[olduser]

Here we go again;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5z4nlned0o

The ideas about the infrastructure are OK but if they subsidise the cars themselves I think that is a mistake, the manufacturers will have no incentive to get the price down.

Help on charging points is good but groves in the pavement are not the best answer pop up charging points are better. (out of the pavement or road edge)
But anything to let the charging station owners have something to compete against.

[julie856batson]

Originally Posted by olduser

Here we go again;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5z4nlned0o

The ideas about the infrastructure are OK but if they subsidise the cars themselves I think that is a mistake, the manufacturers will have no incentive to get the price down.

Help on charging points is good but groves in the pavement are not the best answer pop up charging points are better. (out of the pavement or road edge)
But anything to let the charging station owners have something to compete against.

Hello,
Subsidizing EV infrastructure is a smart move, but direct car subsidies risk reducing manufacturer accountability on pricing. Pop-up charging points offer a cleaner, more flexible solution than pavement grooves, and fostering competition among station owners can drive innovation and better service.

Best Regards,
Julie Batson

[Rolebama]

I accept being wrong on this, but with the state of the roads today, does the idea of driving round in a cheap Chinese car does not appeal, electric or not.
As to roadside popup chargers, will they be used by EV owners or drivers of other cars using them as normal parking spaces? Around here, some car parks have charge bays which I have yet to see an EV in, as they are used in the same way as the rest of the car park.

[olduser]

I think there are two ways of looking at that the charger could be wired such that the meter is in/on the property, and needs unlocking (mobile phone app or preferably a card) so only the property occupier can use it.
Or, any usage is payed for by mobile or card, in that case anyone can use it.

I can see council's would prefer the latter, they will need to recover the cost so the more users the better.
If only the householder has use of the charger, the capital cost can be recovered in the cost of parking permits.

Before any such schemes could be brought into play something would have to be done about antisocial behaviour, a plugged in car would be a temptation too far!

[Rolebama]

The majority of the houses where I live have no off-road parking available. Consequently, there is no guarantee that anyone would have access to their charger on a daily basis. As for our local Borough, services which have been covered by our council tax have suddenly become subscription-based, so I don't think involving them in anything beyond their current responsibilities is a good idea, especially when finances are involved.

[Rolebama]

It is purely my opinion, but the original estimate for HS2, from London to Edinburgh, was £34bn. Now it is £107bn for half the distance. EVs, their manufacture and sale, are a commercial proposition, and it should be left to people's personal choice as to whether they are bought or not. The Govt should keep out of it. Not that long ago, we were being encouraged to buy diesel cars. Now they are demonized because of pollution. How long before EVs are demonized for whatever reason?

[olduser]

I agree with you on HS2, in our small Island we have no need of any High Speed railway.

As to EVs, I suppose it depends on the global warming story as to how urgent the conversion to EV's is.
That aside, I do agree it is enough for a government to set a date for the end of production and sales ICE cars, make some effort to see that EVs are supported, then leave it to the industries to sort it out, whilst ensuring the consumer get a fair deal.

Government should be working on employment for ex-car workers, as cars will last much longer, the number of replacements per year will be much less, or funding research into better and cheaper batteries or research into less polluting tyres., being able to generate and distribute sufficient electricity to replace Hydrocarbon fuel, and of course the rest of governments functions.

The Diesel episode, I think, was the motor industry trying to stave off the ending of ICE vehicles, global warming concerns have been around much longer than people think, rather like the tobacco industry, they knew all about the ill effects (on health) from diesel but advised government that less fuel per mile = less CO2 = less global warming.

[Rolebama]

I have been led to believe two things: One is that as a nation, the UK is responsible for less than 2% of global pollution. (Check out South America, India, Russia etc.) Two: China has had a massive growth in ICE car ownership over the last 10yrs, and it is recent history that the Chinese govt was ripped off over subsidies for EV sales. (I do not factor Chinese production pollution levels, as almost every European country and the US has out-sourced their polluting production to China.)

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by olduser

I agree with you on HS2, in our small Island we have no need of any High Speed railway.

I agree, but the real need for HS2 is for capacity, not speed. Moving long-distance traffic to a dedicated railway frees up capacity on the existing network, allowing more frequent and reliable local trains (especially in the North of England), and expansion of freight services which (in theory) gets trucks .off the road.

But there are no headlines for the politicians in that!

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

I have been led to believe two things: One is that as a nation, the UK is responsible for less than 2% of global pollution. (Check out South America, India, Russia etc.) Two: China has had a massive growth in ICE car ownership over the last 10yrs, and it is recent history that the Chinese govt was ripped off over subsidies for EV sales. (I do not factor Chinese production pollution levels, as almost every European country and the US has out-sourced their polluting production to China.)

We cannot tell the rest of the world they should be making an effort if we are not making an effort ourselves.

China came to an industrial revolution only relatively recently, we stupidly, were happy to let them do our manufacturing for us, now we cry our eyes out because they have learned to manufacture far better than we could ever do.

I saw some information the other day they are creating windfarms faster than us or the EU.

We are so far behind, we guarantee stupid electricity prices to owners of windfarms to get them built, then start arguing about how to get the electricity onto the grid. Why, because the grid is now privately owned.

Natural or man made, we know the world is heating up, we know this means wilder more extreme weather, so we want to expand the grid with overhead cables!

All that is needed is humanity to learn to live more efficiently in energy terms, then no matter who was wrong or right about global warming we all gain.

[olduser]

I think this maybe fits here but if there is a related thread could it be moved please?

https://climatefactchecks.org/diesel...s-study-finds/

I am not sure about the validity of the number of deaths and just at the moment these numbers are all over the Internet but they are food for thought.