Electric vehicles

[RogerS]

It's just not the same without those throaty exhaust riffs! Anyway, there's not enough room for SWMBO's handbag.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Lots of people are expressing shock/horror at the capital cost of a renewable (wind) infrastructure, but apparently fail to understand that future running costs are maintenance only and require no fuel or reprocessing plants.

The accepted approach is to compare the levelized costs of different energy sources. These seek to estimate the whole life costs taking into account initial investment, maintenance, fuel costs, major in life upgrades etc.

There are several estimates made in these calculations which needs to look forward at efficiencies and costs over several decades. But to focus on capital costs and exclude any running costs is (at the very least) somewhat simplistic.

 

[RogerS]

I'll ask the question again. What happens during the night when there is little or no wind ? How do we generate power then ?

 

[Trevanion]

 

[RogerS]

Lots of people are expressing shock/horror at the capital cost of a renewable (wind) infrastructure, but apparently fail to understand that future running costs are maintenance only and require no fuel or reprocessing plants.

The accepted approach is to compare the levelized costs of different energy sources. These seek to estimate the whole life costs taking into account initial investment, maintenance, fuel costs, major in life upgrades etc.

There are several estimates made in these calculations which needs to look forward at efficiencies and costs over several decades. But to focus on capital costs and exclude any running costs is (at the very least) somewhat simplistic.

Well certainly looking at this chart from 2018, off-shore wind looks just a tad more expensive than coal or even nuclear ! And they both keep going when there's no wind.

 

[Lons]

The blocking thing does not happen.

Maybe not where you live but it does here. The local town main car park has 4 charging points and I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen an empty bay. Always occupied by electric vehicles unless they have had fake charging cable installed :roll: and I've seen the same cars left plugged in for hours.

I don't drive an electric car and need / prefer 4x4 so until the size and spec of vehicle becomes affordable I won't be changing and I think that will be quite a while yet. I certainly will consider a hybrid when the time comes.

BTW I don't remember ever making a special trip or even detour to a filling station and imo anyone who does needs to get their life organised and as far as having to queue because the pumps are occupied, of course that happens but it's usually just a few minutes not possibility of the few hours waiting for a charging point.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Well certainly looking at this chart from 2018, off-shore wind looks just a tad more expensive than coal or even nuclear ! And they both keep going when there's no wind.

Onshore wind is currently much less than offshore - not surprising as every aspect of installation (foundations, cables, erection etc) and subsequent maintenance and repair is subject to often adverse weather conditions and delays.

There is an issue with wind variability - it should probably only be part of an energy mix, not the basis for an entire strategy. Nuclear is a possibility in my view, using coal for energy is a step back into the dark ages (in more ways than one).

 

[jeremyduncombe]

That is partly true. Increased CO2 concentrations will give an initial boost to plant growth, and so do increasing temperatures. However, when average temperatures pass a certain point, a plant’s ability to absorb and use carbon dioxide reduces. If we all accept that increasing atmospheric CO2 ( whether manmade or not ) eventually leads to global warming, we will sooner or later reach a point when plant growth slows sharply and CO2 levels therefore increase ever faster. I don’t know when or whether we will get to that point - but maybe it would be better not to find out the hard way.

That's interesting. Would you be kind enough to provide a link or two, or indicate at what temperature a plant's ability to absorb carbon dioxide reduces, and by how much it's ability to absorb reduces? Does this happen at one or two degrees centigrade above current temperatures (which seems rather improbable, given that most plants grow better in summer conditions than winter ones), or at tens of degrees centigrade above (which even the most alarmist forecasts of global warming fall short of)?

If you want some rather heavy bedtime reading, try this: https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi ... /nph.15283.

It can be summarised ( very roughly! ) as:

1) A bit of warming probably increases CO2 uptake by many plants;
2) A lot of warming probably reduces CO2 absorption by many plants. Some trees may be able to acclimatise to higher temperatures, but others may not;
3) But ( from this and lots of other studies ) the biggest effect seems to be from increased global temperatures increasing drought risks across large areas of the globe, with consequent reductions in plant growth.

So I can’t quote a temperature rise at which effects will suddenly happen. Some areas are already experiencing more frequent droughts and lower growth, but it is always difficult to pin this directly on climate change. The only thing I can safely say is that rising atmospheric CO2 will not automatically lead to faster plant growth, and may eventually lead to the opposite.

No sign of a drought in my garden right now.

 

[Lons]

My neighbour currently has a leased Jag F pace and he's had a 48 hour trial of an I pace over the weekend, a very nice car which I drove 5 miles yesterday and was astonished at the smooth, lightning fast acceleration, around 4 seconds he told me though it took a bit of getting used to it's quiet and impressive apart from road noise.

Would I consider one? Well possibly if cost wasn't an issue but for most of us it is. I was interested enough to do a comparison with my current car last night and it's pretty shocking tbh.

I currently have a very highly specified GLC 4x4 SUV which to replace new would be around £47k. An equivalent I pace with less equipment would cost a wopping £75k, so £28k / almost 60% more expensive. No guessing what my decision would be it would have to be a **** of an argument to persuade me even if I could afford so way in the future as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Lots of people are expressing shock/horror at the capital cost of a renewable (wind) infrastructure, but apparently fail to understand that future running costs are maintenance only and require no fuel or reprocessing plants.

The accepted approach is to compare the levelized costs of different energy sources. These seek to estimate the whole life costs taking into account initial investment, maintenance, fuel costs, major in life upgrades etc.

There are several estimates made in these calculations which needs to look forward at efficiencies and costs over several decades. But to focus on capital costs and exclude any running costs is (at the very least) somewhat simplistic.

I hope you're not going to apply that logic to nuclear power! We'll be in all sorts of trouble if you look at total costs for building, running, and decommissioning.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

That is partly true. Increased CO2 concentrations will give an initial boost to plant growth, and so do increasing temperatures. However, when average temperatures pass a certain point, a plant’s ability to absorb and use carbon dioxide reduces. If we all accept that increasing atmospheric CO2 ( whether manmade or not ) eventually leads to global warming, we will sooner or later reach a point when plant growth slows sharply and CO2 levels therefore increase ever faster. I don’t know when or whether we will get to that point - but maybe it would be better not to find out the hard way.

That's interesting. Would you be kind enough to provide a link or two, or indicate at what temperature a plant's ability to absorb carbon dioxide reduces, and by how much it's ability to absorb reduces? Does this happen at one or two degrees centigrade above current temperatures (which seems rather improbable, given that most plants grow better in summer conditions than winter ones), or at tens of degrees centigrade above (which even the most alarmist forecasts of global warming fall short of)?

If you want some rather heavy bedtime reading, try this: https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi ... /nph.15283.

It can be summarised ( very roughly! ) as:

1) A bit of warming probably increases CO2 uptake by many plants;
2) A lot of warming probably reduces CO2 absorption by many plants. Some trees may be able to acclimatise to higher temperatures, but others may not;
3) But ( from this and lots of other studies ) the biggest effect seems to be from increased global temperatures increasing drought risks across large areas of the globe, with consequent reductions in plant growth.

So I can’t quote a temperature rise at which effects will suddenly happen. Some areas are already experiencing more frequent droughts and lower growth, but it is always difficult to pin this directly on climate change. The only thing I can safely say is that rising atmospheric CO2 will not automatically lead to faster plant growth, and may eventually lead to the opposite.

No sign of a drought in my garden right now.

Most, but not all plants increase productivity up to about 1,000 ppm. They evolved with that level of CO2. The increase is impressive - up to 50% more/faster growth - it's not just some theoretical, statistical difference. At the end of the last ice age CO2 levels were so low (180ppm) it was touch and go as to whether photosynthesis could actually take place at all - I have seen figures ranging from 50-170ppm as being the cut-off. People talk about the very close grain in bog Oak, and I wonder if this is due in some part to the slow growth due to lack of CO2 in the atmosphere - just my idle speculation, not anything I have seen tested.

As for plants being unable to cope with high temperatures, the effect on pollination is more pronounced than on growth generally, but the trivial increases in "average" temperatures is hardly going to make a difference - it will as you say be the extremes that cause the issue. The 3°C catastrophe projected by the IPCC is only going to be a worry if it causes desertification (how I hate that word, misused by the us army who "desertize" their tanks, probably with the letter zee). I have always assumed that more energy in the system means more evaporation of water from the sea which means more precipitation, but it won't be evenly spread. How is your current precipitation?

Oh, and it has been significantly warmer than it is currently several times, for prolonged periods, since the last ice age. Plants seem to have coped with it then, so I wouldn't worry too much.

 

[RogerS]

Lots of people are expressing shock/horror at the capital cost of a renewable (wind) infrastructure, but apparently fail to understand that future running costs are maintenance only and require no fuel or reprocessing plants.

The accepted approach is to compare the levelized costs of different energy sources. These seek to estimate the whole life costs taking into account initial investment, maintenance, fuel costs, major in life upgrades etc.

There are several estimates made in these calculations which needs to look forward at efficiencies and costs over several decades. But to focus on capital costs and exclude any running costs is (at the very least) somewhat simplistic.

I hope you're not going to apply that logic to nuclear power! We'll be in all sorts of trouble if you look at total costs for building, running, and decommissioning.

Not sure what point you're making. Figures for nuclear are there in the chart I posted.

 

[Blackswanwood]

My neighbour currently has a leased Jag F pace and he's had a 48 hour trial of an I pace over the weekend, a very nice car which I drove 5 miles yesterday and was astonished at the smooth, lightning fast acceleration, around 4 seconds he told me though it took a bit of getting used to it's quiet and impressive apart from road noise.

Would I consider one? Well possibly if cost wasn't an issue but for most of us it is. I was interested enough to do a comparison with my current car last night and it's pretty shocking tbh.

I currently have a very highly specified GLC 4x4 SUV which to replace new would be around £47k. An equivalent I pace with less equipment would cost a wopping £75k, so £28k / almost 60% more expensive. No guessing what my decision would be it would have to be a **** of an argument to persuade me even if I could afford so way in the future as far as I'm concerned.

I can relate to that Lons having recently been through the same thought process when we changed my wife’s car. My expectation is that we will see prices converge over the next couple of years particularly as major fleets switch over.

While £’s will be a factor for commercial fleets it will be impossible for many large employers achieve their publicly committed sustainability targets without making this move. My employer is taking the plunge with 5,000 plus car users now renewing on a cycle that only gives the options of electric or hybrid.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Lots of people are expressing shock/horror at the capital cost of a renewable (wind) infrastructure, but apparently fail to understand that future running costs are maintenance only and require no fuel or reprocessing plants.

The accepted approach is to compare the levelized costs of different energy sources. These seek to estimate the whole life costs taking into account initial investment, maintenance, fuel costs, major in life upgrades etc.

There are several estimates made in these calculations which needs to look forward at efficiencies and costs over several decades. But to focus on capital costs and exclude any running costs is (at the very least) somewhat simplistic.

I hope you're not going to apply that logic to nuclear power! We'll be in all sorts of trouble if you look at total costs for building, running, and decommissioning.

Not sure what point you're making. Figures for nuclear are there in the chart I posted.

Does it clude the cost of waste disposal/storage, and plant decommissioning? Neither are trivial. https://www.energydigital.com/utilities ... ower-plant

 

[RogerS]

I hope you're not going to apply that logic to nuclear power! We'll be in all sorts of trouble if you look at total costs for building, running, and decommissioning.

Not sure what point you're making. Figures for nuclear are there in the chart I posted.

Does it clude the cost of waste disposal/storage, and plant decommissioning? Neither are trivial. https://www.energydigital.com/utilities ... ower-plant

Yes it does...

The costs include the initial capital, and the costs of continuous operation, fuel, and maintenance as well as the costs of de-commissioning and remediating any environmental damage.

 

[Geoff_S]

My neighbour currently has a leased Jag F pace and he's had a 48 hour trial of an I pace over the weekend, a very nice car which I drove 5 miles yesterday and was astonished at the smooth, lightning fast acceleration, around 4 seconds he told me though it took a bit of getting used to it's quiet and impressive apart from road noise.

Would I consider one? Well possibly if cost wasn't an issue but for most of us it is. I was interested enough to do a comparison with my current car last night and it's pretty shocking tbh.

I currently have a very highly specified GLC 4x4 SUV which to replace new would be around £47k. An equivalent I pace with less equipment would cost a wopping £75k, so £28k / almost 60% more expensive. No guessing what my decision would be it would have to be a **** of an argument to persuade me even if I could afford so way in the future as far as I'm concerned.

For what it’s worth, I remove my shirt ready for a flaying

Obviously, any car that I look at is what I can afford at that point in time.

But whenever I have looked at buying a new car vs new car, or new vs second-hand, this is the way I calculate it. Obviously, there are other variables to consider, cash or loan, pay interest on loan or lose interest on savings, mpg vs miles per kWh, miles per year, actual depreciation etc, but for me it has always been a good starting point. And I just plug in the variables for the specifics at the time.

I personally try to keep a new car for up to 10 years, but have been known to trade after 5 years, so I do my calculations for 5 and 10 years.

I depreciate the car by 20% each year for 5/10 years.

I do 12000 miles per year.

I assume 3ppm for EV, 23ppm for ICE.

5 Year Calculation

An ICE car price of £47,000 after 5 years is going to be worth £15,401, a cost to me of £31,599.

An EV car price of £75,000 after 5 years is going to be worth £24,576, a cost to me of £50,424

Over 5 years the additional cost of the EV is £18,825, not £28,000.

But over 5 years I have had a 20ppm saving at 12000 miles per year is £12,000.

So, the EV has cost me an extra £6,825 over 5 years, not £28,000.

10 Year Calculation

An ICE car price of £47,000 after 10 years is going to be worth £5,047, a cost to me of £41,953.

An EV car price of £75,000 after 5 years is going to be worth £8,053, a cost to me of £66,947.

Over 10 years the additional cost of the EV is £24,994, not £28,000.

But over 10 years I have had a 20ppm saving at 12000 miles per year is £24,000.

So, the EV has cost me an extra £994 over 10 years, not £28,000.

Summary

The potential savings on EV really make a huge difference but yes, I am using a crystal ball here and maybe/probably/certainly things can change.

I applied this calculation to a number of scenarios and in a lot of cases (Tesla excluded because they are so expensive), it sort of works and I came to the conclusion that I would never save money with an EV over ICE, but over the life of the car, it wasn’t really going to cost me that much more.

As it happens, I bought a Golf EV which actually cost less than a Golf diesel and about the same as the Golf petrol. Those deals are out there.

It works for me, but I do understand that everyone is different in all sorts of ways.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

These figures broadly make sense - EVs are just about competitive over an extended "whole life" ownership in financial terms, although range and charging infrastructure still concern many. It makes little impact on those (most of us) who cannot afford, or don't want to buy, a new car.

What will happen to the future upfront costs of purchase:

- EV cost reductions driven by improved battery technology and economies of scale should reduce prices over the next few years.

- potential for cost reduction on ICE is more limited - although if EV sales increase the response is likely to be reduced prices to use spare capacity.

The complete unknown of course is when the tax regime will change to penalise EVs as the government will want to replace ICE tax revenues which will fall.

 

[Lons]

I can see what you're saying Geoff and we're all different but in particular regarding your statement that you keep a car for up to 10 years. I would suggest that most people don't do that and in my case the longest I've had a car is 3.5 years and shortest exactly 12 months. I rarely buy a brand new car these days btw to avoid the financial hit when it leaves the showroom, my current car for example was 6 weeks old with £8k off the list price.

Technology moves at a pace and a car that is now 10 years old is archaic compared to one I could buy new today.
I would be extremely wary of buying a 10 year old EV probably needing batteries at likely extortionate cost whereas my car at the same age would have maybe 70k miles on the clock and still be good for that mileage again.

OK all over simplistic and crystal ball gazing but one size doesn't fit all and we really don't quite know how developments will pan out but in my case I can't identify with your calculations. I also note you haven't included cost of setting up charging points at home.

My wife would like to replace her current Mini Cooper Clubman, now 3.5 years old with an electric Mini and while I'm in favour it just doesn't stack up at the minute to change so we're hanging on to see what happens.

 

[Lons]

The complete unknown of course is when the tax regime will change to penalise EVs as the government will want to replace ICE tax revenues which will fall.

I think we all know what's going to happen Terry in the same way that when huge numbers of us took government advice and changed to diesel it didn't take long before they slapped 5p a litre extra tax on to claw back falling revenues.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

I wonder what the value of a 10 year old EV will be. I wonder how you would even start to predict it. So much can happen in 10 years. At the moment second hand EV prices are inflated by scarcity. But if they become more common, or the new price falls ? If technology does advance, could they become about as desirable as a 10 year old PC ? And the battery is so much of the cost, will it ever be worth replacing the battery, or does a significantly degraded battery make it scrap value only ? Like phones and other tech, perhaps they will become a throw away item.

I think it is quite likely that second hand ICE vehicles in good condition may be worth quite a premium at some point in the future. Except that the government will probably heavily load taxes onto them. Once they are gone, the tax breaks for EV's will not last long.