[alancalverd]

Fine, however you want to view it. But the taxpayer pays, so are you happy to subsidise my business mileage? 

No, I'm happy to tax it.

So you are going to tax all vehicles by mileage? Neat idea, but is it practicable and enforceable?

Looking at the financial aspect, wind turbines cost about £1 per peak watt, so by the time we have installed enough turbines and secure grid capacity for 30,000,000 cars  we are looking at around £10 per useful watt, £10k per car on average. The investors will want their money back in 5 years, so the average car "fuel" tax will be £2000 per year, 25p per mile, about 3 times the present level. I guess the government can claim it as part of the MoT test, where the recorded mileage is checked.

[hamdani yusuf]

So you are going to tax all vehicles by mileage? Neat idea, but is it practicable and enforceable?

What about taxing based on polluting gases released?

[alancalverd]

In other words, increasing the cost of peak electricity for everyone, in order to subsidise my business travel, up to the point at which all the electricity is produced from renewables so no more tax is collected. So I won't be investing in the electric car infrastructure because there's no guarantee that I'll get my money back.   

Fact is, of course, that vehicles are already taxed on the basis of emissions - or at least fuel used. Perfectly reasonable in principle, except that the fuel tax is not spent on transport infrastructure, so if we all use electric cars we will have to pay more tax on other things to pay for health, defence, sleaze, etc....Or increase the car fuel tax to 4 times current levels - around 32 p per mile plus the actual cost of electricity.   

[charles1948]

So you are going to tax all vehicles by mileage? Neat idea, but is it practicable and enforceable?

What about taxing based on polluting gases released?

Yes, the idea of taxing polluting gas released does have an appeal, but could it be enforced on internet forums

[wolfekeeper]

Looking at the financial aspect, wind turbines cost about £1 per peak watt, so by the time we have installed enough turbines and secure grid capacity for 30,000,000 cars  we are looking at around £10 per useful watt,

The capacity factor of wind turbines built today is ~0.35-0.4, so it's more like $2.5 per watt (average), so you're out by a factor of 4 already, and all the conclusions you drew from this $10 value, are wrong.

[Bored chemist]

So you are going to tax all vehicles by mileage? Neat idea, but is it practicable and enforceable?

What about taxing based on polluting gases released?

Yes, the idea of taxing polluting gas released does have an appeal, but could it be enforced on internet forums

People who live in glass houses shouldn't vote for a window tax.

[alancalverd]

Looking at the financial aspect, wind turbines cost about £1 per peak watt, so by the time we have installed enough turbines and secure grid capacity for 30,000,000 cars  we are looking at around £10 per useful watt,

The capacity factor of wind turbines built today is ~0.35-0.4, so it's more like $2.5 per watt (average), so you're out by a factor of 4 already, and all the conclusions you drew from this $10 value, are wrong.

Yearly average isn't  the problem. Over the last month, UK wind output has been about 10% of installed capacity, down to 2% at minimum. So if you want to ensure that the lights stay on all the time, never mind charging motor cars, you need to install at least 10 x peak demand and 5 days' storage or some equivalent means of alternative supply. If anything, my figures are somewhat optimistic as I've made some guesses at the cost of installing the 50,000,000 new charging points, doubling the capacity of the grid cabling and switchgear, and adding some storage

Remember that there is only one grid, and it already has to supply 25 GW continuous demand for trivial things like hospitals and refrigeration plus another 15 GW daily peak domestic and industrial demand. If we want to replace all fossil fuel use we will need another 50 GW to replace domestic and industrial gas heating, plus 30 GW for cars and another 15 - 20 GW for  trucks and buses. Your estimate of the capital cost of doing all, or just the car part, of this with adequate (say 95%) security of supply at all times, would be of interest.

Generating electricity when the wind blows isn't a problem. Generating a sufficient surplus and storing it for when the wind doesn't blow, and getting it to where it is needed whenever it is needed, is both a technical and a financial conundrum.

As an aside, I wondered how many  miles I would have to drive at 0p per mile to make it worth investing in a new electric car and scrapping the entirely functional vehicle I already have. The answer is around 90,000. If I have to pay for the electricity, it doesn't make financial sense at all.

The electric car is a brilliant solution, just 150 years too late.

[Bored chemist]

If we want to replace all fossil fuel use we will need another 50 GW to replace domestic and industrial gas heating,

Not really.There are other options, most notably hydrogen.

[alancalverd]

Agreed hydrogen is the ideal means of storing energy that has been generated by....er.....magic? There is very little free hydrogen on the planet.

Assume 90% efficiency in converting wind electricity to hydrogen, so you need to install around 110 GW  of wind turbines, build 80 GW of electrolytic production plant,  double the storage and distribution capacity of the gas grid, change all the methane burners to hydrogen, and add about 50,000 standardised hydrogen filling pumps.

It's still a lot cheaper and greener than electric cars because we can modify existing petrol cars (and trucks and furnaces) to burn hydrogen at very little cost.   

[alancalverd]

Here's the "greenwash" clincher. Read the Polestar website https://www.polestar.com/uk/polestar-2

It's a truly lovely medium-size  all-electric car, and according to the manufacturer, it takes 26.2 tonnes of CO2 emission to make one. I could drive over 100,000 miles in my diesel car and emit less CO2 than that.

[Bored chemist]

Here's the "greenwash" clincher. Read the Polestar website https://www.polestar.com/uk/polestar-2

It's a truly lovely medium-size  all-electric car, and according to the manufacturer, it takes 26.2 tonnes of CO2 emission to make one. I could drive over 100,000 miles in my diesel car and emit less CO2 than that.

