Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 151 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,106 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, we have always known that the Ecotricity Electric Highway was mostly not OLEV funded from things that have been said in the past but just so there is no misunderstanding... it was confirmed by Ecotricity today on Twitter than the majority of the Highway is not OLEV (public) funded.

This seems to clarify the position so we cannot say that we, taxpayers, have any rights or expectations as a result of government funding of the Highway. Nevertheless, they are creating the best network and it flies in the face of OLEV and the government that a relatively small, private company can do what the hundreds of millions of taxpayers money doesn't seem able to do.

Capture.PNG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
Delighted to hear it, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of what they've done and whilst it is frustrating when the network has outages, it's still far better than anything that OLEV have achieved.

I get a little annoyed when some denigrate Ecotricity, the least we can do is support them by being customers for Electricty and or Gas.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,715 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,106 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Well I think it is appropriate that we fund blueskies thinking and innovation.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,835 Posts
Well I think it is appropriate that we fund blueskies thinking and innovation.
I'd support funding a campaign to stop the phrases "blue sky" and "out of the box" thinking from existing... It's just "thinking" in most cases, because most people don't do it they see it as magical and worthy of a tag. ;) :D


Bit off topic that... :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,715 Posts
Well I think it is appropriate that we fund blueskies thinking and innovation.
That's a matter of opinion... this only became a national news story because it was/is difficult to get to the bottom of the funding (which may be relevant to your OP).

Fiona McEvoy, campaign manager for The TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Whether or not people agree that public money should be spent developing these sorts of green technologies, it's clear this man is deriving some personal benefit from this, which calls into question what these grants are for and whether they're going to the right places.

"It looks totally inappropriate for a millionaire to be cruising around in a sports car funded, at least in part, by the rest of us."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenertransport/8114607/Eco-millionaire-Dale-Vince-and-his-750000-electric-sports-car-part-funded-by-the-taxpayer.html

Remember that at the time the £400,000 government funding would have purchased 16 Nissan Leafs which IMO would have taught us an awful lot more about electric car ownership than a converted Lotus Exige (which many people had converted). Personally I think it represented very poor value for the taxpayer, but that's nothing new in the EV space :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,106 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Well I think it wholly inappropriate for anyone to comment too much on the car tbh because none of us are privy to the reasons behind it (not the reasons we imagine are behind it!) nor the likely benefits to the EV market that might have come from it. On the other hand it might have just been a way to save Dale £400K when spending £600K to build an EV. Personally I don't believe that for half a millisecond.

Something that the trip up to Sunderland has demonstrated to a lot of us is that what might appear to be a total waste of money and almost frivolous can turn out to have sound reasoning behind it.

So, unless we have solid evidence to the contrary I see little point in criticising as all it does is muddy the water.

Poor value? Perhaps. But it might have been appropriate for it to receive funding at the time. I am not convinced that anyone other than those at Ecotricity know the truth of it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,715 Posts
Well I think it wholly inappropriate for anyone to comment too much on the car tbh because none of us are privy to the reasons behind it (not the reasons we imagine are behind it!) nor the likely benefits to the EV market that might have come from it.
It's extremely relevant because it was £400,000 provided by the Technology Strategy Board which is taxpayer funded not unlike much of the charging infrastructure in the UK.

So, unless we have solid evidence to the contrary I see little point in criticising as all it does is muddy the water.
If you are going to proclaim that taxpayers are not involved in the funding I think you should have some evidence don't you? It's important because it would demonstrate that other funding models are possible. Or are you saying that we shouldn't expect any transparency, just keep spending millions because it's about electric cars and must be ok?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,882 Posts
Why is legally obtaining finance from a government entity suddenly wrong ? one of the things that really annoys me about this country is everything anyone disagrees with in government funding gets equated to nurses salaries or something similar. The fact is our government sponsors lots of things that someone is going to disagree with, just because you disagree does not make it wrong.

Simple answer if you don't like what the government is funding vote them out.

To be honest I would have been happy if they gave Dales £400k cash in exchange for the no doubt huge amounts his company puts into the electric highway. Someone may be funding the chargers but I bet you the support and overheads don't come form OLEV or similar bodies.

Good on you Dale for legally obtaining funding to build a one of a kind car, I wish I could do the same, just because I cannot does not make it wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,106 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
They are a private company. I am not sure they are under any obligation to disclose to us any of their financial details regardless of how much we would like them to. I certainly would like to know but those are the rules under which we we operate.

Personally... I believe that any company, private or otherwise, that receives significant public funding should be required to disclose how that money is spent but I am pretty certain they are not obliged to do so... am I wrong in that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,106 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Have you evidence to the contrary? You keep throwing questions up in the air but haven't come up with anything to the contrary yourself.

If you have evidence to disprove their statement then please... let us have it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,715 Posts
Personally... I believe that any company, private or otherwise, that receives significant public funding should be required to disclose how that money is spent but I am pretty certain they are not obliged to do so... am I wrong in that?
I agree that all public funding should be under scrutiny... historically it's been extremely difficult to obtain this information and I hope the CMA will take a look at this industry on behalf of all tax payers.
 
1 - 20 of 151 Posts
Top