Electric cars.

[MashBag]

3 month old defender just lost £14(k in value.

Don't be shocked. There is usually an immediate loss the second you drive or off the forecourt.

What was the original price, nearly £90k?

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I love it when people add facts to a thread

I agree. Do feel free to give it a try sometime...

Given the amount of time you spend arguing from personal disbelief rather than easily discoverable fact, you might want to consider your own position on that continuum....

You are right that the London CC shows us how this might go - but the big point is this. There are two diametrically opposed policy objectives here - one is financially incentivising the takeup of EVs and the other is the tax revenue required, currently delivered by fuel duty and likely in future delivered by road pricing. The only way I can think of to fix the revenue issue, whilst providing the same incentive for EVs is to introduce road pricing for all vehicles and leave overall fuel tax at the current very high level.

I suggested that road pricing will not discriminate between ICE and EVs, the fact that you are surprised by that proposition seems to be based on vastly overestimating the desire of government to "financially incentivise the takeup of EVs" when in fact they've reduced most of the overt subsidies like £5k against purchase price and now the Congestion Charge exemption - partly because they just can't afford to do otherwise. All that's left now is the company car benefit and a small contribution towards chargers in certain properties and I suspect they will go in the course of the next Parliament - the trend is clear.

I think that is likely to produce a national level outcry on a par with the London ULEZ objections (which swung the Uxbridge by-election, suggesting it will influence how people vote). It will disproportionally affect lower income ICE drivers, just like ULEZ. As you suggest, fuel duty could be lowered a bit to take the sting out of the protests, but this would also reduce the relative incentive to buy an EV.... one goes against the other. This is why the Lords (rightly) are saying politicians should start an honest conversation on how these two opposing forces will be dealt with.

Just to get things in perspective, fuel duty is expected to raise £24.3bn in 2023-4, so £867 per household or £16.63 per household per week. So even if there were no ICE cars on the road (so some time after 2050) and had to replace all fuel duty with road pricing, you're not looking at impossible amounts of money. Yes it would (rightly!) be unevenly spread, but you could imagine it might look like £5 per hour that you use the M25 in rush hour. Compare that with £8.90 to use the M6 Toll road for instance.

It's getting to the stage where a bit of fuel duty is not going to be a decisive factor in the decision to buy an EV, certainly not by the stage this stuff is actually happening which is probably in the 2029-2034 parliament. The difference with ULEZ is that it was a new thing, that required people to buy a whole new car, rather than just an extension of local Congestion Charges. People will moan, but it's not going to be politically fatal, particularly not given the likely majority of the next government.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

It's interesting the derision Hydrogen attracts amongst those same people who are so sensitive regarding any criticism at all of EVs. I think it is obvious that very brief refuelling stops

You do realise that the current state of the art is to reach from 10% to 80% of charge in around 30 minutes? And that will only improve as technology develops - for instance the Toyota road map sees lithium-ion cars with 497 miles of range and 10-80% charging in 20 minutes in two years time, 621 miles range in three years time, and also in three years time a car with solid-state batteries with the same range, increasing to 746 mile-range in a subsequent model with charging times down to 10 minutes, even if they will only be produced in small quantities initially.

But even if you ignore the Powerpoint technology, refuelling is not really an issue with curent technology. Take the base model of VW's id.3 - its 58kWh battery gives 265 mile range and 120kW charging which allows 5-80% in 35 minutes (the 77kWh version can charge at 170kW and takes 30 minutes with a claimed range of 347 miles). 265 + (0.75*265) = 464 miles. For comparison Southampton to Perth is 475 miles according to Google - and how often do you do a journey like that? Even so, you would need 36 minutes of charging to go Southampton to Perth - but as a 8-hour drive you should be stopping 3 times anyway as the recommendation is to stop every 2 hours.

So this whole thing about refuelling time just isn't really relevant for long journeys as human factors like bladder capacity and the need for coffee get in the way. Speaking as someone who has done a 700-mile journey in the UK with just two "splash and dash" stops for fuel and garage sandwiches which I ate in the car - you really don't want to do that.

appeal to those who cannot easily charge at home, or like to go on long journeys - and this sector of the market will have to be catered for if the 100% conversion to EVs that politicians seem to advocate is to be achieved. As for the maturity of hydrogen, it is hardly a surprise it is so far behind Lithium EVs when one considers the level of subsidy that the latter has received.

It's not about subsidy - in general the subsidies have been technology agnostic, it's just that hydrogen has been too far behind to take advantage of them. One of the problems with hydrogen is that there isn't really an existing network to carry it, so you have to do a massive amount of (subsidised) spending just to give the first car a way to fill up. But as I and others keep saying, the problem with hydrogen comes down to the fact that it is so inefficient compared to electric (assuming the hydrogen is being produced by electrolysis) which in turn means it will always be a lot more expensive to run than electric unless you manage to find an economic way to use it to transport stored electricity from solar farms in the Sahara or something. Which is not necessarily easy....

The other massive problem with hydrogen is just how much will be available for transport. Just replacing all our existing hydrogen produced from fossil fuels will be a huge endeavour, needing about 10% of total UK electricity production. Until that point, using hydrogen for transport just increases fossil fuel usage. But even after that point, there will be many uses that will be ahead of transport in the queue for what hydrogen there is - by which I mean "will be prepared to pay more than transport users" as unlike transport the likes of chemical plants will have no alternative options. There may be some niches in transport for hydrogen, but they will be in things like construction sites or remote mines.

I wonder how far EV's will go on one charge by the time Hydrogen cars can get anywhere near 400km

In 5 years hydrogen technology will still be struggling to establish itself, whilst solid state batteries could be giving us 700+ miles of range and charging in 10 minutes. So why spend billion on a whole new distribution network?

There are pros and cons of all vehicle types, and therefore my view has always been that the 100% EV model is the wrong target, I agree with those like Toyota who advocate a mix of solutions. Recent coverage suggests they may be on to something. I think our politicians are stupid enough to keep gunning for 100% EV though.

I'd suggest that it's a strawman to say that they are "gunning" for 100% electric, there's no conspiracy by Big Battery to make hydrogen fail, it's just that's the way the market is going. Any more than there's been conspiracies to stop LPG cars or LPG heating escaping their niches - it's just their advantages are not so great over the dominant solutions that they can overcome inherent problems with cost or building a supply network. You only have to look at the companies who know energy and have to decide where to invest in the future of transport infrastructure - like Shell, who are closing down their car hydrogen garages in California but keeping open the ones for trucks. Is that the fault of political direction, or just cutting losses on a bad investment decision?

Finally, I think when a solution for HGVs, far, equipment etc is delivered that tech (whatever it is) could end up permeating the car market.

What magic technology is this? BEVs are increasingly looking like a mature technology, or at least a good enough one. Just look at Norway where 82.4% of new cars were pure electric in 2023 (and it's around 91% including plug-in hybrids). So 82% of new car buyers in Norway are not worrying about the performance of EVs in cold weather, or charging times or whatever - putting cost to one side, the technology as it is now, is good enough for them.

For comparison the UK saw EVs at 14.7% of new car sales in January - so about 10 years behind Norway where subsidies have been generous.

 

[MattH1973]

Given the amount of time you spend arguing from personal disbelief rather than easily discoverable fact, you might want to consider your own position on that continuum....

I suggested that road pricing will not discriminate between ICE and EVs, the fact that you are surprised by that proposition seems to be based on vastly overestimating the desire of government to "financially incentivise the takeup of EVs" when in fact they've reduced most of the overt subsidies like £5k against purchase price and now the Congestion Charge exemption - partly because they just can't afford to do otherwise. All that's left now is the company car benefit and a small contribution towards chargers in certain properties and I suspect they will go in the course of the next Parliament - the trend is clear.

Just to get things in perspective, fuel duty is expected to raise £24.3bn in 2023-4, so £867 per household or £16.63 per household per week. So even if there were no ICE cars on the road (so some time after 2050) and had to replace all fuel duty with road pricing, you're not looking at impossible amounts of money. Yes it would (rightly!) be unevenly spread, but you could imagine it might look like £5 per hour that you use the M25 in rush hour. Compare that with £8.90 to use the M6 Toll road for instance.

It's getting to the stage where a bit of fuel duty is not going to be a decisive factor in the decision to buy an EV, certainly not by the stage this stuff is actually happening which is probably in the 2029-2034 parliament. The difference with ULEZ is that it was a new thing, that required people to buy a whole new car, rather than just an extension of local Congestion Charges. People will moan, but it's not going to be politically fatal, particularly not given the likely majority of the next government.

a few brief responses
- the recent energy on this thread stemmed from me posting the facts around what the Lords report said, so I am content with my ability to evidence my arguments. As for "arguing from personal disbelief" isn't this what everyone does on debates that are not settled, picking facts and studies to support their arguments ? I have some minority views, but that doesn't make them wrong......i suspect you and I have a different definition of "easily discoverable".......
- While we are "considering our positions" you may want to consider how condescending your tone comes across. Like when you completely unnecessarily accused me of "sneering". To borrow your words from that post, patronising and condescention doesn't help a debate either. And I'd already clarified that comment was a joke.
- indeed, your tone is unfortunate as you raise some interesting points. I do indeed think that the government wants and needs to provide significant incentives for an EV take up, but I will reflect on your points. I would agree, that if and when we hit the point when a vast majority of vehicles are already EV then incentives wont matter nearly as much. My instinct is still that the journey from here to there will be challenging, but let's see.

