In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:18:34 +0100, nightjar
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 18:08, Tim+ wrote:
nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 13:40, Tim+ wrote:
...
ANPR cameras are already all over the country monitoring your movements.
What additional privacy issues are you worried about?

Not me; the opponents of a road pricing system. Possibly because road
pricing would need an awful lot more of them.


Which is why a simple mileage based system would be so much easier.

We already have a simple mileage based system and one that, unlike a
flat distance rate, rewards those who use more efficient vehicles. It is
called Road Fuel Duty. All we need to do is extend it to electric
vehicles too.

Having thought on the matter further, I realise that would be much
easier than I first thought. If all public charging points applied the
tax at point of sale, the way Road Fuel Duty is applied, the only
problem would be collecting the tax due when the vehicle is charged at
home.

I've not followed this thread all the way, but why not simply have two
meters at home, one for the domestic stuff and the other for the car
charger? With 'smart' meters becoming widely used, that would be easy
enough to set up and be billed for by the supplier and paid by the
home owner in the usual way. Apologies if this has already been
suggested, but it seems to me to be a fairly simple solution.

It would be very easy to bypass teh2car meter" by plugging into a socket on
the house supply. Unless a special plug is fitted to the car's connector
and no other is available.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 22/04/2021 17:18, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 18:08, Tim+ wrote:
nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 13:40, Tim+ wrote:
...
ANPR cameras are already all over the country monitoring your
movements.
What additional privacy issues are you worried about?

Not me; the opponents of a road pricing system. Possibly because road
pricing would need an awful lot more of them.


Which is why a simple mileage based system would be so much easier.

We already have a simple mileage based system and one that, unlike a
flat distance rate, rewards those who use more efficient vehicles. It is
called Road Fuel Duty. All we need to do is extend it to electric
vehicles too.

Having thought on the matter further, I realise that would be much
easier than I first thought. If all public charging points applied the
tax at point of sale, the way Road Fuel Duty is applied, the only
problem would be collecting the tax due when the vehicle is charged at
home. ISTM that could be solved with a very minor modification to the
vehicle - the addition of a short range transmitter that only operates
when the vehicle is connected to an outside supply. A linked receiver
would detect it and notify the house meter that a vehicle was connected.

The house meter should then be able to detect the change in use when the
vehicle is connected and disconnected and hence know what rate it was
charging at. This should work even if the vehicle is connected to 13A
socket, rather than a dedicated charging point. The tax can then be
collected through the electricity company. No need to track anybody and
all revenue collections are completely automatic.

Having said that, a road use charge seems to be the solution the
government is expect to adopt, probably at much greater cost.


Taxing the electricity EVs take is - and always has been - in principle
an option. But a little more detail would have helped judge whether
that's practicable. As it is I am left to infer that you envisage:

a. the addition of a receiver to smart meters and smart meters required
everywhere a car is charged - even where they cannot get a signal so are
read manually
b. the addition of a transmitter to every EV
c. the transmitter able to stop the EV accepting the charge unless it
shakes hands with the receiver
d. all secure
e. all even more reliable (else as it's all to easy to foresee the
headlines when inability to charge leads to injury or death.

I can well imagine some Treasury officials dismissing those as as
"technical details" - to which I'd be inclined to say "indeed, just like
the design and roll-out of smart meters themselves".

But I (and others) also see a more fundamental question: how
to justify much higher prices for kWh for an electric vehicle than kWh
for patio heaters, hot tubs, power showers, 65 inch TVs, bitcoin mining
etc etc. You might argue it's carrying over the differences now between
road fuels and other oils. But EVs are being forced on people to save
the planet, as part of a program to cut back on energy consumption
generally. What makes EVs uniqulety bad when it's all carbon neutral?


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 22/04/2021 17:40, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:18:34 +0100, nightjar
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 18:08, Tim+ wrote:
nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 13:40, Tim+ wrote:
...
ANPR cameras are already all over the country monitoring your movements.
What additional privacy issues are you worried about?

Not me; the opponents of a road pricing system. Possibly because road
pricing would need an awful lot more of them.


Which is why a simple mileage based system would be so much easier.

We already have a simple mileage based system and one that, unlike a
flat distance rate, rewards those who use more efficient vehicles. It is
called Road Fuel Duty. All we need to do is extend it to electric
vehicles too.

Having thought on the matter further, I realise that would be much
easier than I first thought. If all public charging points applied the
tax at point of sale, the way Road Fuel Duty is applied, the only
problem would be collecting the tax due when the vehicle is charged at
home.

I've not followed this thread all the way, but why not simply have two
meters at home, one for the domestic stuff and the other for the car
charger? With 'smart' meters becoming widely used, that would be easy
enough to set up and be billed for by the supplier and paid by the
home owner in the usual way. Apologies if this has already been
suggested, but it seems to me to be a fairly simple solution.


You don't need a separate meter as such if you have a charging point
which communicates with the meter. Legislation in 2018 gave the
government power to require all charging points to have "smart
functionality". They propose to do so for all new home charging points
by 2025. Early days though and there are unsurprisingly concerns about
the cost.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 22/04/2021 17:40, Chris Hogg wrote:
....
I've not followed this thread all the way, but why not simply have two
meters at home, one for the domestic stuff and the other for the car
charger?..

