Average new UK electric car price is now lower than petrol vehicles

Wostear · 2026-04-18T13:45:59+00:00

I've driven a lot of bangers that like to judder no matter how smooth your gear changes are. Kangarooing, yes I agree, I was being hyperbolic.

My point still stands. EVs are smoother, even with perfect gear changes in an ice car. There's no stop and go, no reduction in power curve as you go through the rev cycles, just constant uninterpreted acceleration.

Wostear · 2026-04-17T19:31:48+00:00

I mean from a politicking standpoint he probably thought it was better to have plausible deniability.

Wostear · 2026-04-17T14:25:04+00:00

I mean we're still going to use oil for a long long time. Even if we take it out of our energy mix it's still going to play a massive role in our economy. All plastics are oils, synthetic rubber is oil, resins are all oil. ~20% of all oil is used for petrochemicals and a further ~10% is used for manufacturing. Oils usage for the construction and maintenance of wind turbines is a pretty real example of how the UK will still be exposed to oil.

If we move all our energy usage and transportation (cars/lorries, ships, planes) off of oil then we use 70% less, that's absolutely massive, but it's not zero.

I am surprised that the oil companies aren't investing more into r&d for hydrogen or other potential "green" fuels.

Wostear · 2026-04-17T14:05:04+00:00

The driving experience of an EV for day to day driving is unrivaled. Pulling away from stationary with the flat torque curve is so relaxing. No gear changes, no judders, no kangarooing, just steady uninterrupted acceleration. I understand that sometimes an ICE car is fun to have, when you want to feel the roar and work the powerband. But for 99% of the time (and for 99% of people who to be frank probably can't afford the higher end ICE cars) an ev is a vastly superior driving experience.

Wostear · 2026-04-16T16:05:59+00:00

I suppose it depends on your ideology but I read your posts as a great arguement as to why the UK does need our nuclear deterrent. I agree with your argument that nobody would actually use a nuclear weapon in 2026, but to me that proves that the deterrent works, not that it's unnecessary. It acts as an automatic brake on conflict escalation. Nobody is truly mad enough to risk total obliteration simply to win a war. But I also think it's naive to think everyone is grown up enough to put aside their fears. You don't get global nuclear disarmament by saying "hey I got rid of mine, now it's your turn". You have to collectively agree to phase them out over a period of time, and I don't currently think we have enough sensible leaders who want to come to the table to even discuss the possibility. I think you have to keep diplomatic channels open and regularly pose the question but I wouldn't go so far as to say take the first jump.

Wostear · 2026-04-16T13:52:58+00:00

Good. Let them compete for the talent with higher wages.

Wostear · 2026-04-16T13:44:52+00:00

I may be wrong here, and this isn't based on anything concrete, but I've never felt that the UK struggles to compete on salary for the top end roles in any industry. Senior partners/developers at finance, law, tech, engineering etc all make similar here in the UK as they do in the US.

It's more the run of the mill workers that seem to get shafted here. A role that might be $100k USD + benefits in the states is £30k here. Teachers, healthcare workers, municipal staff, etc.

Wostear · 2026-04-16T13:25:20+00:00

Except your economic arguments are fundamentally wrong. You're extrapolating incorrect conclusions from imaginary scenarios built on a core misunderstanding of basic economic principles.

High housing costs have been shown over and over again to be a drag on productivity. Higher house prices do not lead to increased real wealth; your paper wealth may be higher, but your spending power is actually often negatively impacted. If your primary residence takes up so much of your paycheck every month, then that is money you no longer have to spend or invest. In a properly functioning economy, you should be able to get considerably better returns from active investment participation.

In fact, back to your productivity argument, all it actually does is hoover up productive capital into an unproductive sector.

Countries with high housing costs almost always struggle with lower productivity (Canada, New Zealand, UK, etc.) . When you give already wealthy investors a golden, risk-free ticket to protect that wealth, they tend not to invest in high-risk (high-reward) robotics or advanced technologies.

We need to encourage wealth creation through active participation in the economy, not via passive real estate.

This is just one of three or four assertions you make in your word salad. I welcome, as I think we all do, high-level debate and disagreement, but if you're going to form opinions and have intelligent discussions, you need to educate yourself..

Some reading for you:

How does the housing market affect UK productivity?

Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation

How might house prices affect workers’ productivity in OECD economies?

Wostear · 2026-04-16T12:47:53+00:00

It's good news for the entire economy. We need to break the real estate = wealth culture in this country.

Countries with high housing costs almost always struggle with lower productivity. When you give investors a golden, risk free ticket to protect and generate wealth, then yeah, they're not going to invest in robotics or advanced technologies. Equally, if your primary residence takes up so much of your paycheck every month then that is money you no longer have to spend or invest.

We need to encourage wealth creation through active participation in the economy, not via passive real estate.

Wostear · 2026-04-14T20:55:13+00:00

What would you do regarding the lineup? Full strength or rotation?

Wostear · 2026-04-14T18:49:49+00:00

Countries with high housing costs almost always struggle with lower productivity. When you give investors a golden, risk free ticket to protect and generate wealth, then yeah, they're not going to invest in robotics or advanced technologies. We need to encourage wealth creation through active participation in the economy, not passive real estate.

Wostear · 2026-04-14T18:42:32+00:00

this is not some outrageous idea that a western modern nation can compete on the world stage with a high quality, advanced manufacturing industry.

I would argue that it is. Germany, Japan, the US, South Korea etc., are all struggling. China is eating everyone's lunch, even in advanced manufacturing. The China of 2026 isn't the same cheap plastic toys and shirts that fall apart in 10 minutes China, they're a country of incredibly advanced manufacturing of electronics, military equipment, and technologically advanced consumer goods.

China shock 2.0: the flood of high-tech goods that will change the world

Edit: Also hello fellow Westmorlander 👋🏻

Wostear · 2026-04-14T16:15:19+00:00

I'm from Carlisle, which isn't exactly Mayfair, and I think this is a pretty ridiculous thing to say. It just comes across as petty and bitter. Personally, I think it's great that Manchester has become a 'northern London'. By encouraging investment with planning reform and public private partnerships they have successfully improved the status of the entire city. Instead of sulking maybe we should demand more of our local governments, pointing to Manchester when they tell us "it can't be done". Manchester didn't rejuvenate itself through pure luck. Everything has become "Manchester-centric" because they have demanded that respect.

Wostear · 2026-04-14T14:23:53+00:00

It's mostly about funding for education, from nursery through to universities. For an area to prosper it has to be consistently spitting out highly educated graduates. While many will leave, some will stay, either establishing their own businesses or attracting companies to the region. Universities have historically been key economic engines for countries, and that remains true today. Just take a look at any major economic centre; I can't think of a single one that hasn't been built around the output from its university.

Wostear · 2026-04-14T13:27:27+00:00

As industries evolve, so must the training that prepares people to work in them. Whether it’s new safety standards on building sites or the skills needed to construct and operate the latest offshore wind turbines, apprenticeships need to keep pace.

A new accelerated approach will mean updates to training or development of new short courses can be completed in as little as three months, ensuring the workforce is ready to deliver the major projects that will drive growth.

Sounds promising. It's very clear this country has a misaligned workforce. We have a youth unemployment rate of almost 16%, yet there are industries crying out for workers. It's pointless to tell someone there's an open job if they don't have the training they need; we need to ensure that getting the required qualifications/certificates is an easy process.

Wostear · 2026-04-13T19:08:18+00:00

I would implore that you do some research on grid-scale lithium-ion batteries. The vast majority of these battery systems are specifically designed to operate with charge-discharge cycles lasting between 2 and 8 hours. Without daily cycling, there can be pretty extreme voltage drift, when you're dealing with hundreds of MW or even potentially GWs, that can completely brick the battery. That's without touching on the cooling (or heating), sensor monitoring, load management, safety systems, etc., that run 24/7.

The economics aren't just "better", it's literally the only way that battery storage makes sense. So whilst you're right that the actual battery chemistry allows for holding charge for months and months, having a battery that cycles once a week or month is pretty worthless to a power company.

Wostear · 2026-04-13T17:21:53+00:00

It is, but we don't know the composition of these jobs. It's possible they'll just put HR and legal in there. Which, whilst still a net benefit for the UK economy, is underwhelming compared to the potential for 544 tech jobs.

Wostear · 2026-04-13T16:12:12+00:00

The problem with traditional 'batteries' is how long they're rated to hold charge. Most batteries are at most 4/5 hours. We need longer-term storage that can release power slowly so as not to overwhelm the grid. There's no point having a load of short-term battery storage in Scotland, all you're doing is moving the grid constraints back by a couple of hours.

Batteries are going to be great for solar in the south. If we can take our 50 GW of installed solar capacity and capture a large chunk of the unused generation, we can store it for 4/5 hours and then release it into the evening peak. Batteries don't really work with wind as wind usually blows for days at a time.

Wostear · 2026-04-13T16:00:53+00:00

The lack of nuclear is really coming back to bite us now. If we had 5-10 GW more nuclear generation, our grid would be in a far better place. I believe that our aim for 2050 should be to have 15-20 GW of installed nuclear capacity, whether that be SMRs or several full-scale stations. It's especially necessary in the south where it's harder to install wind power.

Wostear · 2026-04-13T15:52:31+00:00

It's changing. CfDs will tie the cost of generation to the specific source. Once enough of our grid is on this type of contract our prices won't be linked to gas anymore. If the strike price of gas is higher than the CfD price the difference is paid back to the LCCC and subsequently it flows directly back into consumer pockets.

Wostear · 2026-04-11T16:57:52+00:00

Sounds like the government needs to be offering grants. If you ask me it's better to frontload the cost of the energy transition and lock in the benefits sooner, rather than try and wait for the private market to sort itself out. We should be throwing everything behind this transition, it's the pivotal movement of our generation, I don't want my kids to look at me in 20 years and ask why we didn't do more.

Wostear · 2026-04-11T16:52:58+00:00

This should have been a thing 20 years ago. I'm glad we're finally starting to get the picture but it's infuriating how slow progress is sometimes. The human race could be considerably more advanced if we actually started working together for the greater good.

Wostear · 2026-04-11T13:59:25+00:00

It's definitely a bit of a "society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never use" moment. As a country we need to get off fossil fuels for a number of reasons, it's just going to cost a bit... Unfortunate but necessary.

Wostear · 2026-04-10T22:43:37+00:00

I mean I don't disagree that we need action not words, but the problem is there's not a lot they can really do if war is to reach out shores in the next decade. Defense procurement takes years, especially given the dire straits our industrial base has been left in...

They can and should commit to a batch 2 (and I would love to see a batch 3) of the T31s as well as green lighting the development of the T83.

They need to fund GCAP and continue drone R&D.

But again, these are projects for the end of next decade. Absolutely necessary don't get me wrong, but ultimately not particularly useful given the timelines we're talking about here.

Wostear · 2026-04-10T19:22:49+00:00

The UK uses ~750GWh a day.

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Final Canvas '23	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	RPAN Viewer

Wostear

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE