending on design). Or an hour of running the AC without belching smoke.
Considering the battery and motors for these tiny EV's is only 100 lbs or so, it is probably still worth having.
I would. Why wouldn't I? I park my car in an attached garage. If I had an EV or PHEV, I'd walk right past the charger on my way to the door into the house. I don't like standing around at the gas station waiting on the tank to fill. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
I actually wanted a PHEV, since my car is mostly used for local driving but I also drive hundreds of miles for work trips. Unfortunately I couldn't find one I liked.
The question isn't how long the journey is, it's how long until you're somewhere with a charger where you can wait a long time, but not too long. Short-range EVs make the most sense for people with single-family homes. Charging at work or apartments helps, but then there's the "too long" caveat.
Mine does about 40 miles during summer and 23 miles during winter. Given that my trips are within 25-35 miles range, I charge it daily. It’s at 9.5k miles and I filled up the tank about 7-8 times in 2 years. Rest was all electric.
Most user agents allow you to trivially search from selection. Double-click unfamiliar word, right click, select "search" or on macOS there's also "lookup" but that really only works on dictionary words.
It's actually dead simple: there are battery electric EVs and internal combustion cars. That's it.
ICE cars come with a variety of add-ons and schemes to improve efficiency: fuel injectors, ECUs, braking energy capture systems (aka hybrid), small batteries for short trips that no one plugs in (aka plug in hybrids), etc.
> In California, PZEVs have their own administrative category for low-emission vehicles. The category was made in a bargain between automakers and the California Air Resources Board (CARB), so that automobile makers could delay making mandated zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs)—battery electric and fuel-cell electric vehicles.
Is that extended range? I was reading about them the other day. A small ICE engine in the car but it only charges the battery, right? Basically the opposite of a Toyota hybrid.
Yes, also known as a series hybrid, though EREV has become the dominant term in my experience. Nearly all hybrids on the market today or at any time in the past have been parallel hybrids, where the electric and gas motors both attach to the drivetrain. BMW did make an EREV version of the i3. Chevy made the Volt, which was almost a series hybrid, but in the end still parallel.
The new Civic hybrid is a series hybrid. It puts down 200hp and does 0-60 in 6 seconds, all while getting 50mpg. It combines the torque of an electric motor with an Atkinson cycle engine, which is known for better efficiency but worse torque, as a generator. And it clocks in around 3200lb, a bit more than a classic Civic, but far lower than any BEV.
The slight compromise is at constant highway cruising speeds, it may let the engine take over, since the efficiency calculus likely is more favorable in those conditions. It uses a clutch to do this, and only has a single gear ratio, rather than the messy setup of typical parallel hybrids.
I've driven one. Zipcar UK (RIP!) had a few Fiat 500 Hybrids and I ended up with one once when every other nearby Zipcar was booked and I had a last minute need for a car.
Given they are a relatively gutless car to begin with (1 litre 3 cylinder 70hp tinpot engine) I did wonder what the zigzag/lightning icon was on the dash so I googled it.
Turns out the system uses a 11Ah lithium battery that lives under the driver/passenger seat that charges through regenerative braking. It gives a small boost during acceleration (mostly at low speeds so it's more for stop-start urban driving), I think it's not much more than a glorified belt around the crankshaft giving a few extra hp.
No appreciable benefit to it that I could feel, but if it's helping us burn fewer dinosaurs then that's all good. (It's still a car but much better than a massive wankpanzer.)
Quite frankly, today there is no need to look anywhere else than a pure electric car. No point to buy an ICE with battery + electric motor. It just adds complexity and makes it expensive to service. The newly released EVs today are so good and have fantastic range.
Unless you travel a lot and live in hotels for months at a time, like I do. Granted, that's not horribly common but there are still legitimate reasons to want an ICE.
That was always my thing about early EVs. Thumbs up to the early adopters but it took a while to take off as a lot of the early ones were just car but battery and they weren't very polished and had a lot of downsides.
Agreed, though I was disheartened to find that we are now forcing electric cars to be loud because won't someone think of the pedestrians. There was a moment when EVs were quiet, and now there are some which drive by my house (residential neighborhood, so around 20 mph) that are louder than a well maintained ICEV would be at the same speed. The worst offenders are hybrids (looking at you, Toyota, with that unholy screech you make...)
Why is the most unsaid part out of all of this fuel nonsense is that there are less cars dumping emissions into the air. The Iran war may be the best driver we've had for air quality. Bring more EVs, they're overdue by a decade.
I quit driving in the last century so buying petrol is not something I do. I have a bicycle for most journeys and the train for elsewhere.
Hence my perspective is different. To have everyone priced off the roads is going to make the cycling so much faster and pleasant.