You do realise that the current state of the art is to reach from 10% to 80% of charge in around 30 minutes? And that will only improve as technology develops - for instance the Toyota road map sees lithium-ion cars with 497 miles of range and 10-80% charging in 20 minutes in two years time, 621 miles range in three years time, and also in three years time a car with solid-state batteries with the same range, increasing to 746 mile-range in a subsequent model with charging times down to 10 minutes, even if they will only be produced in small quantities initially.

So this whole thing about refuelling time just isn't really relevant for long journeys as human factors like bladder capacity and the need for coffee get in the way. Speaking as someone who has done a 700-mile journey in the UK with just two "splash and dash" stops for fuel and garage sandwiches which I ate in the car - you really don't want to do that.

What magic technology is this? BEVs are increasingly looking like a mature technology, or at least a good enough one. Just look at Norway where 82.4% of new cars were pure electric in 2023 (and it's around 91% including plug-in hybrids). So 82% of new car buyers in Norway are not worrying about the performance of EVs in cold weather, or charging times or whatever - putting cost to one side, the technology as it is now, is good enough for them.

- i also agree that solid state batteries (or similar) are a potential game changer that would render a lot of the enthusiasm for hydrogen moot. I just don't understand why so many people feel the need, unprompted, to constantly remind us of the flaws of hydrogen.
- I, too, have done periodic long journeys. But as a point of principle I want to decide when to stop and how long for, and not be constrained by the vehicle. Personally, I prefer to power through with only brief bladder stops (at the risk of too much detail) and relax properly once the journey is over. Improved range, charging times, and apps to help people find empty chargers are no doubt improving the position, but I still put a premium on convenience.
- Again, the reference to "magic" tech is rather condescending. I was making the entirely reasonable point hat Lithium EVs will not be the end of the story, transport wise, and that solutions from other industries might eventually find their way into private cars. Progress over a long period has worked this way.

I hope the 4am timestamp means you are travelling somewhere nice - enjoy !

 

[matt.]

We must all do our bit for the planet...
I just unplugged a row of electric cars, that no one was using.

 

[dad_of_jon]

We must all do our bit for the planet...
I just unplugged a row of electric cars, that no one was using.

Not quite in the same league as some Germans



Some of their reasons, well flip a coin....

(Elon musk is an ????hole was one reason they gave.)
You could argue he's desperate to get to Mars via SpaceX to leave car burning nutters behind.

Berlin is the hotspot? (no pun intended) so maybe if you are offered an Tesla as Rental on arrival at Berlin Airport maybe choose something else.

 

[Jim Brewster]

Don't be shocked. There is usually an immediate loss the second you drive or off the forecourt.

What was the original price, nearly £90k?

Yeah, mostly VAT

 

[Chippy_Tea]

So let's burn Tesla cars and chargers because Tesla own Starlink, (WRONG) Tesla do not own starlink its owned by space X.

What a bunch of ******* morons.

The video starts at this point -

 

[dad_of_jon]

So let's burn Tesla cars and chargers because Tesla own Starlink, (WRONG) Tesla do not own starlink its owned by space X.

What a bunch of ******* morons.

The video starts at this point -

Exactly, they don't posses the technology to take out starlink so burning cars releasing the very toxic materials they are harping on about.
Also these cars will be insured so most likely owners will get another one.

 

[gavp1979]

Also these cars will be insured so most likely owners will get another one.

Ironically making Tesla/Elon Musk even more money! So not really a well though out idea

 

[dad_of_jon]

This guy is an investigator/fire safety/engineer. There is a comment made in the comments section that struck me as shocking.

The comment was about building an underground depot in shepards bush london to charge a large number of buses and put housing above. I couldn't find details on it but really storing a large amount of potentially flammable/explosive material under peoples homes is insane unless you have infallible mitigation measures in place. They can't put LI-ion out as easily as petrol/diesel.

I'm not anti ev, even James May said that an electric motor to drive a vehicle is the most elegant way to move a car. An ICE engine has so many moving parts to just make a shaft turn around. The problem is the battery chemistry.

BTW: Done 949 miles on my e-bike in less than a year.

