Interesting look at how green EV actually is

[Baby boomer]

Obviously, you can choose to be as suspicious as you like, but vast amounts of the highly profitable businesses of Amazon, Microsoft and Google are based around 'As A Service' services, so your own suspicions may by a little Luddite-ish.

The XAAS model has some merit in a business setting where it can make sense for a business to effectively outsource non-core admin tasks to a provider who specialises in such services. The same logic rarely if ever applies to the ordinary citizen who does his/her own admin.

XAAS is absolutely wonderful for service providers who line up permanent and predictable streams of revenue. For the consumer, it's a case of caveat emptor. And then emptor again just for good measure.

Oh, and a Luddite typically rejects new technology. Not new ways of extracting payment for old technology.

It's always worth a chuckle all right to hear car owners talking about others who have 'more money than sense' as they have obviously lost sight of the 'money pit' aspects of car ownership, the purchase price or lease or loan, the motor tax, the insurance, the maintenance, the fuel costs and other bits and pieces.

I'm well aware of the total costs of car ownership. Elements of it (mostly the state imposed costs actually) are exorbitant. However, it's a price I'm prepared to pay for the freedom and independence it confers.

It is also funny how, when you mention the possibility of any other different models of car ownership, people have all these needs for emergency usage and for carrying around washing machines, all the oul cliches that emerge in these discussions.

There are valid reasons why they become cliches. People live varied lives with many varied requirements for mobility. Not everyone lives in a city where "mobility AAS" might just be possible, if mind crushingly awkward. The flexibility of the ICE vehicle makes it king for the moment.

There are many ways to travel three miles fairly sharply that don't require a car depreciating on your driveway.

Depends very much on where you live, doesn't it?

The big question for here is whether it makes any sense for Government to be subsidising private car ownership of electric vehicles for middle and higher income earners.

Let's be clear. Government does not subsidize private car ownership. Government taxes it exorbitantly, even in EV guise. At best we're being conned with a massive bait and switch job to induce a premature adoption of EV following which the taxes on motoring will be whacked up again.

The idea of a 'target' of having a million cars on the road makes little sense. Government need to be pushing for fewer cars, not a different type of car.

Ah, here now, if you're that anti-car, you're always going to find a reason why the Government should act to suppress private car usage, aren't you?

And we can all live in our shiny happy (non-luddite ) world where an alliance of government and the corporate world "look after" our transport needs. Sure, what could possibly go wrong????

I mean look at the success of the Housing As A Service model in the rental sector..... Who'd want to do anything as old-fashioned as owning their own home?

 

[RetirementPlan]

I’d respectfully disagree, that’s not even close to the topic of this thread.

I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. The topic of your thread is about how green EVs actually are. The basis for Government subsidising EVs is environmental, that putting more EVs on the road will improve the environment, but they're wrong. EVs really aren't very green at all. They are considerably less harmful than ICE cars in terms of their operation, but they still have very significant environmental costs involved in manufacture and disposal, and significant pollution arising from their operation (brake pad particles, tyre particles), and environmental costs in providing the power for them to operate. The matters discussed on this thread, about how green EVs are have direct relevance to the question of whether Government should continue to subsidise private car purchases for middle to high income earners.

 

[RetirementPlan]

The XAAS model has some merit in a business setting where it can make sense for a business to effectively outsource non-core admin tasks to a provider who specialises in such services. The same logic rarely if ever applies to the ordinary citizen who does his/her own admin.

XAAS is absolutely wonderful for service providers who line up permanent and predictable streams of revenue. For the consumer, it's a case of caveat emptor. And then emptor again just for good measure.

Oh, and a Luddite typically rejects new technology. Not new ways of extracting payment for old technology.

Lots of lovely brochure-speak there, though I'm not sure where you got the focus on 'admin' from. Caveat emptor should certainly apply to both business and consumer purchases. What you describe as 'new ways of extracting payment' in this scenario is a move away from the traditional model of huge fixed costs of car ownership for the object that sits depreciating on your driveway towards a variable cost model of paying for what you actually use, and not paying for the 95% of the time that it sits unused. It is also a more environmental option, as the current model encourages incremental usage of vehicles, as the fixed costs are already sunk.

I'm well aware of the total costs of car ownership. Elements of it (mostly the state imposed costs actually) are exorbitant. However, it's a price I'm prepared to pay for the freedom and independence it confers.

There are valid reasons why they become cliches. People live varied lives with many varied requirements for mobility. Not everyone lives in a city where "mobility AAS" might just be possible, if mind crushingly awkward. The flexibility of the ICE vehicle makes it king for the moment.

I should have included the 'not everyone' cliche in my original list. There's no suggestion of or requirement for the new model to work for everyone. It's not going to imposed as a legal requirement. It is available as an option, and it is already working for many people. Numbers will grow as attitudes change and availability of services increase.

Depends very much on where you live, doesn't it?

Not really, tbh.

Let's be clear. Government does not subsidize private car ownership. Government taxes it exorbitantly, even in EV guise. At best we're being conned with a massive bait and switch job to induce a premature adoption of EV following which the taxes on motoring will be whacked up again.

