From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
EV sales remain stuck at around 21%, well below the ZEV mandate of 28% for this year:
It is hard to see what carmakers can do now to shift the dial, especially as the target goes up to 33% next year.
The Government still does not seem to have got the message that for the vast majority of drivers, EVs are not fit for purpose. Very few want to buy them now, and there is no reason to think anything will change anytime soon.
Carmakers will doubtless roll their deficits against ZEV targets forward to next year, but this is sillier than taking out a payday loan!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reality has a way of getting in the way.
Its hard to take Paul seriously when his very own figures are opposite to this claim. Car sales overall are trending down. The BEV and PHEV market share is trending up, and ICE (and surprisingly HEV) market share is trending down over 2024-2025.
Pre-registration..
I have to wonder if Tim’s family owns an EV dealership.
Nah, they’re tools
Paul’s diagnosis is probably correct, despite the EV rise in both share and sales.
80-85% of BEV+PHEVs are being sold through companies or Motability. Private new car buyers seem to be resisting, and maybe have reached a sticking point.
For those unfamiliar with the UK auto market, cars are frequently provided by companies on lease arrangements. Back in the day when the marginal rate of tax was 83%, which ii was in the 1970s, this was a way of sheltering income from tax. Companies would provide cars to people who had no business need for them, because this was a way of lowering tax on what was in effect part of the salary.
Now however this results in a taxable benefit for payment in kind. The taxable benefit for an EV or PHEV is much smaller than for mild hybrid or ICE. This creates a strong incentive to take an EV. And there are stories of PHEVs commonly being handed back off lease with the charging cables still wrapped!
Motability is a scheme where the disabled (and many who are only nominally disabled) get a government mobility allowance, which they then apply to leasing an EV (but not a mild hybrid) through the Motability charity. There are about 700,000 such cases at the moment.
These are three year leases. At the end of them the vehicles go onto the used market, and this is where reality is starting to bite. The government is managing to get a larger EV share of the new car market through company leases and Motability. But then the cars come onto the used market, where they meet buyer resistance, and the more they get sold in this way as new, the greater the volume for sale used… and this leads inevitably to a fall in prices. Seeing which, the personal new car buyer resists buying what he can see is a rapidly depreciating asset.
Paul is probably right – this situation is going to get worse in the next couple of years. Nothing is happening that seems likely to change private buyer resistance, and the number of used EVs coming onto the market will rise.
Meanwhile, the auto companies are faced with rising targets for EVs, and the failures to meet the targets result in draconian financial penalties. From memory this is £15,000 per car sold over quota. So, what are the quotas?
Well, for this year its 28%. They look unlikely to make much over 22%. Going forward:
Light vans are similar, but a bit lower.
The quota, its important to note, is for ZEVs {Zero Emission). PHEVs don’t count. They can still be sold up to 2035, but from then on all cars must be ZEV.
What will happen? Well, predictions are hard, especially about the future. But surely anyone looking at these numbers can see that as written its not a safe plan? The most likely scenario is continued private buyer resistance, continued depreciation in the used market, the end of manufacturer subsidies and discounts to new car sales – because unaffordable.
And something of a crisis for leasing companies. After all, they take back the cars at the end of three years, and have to put them into the used market. Their business model depends on these values holding up adequately. What do they do? Raise the lease rates?
This is looking like an unsustainable path. The only two alternatives which seem possible at some point in the next three years are (1) a government U-turn (2) a collapse of the UK car market and industry, And people holding on to their used ICE or hybrids and driving them into the ground.
The policy was devised by fanatics and waved through Parliament by fools. Even if could be done, it would have zero effect on global emissions, and probably none even on UK emissions. It probably will not improve city air pollution. And it will increase demand for peak hour domestic electricity at a time when the government is destroying reliable supply by moving generation to wind and solar.
Meanwhile, another interesting ingredient in this explosive mix. The UK has a ‘road taz’, an annual vehicle licensing fee. Its £195 a year. But there is an Expensive Car Supplement: Vehicles with a list price over £40,000 pay an additional £425 per year for five years, starting from the second year of registration. This now applies to electric vehicles (EVs) registered on or after 1 April 2025.
This tax follows the car. So you buy a used EV which sold for £45k, its a couple of years old and you think its a bargain at half list. Not so fast. You get hit by the Expensive Car Supplement for the rest of the time up till its five years old!
Since most EVs now sell for more than £40k, you can see that this is even more of a downer for the used car market.
If you are a UK used car buyer, get a good mild hybrid and drive it into the ground. If you are over 80 in the country, only local pottering, wait and buy an EV over five years old. Wait, because they will only get cheaper!
And there are 66 Million British people who buy cars. To suggest this small group can skew the UK sales figures so far, is a far fetched argument without some actual data to back it up.
“66 Million British people who buy cars.”
No there are not. That’s plain silly. You are including all children and infants in that figure, not to mention the millions who do not drive.
Whatever. How many of the 700k are kids or people who dont drive because they’re simply not capable? The argument 700k people is enough to skew the whole country’s car sales figures is facetious at best.
“Whatever. “
That just about sums it all up for me. You are operating on a faith based level.
Why not look these things up?
You have a rubbish argument and so does Paul. The numbers dont look like they add up to me. Paul could have made an actual argument with numbers in his article but he didn’t. Who’s acting on faith, really?
It is quite evident you simply pull random numbers out of your arse and are entirely disconnected from reality.
And which numbers do you claim are “random” ?
Ironically if Paul had used actual numbers to back up his claim then his argument would have been valid. But he didn’t.
When you are stuck on stupid you just double down. What a moron.
Try looking up some real numbers before bloviating, it takes seconds to do. UK new car sales (actually registrations*, which means some ‘sales’ were not actual sales) for 2024 calendar year were about 2 million, which is typical for the last decade or two. Motability is the biggest single customer, about 20%, of new cars. Whether it’s Motability (whose head honcho gets paid a fortune – ‘charity’ work is big business these days) pushing EVs or car dealers exploiting Motability to push their ‘customers’ into EVs is irrelevant – the fact is that Motability-supplied cars are now overwhelmingly EVs.
https://www.best-selling-cars.com/britain-uk/2024-full-year-britain-new-car-market-overview-and-analysis/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+Motability+cars+provided+in+2024&ia=web
Motability is skewing EV sales.
*Our dumb UK government is once again wasting taxpayers’ money on subsidising EV sales, with a subsidy on each sale. But to qualify, the car only has to be registered. Can you figure out why we can expect higher ‘sales’ as a result?
Like temperature series, there is a limit to the distortion where it either becomes an offset or makes the real measurement disappear.
Here’s what the article says.
You claim
And no doubt it is, but without numbers the impact is unknown. The fact is that EV sales are trending up. And ICE sales are trending down according to the data Paul gave us.
“Who’s acting on faith, really?”
You are, clearly. You can’t even be arsed to look basic things like population, up
Ya just wait till the end of the year slippery slide, and then comes 26.
The 700k are actual Motability sales, so none are kids or people who do not drive. There are not 66 million car buyers in the UK, that is the total population. In fact, total population is not that, its probably 70 million. The car market is just under 2 million a year.
I am not claiming that Motability alone skews UK car sales figures. I am claiming that there is an important fact about the UK car market which people need to be aware of. And that is that 80-85% of EV sales are not to private buyers but via either company leasing schemes or Motability.
Yes that is important. Thanks I did not know,
Over all time (ie since 1977)?
In Australia leasing is a very common way to own a vehicle. Why do you need to separate that out and somehow make it different from outright purchases? The end result is EVs on the road and its increasing according to Paul’s figures.
Need to start reading.
See the first para in my original post which explains what UK company car leases are, and why they are not like private leases, which are a straight financing arrangement.
The 700k is the installed base of Motability recipients.
The Motability leases are three year duration, after which the vehicle goes on to the used market, where they can be reasonably good buys – regularly serviced by dealer, and mostly quite low mileage.
And how many of the 66M are drivers that buy cars? And how often do they replace existing to “buy a car”??
In the UK some 1,952,778 new cars were registered last year so now your 700,000 figure potentially becomes 700,000/1,952,778
Your numbers are shown to be nonsense, and your response is, “whatever”.
The Motability Scheme is a major player in the UK car market. I in 5 new cars sold in the UK is through the mobility scheme
Nor is every one of them buying a new car EVERY year! LMAO
Precisely.
I have never bought a new car and I can’t think of any new vehicle I would even want to own. They all look like kids running shoes.
I blame you for the “wood paneling” on the side of my mom’s Ford Pinto station wagon circa 1975.
Here since you are too lazy to actually read start here
https://www.whatcar.com/advice/buying/what-is-the-zev-mandate/n26196
This is the key point
>>>>> If manufacturers don’t meet the sales targets, they can use any of their banked credit to comply, or they can trade allowances with other manufacturers. Otherwise, a fine of £15,000 will be issued for every non zero-emission car sold outside of the allowance. <<<<<
So now the funny part, to meet increasingly strict electric vehicle (EV) sales mandates, some UK car dealers are offering substantial discounts on EVs, potentially including “cheap” models, to boost sales so they can sell ICE car models.
So next year the UK target for ZEV is 33% so the UK market will sell 5% move ZEV next year without doubt OR THEY GET FINED.
£15,000 = about $20k
All the people in Britain buy cars every year?
Great comment, .Michel.
I am definitely in the keep it and drive it into the ground camp.
I have two diesel powered cars with about 300,000 more miles left in them.
As a six thousand mile/yr. driver, the fifty years left in them should see me out……
This seems like a bit of hysterical hand-wringing. There is a third viable option: policy adjustment and market adaptation. There is zero reason to assume static behavior from consumers, industry, or the government.
We shall see. I don’t think there is any way next year’s target will be met, so that is one near-in test.
Another interesting indicator will be the effect of EVs coming off lease in the next twelve months. Right now the average age of EVs is about 2.5 years. So we shall see what happens to used car prices when they come off lease.
There is a real though limited market segment for full-on EVs. Its not clear how large it is, but I think it almost certainly lower than the coming quotas for ZEVs.
I don’t see any way of getting out of this by policy adjustment short of a U-turn on the quotas – basically, abolishing them. What kind of adjustments do you have in mind?
I also don’t think market adaptation, by which presumably is meant changes in consumer preference and willingness to buy, is at all likely. I think we are probably near peak acceptance of EVs. One indicator of this will be average age of the existing parc.
If average age gets older, that’s an indication that preference is for an older ICE or hybrid rather than for pure EV. Differential between BEV, hybrid and ICE age is also an important indicator.
We shall see. The critical point is going to be, if the ZEV quotas are not met, if as I expect they are missed by miles, will the government really enforce them with the fines? We will find out together.
If you look at the numbers, its hard to see how the kind of miss that is shaping up does NOT lead to something dramatic if the fines and quotas are enforced. But maybe you can see some way modest changes will work out. I do not.
My own view is that mild hybrids are what makes most sense for most people. No range anxiety, identical performance to what they are used to, very good reliability stats, fairly simple engineering, far better fuel economy than ICE. What puts one off PHEVs is the reliability stats and the complexity.
You’re right that next year’s quota compliance and the used EV market will be tests, but not definitive ones. Markets under pressure adapt, especially when policy and industry both have strong incentives to avoid worst-case outcomes. Policy adjustment doesn’t require scrapping quotas entirely; it could mean tweaking the pace, revising penalties, or offering targeted support for the used EV market. Consumer preference is dynamic by nature. People care about total cost of ownership, product improvements, and infrastructure changes. Sentiment is flexible. Mild hybrids are indeed a sensible choice for a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean ZEVs aren’t equally sensible for a growing segment.
Yay … Socialist command-and-control tweaks will save consumers/customers in the end! And your “markets under pressure adapt” translates into “market failures” due to government meddling in free-market efficiencies.
Yes, markets and behavior will always adapt to regulation. The issue is how they react. Government can act so as to make ICE and hybrids undesirable or unaffordable. The question is what the consequences are.
Your view is basically tweak and see it through and it will all work out. Its only based on very vague generalizations, though. . For instance, Consumer preference is dynamic by nature. Well I guess so. Sentiment is flexible. Probably. But these are platitudes, not analysis.
The key variable which, if it goes pearshaped, will take a lot of the others with it, is customer preference and resistance. The view you’re taking is that it will adjust, that BEVs will be sufficiently viable replacements of ICE and hybrids that in the end there will be substitution without any other major changes.
I don’t think a look at the specifics of the UK market supports this account. I am sure that the Government can act in such a way as to enforce the quotas. But I think that what it will take to do that will cut the car market by one third to one half and have all the unintended consequences that implies.
As a current example, look at English pubs. Yes, you can change employment law and cost of hiring, and the Government has. But what they have not been able to do is do that and keep employment the same. Because costs rise, prices rise, behaviour does indeed adapt, but not by just paying more or lowering profits. By the pubs laying off staff and in increasing numbers of cases closing down. By the clientele in stopping using the pubs in what used to be the traditional way.
I am sure they can drive everyone to EVs. But I am also pretty sure that they cannot at the same time keep existing annual sales, car ownership and use levels.
I am speculating, but I suspect even Miliband doesn’t think they can. He seems to want to move to BEVs for the sake of it and is prepared to accept whatever fallout it takes.
Why he wants to do that is a mystery, but there you go.
We shall see over the next year or two which of us is right about this. I think the omens are favoring me right now, but its the future, its intrinsically uncertain..
Totally missing from your arguments is the simple fact that the infrastructure does not exist in much of the UK for people to use EVs. Street parking is the norm in many areas, but there are no street chargers. Theft of EV cables in places where people do have off-street parking is already a problem. Production of electricity in the UK is marginal, and depends on interconnection with other countries when insufficient wind and solar power is produced. The country is spiraling downward trying to support thousands of recent immigrants, the government is broke, and those in power are considering raising taxes on an already overtaxed public.
Something is going to break under the present strain, and the ev mandates will be quickly jettisoned along with all other green edicts to prevent the building of guillotines.
I see Alan is one of those people who feel that people will eventually adapt to whatever the government allows them to do.
