Are EV's good value? Apparently not!

[selectortone]

Threse are more likely people that just fit the requirements of an EV, have never had any real interest in cars and have never taken an interest in what is under the bonnet

That's quite an assumption. I've been a petrol head since I was a kid and currently, at 73, still drive my MX-5 (a 2-seater sports car) every chance I get. But I'd love an EV for a daily driver. For my needs it would be perfect.

 

[Spectric]

and currently, at 73, still drive my MX-5

You are doing very well getting in and out of an MX-5 at 73, I brought a Honda CRV to make things easier.

 

[Jake]

Insurance companies seem to be very reluctant to take risks, which is strange, as that's their raison d'etre. My stepdaughter's car was bumped, in a car park, no visible damage to either bumper or bumpee, yet the child seat(that wasn't occupied at the time) was written off. It makes you wonder how that child seat would fare in a real crash, if it can't survive a gentle tap. I reckon it has experienced 10 times the G force going through airport baggage handling.

If there was a subsequent accident and the child in the seat got seriously injured, the insurer on the other side (or new insurer on the same side) would seek a contribution to the costs if it was at all arguable that damage to the non-replaced seat was a contributor. Even if the seat was provably really fine, proving that in a dispute would cost more to establish than just replacing it now. Bearing in mind for a permanent disability in a child there are potential life long costs, the cost of the new child seat is just less on a risk-weighted basis. And, given everything might not be what it seems on the outside, that seems pretty rational in substance too - like bike helmets etc, replace if there is any doubt, because structural damage to the internal foam is not necessarily visible.

 

[ian33a]

I have nothing against EV's and appreciate that they suit many people's lifestyles and tax requirement.

My wife and I live in the countryside and both outright own quite decent ICE cars.

Gone are the days of changing cars every few years just because the neighbours have and because we also fancy a change. Our cars need to last us a good few years yet. Depreciation on both is less of an issue than it was and servicing costs are modest.

Between us, we probably drive no more than 10,000 miles a year ATM. On that basis, with a large diesel and a mid sized petrol (both automatics) it's hard to justify car changes on grounds of fuel cost savings and there is no BIK to consider. While we could get by with one car, I like the carrying capacity of a large estate car while my wife likes the fun of a hot hatchback and having the independence of two cars has logistical benefits.

Hopefully when changes are needed, technology and pricing will be more attractive for us - but it isn't right now.

 

[jetsetwilly]

That's quite an assumption. I've been a petrol head since I was a kid and currently, at 73, still drive my MX-5 (a 2-seater sports car) every chance I get. But I'd love an EV for a daily driver. For my needs it would be perfect.

Totally agree! I’ve always been a car nerd and chosen a car that’s faster and more expensive to run than it needs to be to suit my needs. Last three cars were a V8 M3 (my third V8 bmw), a Discovery and now a Tesla P100D. The Tesla is faster than any other large family car I could have bought, only now its also quite good for the planet and quite cheap to run (depreciation is painful and lithium mining is bad and it’s a lot of mass to drag about, but it’s already 7 years old and I’ll keep it till the depreciation and carbon amortisation are not a worry).

 

[ShavedSpoke]

We've had a Zoe ZE40 for just over 5 years. We bought it pre-reg for 65% of RRP. For our usage, which is mostly my wife's short commute (varied from 50miles per day to the current 10 miles per day), it's perfect. It mostly gets charged on 7kw home charger on economy 7 rate. In the summer we also get hundreds of miles 'free' range from solar. It has been charged on a public charger only a handful of times. Because it only gets slow charged, there has been almost no thermal degradation of the battery.

If the vast majority of your milage is close-ish to home, and you can have a home charger, then it makes sense. For us, it works out less than 4p per mile 'fuel' costs. It also requires almost no servicing.

For balance I have a diesel Q5. But I will almost certainly be plugging in when it comes time to change it.

 

[Vulcan]

https://www.theguardian.com/society...nd-is-in-unsafe-air-pollution-area-study-says
I suppose it depends on whether you rank the resale value of your vehicle above the health of schoolchildren.
I accept that there are a lot of older people with no grandchildren or children to worry about, however, but forgive those generations if they reciprocate by not giving a 5h1t about you.

Agreed. Surely we all know by now that Diesel fumes cause lung disease, heart disease and dementia. What type of person would have bought a new Diesel car in the last few years knowing this? Petrol isn’t without issue but it’s a darn sight cleaner than Diesel. People bang on about how clean new ICE cars are but I saw this recently.

 

[Vulcan]

That is true, most energy is generated by fossile fuel still, but one could also argue the pollution is being removed from the street at least.

Tbh in my opinion EVs are another one of two things; Conspicuous Consumption, or Virtue Signaling.

If EVs were about the environment, they'd all be bare bones models with every ohm of output (if that's the correct term!) going into pushing the vehicle down the road and managing the battery. Think 1980's Panda or Polo.

Instead they're all these super cool and gadgety luxury cars where a decent percentage of the power is going into running electrics.

1. I just took this screen shot of UK electricity production. You can see that fossil accounts for very little.

2. Just because you don’t like the concept of a smooth, quiet vehicle with zero tailpipe emissions doesn’t make those that do “virtue signallers” that’s just a silly comment.

3. Why should all EV’s be bare bones models? ICE cars have been getting bigger and heavier and as a result produce far more popollution than they need to.

4. I suspect very little of the battery capacity is spend running auxiliaries. But by all means explain your reasoning for this statement.

 

[jcassidy]

here's just one study.

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/98192/Caulfield et al 2022.pdf?sequence=1

"...our findings suggest grants are most prominent in affluent, urban areas with high levels of public transport usage and/or availability. Similarly,Carroll et al. [68] has shown that there are significant pockets of forced car ownership in Ireland and that in these pockets, mainly in rural areas, there are considerably fewer public transport alternatives. Based in our results, we suggest that current grants for EVs privilege high-income people"

So, firstly, this study shows that EVs are by and large owned by wealthy households who already own multiple cars, and are located in areas with easy access to high quality public transport options.

Secondly, a large cohort of society who actually need to use vehicles and do not have access to public transport (almost the entire country outside of cities), do not have access to EV nor to the charging infrastructure required.

If rich people living in affluent areas next to trains and busses buying an EV as their 2nd or 3rd car isn't virtue signalling and conspicuous consumption, I don't know what is.

 

[Agent_zed]

Agreed. Surely we all know by now that Diesel fumes cause lung disease, heart disease and dementia. What type of person would have bought a new Diesel car in the last few years knowing this? Petrol isn’t without issue but it’s a darn sight cleaner than Diesel. People bang on about how clean new ICE cars are but I saw this recently.

View attachment 177986

But this is only 1 part of the equation. We are told that diesels produce less CO2. So in theory a diesel is better over a petrol car for carbon emmissions (both in direct exhaust and also they last longer generally) which cause global warming. You might have better air quality but does that matter if all your crops have failed due to drought and you get malaria?

Nothing is simple

 

[ShavedSpoke]

here's just one study.

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/98192/Caulfield et al 2022.pdf?sequence=1

"...our findings suggest grants are most prominent in affluent, urban areas with high levels of public transport usage and/or availability. Similarly,Carroll et al. [68] has shown that there are significant pockets of forced car ownership in Ireland and that in these pockets, mainly in rural areas, there are considerably fewer public transport alternatives. Based in our results, we suggest that current grants for EVs privilege high-income people"

So, firstly, this study shows that EVs are by and large owned by wealthy households who already own multiple cars, and are located in areas with easy access to high quality public transport options.

Secondly, a large cohort of society who actually need to use vehicles and do not have access to public transport (almost the entire country outside of cities), do not have access to EV nor to the charging infrastructure required.

If rich people living in affluent areas next to trains and busses buying an EV as their 2nd or 3rd car isn't virtue signalling and conspicuous consumption, I don't know what is.

One of the problems with transitioning to a different model is the, erm, _transitioning_ part. Petrol cars and the current associated fuel infrastructure didn't just spring out of nowhere in the 1880s, and continue as-is to the present day. And If you wanted a Benz in 1886 you would need to part with about $150k in today's money.

New tech being expensive at the start is the norm. Computers, mobile phones, central heating, running water, almost anything new is financially out of reach for the 'average' person. The main difference now is the cycle time from inception of mass availability is ever-decreasing.

 

[John on the Wirral]

Nothing new then. The first cars were electric but only the well-off could afford them hence the advent of cheap motoring ane the ICE - Henry Ford et al

 

[Vulcan]

But this is only 1 part of the equation. We are told that diesels produce less CO2. So in theory a diesel is better over a petrol car for carbon emmissions (both in direct exhaust and also they last longer generally) which cause global warming. You might have better air quality but does that matter if all your crops have failed due to drought and you get malaria?

Nothing is simple

Really?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

here's just one study.

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/98192/Caulfield et al 2022.pdf?sequence=1

"...our findings suggest grants are most prominent in affluent, urban areas with high levels of public transport usage and/or availability. Similarly,Carroll et al. [68] has shown that there are significant pockets of forced car ownership in Ireland and that in these pockets, mainly in rural areas, there are considerably fewer public transport alternatives. Based in our results, we suggest that current grants for EVs privilege high-income people"

So, firstly, this study shows that EVs are by and large owned by wealthy households who already own multiple cars, and are located in areas with easy access to high quality public transport options.

Secondly, a large cohort of society who actually need to use vehicles and do not have access to public transport (almost the entire country outside of cities), do not have access to EV nor to the charging infrastructure required.

If rich people living in affluent areas next to trains and busses buying an EV as their 2nd or 3rd car isn't virtue signalling and conspicuous consumption, I don't know what is.

Assuming conspicuous consumption or virtue signalling is a generalisation and largely wrong.

EVs have only sold in material and increasing volumes over the last three years. They have been expensive relative to their ICE equivalents due largely to the cost of batteries. Manufacturers have focussed on the higher end of the market where price is less an issue.

The government have legislated for an EV future for environmental reasons. Whether you agree is academic - without a political alternative any hope democratic reversal is forlorn.

There are 30m cars on UK roads. The average life of a car is ~15 years. Only 20% would have been purchased new, the rest s/h. It is absolutely no surprise that to promote uptake of EVs:

• incentives favour the more prosperous who can afford new and more expensive vehicles
• owners are located in urban area where range anxiety is much less an issue
• charging facilities are prioritised in areas where EV ownership and need is highest
• urban areas are inevitably better provided with public transport alternatives
• those living outside large towns and cites are far more likely have off road parking. Electricity enjoys ~100% availability rural or urban

 

[Vulcan]

here's just one study.

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/98192/Caulfield et al 2022.pdf?sequence=1

"...our findings suggest grants are most prominent in affluent, urban areas with high levels of public transport usage and/or availability. Similarly,Carroll et al. [68] has shown that there are significant pockets of forced car ownership in Ireland and that in these pockets, mainly in rural areas, there are considerably fewer public transport alternatives. Based in our results, we suggest that current grants for EVs privilege high-income people"

So, firstly, this study shows that EVs are by and large owned by wealthy households who already own multiple cars, and are located in areas with easy access to high quality public transport options.

Secondly, a large cohort of society who actually need to use vehicles and do not have access to public transport (almost the entire country outside of cities), do not have access to EV nor to the charging infrastructure required.

If rich people living in affluent areas next to trains and busses buying an EV as their 2nd or 3rd car isn't virtue signalling and conspicuous consumption, I don't know what is.

None of the people I know with EV’s are rich or could be accused of virtue signalling. They drive them because they are clean, smooth, nice to drive and half the cost per mile of an ICE car.

One other guy I met also likes the fact his Tesla Model Y is faster off the lights than any road cars the Germans build but I guess he’s in the minority!

Edit: I just googled the question and whilst its probably only one of a thousand possible answers I suspect it’s pretty representative.

 

[Beau]

We just bought a second-hand EV with 54k on the clock

I have not read all this thread but Battery health is still near 100%. The car is 3 years old and basically as good as new. It's going to save us at least £1000 a year in fuel which is a bonus plus it's just lovely to drive. It was still expensive but with the fuel-saving, it's going to work out as cheap in the long run and nicer to drive.

At the end of the day it's just a car, its electric and it works

 

[Agent_zed]

Really?

View attachment 178451

A. Yes, the stats you just posted show that there is less exhaust CO2 from Diesels. But I will conceed this is almost negligable assuming this is actually the case (please post links/sources).
B. What are we comparing though? Let's look at the euro 6 specs https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/euro-emissions-standards/

Petrol -
CO: 1.0g/km
NOx: 0.06g/km

Diesel -
CO: 0.50g/km
NOx: 0.08g/km

Seems to me that euro 6 diesels (since 2015) have to produce half the amount of Co2 compared to petrol, according to euro 6 specs, and only allowed to produce 0.02g/km more NOx.

Also (and it may have changed in recent years) diesels cars typically last longer so you can take that amount of CO2 out of the lifecycle of a diesel compared to petrol. Additionally diesels use less volume of fuel compared to petrol so you don't have to haul as much around the country, so less lorries and tankers.

So assuming euro 6 my statement still stands until I have more evidence to the contrary.

 

[Jacob]

That is true, most energy is generated by fossile fuel still, but one could also argue the pollution is being removed from the street at least.

Tbh in my opinion EVs are another one of two things; Conspicuous Consumption, or Virtue Signaling.

If EVs were about the environment, they'd all be bare bones models with every ohm of output (if that's the correct term!) going into pushing the vehicle down the road and managing the battery. Think 1980's Panda or Polo.

Instead they're all these super cool and gadgety luxury cars where a decent percentage of the power is going into running electrics.

Absolutely. EVs are not designed to save the planet but only to save the car industry.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Absolutely. EVs are not designed to save the planet but only to save the car industry.

The car industry does not care what fuel used by their products - they simply want to sell cars.

Whether EVs will save the planet is rather more doubtful - certainly not on their own irrespective of how the electricity is generated.

 

[woodieallen]

1. I just took this screen shot of UK electricity production. You can see that fossil accounts for very little.

View attachment 177988

2. Just because you don’t like the concept of a smooth, quiet vehicle with zero tailpipe emissions doesn’t make those that do “virtue signallers” that’s just a silly comment.

3. Why should all EV’s be bare bones models? ICE cars have been getting bigger and heavier and as a result produce far more popollution than they need to.

4. I suspect very little of the battery capacity is spend running auxiliaries. But by all means explain your reasoning for this statement.

Your first point ignores one little problem. The total demand is only 30GW. Probably middle of the night. Frequently demand is close to the maximum available. So where do you think that extra 10GW is going to come from? At the drop of a switch ? Immediately. Gas.