At last, a sensible electric car😀:

https://microlino-car.com/en/

3 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

At last, a sensible electric car😀:

https://microlino-car.com/en/

That's almost as ugly as a Citroen Ami! 😮

 

 

4 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

At last, a sensible electric car😀:

Now, I genuinely was expecting to see a Sinclair C5 🤣

5 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

That's almost as ugly as a Citroen Ami! 😮

 

 

Rather reminiscent of the old Isetta, I thought, looks are personal preference anyway, but my Mrs says it's quite cute!

However, what struck me as of slightly more interest was the range and performance compared to the Ami and I could see it being a much more viable local transport device.

The Ami has a claimed max of 27.9 mph and 47 mile range, whereas this, in its biggest battery format does a claimed 55mph and 143 miles, slightly over 10miles per kWh against the average EV which do around 3.5mile/kWh.

 

 

 

As predicted by myself, and several other intelligent forum members (!), there is now a call from an All Parliamentary Group to scrap the 2030 deadline on banning sales of petrol/diesel cars as it would be so economically damaging. Who'd have thought that common sense would show it's head!

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/national/uk-today/23040597.parliamentary-group-call-ban-sale-new-petrol-cars-2030-scrapped/

To little to late I fear. 

16 minutes ago, unofix said:

To little to late I fear. 

I could possibly see Liz Truss going for it but I doubt she'll be around too long.

Many existing vehicles will not meet Euro 7 from 2025 or GSR 2 (being introduced 2022-2024) so some manufacturers have already indicated that will effectively be the end of ICE development and production for them.

I fear in many cases plans to phase out ICE production are already too far advanced, though a delay might have an effect on continuation of hybrids (if governments could actually clarify what will be permitted!)

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

..though a delay might have an effect on continuation of hybrids (if governments could actually clarify what will be permitted!)

I've made no secret of my hatred of 'battery' cars, however, hybrids have always made perfect sense to me, the banning of them in 2030 is just incredible...

5 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

the banning of them in 2030 is just incredible...

Could be 2035 if they're the "right type of hybrid" but they don't seem to want to define that. Toyota in particular (understandably) have been having heated discussions with governments on the issue, I believe.

21 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

Could be 2035 if they're the "right type of hybrid" but they don't seem to want to define that. Toyota in particular (understandably) have been having heated discussions with governments on the issue, I believe.

Oh dear, what do Toyota know about cars?? LOL 🤣 The government are much better qualified, right??

16 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

Oh dear, what do Toyota know about cars?? LOL 🤣 The government are much better qualified, right??

I believe the discussion is mainly about having a capability to drive a certain distance on electric power only, which would tend to favour PHEVs (though as we've discussed elsewhere, that only applies if people charge them up in the first place). 

Toyota I think would argue that their HEVs spend just as much (or even more) total time under electric power but I suppose the argument against is that you can't necessarily control when that happens - depends on your driving mix as to the state of charge.

Certainly the ones I've ridden in as a passenger (local taxi men love 'em) seem to spend a lot of time running in electric mode.

 

The report just published by the Center of Economic & Business report is just 40 pages. Pretty dry reading, but clearly demonstrates that by using the governments own figures, converting to full battery car production in 2030 is simply ludicrous. I'm passionate about this topic, but fully realise that many are simply indifferent.

Rather than reading all 40 pages, here is the last page 'conclusion', printed in full. We are absolutely heading down a black hole with this 2030 ban, and it makes no sense whatsoever as both economically AND environmentally, it's plain stupid...

7. Conclusion
This report has assessed the economic impacts of the government’s stated plans of banning the sale of fossil fuel vehicles from 2030 onwards. The clear message deriving from the analysis is that this decision represents ‘poor’ value for money as associated costs are five times the estimated benefits. The analysis implies that even when the full benefits of the contribution of the ban to achieving the goal of Net Zero are priced in, the costs still far out weigh these benefits.
The central benefit-cost ratio estimate is 0.19, meaning that the costs of the forthcoming bans internal combustion engine vehicles are estimated to be just over five times higher than the
benefits. The net present value is negative £226 billion; with this representing an estimated net cost per household of £14,700 (£27,400 in undiscounted figures).

