Interesting look at how green EV actually is

[roker]

The Times had a similar article on the future of car taxation, suggesting weight would be a fairer basis, but that, like the current system punish the potential to pollute and not the reality. A small car doing 50k km a year will cause more pollution than one twice it's size doing 10k.

That came off the top of your head, has a study been done?

 

[Leo]

That came off the top of your head, has a study been done?

Haha, a study? It's at most inter-cert level science!

 

[Cervelo]

(even worse if the trend for pick-up trucks follows over from the US as well).

On our last road trip in the states we found ourselves in Detroit and of course been so close to Fords birthplace we had to go visit the factory where they now make the F150 and if we'd won the lottery while there I was buying the Raptor version of the F150
Anyhow I was surprised to learn that back then when Henry was making the Model T, Mrs Ford was driving an electric car and not the model T
The reason given was simply she couldn't crank the the engine!!

 

[Leo]

EVs are 2 ton with their batteries taking up half the weight

Well, the Skoda Enyak iV 50 is a 2-tonne EV with a 376kg battery, but the enclosure is also a structural component and forms the floor, so overall not massively heavier then an engine, transmission, fuel, oil, coolant...

 

[Leo]

It's not just one study on tyre particle pollution. The danger has been well established for years;

Yeah, but from a health perspective, exhaust emissions are the much bigger danger, Tyre pollution is definitely an issue, but not one that is significantly worse with EVs, and certainly not anywhere near the point where people should second guess the overall benefits of EVs over ICE cars.

I'm not sure why we'd want to restrict eBike subsidies given that we don't particularly restrict EV subsidies. You can avail of the EV subsidy, and pass the polluting diesel to the adult child, which will still be polluting on the road.

Every EV on the road is one less ICE car purchased. You can't say the same for eBikes. Subsidising them more will do little or nothing to reduce emissions unless we go so far as the trade-in scheme you noted there.

 

[RetirementPlan]

Yeah, but from a health perspective, exhaust emissions are the much bigger danger, Tyre pollution is definitely an issue, but not one that is significantly worse with EVs, and certainly not anywhere near the point where people should second guess the overall benefits of EVs over ICE cars.


Every EV on the road is one less ICE car purchased. You can't say the same for eBikes. Subsidising them more will do little or nothing to reduce emissions unless we go so far as the trade-in scheme you noted there.

Absolutely, exhaust fumes are the bigger danger, and noise pollution is much worse with ICE cars. Absolutely, EVs have strong benefits over ICE, all other things being equal.
But other things are often not equal. Getting subsidised to buy an EV, with all the associated environmental costs of manufacturing and disposal, while your ICE car is passed on or sold on to someone else, and remains on the road polluting, is a very questionable environmental benefit. Depending on the ages of the vehicle, it might well be better to NOT buy the ICE car and continue to run the other vehicle for additional years, thus avoiding the environmental cost of manufacturing the EV. The only environmentally friendly car is the one that you avoid buying. EVs may be the least worst option, but subsidising people to rush out and buy an EV when there is nothing particularly wrong with their ICE car doesn't make a lot of sense.
It is not true to say that every EV on the road is one less ICE car. The EV subsidy may well encourage people to buy an additional vehicle, while the ICE remains on the road, maybe even remains in the family.
Getting more people to use eBikes instead of cars (whether ICE or EV) has a considerable environmental benefit, health benefit, traffic flow benefit, pollution benefit. Even when the eBike owner has/owns/keeps/buys a car, getting them to use the eBike rather than the car has considerable benefits. Why would you not provide a subsidy, a stronger subsidy than for ICE cars?

 

[Zenith63]

I know of cases where the parent kept the EV and did a hand-me-down of the ICE car to the 20-something child, so the State subsidised putting an additional vehicle on the road.

If those parents had €40k to spend on a new EV, I think it’s safe to assume they’d have been buying their child a car regardless of getting an EV. If the subsidy is causing there to be additional drivers on the road then yes that would be an issue, but that seems highly unlikely.

 

[Leo]

The current subsidy is 'a mindset change', encouraging people, generally middle/upper income people, to buy a new car, an EV. There is a big question over the targeting of funding here, and whether it is achieving environmental goals, by encouraging greater consumption.

€5k off a €55k car is no where close to promoting a mindset change when an ICE equivalent car can be had for €30k. The current subsidies come nowhere close to making a compelling case on price alone. Even at the cheapest end of the EV scale, the Renault Zoe is €28k after the grant, the ICE Clio built on the same platform is €21k.

Keeping older cars on the road isn't necessarily a bad thing, and the environmental savings of avoiding manufacturing new cars may well outweigh the environmental cost of running older cars.

You're back at avoiding the manufacturing of new cars. While that would of course be best, it's just not feasible, but the extended running of an ICE car is more polluting than an EV even taking manufacturing into account. To what degree is down to the distances driven and electricity source, and it's not practical to factor that into a grant model.

Cars also only have a limited viable lifesspan after which maintenance and repairs become uneconomical. Unless you devise a way to extend that, or magic up a semi-decent public transport system, new replacement cars will continue to be required. In fact EVs may end up lasting longer due to the fewer wear parts involved.

I wasn't suggesting that they're holding onto a second car. If they sell their old car or trade it on, it doesn't disappear off the planet. It continues to be used on the road, continues to pollute. I know of cases where the parent kept the EV and did a hand-me-down of the ICE car to the 20-something child, so the State subsidised putting an additional vehicle on the road. Is this good targeting of grants?

As above, holding on to the ICE while buying an EV in those circumstances only results in an additional car on the road of the 20-something year old was never going to buy a car of their own. That's not how the world works. I certainly wouldn't just be handing over a car worth perhaps €20k to my kids if they didn't need or want a car that I could trade it in. Perhaps we move in very different circles and that's just not a lot of money to you.

The current subsidy is higher as a percentage for bottom of the range eBikes at the €1.5k entry point. For a €5k or €7k eBikes, it would be equivalent or lower percentage.

No, it's a higher percentage, but as with cars, the percentage is greater at the lower end of the market than at the top. The 5k grant doesn't make a huge dent in the €135k price for the fully loaded Audi eTron. And like trying to argue that someone might need an e-Tron to commute, no one needs a €5k plus eBike to commute when the likes of the Canyon Roadlite:ON is a super bike with 120km range for €2.5k.

 

[RetirementPlan]

€5k off a €55k car is no where close to promoting a mindset change when an ICE equivalent car can be had for €30k. The current subsidies come nowhere close to making a compelling case on price alone. Even at the cheapest end of the EV scale, the Renault Zoe is €28k after the grant, the ICE Clio built on the same platform is €21k.


You're back at avoiding the manufacturing of new cars. While that would of course be best, it's just not feasible, but the extended running of an ICE car is more polluting than an EV even taking manufacturing into account. To what degree is down to the distances driven and electricity source, and it's not practical to factor that into a grant model.

Cars also only have a limited viable lifesspan after which maintenance and repairs become uneconomical. Unless you devise a way to extend that, or magic up a semi-decent public transport system, new replacement cars will continue to be required. In fact EVs may end up lasting longer due to the fewer wear parts involved.


As above, holding on to the ICE while buying an EV in those circumstances only results in an additional car on the road of the 20-something year old was never going to buy a car of their own. That's not how the world works. I certainly wouldn't just be handing over a car worth perhaps €20k to my kids if they didn't need or want a car that I could trade it in. Perhaps we move in very different circles and that's just not a lot of money to you.


No, it's a higher percentage, but as with cars, the percentage is greater at the lower end of the market than at the top. The 5k grant doesn't make a huge dent in the €135k price for the fully loaded Audi eTron. And like trying to argue that someone might need an e-Tron to commute, no one needs a €5k plus eBike to commute when the likes of the Canyon Roadlite:ON is a super bike with 120km range for €2.5k.

You're making a compelling case for removing the grants for EVs, given that apparently they aren't persuading people to move in that particular direction. I'd be interested in seeing the basis for your conclusion for the suggestion that running an ICE car for a few years is more polluting that manufacturing and running an EV.
No-one is talking about wiping out the need for new cars entirely, that's a pure strawman.
But there are very real opportunities to avoid the need for a second car in a household by supporting people to get an eBike of one or other form. It seems like a strange hill to pick to die on, to avoid providing a slightly different form of transport, with massive environment, health and transport benefits.
Here's an interesting first-hand experience I spotted today.

https://twitter.com/arnoboko/status/1502550552131031044

 

[Leo]

You're making a compelling case for removing the grants for EVs, given that apparently they aren't persuading people to move in that particular direction.

Now you're reading things that just aren't there,

But there are very real opportunities to avoid the need for a second car in a household by supporting people to get an eBike of one or other form.

There is zero evidence that an increase in numbers of heavily subsidised eBikes has any effect on the number of cars on the road.

 

[RetirementPlan]

You seem to be applying dramatically different standards to the existing EV grant and any potential eBike grant.

You say that the current EV grant is not achieving mindset change, so why continue it? Why would we continue to subsidise private transport for well off individuals? SIMI estimate the overall grant at €8m to €15k btw.

As for the 'zero evidence' is there non-zero evidence that the current subsidy works? Is it a good return for €100m to be subsiding private cars for better off people?

 

[PGF2016]

Now you're reading things that just aren't there,


There is zero evidence that an increase in numbers of heavily subsidised eBikes has any effect on the number of cars on the road.

Is that because it's not being done yet? BTW isn't a massive subsidy in my mind and I don't know that it's being used for eBike adoption. Open to correction though.

 

[Purple]

There is zero evidence that an increase in numbers of heavily subsidised eBikes has any effect on the number of cars on the road.

I'm thinking of buying an eBike though so I agree with the subsidy.

 

[Leo]

Is that because it's not being done yet? BTW isn't a massive subsidy in my mind and I don't know that it's being used for eBike adoption. Open to correction though.

I was replying to the suggestion that EVs are subsidised more generously than eBikes, I was pointing out that was incorrect so long as you qualify for the BTW scheme. Under the BTW scheme eBikes attract an increased rebate that equates to a far more significant discount on the purchase price.

 

[Baby boomer]

.....
These are the options that make the eBike a realistic choice for many people. They will still have access to 'a car' for when they need it. They just won't have THEIR car sitting around parked for 95% of the time - not a very prudent approach to something with very high fixed costs.

There is nothing inherently unreasonable about not using an item for 95% of the time! I reckon my kettle is "parked" for 99% of its life but I'm not intending to subscribe to a hot drinks delivery service any time soon. Most of my DIY tools are "parked" for 99.99+% of their lives yet I wouldn't be without them for the times they're necessary.

In asking the EV vs ICE question, don't forget that a key benefit of having a car is the freedom its very availability brings to be spontaneous, flexible and versatile. Pretty much 100% of the time.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

@RetirementPlan

This thread was reported for your off topic discussion of electric bikes. Can you start a new thread on electric bikes and discuss them there.

Thanks

Brendan

 

[RetirementPlan]

There is nothing inherently unreasonable about not using an item for 95% of the time! I reckon my kettle is "parked" for 99% of its life but I'm not intending to subscribe to a hot drinks delivery service any time soon. Most of my DIY tools are "parked" for 99.99+% of their lives yet I wouldn't be without them for the times they're necessary.

In asking the EV vs ICE question, don't forget that a key benefit of having a car is the freedom its very availability brings to be spontaneous, flexible and versatile. Pretty much 100% of the time.

You don't pay a substantial annual tax, annual insurance, frequent maintenance costs and very high purchase costs for your kettle or your drill. There is a well-established trend towards Mobility As A Service, so instead of bearing all the total costs of ownership of a car, you instead hire in the service that you need as and when you need it. Yes, there can be a slight impact on spontaneity but with the right services available, and other alternatives also available, the impact is relatively small.

 

[Baby boomer]

As a general rule, I am deeply suspicious of anything that describes itself as "X As A Service"
It smacks of a solution desperately in search of a problem. It's usually dreamt up by a wannabe entrepreneur, who will promote it relentlessly in the business pages - you know the type!
Alternatively, it's a "lifestyle choice" aimed at those with more money than time to arrange stuff for themselves. Sounds great to a point but someone's got to pay for the massive overhead of sharing.

Now, as for "a slight impact on spontaneity" I'll just chuckle away silently at that. While I think of the last time I needed a car urgently after getting a late night call from my father-in-law saying he'd fallen out of bed and couldn't get up. I was at his house 3 miles away less than 5 minutes later. I shudder to think how long I'd be waiting for your "mobility as a service" to come good.

Like I say, one of the irreplaceable joys of motoring is the spontaneity, flexibility and freedom. Take that away and you're left with a far inferior product.

 

[RetirementPlan]

As a general rule, I am deeply suspicious of anything that describes itself as "X As A Service"
It smacks of a solution desperately in search of a problem. It's usually dreamt up by a wannabe entrepreneur, who will promote it relentlessly in the business pages - you know the type!
Alternatively, it's a "lifestyle choice" aimed at those with more money than time to arrange stuff for themselves. Sounds great to a point but someone's got to pay for the massive overhead of sharing.

Now, as for "a slight impact on spontaneity" I'll just chuckle away silently at that. While I think of the last time I needed a car urgently after getting a late night call from my father-in-law saying he'd fallen out of bed and couldn't get up. I was at his house 3 miles away less than 5 minutes later. I shudder to think how long I'd be waiting for your "mobility as a service" to come good.

Like I say, one of the irreplaceable joys of motoring is the spontaneity, flexibility and freedom. Take that away and you're left with a far inferior product.

Obviously, you can choose to be as suspicious as you like, but vast amounts of the highly profitable businesses of Amazon, Microsoft and Google are based around 'As A Service' services, so your own suspicions may by a little Luddite-ish. It's always worth a chuckle all right to hear car owners talking about others who have 'more money than sense' as they have obviously lost sight of the 'money pit' aspects of car ownership, the purchase price or lease or loan, the motor tax, the insurance, the maintenance, the fuel costs and other bits and pieces. It is also funny how, when you mention the possibility of any other different models of car ownership, people have all these needs for emergency usage and for carrying around washing machines, all the oul cliches that emerge in these discussions. There are many ways to travel three miles fairly sharply that don't require a car depreciating on your driveway.

The big question for here is whether it makes any sense for Government to be subsidising private car ownership of electric vehicles for middle and higher income earners. The idea of a 'target' of having a million cars on the road makes little sense. Government need to be pushing for fewer cars, not a different type of car.

 

[Zenith63]

The big question for here is whether it makes any sense for Government to be subsidising private car ownership of electric vehicles for middle and higher income earners.

I’d respectfully disagree, that’s not even close to the topic of this thread.