Im not really sure where you want me to go with this one, you're stating figures that are meaningless and based on future predictions on what might happen to energy taxes, not whats happening today.
Garage roof with 4 square metres of panel at a average UK day of 800KW per m^3 would be a reasonable top up to add to what you would get from the grid. In some cases, you will see 1p a mile
Id like to claim the lazy title now actually. Cos tbh i dont know what im supposed to be reading in your posts. Im a comsumer (and engineer) not an accountant so fuel cost is what you pay for it. Where does tax+tax+tax come from aswell, AFAIK theres no triple tax. I guess people who quote running costs of LPG cars TODAY should shut up, as in the future there tax differential on LPG and petrol will close up?
The easy one first: the issue of tax.
You pay VAT on the fuel.
You pay fuel tax on the fuel.
You pay VAT on the fuel tax on the fuel.
Triple tax.
I gave figures with and without the taxes, because I thought it best to offer the opportunity to do a like with like comparison.
Even if you choose to do a deliberately unlike comparison by comparing different costs, there is nothing like as much of a difference in running costs between EVs and ICEVs as is repeatedly claimed by EV enthusiasts without any figures or evidence. Unless the price of suitable batteries plummets (which might happen), the running costs are comparable. I've seen claims that the running costs of ICEVs are 50 times as high as those of EVs. 10 times is a "conservative" claim from EV advocates. You claimed "at least" 12 times (1p/mile for EVs, "at least" 12p/mile for ICEVs), although you did change your mind about the 1p/mile for EVs. At least 3 times, with 4p/mile for EVs?
Assuming that the government would simply eat the loss of all the tax revenue from ICEVs (which it simply couldn't afford to do even if it wanted to) isn't reasonable. You have a temporary massive tax incentive to have an EV (and even then it isn't any cheaper to run than an ICEV), one entirely dependent on EVs remaining extremely rare. That's not a comparison of true running costs, not a sound basis for advocacy.
800KW per square meter? (I'm assuming that the cubic meter is a typo).
So why are commercially available solar panels that size rated at no more than 200W, i.e. four thousand times less? There's nowhere near 800KW/m^2 of energy from the sun at the Earth's surface, even at midday in the middle of summer on the equator. It's more like 1KW/m^2, and 20% efficiency is good for a solar panel. I doubt if you'd average more than 100W/m^2 from solar panels in the UK, even if you ignore nights.
I've just spent some time looking, and 150W/m^2
peak is the best I could find (actually, 80W for slightly over half a square meter, but of course you could buy two). £2000 for that, as well.
By paying a lot of money up front, a person can pretend the running cost of an EV is far lower than it really is. Pay £12000 for batteries upfront (you have to pay for the batteries that are in the car when you buy it - they're part of the price) and £8000 for solar panels up front and a person might be able to pretend running costs are 1p/mile.
Applying the same line of argument to ICEVs,
in order to compare like with like, leads to the conclusion that the running cost of ICEVs is nothing at all, totally free. Just buy £20,000 worth of fuel when you buy the car and you'll pay nothing at all for fuel for a couple of hundred thousand miles, therefore (according to the same line of argument used for EVs), the running costs are zero.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
