That's Not Gone Well: Electric car UK sales sputter out

[Spectre]

From the Guardian:

Electric car UK sales sputter out
Figures show that only 106 electric cars were bought in 2011 third quarter through 'plugged-in car grant' scheme

Hopes that ?5,000 government grants would make 2011 "remembered as the year the electric car took off" have been dashed with the release of new figures showing uptake of the greener cars has sputtered out.

Only 106 electric cars were bought in the third quarter of 2011 through the "plugged-in car grant" scheme, launched in January. It marks a significant slump in demand on already sluggish-take-up, with 465 cars registered through the scheme in Q1 and 215 in Q2.

However, trade body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) pointed out that all electric car sales ? both inside and out of the grant scheme ? have gone from 103 in 2010 to 937 in 2011.

Electric car campaigners and industry had hoped this would be the year the year the cars ? billed as a clean low carbon alternative to conventional petrol and diesel models ? made a breakthrough. Former transport secretary Phillip Hammond said in January: "Government action to support affordable vehicles and more local charging points means we are on the threshold of an exciting green revolution ? 2011 could be remembered as the year the electric car took off."

The number of electric vehicles in the UK stands at just 1,107, a tiny chunk of the country's 28.5m cars. But the government had hoped to incentivise take-up with the launch of grants of up to ?5,000, preserving the grant during last summer's cuts and putting aside ?43m, or enough for 8,600 cars, until March 2012. The scheme is due to be reviewed in January.

Blaming Top Gear for pointing out that the lack of charging points makes electric cars useless thus killing sales in 3... 2... 1...

Aside from that, the article goes on to note a film opening in the US that trumpets the 'success' of the Chevy Volt.

The same Volt which had only sold 3500 copies through August. They blamed the slow sales on the Volt not being available in the majority of states. In September they were available everywhere... and sold a whopping 723.

By comparison, Nissan sold 1300 Leafs in the US alone in August. They still sold 1,031 Leafs in September, and year to date had sold 7199. The volume decrease for the Leaf is thought to be due to a 10% price increase.

Pretty sure that we can't call the Volt a success, at least not yet.

 

[katwalk]

I am confused to why they think that electric cars in their current incarnation would do spectacularly. They are only practical for people who do most of their driving in areas with proper charge setups and are expensive. Impractical for most people + expensive = TOY. That is not something that makes you money, that is thing you sell on the side and compensate for with boring sedans.

 

[HatePersonified]

I am confused to why they think that electric cars in their current incarnation would do spectacularly. They are only practical for people who do most of their driving in areas with proper charge setups and are expensive. Impractical for most people + expensive = TOY. That is not something that makes you money, that is thing you sell on the side and compensate for with boring sedans.

The Volt at least has the gasoline backup and seems to be the least 'compromised' of the cars out right now, and while they perhaps aren't selling particularily well in the states, any of the GM dealers in the GTA are having a hard time keeping any in stock; my mother has been on the waiting list to drive a Volt for close to 4 months now.

 

[captain_70s]

I am confused to why they think that electric cars in their current incarnation would do spectacularly. They are only practical for people who do most of their driving in areas with proper charge setups and are expensive. Impractical for most people + expensive = TOY. That is not something that makes you money, that is thing you sell on the side and compensate for with boring sedans.

They are the sort of thing you buy as a 2nd car in suburbia to park on the driveway to make yourself look environmentally concious, while your Range Rover hides in the garage.

If only manufacturers would stop making these half arsed attempts at being environmentally friendly to gain kudos from the eco-hippies and would put more effort into hydrogen technology which actually has a chance of being a decent petrol replacment...

 

[AiR]

Not surprising as the number of good electrics for sale is ~2, and none of them is as good as the Ampera.

 

[prizrak]

Not surprising as the number of good electrics for sale is ~2, and none of them is as good as the Ampera.