You may be clear, but you're factually wrong. In this particular case, Government is literally subsidising the purchase price of of new EVs for middle and higher income earners, and there have to be big questions about whether this is a good use of limited government resources, compared to investments in sustainable transport.
In the more general matter, motorists pay nothing near the full cost of motoring, including the costs of significant amounts of Garda and Courts resources, the costs of healthcare arising from air and noise pollution, the vast amounts of public space given over for storage of private cars, often for no charge, the damage done to pavements by illegal parking, and much, much more.
If you think we are anywhere near 'premature' in adoption of EVs, you might want to check out what's happening in the Arctic and Antarctic in recent weeks.

Ah, here now, if you're that anti-car, you're always going to find a reason why the Government should act to suppress private car usage, aren't you?

And we can all live in our shiny happy (non-luddite ) world where an alliance of government and the corporate world "look after" our transport needs. Sure, what could possibly go wrong????

I mean look at the success of the Housing As A Service model in the rental sector..... Who'd want to do anything as old-fashioned as owning their own home?

So any suggestion that we should have fewer cars on the road is no 'anti-car'? That's a little twisted. If I recall the figures correctly, we have trebled the number of vehicles on our roads over about thirty years. I don't recall any public consultation or policy discussion to guide such developments. We need to be looking at what is happening all over the world, in Paris, in Barcelona, in Netherlands, in Denmark, in some UK cities, where policy makers see beyond car-centric thinking and ensure that sustainable travel is a serious option for many people for much of the time. A target for having a particular number of EVs on the road is perverse.
I'm not quite seeing the relevance of the Housing issue.

 

[Baby boomer]

Lots of lovely brochure-speak there, though I'm not sure where you got the focus on 'admin' from.

That would be stuff like making sure the vehicle is taxed, insured, maintained, etc etc.

Caveat emptor should certainly apply to both business and consumer purchases. What you describe as 'new ways of extracting payment' in this scenario is a move away from the traditional model of huge fixed costs of car ownership for the object that sits depreciating on your driveway towards a variable cost model of paying for what you actually use, and not paying for the 95% of the time that it sits unused.

Ok, whether the car is owned outright or rented as and when, it's still going to depreciate. It's still going to incur fixed costs. Somebody (ie the cumulative users) is still gonna pay these costs. And with Mobility AAS, they're probably gonna be higher as higher standards will be demanded. I tend to buy 2 year old cars and keep them for 8 years or more. I would say my cost/mile is well under anything that MAAS could deliver.

It is also a more environmental option, as the current model encourages incremental usage of vehicles, as the fixed costs are already sunk.

The only way that can work is if the lifetime cost/mile of MAAS is greater than that for vehicle ownership. Which is kinda my point.

I should have included the 'not everyone' cliche in my original list. There's no suggestion of or requirement for the new model to work for everyone.

It won't work "for everyone." It will work for a small minority of mainly city dwellers. Rural Ireland is a different place.

It's not going to imposed as a legal requirement.

One can only hope so. Although there's a nasty tone of compulsory authoritarianism emerging around the green agenda which increasingly talks about what we'll all be "allowed" to do by an onmipotent but benevolent government. Like I say, what could possibly go wrong!?

It is available as an option, and it is already working for many people. Numbers will grow as attitudes change and availability of services increase.

If some people want to surrender their personal independence, yeah, way to go. They're perfectly entitled to do so. Forgive me for not seeing this as a mark of good citizenship!

Not really, tbh.

It does actually. If you live outside a major urban area, your choices are very limited.

You may be clear, but you're factually wrong. In this particular case, Government is literally subsidising the purchase price of of new EVs

Vat and other taxes paid vastly exceeds the rather small subsidy. There's no nett subsidy

for middle and higher income earners, and there have to be big questions about whether this is a good use of limited government resources, compared to investments in sustainable transport.

Or generally cutting taxes....

In the more general matter, motorists pay nothing near the full cost of motoring, including the costs of significant amounts of Garda and Courts resources, the costs of healthcare arising from air and noise pollution, the vast amounts of public space given over for storage of private cars, often for no charge, the damage done to pavements by illegal parking, and much, much more.

Oh dear. We have roads, Gardai, Courts, pavements and healthcare anyway. If there were no motorists at all, we'd still have all of the above, perhaps with a modest reduction in scale. And a HUGE reduction in revenue to pay for it all.

If you think we are anywhere near 'premature' in adoption of EVs, you might want to check out what's happening in the Arctic and Antarctic in recent weeks.

Premature in terms of cost and utility compared to ICE. Perhaps in a few years....

So any suggestion that we should have fewer cars on the road is no 'anti-car'? That's a little twisted. If I recall the figures correctly, we have trebled the number of vehicles on our roads over about thirty years. I don't recall any public consultation or policy discussion to guide such developments. We need to be looking at what is happening all over the world, in Paris, in Barcelona, in Netherlands, in Denmark, in some UK cities, where policy makers see beyond car-centric thinking and ensure that sustainable travel is a serious option for many people for much of the time. A target for having a particular number of EVs on the road is perverse.

Ah, the perfect is the enemy of the good. I see.

I'm not quite seeing the relevance of the Housing issue.

It's an analogy. Would you prefer to own your own property or rent one as and when required? Think of the benefits, no "fixed costs" no depreciation, no LPT, no maintenance, no repairs, no painting, no insurance and your grass gets cut for you!! Just be a good little worker bee and keep paying the rent.