How much less?
The electric car will have fewer moving parts and should have a longer life.
Perhaps you need to compare the Polestar car to two diesels.

[Bored chemist]

Agreed hydrogen is the ideal means of storing energy that has been generated by....er.....magic?

And again, you make a fool of yourself by pretending that renewables don't exist.

[alancalverd]

How much less? around 10%, possibly 15%.

Apropos moving parts: we all use tyres, so no difference there.  I expect to replace one clutch, a couple of injectors  and maybe two sets of brake pads, and get 200,000 miles from a diesel car before something expensive breaks or the body rusts apart - the engine is the last to go, and AFAIK the Polestar, Tesla et al bodies and suspensions are also made of steel, which will be the life-determining part. I doubt that the battery of any electric car will be giving 90% performance after 100,000 miles, by which time a good diesel is just about perfect. But the immediate point is that replacing internal combustion vehicles with electrics before they fall apart is environmentally damaging..

Yes, I have heard of renewables, but I have also been at pains to point out in several posts that there is no economic way that the UK can power 30,000,000 cars from renewables of any sort, except by forcing the taxpayer to subsidise the mileage of business users by paying for the essential infrastructure.

[wolfekeeper]

We've repeatedly refuted every point you've made, but I note that hasn't stopped you repeating your false claims as if we haven't.

Here's the "greenwash" clincher. Read the Polestar website https://www.polestar.com/uk/polestar-2

It's a truly lovely medium-size  all-electric car, and according to the manufacturer, it takes 26.2 tonnes of CO2 emission to make one. I could drive over 100,000 miles in my diesel car and emit less CO2 than that.

Except that it would take about 20 tonnes of CO2 to make your diesel car, and it emits about another 20 tonnes of CO2 in operation or so.

[alancalverd]

The point is that (1) I (and 29,999,999 others) already have a perfectly functional car, so replacing it before it has done another 100,000 miles would be more environmentally damaging than using it until it dies and (2) the only way we can power a significant number of electric cars in the foreseeable future is to burn more gas or persuade the taxpayer to subsidise my business.

I have made no claims, merely quoted government and National Grid statistics and manufacturers' specifications.

I would very much like to have an electric car, and I assume from your enthusiasm that you are prepared to subsidise it. Many thanks, but I doubt that you speak for the majority of taxpayers, nor on behalf of the environment.

As I said earlier, the time to introduce electric cars is 150 years ago. Then power supply might have evolved to meet demand and the demand would have levelled off at the point where the power supply was sustainable. Starting now, with the intention to completely replace fossil-fuelled cars, they will be an economic and environmental embarrassment .

[charles1948]

Perhaps we could make cars powered by steam engines?

The big advantage of steam-engines  is that they don't need any special fuels like petroleum or diesel.  Anything combustible will do. Such as wood, rags, or even bundles of old newspapers.  These will suffice to heat the boiler.

And the boiler itself only needs to contain water.

This simple combination of just something to burn, plus ordinary water, seems very satisfactory from a Green viewpoint.

Far more satisfactory, than the complicated "batteries" required to propel electric cars.  These batteries not only use up a lot of energy in their manufacture, but also rely on rare minerals,  whose difficult extraction from the Earth's crust consumes even more energy.

So the simple steam-engine seems a much better and Greener propulsive mechanism for cars.

Why then, aren't we using steam cars?

[Bored chemist]

The point is that (1) I (and 29,999,999 others) already have a perfectly functional car

The UK plan for "net neutral" is 2050
Do you  (and 29,999,999 others)  expect to be driving the same car in 30 years?

[Colin2B]

The big advantage of steam-engines  is that they don't need any special fuels like petroleum or diesel.  Anything combustible will do. Such as wood, rags, or even bundles of old newspapers.  These will suffice to heat the boiler.

We are trying to cut down on CO₂ and particulates, not create more.

[wolfekeeper]

As I said earlier, the time to introduce electric cars is 150 years ago.

Yes, and you were wrong then, and wrong now.

Then power supply might have evolved to meet demand and the demand would have levelled off at the point where the power supply was sustainable.

That's funny, because that's pointedly NOT what the national grid ever say, for example:

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/5-myths-about-electric-vehicles-busted

"There are two aspects to whether we have the capacity to manage lots of EVs being plugged in at once – whether we have enough energy and then whether we have sufficient capacity on the wires that carry that energy to where it’s needed.

Enough capacity exists   

With the first of these, the energy element, the most demand for electricity we’ve had in recent years in the UK was for 62GW in 2002. Since then, due to improved energy efficiency such as the installation of solar panels, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16 per cent. Even if the impossible happened and we all switched to EVs overnight, we think demand would only increase by around 10 per cent. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002 and this is well within the range of manageable load fluctuation."

Gee, do you think they know more about the UK's electrical grid and power supply than you do? Because, yes, yes they do.

Starting now, with the intention to completely replace fossil-fuelled cars, they will be an economic and environmental embarrassment .

Which of us pointing out that the UK's grid is already much, much greener and cheaper to run than your diesel car didn't you understand?

On a website, that contains posts about science, your posts repeatedly don't contain any. Just your uneducated, unverified opinion.

[Bored chemist]

That's funny, because that's pointedly NOT what the national grid ever say, for example:

There's an element of "They would say that wouldn't they?" because they want to sell us the extra electricity.

But, of course, they are in the business of selling electricity. They know that doing so requires installation and maintenance of infrastructure.

They are no more frightened of paying to build new capacity than Tesco is scared of the price of building a new supermarket.