The main source of estimated benefits stems from lower emissions at the tailpipe. However,the extent to which these emissions are clean is heavily dependent on cleanliness of the National Grid’s energy supply. To make this source fully zero emission will may prove to be prohibitively expensive in the long run.In present value terms, the estimated impact of the bans on Fuel Duty and VAT revenues between now and 2050 is £76.8 billion.

This represents a huge hole in public finances which will need to be addressed. This is equivalent to the Income Tax, Employees' NICs, and Employers' NICs revenue raised on an additional 414,000 UK full-time workers on median earnings over the same time period.

This social cost-benefit analysis indicates that the key costs to society including significantly increased waiting times as charging electric vehicles will take a lot more time than refuelling ICE vehicles at petrol pumps. Moreover, it is likely that drivers will have to pay a lot more for new vehicles, especially given the expectation of shortages of key raw materials that are essential for building EVs. There will also be huge costs required to rapidly reorient the National Grid to generate sufficient renewable energy, in a smart way, to supply energy for EVs. The more rapidly these demands increase, the more costly it is likely to the economy.The government itself will face a significant fall in tax revenue and the average household will face significant personal costs, both in terms of direct monetary outgoings but also in much more lost time.

Even without a ban, there will be significant falls in carbon emissions as EVs are likely to gain significant traction over time without significant regulation, and petrol and diesel vehicles will
become more fuel-efficient. As such, this report focuses on the marginal costs and benefits of the increased speed of the transition caused by the forthcoming regulatory change. The analysis has been undertaken in a way that is consistent with the government’s analytical methodological guidance. This indicates that this is a decision that should be reconsidered so not to yield impacts that are, in net, detrimental to the economy and society more generally.

The environmental benefits of the ban, in so far as it helps the government meet Net Zero, are fully captured in the estimated benefits. This has allowed this study to weigh up those assessed implied environmental and health benefits against other factors that determine the welfare of UK citizens.

Whilst there may remain strategic reasons for implementing the ban, such as demonstrating the UK’s commitment to achieving Net Zero by 2050, this regulatory policy should be seen primarily as one that reduces the welfare of UK citizens

On 10/12/2022 at 11:39 AM, StephenFord said:

Pretty dry reading

Oh, I don't know - pretty punchy in comparison to some of the stuff I've had to wade through, work-wise, but the conclusion does sum things up quite well.

And on a similar theme:

https://inews.co.uk/news/zero-emission-car-targets-set-to-be-watered-down-putting-uks-2030-petrol-and-diesel-ban-in-doubt-1908152

17 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

And on a similar theme:

https://inews.co.uk/news/zero-emission-car-targets-set-to-be-watered-down-putting-uks-2030-petrol-and-diesel-ban-in-doubt-1908152

Scary article!

"A DfT spokesperson said: “We remain firm in our commitment to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030.

“We want to UK to be a world leader in electric vehicles, so we have pledged £2.5 billion to support the transition which will create new jobs and growth across the UK.

“Electric vehicles offer opportunities for savings against their petrol and diesel counterparts thanks to cheaper charging, lower maintenance costs and tax incentives. We have, however, been clear that consumers will still be able to buy second-hand petrol and diesel cars after 2030.”"

Why do we want the UK to be a world leader in electric vehicles?? I'd much prefer us to be a world leader in being self sufficient in our home energy needs, and a world leader in providing UK citizens with cheap energy!

Compared to recent spending announcements, £2.5 Billion is money down the back of the sofa sphere.

Anyone else expecting a new tax to be introduced on the sale of used 'proper' cars from 2030, or is that just because I'm old & cynical? LOL

On 10/13/2022 at 3:07 PM, StephenFord said:

“Electric vehicles offer opportunities for savings against their petrol and diesel counterparts thanks to cheaper charging, lower maintenance costs and tax incentives. We have, however, been clear that consumers will still be able to buy second-hand petrol and diesel cars after 2030.”"

This has already been shown to be a shaky assumption from recent increases in public charging costs, and expensive issues with maintenance/repair items which are relatively little publicised e.g. ac/dc inverters. I keep seeing more and more and more reports of huge battery replacement costs and batteries not achieving their claimed life. I have visions of buying an older Tesla being as risky and a lot more expensive than a 10 year old ecoboost!

I'm sure I've said this already, but I get particularly irked by the  mention of tax incentives. Why should the taxes of a person who maybe can't afford a car or even drive, subsidise someone's Tesla and thus indirectly make Elon Musk even richer?

On 10/13/2022 at 3:07 PM, StephenFord said:

Anyone else expecting a new tax to be introduced on the sale of used 'proper' cars from 2030, or is that just because I'm old & cynical? LOL

Yup! And unfortunately you've now come up with an idea for a potential new tax - a special levy on the old and cynical!😀

PS I meant to add that what I find really scary is that even if the present UK government lose office at the next election (highly likely at present, I should think) at best there'll be no change on this issue and in all probability things will get even sillier.

Personally I don't think it will ever happen and the government and EU are trying to force people into doing things now with threats just like they did when it was time for the younger adults to get their Covid Jabs.

If I remember correctly they put stories out that people would not be allowed into Night Clubs and to travel abroad unless they were Jabbed even though they had no intention of bringing in Legislation to ban them.

1 minute ago, Tizer said:

Personally I don't think it will ever happen and the government and EU are trying to force people into doing things now with threats just like they did when it was time for the younger adults to get their Covid Jabs.

Now, is that the same authoritarian government that insisted you needed a 'covid passport' to be able to travel about, or eat at a restaurant, EVEN THOUGH, being vaccinated did not one single bit prevent covid transmission - it was simply designed to keep you out of hospital!

1 minute ago, StephenFord said:

Now, is that the same authoritarian government that insisted you needed a 'covid passport' to be able to travel about, or eat at a restaurant, EVEN THOUGH, being vaccinated did not one single bit prevent covid transmission - it was simply designed to keep you out of hospital!

That's about the size of it. The point I was trying to make is that I don't think there was ever a serious intention to make the Covid Passports mandatory but by using scare tactics they made enough people do something that they really weren't keen on doing and I think they are doing the same now with their threat to ban real engines.

19 minutes ago, Tizer said:

That's about the size of it. The point I was trying to make is that I don't think there was ever a serious intention to make the Covid Passports mandatory...

Don't forget the government did sack 1000s of medical staff who refused to have a covid vaccine, an absolute disgraceful act where I hope that not only now do they get compensation, but also an offer of job reinstatement should they wish.

EDIT

Ignore this post, it is entirely incorrect! 🤣

4 minutes ago, StephenFord said:

Don't forget the government did sack 1000s of medical staff who refused to have a covid vaccine, an absolute disgraceful act where I hope that not only now do they get compensation, but also an offer of job reinstatement should they wish.

No they didn't, they made the Regulations but they were revoked before the implementation date.

Which brings me back to the point I was trying to make.

3 minutes ago, Tizer said:

No they didn't, they made the Regulations but they were revoked before the implementation date.

Which brings me back to the point I was trying to make.

Apologies, yes, it was revoked April 2022. One of my covid 'bookmarked sources' was misleading!

13 hours ago, StephenFord said:

being vaccinated did not one single bit prevent covid transmission - it was simply designed to keep you out of hospital!

To be fair that was vitally important at the time.

4 minutes ago, mjt said:

To be fair that was vitally important at the time.

Of course it was, that's why I'm double jabbed, with booster! I fear we are very off topic now though LOL

Also to be fair I don't think they ever said vaccinations would prevent transmission, only that it would greatly reduce the chance of severe illness. I'm ready to be corrected on that, though.

Like you, I'm fully jabbed, including flu a couple of weeks ago, and will be getting my autumn booster tomorrow.

And yes, we have got very off topic .