 

[JockyBrewer]

Just noticed that the world's largest EV battery maker, CATL, announced back in January that by mid 2024 they will have halved the cost of their Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries in 12 months.

A 60kWh battery pack will have dropped from $6,776.00 to $3,388.00.

https://thedriven.io/2024/01/25/wor...y-maker-set-to-cut-costs-in-half-by-mid-2024/

This stuff is getting cheaper all the time.

 

[dad_of_jon]

Just noticed that the world's largest EV battery maker, CATL, announced back in January that by mid 2024 they will have halved the cost of their Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries in 12 months.

A 60kWh battery pack will have dropped from $6,776.00 to $3,388.00.

https://thedriven.io/2024/01/25/wor...y-maker-set-to-cut-costs-in-half-by-mid-2024/

This stuff is getting cheaper all the time.

That all good as in it's safer and has less nasty minerals from congo etc. It's not as energy dense but improved lifespan. So it may make cars heavier to compete with li-ion. It seems that it will go in cheaper cars and if the battery lasts longer that will be good for us peons. Those that want to drive around like they are in a rocket can pay more and sit on their own big firework

He talks about ebike battery life I'm hoping for 5 years out of mine but he must be referring to typical case use.

 

[JockyBrewer]

LFP is also less prone to catching fire and can be charged faster than the standard NMC batteries.

Although less energy dense I think there are some ways the weight can be cut with different packaging - the 62kWh LFP battery in a BYD Seal is 470kg, whereas the 60kWh NMC battery in a Renault Megane e-tech is 394kg. So heavier, but maybe worth it for the price difference?

You might also find that you end up needing a smaller battery as there’s much less need to undercharge an LFP battery.

And they’re only going to get better and cheaper.

 

[AlBrew]

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/luton-airport-fire-car-park-cause-b2517206.html



TLDR
The report also concluded that the car had a diesel engine, and stated that ‘it was not a mild hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle’, quashing widespread internet claims that the blaze was started by a battery-powered model.

 

[Leon103]

Just noticed that the world's largest EV battery maker, CATL, announced back in January that by mid 2024 they will have halved the cost of their Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries in 12 months.

A 60kWh battery pack will have dropped from $6,776.00 to $3,388.00.

https://thedriven.io/2024/01/25/wor...y-maker-set-to-cut-costs-in-half-by-mid-2024/

This stuff is getting cheaper all the time.

Which fits in with industry prediction that EVs will be half the price by end of 2024/early 2025

 

[Chippy_Tea]

 

[hoppyscotty]

Which fits in with industry prediction that EVs will be half the price by end of 2024/early 2025

Not sure halving the cost of a $7000 component on a $50,000 car will have any impact on the selling price of the car. Especially since what is likely to happen is larger and more expensive batteries will be fitted now to get more range, which is peoples main bugbear with BEV's, thus completely negating the cost savings. Its the computer processor paradox...you never actually feel an improvement in the speed of your computer with ever improving and faster processors as software out develops it and soaks up all the performance advantage so you end up with a more expensive computer and more expensive software.

 

[old dog new tricks]

Not sure halving the cost of a $7000 component on a $50,000 car will have any impact on the selling price of the car. Especially since what is likely to happen is larger and more expensive batteries will be fitted now to get more range, which is peoples main bugbear with BEV's, thus completely negating the cost savings. Its the computer processor paradox...you never actually feel an improvement in the speed of your computer with ever improving and faster processors as software out develops it and soaks up all the performance advantage so you end up with a more expensive computer and more expensive software.

its not just price its charging network, if we all switched tomorrow the grid would not be able to cope. In the UK we are decades behind other countries due to under investment and zigzag policies for infrastructure. Outside of London the charging network is joke not for for purpose and more expensive than a modern diesel to run.
I would switch but simply can't afford it and the public changers next to me are expensive and rarely working.

 

[JockyBrewer]

its not just price its charging network, if we all switched tomorrow the grid would not be able to cope. In the UK we are decades behind other countries due to under investment and zigzag policies for infrastructure. Outside of London the charging network is joke not for for purpose and more expensive than a modern diesel to run.
I would switch but simply can't afford it and the public changers next to me are expensive and rarely working.

Not true according to National Grid:

"The highest peak electricity demand in the UK in recent years was 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 estimate 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 the grid can capably handle."

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/journey-to-net-zero/electric-vehicles-myths-misconceptions


What is true is that if we ALL switched to EVs overnight, and ALL plugged them in at the same time then they wouldn't all be able to charge at full speed (but they would charge!). It's a bit like saying if we all needed to buy petrol at the same time there's not enough pumps/petrol available, which is also true.