Markets and industries do, in fact, adapt to policy and technology. So yes, I’m one of those people who acknowledges reality. What sort of person are you?
From post:”So yes, I’m one of those people who acknowledges reality. What sort of person are you?”
The reality is there is no reason to mandate net zero. No reason to subsidize EV’s. No reason to stop drilling for gas or oil. No reason to stop burning coal. So I don’t think you fit into the picture you have of yourself.
Exactly there is no need to reduce the life giving gas in fact we need to make more.
Alan seems to regard government mandates as something that just happen. To him, the idea of fighting back is not conceivable. The proper reaction for the sheep is to just adapt and move on.
Alan’s ideal world is one in which government runs everything and the people just have to adapt.
Why so many 50’s IC’s in Cuba? Heading toward the Peoples Republic of Britain? What is the Future?
Everything you typed is a lie. Quite funny really.
“EVs Stuck Below 22%”
Stuck? On July figures, that is 21.5% for 2025 vs 18.3% for 2024. That isn’t stuck – it is a 15% increase.
Or even more on YTD data – 21.3% vs 16.8% 2024. That is a 28.8% increase in one year.
Yeah I saw that headline and spotted an issue with it too.
There’s no “T” in Suck
You are missing the point as this line you amazingly failed to read,
and this too,
Again, you struggle with the misleading crap you make.
But he does have a technically true quibble, that “stuck” is incorrect.
That’s all he ever has except outright lies
Relative to the target, they are stuck.
Percentage increases are sexy when raw numbers show the sales to be a farce given all the government foot on the scale nonsense.
And percentage increases are meaningless with small beginning numbers.
Mr. repair: Here’s the thing- Mr. Stokes will be happy to take the discussion down a rabbit hole, quibbling about the word “stuck”. It’s not incorrect, exactly, because the goal of 28% is still out there, but I agree it’s open to a quibble. Maybe Mr. Stokes saw that as an opportunity to steer away from the point of the sentence, as Mr. tommy says.
Yes. “michel” printed the important numbers, which ought to be in the main article:
About the only thing they can do next year would be to limit the number of ICV sales such that EV sakes get skewed to the 33% level. If you can’t sell more EVs limit the number of ICVs available.
Do you drive an EV yet, as your only vehicle? …
This. Everyone I know with an EV, it is part of their stable of vehicles. The real resistance will be getting people to adopt an EV as their only vehicle.
Living in Key West in the Florida Keys, where hurricanes abound and people have to evacuate, would make EV adoption extremely difficult as travel distances and recharge times would hinder the process. Key West to the tip of the Florida mainland is almost 400 miles and would require driving 2 hours then spending another hour recharging to drive another 2 hours and spending another hour recharging just to get to where the keys meet the mainland…and that is providing you can find a vacant charging port while competing with the other 25,000 Key West residents along the way.
Don’t forget that your range will be greatly shortened if you use the car’s air con.
Come to Australia, it’s easier to charge an EV here. ‘Pheasants Nest’ on the M31 is one of Australia’s busiest service stations. Yesterday afternoon, when I passed through around rush hour time, there was one EV charging. That’s one more than usual.
But its a long way to drive from Florida for a recharge
The manufacturers are offering massive discounts, taking big losses on every vehicle, doing everything in their power to meet their target, and despite all of this, and all the subsidies from the government, they’re still missing it by a mile.
This can’t continue, and the reality remains that the vast majority of buyers don’t want them, and those that are buying them are only doing so thanks to market interference.
Like wind and solar…..
… TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE !!
BINGO!
(added danger of giving managers a place to hide other losses.)
The economy is screwed, Nick
Their auto industry definitely is! Forced to make products nobody wants and sell them at a loss is a business model only if the goal is bankruptcy.
If government is specifying the product mix… what does the department that spent the last few decades specifying product mix do?
Puts government in the role of doing market research?
I wonder whether we could benefit from the lessons learned in the Soviet Union. There, the manufacturers sent their product straight to the recycling industry. The recycling industry sent their product straight to the manufacturers. By cutting out the middle man, aka customer, both industries were able to grow at an impressive pace.
EVs would recycle well, wouldn’t they?
The UK car manufacturing is on a very very slippery slope. They have and ever decreasing percentage they allowed to sell of there most profitable ICE cars in the UK. Then the double whammy trumps tarrifs are killing there exports to USA
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/24/uk-car-manufacturing-slumps-lowest-non-covid-level-1953
The point is the figures are being terribly distorted by first UK which car retailers are forced to meet mandates and 2nd by China which has a raft of mandates and incentives to push ZEV.
Xi Ping spoke yesterday about the problems in the China market and sent a blunt warning to manufacturers to obey.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/05/china-warns-ev-makers-stop-price-cutting-production-involution
If you think obey was too harsh a statement well the CEO’s were summoned by Xi.
>>> Some of China’s big car companies, including BYD, the EV maker that is seen as China’s rival to Tesla, were summoned to meetings with regulators last month to receive warnings about overcapacity <<<
So the issue is much of the sales growth is because consumers are being forced not because they want to buy ZEV.
Manufacturers can now get a bung from the UK government for every ‘sale’. To qualify for which only actually requires the car to be registered. What do you think is going to happen?
Second veiled reference to registering unsold cars.
I wonder if UK will assign inspectors to check whether registered, unsold cars actually exist? Does the law say explicitly one car can only have one registration per year? If Harry sells Larry a car does it get reregistered? If so then Harry and Larry need only sell the same car back and forth once per ICE sale, keeping one EV per lot. If the one EV per lot can be stored offsite, then you could reduce overhead to one EV per company.
Just one example of the fact that some people are light-years smarter than than the average bureaucrat … and have much more time to finesse bureaucratic rules. People gaming the system for better or worse is just one of the governments’ massive failures. Unintended consequences, much?
That is a 28.8% increase in one year.
Yeah, and…? As pointed out, they’re already missing the targets by significant margins and the trend indicates that the targets will be missed by even greater margins over the next several years.
2025 28%
2026 33%
2027 38%
2028 52%
2029 66%
2030 80%
Does anyone still believe that half of the cars bought in 2028 will be EV’s? The point remains: the public isn’t that excited about EVs, and setting arbitrary targets doesn’t make them buy them. Government mandating what you can produce or what you can buy never works. Ever. Seventy years of communist economic failures should have driven that point home, but leftists never learn. Dogma supersedes reality in their constricted brains. They can’t handle the truth. They keep trying the same failed policies repeatedly, believing that eventually they will work.
Take a look at what you wrote and think: 2025 YTD, 21.3%. No. The chart says 21.5%.
2025 July, 21.5%. No, the chart says 21.3%.
July’s market share is less than the YTD, which means EV sales vs ICE is NOT improving, possibly shrinking, and is stuck at 21%.
Peak oil in 2008-2015 was supposed to have cleared the way for ALL EV world by 2025.
Climate scammers never anticipated US shale fracking.
Oops.
The better we are at extracting and producing a resource (ie oil), the steeper the drop on the Hubbert curve. Fracking is great for increasing Production rates but doesn’t gain us a lot more oil.
Here is an idea for you to consider Tim. Why not synthesise fuel from the excess renewable energy being generated (I know just run with this)?
Now under that scenario, the need to fabricate hydrogen would go away, instead the fuel being synthesised from excess renewables is chemically identical to fossil fuel but is completely/immediately recyclable, so fully Net Zero carbon(dioxide).
What do you think? A green zealots wet dream eh?
I think its more efficient to directly burn coal in a power station at around 35% efficiency and then charge EVs than it is to synthesise into oil at around 65% efficiency and then burn it in an ICE at around 30% efficiency making it around 20% overall.
Wow, a whole bunch more random numbers pulled right out of your arse.
Coal fire power station efficiency
Typical thermal efficiency for utility-scale electrical generators is around 37% for coal and oil-fired plants
Coal-to-Liquids
An advantage of coal liquefaction over gasification is the thermal efficiency of fuel production, with the former being 60–70% and the latter no higher than 55% (Research Reports International 2006).
Internal Combustion Engines
Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of more than 50%,[1] but most road legal cars only achieve about 20% to 40% efficiency.
Would you like to add anything useful to the conversation?
So, wrong is all you got. Okely dokely.
I gave you the numbers and you responded with that? Weird.
Yes, you are weird.
Now how about transmission losses. And the energy expenditure on battery manufacturing…
Plus battery losses, both in charging and discharging.
Tim, I don’t disagree with your general efficiency numbers. The making fuels from excess energy availability, I allude to, is something being proposed all over the place by the Green zealots, though to be fair they mostly focus on hydrogen as their preferred product.
Just as renewables are a pipe dream answer to world energy needs so too is hydrogen a pipe, make that a leaking pipe dream solution to motive power needs.
Nuclear energy built in series production and cost effectively outside the controlling regulation bureaucracy that has grown up over the nuclear era would be an effective route to air (not coal) based fuel synthesis.
If we actually had a man made climate change problem then nuclear would be the one and only option to solve it. As we do not have a crisis with climate change we have time available to evolve permanent energy solutions for all future human needs.
Nuclear fission not fusion is perfectly positioned to give us all the clean energy we need. I am continually perplexed by the obvious delay in progressing it.
I attach a link to a Forbes article re synthesised fuel that may or may not open.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2023/06/21/the-challenges-of-making-fuel-from-air/
I do not endorse or reject the article.
Patagonia! it does not get any more remote than that…..