The problem is that an electric car does not have to be charged from a
dedicated and separately metered supply. You can plug it into any 13A
socket and it will charge, albeit slowly. Thus any solution has to allow
for that possibility.



--
Colin Bignell

Robin wrote:

You don't need a separate meter as such if you have a charging point
which communicates with the meter.Â* Legislation in 2018 gave the
government power to require all charging points to have "smart
functionality".Â* They propose to do so for all new home charging points
by 2025.

At the moment, pretty well all electric cars communicate with the
charger* using just some pulses and a diode, but there is the option to
use a full homeplug (data over mains wiring) type connection and there's
a zigbee energy profile for wireless communication between smartmeter
and car.


[*] not really the charger, but it's what everyone calls the thing on
the wall.

On 22/04/2021 18:24, Robin wrote:
On 22/04/2021 17:18, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 18:08, Tim+ wrote:
nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 13:40, Tim+ wrote:
...
ANPR cameras are already all over the country monitoring your
movements.
What additional privacy issues are you worried about?

Not me; the opponents of a road pricing system. Possibly because road
pricing would need an awful lot more of them.


Which is why a simple mileage based system would be so much easier.

We already have a simple mileage based system and one that, unlike a
flat distance rate, rewards those who use more efficient vehicles. It
is called Road Fuel Duty. All we need to do is extend it to electric
vehicles too.

Having thought on the matter further, I realise that would be much
easier than I first thought. If all public charging points applied the
tax at point of sale, the way Road Fuel Duty is applied, the only
problem would be collecting the tax due when the vehicle is charged at
home. ISTM that could be solved with a very minor modification to the
vehicle - the addition of a short range transmitter that only operates
when the vehicle is connected to an outside supply. A linked receiver
would detect it and notify the house meter that a vehicle was connected.

The house meter should then be able to detect the change in use when
the vehicle is connected and disconnected and hence know what rate it
was charging at. This should work even if the vehicle is connected to
13A socket, rather than a dedicated charging point. The tax can then
be collected through the electricity company. No need to track anybody
and all revenue collections are completely automatic.

Having said that, a road use charge seems to be the solution the
government is expect to adopt, probably at much greater cost.


Taxing the electricity EVs take is - and always has been - in principle
an option.Â* But a little more detail would have helped judge whether
that's practicable.Â* As it is I am left to infer that you envisage:

a.Â*Â*Â* the addition of a receiver to smart meters and smart meters
required everywhere a car is charged - even where they cannot get a
signal so are read manually

AIUI, all new meters have smart functionality, even if they have to be
read manually. It wouldn't make sense to build dumb meters any more.

b.Â*Â*Â* the addition of a transmitter to every EV
c.Â*Â*Â* the transmitter able to stop the EV accepting the charge unless it
shakes hands with the receiver

I had not thought of that, but it would be a sensible provision.

d.Â*Â*Â* all secure

To whatever standard is decided is reasonable for the application.

e.Â*Â*Â* all even more reliable (else as it's all to easy to foresee the
headlines when inability to charge leads to injury or death.

What is rather more difficult to foresee is any reasonably predictable
situation where a failure to charge leads to injury or death. It is no
more of a problem than a car running out of fuel.

I can well imagine some Treasury officials dismissing those as as
"technical details" - to which I'd be inclined to say "indeed, just like
the design and roll-out of smart meters themselves".

But I (and others) also see a more fundamental question: how
to justify much higher prices for kWh for an electric vehicle than kWh
for patio heaters, hot tubs, power showers, 65 inch TVs, bitcoin mining
etc etc.

The price per kWH will be the same for all. The difference in price for
the various uses will be government taxes* and duties. Those should be
shown on the bill as separate items.

* probably 20% VAT as for road fuels.

You might argue it's carrying over the differences now between
road fuels and other oils.Â* But EVs are being forced on people to save
the planet, as part of a program to cut back on energy consumption
generally.Â* What makes EVs uniqulety bad when it's all carbon neutral?

Road Fuel Duty has little or nothing to do with trying to make
everything carbon neutral. It is a source of government income,
amounting to about 1% of GDP. The Treasury is determined to replace it
with something. That will probably be some form of road pricing, but I
am simply pointing out that it need not be.



--
Colin Bignell

Chris Hogg wrote:

As Charles suggested, simply fit a special plug on the car's
connector. AIUI there are several types of plug/socket combination in
use anyway. Just ensure that none will fit a standard 3-pin 13A
socket.

Enterprising geezers in shady corners of pubs will ask if you want to
buy an adapter lead

Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 18:36:17 +0100, nightjar
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 17:40, Chris Hogg wrote:
...
I've not followed this thread all the way, but why not simply have two
meters at home, one for the domestic stuff and the other for the car
charger?..

The problem is that an electric car does not have to be charged from a
dedicated and separately metered supply. You can plug it into any 13A
socket and it will charge, albeit slowly. Thus any solution has to allow
for that possibility.

Not an insurmountable problem, though. As Charles suggested, simply
fit a special plug on the car's connector. AIUI there are several
types of plug/socket combination in use anyway. Just ensure that none
will fit a standard 3-pin 13A socket.


Making all existing €œgranny charger€� leads illegal and trying to police it
would be insurmountable in my opinion.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , %% writes


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2021 22:17, %% wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2021 16:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

and with the internet work doesn't need to be further away than a
laptop



real work doesn't involve the internet.

Bull****.

That's what passes for 'work' on the internet.

More bull****. Remote diagnosis etc etc etc is nothing like that.

Same with remote reconfig of complex systems instead of
having to visit in person.

But can you change a fcuking light bulb?

Yep, and do remote surgery too.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
writes
On 17/04/2021 22:50, Robin wrote:

*tax policy has been the responsibility of HM Treasury since 2005. So
in principle it falls to them to come up with options to fill the gap
left by fuel duties. That said, when things go wrong it's never, ever
the Treasury's fault.


There is always that static, immoveable source of lots of juicy revenue,
Britain's stupidly overpriced houses.

There's no revenue from a fixed asset like a house.

There is actually, council rates and taxes.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:18:34 +0100, nightjar
wrote:

On 20/04/2021 18:08, Tim+ wrote:
nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 13:40, Tim+ wrote:
...
ANPR cameras are already all over the country monitoring your
movements.
What additional privacy issues are you worried about?

Not me; the opponents of a road pricing system. Possibly because road
pricing would need an awful lot more of them.


Which is why a simple mileage based system would be so much easier.

We already have a simple mileage based system and one that, unlike a
flat distance rate, rewards those who use more efficient vehicles. It is
called Road Fuel Duty. All we need to do is extend it to electric
vehicles too.

Having thought on the matter further, I realise that would be much
easier than I first thought. If all public charging points applied the
tax at point of sale, the way Road Fuel Duty is applied, the only
problem would be collecting the tax due when the vehicle is charged at
home.

I've not followed this thread all the way, but why not simply have two
meters at home, one for the domestic stuff and the other for the car
charger? With 'smart' meters becoming widely used, that would be easy
enough to set up and be billed for by the supplier and paid by the
home owner in the usual way. Apologies if this has already been
suggested, but it seems to me to be a fairly simple solution.

But doesn't stop you charging the car from the normal power points
to avoid the higher cost of charging from the metered car charger.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 18:36:17 +0100, nightjar
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 17:40, Chris Hogg wrote:
...
I've not followed this thread all the way, but why not simply have two
meters at home, one for the domestic stuff and the other for the car
charger?..

The problem is that an electric car does not have to be charged from a
dedicated and separately metered supply. You can plug it into any 13A
socket and it will charge, albeit slowly. Thus any solution has to allow
for that possibility.

Not an insurmountable problem, though. As Charles suggested, simply
fit a special plug on the car's connector. AIUI there are several
types of plug/socket combination in use anyway. Just ensure that none
will fit a standard 3-pin 13A socket.

All that would do is create a market for adapters.

On 22/04/2021 19:38, nightjar wrote:
On 22/04/2021 18:24, Robin wrote:

e.Â*Â*Â* all even more reliable (else as it's all to easy to foresee the
headlines when inability to charge leads to injury or death.

What is rather more difficult to foresee is any reasonably predictable
situation where a failure to charge leads to injury or death. It is no
more of a problem than a car running out of fuel.

Anyone can see when they drive home if they will have enough fuel to get
to work - or to a family member - in an emergency. They can't see that
their car will fail to charge while they are in bed because of a glitch
in the system.


The price per kWH will be the same for all. The difference in price for
the various uses will be government taxes* and duties. Those should be
shown on the bill as separate items.

* probably 20% VAT as for road fuels.

On that basis the price of red diesel is much the same as diesel at any
filling station. I'd love to see you sell that to drivers on a forecourt.

There is no tradition of consumer sales on the basis of prices before
tax and duties in this country. And legislation largely forbids their use.

You might argue it's carrying over the differences now between road
fuels and other oils.Â* But EVs are being forced on people to save the
planet, as part of a program to cut back on energy consumption
generally.Â* What makes EVs uniqulety bad when it's all carbon neutral?

Road Fuel Duty has little or nothing to do with trying to make
everything carbon neutral. It is a source of government income,
amounting to about 1% of GDP. The Treasury is determined to replace it
with something. That will probably be some form of road pricing, but I
am simply pointing out that it need not be.



I did not say that fuel duties have anything to do with the move to net
zero. I said that the switch to EVs does.

It's a stretch to call of this "DIY tax policy" so in brief:

Fuel duties have a rationale in the external costs of motoring. They
are particularly good at capturing the externalities such as pollution
and carbon emissions from petrol and diesel. But they are less good (=
**** poor) when it comes to costs such as congestion, accidents and
noise which vary enormously with when and where you drive. Taxes on
fuel just cannot vary with time and place.

A tax on electricity for EVs lacks the justification of pollution and
carbon emissions. (Or rather, lacks the justification to tax a kWh for
EVs more than a kWh for a patio heater)

As for other externalities, road pricing is more direct and gives
clearer signals to consumers. Especially if it varies with when and where.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:10:36 +1000, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the useless trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 86-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
writes
On 17/04/2021 22:50, Robin wrote:

*tax policy has been the responsibility of HM Treasury since 2005.
So in principle it falls to them to come up with options to fill the
gap left by fuel duties. That said, when things go wrong it's
never, ever the Treasury's fault.


There is always that static, immoveable source of lots of juicy revenue,
Britain's stupidly overpriced houses.

There's no revenue from a fixed asset like a house.

There is actually, council rates and taxes.

to the owner they are outgoings.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:36:25 +1000, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the useless trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:29:55 +1000, %%, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the useless trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
dennis@home to know-it-all Rodent Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 06:20:26 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the useless trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rodent Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
writes
On 17/04/2021 22:50, Robin wrote:

*tax policy has been the responsibility of HM Treasury since 2005.
So in principle it falls to them to come up with options to fill the
gap left by fuel duties. That said, when things go wrong it's
never, ever the Treasury's fault.


There is always that static, immoveable source of lots of juicy
revenue,
Britain's stupidly overpriced houses.

There's no revenue from a fixed asset like a house.

There is actually, council rates and taxes.

to the owner they are outgoings.

So is the tax on fuel and with car registration.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 07:29:51 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the useless trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Sqwertz to Rodent Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2021 18:24, Robin wrote:
On 22/04/2021 17:18, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 18:08, Tim+ wrote:
nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 13:40, Tim+ wrote:
...
ANPR cameras are already all over the country monitoring your
movements.
What additional privacy issues are you worried about?

Not me; the opponents of a road pricing system. Possibly because road
pricing would need an awful lot more of them.


Which is why a simple mileage based system would be so much easier.

We already have a simple mileage based system and one that, unlike a
flat distance rate, rewards those who use more efficient vehicles. It is
called Road Fuel Duty. All we need to do is extend it to electric
vehicles too.

Having thought on the matter further, I realise that would be much
easier than I first thought. If all public charging points applied the
tax at point of sale, the way Road Fuel Duty is applied, the only
problem would be collecting the tax due when the vehicle is charged at
home. ISTM that could be solved with a very minor modification to the
vehicle - the addition of a short range transmitter that only operates
when the vehicle is connected to an outside supply. A linked receiver
would detect it and notify the house meter that a vehicle was connected.

The house meter should then be able to detect the change in use when the
vehicle is connected and disconnected and hence know what rate it was
charging at. This should work even if the vehicle is connected to 13A
socket, rather than a dedicated charging point. The tax can then be
collected through the electricity company. No need to track anybody and
all revenue collections are completely automatic.

Having said that, a road use charge seems to be the solution the
government is expect to adopt, probably at much greater cost.


Taxing the electricity EVs take is - and always has been - in principle
an option. But a little more detail would have helped judge whether
that's practicable. As it is I am left to infer that you envisage:

a. the addition of a receiver to smart meters and smart meters
required everywhere a car is charged - even where they cannot get a
signal so are read manually

AIUI, all new meters have smart functionality, even if they have to be
read manually. It wouldn't make sense to build dumb meters any more.

b. the addition of a transmitter to every EV
c. the transmitter able to stop the EV accepting the charge unless it
shakes hands with the receiver

I had not thought of that, but it would be a sensible provision.

d. all secure

To whatever standard is decided is reasonable for the application.

e. all even more reliable (else as it's all to easy to foresee the
headlines when inability to charge leads to injury or death.

What is rather more difficult to foresee is any reasonably predictable
situation where a failure to charge leads to injury or death. It is no
more of a problem than a car running out of fuel.

I can well imagine some Treasury officials dismissing those as as
"technical details" - to which I'd be inclined to say "indeed, just like
the design and roll-out of smart meters themselves".

But I (and others) also see a more fundamental question: how
to justify much higher prices for kWh for an electric vehicle than kWh
for patio heaters, hot tubs, power showers, 65 inch TVs, bitcoin mining
etc etc.

The price per kWH will be the same for all. The difference in price for
the various uses will be government taxes* and duties. Those should be
shown on the bill as separate items.

* probably 20% VAT as for road fuels.

You might argue it's carrying over the differences now between road fuels
and other oils. But EVs are being forced on people to save the planet,
as part of a program to cut back on energy consumption generally. What
makes EVs uniqulety bad when it's all carbon neutral?

Road Fuel Duty has little or nothing to do with trying to make everything
carbon neutral. It is a source of government income, amounting to about 1%
of GDP. The Treasury is determined to replace it with something.

It shouldnt be up to Treasury, Boris should be telling those
fools that it makes no sense to be using some very expensive
mechanism to collect taxes by way of road pricing when it
makes no sense to have road pricing when its trucks, not
cars that wear out the roads.

That will probably be some form of road pricing, but I am simply pointing
out that it need not be.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:10:58 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


It shouldn¢t be up to Treasury, Boris should be telling those
fools that it makes no sense to be using some very expensive
mechanism to collect taxes by way of road pricing when it
makes no sense to have road pricing when its trucks, not
cars that wear out the roads.

Now teaching the Brits again about UK politics, just like you taught the
Yanks about US politics, you clinically insane trolling senile asshole from
Australia? LOL

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 22/04/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/04/2021 11:44, nightjar wrote:
...
Disadvantaging the 20% of households with one adult over the age of
65 without internet access; a group that also has the lowest
ownership of smart phones, at just 53%

I know many pensioners (I am surrounded by them, as we live in a
slightly odd road, with a mix of housing - our house is semi-detached,
2-storey, while our neighbours on one side and all down the opposite
side of the road have bungalows, plus our relatives, relatives of
friends, etc.). Only a tiny proportion drive, but do not have
broadband or a smartphone. ...

That does demonstrate an urban mindset. It is very difficult to live in
rural areas without a car and those are the areas where broadband
service is worst.

It does not need a high speed connection to login and update a mileage
figure. With a smartphone it can always be done on the phone and it can
transmit when you happen to be somewhere with a signal.

On 22/04/2021 21:39, Robin wrote:
On 22/04/2021 19:38, nightjar wrote:
On 22/04/2021 18:24, Robin wrote:

e.Â*Â*Â* all even more reliable (else as it's all to easy to foresee the
headlines when inability to charge leads to injury or death.

What is rather more difficult to foresee is any reasonably predictable
situation where a failure to charge leads to injury or death. It is no
more of a problem than a car running out of fuel.

Anyone can see when they drive home if they will have enough fuel to get
to work - or to a family member - in an emergency.Â* They can't see that
their car will fail to charge while they are in bed because of a glitch
in the system.


The price per kWH will be the same for all. The difference in price
for the various uses will be government taxes* and duties. Those
should be shown on the bill as separate items.

* probably 20% VAT as for road fuels.

On that basis the price of red diesel is much the same as diesel at any
filling station.Â* I'd love to see you sell that to drivers on a forecourt.

There is no tradition of consumer sales on the basis of prices before
tax and duties in this country.Â* And legislation largely forbids their use.

You might argue it's carrying over the differences now between road
fuels and other oils.Â* But EVs are being forced on people to save the
planet, as part of a program to cut back on energy consumption
generally.Â* What makes EVs uniqulety bad when it's all carbon neutral?

Road Fuel Duty has little or nothing to do with trying to make
everything carbon neutral. It is a source of government income,
amounting to about 1% of GDP. The Treasury is determined to replace it
with something. That will probably be some form of road pricing, but I
am simply pointing out that it need not be.



I did not say that fuel duties have anything to do with the move to net
zero.Â* I said that the switch to EVs does.

It's a stretch to call of this "DIY tax policy" so in brief:

Fuel duties have a rationale in the external costs of motoring.Â* They
are particularly good at capturing the externalities such as pollution
and carbon emissions from petrol and diesel.Â* But they are less good (=
**** poor) when it comes to costs such as congestion, accidents and
noise which vary enormously with when and where you drive.Â* Taxes on
fuel just cannot vary with time and place.

A tax on electricity for EVs lacks the justification of pollution and
carbon emissions. (Or rather, lacks the justification to tax a kWh for
EVs more than a kWh for a patio heater)

As for other externalities, road pricing is more direct and gives
clearer signals to consumers.Â* Especially if it varies with when and where.

But unfairly punishes those who have to travel to specific places at
certain times whether they like it or not.

"Rod Speed" wrote
"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2021 18:24, Robin wrote:
On 22/04/2021 17:18, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 18:08, Tim+ wrote:
nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 13:40, Tim+ wrote:
...
ANPR cameras are already all over the country monitoring your
movements.
What additional privacy issues are you worried about?

Not me; the opponents of a road pricing system. Possibly because road
pricing would need an awful lot more of them.


Which is why a simple mileage based system would be so much easier.

We already have a simple mileage based system and one that, unlike a
flat distance rate, rewards those who use more efficient vehicles. It
is called Road Fuel Duty. All we need to do is extend it to electric
vehicles too.

Having thought on the matter further, I realise that would be much
easier than I first thought. If all public charging points applied the
tax at point of sale, the way Road Fuel Duty is applied, the only
problem would be collecting the tax due when the vehicle is charged at
home. ISTM that could be solved with a very minor modification to the
vehicle - the addition of a short range transmitter that only operates
when the vehicle is connected to an outside supply. A linked receiver
would detect it and notify the house meter that a vehicle was
connected.

The house meter should then be able to detect the change in use when
the vehicle is connected and disconnected and hence know what rate it
was charging at. This should work even if the vehicle is connected to
13A socket, rather than a dedicated charging point. The tax can then be
collected through the electricity company. No need to track anybody and
all revenue collections are completely automatic.

Having said that, a road use charge seems to be the solution the
government is expect to adopt, probably at much greater cost.


Taxing the electricity EVs take is - and always has been - in principle
an option. But a little more detail would have helped judge whether
that's practicable. As it is I am left to infer that you envisage:

a. the addition of a receiver to smart meters and smart meters
required everywhere a car is charged - even where they cannot get a
signal so are read manually

AIUI, all new meters have smart functionality, even if they have to be
read manually. It wouldn't make sense to build dumb meters any more.

b. the addition of a transmitter to every EV
c. the transmitter able to stop the EV accepting the charge unless it
shakes hands with the receiver

I had not thought of that, but it would be a sensible provision.

d. all secure

To whatever standard is decided is reasonable for the application.

e. all even more reliable (else as it's all to easy to foresee the
headlines when inability to charge leads to injury or death.

What is rather more difficult to foresee is any reasonably predictable
situation where a failure to charge leads to injury or death. It is no
more of a problem than a car running out of fuel.

I can well imagine some Treasury officials dismissing those as as
"technical details" - to which I'd be inclined to say "indeed, just like
the design and roll-out of smart meters themselves".

But I (and others) also see a more fundamental question: how
to justify much higher prices for kWh for an electric vehicle than kWh
for patio heaters, hot tubs, power showers, 65 inch TVs, bitcoin mining
etc etc.

The price per kWH will be the same for all. The difference in price for
the various uses will be government taxes* and duties. Those should be
shown on the bill as separate items.

* probably 20% VAT as for road fuels.

You might argue it's carrying over the differences now between road
fuels and other oils. But EVs are being forced on people to save the
planet, as part of a program to cut back on energy consumption
generally. What makes EVs uniqulety bad when it's all carbon neutral?

Road Fuel Duty has little or nothing to do with trying to make everything
carbon neutral. It is a source of government income, amounting to about
1% of GDP. The Treasury is determined to replace it with something.

It shouldnt be up to Treasury, Boris should be telling those
fools that it makes no sense to be using some very expensive
mechanism to collect taxes by way of road pricing when it
makes no sense to have road pricing when its trucks, not
cars that wear out the roads.

Tho I spose you can make a case that given you lot do collect
such a large amount via the fuel tax, it would be politically
hard to collect the same amount now without a real political
**** fight. Easier to do it by stealth with a tax on electric charging.

That will probably be some form of road pricing, but I am simply pointing
out that it need not be.

On 23/04/2021 00:11, Steve Walker wrote:
On 22/04/2021 21:39, Robin wrote:


As for other externalities, road pricing is more direct and gives
clearer signals to consumers.Â* Especially if it varies with when and
where.

But unfairly punishes those who have to travel to specific places at
certain times whether they like it or not.

I don't accept "unfair" is the right term when different charges reflect
different external costs but it would need selling (and I'd suggest
phasing in). And - on the third hand - people who have to drive through
an area when it's most congested are the people who stand to gain most
from reductions in congestion.





--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 22/04/2021 17:40, Chris Hogg wrote:
I've not followed this thread all the way, but why not simply have two
meters at home, one for the domestic stuff and the other for the car
charger? With 'smart' meters becoming widely used, that would be easy
enough to set up and be billed for by the supplier and paid by the
home owner in the usual way. Apologies if this has already been
suggested, but it seems to me to be a fairly simple solution.

Right, and how easy to simply plug the while house or selected rings
into the car charger circuit using a handy adapter cable.

And switch off the 'domestic supply'

Unlike diesel, you cant put red dye in the electrons...
--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman

On 23/04/2021 00:11, Steve Walker wrote:
But unfairly punishes those who have to travel to specific places at
certain times whether they like it or not.

They can move.

Honestly. I despair of the snoflake generation. When I grew up you lived
where commuting to work was possible and if you changed jobs you moved
house.

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

On 22/04/2021 21:48, charles wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
writes
On 17/04/2021 22:50, Robin wrote:

*tax policy has been the responsibility of HM Treasury since 2005.
So in principle it falls to them to come up with options to fill the
gap left by fuel duties. That said, when things go wrong it's
never, ever the Treasury's fault.


There is always that static, immoveable source of lots of juicy revenue,
Britain's stupidly overpriced houses.

There's no revenue from a fixed asset like a house.

There is actually, council rates and taxes.

to the owner they are outgoings.

As are all taxes.

Asset taxes are iniquitous post WWI socialism ****. The idea was to move
all assets ultimately into state ownership so citizens just rented... No
more art treasures, stately homes or even cars, tax just owning
them...rape the elderly of their savings why dont you?

All down to a sort of Plow**** worldview that if anyone owns anything
good, it is ipso facto proof that they are a capitalist **** and didn't
come by it honestly or deservedly.


--
€œwhen things get difficult you just have to lie€�

€• Jean Claud Jüncker

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/04/2021 17:40, Chris Hogg wrote:
I've not followed this thread all the way, but why not simply have two
meters at home, one for the domestic stuff and the other for the car
charger? With 'smart' meters becoming widely used, that would be easy
enough to set up and be billed for by the supplier and paid by the
home owner in the usual way. Apologies if this has already been
suggested, but it seems to me to be a fairly simple solution.

Right, and how easy to simply plug the while house or selected rings
into the car charger circuit using a handy adapter cable.

And switch off the 'domestic supply'

Unlike diesel, you cant put red dye in the electrons...


but it's different with green dye, ;-)

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 23/04/2021 00:04, Steve Walker wrote:
On 22/04/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/04/2021 11:44, nightjar wrote:
...
Disadvantaging the 20% of households with one adult over the age of
65 without internet access; a group that also has the lowest
ownership of smart phones, at just 53%

I know many pensioners (I am surrounded by them, as we live in a
slightly odd road, with a mix of housing - our house is
semi-detached, 2-storey, while our neighbours on one side and all
down the opposite side of the road have bungalows, plus our
relatives, relatives of friends, etc.). Only a tiny proportion drive,
but do not have broadband or a smartphone. ...

That does demonstrate an urban mindset. It is very difficult to live
in rural areas without a car and those are the areas where broadband
service is worst.

It does not need a high speed connection to login and update a mileage
figure. With a smartphone it can always be done on the phone and it can
transmit when you happen to be somewhere with a signal.

Which requires smartphone - something that only 53% of people over the
age of 65 own.

--
Colin Bignell

On 23/04/2021 09:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

Asset taxes are iniquitous post WWI socialism ****.


"rates" on property? They were codified as a universal charge in the
Poor Relief Act of 1601 (although I accept not a tax on ownership per se
as also payable by tenants)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 22/04/2021 21:39, Robin wrote:
On 22/04/2021 19:38, nightjar wrote:
On 22/04/2021 18:24, Robin wrote:

e.Â*Â*Â* all even more reliable (else as it's all to easy to foresee the
headlines when inability to charge leads to injury or death.

What is rather more difficult to foresee is any reasonably predictable
situation where a failure to charge leads to injury or death. It is no
more of a problem than a car running out of fuel.

Anyone can see when they drive home if they will have enough fuel to get
to work - or to a family member - in an emergency.Â* They can't see that
their car will fail to charge while they are in bed because of a glitch
in the system.

Any more than a fossil fuel car owner can tell whether or not their car
won't start next day because of a flat battery or any of a number of
other possible faults. However, although they are currently aimed at the
commercial market, the EV equivalent of a spare fuel can - the portable
external charger - does exist.

It still doesn't answer the question of what reasonable predictable
situation might lead to a lack of charge leading to injury or death.


The price per kWH will be the same for all. The difference in price
for the various uses will be government taxes* and duties. Those
should be shown on the bill as separate items.

* probably 20% VAT as for road fuels.

On that basis the price of red diesel is much the same as diesel at any
filling station.Â* I'd love to see you sell that to drivers on a forecourt....

You don't get itemised billing for forecourt sales. Electricity users do.

....
Fuel duties have a rationale in the external costs of motoring...

A very modern rationale. When they were introduced, at the start of the
20th century, they were simply a way to increase government income.


--
Colin Bignell

On 23/04/2021 09:29, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/04/2021 21:48, charles wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Rod Speed wrote:


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew
writes
On 17/04/2021 22:50, Robin wrote:

Â* *tax policy has been the responsibility of HM Treasury since 2005.
So in principle it falls to them to come up with options to fill the
gap left by fuel duties.Â* That said, when things go wrong it's
never, ever the Treasury's fault.


There is always that static, immoveable source of lots of juicy
revenue,
Britain's stupidly overpriced houses.

There's no revenue from a fixed asset like a house.

There is actually, council rates and taxes.

to the owner they are outgoings.

As are all taxes.

Asset taxes are iniquitous post WWI socialism ****. The idea was to move
all assets ultimately into state ownership so citizens just rented... No
more art treasures, stately homes or even cars, tax just owning
them...rape the elderly of their savings why dont you?

All down to a sort of Plow**** worldview that if anyone owns anything
good, it is ipso facto proof that they are a capitalist **** and didn't
come by it honestly or deservedly.



So you are happy with the hoarding of food during WW1 that caused real
problems for those who didn't have the 'assets' to hog all they could ?.
(and the reason why rationing cards were ready-printed for use during
WW2).

On 23/04/2021 00:04, Steve Walker wrote:
On 22/04/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/04/2021 11:44, nightjar wrote:
...
Disadvantaging the 20% of households with one adult over the age of
65 without internet access; a group that also has the lowest
ownership of smart phones, at just 53%

I know many pensioners (I am surrounded by them, as we live in a
slightly odd road, with a mix of housing - our house is
semi-detached, 2-storey, while our neighbours on one side and all
down the opposite side of the road have bungalows, plus our
relatives, relatives of friends, etc.). Only a tiny proportion drive,
but do not have broadband or a smartphone. ...

That does demonstrate an urban mindset. It is very difficult to live
in rural areas without a car and those are the areas where broadband
service is worst.

It does not need a high speed connection to login and update a mileage
figure. With a smartphone it can always be done on the phone and it can
transmit when you happen to be somewhere with a signal.

Yet people like turnip and his mate java jive in rural scotchland
believe that 'other people' should pay the tens of thousands of
pounds required to connect a rural hamlet of a few moaning minnie
pensioners, living in million pound houses (that they only paid a
few thousand, or less, back in the 50's and 60's) to fast internet.

"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/04/2021 18:08, Tim+ wrote:
nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 13:40, Tim+ wrote:
...
ANPR cameras are already all over the country monitoring your
movements.
What additional privacy issues are you worried about?

Not me; the opponents of a road pricing system. Possibly because road
pricing would need an awful lot more of them.


Which is why a simple mileage based system would be so much easier.

We already have a simple mileage based system and one that, unlike a flat
distance rate, rewards those who use more efficient vehicles. It is called
Road Fuel Duty. All we need to do is extend it to electric vehicles too.

Having thought on the matter further, I realise that would be much easier
than I first thought. If all public charging points applied the tax at
point of sale, the way Road Fuel Duty is applied, the only problem would
be collecting the tax due when the vehicle is charged at home. ISTM that
could be solved with a very minor modification to the vehicle - the
addition of a short range transmitter that only operates when the vehicle
is connected to an outside supply. A linked receiver would detect it and
notify the house meter that a vehicle was connected.

The house meter should then be able to detect the change in use when the
vehicle is connected and disconnected and hence know what rate it was
charging at. This should work even if the vehicle is connected to 13A
socket, rather than a dedicated charging point. The tax can then be
collected through the electricity company. No need to track anybody and
all revenue collections are completely automatic.

but every one of the 29 million home in the UK has to have a new electric
meter, despite about a fifth of them not owing a car

and how would it work at all in an HMO, with a shared electric meter, but
only one resident having a car?

Or how would it work for people who charge up whilst a work - a use case
that's mooted for solving the problem of people not having a the possibility
of a charge point at home

On 23/04/2021 15:21, tim... wrote:


"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 20/04/2021 18:08, Tim+ wrote:
nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 13:40, Tim+ wrote:
...
ANPR cameras are already all over the country monitoring your
movements.
What additional privacy issues are you worried about?

Not me; the opponents of a road pricing system. Possibly because road
pricing would need an awful lot more of them.


Which is why a simple mileage based system would be so much easier.

We already have a simple mileage based system and one that, unlike a
flat distance rate, rewards those who use more efficient vehicles. It
is called Road Fuel Duty. All we need to do is extend it to electric
vehicles too.

Having thought on the matter further, I realise that would be much
easier than I first thought. If all public charging points applied the
tax at point of sale, the way Road Fuel Duty is applied, the only
problem would be collecting the tax due when the vehicle is charged at
home. ISTM that could be solved with a very minor modification to the
vehicle - the addition of a short range transmitter that only operates
when the vehicle is connected to an outside supply. A linked receiver
would detect it and notify the house meter that a vehicle was connected.

The house meter should then be able to detect the change in use when
the vehicle is connected and disconnected and hence know what rate it
was charging at. This should work even if the vehicle is connected to
13A socket, rather than a dedicated charging point. The tax can then
be collected through the electricity company. No need to track anybody
and all revenue collections are completely automatic.

but every one of the 29 million home in the UK has to have a new
electric meter, despite about a fifth of them not owing a car

Why would the people without cars need to have a new meter? They won't
have a receiver linked to a car transmitter. In any case, all meters
should be replaced on about a 20 year cycle, as they come up for
recalibration.

and how would it work at all in an HMO, with a shared electric meter,
but only one resident having a car?

How would that work at present? Surely the non-car owners would want to
be able to split off the cost of charging the car from common use
electricity.


Or how would it work for people who charge up whilst a work - a use case
that's mooted for solving the problem of people not having a the
possibility of a charge point at home

Those can be public charging points, where the tax is paid at point of sale.

--
Colin Bignell

On 23/04/2021 11:10, Andrew wrote:
On 23/04/2021 00:04, Steve Walker wrote:
On 22/04/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/04/2021 11:44, nightjar wrote:
...
Disadvantaging the 20% of households with one adult over the age of
65 without internet access; a group that also has the lowest
ownership of smart phones, at just 53%

I know many pensioners (I am surrounded by them, as we live in a
slightly odd road, with a mix of housing - our house is
semi-detached, 2-storey, while our neighbours on one side and all
down the opposite side of the road have bungalows, plus our
relatives, relatives of friends, etc.). Only a tiny proportion
drive, but do not have broadband or a smartphone. ...

That does demonstrate an urban mindset. It is very difficult to live
in rural areas without a car and those are the areas where broadband
service is worst.

It does not need a high speed connection to login and update a mileage
figure. With a smartphone it can always be done on the phone and it
can transmit when you happen to be somewhere with a signal.

Yet people like turnip and his mate java jive in rural scotchland
believe that 'other people' should pay the tens of thousands of
pounds required to connect a rural hamlet of a few moaning minnie
pensioners, living in million pound houses (that they only paid a
few thousand, or less, back in the 50's and 60's)Â* to fast internet.

Back in the days of the last Labour government, the proposal was to add
a sum (then it was 50p per month) onto everyone's broadband bills to
fund providing broadband to hard to reach places. As someone who has
never voted Labour in a General Election and who lives in a place with a
choice of Fibre to the Cabinet and Virgin Media, I thought it a very
good idea. It is hardly the fault of country dwellers that government,
council and commercial companies have all moved to the internet, making
it nigh on essential.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2021 11:10, Andrew wrote:
On 23/04/2021 00:04, Steve Walker wrote:
On 22/04/2021 17:23, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 14:58, Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/04/2021 11:44, nightjar wrote:
...
Disadvantaging the 20% of households with one adult over the age of
65 without internet access; a group that also has the lowest
ownership of smart phones, at just 53%

I know many pensioners (I am surrounded by them, as we live in a
slightly odd road, with a mix of housing - our house is semi-detached,
2-storey, while our neighbours on one side and all down the opposite
side of the road have bungalows, plus our relatives, relatives of
friends, etc.). Only a tiny proportion drive, but do not have
broadband or a smartphone. ...

That does demonstrate an urban mindset. It is very difficult to live in
rural areas without a car and those are the areas where broadband
service is worst.

It does not need a high speed connection to login and update a mileage
figure. With a smartphone it can always be done on the phone and it can
transmit when you happen to be somewhere with a signal.

Yet people like turnip and his mate java jive in rural scotchland
believe that 'other people' should pay the tens of thousands of
pounds required to connect a rural hamlet of a few moaning minnie
pensioners, living in million pound houses (that they only paid a
few thousand, or less, back in the 50's and 60's) to fast internet.

Back in the days of the last Labour government, the proposal was to add a
sum (then it was 50p per month) onto everyone's broadband bills to fund
providing broadband to hard to reach places. As someone who has never
voted Labour in a General Election and who lives in a place with a choice
of Fibre to the Cabinet and Virgin Media, I thought it a very good idea.
It is hardly the fault of country dwellers that government, council and
commercial companies have all moved to the internet, making it nigh on
essential.

Corse its not essential, you are free to use your phone.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 12:24:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


commercial companies have all moved to the internet, making it nigh on
essential.

Corse its not essential, you are free to use your phone.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you clinically insane senile pest?

Portrait of the clinically insane trolling senile asshole from Oz:

https://thetravellingtiles.files.wor...b6f9820001.jpg

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID: