But it may not be able to tax electric car usage specifically, so it’s either 1k a year road tax for EVs (which goes completely against the supposed principles of the current regime) or they’ll have to find it from non-motoring taxes.
I think the key word there is supposed.
But he has been wrong about pretty much everything
But its clearly not as hard as the naysayers claim, the video below shows the largest Tesla Supercharger in Norway, 20 stalls, China has a 50 stall charger, Tesla already have 8 stall Superchargers in Ireland, they must not be faint-hearted
It will be a long time before we reach 2 million EVs on the road, it won’t be a problem
Some people would call that sort of handwaving at the inevitability of progress “naive technological optimism”.
With all the technology available and the fact that most EVs appear to have gps systems and internet connectivity, it’s a simple move to log journeys and “road price” them.
Plus simple to to make it mandatory to install such tracking devices in all future vehicles.
I presume you’re kidding. First you have to standardise them. Then you have to make them tamper proof. Then you have to deal with the civil liberties people screaming blue murder about trackability. Doable, maybe. Simple it definitely isn’t.
Tolls are simple. Incidentally rather than automatically tracking
And every car would be clocked before the NCT
Surely there must be a way to fit a device to a vehicle showing how much Electricity it has used over period, then just charge a higher rate of tax for the corresponding amount of electricity used.
We only tax vehicle fuel indiscriminately because it’s convenient to do so. A discriminating system would probably attempt to discourage congestion or attempt some other sort of behaviour change, but the most likely solution is the thing that requires the least technology to implement and provokes the least popular resistance.
I was wrong that Lithium ev’s couldn’t be made without cobalt, I stand corrected. They are however not as good as one’s without. My other two points are still valid. Namely that subsidies and hidden costs don’t make it cheaper and that burning carbon to produce electricity to charge batteries that push EV’s doesn’t reduce carbon footprint, or if it does then it is marginal and not a game changer. EV’s do have a future but we won’t all be driving Tesla’s in 5 or even 50 years and have saved the planet unless cobalt free batteries are used and most of our electricity is from renewables.
It makes just as much sense to produce octane from renewable electricity and use that in an ICE, no grid upgrades or charging stations and less co2 from production and destruction of cars without batteries, but that’s just blue sky thinking.
geek.com/news/german-compan … 2-1609987/
You think that burning natural gas in an efficient turbine to charge an EV is a bad idea but you support wasteful schemes like the one above, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about
Lets leave cost and everything else out of it and focus on the one thing we need to change to have a habitable planet in 100 years, Climate Change.
Putting sequestered carbon back into our atmosphere is the single first principle reason we have climate change. True or False?
Burning natural gas in an efficient turbine to charge an EV puts sequestered carbon back into our atmosphere. True or False?
The scheme I linked to, if commercialized, would cycle atmospheric carbon through ICE’s and not add to atmospheric carbon. True or false?
The wasteful scheme as you call it, is really a research project and might actually be the answer if 1/10th of the R&D gone into EV’s was made available to it, no? You put these new refineries beside the existing ones and you have your liquid distribution network in place for free, a tiny fraction of the grid upgrades, no charging points. You do however need the generation capacity.
Points one and two are easy, look at lorry tachographs as an example(very difficult to tamper with and get away with it), as for civil liberties, think mobile phone, your own personal tracking system happily carried around by the vast majority of users.
Simple it is!
- Although the tacho requirements relate to the vehicle type rather than the use, driving an HGV is a job. We put all sorts of restrictions on people doing jobs that don’t apply when doing the same activity on their own time.
- Smartphones are opt-in.
It’s no different from fitting a tag to pay the tolls at the M50 and other toll gates, as for smart phones being opt in, you’ll find that most people opt in to use the services provided and accept the tracking.
It would also be easy to flood the country with ANPR systems to track journeys for revenue collection purposes.
Say you have a way to create hydrocarbon-fuels from atmospheric carbon, then you could produce octane, or NG substitute. Why not then burn that fuel in an ultra-efficient CCGT, generate electricity, and use EVs for transport?
There are lots of good reasons to go to EV. It ultimately creates a far more satisfactory vehicle: easier maintenance, more reliable, cleaner, easier design challenge, etc., and it means you can change your fuel-of choice flexibly (mixing fossils, hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, whatever).
But the scheme you linked to doesn’t even give a way to create hydrocarbons from atmospheric carbon. What it claims to offer is a way to create hydrocarbons from atmospheric carbon and energy, via steam etc.,. That energy has to come from another source. It may be useful to have a way to produce hydrocarbons for some use-cases where electrification just doesn’t work, but not for mass usage in motor cars.
The planet will be fine in 100 years
If you’re worried about emissions the fastest way to cut them in Ireland is to close Moneypoint or convert it to natural gas, since we won’t be building any type of nuclear power plant, a natural gas base load is not a bad compromise
Yes its just a research project, and you can throw as many billions at it as you want, you won’t change the laws of physics, its very hard to beat a battery powered EV for efficiency and that scheme will never come close
A possible scenario:
Year 1: Motor Tax is increased by 15% but anyone opting for a tracking option that proves they cover less than 20,000 km per year gets charged at the old rate.
Years 2- 4: Base rate of Motor Tax is progressively increased but increase for tracked vehicles doesn’t match that pace, whilst still tracking inflation.
Year 5: Current CO2 basis for calculating motor tax is abolished. All cars will be charged based on kms travelled. Anyone covering 20,000 km per annum will still be paying the old rate plus inflation. Travel fewer km and you pay less, more and you pay more. Tracking devices are still optional but if you don’t have one you are assessed at an assumed distance travelled of 50,000 km per annum. Tracker uptake leaps from 46% to 91% by year’s end.