Strong electric car sales expected for 2024, but charging grid needs work The International Energy Agency (IEA) is reminding governments to match the continued rapid growth of electric car sales with infrastructure improvements. In the annual Global EV Outlook, the IEA estimates that China is leading the way in global electric car indstry. According to the report, EV sales in the country are …
Here in Blighty, EV adoption is mostly a salary sacrifice/tax avoiding lease arrangement where the punters might as well save 40+% tax when getting a new motor. This means someone who might privately buy a £40k car can grab a £70/80/90k car for effectively the same monthly payments. The Germans were quite happy to oblige with things like the e-Tron range, Taycan etc...
In other words, they've focused on the top end of the market which has left no progress on cheap, mass market motors for the plebs. And those expensive motors depreciate like a brick and languish on the used market at 25% of list when only 3 years old. Even then, not many people want to spend £20k on a motor that might suddenly identify as a battery-less car and need another £20k spending on it.
Not sure where this extra demand will come from as most people with a tax-avoiding company car already have one.
Only the availability of cheaper EVs or banning petrol/diesels will increase demand in any meaningful way. Or, maybe if the tax advantages of a company car could be extended to the used market then the huge swathes of ex-lease EVs would find a buyer rather than being 'recycled'.
If someone builds a *cheap* "small city car " that's electric, it will sell like hot cakes. Most of the petrol cars in that class (in the UK) have been discontinued over the last 2 or 3 years, meaning that if someone can sell an electric version for a little more than the price of the petrol versions, there is an absolutely huge market.
I direct your attention to the Dacia Spring, which will come to the UK later this year, priced from £14,995 - Only £1200 more than their Sandero (Currently the UK's cheapest brand-new combustion car).
"Someone builds" implies a new car, not a used one.
For "city car" use, you can get a used 24kWh Nissan Leaf from around £2000 on Auto Trader, which will have a 50-60 mile range.
The point being that your home electricity can be as low as 9p per kWh overnight on certain tariffs, compared with north of £1.50 per litre this week.
The trouble with an old banger is that it's an old banger..... Don't get me wrong, I drive a car that's ~25 years old, and intend to try and keep it going for another 5 years or so, but you've got to have a good understanding of what the problems with the old banger might be, and be prepared to either repair it yourself or pay someone else when something critical goes wrong, or just write off the car and buy another one. A lot of people aren't happy in an old car because of this.
Going back to electric cars, you *could* buy a 2nd hand Renault Zoe for about £5000, but you then either have to lease the battery from Renault or buy it off them (another £2500 to £3000, I believe, for an old Zoe battery) Does anyone have any thoughts on whether that's a good deal....?
There are few rental battery Zoes left on the roads. Renault stopped doing it altogether in 2019.
I know of an EV trader who bought a 110,000 mile 2020 Zoe at auction for under £5000.
The car can _still_ do over 200 miles on a charge.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHhiqu7LB3YV_61j7_eoSD72RTfl4N5Dh
I know plenty of people who drive such old bangers and they don't have much issues. If something is wrong (rarely) they go to their local mechanic and get things sorted. Usually don't need to do anything apart from yearly service and MOT.
It's not like you buy a new EV and you will have smooth sailing.
Old petrol car does not need you to have a drive way or dedicated charging space and babysit the battery.
> If something is wrong (rarely) they go to their local mechanic and get things sorted. Usually don't need to do anything apart from yearly service and MOT.
Sure, and while they're doing the MOT the loan vehicle is a pink fluffy unicorn. I'm now starting to wonder if you've ever actually owned a car.
> It's not like you buy a new EV and you will have smooth sailing.
Petrol and diesel cars by contrast, literally never fail. They are perfect in every way, down to their cute little button noses.
Look, by now we all get that you think EVs are terrible, and it's clear that those of us that actually have them disagree. So you carry on spinning your fictions. I'm pretty happy with my two fault-free (so far, naturally) EVs. No, they're not Teslas.
Sure, and while they're doing the MOT the loan vehicle is a pink fluffy unicorn. I'm now starting to wonder if you've ever actually owned a car.
Maybe your EV needs to sit in service for months at a time, but typically car is done the same day and rarely stays overnight. With my car I only had one instance where it had to stay in for a week, because they had parts shortage. For such a short event there is no need to hassle yourself with a loaner. Uber and public transport will do fine for a day or two.
those of us that actually have them
You come off as very insecure and as someone probably having a buyer's remorse.
"You're still ignoring the facts, that EVs are far cheaper to own than ICE vehicles."
They can be depending on what you buy, but there's a big cost upfront. The question on ROI is how much you drive. Also one should take into consideration the cost of parts that can get broken in the normal course of driving. Headlights, windscreens, etc. If a replacement headlight is $900 and a windscreen $1,200, it can be down to luck if one or both need to be repaired each year. After that, you have to know whether you can get the parts in a short period of time or if the manufacturer is famous for long lead times.
When there's an EV that can give a real 450 miles on a charge, doesn't depreciate to 25% of its purchase price as soon as you leave the showroom, is certain to have the same battery capacity as new in four year's time, and (here's the real deal breaker) can charge to 450 miles range in 3 minutes from empty (like my ICE car can), then I'll consider getting one.
Road Tax should be linearly proportional to the weight of the vehicle - battery powered cars would cost about 3 times as much as ICE car, which would reflect the increased wear & tear on the roads.
It's quite interesting to compare the Insurance quotes for ICE cars against EVs - perhaps the incredibly high premiums are due to the propensity of EV battery fires to destroy the vehicle completely (and often damage others nearby).
EVs are a technological dead-end. They'll be history in a year or two!
"Road Tax should be linearly proportional to the weight of the vehicle - battery powered cars would cost about 3 times as much as ICE car, which would reflect the increased wear & tear on the roads."
Certainly not a linear relationship, whether it's as strong as the fourth power or not is up for debate... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law)
"It's quite interesting to compare the Insurance quotes for ICE cars against EVs - perhaps the incredibly high premiums are due to the propensity of EV battery fires to destroy the vehicle completely (and often damage others nearby)."
You drinking too much petrol again? ICE vehicles are far more likely to catch fire and get gutted than EVs. High premiums are a fact of all car insurance nowadays by all accounts.
"EVs are a technological dead-end. They'll be history in a year or two!"
Nope - that's ICE.
You see when you can make and ICE vehicle that doesn't depreciate to 25% of its purchase price as soon as you leave the showroom, is certain to have the same power available as new in four year's time, and (here's the real deal breaker) can refuel at home whilst I sleep (like my EV can), then I'll consider getting one.
"When there's an EV that can give a real 450 miles on a charge,"
Wow, you can go ~7-9 hours on one bladder? After that, you only need 3 minutes for a break including filling up the petrol tank and can do the same again? /sarc
It's a very worn straw-man argument that makes zero sense when analyzed.
"I know plenty of people who drive such old bangers and they don't have much issues. If something is wrong (rarely) they go to their local mechanic and get things sorted. Usually don't need to do anything apart from yearly service and MOT."
"Old petrol car does not need you to have a drive way or dedicated charging space and babysit the battery."
Petrol cars do require alot more maintenance and servicing. Need more brakes, fluids, seals... have more wear items.
They also require a huge amount of petrol... which is expensive, and inconvenient. I know you're used to the inconvenience, but that doesn't stop it being inconvenient.
I don't know anyone that "babysits" their battery, at least any more than "I leave the setting in the car to not ram as many electrons as possible, except when I have a long journey coming up".
And dedicated charging spaces aren't necessary, you just need access to some...
Although to be honest 5kWh/day isn't a huge ask - that's about a 10kg battery - light enough to take into the office or into your home, and charge it over several hours then take it back to the vehicle. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
"Although to be honest 5kWh/day isn't a huge ask - that's about a 10kg battery - light enough to take into the office or into your home, and charge it over several hours then take it back to the vehicle."
The reality is that EV's with a very small battery/range aren't going to appeal to people even if their needs would point them at one. You will most often get a "yeah, but" if you mention it. There's also the incremental cost of adding a bit more battery not increasing the price enough in comparison to the vehicle build cost without the battery at all. I was considering a used early Nissan Leaf that would get ~70 miles of range when I was hoping to get a job not too far away. There was free charging at the location so the majority of the time I'd get all of my electrons for nothing. I would have still kept my petrol car, just driven it less. There's no reason for the overwhelming number of people to get an EV with more than 300 or so miles of range. There's more public charging available than most non-EV drivers realize and more being installed all of the time. Even 300 miles is a bit beyond since there aren't many people that can go that far between meals and visits to the loo, especially when more than one person is along. It just adds a bit of margin for the times when you need to run the HVAC full blast while bucking a head wind and going 90mph.
"If someone builds a *cheap* "small city car " that's electric, it will sell like hot cakes"
Vauxhall e-corsa. Full electric, decent enough. Starts at £27,000. £27k for what is only a Corsa! So that fails on the cheap criterion. Add stuff beyond the base model and you can spend over £38k, for a Corsa!
My I direct you to the 'Dacia Spring' mentioned above, plus all the 'used' ones seeping on to the market.
But, we're hardly out of the starting blocks on EVs at this stage, so 'early adopter' syndrome is still rife. It'll be a few years yet before we all pretty much take owning an EV for granted—assuming we all live long enough for that to be a thing, instead of leading a buffalo pulling a cart.
"The Dacia claims 137 miles range, so real-world that's 100 miles. Fine for a city runabout, but it certainly wouldn't work for me except as a second car."
That could be a good thing if you also want/need a heavier vehicle for dragging a caravan/trailer around that is very unnecessary when commuting to work and back 5 days a week. My dad did that only with a small petrol car since, at the time, there were no EV's on the market. Driving the Ford pickup needed for the horse ranch to his regular job as a pharmacist was wearing out the truck and the bank balance. The savings in vehicle expenses more than paid for a new entry level Ford Fiesta to run into the ground.
"The Dacia claims 137 miles range, so real-world that's 100 miles. Fine for a city runabout, but it certainly wouldn't work for me except as a second car."
Cheap enough, it can be a perfect fit for a city planning/inspector office to use to visit building sites. It might work well reconfigured by a third party (or not) for short distance courier work. If you are a print shop in Birmingham that delivers, a small, cheap EV can be just the ticket.
New tech always begins at the high end of the scale, as that's how it gets paid for - this isn't something new. You're spot on about the tax implications for company car users though - my Mrs effectively gained a £200/mo pay rise by going from petrol to petrol hybrid and, two years later, the charging cable remains in its wrapper and the CO2 emissions (via increased fuel use because of hauling a heavy battery around) are way higher than the ICE car's were. Having said that, when this car hits its next - presumably private - owner, they'll have more impetus to actually charge it and therefore benefit from its electrical ability, albeit without quite the tax gain the original company driver gets. Charging a PHEV for a corporate user is rarely/never going to happen - u remunerated on our home electricity or sitting at a public charger *as well as a pump*? Nah...
I'd be delighted if you could show me a three-year-old Taycan for 25% of its original cost, mind.
Tax and subsidy shenanigans are definitely a problem, in the sense that while promoting uptake they actually incentivize manufacturers to keep prices high.Better remove the subsidies and allow EVs to compete purely on merit, while making registration and road tax for EVs cheaper.
"depreciate like a brick and languish on the used market at 25% of list when only 3 years old"
I haven't seen any data on that but it sounds wrong, I'd expect a 3-year old car to anyway be at around 50% of purchase. With regard to "suddenly identify as a battery-less car ":
" Numerous studies and real-world data show that the average Tesla battery can retain up to 90% of its charge capacity even after 200,000 miles. " (yes that's a Tesla-related source, but even retaining 90% after 100,000 miles would mean a 3-year-old car driven 1000 mi/mth has easily another 7-10 years life in it ). And of course that's only going to get better the newer a car is, for example latest solid-state batteries are indicating 95% retention after 1000 charge cycles (ie at least 200k miles)
"Only the availability of cheaper EVs or banning petrol/diesels will increase demand in any meaningful way"
Absolutely! But traditional manufacturers don't want to cut prices on EVs because it would undercut their ICE range (also think about it, if you're an exec at say Mercedes, you can't sell any ICE cars in the EU after 2035, you want to make sure you sell as many of them as possible before then). That's also why noises are being made about banning Chinese EVs in the US
Just why should road tax be cheaper for EVs?
They weigh significantly more than an equivalent ICE car and cause commensurately more damage to the roads. Less tax means less funding available to repair them.
Road tax should be based on how much it costs for maintain the roads. Heavy cars cause more damage than lighter ones. Basic physics.
It should not be based on vehicle emissions, since all that does is take money ouf of the potential fund for road repair. ICE drivers already pay an effective emissions tax per mile driven, it's called fuel duty and is paid every time you refuel.
Because if we did that, the road haulage industry would see its costs go through the roof and destroy a nice little deal they've had going since the then government had Beeching destroy the railway system to force everything onto the roads.
Road tax was historically cheaper (i.e. non-existent) for BEVs as an incentive for consumers to purchase BEVs, bearing in mind that they are expensive vehicles to buy. The incentive is being withdrawn in 2025.
The top five heaviest cars on the road are not EVs. Should they pay more road tax for road repairs? Roads are designed to carry buses, vans, lorries and all manner of heavy vehicles. Road damage is far from "commensurate", as there are many factors that contribute to poxy potholes on UK roads.
It is is very basic physics indeed if you imagine that a few hundred kilograms additional weight will contribute much to the state of our roads. If you are that worried, you can chip in to charity every time you carry a few passengers in your car.
Road repairs are paid through general taxation. Road tax (or Vehicle Excise Duty to give it its proper name) is not hypothecated, and has not been for many years. The VAT charged on a new BEV likely amounts to more than you will ever pay in road tax for an ICEV.
Modern high performance tyres are as much to blame - they have more contact area and are designed to literally suck the road surface, causing more damage than yer grandad's old skinny radials.Who knows, a small light ICE sports car whipping along may be just as bad as a slowly driven BEV SUV...
EVs are generally at least 30% heavier for the same class of car, and damage to the road is to the forth power of weight, which means almost 3x as much as an ICE.
While an an electric car isn't as heavy as a fully loaded van or a lorry, there are a lot more cars on the roads, and particularly on local roads that are (poorly) maintained by local authorities, which are exactly the ones suffering far more damage this year, despite a mild winter.
"The top five heaviest cars on the road are not EVs.
In the US, many states base registration fees partially on the weight of the car. Most people don't even take that into consideration when choosing an urban assault vehicle's color and trim level. It is what it is.
I never worry about The Man collecting and raising taxes and nobody else should either as it's a given.
"The VAT charged on a new BEV likely amounts to more than you will ever pay in road tax for an ICEV."
In the US, some states are charging an EV fee on the annual registration that can work out to more money than one would pay in fuel taxes for a reasonably efficient car. The Government® isn't going to go wanting when it comes to excuses for raising taxes. California asked voters to approve a rise in fuel tax to go strictly for roads. The dirty secret is the figures they claimed over 10 years were negated by the bill only requiring the money be earmarked exclusively for roads for 5 years and then the legislature voted a year or so later to change the law as passed so the money went into the general fund without the earmarks. This is why you never vote for new or increased taxes no matter what they promise.
"Road tax should be based on how much it costs for maintain the roads"
In the UK, "road tax" (Vehicle Excise Duty) goes into the common tax pool -- it's not (and hasn't been for ages) dedicated to road maintenance. So the zero duty for EVs is merely a nudge to drive take up plus a nod to the "green agenda" (which is why older ICE cars get charged more).
"They weigh significantly more than an equivalent ICE car and cause commensurately more damage to the roads. Less tax means less funding available to repair them."
Some EV's weigh less than an ICEV and some weigh more. If you are parking your 1-ton dually pickup and instead using an EV for your daily commute, the roads are winning. Roads are also constructed to handle HGV's so a "heavy" passenger car is still well under those design specs. Paving also deteriorates if it gets no use at all just from weathering so it's a question of what point of usage/weight is the need for maintenance rapidly increasing.
I've found that everything in engineering is a compromise. You optimize one parameter and another needs to become less so to balance. If the goal is cleaner air, less noise and more convenience, the EV can be a win. If you don't have off-street parking where you can charge, you lose on the convenience and likely cost savings as well by using public chargers. A lot of blighty is already difficult for cars since it was built at a time when horses and carts were the norm and never updated so changing fuels where a major advantage is parking and charging at home might be additive to the issues. There's also a big difference between the UK/Europe and US when it comes to homes. A garage and off-street parking is far more prevalent in the US outside of big city centers so an EV can be an easier choice. That said, an electric taxi in a big city can be a very good fit. While it can take battery to keep the cabin warm in the winter, that's less polluting than sitting with an engine idling. EV's also really shine in stop and go traffic and 250 miles would be a couple of shifts.
You seem to be confused.
Road Tax was abolished in 1936.
Vehicle Excise Duty (or car tax if you will) is not what funds the maintenance of our roads any more than tax on alcohol funds our breweries, or tobacco taxes fund cigarette manufacture or ash trays.
"also think about it, if you're an exec at say Mercedes, you can't sell any ICE cars in the EU after 2035, you want to make sure you sell as many of them as possible before then"
It may also be more advantageous for makers to support older cars by manufacturing and stocking parts for far longer than has been common in the past. An OEM might even consider a program to take used ICE's and rebuild them on a line to sell again which could lead to high quality replacement engines being much less expensive. A low mileage used engine for my current car is not that expensive and not too difficult to perform a swap. While I'd love an EV, the economics just don't work when for far less I can swap engines and paint my current car and not take on any debt to do it. I'd be good for at least another 150,000 miles.
"might suddenly identify as a battery-less car "
As opposed to an ICEv suddenly identifying as an engine less car... which is *far* more likely... Batteries degrade, gradually, gracefully. they don't just stop at random.
You're far more likely to be stranded by a failure on an ICE, which has thousands of moving parts - and pretty much any of them can fail, causing the whole thing to come to a grinding halt.
Specifically looking at EV batteries, mostly because they tend have decent BMS on board.
But it's not only those... Your Lead Acid battery (not really comparable with the traction battery of an EV) was probably showing signs of age for a while, it's just that it's not used that much.
EVs can also suffer from 12V battery failure - which is why some are coming with better 12V battery systems - they don't need a 12V system capable of delivering 100A, just enough to close the contactors in the battery pack.
"Batteries degrade, gradually, gracefully. they don't just stop at random."
The way batteries degrade is, first slowly, then suddenly. But there are usually plenty of warning signs that the 'suddenly' is coming... usually when a battery still has 90% of it's 'as new' capacity it's very unlikely to suddenly refuse to charge or completely lose the rest of it's capacity. Even with the 'suddenly', it can go rapidly to max capacity 50% or less, but again that 'rapidly' is a few days or wees, not a few seconds.
In any case I agree with the general sentiment that they won't just give out mid-drive as can happen with many essential parts of an ICE
It's not unreasonable to interpret that as the next step. Since most people can't afford an EV, banning an ICE car will effectively make poor people carless. Another step toward returning to feudal society where the lords ride around in comfortable private vehicles and the peasants have to walk or cram into public transport. And isn't it a great way to eliminate all this traffic congestion.
"And the "smart" motorways will become "toll" motorways."
Motorways are already toll motorways in vast swathes of Europe, there is nothing unusual or sinister in that. You can argue either way as to whether that type of tax is progressive or regressive, helpful or harmful to the economy or whatever, but it is simply another way for government to raise revenue, not part of a grand hidden plan by the illuminati lizard-people to enslave the masses.
"Since most people can't afford an EV...."
At the moment no, just like in the 1920s. and 30s. and 40s. and a good chunk of the 50s. It took a long time for ICE cars to be truly affordable to the masses. EVs are still at the point of their maturity where they are still expensive. That will change as technology improves, production methods improve, supply chains improve etc.
"EVs are still at the point of their maturity where they are still expensive." Meh - not really true any more.
Yes, their capital cost is still slightly higher, but the operational cost is so much lower that their actual cost is already lower than ICE...
#vimesboots applies.
"#vimesboots applies."
The paradigm changes when you are financing the purchase and paying insurance and registration that can be calculated as a percentage of the price or some assumed "value". If you buy your boots outright and take the hit on your cash to save money over the long term, that's one thing. If you are paying for premium boots plus another 25%, you could be better off with the cheaper models. Cars, unlike boots, change frequently and one's needs can also change while your shoe size is pretty stable past a certain age.
There's other nuances as well. Boot cleaner and polish is universal. A Tesla outside of the US and China will use CCS for charging. In the US, if Tesla were to rethink it's charger strategy (cheeky, but let's go out on a limb here), it's further from a standard pair of boots even it was superior to other choices.
In many other cases I'm a firm believer in the vimesboots theory. I'll buy a cheap tool at an estate sale, but if I'm buying new, it's nearly always a top brand with a lifetime guarantee.
In the US the average car on the road is 12 years old. Even if they kept the 2035 date they have given for passenger car sales to be 100% EV (which they won't, just like improved mileage standards it will get pushed back, probably multiple times) that would mean the earliest possible date to "ban" ICE cars would be in the 2050s. Even then they'd have to make allowances for classic vehicles and the like, just like you can still legally drive model Ts or whatever that wouldn't pass a roadworthiness inspection (in the states they still do those)
This is just FUD being drilled into right wing brains by big oil with the full cooperation of Faux News, and they're falling for it. You'd think having Musk on their side would ease that up a bit, but I guess not. I wonder how long before he realizes the side he's supporting politically would love to see Tesla bankrupt?
I imagine the average age of cars is similar in the UK/EU, so the situation would be pretty much the same.
"Of course over time getting petrol will become a specialist endeavour."
I suspect the price of gasoline/petrol will plummet due to a major glut on the market, should EVs ever become a significant fraction of road cars. Really, think about it ... We will still be pulling the same amount of crude out of the ground, because we use it for so many other things. Do you really think they will simply dump the vehicle fuel fractions? Sure, some of it will no doubt be used for other things ... but all of it? Nah. Ain't going to happen.
I'm not hoping for anything, and don't have a dawg in this race. My passenger fleet is running on self-produced, ultra-green, carbon-sink ethanol.
My comment was just simple economics. If there is a glut, the price will plummet. There WILL be a glut, because we don't have anything else to use the fuel fractions for, and yet we have to produce them as a by-product of everything else that we use petroleum for.
I suspect the price of gasoline/petrol will plummet due to a major glut on the market
That seems very unlikely. Oil companies won't keep producing at the same level if demand falls, OPEC is a cartel. They'll cut production. There might be short lived periods of low prices here and there, as major producers like Saudi Arabia glut the market to reduce the supply by bankrupting higher cost producers.
As EVs grow it'll eventually cause there to be fewer gas stations, which won't be a problem for a while because most places have them everywhere, but at some point it'll become more of a pain to fill your tank. Reduced competition from other stations will allow them to increase their margins.
Governments in some places will try to squeeze out the last 10-20% of stubborn ICE buyers (if there isn't the political will for a complete ban on sale of ICEs or that's years off) by raising gas taxes to make EVs better. Today you're getting the carrot (tax credits) but at some point you'll get the stick.
"I suspect the price of gasoline/petrol will plummet due to a major glut on the market, should EVs ever become a significant fraction of road cars. Really, think about it ..."
They'll be a glut initially until oil producers prioritize other products. The list of things made with crude oil is pages and pages. If transportation fuel sales inch down and it looks to be a permanent trend, capacity will be taken off-line until it's permanently deleted. That will level off and possibly start making the cost of those fuels rise.
"They're not banning them, they're just stopping the sale of new ones."
Ok, let's be pedantic:
They plan to BAN the sales of new ICEV cars.
To implement a total ban on ICEV's would result in unrest and the need for politicians to move their households to military bases where they could be protected not just from the masses, but every company as well. The military has in officer training manuals that it's never a good idea to issue orders that won't be obeyed. If politicians would learn that it's useless to pass laws that won't be enforced/prosecuted, they'd be far more useful.
While new ICEV sales get banned, how will that apply to "used" cars that are reconditioned with a new power train? Given the cost of new EV's, de-mating an ICEV and bolting on a re-manufactured drive train might be more cost effective for people. One by one can be expensive, but in quantity with fixtures and tooling, it might not be that bad.
"that would mean the earliest possible date to "ban" ICE cars would be in the 2050s."
My personal opinion is that EV's are a very good replacement for an ICEV in many cases. Not for all people, but some people with cars at all aren't a good fit for the same reasons (no parking, limited fueling options or very minimal needs that can be met with public transportation). If I'm not completely bonkers, there would be no need for banning anything. Over time, people would get an EV if it made sense after getting feedback from other owners whose opinions they trust. If a neighbor has one and you quiz them about all of the myths, it could put those fears to rest and convince you that it could be a good purchase. It might also have you hold off until <something changes>. EV adoption will also accelerate past a certain point if places to buy petrol/diesel start closing up as the number of customers diminishes. Intersections that have a forecourt on all four corners might change to 3, then to 2 and finally 1 over time. As charging points increase over time in convenient places, it will be easier to own an EV over an ICEV through saving loads of time by never having to stop somewhere to fill up. You fill up wherever you stop a little bit at a time, most of the time.
It's all very well installing charging points, but unless the underlying generation capacity increases to supply those charging points, it's all rather pointless.
As it takes about 20 years to get a new nuclear reactor built and online, I don't see any way the vast majority of countries can increase generation to keep up with the increasing needs of not just electric cars, but industry in general. Decades of short sighted planning and political incompetence have already put many countries in the awkward position where they already cannot generate enough electricity to satisfy today's demands, let alone the demands of ridiculous targets like not having any petrol/diesel cars on the roads in ten years time.
If everyone is supposed to drive electric cars, not only are the current plans for charging points woefully inadequate, generation to supply them won't exist either.
I live in the capital of Sweden. Most people live in apartments here and very, very few have dedicated parking. All parking is on a 'whoever gets there first' basis on the road outside. I can't see the city paying to dig up all the roads and put hundreds of charging points on every street, so I can't even see how they can provide enough charging points to meet demand, let alone produce enough electricity to feed them. I'm sure the same applies in many major cities all over Europe. Let's not even start talking about how the local substations in most areas are not capable of meeting the increased demand either.
It's all a pipe dream created by people who don't have to take any responsibility for the consequences.
" Local infrastructure is not the major issue
It's all very well installing charging points, but unless the underlying generation capacity increases to supply those charging points, it's all rather pointless."
I would argue that actually both are significant issues.
Local intrastructure is likely to be more of an issue at the lower end that it is at the higher. Mr BMW Driver on a decent salary is likely to live in a house with a drive, or in a city in an expensive block of flats with its own car park - and in both cases there will be provision to charge his car relatively easily (he can install a charger in a house, and in expensive flats the management company is likely to do so).
Now compare to Mrs Care Assistant who lives in an area of crowded terraces and has to fit her cheap car in wherever she can find a space, which might be half the street away from her house, or more. When on shift, she is driving around between appointments all day. How is she going to charge the car?
Even if you can fix all the local infrastructure issues (which is hard to start with), if there isn't enough power available in the grid, all the local infrastructure upgrades are pointless.
In the example of Sweden, the politicians can't see further than the next four years and have consistently failed to look at the problems they have been lining up for the perfect storm. They have closed working nuclear reactors in favour of generating power from unreliable sources such as wind. Now the country is in the position that the politicians are making lots of noise about how Sweden is going to produce "green steel" and are pouring billions into projects which need the combined electricity generation capacity of Norway, Sweden and Finland put together to provide enough electricity to make their hare-brained scheme possible. Due to underinvestment, even when the wind is blowing, there is not enough grid capacity to transfer all the electricity generated by wind power from the north of the country to the south where most of the industry is, making Swedish consumers in the south of the country reliant on expensive imported electricity and the excess wind power from the north ends up being sold at discounted prices to Finland and Norway. This also means that if you live in the south of the country, you pay up to five times more for electricity than those who live in the north.
They have absolutely no idea what they are doing, On calm days, Sweden has to rely on imported electricity. One fine, calm day soon there won't be enough imported electricity to keep the lights on and the perfect storm will decimate the grid as power station after power station goes offline and the entire country shuts down. The politicians have been warned by experts for the last two decades that they are mismanaging the country's electricity system and that it will all blow up in their faces, but they all work on the principle that they won't be in power when it happens and that as politicians, they cannot be held responsible for any decisions they made while in power anyway.
And if that sounds incredible, it is! All politicians have "ansvarsfrihet" or "freedom from responsibility". What a great incentive for encouraging responsible management of my taxes. NOT!
It was truly a masterstroke by the green fundamentalists in getting a child to shill for their blue sky fantasies.
Thankfully, she is getting older now and critics can't be deflected any more by the accusation of being nasty to a hopeful child when you call her out for her appalling logic and lack of analysis.
Even Mr BMW driver is unlikely to own his own substation. This isn't a problem if none of his neighbours are other Mr BMWs. If they are then they all have a problem. The charger at the wall doesn't make electricity - it draws it from somewhere else and it's getting the somewhere else up to spec that's a significant part of the problem.
"When on shift, she is driving around between appointments all day. How is she going to charge the car?"
I expect that she'll still be doing a weekly shop so if there is charging there, she could be fine. I don't think a care assistant is going to be making 15 minute visits and then driving tens of mile on the motorway to her next appointment. There's also that somebody that is going to many different areas throughout the week is more likely to be near someplace to charge a few times. I do a bunch of field service and if I were working for a company rather than myself, I'd likely be filling out all sorts of forms after each job which I could do while the car charges someplace as necessary. The hope would be to find basic charging at the locations I'm doing the work. It's doesn't take DC fast charging rates if there's the availability to charge in more places. I could burn more electrons driving an hour than what I'd be putting back with level 2 charging, but even at 2:1, a 200 mile range EV could go 300 miles in a day and recharge fully overnight if needed. Reality is going to be a much wider bracket, but at least with what I do, I spend more time doing work than driving between locations.
"It's all very well installing charging points, but unless the underlying generation capacity increases to supply those charging points, it's all rather pointless."
If you are thinking the case is that all new EV's will be added on top of all of the miles driven in ICEV's, you have a case. Oil processing consumes a tremendous amount of electricity but what's more likely to happen is people will be switching to an EV 100% of the time or replacing miles in an ICEV with an EV at least part of the time. From an electricity standpoint, an EV is much more efficient. If population in the developed world continues to explode, more generation is going to be required for everything including HVAC, cooking, hot water, etc. An electric water heater can draw much more power than an EV charger. An instant hot water heater can draw much more than that and nobody is raising a fuss about people taking showers.
The city shouldn't be paying to dig up the roads and put charging points on every street. Private companies should make those investments and initially, EV's will only make sense for people that have off-street parking where they can charge overnight. Along with that, employers should be finding way to add vehicle charging to their car parks. Those people renting a flat in multi-story residences that don't have assigned parking will be the last to get an EV. There is much less to the concept of "fair" than most people whine about. Welcome to the real world where you aren't owed anything.
"in China, 60 percent of electric cars sold in 2023 were less expensive than their conventional counterparts"
Not difficult to believe, since a large part of the cost of EVs is in the battery, and most of China's first EV efforts are focused on smaller/short range (and cheaper) city EVs.
My feeling is that traditional manufacturers worry about their EVs undercutting their own brand's ICEVs, and keep their EV prices artificially high (even abusing of government subsidies to do so). As battery prices continue to fall, and with more competition in EV markets it's likely that soon (within 5-ish years?) most EVs will have equivalent or better power, acceleration, range and equipment than a comparable-price ICE car, with the only thing still falling on the positive side of the ICE being refuel time vs charging time.
Yes - faster than the three minutes you spend standing around waiting to fill your ICEv tank...
Because it takes me about a second or two.
Of course on a long journey it takes a little longer, but still less time than it takes to have a "normal" break in driving. The limits of concentration, bladder, and passengers all limit the time spent *at* the charger to the length of time it takes to get out of the car, and back in, to allow for the break that's needed anyway. It takes a few seconds to hook up and tap a card, but I'm usually still waiting for one of the other vehicle occupants...
"but I'm usually still waiting for one of the other vehicle occupants..."
Most people making arguments against base that argument on them traveling alone (how sad for them). The ladies often take longer than men to take care of needs and wrangling kids can really be time consuming, especially young kids. Being able to have the car charging the whole time all of that is going on is easier than standing next to the car holding the nozzle. The 3-10 minute refuel assertion is also false. The whole process is longer than that and required every time to refuel the vehicle. Charging an EV at home is 60 seconds (30 seconds to plug in, 30 seconds to unplug) so there is an accumulated time savings over a year that is significant. I have a job to go to in a few hours that is 90 miles away. If I had an EV, it would be topped up and ready to do the whole trip when I left. My ICEV has a bit more than half a tank of petrol so it will be time to stop on the way back to refuel taking an extra 10-15 minutes out of the day assuming I don't have to queue and can pull right up to a pump. I could go to the station that's 30% more expensive and not have to wait. It's actually less time to get in and from.
I think he's referring to the few seconds it takes him to plug his car into the charger in his garage when he gets home. That's obviously far better than having to make a special trip to a gas station, and wait around while it fuels up.
Obviously if you need to charge on the go it will take much longer, but for two (or more) car families having an EV for someone who commutes makes perfect sense. They will never charge it anywhere except at home - you can take your ICE car if you're going to drive 500 miles away. That doesn't handle the whole market, far from it, but it handles a really big chunk - especially in the US where most households (or even individuals) have more than one car, and a garage - without needing to wait on building out the fast charging infrastructure.
" the few seconds it takes him to plug his car into the charger in his garage when he gets home."
Yes, but equally that's the time it takes to plug in a charger at a public charging station. Maybe half a minute longer to tap a credit card on a reader*. As long as you can find a free charger of a high enough capacity that is working, then the total stop time at a public station is really dependent on the length of toilet / snack break, the driver time dedicated to recharging is the time it takes to plug, set to charge, and unplug. In an ICE the actual pumping is faster but typically the driver has to fill up their own car, in some cases go to the kiosk to pay, and in any case re-park the car somewhere else if they want to do anything else except a 'splash and dash'.
I can understand that some people just want to drive as quick as possible for as long as possible and stop as little s possible, and for these people an ICE will work better. But if you're one of those people there's no reason to diss EVs because they don't work for you - accept and understand that they work well for other people who like to take a 20 minute break off driving every 300km or so, irrespective of whether they need to fill up.
*Note - I believe the EU is now mandating that you should be able to do this everywhere with just a credit card, same as at a fuel pump, without needing memberships, logins, registrations etc. AFAIK there are some stations where yo have to jump through a bunch of hoops before starting to charge
No, you have to travel to where a charger is, find one that's open and working, then you get to do that. You don't have that hassle at home, you aren't going out of your way even by a single block, don't have to make an unnecessary stop on the way home (you have to have a really long commute if you need a potty break) and you know your charger is working and available.
Charging at a public charger is AT MINIMUM as difficult as going to a gas station. We all know that in reality, today, it is more difficult because there are fewer chargers and they take longer to charge than it tanks a gas tank to fill.
If you could have a gas pump installed in your garage for under $500 that did not compromise safety of your house in any way and it would pump gas cheaper than at a service station (and if you had a special rooftop garden that made fuel could be free) would you do it? Everyone would, because even though going to a gas station isn't difficult, it is something no one enjoys and everyone would be happy if it was not necessary except when they were far away from their home gas pump.
"*Note - I believe the EU is now mandating that you should be able to do this everywhere with just a credit card, same as at a fuel pump, without needing memberships, logins, registrations etc. AFAIK there are some stations where yo have to jump through a bunch of hoops before starting to charge"
I'm an advocate of being able to pay with cash as well so there's an option if a card has problems or the network is down. As long as there's power, you'd be able to charge the same as with petrol which also doesn't work if there's no power and no way to pay with plastic if their network is down. I always travel with cash and keep some at home for the couple of times a year when the primary internet provider in town has a fault and darn near all of the shops can take only cash. Most non-Tesla charging stations don't require a subscription/membership. You can just pay electronically at the charger and get on with it. If you use public charging a lot, some of those providers have a subscription service that will save you money, but it's not required. There's even been some movement on rewards cards that let you use several different charging companies and get better pricing. They are still feeling their way towards a commonality as the sector matures.
"I'd never do daily top ups for it - just refill when half full or less."
Why not? Is it because filling it up is inconvenient and smelly?
When top ups are zero effort, and don't require a detour or a special journey.... then it means you never need to go somewhere special, or waste time watching the tank fill.
@John Robson
"Why not? Is it because filling it up is inconvenient and smelly?"
I dont think that really works against ICE cars, why would we fuel up all the time when fuelling doesnt need to be frequent, For me I dont drive a lot so I dont have to worry about my stored energy dissipating, my vehicle is ready when I need it without regular topping up. Also I can go most of a month without refilling (half a tank), there is no need for more frequent but it would also be pointless to waste my time to fill up for a couple of quid when I would spend more time in line paying for my fuel than pumping it. And again its not like the full tank wont be there when I get back into my car.
"When top ups are zero effort, and don't require a detour or a special journey.... then it means you never need to go somewhere special, or waste time watching the tank fill."
I know this isnt what you are going for but here in the UK (at least around here) you are describing fuelling an ICE car vs the inconvenience of the electric one. Here we dont have driveways so we have cables (covered) being trailed out of a couple of houses to their vehicles where they have a road (few streets away). We dont have driveways nor a real road (single lane) so the only electric car here must move to the back alley to charge but then she must be up early to move it on bin collection day to avoid blocking access and do it when it doesnt inconvenience the rest of us on this street.
@AC
"Hmmm. Lead-Acid batteries have a 5X greater self-discharge rate than Li-Ion.
So you should be 5X more worried about your current car. Sleep tight."
Why should I be more worried? I have had that happen once in my life (winter) which is inconvenient as I have to then jump start the car. The battery isnt the powering fuel, that is in the tank, so I can just take it for a little run and the car is fine again. As issues go that is a pretty minor one.
@AC
"Without your battery. You're stuck. I doubt you'd be able to start your car alone."
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=car+battery+booster+jump+starter
Really not a problem.
"Also the lifespan of that battery is quite poor these day"
Only once in my lifetime have I had to jump start my car. I am not worried
@AC
"So a Lithium-Ion battery pack. You were worried about those dissipating energy. Lack of consistancy in thought?"
Very consistent if you read my comments. The fuel to drive the car is in the tank. If the battery goes flat (once in my life, thats all so far) it can be jump started and my whole car works again. You suggested it would be difficult to jump the car on my own, I just showed you its not difficult. And the fuel tank is still there containing the fuel to drive the car.
Sorry. Assumed from your posts on "energy dissipation" that you were not very technically minded to be able to deal with a flat battery. Meaning that your vehicle would be immobilised in that event. But if you have purchased a Li-Ion jumpstarter pack then you can just follow the instructions. (You do know these will not work on a fully dead battery, I hope?)
@AC
"Sorry. Assumed from your posts on "energy dissipation" that you were not very technically minded to be able to deal with a flat battery."
No worries, My comments only centred around fuel dissipation and not having to refill my tank very often as I dont drive often. If an electric car works for someone I dont care as with ICE cars. But they are not ready to be forced on everyone.
I use little 20 watt PV trickle chargers to keep my starting batteries topped up. Under $30 per vehicle. Including motorcycles, boats, farm equipment and aircraft.
If THAT fails, most can be push (or pull) started.
Note that I don't buy cheap batteries with a one year warranty ... and I start load testing them when I check under the hood (fluids, belt wear, etc.) as they approach their end of warranty. Load testing takes seconds, the tester itself can be had for under $50, will work on most vehicles, and should last a lifetime.
" why would we fuel up all the time when fuelling doesnt need to be frequent"
That doesn't stop it being inconvenient and smelly...
I don't worry about stored energy dissipating either, neither do I worry about fuel going stale. Drove to Butlins (37% used), parked for 5 days (0% used)... Those zero percent losses don't add up.
As for the "but noone has off street parking""
You're assuming that the only place to charge is at home - it will always be the most convenient if you can, but you should equally be able to charge at any car park - town, supermarket, office... wherever you spend any time on a regular basis.
"and on long journeys the car beats my bladder."
I suppose on long journeys you're relying in there being an unoccupied charging point when your bladder calls time. That works when a minority of vehicles are EVs. Imagine the case when the majority of vehicles are EVs. What proportion of motorway server station parking spaces would need to have charging points for you to continue to rely on that? What level of power supply would be needed for the service station for that to happen? Is that power supply feasible today? How long to make it feasible?
These are all questions the politicians either didn't think about when drawing up the policy or else they assumed that having declared it to be policy they didn't need to do anything to make it happen or even conduct a feasibility study first.
The time at which my bladder calls is somewhat fungible, and it's not as if the occupancy is some secret, they're publicly available...
So you know when you stop how many chargers are available.
Yes - we'll need more chargers, but that's fine - we can carry on putting more chargers as the proportion of EVs increases.
And yes, shock horror that will involve some additional grid connections and probably some local generation at the ~100 service stations.
HMG has set a target for motorway charging points which is, to put it mildly, not ambitions. When it was reviewed it was found that it wasn't being met.
Why do you think they abandoned their targets recently? It wasn't that such brilliant progress was being made that they weren't necessary, was it?
"HMG has set a target for motorway charging points which is, to put it mildly, not ambitions."
Government can state targets as much as they like, but it comes down to companies making decisions after doing all of of the sums on whether it's profitable or not to install or expand a station. A site that is always busy would be a great place to put in more spaces or another site down the road closer to other eating/shopping choices. These sorts of announcements seem as silly to me as the US government negotiating CO2 reductions. It's industry that would have to implement them since if the government forces it, companies may find it financially more attractive to move those operations overseas. The only thing the US government could do is limit their own operations (state and local government travel and the military), like that will happen. I don't see the military reducing their operations of horribly inefficient and polluting vehicles to meet some treaty. They are always exempt from those types of regulations.
Literally everyone on this website understands where in the producer-to-consumer chain the problem lies when electricity is generated with coal. This isn't the Daily Mail.
Again, we get you don't like EVs, but must you continue to be so spectacularly thick with your arguments? You're just adding noise at this point.
"Literally everyone on this website understands where in the producer-to-consumer chain the problem lies when electricity is generated with coal."
Indeed. What we don't see is what's being proposed, in a reasonable timescale, to deal with that and the rest of the infrastructure.
The refining and distribution infrastructure for ICE was built up over decades alongside the build-up of number of vehicles on the road. If targets are to be met to replace those ICEs with EVs then the infrastructure has to be implemented on a much tighter time scale. Are there even any feasibility studies for this, let alone plans?
Do we see any alternatives being planned such as doing away with unsustainable mass-commuting into larger and larger cities? The only govt. initiative on that was Moggie complaining about lack of bums on seats.
Do we see any sign at all of the sort of large-scale entire-system thinking of any sort?
These are very good questions, and they are also the topic of the original article. Thank you. But the answers aren't useful as a stick to beat EVs in general. It's not like every time there's an article on datacenters becoming more efficient, our sergio chimes in about how it's all pointless because they're powered with coal fired stations anyway.
Do we see any sign of large scale thinking? You mean like the National Grid saying they have capacity, or indeed the thinking about the problem that is the subject of this very article? Clearly yes, but it's falling on some pretty barren ground around here as the usual suspects (sergio, Jellied Eel etc) already have all the answers.
Yes, and they're also the ones building the most renewable capacity, and the most nuclear capacity. In fact they are the ones building the most of pretty much everything. The most immediate question is, is the general mix of their power having more renewables / nuclear as %age? And on the long term, is that going to continue until it reaches 100% or close to? Those new coal plants are filling the gaps because they are relatively cheap, quick and easy to build, they won't be there forever
EVs aren't green - they are green*er* than ICEv.
They have two additional advantages:
- As the grid becomes greener, so do the vehicles
- They also displace some of the worst emissions away from ground level in populated areas
And even if we used petrol in power stations... they'd still use less of it per mile than an ICEv
He can think about it a bit, and it's still going to be correct. Electric motor efficiency is in the mid-to-high 90s, electric transmission efficiency is in the low 90s. Combined cycle power stations have efficiency higher than 50%. Even taking lower bounds for all those numbers, end-to-end efficiency for the EV would be 42.75%
Internal combustion engines in cars are considerably less than 40% efficient.
And if you put together a petrol power plant you'd be alot closer to CCGT than to typical heavy oil based stations - you only need to mildly warm petrol for it to be a gas.
If we assume 30% for an ICE, which is a sort of middle of the road estimate then the petrol power plant would only need to exceed 35% efficiency for the EV to go further.
If we assume 35%, which is probably generous then the target is 41%, still readily acheivable.
"And even if we used petrol in power stations... they'd still use less of it per mile than an ICEv"
I'd say that this particular example wouldn't be true. The amount of electricity embodied in petrol is very high so to use it to turn a generator to produce more electricity is likely a massive eROI loss.
The example I use is that my ICEV gets 30 miles per gallon (more or less). The amount of electricity to produce one gallon of petrol is ~7.46kWh. That same amount of electricity can move an EV 25 miles. All the petrol has done is give me 5 more miles of range and increased the energy density in the "tank" so I can go further between fill-ups. The reason my car goes 400 miles on a tank is that the maker thought that figure was a good compromise between the size of tank needed to be fit in the car and the average interval between needing to visit a petrol station. If there was a petrol spigot at people's homes, plenty of cars would be fitted with smaller fuel tanks as they could be topped up each night. Hmm, that sounds familiar. Of course, not every home would have a petrol line in the same way I don't have gas at my home (I use propane). Electricity is far more ubiquitous so even people living off-grid will be doing something to generate it unless they're really hardcore.
"The amount of electricity to produce one gallon of petrol is ~7.46kWh"
That seems unreasonably high... and yet isn't the highest figure I've seen quoted.
My biggest issue is that it looks like all of that electrical usage i being allocated to one specific output of a refinery...
Then there is the significant amount of direct fossil fuel usage in the refining process... it's not an easy thing to calculate - but refineries really don't want it known (else it would be relatively easy to find), which does make me somewhat suspicious that it's alot higher than they would like to admit.
""The amount of electricity to produce one gallon of petrol is ~7.46kWh"
That seems unreasonably high... and yet isn't the highest figure I've seen quoted."
That's the figure from a study done by the Argonne National Laboratory. I don't have a link or number. Next time I see it I'm going to make a clipping and keep it in a folder. I can't say with certainty everything that's folded into that number.
Maybe in https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b01255 ?
https://pubs.acs.org/cms/10.1021/acs.est.5b01255/asset/images/medium/es-2015-01255f_0004.gif
From the extract suggests an additional 40% emissions from all the other stages.
Given ~250g/kWh CO2 from combustion...
That implies another ~100g/kWh from everything else - which in the US would be ~250Wh, per kWh.
That would be over 8kWh/gallon...
Note of course that not all of that energy is consumed from the electrical grid, but I'm getting an even worse view of petrochemicals...
"Maybe in https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b01255 ?
https://pubs.acs.org/cms/10.1021/acs.est.5b01255/asset/images/medium/es-2015-01255f_0004.gif"
That's a different report, but thanks for that. Honestly, I'd like to take a closer look a the Argonne report to refresh my memory on how they got to 7.46kWh/gallon which is a moderately precise number so what went into the error calculations to come up with the number of significant digits would be important as well.
"most EVs will have equivalent or better power, acceleration, range and equipment than a comparable-price ICE car, with the only thing still falling on the positive side of the ICE being refuel time vs charging time."
EV's do have more power and acceleration than an ICEV. You also get maximum power from stall so they can be much faster off the line.
It can be argued that in most cases, EV's are faster to charge than ICEV's are to fill. It depends on how you calculate that time. To top up your petrol tank, you have to spend the time to visit a petrol station, pay, dispense, get a receipt and then return/leave from there. With an EV, if you can charge at home/work, it's someplace where you already are, it's a minute or so to plug in the car and the charging is done while you are doing something else such as sleeping. It's immaterial how long the charging takes if it's going to be sufficient the next time you need the car. You can spend more time charging on a really long trip, but even that isn't a factor if you have an EV that can charge very quickly. And, how many trips do you honestly take per year that would require charging more than once, perhaps twice in a day? If your car takes 25 minutes to charge on a phat DC charger and you would normally take 20 minutes for a stop on a long trip, you've added 5-10 minutes to your travel day. What you'd want is a place to plug in overnight so the next day you'd be at 100% again. I'd say that a greater emphasis should be for more level 2 AC charging at hotels more than tremendous numbers of DCFC's at motorway services locations.
A Chinese company took over the old Nissan factory near Barcelona last week. Much handshaking, chuffed government types etc etc but when the Chinese bunch announced they'll be building 150,000 EVs a year by the end of this year you could feel the "omg, they dont hang about" atmosphere and people choking on their cornflakes.
I'm in the "UK" this week and King Charles' "Operation Bunting" to bring the "nation" together post Brexit is in full flow.
I've just got to hold out until Sunday to get back to civilisation... Aka the EU.
Go China!
"Much handshaking, chuffed government types etc etc but when the Chinese bunch announced they'll be building 150,000 EVs a year by the end of this year you could feel the "omg, they dont hang about"
Check back and see if that happens. The whole project can just as easily be cancelled. There's also so much hoopla around these high profile deals that it becomes less likely the project will be mired in petty delays in planning and permits. A local drone on a planning board can often be just smart enough to realize that there will be lots of politicians expecting to collect plenty of cred for being a part of the project that if they hold it up over trivial (or even not so trivial) things, they'll wind up being replaced by a rubber stamp that won't be creating such a fuss. Staff all the way down will be "directed to facilitate" the smooth flow of the process.
IMO we are undertaking a change in mode of transport equivalent to the introduction of ICE with many equivalent issues: capital expense of new tech, comparative underdevelopment of new tech by comparison with existing, unavailability of "fuel" distribution points.
The difference being that this will be a smaller change but effecting larger numbers AND we have a massively enhanced ability to drive both tech and industrial production forward.
While overall power generation is an issue, it can be overstated - it is reasonable to assume that the very greater part of charging will take place overnight. At that time we are ALREADY in danger of having over-capacity from renewables taken with other power sources, leading to a need to load-shed Soaking up over-generation will make our grids more efficient.
While we (UK) ae building 'massive' nuclear power stations (Sizewell C anyway) the technology exists to build Small Modular Reactors which, apparently, take only 5 years to build/commission. Of course this requires political will, which may be in short supply.
I DO think that distribution is a larger issue. If there is to be significant urban uptake then there will need to be a great deal of thought, and investment in infrastructure at a local, even domestic level. I am unaware of this taking place on any scale yet.
The other part of distribution that concerns me is that of the grid itself both above and below ground. While I think that generation issues can be solved through some large scale decisions, the enhancement of the network will be a series of difficult choices - new pylons, large scale buried cables. Essentially we are replacing our existing refineries, storage depots, fleet of tankers and fuel stations with 'something else'. Some can be direct replacements (substations on petrol forecourt sites, power grid running up and down motorways) but much will have to be new.
Again, I am not aware of any of the necessary debate taking place (except very loud objections to a new run of pylons across Suffolk).
I believe we will overcome a lot of this, but there will be many bumps on the road (!)
"IMO we are undertaking a change in mode of transport equivalent to the introduction of ICE with many equivalent issues: capital expense of new tech, comparative underdevelopment of new tech by comparison with existing, unavailability of "fuel" distribution points."
The Internal Combustion Engine was a technical advance on what it replaced. EVs aren't - they are being pushed for ideological reasons, and mostly seem to appeal to the company car / tax advantage market. The varioius problems with them and their manufacture, and the charging infrastructure / capacity, are largely being ignored by the politicians.
Absolutely correct. And every time I ask the question on here about how the expired battery issue is going to be addressed I keep getting downvotes but no-one ever posts a response. FFS, no-one is going to shell out thousands on a second hand EV if they know they may well be lumbered with an additional multi-thousand £ bill to replace the batteries within a couple of years, but this is never, ever discussed or mentioned.
I'm seriously considering buying a couple of late model diesel cars and putting them into storage for a few years so at least in the future I will have access to vehicles which will still have a couple of decades of support available.
"how the expired battery issue is going to be addressed"
There already exist many programmes were old EV batteries (which might not have 90-100% capacity but still 60+) can be used as grid storage.
"no-one is going to shell out thousands on a second hand EV if they know they may well be lumbered with an additional multi-thousand £ bill to replace the batteries within a couple of years"
There are models such as Renaults where the battery is rented so you can always get a newer one. And there are EVs apparently going strong with well over 100k miles driven (given Tesla's quality issues it's likely the battery might outlast the car). And battery degradation can be measured and thus quantified into the market price of the used car.
"Besides which people *do* buy an ICEv which requires thousands of pounds each and every year for fuel."
One could also buy an ICEV and the timing belt goes out the next week on an engine with an interference valve set up. That's the whole top end buggered and likely the whole thing only fit for the knackers. At least with a battery, you know what the capacity was initially and from what the current state of it is and can make some estimates of how much life might be left in it. Diagnostics might also tell how many cells might be bad. A few cells in one chain going sour can significantly impact the capacity. If the pack isn't too hard to service, the bad cells can be replaced or a re-builder might offer more money on an exchange since the fix won't be too hard or expensive vs. a pack where the overall loss of capacity was widespread.
"And every time I ask the question on here about how the expired battery issue is going to be addressed I keep getting downvotes but no-one ever posts a response. FFS, no-one is going to shell out thousands on a second hand EV if they know they may well be lumbered with an additional multi-thousand £ bill to replace the batteries within a couple of years, but this is never, ever discussed or mentioned."
I've posted on that a few times. The battery packs don't fall off a cliff and suddenly need to be replaced one morning after their 8-10 year warranty period. They gradually lose capacity over time and it's turning out that, on average, the packs are holding up much better than expected. You want to be looking out for a high mileage/year EV that's likely to have been fast charged more than normal. The other thing to realize is that mainstream EV's really haven't been around that long and there isn't much of a 3rd party refurbished/replacement network yet. If you take the Prius as an example, the battery for those was and is still expensive if you buy them from a Toyota dealer, but there are now lots of options and the original NiMh packs have much higher capacity Li drop-in replacements so while you don't get a plug-in hybrid, the bigger battery will charge up to a higher capacity and improve the overall efficiency of the car. I'm likely going to spend ~$1,500 for a low-mileage used engine in my ICEV, some money for a paint job and a few more things here and there to give it something of a refresh. An EV battery pack would be more and I'd would want to find 3rd party replacement, but there's also the cost of operation savings that has to be factored in. A rebuilt or replacement pack might also have a higher capacity since batteries have improved over the last decade such as what happened with the Chevy Bolt recall when the 60kWh pack had to be replaced due to a manufacturing issue at LG and the new packs are 10% more capacity. There is value in the old packs. A 60kWh pack that lost a full 1/3 of it's capacity is still a 40kWh battery. Maybe not great in a car, but it can power a small home for the better part of a week (mine, at least). That means there's resale value in the old pack and it's not going to be landfill and what you can get for the core reduces the price of your replacement.
Even with a used EV that doesn't have the same range as it did when new, it might still be more than enough for somebody's needs without having to get the battery replaced.
"The Internal Combustion Engine was a technical advance on what it replaced. EVs aren't - they are being pushed for ideological reasons"
"technical advance" doesn't really mean anything. What is important is if it is a *practical* advance
The very first ICE vehicles were not an advance on the horse and carriage - they were slower, noisier, dirtier, had less range and were more expensive. But they were novel, cool, interesting for a number of rich people and so development continued apace. It took until the 1910s (first model T was 1908) and mass production for the single most important factor - cost - to start to be overcome. Back then, fuel stations were as difficult to find as charging stations sometimes are nowadays, and cars were still dirty and unreliable. At some point it became cheaper than having to buy, stable and feed horses, fuel became more available and there was only one way it was going. But it took about 50 years from the first practical ICE car to cars becoming ubiquitous.
Similairly, the very first EVs* were below par ICE cars in every respect - range, power, practicality, cost.... But they were novel, cool, interesting for a number of rich people and so development is continuing apace. EVs are already cleaner, quieter, faster than ICEs, but still lacking in range, charge time, charging infrastructure, cost. All of these factors are gradually shifting as EVs get better, while ICE cars, at the end of decades of improvements, have hardly any margin for improvement. So once again, it is only going one way. "Technical Advance" is irrelevant - at some point in the next 15-20 years there are going to be EVs with the same or better range, charge time and charging infrastructure at the same cost or less than ICE cars. And 15-20 years from then, EVs will also be ubiquitous.
As to ideology, I'm not sure exactly what you mean - combating climate change? Maybe. But in any case electric cars have a huge environmental advantage, which is far less hugely unhealthy particulate matter generated on the street. And if the electricity is powered by local nuclear or renewables rather than coal/oil/gas, then you don't even have the particulates at the power station. Double victory because then you're not dependent on dodgy regimes for your energy.
*I do know that EVs have a much longer history than the last 20 years, but in practical terms the modern EV era is less than 20 years old (AFAIK the first mass-production full EV was Tesla Roadster in 2008)
"The very first ICE vehicles were not an advance on the horse and carriage - they were slower, noisier, dirtier, had less range and were more expensive."
Which is why they were a niche interest, until they surpassed the horse and carriage - that's how the take-up of technological changes generally happens: until something is better than the alternative it seeks to replace, take up remains limited.
The issue with EVs is that they are still at the stage of being inferior to what they are replacing, and there are no clear solutions to some of the issues. They have become fairly widespread not through technological superiority, but due to government ideology and subsidy.
"The issue with EVs is that they are still at the stage of being inferior to what they are replacing"
I would say they are at a stage where they are better for some use cases (eg small city car) and not as good for some use cases (eg touring car). I think that for most people and most cases they are at least close enough that what is keeping their adoption is cost and charging issues
" and there are no clear solutions to some of the issues."
I don't agree on this one. The issues slowing adoption are very clear - on the vehicle side it's range, charge speed, battery longevity and cost. All of these amount, in the end, to better and cheaper batteries. The solid-state batteries being prototyped now and ready for production in 2025-27* will readily address the range, charge speed and longevity issues. With regards to price, battery costs have reduced 89% in the 10 years up to 2021 and are expected to halve again between 2021-2025**. Given that batteries account for 30-40% of the cost of a vehicle, that could mean 15-20% lower EV prices, which brings them to at least cost equivalence with ICE cars (granted that due to investment costs it could take a few more years for the costs to consumers to reach that point)
Outside the vehicle itself, the issue is the charging network... I don't know what it's like exactly in the UK, but in most of Europe the charging network has been steadily and without fanfare been greatly extended. In most of France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, you can find plenty of 150kW+ chargers. I suspect that this is one of those things that most people don't pay much attention to day to day, and then suddenly realise in 2-3 years that the network is there. You just don't realise as it extends very gradually.
Upgrades to the grid and to generating capacity have to be done anyway, EVs or no EVs. Might as well use EVs as a trigger to get them upgraded faster. (and, please, to start building more nuclear power stations)
*this is just one example https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/25/samsung_battery_twenty_years/
**https://www.mr-sustainability.com/stories/2021/ev-battery-prices-plunge-89-in-ten-years
"The issue with EVs is that they are still at the stage of being inferior to what they are replacing,"
No - the issue is that the fossil fuel giants are funding propaganda saying that they're inferior.
What is the major issue with an EV?
It has a higher capital cost, but much lower operating costs - that is an issue, but not an insurmountable one, particularly given how many cars are either leased or paid for on finance anyway.
They have ample range for all but the most extreme journeys, and yes on route charging needs to improve - it's one of the things that Telsa got right very early... that tight integration makes charging even more convenient than fuel - you just park, plug in, go to the loo, unplug and carry on. Fewer than 1% of journeys even exceed 100 miles, and EV ranges are already several times that...
The vast majority of car days use a tiny fraction of their range - average daily mileage is ~20 miles, and even new cars (which you would expect to be skewed by high mileage company car fleets) only do 28 (UK figures).
Their charge "time" is only relevant a handful of times a year - because the majority of the time they charge whilst you are doing something else (at home, at work, at the shops, hotel, a pub, wherever you might be).
In terms of driving them - they're streets ahead of ICEv, and will remain there, simply because they don't suffer from the inherent limitations of an internal combustion engine. For instance their rev range starts at zero... so you don't need a clutch. That rev range is also wide enough, with enough torque throughout, that you don't need multiple gears - you can even run them backwards so you don't need a different reversing gear set.
For non driving ongoing costs they come out ahead as well... they can recover energy when you need to decelerate, by recharging the battery they reduce the load on the braking systems, an electric motor doesn't need maintenance, no wearing parts to replace, no lubricant to change every few thousand miles.... As a side benefit they don't shake and heat the engine bay, which prolongs the life of all the ancillary items in the engine bay. And of course having taken away the clutch and gear box, there is a whole lot less to go wrong.
"It has a higher capital cost, but much lower operating costs - that is an issue, but not an insurmountable one, particularly given how many cars are either leased or paid for on finance anyway."
The higher cost on finance means more money paid in interest. The higher cost also means more money for insurance and registration (where registration is based on vehicle "value"). Some EV's depreciate at warp speed so leasing costs more since resale value at the end of the lease is a big factor. Part of that is due to there still being many changes with EV's. ICEV's are mainly matured enough that there really aren't many improvements that are anything more than lipstick and porn star eye shadow and lashes.
"The higher cost on finance means more money paid in interest."
Can't possibly be otherwise, but can still be a net saving.
Some ICE vehicles depreciate at warp speed, I'm not convinced that EVs depreciate much faster necessarily - they are also of course much less likely to catch fire.
The real issue is working out more substantial rebuilds for larger insurance claims...
I lease and ICE would be more expensive for me than EV... substantially so.
Both are at favourable rates (motability), but they also beat out the cost of owning an older vehicle - and if I look at what fuel prices have done since I did those calculations... then they beat it out very, very, comfortably.
The only element of an EV which is improving is the battery tech, but it's already pretty damned good - what do they say "The perfect is the enemy of the good"
Just had another look, and the enyaq is cheaper than the kodiak on motability, by quite some margin.
That's obviously a small sample, but it's a reasonable comparison (same manufacturer and class of vehicle), though in fact the enyaq is substantially larger, and my wheelchair wouldn't fit in the kodiak.
That's before we look at fueling costs... where the EV gets an 85-90% reduction.
"The issue with EVs is that they are still at the stage of being inferior to what they are replacing, "
That's too general. They are inferior to be a 100% replacement, but are good enough to suffice for a greater percentage of people as time goes on. My dad raised horses and I can think of examples where horses are still a better option than a vehicle, but that advantage isn't very widespread. I can also see uses for a ICEV that an EV is a long way of being able to take over. Over time, I expect that will narrow if there is enough of a demand to make it economic to make an EV that can take over those uses.
In the here and now, enough people can make use of an EV even if they aren't a Silver Bullet replacement. If those situations are also financially better, EV's will be a no-brainer and there will be no reason to ban anything and even ULEZ zones will be unnecessary.
"at some point in the next 15-20 years there are going to be EVs with the same or better range, charge time and charging infrastructure at the same cost or less than ICE cars. "
There's little need for an EV to have the same maximum range as an ICEV. If you can charge at home/work, you need far less. If my ICEV didn't have around 400 miles of range on a full tank, I'd have to visit a petrol station far too often. That's why it has that much range. An EV with 250-300 miles of rated range would be close to 1/2 a tank of petrol in my current car and I'm not freaked out when I "only" have a half tank. That's almost always more than sufficient for a long driving day. To have that every morning without having to make a special stop to fill up will save time and the lower operating cost will save money. I've been keeping up with the chargers in my area (not nearby, but on the fringes) and there's more all of the time so if I take jobs further out, the need to stuff in some extra electrons won't be an issue.
"the very greater part of charging will take place overnight. At that time we are ALREADY in danger of having over-capacity from renewables taken with other power sources, leading to a need to load-shed"
Not sure that's right, the only renewable with reliable schedule, solar, isn't working overnight. Wind's schedule is pseudo-random. Hydro can to an extent be switched, but it's a relatively small component. The reason there is over-capacity at night is because demand is low. Having huge amounts of EVs charging overnight will transform nighttime into a peak demand time which mostly will have to be met with nuclear or carbon-based power.
With mass takeup of EVs, it would make sense that commuters charge their EVs at their workplace during the day
"Having huge amounts of EVs charging overnight will transform nighttime into a peak demand time which mostly will have to be met with nuclear or carbon-based power."
Or maybe - as we flatten the curve then we'll not only charge overnight... we'll charge when there is a surplus. It's not rocket science.
"Wind's schedule is pseudo-random."
That makes it impossible to rely on, but at night or at other times when demand isn't very high, having wind generation is useless if it can only be put on the grid. If prices were sent down the lines so a plugged in EV could be programmed to take advantage of low prices due to oversupply, that could make wind earn a better return. I see the lack of being able to plan as the biggest downside of wind/solar. Even with solar, while you know when the sun rises and sets, you don't know precisely the level of haze you might get or if puffy white clouds are going shade panels across a solar site creating issues (especially if the panels are connected in strings/series). The rational way to use those methods is to incorporate them into a system where there isn't the need to have precise generation at any given moment. The average energy counted over different periods might be just fine, AKA: Making Hay While the Sun Shines. The corollary being that you aren't making hay when the sun isn't shining so don't count on it being sunny all this week.
"the technology exists to build Small Modular Reactors which, apparently, take only 5 years to build/commission. Of course this requires political will, which may be in short supply."
I see SMR's as a joke. The anti-nuke brigade isn't protesting on the size of nuclear plants, but the whole plant full stop. There's also nothing stopping factory production of large reactors so that each one isn't a bespoke product every time. Given all of the variable, a larger plant is more cost efficient on a £/kWh basis. The staff it takes for operation and security is the same or very nearly the same for either installation. The requirement to have more trained people to run a large number of SMR's is going to be a problem. They don't just need to be competent technicians and engineers, they also have to meet background requirements. A couple of downchecks for spending a weekend smoking the devil's lettuce is going to mean yet another hard to fill job opening or will they take the FBI approach of lowering standards to fill staffing quotas?
Firstly it's not so much the age as the mileage. As long as a car battery is charged / discharged semi-regularly it doesn't matter that much. There aren't really any good statistical indicators, but anecdotally for Tesla Model S, degradation of between 6 and 13% have been reported over 100-130k miles (160-209k km) after 9-10 years. Given the range is about 260 miles to a charge, it's 380+ full charging cycles.
Well-maintained ICEs can easily go for a couple of decades and 200k+ miles, (that 'well-maintained' might include transmission or engine rebuilds) there simply aren't any 20-year old EVs to make a sensible comparison. Given the lifetime savings of electricity over petrol over a decade and more, the cost to rebuild a battery might not be that much IF the rest f the car is in good nick.
EV have been going on for more than 20 years so there should some 20 year old EVs but there is not?
Batteries have come on a lot in the 136 years EVs have been around (EV predate the ICEs) more so in the last few years making comparison with stuff made even only 5 years ago unfair.
Batteries are just one of the four problems, the others being generating the electricity, transporting to the charge station and the charge station itself. All of them are going to need quite a lot of money spending on them.
"so there should some 20 year old EVs but there is not?"
Of course not. They are a product of our wasteful, throw-away society. Nobody considers them to be worth saving for the future. They will never be considered "classics".
Consider, for example, that I know of a broken Tesla Roadster that was cut up to fix a crashed Lotus Elise. I seriously doubt that the opposite will ever happen.
"EV have been going on for more than 20 years so there should some 20 year old EVs but there is not?"
As you correctly point out, EVs have been around a long, long time. But EVs with the more modern type of battery started mass production with the first Tesla Roadster in 2008. There are no modern mass-produced EVs older than 16 years old.
Absolutely not an Elon fanboi, just giving Tesla some due credit here. Note what I said: "EVs with the more modern type of battery started mass production with the first Tesla Roadster in 2008"
The link provided is very interesting, I knew of some of those but some were new to me. In any case, only one of those used Lithium batteries, and that had a production run of 200. Of the others, only a couple had production of more than 1000 units.
"Sorry but Tesla was not the first to mass-produce EVs"
You could also go back to Baker and Detroit Electric, but the technology of that era is far different than what's here today.
I'd put the relevant cut-off at the point where Li batteries started to be purpose built for electric vehicle propulsion. The T-Zero and the first Tesla Roadster where made using 'laptop' batteries. To some extent, Tesla is still doing that using the approach of many small cylindrical cells rather than fewer higher capacity pouched cells.
"EV have been going on for more than 20 years so there should some 20 year old EVs but there is not?"
Tesla was founded in 2003 and the first Roadster started production in 2008. The Model S started shipping in 2012. 2024-2008=16, 16<20
Nissan started shipping the Leaf in 2009. 2024-2009=15, 15<20
What other mainstream EV's are there that would be >20 years old?
The DIY community has been active for quite some time, but there's no way to consider any data from them since the designs and builds were very much explorations built on whims and fancies, not calculations and science.
Lifetime?
This place came with a slightly used 1998 Honda CRV, then with 15K miles on the clock. Dreadful vehicle. But I decided it would be handy to keep licensed and insured as a thrasher-runabout, parts runner, emergency Vet/feedstore transportation, spare vehicle if the field hands need one, etc. Costs me all of $120/year to license, and I didn't even notice an increase when I added it to my insurance.
Today, the awful thing has about 500K miles on it. Total maintenance has included tires as needed, a yearly plugs/filters/fluids change, battery, belts and hoses three times, brakes & wheel bearings twice, replaced the AC once, and I've changed the timing belt twice (it's due for another one, I need to replace the lower control arm bushings, and something has started clunking in the rear suspension (might be the exhaust, come to think of it)). Other than the tires, battery, belts & hoses (which all vehicles need), it has averaged under $120/year in maintenance[0][1]. It still gets about 28MPG on the freeway, and passes the bi-annual smog check with flying colo(u)rs. The body/paint isn't perfect, but it's passable. The interior, surprisingly, is still good, with no holes in the carpets and no rips in the seats or headliner. Even the AWD's viscous coupler still works as intended.
Anybody got a 26 year old EV we can compare notes with?
[0] Draconian California law caused the air conditioning to set me back a trifle, moving the average up about twenty bucks.
[1] I do all the labo(u)r, but sadly the IRS informs me that my time is valueless ...
"Anybody got a 26 year old EV we can compare notes with?"
You already know the answer to that question - but I'll raise you a half million mile tesla or two.
Just because they were some of the earliest vehicles to have batteries capable of hitting that sort of milage in the much reduced time span available.
Or several 100k+ MG vehicles, which are still on original brake discs etc.
"Other than the tires, battery, belts & hoses (which all vehicles need)"
Tyres, I'll agree with - but the 12V system on an EV has a much easier life than on an ICE, and belts/hoses are much less numerous on an EV.
The whole shooting match also suffers from much less vibration and virtually no heating - both of which prolong the life of all components.
I believe the record mileage Tesla is a very gently driven Model S (P85) with a hair over 1.2 million miles on the clock.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader how much that cost.
As a hint, last time I checked, they had replaced the battery 3 times (approx. $21,000 each, parts and labo(u)r, per my local Tesla repair shop just now), and had 14 (FOURTEEN!) new drive units at approximately $20,000 each (including parts and labo(u)r, also per my local Tesla repair shop). All the work was out of warranty, for obvious reasons. That's $343,000 dollars in just those repairs.
During the meanwhile, you know as well as I do that nobody in the real world is going to bother keeping any of today's electric vehicles on the road for 26 years and half a million miles. Not unless they are complete idiots. It's simply not cost effective.
As a side note, the Peterbilt, (warming up as I type), will probably have around a million miles on the drivetrain before I rebuild it, just like last time. Note that's "rebuild", not "replace". And I'll be doing the work myself. Again.
I was actually thinking about the australian who had their battery replaced *under warranty* after half a million miles... that's hardly a major expense. The business reckons they've saved $120,000 in fuel/maintenance costs over the six years they've had the vehicle.
The 1.2m mile telsa has indeed had various issues - but it was a very early model, with a couple of known issues (specifically with the motor) - but actually alot of the work was under warranty.
The batteries (at least a couple under warranty IIRC) did >300k miles each - that's more than most cars will do.
CATL now provides 800,000 km warranties on its batteries
Gotion High-Tech is moving to 2 million km warranties
"During the meanwhile, you know as well as I do that nobody in the real world is going to bother keeping any of today's electric vehicles on the road for 26 years and half a million miles. Not unless they are complete idiots. It's simply not cost effective."
1/2 a million miles at ~30mpg and ~£1.50/l is well over £100,000 in fuel costs alone. That's an awful lot of money for something you claim to be "cost effective". Heck, I could buy several EVs for the money you'd spend on fuel - and then another with the money saved on servicing.
Petrol - that's the thing that's not cost effective, nor is it pleasant, convenient, or any of the other things you'll undoubtedly claim.
Oh - I've just realised that you're jake.
No wonder... you carry on drinking the gasoline and driving a thousand miles uphill both ways without any electricity supply whilst towing seven tons of horse and a back hoe.
"1/2 a million miles at ~30mpg and ~£1.50/l is well over £100,000 in fuel costs alone. "
That's fuel, but you'd need to put the comparable EV electrical usage against that the same way as adding back the additional finance cost for the price difference on the EV vs. an ICEV. I'm getting about a $43,000 electricity cost for 500k miles at my current cost per kWh. I'm assuming a 3.5m/kWh efficiency and only charging at home. Without going too overboard, I'd round up to $50k to include more expensive public charging and running the AC a bit more. Nothing to sneeze at in savings, but it does cut that $100k in half. I'll leave the extra financing and other costs as an exercise for the student.
Any TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) can't be cherry picked data. If you want to make an argument based on cost/mile(km), you have to include everything spent on the car over the time period including registration, insurance and inspections plus financing. I did that once and it's depressing how much of my money is spend annually to have a car.
I did the TCO calculations... and the EV won - that's why I switched.
Since then the price I pay for electricity has dropped, and the price of fuel has risen sharply. The effect of the drop in cost of electricity is relatively minor, since the majority of the cost of the vehicle isn't fueling it... The vast majority of the cost of my ICE vehicles averaged over the 15 years before I switched was in fuel - so the increase there would have been a major pain point.
For fuel: 500k miles would be ~125MWh, and at 7.5p... that's under £10k, so a £90k saving.
I have no idea how you get to $43k, you might have forgotten to change tariff somewhere.
I excluded the servicing costs of the ICEv, which will be substantially higher than the EV... again, cherry picking doesn't work.
I compared three scenarios when I switched (Including purchase/depreciation, fuel, insurance, warranty, servicing, wear items...):
- Retain my existing vehicle, and continue with those known costs
- Switch to a new ICEv lease, which removes many variable costs, but still uses fuel
- Switch to a new EV lease, which removes the variable costs, and removes the vast majority of the fuel cost
The most expensive was obviously the new ICEv... that shouldn't come as a surprise that a new car costs more than an old one. But the new EV was effectively the same price as the old ICE, but with much less variability and risk of breakdowns etc.
The price gap has widened significantly since I ran those calculations, the EV would now win hands down, it's not even a fair contest.
"I have no idea how you get to $43k, you might have forgotten to change tariff somewhere."
500k miles divided by 3.5miles/kWh multiplied by $0.32/kWh (or close to that). If you pay less per kWh and more per gallon and get better efficency, the spread will be more in your favor for an EV. I'd have to go through my electric bill to double check, but I'm pretty sure that $0.32/kWh is very close all in. If I lived in Kansas where it's nice and flat, I'm sure I'd beat the efficiency figure.
"As a hint, last time I checked, they had replaced the battery 3 times (approx. $21,000 each, parts and labo(u)r, per my local Tesla repair shop just now), and had 14 (FOURTEEN!) new drive units at approximately $20,000 each (including parts and labo(u)r, also per my local Tesla repair shop). All the work was out of warranty, for obvious reasons. That's $343,000 dollars in just those repairs."
Those costs are in part due to no third party support of much on a Tesla. Of course the drive unit is outrageous, it's very complex and Tesla won't release any service information for it. You get if from them or nothing. They had a bearing problem early on that they would charge thousands to do a whole swap when an upgraded bearing was ~$50 plus labor (a few hours). It's not impossible to get a rebuilt Tesla pack, but they are in high demand second hand since their modular build is really good for build projects and the car that went around it was not worth keeping since it isn't that well built.
The tech is advancing quickly so while I don't generally advocate a private party leasing a vehicle, there could be advantages for a while yet with an EV. Get one and then dump it in 3-5 years. Re-evaluate where things are on the next go round. When real specs of the EV's level out, that might be the time to purchase or wait a couple of years and purchase second hand.
The report also notes that in China, 60 percent of electric cars sold in 2023 were less expensive than their conventional counterparts, a statistic that buyers in the US and Europe, where internal combustion engined cars tend to be cheaper, can only dream of.
The market works. As does supply and demand, something the west needs to understand about its energy supply in general.
"The report also notes that in China, 60 percent of electric cars sold in 2023 were less expensive than their conventional counterparts,"
What's folded into that? Getting a number plate for an ICEV in China can be very expensive compared to an EV. That's makes any savings something artificially altered by the government.
Having chargers is one thing, having working chargers is another. The largest charging network in the UK (bp pulse) is also one of the worst rated. How convenient for an oil company.
No point reporting them as being broken, bp will just claim that it’s a temporary fault while the EV cultists will do everything in their power to make the failures of charging networks the fault of the driver. I’ve been told that I’ve somehow inserted the cable wrongly or didn’t swipe the RFID card correctly…
"Having chargers is one thing, having working chargers is another. The largest charging network in the UK (bp pulse) is also one of the worst rated."
Are they getting taxpayer money to build out their network? I expect they won't also be getting money to keep them maintained and train technicians so the focus is on more rather than working.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