I have considered getting an electric car in the past, but, one look at the traffic, and I decided against going that slow. So I thought about getting an electric bicycle, only to come to the same conclusion, a normal bicycle is all I want or need.
There is a similar story with food. No fertiliser? No problem! I only eat plants, with no processed food or dead animals. Soon the 'grow crops to fatten animals so fat people can eat them' idea will be too costly.
Of course, the world isn't going to stop eating animal corpses at every occasion or ween the adults off milk, so we will see what happens. Nonetheless, plants only is a good starting point.
I don't see electric cars as a solution except for boomers, particularly in the UK context, where the goal is to have 50% of urban journeys taken with active travel by 2030. Active travel means walking or cycling, and I am all for it.
If you are obese, car dependent and eating burgers, the situation is not good. However, if free from car dependency and able to cook from scratch with plants, then the situation is somewhat different, previously unpopular lifestyle choices make sense.
I also don't see what right I have to West Asian oil, it is not a birthright to have access to all the fuel one can afford. My view is that it is best left in the ground.
Donald Trump and Beniamin Netanyahu in a single year did more to curb emissions than all green activists since the inception of green activism. Nobel Peace Prize worthy if you ask me!
> In 2022 is was £1.89 a litre and spent most of the year over £1.60 a litre
Why are you choosing the 2022 energy crises as your baseline? Not only your choice was arbitary but you managed to choose the year fuel was at its highest as a reaction to the war in Ukraine.
That price was not representative or typical, it was a spike. You can see it here.
Yes well people like to complain, and people have a short memory. If it were really a massive problem you would see a lot more smaller cars, rather than Range Rovers and BMWs.
We will see exactly the same thing again in a few years when people are 'shocked' that prices are rising again. And then expect the government to step in, even though on the interim they've bought a massive car on PCP rather than take some personal responsibility and buy a car that they can afford when inevitably something goes wrong.
That is an interesting perspective. We do not forget how good we have it, because we choose not to put high taxes on gasoline and diesel. Do drivers in the UK tend to forget that taxes are more than half the retail price they pay at the pump? Sometimes way over half. That is a policy decision.
In the US, roads are paid for by other taxes instead. Property taxes for local roads, and general fund monies (income, sales, and inflation) for highways. Unfortunately that hides the real cost of using the roads, and makes it harder for people to make good choices. This seems unlikely to change though.
I think it is a complicated issue. People who do not drive still benefit from having a road going to their house. Either for deliveries, or for emergency vehicles, or whatever personal transportation they do end up using. So we want to spread the cost around a bit so everyone is paying something, in a perfect world as close as possible to how much they benefit from it.
I imagine it also varies somewhat across the US. Locally, our city does not use property taxes for road maintenance, we have a pavement fee which is billed through the utilities system (same one that handles water & sewer, for example). Plus gas tax from the state. It could be argued that the distinction between the pavement fee and property taxes is subtle, though.
I hope we can get the kinks worked out. Even in many 'blue' states, we have created a situation where the road maintenance tax paid by EV owners is twice or more what the typical ICEV driver is paying. I sort of expected that in 'red' states, since punishing EV owners is a political priority, but we see that same crap in Oregon & Washington, for example.
At some stage I wonder if the UK will need to regulate the charger industry. The price gouging is wild in places. If we look at the energy content of petrol, a litre of gas contains about 9kwh of energy, or at average pump prices 1.58/9 = ~18 pence a kwh.
For sure, EVs are far more efficient at converting a kwh of energy into forward motion, but if we assume 35 mpg (9.25 miles/litre) for the gas car, we need about 970wh to travel 1 mile. A modern EV can manage a mile on ~260wh, almost a quarter of the gas requirement.
There are public charging networks in the UK averaging 92p/kwh - we know we need much less energy to move the more efficient EV, but even with this adjustment fuel cost per mile looks like:
petrol at UK average today: 17p/mi
Electric at very expensive public charger: ~24p/mi !!
At many chargers, there are no savings at all. For comparisons sake, that 92p kwh would be just 28.6p on the most expensive domestic electricity supply, and charging at home would be ~8p per mile on the worst possible tariffs.
I've probably done some bad math somewhere here, but I think the broad picture is correct.
The market should sort this out by itself, not saying regulators shouldn’t watch closely, but competition should be enough to do its thing. Cartel formation especially should be watched for vigilantly.
Of course, thats why I've been clear all my assumptions are for 260wh/mi, which I think is a very fair middle ground figure to compare to a 35mpg car - one can pick far more fuel efficient gas cars for this comparison too, the possibilities are endless.
I think your numbers still illustrate the same point though; if you can't charge at home, an EV is not necessarily cheaper to fuel, and the gap between the public charger price and the cost to a private consumer with home charging is still far too big. 98p vs 15p is staggering.
Even in Wales, 25% can't. This isn't a figure you can ignore.
And that's a hypothetical, it relies on landlords playing ball etc. then there's the social issues. On the north of England we have lots of terraces built for mill workers, these aren't owned by the richest on society. So then you're in the situation of charging the poorest more for transport. And these are necessarily on towns with good transport links (think 1 bus and hour).
Many of those "can't" won't have cars. 20% of households in Wales have no car.
Now clearly that 25% and 20% won't overlap exactly, but they will overlap a lot
When 80% of cars in the UK are electric and 20% are those households who rely on public streets to store their belongings for 23 hours a day, then sure that will be a problem
Given that there's only about 2 million electric cars in the UK, yet 18 million homes which can charge electric cars, that's a long way off.
But compared to the US home charging via a mains outlet is much more viable because it's 240v vs 110v. If you plug you car overnight you'll typically have enough charge to last you the next day.
Almost everyone I know with an EV charging at home just reused the 240v dryer socket to avoid paying for a dedicated fast charger. It's often cheaper too to have an electrician fit a new 240v socket instead of the dedicated charger as well.
Home chargers with dedicated sockets is three phase 400v actually over here in the EU and every single home, and even relatively new apartments have that because of induction stoves.
Three phase power is definitely not 100% in the EU. Not even in Germany, though adoption does tend to be higher than neighboring countries.
And FWIW, I find that my induction cooktop works wonderfully on plain old 240V 40A, so I do not think it is a requirement to get three-phase for that ;-).
The US is 240V. We split it into two 120V legs for some sockets, and not for others. Some people do choose to get by on 120V, true, but they are the minority. Usually people who do not drive often.
Most? You mean all. 240V [0] as been the standard in the US basically since electrification started in the late 19th century. 120V has for all practical purposes never been a thing, it has always been an artifact of split-phase 240V. A deliberate choice to offer two voltages to every consumer.
[0] Okay, technically 240V did not become official until around 1967, but the split-phase design was there from the beginning. They capped it at 240V to stop the creeping up that had been going on in the earlier part of the century. This is why you still have a lot of people (not all of them old enough to have been alive in 1967, oddly enough) that refer to 240V as 220.
The UK is well suited to wind power, already has many wind turbines, and continues to install more. We have a good amount of solar panels too. Renewables provide the majority of electrical power when conditions are good and the share will only increase. Electric vehicles avoid the biggest weakness of renewables (unreliable base load), because they can be set to charge unattended when cheap electricity is available. Electricity suppliers offer variable rate tariffs specifically for electric vehicles.
You start running numbers the cost of solar and wind capacity to power an electric car is about 10% of the purchase price. And considering they have a battery that can store a weeks worth of energy and spend 95% of the time just sitting. Basically not a problem.
Maybe, in the best case, your gas engine is maybe 45% fuel efficient, but realistically, you're probably getting closer to 20-25%. By contrast, a combined cycle power plant gets over 60%.
But that's assuming we're just running power plants off of petrol and fuels. Coal is much cheaper than petroleum in some cases. There's also a lot of people who get their power from nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind. In many cases, your electric prices are not at all affected by the increases in petrullium prices, because most of your electricity is coming from something else. In fact, I doubt there's any place in the world that all your electricity is coming from petroleum fuels. Even if that's the major input, there are almost undoubtedly other sources in the mix.
> By contrast, a combined cycle power plant gets over 60%.
Over 25% of this is then lost in transmission and distribution[0] (down to 45%). Then 10-25% of that lost in charging the car[1] (down to 40%). Finally, the car itself loses about 10-15% of that[2] (down to 35%).
Total UK electricity consumption is around 300 TWh annually. That would put the grid losses at less than 10% based on your link. The charging is never as bad as 25% (internal house losses are negligible for any sensible charging rate) and the car is typically ~12% charging loss. Moreover, EVs recover quite a bit too. Even in purely dissipative driving (highway driving), I get around 4 miles/kWh, which is about 4 times better than an ICE vehicle.
Furthermore, if you're going to include distributional losses, then let's also drop the available petrol by 10-15% to account for refining etc.
Finally, on anything resembling a sunny day, my car charges entirely of rooftop solar, so what efficiency do we assign to that?
That depends entirely on where you are. In Ontario electricity is mostly hydro, nuclear, and renewables. But also, compared to burning gas directly, EVs are still more efficient and require less gas if you burn the gas to charge the EV.
Somewhat. But price rises for electricity aren't remotely on the same scale as price rises for diesel and petrol, and fuel/electricity was a smaller part of the TCO to _start_ with for electric cars.
Electricity generation is already diversified. Nuclear, coal, gas, solar, wood, witches, etc. The fuel mix can be tweaked as the economics change. ICE vehicle fleet is stuck with one energy source.
If you charge at home, and you don't have a car tariff, it'll be ~25-30p per kwhr
If you get a car charging tariff then you'll be paying ~9p a kwhr.
if you are brave then you can use an agile prices which depends on the weather you can be paid to charge (my record was -11p a unit) however in winter it can be a lot high, like 45p a unit.
Charging on the street can be around 50p a kwhr up to 98p a kwhr
Electric price in the uk on an off peak tariff overnight is about 7p/kWh, or about 2p/mile, so charging your car overnight with the average electric mileage (10,000 miles a year - higher than the average mileage) costs £200, about £1300 a year less than petrol.
Can you actually get different tariffs in the UK for residential?
In Canada most of that is pretty opaque. Electricity tariffs are not really something that most households would worry about. Businesses and Industrial usage do though
Again if you put in a £5k 10kWh battery you are golden, as you put 8kWh into your car and 8kWh into your battery every night, dropping your electric cost to £38 a month (plus the standing charge, which is far higher)
Yes, there are multiple competing providers - all the electricity comes from a single grid but competition in how you are billed for usage.
Many people choose a single fixed or variable rate tariff, but there are also off-peak tariffs that are very cheap at night but slightly more expensive in the day (designed for EV users), or even tariffs where the rate changes every 30 minutes depending on what is being generated - in this case when there is excess solar and wind generation then sometimes the rate even goes negative and you are paid to use the excess power.
Yes, the newer suppliers have EV and solar friendly domestic tariffs. Plug it in overnight, and the supplier determines when the charge happens and charges at the reduced rate.
Interesting how that doesn't seem to be a front where Europe wants to isolate itself from foreign influence; the models mentioned in the link seem to be Chinese in origin, not European.
Unlike with fuel, we're not burning the EVs, so even if China cuts off the supply we can keep using the ones we've already got. It would be inconvenient, but not an urgent problem like loss of access to fuel.
A fifth of these last year were paid for by the government scheme that buys people cars - Motability. I wonder how many of these current ones are like that.
Motability is not 'a Government scheme that buys people cars'
People use the mobility part of their PIP payments to lease a car from Motability which is an independent company, they could use the mobility payment to pay for taxi instead.
It's also misleading to treat it just like another independent private company too (not just because Motability consists of both a limited company and a charity (or two, IIRC)). The limited company reinvests revenues or transfers to its charity, not to private shareholders. Its origin was a charity.
But the only reason it exists is because of government funds and government policy.
The scheme would collapse if the government stopped allowing benefit money to be used for Motability leases. The banks lent them money under the reassurance of the government funding.
But yes, they lease the vehicles, they don't sell them.
I'm not talking about that. The government waives multiple taxes for the scheme. Off the top of my head, no VAT on the car purchases, no luxury tax on vehicles worth £40k+, no insurance tax, no VED (road tax).
The scheme has cost billions in lost revenue and it's the only reason it can exist. The exact accounting is up for debate because it's complex but nonetheless.
There are / were no £40k+ cars available on Motability
Can't find it now but there's a breakdown of the cars supplied somewhere and even when small BMWs etc were available very few people chose them - most people chose smaller average cars
Motability also plays a huge role in priming the used car market in the UK - without them there would be less choice and cars would be more expensive
> And you can claim you have anxiety in order to get a brand new Audi.
You're gonna have to cite sources on that one, but I would sincerely doubt that £77 a week will allow you to lease an Audi.
Also the pip claimant has to be probed by a panel every three years to keep getting the benefit, unlike say a state pension (but I paid for that I mean possibly you did, its still a non means tested benefit, unlike PIP)
Personally I'm more pissed off about pensioners on final salary still getting state pension, even though they don't need it. Thats far more fucking expensive and doesn't serve a purpose, well apart from buying votes. means test that shit, right now.
Since this is a discussion, I would suggest it would be most helpful if you just provided your opinions explicitly. And you are welcome to post links to back up assertions that involve facts, of course!
Holy crap the scrolling behavior on this site is the worst I've seen. It hijacks my browser (Chrome)+OS X trackpad scrolling speed and inertia in a horrible way.
Imagine you're on taxable income of £120k and have two chidlren in nursery. Currently you get no help with childcare costs from the government. From my own experience it's ~£6000 subsidy per child.
You can currently take out an EV salary sacrifice scheme for ~£600 per month (pre tax), and that brings your taxable income down by £7200. Put another £13k in pension. Boom, you're now getting £13k in pension p/a, and your car is effectively free, because you get £12k back in childcare subsidies.