Electric cars.

[MashBag]

£5k/year insurance will definitely make EV uneconomical in my case

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...c-vehicle-owners-face-soaring-insurance-costs
I like the idea of owning an electric car - when I ordered solar panels and Tesla PowerWall 2 last year, I assumed I would need to generate a lot of energy to feed the car and put as many panels as I could. Even now, when the daylight is reduced, I export 4 times more than I import. If I have Tesla Y, and don't drive it, I would definitely be able to have enough energy for a few days. Maybe I can even get into energy trading (I looked at it, but my calculations show very little profit, so don't count on it). However, exorbitant insurance costs and initial investment makes it highly uneconomical. Otherwise I really like the idea of charging at home - it is very convenient

Trading.. . Hmm.. You could charge the TPW2 on a car tarrif and then run the house?

 

[MashBag]

I listened to an interview recently where the subject specialist said something along the lines of "if the uk stopped driving completely, it would not make one iota of difference to the climate"

 

[Benfleet Brewery]

I listened to an interview recently where the subject specialist said something along the lines of "if the uk stopped driving completely, it would not make one iota of difference to the climate"

Maybe not climate but would certainly improve our air quality.

 

[Alastair70]

£5k/year insurance will definitely make EV uneconomical in my case

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...c-vehicle-owners-face-soaring-insurance-costs
I like the idea of owning an electric car - when I ordered solar panels and Tesla PowerWall 2 last year, I assumed I would need to generate a lot of energy to feed the car and put as many panels as I could. Even now, when the daylight is reduced, I export 4 times more than I import. If I have Tesla Y, and don't drive it, I would definitely be able to have enough energy for a few days. Maybe I can even get into energy trading (I looked at it, but my calculations show very little profit, so don't count on it). However, exorbitant insurance costs and initial investment makes it highly uneconomical. Otherwise I really like the idea of charging at home - it is very convenient

The £5000 is definitely not typical. I’m paying just over £1000 for a Model 3 Performance (group 50). Slower EVs are also available.

 

[MashBag]

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...c-vehicle-owners-face-soaring-insurance-costs

Might it be possible that the insurers do not like them burning carparks down?

 

[Alastair70]

Yeah, because that happens all the time

 

[Agentgonzo]

It should be pointed out that the environmental impact of mining the precious metals for ev batteries is significant. I've yet to see a comparison on the energy/CO2 needed to create an EV vs an ICE vehicle, but I expect the EV is a lot worse for the planet to produce in the first place. I remember hearing something years ago that it creates as much pollution to build a car than it will generate in its entire life of running... Though I have no idea whether this is accurate or not

As much as I would love an EV, I'll keep running my petrol/diesel car until it dies, at it already exists and the fact its far more environmentally friendly to not create a brand new vehicle for me.

 

[MattH1973]

It should be pointed out that the environmental impact of mining the precious metals for ev batteries is significant. I've yet to see a comparison on the energy/CO2 needed to create an EV vs an ICE vehicle, but I expect the EV is a lot worse for the planet to produce in the first place. I remember hearing something years ago that it creates as much pollution to build a car than it will generate in its entire life of running... Though I have no idea whether this is accurate or not

As much as I would love an EV, I'll keep running my petrol/diesel car until it dies, at it already exists and the fact its far more environmentally friendly to not create a brand new vehicle for me.

good point Gonzo - we agree on this !

If it helps, VW did a study a few years back around its new Polo or Golf (I cannot recall which). That study acknowledged that only after c75,000 use does the vehicle become a net environmental benefit compared to an ICE. This is because of exactly the issue you raise - the environment costs of manufacture are considerably higher, and this takes a long time to compensate for. As Lithium and other minerals become more scarce, there is a risk that this issue worsens, as more extreme mining methods are needed to extract it - eg people are now scraping ocean floors looking for Lithium, which i doubt is good for marine ecosystems.

I also agree with you on the environmental benefit of sweating the asset of an old car. Once it's been built, it makes sense to keep it going as long as possible, within reason.

 

[JockyBrewer]

Maybe not climate but would certainly improve our air quality.

And fitness of the population. The reduction in burden on the NHS would be enormous.

But that's completely tangential to the discussion here...

 

[MashBag]

It should be pointed out that the environmental impact of mining the precious metals for ev batteries is significant. I've yet to see a comparison on the energy/CO2 needed to create an EV vs an ICE vehicle, but I expect the EV is a lot worse for the planet to produce in the first place. I remember hearing something years ago that it creates as much pollution to build a car than it will generate in its entire life of running... Though I have no idea whether this is accurate or not

As much as I would love an EV, I'll keep running my petrol/diesel car until it dies, at it already exists and the fact its far more environmentally friendly to not create a brand new vehicle for me.

So are you saying high insurance costs are a tax on people not thinking it through?

 

[MashBag]

And fitness of the population. The reduction in burden on the NHS would be enormous.

But that's completely tangential to the discussion here...

There are a lot more things that could make a greater difference to the NHS.. But that is, like you say, properly off topic.

 

[MashBag]

As Lithium and other minerals become more scarce, there is a risk that this issue worsens, as more extreme mining methods are needed to extract it....

Which really means more complexity, which will need even more energy, making them an even better solution (not).

 

[dad_of_jon]

Yeah, because that happens all the time

That's why the us insurance report I quoted earlier came as a surprize to me.
(25 ev's per 100,000 cars vs around 1500 for petrol and 3500 for hybrids)
The coverage I'm seen gives the impression they are always popping off. Li-ion fires ARE more serious when they do combust. Maybe that's what grabs the press's attention

I even wonder about those figures because will some cars have conveniently caught fire due to a big repair bill looming or other insurance fraud? With EV's they are generally more modern and less prone to that and it would seem more suspicious. Can you identify the seat of a fire in an ev unless you have footage of it starting?

Will us peons every really learn the truth.

"Is there life on Mars?
Is there life in Peckham?"
"Allo John gotta new motor?"

 

[JockyBrewer]

good point Gonzo - we agree on this !

If it helps, VW did a study a few years back around its new Polo or Golf (I cannot recall which). That study acknowledged that only after c75,000 use does the vehicle become a net environmental benefit compared to an ICE. This is because of exactly the issue you raise - the environment costs of manufacture are considerably higher, and this takes a long time to compensate for. As Lithium and other minerals become more scarce, there is a risk that this issue worsens, as more extreme mining methods are needed to extract it - eg people are now scraping ocean floors looking for Lithium, which i doubt is good for marine ecosystems.

I also agree with you on the environmental benefit of sweating the asset of an old car. Once it's been built, it makes sense to keep it going as long as possible, within reason.

EV technology is still young and relatively inefficient and the 'break even' time will come down as things improve. The last study I saw was data from 2022 that suggested it took around 4 years of the average car's 12 year, 150,000km lifespan.

Ultimately they're a means to an end - EVs on their own won't solve problems unless the rest of the lifecycle is decarbonised too.

 

[Agentgonzo]

So are you saying high insurance costs are a tax on people not thinking it through?

No. I wasn't talking about insurance costs at all

 

[Northern_Brewer]

It should be pointed out that the environmental impact of mining the precious metals for ev batteries is significant. I've yet to see a comparison on the energy/CO2 needed to create an EV vs an ICE vehicle, but I expect the EV is a lot worse for the planet to produce in the first place. I remember hearing something years ago that it creates as much pollution to build a car than it will generate in its entire life of running... Though I have no idea whether this is accurate or not

That's the thing, there's all sorts of FUD going round, promoted by those car manufacturers who are struggling to adapt to the future. For instance, what you are half-remembering may well be the "independent" report that got some attention a while back - but was later found to be produced by the wife of the head of PR at Aston Martin!!!

The numbers depend a lot on the assumptions you make, but one of the obvious howlers made by the pro-ICE people is assuming that all cars will be run on German electricity with current levels of coal, when they are greening rapidly (never mind the likes of France or the UK where electricity has much lower carbon intensity), you need to look at the source of electricity over the lifetime of the car and not just at present.

Try this report from one of the leading academics on the subject who comes up with numbers between 11-30,000km depending on what cars you're comparing, he usually cites 16,000 miles as the breakeven point for the "average" car. And crucially he shows how he comes to those numbers, unlike most people, so you can take a view on his assumptions.

- eg people are now scraping ocean floors looking for Lithium

No they are not.

Lithium is highly soluble, the last place you will find it is under water (other than dissolved in the water itself). Quite the opposite, it's found in the most arid places on earth, like the Australian desert.

People are looking underwater for things like nickel (used in stainless steel and 10p coins, if you have an ecological objection to those), but we're in the very early stages of commercial extraction.

But in general, extracting the material for 0.3 tons of battery has rather less impact than extracting the 15 tons of oil needed to run an ICE car in its lifetime.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

But in general, extracting the material for 0.3 tons of battery has rather less impact than extracting the 15 tons of oil needed to run an ICE car in its lifetime.

Exactly and lets not forget how much damage burning that 15 tons of oil does to the environment then factor in all the fluids that are also changed at every service along with filters that cannot be reused and mining metals for EV battery manufacture takes a back seat when comparing which does the most damage.

Another thing that is not mentioned often is the fact when the batteries get to the stage where they no longer give a decent range they are not scrap they can be used for many other things and as i have mentioned before there are original Nissan Leafs for sale with 10 of the 12 battery condition blocks still showing on the dash meaning many more years before the battery needs changing.

 

[MattH1973]

No they are not.

But in general, extracting the material for 0.3 tons of battery has rather less impact than extracting the 15 tons of oil needed to run an ICE car in its lifetime.

I really wish people wouldnt slap others down so much, I see no need to be so confrontational. Here is one link that suggests something contrary to your view. Maybe you are a deep sea miner yourself and know me to be wrong, but it isnt unreasonable that I would put some weight on what I read - which I suspect most people who post on discussion boards do.

https://theconversation.com/a-rush-...-ocean-life-that-arent-well-understood-139833
The point about 0.3 tons versus 15 tons is just another way of debating the break even point we have been discussing. Thanks for posting that paper - based on a quick skim it seems to start from a position of wanting to prove most other studies are flawed in favour of the ICE. I was also amused that they picked a Bugatti Veyron as one of the ICE comparators. They put it up against an electric Porsche which is much newer and far more mainstream. it is hardly a surprise that the enviro credentials of the Veyron are very poor.

And that is one reason it is so hard to know for sure, because so many conflicting studies exist and almost everyone has an agenda. But what the breakeven point is, is a legitimate source of debate. The reason I picked a VW study is that I thought they were unlikely to be biased against their own electric car. I am not saying your study is flawed, just making a point that all scientific research is debateable to some extent.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I really wish people wouldnt slap others down so much, I see no need to be so confrontational.

You have said this a couple of times now, I really don't get why you think people are being confrontational having an opposing view doesn't make people confrontational.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Here is one link that suggests

If that had said "that proves" instead of "that suggests" I would have read it, saying "that suggests" to me suggests its a load of BS.
Sorry if that sounds confrontational.