AutoblogGreen

California installed these years ago. They caved to pressure from Big Oil and Big Auto and softened their ZEV and CAFE standards. Thereafter the auto manufacturers began crushing the EVs as their lease terms ended until there were almost no electric cars left to charge. Let's hope the Brits have more courage. Courage and commitment are rare traits indeed in a politician who needs campaign funds. Many waver at the drop of a dollar. Maybe more should set up their offices in the red light district.

Reply

Free? Not really. "Taxpayer subsidized" would be the accurate term.

I'm pro-EV (and more pro-diesel/EV-hybrid), but I don't think that taxpayer subsidies are necessary. Now, if we could also get rid of all oil subsidies, there would be some progress...

Reply

I think taxpayer's subsidies are OK to get the ball rolling to break a monopoly's grip or enhance national (not personal) security. Sometimes it takes a little more financial push than the free market can manage. The problem is when politicians open the "I'll give you money if you vote for me" tap, they can't find the courage to close it again. Then again, I may be a better policy to not give the children a key to the liquor cabinet.

Reply

It is FAR cheaper to plug in your EV and pay market rates for the energy than it is to have the government steal your money, then filter it through dozens of layers of bureaucracy, each of which siphons off a bit for maintenance of their own little fiefdoms before the tiny bit that is left over gets spent for what it was supposedly intended.

Reply

Howard- Absolutely! Bureaucratic economy of scale is an oxymoron when it comes to monopolies like the Fed Gov’t, Big Energy (oil) and Big Auto. Monopoly increases costs, decreases quality and discourage innovation. Power is supposed to flow from the people (personal responsibility) to their local gov’t, then to the state and if all else fails to the Fed Gov’t and not the other way. What Happened? Protecting us from monopolies is one of the few things that gov't should do, but they are too busy telling us what oil we can or can’t fry our food in. Our tax money is better spent by us. If they must take it (and they will) and spend it (they will and more) at least they can spend it to help us break monopoly’s grip, encourage competition and innovation to better our lives. Maybe monopoly is just too close a kissing cousin to oligarchy….

Reply

Blah, blah, blah...California had EV stations set aside for the ten people who actually owned EVs. Face it: they were never a big thing. LONG LIVE THE PRIUS!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Reply

The fact London charges drivers almost $6,000 per annum to drive there means these stations have a very good chance of making people switch. California's flirtation with the idea some years ago is nothing more than patriotic me-firstism, and as you said yourself it was a failure. Shut up about it.

Reply

It's great to read that hundreds of electric cars running around in UK, to fight global warming/climate change.

However, once their original batteries wear out, I'm guessing that the good e-car folks in will find the $$$$$ cost of replacement batteries to be un-affordable, and simply abandon EV's, as they have here, even in BC, Canada, where (in my estimation) 80% of electric cars are idle and unlicensed (with less than 40 registered in the whole province.)

Therefore, if and when they discover that can't afford the cost of replacement batteries, perhaps the folks in London will come back to this question and look at my Vancouver-made zero-cost battery electric pickup truck video URL/link, of the Global TV newscast, which I just uploaded to Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueq-gbvcf...
I'm offering the methods of using discarded batteries to power EV's.

Rob Matthies
Vancouver, Canada

Reply

It is not "British" language or spelling, it is called the "English Language" which got a little messed up when it got to the outposts of the British Empire :-)

John Smith
Cape Town

Reply

Post #6 Idiot: There were far more than "ten" EV drivers in California. There were 800 EV1s leased to private individuals, and a few hundred more in government and business fleets. Then add in the RAV4 EVs and Honda EVs, and others, and it is obvious that there were over a hundred times more EV drivers than you thought!

The businesses that provided locations for the California EV chargers figured they would get some "goodwill value" out of doing so. However, I suspect there would have been many more commercial locations, if there had been a provision to make a profit, or even to sell the electricity at cost.

Driving on electricity is much cheaper than burning gas, heavy subsidies aren't needed, and "free charging" might in the long run prove to be harmful, especially if it discourages the construction of many more commercial charging points.

Reply