It's really mainly the price outside of anything. For instance my boss lives in Westchester (for those who don't know its a somewhat upscale suburb of NYC) so her daily commute is drive a couple of miles to the train station, take the train to the city. An electric car would be 100% perfect fit for her (at least as one of the cars) as she could charge overnight go to the station and go back all w/o using any fuel.

However it would take years to even reach a break even point even at current gas prices. So really what would be the point?

 

[AiR]

Well you know the easy solution to that, raise fuel prices. Bottom line is that there won't be many takers for any alternative solution unless it can be felt in the wallet. I'm sure there will be quite alot of takers for the Ampera in the UK and Europe once it's released, it's more versatile than the Leaf and the price isn't too bad for companies wanting to equip their employees with public relation boosters. Local pricing of the Ampera is 439 000 SEK which is alot but subtract 40 000 SEK in subsidies and then there's a 40% reduction on taxable benefit (these drivers do not buy their cars, but pay a tax on them every month) on top of that and it can end up being pretty cheap. Of course different laws and traditions in regards to company cars apply to each european country but we share the same high fuel costs. The Leaf is even cheaper, 329 900 SEK (with subsidy) and then the same 40% reduction.

Sale of the Leaf in Norway kicked off two weeks ago and in two days they had sold 600 cars. The norwegian incentives are pretty good, a Leaf costs about the same as a Ford Focus all in all. Bullet points stolen from interweb:

• Free parking
• Free ferries
• Free roadtaxes
• Yearly car tax of approx 66 USD (Opposed to 490 USD for a ICE car)
• No salestax (25% tax on all other cars)
• No import tax

It's subsidisation but the point is to help these cars get a foothold on the market.

 

[prizrak]

Well you know the easy solution to that, raise fuel prices. Bottom line is that there won't be many takers for any alternative solution unless it can be felt in the wallet. I'm sure there will be quite alot of takers for the Ampera in the UK and Europe once it's released, it's more versatile than the Leaf and the price isn't too bad for companies wanting to equip their employees with public relation boosters. Local pricing of the Ampera is 439 000 SEK which is alot but subtract 40 000 SEK in subsidies and then there's a 40% reduction on taxable benefit (these drivers do not buy their cars, but pay a tax on them every month) on top of that and it can end up being pretty cheap. Of course different laws and traditions in regards to company cars apply to each european country but we share the same high fuel costs. The Leaf is even cheaper, 329 900 SEK (with subsidy) and then the same 40% reduction.

Sale of the Leaf in Norway kicked off two weeks ago and in two days they had sold 600 cars. The norwegian incentives are pretty good, a Leaf costs about the same as a Ford Focus all in all. Bullet points stolen from interweb:

• Free parking
• Free ferries
• Free roadtaxes
• Yearly car tax of approx 66 USD (Opposed to 490 USD for a ICE car)
• No salestax (25% tax on all other cars)
• No import tax

It's subsidisation but the point is to help these cars get a foothold on the market.

Thats a non-solution, not only is this government interference in the worst way possible but ALSO in the US specifically that will hurt the general population. Plenty of people cannot afford new cars and just do the bare minimum of maintenance to keep their old ones running because we need cars here. Plenty of distances are beyond the driving range of an electric car, for instance I had to go Stamford, CT to support a client this week, it's a 110 mile roundtrip not counting me getting lost in Queens trying to get around traffic and Leaf has a 73mile range (at best).

The way to break into the market is by making a GOOD product. Look at the Japanese cars in the 70s or the Korean cars now, they managed to get into an established market very successfully. The problem is that the product is crap not that people don't want to give up their ICEs. In the US the Leaf starts at same price as the base model A4, with government subsidy it costs same as an A3 ($27,000)... By the same token the Kia Optima with a 274HP turbo motor is just under $25,000 and has none of the limitations.

 

[Peter3hg]

I have a feeling the Ampera will sell very well, even at its fairly high price. I would certainly consider one if I had that kind of money to spend on a new car.

 

[AiR]

Thats a non-solution, not only is this government interference in the worst way possible but ALSO in the US specifically that will hurt the general population. Plenty of people cannot afford new cars and just do the bare minimum of maintenance to keep their old ones running because we need cars here.

Meh, the transport sector is a government sector. There are few things so surrounded by government regulations as moving stuff or people from A to B. Taxation is only a small part of it. People who cannot afford a new car is clearly not the target of new car subsidies anyway.

By the same token the Kia Optima with a 274HP turbo motor is just under $25,000 and has none of the limitations.

Yup. Which is why you need to subsidise electric cars, otherwise people won't buy them, because at present they're too expensive. VW have done the math and figured out that electrics will be viable without subsidies when they cost only ?3000 more than the equivalent diesel. In the US they will never be viable with current fuel prices. Of course the current prices will not last as the oil is a finite resource and eventually it will become extremely expensive, and the question is what you do then if you still drive Kia Optimas...

 

[prizrak]

Meh, the transport sector is a government sector. There are few things so surrounded by government regulations as moving stuff or people from A to B. Taxation is only a small part of it. People who cannot afford a new car is clearly not the target of new car subsidies anyway.

You also mentioned increasing gas prices and taxes on cars that would hit the used car market much harder than new car.

Yup. Which is why you need to subsidise electric cars, otherwise people won't buy them, because at present they're too expensive. VW have done the math and figured out that electrics will be viable without subsidies when they cost only ?3000 more than the equivalent diesel. In the US they will never be viable with current fuel prices. Of course the current prices will not last as the oil is a finite resource and eventually it will become extremely expensive, and the question is what you do then if you still drive Kia Optimas...

No the problem is not the price its the crappy product. It's a step backwards in personal transportation and general freedom that a car brings.

 

[AiR]

Why would it? Tax increases on fuel would be equal regardless if the car was old or new. If you happen to have an old car that gobbles up lots of fuel, well then you have a restructuring problem ahead of you. You could have a thirsty new car, and you'd have the same conundrum. Simple as that. People, including myself, moan every time the price goes up, but we still afford to fuel our cars with 8 dollar a US gallon soup. Salaries are adjusted every year, people take the bus, move or find a job closer to where they live.

It's not as big a problem as many like to make out.

 

[Spectre]

Why would it? Tax increases on fuel would be equal regardless if the car was old or new. If you happen to have an old car that gobbles up lots of fuel, well then you have a restructuring problem ahead of you. You could have a thirsty new car, and you'd have the same conundrum. Simple as that. People, including myself, moan every time the price goes up, but we still afford to fuel our cars with 8 dollar a US gallon soup. Salaries are adjusted every year, people take the bus, move or find a job closer to where they live.

It's not as big a problem as many like to make out.

So, basically, you're going to screw poor people. Brilliant!

1. Raise fuel taxes. Fuel costs more. Less personal income is available to buy a new car as more must now be devoted to fuel expenditures.
2. Price of EVERYTHING goes up because of the rise in cost of fuel - if for no other reason than delivering goods to market now costs more, and businesses will pass the cost on to the consumer.
3. Oooh, subsidies on new electric cars. That the poorer members of society, even if they could afford to buy them before, probably can't now because they're paying more for everything - fuel, food, toilet paper. Even with the paltry subsidy.

Salary adjustments never rise at the same time or rate as prices.

Yeah, that doesn't work if your goal is to encourage electric car adoption. Now, if your goal is to make your citizenry miserable, it'd work just fine.

 

[AiR]

Who cares about poor people? They're not going to be at the forefront of anything, ever. It's the middle class, the big volumes of people that you want to change their driving habits, and those are who I talk about.

 

[Spectre]

Who cares about poor people? They're not going to be at the forefront of anything, ever. It's the middle class, the big volumes of people that you want to change their driving habits, and those are who I talk about.

The middle class can't afford it either. And, by that metric, they're poor.

Only the richer members of society looking for a new driveway ornament to prove how socially and eco-conscious they are would be likely to afford such a vehicle if you start jacking your fuel taxes up more. Pretty much the same story as the Hydrogen 7.

 

[AiR]

Oh nonsence, the middle class are not poor by any metric. The average income in Sweden and the US are almost identical, you only make $900 less a year. They will simply need to redistribute their expenditures to fit the new deal, and that is the whole point if you want to change peoples driving habits as it creates an incentive to drive cars that use less fuel, new or used.

 

[Spectre]

Oh nonsence, the middle class are not poor by any metric. The average income in Sweden and the US are almost identical, you only make $900 less a year. They will simply need to redistribute their expenditures to fit the new deal, and that is the whole point if you want to change peoples driving habits as it creates an incentive to drive cars that use less fuel, new or used.

The problem is that you then drive up the prices of everything else (unless you can deliver goods without fuel) with this fuel tax you propose. This redistributes expenditures again, not necessarily in a direction that's desired.

Hint: Businesses never, ever, ever have to pay increased taxes. We pass it on to the consumer. Every single time. You raise my cost of doing business by 20%? My goods just went up 20%. Too bad my (and everyone else's) employees' salaries won't be going up by 20% to compensate for at least a year.

 

[prizrak]

The problem is that you then drive up the prices of everything else (unless you can deliver goods without fuel) with this fuel tax you propose. This redistributes expenditures again, not necessarily in a direction that's desired.

Hint: Businesses never, ever, ever have to pay increased taxes. We pass it on to the consumer. Every single time. You raise my cost of doing business by 20%? My goods just went up 20%. Too bad my (and everyone else's) employees' salaries won't be going up by 20% to compensate for at least a year.

+100% with you on this one. There is also the problem of those cars being damn near useless so they are not worth the price no matter what it is unless you are in a very very slim portion of the population.

 

[AiR]

Yes price increases will follow to some extent, how much will depend on what and where stuff is going and a bunch of other factors. But what businesses do isn't really the point, what we're theorizing about is how we change the way people drive. And if that is our objective, taxation is the most efficient means of accomplishing that quickly.

I find it worrying that if we all lived "the american way", we'd need six Earths just to feed the people already here. I'm bothered that the average american carbon footprint per capita is more than twice the average european footprint. In actual numbers that is close to 18 tonnes per american, and 7 tonnes per european. The average chinese emit 5,58 tonnes, and I apparently emit 5,53.

A fuel tax would help remedying that, and bring in money to the indebted US economy. I have no illusions it will be done with your political system, but it is one way.

Now we should all join together and blame the Australians, who are far away and therefore usually forgotten. Their figure is 20. Eeek!

 

[The Spie]

I'm bothered that the average american carbon footprint per capita is more than twice the average european footprint.

We're not worried about it, and we don't understand why you should be.

Personally, I feel that the carbon footprint stuff is overblown and overfocused. Let me give you one example. I work as a specialist in food safety (currently performing food safety audits, which explains my massive carbon footprint from travel). A couple of years ago, I was helping a beverage company gain a deal with a large, foreign-owned alcoholic beverage company who shall remain nameless (hint: I won't drink Guinness or Jose Cuervo because of my dealings with them). As such, I got a good look at the audit they perform on prospective customers. By their own scoring system, you could pass this audit without any type of food safety plan. You could NOT pass the audit without an Environmental Plan containing stuff about recycling, lowering carbon footprints, etc. Please note that this is the world's largest producer of liquid alcoholic comestibles, and according to their point system, it's more important to hug trees than to create a product that won't kill the person who drinks it.

(Note that this was the same job that gave me a mammoth negative impression of Red Bull and their business dealings, enough so that I have a bad view of their racing teams.)

A fuel tax would help remedying that, and bring in money to the indebted US economy. I have no illusions it will be done with your political system, but it is one way.

It's not the political system. It's the culture. Driving here is seen as a right and a necessity, not a privilege. That's why our cars are cheap and our gas is cheap. Threaten either of those, and then it becomes political or business suicide.