Hydrogen is usually expected to be drawn from rivers, lakes or oceans by hydrolysis fueled by wind or solar. The source is dense and plentiful, the process is old and done in school chem labs and can be scaled from small to big… the reasons it isn’t done are economic.
Some problems with fuel-from-air are:
The source is not dense, with CO2 being less than 500 ppm in gas. For reference, very roughly, steam is about 2000 times less dense than liquid water.
The process is new and not often done in school chem labs – though it requires the same electrolysis mentioned before, the electrolysis is a preliminary step to gather hydrogen.
The process does not scale well. By this I mean you can not go to the supermarket and get what you need to replicate it on the kitchen counter – yes you can go to the supermarket and get what you need to replicate electrolysis on the kitchen counter.
The advantage of fuel-from-air vs hydrogen is producing fuel with higher energy density than hydrogen. You have to convince me (or any nay-sayer) that higher CO2 in the air is bad before you call removing it an advantage.
Added: IF you are going to replace solar and wind with nuclear THEN you probably don’t need liquid or gas fuel anyway.
Except you can easily add More Coal or More Gas when you need More electricity. Something you can’t do with wind or solar.
As for gas engines…you can still travel significantly farther much faster and refueling is measured in minutes rather than hours. AND the vehicles way a half ton less that similar EVs so tires last 3-4 times longer.
Then for the price difference of EV vs ICV buying the EV is like prepaying for 15 years of maintenance and fuel costs.
Real numbers are less reliable, they might not make the point he wants to make.
And once again, Tim tries to pretend that energy distribution is 100% efficient.
Depending on how far away the power plant is, and how old the distribution network, at a minimum, between 20 and 30% of generated power is lost.
TTTM also neglects the problem of storing electrical energy until it’s needed. This is easy with hydrocarbon fuels.
Why not burn the oil directly in an internal combustion engine?
This addresses the idea that coal can be converted into oil and then burnt in the ICE. It’s less efficient than using coal directly to generate electricity.
With production profits you just go and find more oil to sell
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/04/bp-makes-major-oil-and-gas-discovery-off-coast-of-brazil-santos-basin
That should keep the climate cult moaning for years.
China and Russia will likely find large oil fields in Arctic and on it goes.
I see economics is another thing you have no grasp of.
Since fracking dramatically decreases the cost of getting more oil and gas, by definition, it is gaining us a lot more oil.
M King Hubbert knew that the “tight” oil was there, but in spite of his own theories about technological advance thought that it would never be produced. So yes, production rates don’t give us more oil, they just change the likely Peak Oil date.
The numbers are massively boosted by subsidies to fleet buyers and the Motability scam, sorry scheme. Private buyers are mostly avoiding EVs, because they get smaller subsidies. EVs remain an inferior product at a higher price for most buyers. Losing half your money in a year is a bit disappointing too.
Fleets will take the subsidies and also be able to claim a massive capital loss when they try to re-sell them.
I wouldn’t like to be an insurer to the fleets they might just have a big fire one day either by accident or design 🙂
It’s like the joke of the two businessmen in the Bahamas and one asks the other “So what do you do?” The guy replies I am retired my business got flooded and when I got the payout I retired, so how about you. The second businessman replies very similar story only my business burnt down and I retired on payout. The second businessman then asks, so how the hell do you start a flood?
If you buy an expensive EV for say £60K you lose £10K a year for the first three years. Heigh ho – off to SW France on one tank of dieso.
sillier than taking out a payday loan
Got to get money from somewhere
The bill for Rachel Reeves’s errors has landed – it’s £50bn and YOU are going to pay it
Rachel Reeves banged on about the £22billion black hole she inherited. Then doubled it. https://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/2091635/bill-rachel-reeves-errors-landed-50bn-you-are-going-to-pay-it
Please give generously…
The entire EV industry is based on fraud and grift. It’s a government scam, and people know it. It wouldn’t even exist without the huge subsidies and punishing of “carbon”.
I do historical reenactment. Those are normally far (1000km+) away and in the weekend with a car filled to the roof. An EV is not an option for those kind of travels at the moment.
And never will be. EVs will always suck at heavy loads and/or long distances.
Yes to EVs sucking at long distance.
Are you sure about heavy loads?
“Electric vehicles (EVs) inherently provide strong low-end torque because electric motors produce maximum torque immediately from a standstill (0 RPM), unlike internal combustion engines (ICE) which need to rev up to reach their power band.”
Perhaps it’s a factor other than the motors, like the heavy battery?
EVs do provide good low end torque, however most towing occurs at high end, not low end.
The faster an electric motor turns, the less efficient it gets. This is even more dramatic when that motor is under heavy load.
As so much of the impetus for EV mandates hinged on the Endangerment Finding, which has just been cancelled citing the reasons that the EPA did not have legal authority to make the Finding or to impose the resulting regulations, plus that it was based on inaccurate or misleading science (according to Perplexity’s analysis of the cancellation documents), can anyone with legal background here answer the question of whether this now opens the door to litigation by companies–including auto manufacturers–to seek redress for their losses over the years from trying to meet the resulting mandates?
I also found by the conversation with Perplexity that Tesla has been receiving ‘regulatory credits’ for production of zero-emission vehicles, which they have sold on to other companies–interestingly with the percentage of income from such regulatory credit sales equalling the profit margin of the company. Will, or can, the companies that bought these credits now sue for compensation?
Paul, Maybe the government will extend the Motability scheme which currently accounts for 25% of all new cars purchased. Maybe the government will register us all as ‘disabled’ thus allowing us free cars and insurance and tax on the vehicles we drive so long as they are electric.
That would move the dial…..
What’s the target for the ‘hydrogen car’? hehe….
I think recently POTUS just canned the nutty autostop/start feature that was ‘mandated’ on cars…
That stop/start feature is one of the main reasons I won’t buy a new vehicle as it wears the starters out and I hate changing starters.
Also I have yet to encounter one that actually restarts in less than 2 seconds (making me wait to hit the accelerator). I’ve been in situations where that delay could have had very bad results.
Once governments stop paying people to buy these ineffectual pieces of crap the sales crater. Who could have possibly seen that coming? Clearly not Stokes or timmeetheidiotman.
Government is not paying. It are the tax payers.
And yet government WAS paying, now it is being stopped and EV sales are cratering.
The number of private battery car owners is 7%. The rest are fleet, business and mobility sales.
The sales numbers are fake. Dealers have been registering new battery bangers themselves, to avoid fines for not selling enough. They then appear on Autotrader as used cars with delivery mileage at half new price, two years later. All have two owners, apparently. Quite odd seeing as they only have delivery miles on the clock. It’s all a scam.
And of those 7% how many also have an ICE car for just in case ?
Took me a while to figure out that this was all about the UK. Identifying the country being discussed would be nice.
They mightn’t want the 3 cylinder bi-turbo 10 speed transmission computer on wheels ICE carmakers are forced to make to limbo under the ever lowering emissions bar either-
Environmental fears grow as average age of UK cars reaches record high
You will all drive EVs by hook or by crook and be happy deplorables. Stuff that with vac bags up the exhaust and pee in the tank and no go so welcome to Cuba cars.
A spy on you car.
Acronym decoder:
BEV = Battery Electric Vehicle
PHEV = Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
PEV = Plug-in Electric Vehicle
I need more research to understand the difference between BEV and PEV. If it runs on a B and it is not a H then you’d better P.
F**(&^& great, it’s ambiguous….
“PEV, or Plug-In Electric Vehicle, is a broad term encompassing both Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs).”
Average age of cars on UK roads now almost 10 years.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-14972269/Britons-cars-OLDER-Average-age-10-years.html
EV sales remain stuck at around 21%, well below the ZEV mandate of 28% for this year:
Yes and no.
21% is indeed well below 28%.
But logic dictates that for something to “remain stuck” it must have been the same on at least two points of time. The figures show that this is clearly not the case. 16.8% and 21.5% are clearly not the same figure.
Furthermore, it remains to be seen if the EV sales “remain stuck”. It might be that the figure in 2026 is the same as in 2025. It might be higher. It might be lower. Making assumptions about the future is not a good way to proceed.
(I appreciate that there is a certain ideology, religion, even, that sees EVs as some sort of personification of the devil and that they must be demonised in every way and at all times and that the followers of this religion don’t like things like logic to contradict what they say.)
And no, I’m not a supporter of EVs. I will continue to buy ICEs for as long as I can. And the sooner EV subsidies are abolished the better. But neither do I approve of a lack of logic. (And who currently buys EVs and for what reasons is totally irrelevant to any discussion of the validity of the claim that EV sales “remain stuck”.)
When EV manufacturers can make their products price-competitive without government subsidies with ICE versions, it might boost sales of the former. Except there would have to be more public recharging stations available, and charging times would have to be faster. As well, cruising ranges would have to be improved since they drop considerably during extreme temperatures and high head- and cross-winds. As well, the cost of replacement parts would have to fall, while resale values would have to increase. These alone are pretty tall orders or even long shots, particularly since consumers are increasingly skeptical about how EVs will somehow be major factors in controlling a climate crisis that’s regarded more and more as just a myth.
I agree with your points, and I find it puzzling that so many posters in this thread seem to believe that battery technology has reached its limit and no more progress can be made, and any claimed improvements break the laws of physics and are therefore not believable.
Doing a search on the internet, I came across the following innovations which could significantly improve BEVs before 2028.
Freevoy Dual Power Battery
CATL‘s Freevoy Dual Power Battery is described as a battery within a battery. Its innovative design uses dual-core architecture, combining Lithium-ion and sodium-ion cells, to achieve a maximum range of 1500km. This technology ensures optimized performance under varying conditions. For example, sodium-ion cells provide power in cold temperatures until the battery heats up, at which point Lithium-ion cells take over.
Another feature is its self-forming anode, which constructs itself during charging. Unlike traditional pre-formed anodes, this advancement boosts energy density while enabling a compact design. CATL claims this battery marks a fundamental shift in solving EV range limitations.
Shenxing Superfast Charging Battery
The second innovation, the Shenxing Superfast Charging Battery, combines an impressive 800km range with ultra-fast charging speeds exceeding 1300kW. At these speeds, users can gain 520km of range in just five minutes. Even better, at low charge levels, the battery delivers 830kW of power.
A unique advantage of the Shenxing battery is its ability to perform in freezing conditions. At -10°C, a charge from 5-80% requires merely 15 minutes, ensuring consistent reliability in colder climates. This battery exemplifies how fast charging can parallel traditional fuel refueling times.
Sodium-Ion Innovation
CATL’s mass-produced Sodium-ion Battery, slated for December production, delivers significant benefits for affordability and performance. With an energy density of 175Wh/kg, this battery extends EV ranges to up to 500km while hybrids benefit from 200km of range. Sodium-ion batteries boast exceptional safety features verified through rigorous tests, including needle penetration and compression.
Another standout feature is the charging cycle life of over 10,000 cycles, equivalent to five million kilometers. In sub-zero temperatures down to -30°C, the battery charges from 30-80% in half an hour. This mix of durability, safety, and performance establishes sodium-ion cells as the foundation for future cost-effective EV models.
https://sodiumbatteryhub.com/2025/05/09/catls-three-new-batteries-could-transform-electric-vehicle-technology/
https://sodiumbatteryhub.com/2025/04/22/catl-unveils-310-mile-sodium-battery-to-rival-lithium-in-evs/
https://carnewschina.com/2025/04/21/battery-giant-catl-showcases-three-innovations-1500km-range-battery-520km-in-5-minutes-ultra-fast-charging-and-2025-mass-production-sodium-ion-battery/
First off, nobody said that it would be impossible to improve batteries The point has always been that there is very little improvement left in the chemistry.
Second point, every one of the batteries you list are pure fantasy. None of them have actually been produced, even in a laboratory.
“Second point, every one of the batteries you list are pure fantasy. None of them have actually been produced, even in a laboratory.”
Would you mind providing the evidence that the three battery inovations that I listed, and provided links that describe their qualities, are pure fantasy?
I know one cannot believe everything one reads on the internet. However, when I ask the question on Google, if these batteries have been produced yet, or tested, I get the following answers from Google AI.
“Yes, the CATL Freevoy Dual Power Battery has been produced and is already in use in various vehicles. It was officially launched at CATL’s Super Tech Day and is designed to offer extended range and optimized performance through its dual-core architecture. This innovative battery combines two independent energy zones, each with different cell chemistries, to cater to both daily driving and long-distance travel needs.”
“Yes, the Shenxing superfast charging battery, developed by CATL, has been produced. Specifically, the first generation Shenxing battery, which is lithium iron phosphate (LFP) and capable of 4C superfast charging, was introduced in 2023. CATL also unveiled a second-generation Shenxing battery with even faster charging capabilities.”
“Yes, CATL’s sodium-ion batteries for cars have undergone extensive testing, including rigorous safety evaluations and performance assessments. These batteries have been demonstrated to be safe, with no fires or explosions reported in tests simulating extreme conditions like compression, needle penetration, and even battery sawing. Furthermore, they exhibit excellent performance in cold temperatures and offer long cycle life.”
The Sodium-ion batteries are predicted to be mass produced in December this year, according to my linked articles.
You sound like a denier of technological progress. (wink)
evidence that the three battery inovations that I listed
Can you show me where to buy them?
I think the reality is, these 3 battery technologies are relatively new, and their integration into specific vehicles is still in development.
That doesn’t mean that the development and the specifications are a fantasy. However, if there is no significant improvement in the next few years, regarding range, charging speed, safety, and price, then it will be justified to claim that the current claims today are like exaggerated advertising.
We’ll have to wait and see. However, in general, I’m impressed with technological development. I’ve been interested in photography well before the first digital camera became available at a ridiculously high price.
The development of digital cameras during the past few decades, and the fall in price in relation to performance, has been amazing, and the development still continues.
Cameras vs batteries is not a great comparison. One is improving technology still not pushing the limits imposed by chemistry and physics. The other is.
We’ll have to wait and see.
Agreed. And until we see, in reality, it’s fantasy. I have seen far too many claims made that fall apart before market to accept any at face value anymore, even claims that “we have already done it”. Lots of money to be made in bilking gullible investors about a hot “new” technology and then folding before delivery.