Electric Cars - likely to reduce rail travel?

[The Ham]

My apologies if this has been said earlier in the thread, I've just skimmed through all 178 posts.

Please note I'm describing mostly urban and city to city transport, so this doesn't apply to rural transport.

I don't think electric cars will reduce rail travel, as it does nothing to reduce road congestion. However I do believe self driving electric cars risk impacting on rail travel, especially the uber hail and ride proposal which the pointy heads in silicon valley keep proposing. (For those not in the know, the proposed system is no one actually owns a car, but using an app on your your phone, you call a self driving car to pick you and and deposit you wherever you like.) Just because this works in California, it's got to work for the rest of the world right?

WRONG! This ridiculous model is based on an american car-centric system, where every city has an LA style freeway system, whereas it may reduce road congestion, due to shorter stopping distances, more efficient driving etc, it doesn't move away from the model of people being transported around in their individualistic little ego bubbles. A car whether self driven or not takes up a lot of space, particularly in cities.

The train is a far superior mode of transport, it can move vast volumes of people, in a way that's quieter, less polluting, aesthetically better, takes up less space and can be electrified meaning the power source can be centralised on any power source you like, Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Geo-thermal, Hydro Electric, Etc, Etc. Without having to manufacture loads of filthy batteries (Yes I know a train requires batteries, however it needs less of them). There should be a big move away from urban car ownership altogether in European countries, and maybe for the rural areas, bring back the branch line!

No self driving car nonsense, yes to branch lines!

I'm minded to agree.

The one change I'd make to the model is that of multi pod vehicles.

The concept is broadly the same you book a trip from A to B, however you are booked onto a multi pod vehicle (which is a little cheaper but may incur a small delay compared to the direct sole use vehicle), each pod is able to be used by a different person/pair/trio of people.

Vehicles are then routed to the usage of their pods (say three or four, maybe even bigger). For some trips this could be from various points around a small town to a few places in a city some distance away, others could be one person doing a long trip and picking up and dropping off lots of people enroute.

Given that the average car occupancy is less than 2 a four pod vehicle with each pod able to carry 3 people could reduce the amount of road space from 4 cars to that of a single minibus (just for parking it would effectively reduce kerb parking from 22m to 8m).

In reality it would be little difference to your own personal bus service (but without the need for a walk at each end and limited on the number of stops needed to be made).

 

[PeterC]

Hybrids make no sense. Just like bimode trains, you carry extra weight.

Why fewer parking spaces? They can park in exactly the same space as any other car.

Charging infrastructure??? I've never had a problem and it is improving all the time.

I assume that the point was that, in urban areas, charging infrastructure will take out roadside parking space.

20 Tesla spaces in an MSA are no use to somebody in a terraced house.

 

[The Ham]

I assume that the point was that, in urban areas, charging infrastructure will take out roadside parking space.

20 Tesla spaces in an MSA are no use to somebody in a terraced house.

Given that there's already charging points which are incorporated into lamp posts, I wouldn't be suprised to see bollards and street signs being used in the not too distant future.

As such why would charging points reduce the amount of available parking?

 

[The Ham]

They will probably all get disabled the minute HMRC realise that the free electricity being provided is an workplace benefit and needs to be metered and taxed appropriately

Charging could be at a cost to the user, so no tax implications.

Of course there could be some company subsidy (such as paying for the infrastructure or the management of the system) without being a tax issue.

 

[PeterC]

Given that there's already charging points which are incorporated into lamp posts, I wouldn't be suprised to see bollards and street signs being used in the not too distant future.

As such why would charging points reduce the amount of available parking?

Where are these charging points in lamp posts installed? So far I have only heard of them as crayonista style suggestions. The only on street charging points that I have seen, and I travel around London a lot, are in dedicated bays where you would get a ticket if not actually charging.

In any event lamp posts are deliberately located as far from the kerb as possible which makes them unsuitable for charging points.

 

[The Ham]

Where are these charging points in lamp posts installed? So far I have only heard of them as crayonista style suggestions. The only on street charging points that I have seen, and I travel around London a lot, are in dedicated bays where you would get a ticket if not actually charging.

In any event lamp posts are deliberately located as far from the kerb as possible which makes them unsuitable for charging points.

According to this Times article there's some in Southwark:

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/lamp-post-powered-electric-car-charging-points-arrive-london/

An initial set of 50 charging stations have been set up in the the central London borough of Southwark by charging point company Char.gy. They have been installed with funding from the Go Ultra Low City Scheme, which hopes to substantially reduce harmful emissions in the city and make London the “ultra-low emissions vehicles capital of Europe”.

According to Southwark Council, the lamp post charging points have been introduced in response to feedback from residents, who revealed they were “keen to have on street [electric vehicle] charging near their homes”. Citizen demand will also dictate where future lamp post-based points will be installed.

 

[reddragon]

It isn't just that - at the moment electric doesn't have the tax applied like petrol/diesel do. We have already seen a change in the vehicle tax regs now so many vehicles conformed to the lower tax brackets and I expect the "fuel" will follow before too long

Motor fuel is subsidised by £9bn per annum in the UK and £3tn per annum world wide, at a rate 1000x the subsidy of EVs

 

[reddragon]

Electric cars are very expensive at the moment, and are completely useless for long journeys.
But a modern diesel car is very cheap to run, especially with the low road tax (cars bought before March 2018) and with an mpg of around 60.
A Euro 4, 5, 6 engine is actually quite clean, some of them are actually produce less emissions than a petrol.

I do long journeys in my EV all the time. Friends drive all over Europe in them.

 

[reddragon]

Right now: Hyundai Kona; Kia E-Niro; various Tesla; etc..
See https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/electric/longest-range-electric-cars-ev/
and more in the pipeline.
The WLTP measure used there is fairly realistic, but as with any kind of fuel, maniac driving will use more, and relaxed driving will use less.

try this site

https://ev-database.uk

It lists all available models and ranges / charging rates in various conditions

 

[takno]

Motor fuel is subsidised by £9bn per annum in the UK and £3tn per annum world wide, at a rate 1000x the subsidy of EVs

Right. I mean you have to count every possible effect of the pollution as an externality, sometimes two or three times, to get to that subsidy figure for fossil fuels, and even then it's unclear that they've properly accounted for the tax that is paid, but still, good number.

All that means is that the tax on fossil-fuel powered cars should be even higher, because at the end of the day a huge amount of expensive land is given over to the space vehicles (fossil or electric) drive on and park on, and even more is spent keeping it flat. Not to mention that if you are going to add all the externalities to the cost of fossil fuels then you should probably add a hell of a lot onto the cost of electricity generation and the price of new cars to account for all the pollution generated in their manufacture.

In short, those subsidy figures are an interesting data point, but are so completely unrelated to the way we talk about taxes and subsidies in normal conversation that they can only really cause confusion

 

[reddragon]

Not true

As someone who, for years as worked within the electrical industry I can say with absolute confidence that, unless there are massive amounts of money invested in the UK's power distribution network, the much vaunted dream of everyone using electric cars will never happen.
I don't know how much most people understand about the electrical distribution network, or the workings of car chargers, so please, let me explain.
Generally, a cable of a given size, will only carry a certain amount of current, now the supply companies use a different calculation for their loadings than those laid down in the regulations that the rest of us work to. For example, our regs state that the meter tails in a house with a 100 amp service fuse must be 25sq mm. now the utility companies will supply whole streets on a cable with a smaller csa, because diversity can be applied in a lot of cases, however this doesn't leave you a lot of room for expansion, and the bigger car chargers, those that charge a car in 2 or 3 hours, are very heavy on power, often using as much as a large electric shower. Now a lot of houses, already have a shower, add one or two of these chargers and the load increases massively.
A time will come when the supplier will have to refuse permission for chargers, if the demand is already high on a feeder cable, this in turn will have an adverse effect on house prices. Imagine, your street has reached capacity, no more EV chargers are being allowed to be connected. Your house is identical to that of your neighbours house, yet they have an EV charger, you don't, and cannot have one. Instantly your house is less desirable, because everyone wants an electric vehicle, it's not your fault you can't have a charger, but you're the one who see's your house price fall!
Also vehicle range is another limiting factor, most vehicles, on a good day have a range of about 50 or so miles. Now I live 50 miles from Blackpool, which as you know is a popular seaside resort, it gets packed with people on a sunny weekend and parking is horrendous! How, I would like to know are they expecting thousands of people to be able to charge their cars whilst at the resort, because most of them would be unable to get there and back to their homes on a single charge.

Not at all true, and that is what National Grid states. At worse, there might be a need to upgrade some local LV cables as legislation requires smart charging.

I am already on a smart charge system, it works.

Range. Today a base EV has a 175 mile range, many 275 miles, some 400 miles. Its not 2010 anymore!

 

[reddragon]

OK, read all 7 pages now!

I drive a Nissan Leaf, my 2nd on PCP. It cost LESS to run than my old Vauxhall diesel did to run.

Anyone on here, with a drive & ability to home charge, or lives near a free rapid charger and does at least 10,000 miles a year would be a fool to buy a new petrol / diesel or hybrid car today. I would never ever go back to all those fuel costs, maintenance bills and basically crap old tech.

Range - I can drive anywhere I have done before except across Spain from Bilbao to Porto, chargers outnumber Petrol Stations, many are free and home electric on Octopus Go costs 1p/ mile or free from my Solar PV. I have to plan a bit sometimes, but my journeys are just the same.

Grid - The National Grid state that EVs will reduce the number of power stations due to battery storage in EVs, will reduce the pressure on the grid due to better power balancing from a smart network of EV (already in law) batteries but may require some local LV cable upgrades.

Cost - Already (since 2017) EVs are the cheapest to own overall which is why I switched. The Renault Zoe, Kia Niro & Soul, Hyundia Kona, Tesla Model 3 are the cheapest in their class to own. The new VW ID3 will be the cheapest to own by far and is the VW Golf replacement (going in 2022). The Tesla model 3 is now the best seller in every market its sold in for that reason.

Driving - EVs are real drivers cars, very quick, silent, stress free cars to drive with lower insurance due to safety features not possible to fit to legacy cars. My basic car leaves most sports cars standing at the lights!

Battery - Some early Tesla & Leafs have made 500,000 miles with 15% battery loss and no maintenance other than tyres, wiper blades an 1 set of brake pads. Batteries are cheaper to repair and even replace than a diesel engine. EVs just don't wear out which is why dealers spin horror stories because they'll lose your repair work. People are now replacing batteries on 2011 Leafs with 40kW one for about £5k giving them another 15 years of life.

Maintenance - err tyres, wiper blades and pads about every 250k. Thats it.

The original question - As I can drive in the summer for £0 in fuel and maybe 1p/mile for tyre wear of course using a train become very costly. In the winter I'll pay £10 a month for 1000 miles

If you want to learn about the future watch the fully charged show on youtube or look up details on https://ev-database.uk where most cars are listed. Its factual not manufactures fiction. Drive-electric also to only EV cars to hire via PCH

Future - Big, fast change is coming quicker than you think. The EV is now expected to be cheaper than legacy cars by 2022. Hybrid Ultra-capacitor - solid state battery cars with hub motors and smart systems are beyond the imagination of most but are already beginning to appear. Charging in seconds is on the way with 15 min 200 miles added already here. VW are going 100% EV by 2025, Smart has already gone 100% EV. Buses are switching very fast, as will many HGVs & deliver vans.

Enjoy the ride!

 

[reddragon]

Forgot to add, 0% BIK for company EVs from 1/4/2020 will be a landslide of change, plus of course free ULEZ and congestion charges!

 

[takno]

I drive a Nissan Leaf, my 2nd on PCP. It cost LESS to run than my old Vauxhall diesel did to run.

Driving a car on PCP sounds incredibly dangerous. Have you ever crashed? Seriously though, the whole post and the follow-up was a flood of abbreviations that I understood very little of.

 

[Crossover]

Maintenance - err tyres, wiper blades and pads about every 250k. Thats it.

Tyres every 250k miles - do you have a hover car?!

 

[reddragon]

Driving a car on PCP sounds incredibly dangerous. Have you ever crashed? Seriously though, the whole post and the follow-up was a flood of abbreviations that I understood very little of.

VW = Volkswagon; EV= Electric Vehicle -what others?

 

[reddragon]

Tyres every 250k miles - do you have a hover car?!

haha, tyre & wipes same as old fashioned cars, pads 250k !

 

[Crossover]

Smart has already gone 100% EV

Looks to me that they are still advertising petrol vehicles so I think that may be a little wide of the mark!

 

[Crossover]

haha, tyre & wipes same as old fashioned cars, pads 250k !

I can't imagine getting 250k off pads - I suppose it is possible if you manage to always use regen but it seems a little farfetched

 

[reddragon]

Looks to me that they are still advertising petrol vehicles so I think that may be a little wide of the mark!

They are shutting down their production line about now, but still have petrol models to shift. - Just checked it is August 2019

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/final-petrol-powered-smart-cars-will-look

What you see above is the design for the final 21 combustion-engined Smart Fortwos before the brand goes fully-electric later this year. Incidentally, that’ll make it the first manufacturer to switch from combustion to complete electric drive.

 

[reddragon]

I can't imagine getting 250k off pads - I suppose it is possible if you manage to always use regen but it seems a little farfetched

Mine wore <10% after 30k on my last car and the new one has stronger regen. Biggest issue is rust on discs as you don't use them much apart from under 10mph

 

[HSTEd]

Motor fuel is subsidised by £9bn per annum in the UK and £3tn per annum world wide, at a rate 1000x the subsidy of EVs

Really?
Got some figures for that?

Because these externality assesments can be made to say whatever the hell you want them to say.

 

[takno]

VW = Volkswagon; EV= Electric Vehicle -what others?

PCP, LV, PV, PCH, BIK and ULEZ

 

[reddragon]

PCP, LV, PV, PCH, BIK and ULEZ

PCP pre contact purchase
LV low voltage
PV poly voltaic solar panels
PCH pre contact hire
BIK benefit in kind
ULEZ ultra low emission zone

 

[reddragon]

Where are these charging points in lamp posts installed? So far I have only heard of them as crayonista style suggestions. The only on street charging points that I have seen, and I travel around London a lot, are in dedicated bays where you would get a ticket if not actually charging.

In any event lamp posts are deliberately located as far from the kerb as possible which makes them unsuitable for charging points.

Oxford & West Berks have loads of them

 

[reddragon]

Right. I mean you have to count every possible effect of the pollution as an externality, sometimes two or three times, to get to that subsidy figure for fossil fuels, and even then it's unclear that they've properly accounted for the tax that is paid, but still, good number.

All that means is that the tax on fossil-fuel powered cars should be even higher, because at the end of the day a huge amount of expensive land is given over to the space vehicles (fossil or electric) drive on and park on, and even more is spent keeping it flat. Not to mention that if you are going to add all the externalities to the cost of fossil fuels then you should probably add a hell of a lot onto the cost of electricity generation and the price of new cars to account for all the pollution generated in their manufacture.

In short, those subsidy figures are an interesting data point, but are so completely unrelated to the way we talk about taxes and subsidies in normal conversation that they can only really cause confusion

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...sil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-eu-finds-commission

The UK leads the European Union in giving subsidies to fossil fuels, according to a report from the European commission. It found €12bn (£10.5bn) a year in support for fossil fuels in the UK, significantly more than the €8.3bn spent on renewable energy.

 

[reddragon]

Right. I mean you have to count every possible effect of the pollution as an externality, sometimes two or three times, to get to that subsidy figure for fossil fuels, and even then it's unclear that they've properly accounted for the tax that is paid, but still, good number.

All that means is that the tax on fossil-fuel powered cars should be even higher, because at the end of the day a huge amount of expensive land is given over to the space vehicles (fossil or electric) drive on and park on, and even more is spent keeping it flat. Not to mention that if you are going to add all the externalities to the cost of fossil fuels then you should probably add a hell of a lot onto the cost of electricity generation and the price of new cars to account for all the pollution generated in their manufacture.

In short, those subsidy figures are an interesting data point, but are so completely unrelated to the way we talk about taxes and subsidies in normal conversation that they can only really cause confusion

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf

The International Monetary Fund periodically assesses global subsidies for fossil fuels as part of its work on climate, and it found in a recent working paper that the fossil fuel industry got a whopping $5.2 trillion in subsidies in 2017. This amounts to 6.4 percent of the global gross domestic product.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I can't imagine getting 250k off pads - I suppose it is possible if you manage to always use regen but it seems a little farfetched

They are all a bit different, but on my car, unless I drive like a maniac and need to do frequent emergency stops, the only time the friction brakes are used is at speeds below about 5 mph. All other (non-emergency) deceleration is done by electric regen/retard - and it's the car that decides when it needs the friction brakes, not me.