Something to Consider When Buying an EV

[dave2013]

43 minutes ago, Biggles2010 said:

Personally I think hybrid cars should have been encouraged as an interim solution until we have much better batteries and more stable sources of power generation, with the required capacity.

The problem is that you're actually using common sense and thinking about this whole issue in a rational, practical, realistic way.

The proponents of all this stuff, EVs, renewable or "green" energy, etc., as well as an issue which can't be named here, don't care about the realities.  They don't care about the consequences of their proposals.  They are hell-bent and laser-focused on getting rid of all fossil fuels, at all costs, by any means, period.  Doesn't matter how negatively millions of people will be impacted. 

You can't negotiate or reason with many of these folks.  It's like trying to convince a very religious person that God doesn't exist.

It's like The Terminator:

"It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead no longer able to use fossil fuels.

Dave

[birdguy]

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

I live in Guernsey. a small island. Its only 6 miles long by 3 miles wide

I think the performance of EVs depends on where you live.  In you case, Martin, it would make good sense.  Where I live not so much.  Typical driving distances and climate and terrain have to be taken into consideration.

Maybe the answer lies in owning two cars.  An EV for commuting to work and an ice or hybrid for long trips and vacations to places where the infrastructure for recharging is not that good

Noel

[dmwalker]

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

Maybe the answer lies in owning two cars. 

Well, that would make the car companies happy.

[martin-w]

12 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

The myths have usually originated from real life experiences.

 

You may not be aware of the dictionary definition of the word "myth". 

"a widely held but false belief or idea."

EV myths are false. Its nothing to do with life experience, its nonsense propagated on the internet and in the media by those with an agenda.

Here's some:

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/10-common-electric-car-myths-busted

 

12 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

He is living in a dream world. Only two weeks ago we were on the verge of blackouts in the UK.

 

Well he actually works for the National Grid, so has a better handle on this than you or me. And the issues you speak of stemmed from the over reliance on gas and the huge price of gas due to the war in Europe. That war is transitory. And if we weren't so ridiculously reliant on gas, and had more renewable energy of all types, the impact would have been far less. I'm reluctant to say it, but the same for nuclear. 

 

10 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

I disagree with these cars being held up as the answer to all our future transport problems, treating them as though they do not consume electricity or have any environmental impact in their production.

 

Nobody treats them as if they have zero environmental impact. The point is that the environmental impact is considerably less and its a better option for most people. Even when charged from mains power derived from fossil fuels, there is less impact in terms of CO2, not to mention zero illness forming particulates from an ICE engines tailpipe. Environmental impact over the entire lifecycle including manufacture and use by an owner is lower for an BEV.

 

10 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

Remember, the idea is to replace and scrap many millions of perfectly serviceable vehicles.

 

No its not. Nobody scraps anything. Its NEW cars in the UK that will not be petrol driven by 2030. There will still be plenty of ICE cars on the road until the end of their natural life, or the owner cottons on to the fact that its cheaper to own an EV.

 

10 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

As the numbers of EVs increase so does the demand for electricity, which has to be generated.by some means. This is conveniently glossed over.

 

Already answered. 

 

Quote

 

Does the electricity grid have enough capacity for charging EVs?

The most demand for electricity in recent years in the UK was for 62GW in 2002. Since then, the nation’s peak demand has fallen by roughly 16% due to improvements in energy efficiency.

Even if we all switched to EVs overnight, we believe demand would only increase by around 10%. So we’d still be using less power as a nation than we did in 2002 and this is well within the range of manageable load fluctuation.

The US grid is equally capable of handling more EVs on the roads – by the time 80% of the US owns an EV, this will only translate into a 10-15% increase in electricity consumption.¹

A significant amount of electricity is used to refine oil for petrol and diesel. Fully Charged’s video Volts for Oil estimates that refining 1 gallon of petrol would use around 4.5kWh of electricity – so, as we start to use less petrol or diesel cars, some of that electricity capacity could become available.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Biggles2010 said:

Personally I think hybrid cars should have been encouraged as an interim solution until we have much better batteries and more stable sources of power generation, with the required capacity..

 

That exactly what has happened. 245,000 hybrids were sold in the UK in just 2022. My daughter owns a hybrid. As for better batteries...

 

Quote

 

Statistically in the UK, the first car in a family does around 37 miles a day on average and any second car covers around 11 miles daily. In the US, the majority of households (roughly 85%) travel under 100 miles on a typical day.⁴

Understandably people don’t, however, buy for their average journeys – they buy for the longest ones they do. In reality, when we take longer trips, most of us already do stop for 15-20 minutes at a service station, to grab a drink, use the toilet or fill up on petrol or diesel. That would be all the time it takes to power up your EV with the new range of ultra-rapid chargers that are already available.

 

 

If the above isn't good enough, then don't buy an EV, but as you can see, for the vast majority it is enough.

 

[martin-w]

9 hours ago, birdguy said:

Maybe the answer lies in owning two cars

 

For the vast majority  a BEV works fine. Most of the time you charge at home while asleep and if the occasional mega long trip is undertaken then we all stop regularly for toilet brakes and to eat, and that's when we charge. Its not safe to have no breaks. 

But yes, that's not the case for everyone. I know that where you live, Noel, chargers aren't commonplace. Thus, if you do long journeys an ICE car is the way to go. Won't always be the case though. 

 

[martin-w]

12 hours ago, 3Green said:

I guess nothing is really safe, but once these batteries catch fire, they're sure hard to put out.

 

True. Lithium Ion batteries are hard to extinguish once they ignite. Much rarer than an ICE car catching fire of course.

Which is why the new BYD Blade batteries are impressive. Twice the lifespan of a Lithium Ternary battery and according to BYD a spike can go through them and they still don't catch fire.

 

 

 

 

[IanHarrison]

21 hours ago, dave2013 said:

None of the practical aspects of EVs, such as cost, range, convenience, materials, etc., matters.  The ultimate intent is to reduce the number of people driving cars and force those people into trains and buses.  Making driving more expensive is the goal.

By the way, flying is also discouraged, and will be phased out over the next 25 years, that is, flying for the little people.  Private jets will still be allowed, as folks who can afford to use them will purchase carbon offsets.

Just read this: https://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf

Moreover, the average weight of EVs will need to be 1000kg or less.  This rules out driving a Tesla Model 3, the smallest Tesla offering, for example.

I won't even bother detailing their plans for meat consumption, again, for the little people.

Anyway, this report explains everything.  They're not hiding it any more.

Dave

Already parts of this are proving wrong.

Heat pumps have been shown not to work in the UK.

 

[Biggles2010]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

You may not be aware of the dictionary definition of the word "myth". 

"a widely held but false belief or idea."

EV myths are false. Its nothing to do with life experience, its nonsense propagated on the internet and in the media by those with an agenda.

Here's some:

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

https://www.myev.com/research/ev-101/10-common-electric-car-myths-busted

Insults don't make for good argument.  I do not need help in understanding my own language.

I agree there is a lot of nonsense on the internet, but it is often a matter of perception. 'Those with an agenda' would include almost everyone who publishes anything. Universities and scientific research groups receive funding from many vested interests. A number of members of the IPCC which advises governments on environmental issues, are also employed by companies which stand to benefit from particular environmental policies. Are those scientists free of any 'agenda'.

Your links might be considered to have a pro EV agenda, although to be fair, the EPA does give a more nuanced comparison than some. It does make clear for instance that there are more emissions from producing the electricity the EV will use, than from producing the petrol the alternative will use. And this is in the USA ,where most American cars still have petrol engines much larger and less efficient than than those in general use in other parts of the world. The overall emissions benefit from electric vehicles depends on them having a sufficient working lifetime. The odd high mileage Tesla is not sufficient evidence.

Many of the early mass produced EVs suffered battery failures after 6 or 7 years and replacement cost was exhorbitant. Improved battery life and Manufacturer guarantees for 10 years are obviously a big help, but who would then risk buying a 10 year old EV?

[jlohrenz]

I don't get why there isn't more of a push for hybrid vehicles.  It's a nice compromise that utilizes the perks of both ICE and EV features.  I've driven hybrids for several years now.  For example, and ICE Honda Accord averages between 25 to 25MPG depending on a lot of factors.  The Hybrid version, which I have averages between 30 to 50MPG (temperature being the biggest factor).  The pack lasts at least 150k miles before it needs replacement, it is user replaceable as well.  There is no transmission really to speak of, the electric motor does all the work, and the engine is used to either power the motor and/or charge the battery.  It doesn't put a strain on the electrical grid, uses less fuel, so why aren't there incentives to use these?  My hybrid cost only slightly more than the ICE version.  It's a good transitory vehicle while we wait for the technology and the infrastructure to get in place for EV's.

[martin-w]

57 minutes ago, Biggles2010 said:

Insults don't make for good argument.  I do not need help in understanding my own language.

 

Not an insult. You defined the word incorrectly. We all do that sometimes. 

 

57 minutes ago, Biggles2010 said:

I agree there is a lot of nonsense on the internet, but it is often a matter of perception. 'Those with an agenda' would include almost everyone who publishes anything. Universities and scientific research groups receive funding from many vested interests. A number of members of the IPCC which advises governments on environmental issues, are also employed by companies which stand to benefit from particular environmental policies. Are those scientists free of any 'agenda'.

 

Yes, but the dangerous "agenda" is the one that's not based on fact. Not based on what science currently knows. I'm sure you've heard of the Exon scandal, how their own scientists told them unequivocally what the consequences of continued fossil fuel use would be, so they funded deniers and those who discredited scientists. still in the courts I believe. In regard to the IPCC, scientists regularly downplay, dumb down, their reports, due to pressure from politicians.

As for EV myths (falsehoods) abound. The internet is full of them, some I've posted here. There are also negatives regarding EV's that are factual, but the falsehoods outnumber them, unfortunately. people read nonsense and believe it without doing their own unbiased research. Not surprising considering the sale of fossil fuels is under threat, BEV's are a direct threat to various companies products. 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/23/scientists-changing-global-warming-report-please-polluters

https://scientistrebellion.com/we-leaked-the-upcoming-ipcc-report/

"And yes, the report was watered down: How the corporate interests and political elites watered down the world's most important climate report"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

 

57 minutes ago, Biggles2010 said:

Many of the early mass produced EVs suffered battery failures after 6 or 7 years and replacement cost was exhorbitant. Improved battery life and Manufacturer guarantees for 10 years are obviously a big help, but who would then risk buying a 10 year old EV?

 

 Another example of one of that many myths. There are numerous BEV's on the same battery that have done 200,000 miles plus. A 10 year warranty doesn't mean your battery will fail at 10 years. The thing about EV cost, is that you have to take into consideration total lifetime cost of the vehicle. Yes, BEV's are currently expensive to initially buy (getting cheaper) but given how cheap they are to run, and with fewer parts, pretty much just topping up the washer bottle at a service is all that's required. So cheaper over the lifetime of the car, compared with an ICE car that requires regular servicing, and the replacement of a multitude of very expensive parts during its lifetime, and expensive petrol to function. Electricity is increasing in cost of course, but not as fast as petrol. 

And of course, thanks to BYD, we now have batteries that have DOUBLE the longevity of Lithium Ternary. But most aren't ware of that, due to the fact that the media love to highlight anything negative they can find, not the positive's. Because it makes for a good story.

 

Quote

Lifetime cost of electric cars already lower than comparable ICE vehicles

 https://thedriven.io/2020/07/23/lifetime-cost-of-electric-cars-already-lower-than-comparable-ice-vehicles/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2022/08/01/electric-car-batteries-lasting-longer-than-predicted-delays-recycling-programs/?sh=2c9aeaca5332

 

Quote

What happens to EV batteries when they no longer power cars reliably and quickly?

Once an EV battery starts to lose its capacity to power a vehicle over distance, it still has useable life in it. When an electric car battery’s performance drops to 70% or less, its ‘second life’ revs into action.

An EV battery has a second life after 100,000 to 200,000+ miles on the road…

“An EV battery has a second life after 100,000 to 200,000+ miles on the road,” explains Graeme. “There’s still residual life in the viable battery, so it can be hung in your garage or in the cupboard under the stairs as a static battery energy storage system, if you have a renewable energy source like solar panels.”

This EV battery second stage usefulness, when paired with renewable energy, means people can save on bills and increase their use of

 

 

Even after 100 - 200,000 miles on the road, they still have a useful life. 

[dave2013]

2 hours ago, IanHarrison said:

Already parts of this are proving wrong.

Yes, you're right.  The radical, reckless, silly, and almost childish proposals regarding this stuff will almost certainly be proven wrong over time and indeed already have been proven wrong, but the folks who believe in the cause don't care. 

They will shout you down, try to ridicule you, and ultimately persecute and censor you if you disagree with them, even though their predictions and ideas have been proven wrong over and over again.

Many people are waking up to the truth about EVs, "green" energy, and other related stuff.  When your gas and electric bills skyrocket, and your electric grid can't keep up with demand, it's kind of hard to keep believing the drivel that "green" energy is better and cheaper. 

Remember that EVs have only gotten really popular over the past 5 years or so.  Before 2018 their sales were less than 2% of the total, 10 years ago less than 1%.  Therefore many of them are still relatively young vehicles and so haven't yet needed major repairs or replacements.  Just wait until millions of people have to replace their EV batteries, or electric motors, etc..  They will not be happy campers when they get the bill.  I'm sure we'll be hearing from them.

Like I've said before, the technology will improve to the point where solar, wind, and nuclear will one day provide 100% of our energy needs, but it ain't gonna happen by 2030, 2040, or even 2050.  It will happen when these energy sources become truly practical, reliable, and affordable.  It will not happen when a few zealots keep screaming at us that we're killing the planet and that we're all about to die if we don't stop using fossil fuels right this minute.  That sort of behavior and attitude will only alienate the very people they're trying to convince.

Dave

 

[martin-w]

29 minutes ago, jlohrenz said:

don't get why there isn't more of a push for hybrid vehicles.

 

There has been. And they are still very popular with buyers. My daughter has one. Hybrids have been around for 25 years.

 

Quote

Hybrids may not get as much buzz as EVs, but they're flying off dealership lots.

 

Somewhat better than a gas guzzler for the environment, but its a half measure. 

 

Quote

Hybrids may once have been revolutionary, but Oge says her problem with them is simple: They still run on fossil fuels.

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/24/1158306767/prius-toyota-hybrids-electric-car-climate-change

 

I would say that if you absolutely must have a car with an ICE engine, because you regularly drive very long distances, where charging facilities are sparse, then  a hybrid is better than a gas guzzler. 

[martin-w]

11 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

The radical, reckless, silly, and almost childish proposals regarding this stuff will almost certainly be proven wrong over time and indeed already have been proven wrong, but the folks who believe in the cause don't care. 

 

What reckless, silly and childish proposals are you referring to? 

 

11 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

hard to keep believing the drivel that "green" energy is better and cheaper. 

 

See previous replies and links. 

 

Quote

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea/

Quote

Renewables were the world’s cheapest source of energy in 2020, new report shows

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-energy-source/

Quote

Renewables: Cheapest form of power

https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/renewables-cheapest-form-power

Quote

The IEA Confirms That Solar is Now The Cheapest Energy in History

https://www.unsustainablemagazine.com/solar-is-now-the-cheapest-energy/

You get the picture. Wind was second I recall. 

Quote

It's like trying to convince a very religious person that God doesn't exist.

Or a believer that he doesn't.

[dmwalker]

30 minutes ago, martin-w said:

What reckless, silly and childish proposals are you referring to? 

I think he's referring to this report by a group of academics, in which case I tend to agree with him:

https://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf

[martin-w]

34 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

I think he's referring to this report by a group of academics, in which case I tend to agree with him:

https://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf

 

What's that? Net zero by 2050?  I think those guys are investigating the lowest risk path to net zero aren't they? I dare say  their research is better than our zero research and how we "feel" about it. But I have to say, from what I've seen from politicians and those that oppose action, and the fossil fuel industries attempt to sabotage action (they've done a good job) I think we stand very little chance of avoiding the worst impacts. We must of course try out best though, doing nothing isn't an option and will simply put us in deeper trouble.

I think this thread being locked is imminent. We've been lucky to see it last this long. 🤔