EV are approaching one third of new car registrations in England

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
  • Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
begreen

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Hearth Supporter
Nov 18, 2005
106,659
South Puget Sound, WA
The UK had passed a significant milestone with over 30% of new car registrations being electric. This number includes BEVs @ 20.7%, PHEVa @ 9.6%, and HEVs @ 13.2%.
cleantechnica.com

EVs Take 30.2% Share in the UK — Near Record High - CleanTechnica

October’s auto market saw plugin EVs take 30.2% share in the UK, up from 24.9% year on year. Both BEVs and PHEVs grew in volume.
cleantechnica.com cleantechnica.com
 
Good.

Last September in NL 80% of new cars sold were "electric"
40% fully electric, another 40% hybrid electric - though the latter includes conventional hybrids (like the original prius was).

76% of cars sold (I presume new) this year so far (up to September) were at least partially electric.

Advantage of a densely populated country with small distances, I think.

Source (in Dutch):
www.nu.nl

Vier op de vijf nieuwe auto's in Nederland kunnen elektrisch rijden

Het Nederlandse wagenpark wordt langzaamaan steeds groener. Zo was vorige maand bijna 80 procent van de nieuw verkochte auto's elektrisch of hybride. Al een aantal maanden kiest zeker drie op de vier autokopers voor een model dat geheel of gedeeltelijk op stroom kan rijden.
www.nu.nl www.nu.nl
 
It impressive. If we taxed fuel more we would have a higher adoption rate. There is no putting the cat back in the bag. ‘Merica and the EU are behind….
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I expect refining capacity will have an impact on fuel prices at some point in the future
 
begreen said:
If our automobile industry wants to be competitive, it has to change.
Click to expand...
They too big to fail. How many people were convicted of crimes for the 2008 meltdown? VW will be allowed to fail I think. But we will compete with china. We will see their success as a national security issue and spend what ever it takes to prop them up.

I fear we are too far behind China in terms of long term policy making to catch up.
 
Tesla has shown that EVs can compete in our market. It's one of the few sedans available now. If any brand will fail here I think it might be Stellantis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EbS-P
begreen said:
Tesla has shown that EVs can compete in our market. It's one of the few sedans available now. If any brand will fail here I think it might be Stellantis.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We can keep Chinese cars out but for how long and at what cost?
 
Keeping them out seems downright anti-competitive. Kind of runs contrary to the idea of free capitalism, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newbie78
begreen said:
Keeping them out seems downright anti-competitive. Kind of runs contrary to the idea of free capitalism, no?
Click to expand...
That's the do as I say even if I do something else myself doctrine that has become rather pervasive...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newbie78
begreen said:
Keeping them out seems downright anti-competitive. Kind of runs contrary to the idea of free capitalism, no?
Click to expand...
It seems like we want isolationism. It will put our auto industry way behind the world as we push to keep ICE's and protect the oil companies. When the Japanese companies came decades ago our auto industry was way behind but had to improve to compete. Now in keeping the competition out we'll just get behind in both EV's and ICE technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stoveliker, begreen and GG Woody
EbS-P said:
It impressive. If we taxed fuel more we would have a higher adoption rate. There is no putting the cat back in the bag. ‘Merica and the EU are behind….
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...

Tax fuel more to force people into something they don't want. Great idea!
 
  • Like
Reactions: EbS-P
begreen said:
Keeping them out seems downright anti-competitive. Kind of runs contrary to the idea of free capitalism, no?
Click to expand...
Is about keeping enough manufacturing capacity state to build and arm an army. And keeping technology out of the Is that could be used against us. I’ve not had a very optimistic week or so. Real free market capitalism isn’t where we find ourselves today.
Duds13 said:
Tax fuel more to force people into something they don't want. Great idea!
Click to expand...
fuel costs adjusted for inflation are really low. Fuel tax rates have not kept up even with 2% inflation. Taxes and tax credits are incentives to make a change not a mandate. Most people will choose what’s cheaper today and ignore long term costs. Long term policy helps address that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: semipro
Duds13 said:
Tax fuel more to force people into something they don't want. Great idea!
Click to expand...
Or we could just forbid its use in certain cases (as most normal cars) given the bad effect it has on people, environment, and society (see the society in FL where home owners insurance cost is just becoming unaffordable with insurance companies walking away because there's no money to be made - noting there's no agenda with the insurance companies other than finances). Just like we did with leaded gasoline, CFCs and HCFCs (ozone layer), lead paint, and asbestos. Etc.

Very few if any folks *in hindsight* disagree with these rules. (Remember the "how can my hairspray can affect the millions of square miles of ozone layer so far up there" arguments...? BTW, that makes me smile, thinking of the 80s hairdo of the fairer gender :-) )

I.e. it would not be the first time a good action would be forced upon people who may not be approving initially.
 
Last edited:
stoveliker said:
Or we could just forbid its use in certain cases (as most normal cars) given the bad effect it has on people, environment, and society (see the society in FL where home owners insurance cost is just becoming unaffordable with insurance companies walking away because there's no money to be made - noting there's no agenda with the insurance companies other than finances). Just like we did with leaded gasoline, CFCs and HCFCs (ozone layer), lead paint, and asbestos. Etc.

Very few if any folks *in hindsight* disagree with these rules. (Remember the "how can my hairspray can affect the millions of square miles of ozone layer so far up there" arguments...? BTW, that makes me smile, thinking of the 80s hairdo of the fairer gender :-) )

I.e. it would not be the first time a good action would be forced upon people who may not be approving initially.
Click to expand...
Absolutely ridiculous. Are we going to stop clearing forests to build houses while we're at it?
 
How about we should focus on the major polluters too. Planes, trains, ships, commercial agriculture.

What do we do with millions of tons of waste batteries and waste complete vehicles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duds13
EbS-P said:
It impressive. If we taxed fuel more we would have a higher adoption rate. There is no putting the cat back in the bag. ‘Merica and the EU are behind….
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...


It doesn't work as well as you'd think. You can't simply tax fossil fuels (or carbon emissions) without providing alternative infrastructure for consumers to switch to.

Canada is a prime example, we've had an annually increasing carbon tax since 2017. The result is our goods cost more due to increased shipping costs, it costs more to drive places, and more to heat homes. Carbon leakage is a real thing and pushes industries to other nations. Yet our EV and PHEV adoption lags behind almost every other developed nation.

In about a years time our carbon tax will likely be repealed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duds13
ABMax24 said:
It doesn't work as well as you'd think. You can't simply tax fossil fuels (or carbon emissions) without providing alternative infrastructure for consumers to switch to.

Canada is a prime example, we've had an annually increasing carbon tax since 2017. The result is our goods cost more due to increased shipping costs, it costs more to drive places, and more to heat homes. Carbon leakage is a real thing and pushes industries to other nations. Yet our EV and PHEV adoption lags behind almost every other developed nation.

In about a years time our carbon tax will likely be repealed.
Click to expand...
I find Canada similar to say Washington or Oregon state is some ways. Large population centers then expansive rural areas. This is hard to balance. progressive populations out number rural until some issue gathers enough support to force change. I think it’s a given that prices will go if you instate a carbon tax. The real question to me is where you spend the revenue. I would really like to see infrastructure made in rural areas with it. I would like to more spending on education and childcare.

Canadas fossil fuel industry can provide cheap energy. But it will see declining revenues at some point in the future. 5 years? 10? 40? It’s not if it’s when. If we don’t have long term policy that is funded we will not be able to compete with China economically, or militarily. If we keep changing this policy every 4 years we will not be able to make any progress towards any policy goals.
 
Duds13 said:
Funny how the EV pushers never talk about that isn't it?
Click to expand...
Recycling of EV batteries is often talked about. There are large-scale infrastructure projects being built and expanded to cope with battery recycling. There's also an opportunity to repurpose these batteries into home power banks. Battery pack design is also changing to make them more recyclable. "The Blade Battery emerged after China in 2018 began to make EV manufacturers responsible for ensuring batteries are recycled. The country now recycles more lithium-ion batteries than the rest of the world combined, using mostly pyro- and hydrometallurgical methods."

Recycling the metals and parts of the cars is somewhat the same as for conventional vehicles. They're not just tossed out. That said, European recycling systems for cars (and almost all materials) are ahead of us. We can and should definitely improve in this area but headwinds often slow down the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: semipro and stoveliker
begreen said:
Keeping them out seems downright anti-competitive. Kind of runs contrary to the idea of free capitalism, no?
Click to expand...
I thought the same.

There are some compelling security concerns related to the operation of China-sourced cars in the U.S. The issue is much like that of DJI drones where these vehicles can serve as sensor platforms for data collection. I get the concern but I'm not sure much of the data that might be available isn't already being acquired using other methods.
 
begreen said:
Recycling of EV batteries is often talked about. There are large-scale infrastructure projects being built and expanded to cope with battery recycling. There's also an opportunity to repurpose these batteries into home power banks. Battery pack design is also changing to make them more recyclable. "The Blade Battery emerged after China in 2018 began to make EV manufacturers responsible for ensuring batteries are recycled. The country now recycles more lithium-ion batteries than the rest of the world combined, using mostly pyro- and hydrometallurgical methods."

Recycling the metals and parts of the cars is somewhat the same as for conventional vehicles. They're not just tossed out. That said, European recycling systems for cars (and almost all materials) are ahead of us. We can and should definitely improve in this area but headwinds often slow down the process.
Click to expand...
And what about the 100,000+ flights per day? They aren't an issue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newbie78
A flight for 400 miles or more puts less CO2 in the air per person traveling than the same ride in a car.(If the flight is full.)

So short flights should be phased out but of those 100,000 how many are that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom