Thank you for the information, it makes very clear how such investment can and does make sense.
The two sentences I have highlighted are unnecessary and harsh. Yes, I care about the world we will leave behind. In my household we do all we can to live a green life but both our financial and housing situation limit this. The £40k I mentioned would come from savings set aside for later life. Should my wife pre-decease me the loss of her pension would leave me reliant on those savings. If I had put this capital into solar panels and an EV it's likely I would become financially reliant on the state.
There is more to this discussion than people appreciate. Your post shows households able to afford a £60k vehicle have their motoring costs effectively subsidised by others, in reality by people who cannot even afford their own energy costs. Possibly there are households more in need of cheap, almost free energy.
This is something I've said before, in another thread. Solar (And even EVs, though les so) is something which will save you money in the long term, but in order to save that money, you have to have the capital (or ability to get and pay for a loan) to fund it in the first place.
So only the reasonably well off are able to take advantage of the saving. Like quite a lot of things.
To me this is unfair, underlining the deep inequalities which exist in our society. To achieve a greener society we need to enable everyone to contribute. Possibly instead of a 100% subsidy on fuel costs for those able to spend £60k on a vehicle it would be better to tax the subsidy in some way to contribute say 50% of the savings to supporting others who cannot do the same? Should green credentials include using savings in "the hundreds each month" as a contribution towards saving the planet?
There is no "100% subsidy" on EV fuel costs. I don't know where you get that from.
Anybody with an EV who doesn't have solar with sufficient generating capacity will pay for the electricity they use to charge it (Some Tesla opwners got "free" charging included as part of the exorbitant cost of purchase, but that is not really subidised)
Another thought. My wife's car was 12 years old when we replaced it, mine is 7. I trust you will be keeping your EV for 12 years. Our UK habit of changing vehicles every three years is hardly green.
Do we really have such a habit? I now that company cars and other fleet vehicles tend to be sold off at that sort of age, but not usually scrapped, they go into the 2nd hand car market.
I think most private buyers buy 2nd hand to start with, and tend to keep them for more than 3 years then. I know we do, and I don't believe we are atypical in that respect.
According to
this page, the average age of cars on the road is 8.6 years, with 20% being 13 years or older.
I'm going to move to solar and suggest another view. I'm fortunate to live in a conservation area subject to an Article 4 Direction. Solar is out of reach as the A4D means solar panels cannot be installed on the property. Possibly I could get planning for an installation on my allotment 500 meters from the house. At what cost? 500 metres of trenching through the garden? I am not allowed by law to make changes to the external appearance of the house. Replacement windows and doors have to be handmade at a cost of £1000 each. An investment we recently made. I'm not complaining but there are no grants, subsidies etc. available to help this effort to reduce energy use.
That sucks, although I suppose to an extent it comes with where you choose to live.
Perhaps sufficient reward for a solar installation should be free or low cost energy? Should income from spare capacity be taxed with that revenue invested in helping lower income families enjoy a greener or more sustainable life? We've been told these investments are largely for ethical reasons. Perhaps those ethics need to stretch further?
No.
These investments need to be encouraged, and that would discourage them. While many of us are making them as much for ethical reasons as for the financial reasons, fewer would do so if they couldn't see any real benefit to themselves.
Having said which, If you install solar expecting it to generate significantly more than you use, the sale of surplus energy is theoretically subject to income tax.
Income Tax (Trading and other income) Act 2005
"782ADomestic microgeneration
(1)No liability to income tax arises in respect of income arising to an individual from the sale of electricity generated by a microgeneration system if—
(a)the system is installed at or near domestic premises occupied by the individual, and
(b)the individual intends that the amount of electricity generated by it will not significantly exceed the amount of electricity consumed in those premises.
(2)In subsection (1)—
- “domestic premises” means premises used wholly or mainly as a separate private dwelling, and
- [F1“microgeneration system” has the same meaning as in section 263AZA of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.]"
It's not as simple as "Sure little grandkid - I DO care about your future - but it has to make financial sense to me..."
Things are rarely as simple as they might appear.
I apologise for what I'm sure will be viewed as an off topic post. It will probably be removed but given the question asked of me I feel its worth asking just how green and ethical are these investments? I'd argue as a society we are failing miserably in our efforts to save the planet.
Well anything which discourages the take up of renewable energy can only make that worse.