Research shows it costs more to run an EV on long journeys

[Mr Vlad]

Re landlords needing to put chargers on their properties. It was actually put to them some time ago but as you'd expect they kicked off because of cost and the fear of damage due to a disgruntled tennant. 

Something like a law was put in place about a year or more ago stating all new houses being built have to have a charging point. Note Charging Point. Some building firms put a 13amp socket on the outside wall. Now that really is funny as it basically is not illegal but an almighty wee wee take. 

If a law is made it should be water tight and not be taken the P out of. But the point is the law is there but the builders are going to just do the bare minimum.

[eightk]

Germany don’t just burn coal, they burn lignite - one of the most polluting types of coal you can find.

We are in our 8th year of EV ownership. Current EV is our 4th. We’ve always had petrol cars as well. EVs work great as low mileage company cars (low tax), second cars, city runabouts and OAP pop-to-the-shops use, but for long journeys they’re next to useless. For the uses I’ve listed they do make sense -  Instant heating, thrash from stone cold, silent and nippy, super reliable (apart from our Tesla) - they do have a lot of positives.

The environment doesn’t come into it for the vast majority of EV buyers - it’s zero benefit in kind tax that’s the attraction. If that’s removed or brought in line with fuel powered cars most EV owners will be going back to ICE.

[wharfhouse]

35 minutes ago, eightk said:

The environment doesn’t come into it for the vast majority of EV buyers - it’s zero benefit in kind tax that’s the attraction. If that’s removed or brought in line with fuel powered cars most EV owners will be going back to ICE.

That's why the government are pushing so hard on 2030 - there won't be time for people to realise what is happening and that after 2030 the taxes will then just keep going up on EVs as high as ICE - they will have been hoodwinked into accepting EV and there won't be any ICE cars to go back to at that point! 

[Las Palmas]

32 minutes ago, eightk said:

The environment doesn’t come into it for the vast majority of EV buyers - it’s zero benefit in kind tax that’s the attraction. If that’s removed or brought in line with fuel powered cars most EV owners will be going back to ICE.

There are many positives, but unfortunately more negatives.

In big cities where all are supposed to drive without polluting - maybe in the short term a positive. In the long term not so much. Why. Factories for making batteries pollute an awful lot and fortunately for the places where they are built, pollution spread around with wind and the polluted water running into the sea, from where we desperately need fresh fish. Gone with the wind? No, pollution just transported another place. Temperature in the sea is higher than ever since it started to be measured. Places where cattle used to be grazing dug up in search for material to make batteries. A Battery for a big Tesla is tiny compared to what is needed to transport the food and goods around, and for ships no such way to power is realistic. We will have to go back to the big 4 master ships and accept that only things that can wait to come from far away in the course of 3 - 4 months, half a year can come from far away. Realistic?

Before 2030 politicians needing votes will change a lot. No tax for EV's? If only EV's no tax? If EV's taxed hard as the rest why would anybody want one.

 

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Re landlords needing to put chargers on their properties. It was actually put to them some time ago but as you'd expect they kicked off because of cost and the fear of damage due to a disgruntled tennant. 

Something like a law was put in place about a year or more ago stating all new houses being built have to have a charging point. Note Charging Point. Some building firms put a 13amp socket on the outside wall. Now that really is funny as it basically is not illegal but an almighty wee wee take. 

If a law is made it should be water tight and not be taken the P out of. But the point is the law is there but the builders are going to just do the bare minimum.

As far as laws concerned - I think all to this date was optional, building code was only consultation and nothing concrete was agreed, as far as I know it is still consultation. The biggest problem is political - basically building code for long time required to build houses WITHOUT parking to discourage car ownership and this is in direct conflict with charging, because for charging to exist the parking should exist first... and when average number of parking paces for new developments is like 30 spaces per 100 flats... it just doesn't work.

Some of that is anecdotal evidence, but this is my experience. Like 4 years ago I was thinking about either getting BMW 330e from work or getting used i8, in either case they only make sense if I can charge them at home, so basically I would get ~25 miles of range without putting any fuel in every day, but the first hurdle was to get charging. I do have my dedicated parking place which costs fortune, but even then I can't install the charger. I have asked building management for permission and they basically said that freeholder didn't give permission. They haven't refused, but they haven't allowed it either and there are no provisions in law or building code under which I can compel them. I think verbally the reason give - they would need to change insurance policy for parking lot, because there would be different fire risks and different electrical risks, so they won't approve it. But even before that to get parking into garage would have required complete rewiring as installation there is only capable of running lights. For cars like BMW 330e or i8, that is less of an issue as 220v socket would suffice, but for true BEV it is even bigger issue. At least when I was looking at in in 2018, I could get £2000 grant for PHEV (and I believe it was £4000 for BEV) and something like £2000 for charging point, but as far as I know that was dropped now as well (which I believe is fair, but doesn't look better in terms of BEV future).

And the way I see it - there is only 2 outcomes possible for BEVs to be viable. 1. everyone gets home charging, so they don't need to rely on public infrastructure - which as we can see won't happen, or 2. there needs to be national organised drive for public infrastructure and car charging times should drop to like 5 minutes by 2030... which I can't see happening either.

So comes 2030 - I just can see how the challenges will be resolved. At least at the moment nothing is being done proactively at all.

[First_Lexus]

2 hours ago, Mr Vlad said:

Something like a law was put in place about a year or more ago stating all new houses being built have to have a charging point. Note Charging Point. Some building firms put a 13amp socket on the outside wall. Now that really is funny as it basically is not illegal but an almighty wee wee take.

To be fair, when I moved house in 2021 I looked at a few new builds and ended up buying one. All the ones I saw had proper EV chargers, and the one I eventually moved into has a PodPoint installed.

My development is only 18 houses. All have a PodPoint and there is also one for visitor use at one end of the cul-de-sac. That’s pretty impressive imho, but still doesn’t solve the problem of charging when away from home given the (generally) restricted ranges of EVs when used at motorway speeds especially in Winter, or when competing longer journeys.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, eightk said:

Germany don’t just burn coal, they burn lignite - one of the most polluting types of coal you can find.

We are in our 8th year of EV ownership. Current EV is our 4th. We’ve always had petrol cars as well. EVs work great as low mileage company cars (low tax), second cars, city runabouts and OAP pop-to-the-shops use, but for long journeys they’re next to useless. For the uses I’ve listed they do make sense -  Instant heating, thrash from stone cold, silent and nippy, super reliable (apart from our Tesla) - they do have a lot of positives.

The environment doesn’t come into it for the vast majority of EV buyers - it’s zero benefit in kind tax that’s the attraction. If that’s removed or brought in line with fuel powered cars most EV owners will be going back to ICE.

That is the point... there are certainly situations where BEVs make sense, but definitely not in all situations. The problem is that after 2030 they will the only choice and that is inevitably going to cause people to buy BEVs for travel they are simply not suitable for. Imagine if government would have done the same with diesels 10 years ago based on wrong assumption. The diesel gate would have been 100 time worse disaster. So with diesel we were kind of lucky, the issue was realised, common sense prevailed and we still had relatively large fleet of petrol cars to fall back on. What they doing with BEV mandate I consider criminal... incentivising it is one thing but banning alternatives in my opinion is just massive government overreach (and generally speaking I am not conservative type preaching for free market).

17 minutes ago, Las Palmas said:

There are many positives, but unfortunately more negatives.

In big cities where all are supposed to drive without polluting - maybe in the short term a positive. In the long term not so much. Why. Factories for making batteries pollute an awful lot and fortunately for the places where they are built, pollution spread around with wind and the polluted water running into the sea, from where we desperately need fresh fish. Gone with the wind? No, pollution just transported another place. Temperature in the sea is higher than ever since it started to be measured. Places where cattle used to be grazing dug up in search for material to make batteries. A battery for a big Tesla is tiny compared to what is needed to transport the food and goods around, and for ships no such way to power is realistic. We will have to go back to the big 4 master ships and accept that only things that can wait to come from far away in the course of 3 - 4 months, half a year can come from far away. Realistic?

Before 2030 politicians needing votes will change a lot. No tax for EV's? If only EV's no tax? If EV's taxed hard as the rest why would anybody want one.

It depends. If the BEV is small car with small Battery and low range, then there are no negatives really. But that is NOT what people are buying, people are buying long range models with MASSIVE batteries and drive them for short distances in the city and they end-up polluting much more in their low mileage car than if they would have with ICEV. I think there should be category for BEVs (like Japan had "k-cars") which have small batteries (like 15Kwh) and ranges up-to 100miles specifically for city driving will low or no tax. The rest of BEV should be taxed on the size of the Battery and generally discouraged.

But if that is not done, and there is no indication it will be done, then you are right - in long term they will pollute more. Because for efficient BEVs the break-even point is like 80k miles, for huge ones like Model-X it is probably like 140k miles. So if Model-X travels only 70k miles in 10 years, then it is likely had polluted double compared to normal SUV... and even that is only assuming BEVs are charged on "green" energy.

Again this all reminds me diesel problems where science and impact was not understood properly and wrong thing was promoted for wrong use. Diesel is great for motorway and high mileage, but diesel is horrible for short journeys in the city... and what happened? People bought diesel to drive in the city because of favourable taxes!.. and then we have problem. Same here - BEVs are great for short journeys if they have tiny batteries... if they have large batteries then then need to do a lot of miles to offset the pollution inherent in the Battery... what people do? Buy the longest possible range BEV (because of range anxiety) and drive them for 1200 miles a year which ends-up polluting more than ICEV they replaced.

So yes - theoretically BEVs do make sense, in practice nobody is educating consumer and nobody is making sure they are used in the way which would actually benefit the environment and reduce the pollution.

[Linas.P]

19 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

To be fair, when I moved house in 2021 I looked at a few new builds and ended up buying one. All the ones I saw had proper EV chargers, and the one I eventually moved into has a PodPoint installed.

My development is only 18 houses. All have a PodPoint and there is also one for visitor use at one end of the cul-de-sac. That’s pretty impressive imho, but still doesn’t solve the problem of charging when away from home given the (generally) restricted ranges of EVs when used at motorway speeds especially in Winter, or when competing longer journeys.

I guess that is true for the houses, but not at all the case for the flats. For houses I guess it is almost a selling point or "nice to have" which makes it easier to sell. But installing one in your house was never a problem in the first place, different story for the flats... and flats is where 60% of population is living in and especially in the big cities that is probably 80%.

It seems the government position here - "if you in the city then you don't need a car... and if there is tube strike... well then cycle... or walk... we don't care!". So here is conundrum - BEVs are most beneficial in the cities and makes most sense, but city dwellers are the ones least likely to be in position to own one! Whereas most BEV owners actually live in country side and houses, where BEV has least benefits... 

[First_Lexus]

40 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

It seems the government position here - "if you in the city then you don't need a car... and if there is tube strike... well then cycle... or walk... we don't care!".

They were talking on the radio just this morning that there’s an initial proposal (at the drawing board stage) for people in certain cities to give up their driving licences and, if they do, they’d receive free public transport within their city…but as was pointed out, that doesn’t resolve their issue when they want or need to travel further afield and then they couldn’t even hire a car! 

I’m sure schemes like that will come eventually though, in one form or another.

 

[Mr Vlad]

Just more codswallop on the radio with self centred self opinionated numpties preaching their utter nonsense. 

[Las Palmas]

15 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Just more codswallop on the radio with self centred self opinionated numpties preaching their utter nonsense. 

Unfortunately, these idiots are what will be elected to tell us what to do.

[Linas.P]

34 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

They were talking on the radio just this morning that there’s an initial proposal (at the drawing board stage) for people in certain cities to give up their driving licences and, if they do, they’d receive free public transport within their city…but as was pointed out, that doesn’t resolve their issue when they want or need to travel further afield and then they couldn’t even hire a car! 

I’m sure schemes like that will come eventually though, in one form or another.

Getting public transport improved and cost reduced could definitely help with city travel and reduce congestion, but taking away license just doesn't make sense! I quite honestly happy not to listen to the radio, but thanks for sharing! So basically if I live in London and I go to Spain... I will not be able to hire the car because to qualify for discount on public transport I have to give away my license?! Wow...

I guess, it is fair to say they debated and realised themselves that this would not work, but I am still surprised that somebody even found it reasonable to suggest that taking away the license would be an option, or desirable... it almost seems like they think of drivers as some sort of alcoholics or addicts, or people with mental issues... people who need to be dealt with!

This kind of goes to show how detached from reality and religiously-militant-anti-driver some people are...  Hard to even believe somebody came-up with such idea, but that is the point I was raising few times before - there are sizable minorities in UK that have extreme anti-driver views and they only see issues and negatives with the driving. There is genuine and unjustified hatred against motoring for some reason... I assume this sort of comes from brainwashing and constant scapegoating on mass media, but in my experience only UK has this sort of attitude. It may be only me, but having lived in other countries I have never felt it and in UK I feel constantly attacked, treated almost as criminal, marginalised and accused simply for having license and enjoying the experience of driving the car and preferring this mode of transportation. Almost every article is either "drivers kill people", "drivers are irresponsible", "drivers are always at fault, drunk, on drugs, speeding", "cars pollutes, cars blocks the pavements, cars blocks the roads, cars congests everything, cars kills baby seals", "roads destroys communities", "roads destroys beauty of the country, destroy nature", "put them all in the jail"... There is never ANY positive story about driving in this country from mainstream... if there is anything ever positive, then it is from dedicated media for motoring, like Top Gear or some other car related media outlets or motoring groups like AA or RAC. But there is never anything positive from BBC, or SKY, or any of the newspapers etc. It is probably comparable to the discussion about guns in US except much less balanced - in US at least it is like 50/50, then here is like 99/1.

So yeah... that was my rant, but I just find experience and attitude in UK very very different from other countries where driving is considered cool, kids waits until they can get license and their parents always waiting for that to happen and are proud for kids to get their first cars etc and start driving. 

[Las Palmas]

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

So yeah... that was my rant, but I just find experience and attitude in UK very very different from other countries where driving is considered cool, kids waits until they can get license and their parents always waiting for that to happen and are proud for kids to get their first cars etc and start driving. 

What would you expect from a kingdom, where most people think that it is OK that the king and family have loads of castles and poor people can sleep on the streets?

[H3XME]

Come 2030 if it’s gonna happen the way it’s looking, we’ll be like Cuba. Running old ICE cars will be our only “feasible” choice 

[Spark plug]

3 hours ago, eightk said:

Germany don’t just burn coal, they burn lignite - one of the most polluting types of coal you can find.

We are in our 8th year of EV ownership. Current EV is our 4th. We’ve always had petrol cars as well. EVs work great as low mileage company cars (low tax), second cars, city runabouts and OAP pop-to-the-shops use, but for long journeys they’re next to useless. For the uses I’ve listed they do make sense -  Instant heating, thrash from stone cold, silent and nippy, super reliable (apart from our Tesla) - they do have a lot of positives.

The environment doesn’t come into it for the vast majority of EV buyers - it’s zero benefit in kind tax that’s the attraction. If that’s removed or brought in line with fuel powered cars most EV owners will be going back to ICE.

most people can only afford one car... So won't be having a ev 

[Linas.P]

37 minutes ago, H3XME said:

Come 2030 if it’s gonna happen the way it’s looking, we’ll be like Cuba. Running old ICE cars will be our only “feasible” choice 

That is what it looks like. Unless the decision is reversed the future is looking increasingly dystopian or at very least we will be back to 1930s instead of 2030s... where basically cars were toys only for elites.  

13 minutes ago, Spark plug said:

most people can only afford one car... So won't be having a ev 

big part of affordability is extortionate taxes. In fact used cars costs similar to bicycles nowadays, so it is more of the question of whenever you can afford taxes and have the pace to keep rather than actual cost of the car.

My point - if there would be specific category of small, low range city BEVs which doesn't cost much to tax and insure, then in theory at some point in future they may be circumstances where one can have inexpressive city BEV only to be used when going into the city and which doesn't cost much if anything to keep in mean time. But to be fair it doesn't seems like it is likely to happen with how it is progressing. Seems like government is very keen to put us all in nasty, cold, uncomfortable circumstances to remind us that we are just slaves and should not get too comfortable in "personal" transportation with air conditioning and pleasant music playing.

[H3XME]

21 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

My point - if there would be specific category of small, low range city BEVs which doesn't cost much to tax and insure, then in theory at some point in future they may be circumstances where one can have inexpressive city BEV only to be used when going into the city and which doesn't cost much if anything to keep in mean time. But to be fair it doesn't seems like it is likely to happen with how it is progressing. Seems like government is very keen to put us all in nasty, cold, uncomfortable circumstances to remind us that we are just slaves and should not get too comfortable in "personal" transportation with air conditioning and pleasant music playing.

Yeah, if Honda-E was 10k or whatever a new Corsa costs then maybe. Wouldn't solve the other city issue though.. - congestion 

[Linas.P]

25 minutes ago, H3XME said:

Yeah, if Honda-E was 10k or whatever a new Corsa costs then maybe. Wouldn't solve the other city issue though.. - congestion 

No... you right, making cars more affordable would not make roads wider, nor more efficient. That is the issue with infrastructure... the only difference is that sitting in never ending traffic jam at least it would emit very little pollution.

To that point - we don't need BEVs (which are on average 30% more efficient), simply improving the traffic flow can reduce pollution from 40-60%... maybe more. But obviously it is easier to demonise motorists rather than actually fix the the roads. Reduction to absurd - but current approach is like blaming train driver for delays when there is another train in front of it! "there are too many cars on the road"... Yes - all those cars are paying extortionate amount to be on the road, meaning there should be money to make the road better!

[08ISF]

We must not forget that 2030 is the date when new IC cars cannot be sold. Given that the life of a  car is 7 years+ (more for Lexus) we will still have IC cars in 2040 and beyond. The crunch will come when the energy providers decide that it's not worth having a network  of sites selling petrol/diesel  due to lack of demand   and they will become few and far between, just like recharge points now.

We also have  a House of Commons full of vote conscious invertebrates (sorry, MP's) who if persuaded that something is not good for them might change their approach. So the answer is that everyone who disagrees with the way things are going must shout if from the roof tops. From what has been said on here and from conversations I've had  with others a silent majority is not in favour of this dash to electric.

The other consideration is that  given the state of the world at the moment, the costs associated with going electric are simply not affordable and we would be better off targeting mitigation of the effects of Global Warming, which are going to hit us long before  we reduce CO2 to a safe level, if we ever do.

Just my opinion.

[Spark plug]

56 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

No... you right, making cars more affordable would not make roads wider, nor more efficient. That is the issue with infrastructure... the only difference is that sitting in never ending traffic jam at least it would emit very little pollution.

To that point - we don't need BEVs (which are on average 30% more efficient), simply improving the traffic flow can reduce pollution from 40-60%... maybe more. But obviously it is easier to demonise motorists rather than actually fix the the roads. Reduction to absurd - but current approach is like blaming train driver for delays when there is another train in front of it! "there are too many cars on the road"... Yes - all those cars are paying extortionate amount to be on the road, meaning there should be money to make the road better!

if the government would put the super tax we pay on are fuel and the road tax into making better and bigger roads instead of lining there pockets with it.... 

[Linas.P]

12 minutes ago, Spark plug said:

if the government would put the super tax we pay on are fuel and the road tax into making better and bigger roads instead of lining there pockets with it.... 

That is exactly what I am saying - they collect something like £35-40bn every year, that is just from direct taxation... and they spend like £4-7bn a year. So if we can have roads as we have for £7bn (note as well they only spend like £2.5bn on the roads and the rest on public transport and subsidies, cyclist highways and other nonsense), then imagine what road would be with £14bn, or £21bn... everything would be wide, everything would be multi-level, all the  surfaces would be smooth and there would be no congestion anywhere.... and that is with them spending only half of what we pay in tax!

[Mr Vlad]

Well said Ian. The question has been asked thousands of times over the decades. Just where does the money go to from taxes on the motorists? Not on the ruddy roads it doesn't, is the thought of at least 90% of us motorists. 

Oh just to be clear. Taxes on the motorists. I mean road tax. Tax on fuel. Tax on Insurance. Tax on the parts we sometimes buy. 

[Linas.P]

5 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Well said Ian. The question has been asked thousands of times over the decades. Just where does the money go to from taxes on the motorists? Not on the ruddy roads it doesn't, is the thought of at least 90% of us motorists. 

Oh just to be clear. Taxes on the motorists. I mean road tax. Tax on fuel. Tax on Insurance. Tax on the parts we sometimes buy. 

I am sure we going to have some resident cyclist coming here any minute to tell is that there is "no road tax" and VED is just general taxation like everything else. I call BS on that! 

If it is just general taxation, then why motorists pays it twice?! Like we already pay general taxation like everyone else, so why we have to pay separately for the roads on top of that... and if that is not de-facto road tax, then what it is? And if it road tax, then why don't spend it on the roads.

I honestly don't mind paying it as long as it goes to where it suppose to go, so the problem isn't the money, the problem is that we pay a lot... yet when we want to use for the service we paid for we find the roads congested, further restricted and taxed, crumbling away, potholes everywhere... 

[First_Lexus]

2 hours ago, Las Palmas said:

What would you expect from a kingdom, where most people think that it is OK that the king and family have loads of castles and poor people can sleep on the streets?

Don’t get me started! Not just the monarchy, but the various religious organisations too. Lots of pontificating (no pun intended) about the poor and how society could be improved while sitting on billions of pounds/dollars/euros of assets that would go a long way to solving the very problems they say they’re so concerned about! Politicians are generally self-serving wherever they are as well, look at the EU-Qatar corruption scandal or the secondary earnings scandal just breaking in the UK. Leader of the LibDems with a private company for additional earnings in order to avoid tax, Labour politicians with huge payments from Trade Unions and Conservatives with inherited wealth or lucrative second jobs. 

The establishment - whether that be the monarchy, the ruling class, a military dictator or junta, big business, organised religion - will always look after itself. It will never change. Even revolution generally ends badly as one ruling class is simply replaced by a new one, eager to profit from power.

I find it easier now just to ignore the news. It’s better for my blood pressure!

[Las Palmas]

4 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

Don’t get me started! Not just the monarchy, but the various religious organisations too. Lots of pontificating (no pun intended) about the poor and how society could be improved while sitting on billions of pounds/dollars/euros of assets that would go a long way to solving the very problems they say they’re so concerned about! Politicians are generally self-serving wherever they are as well, look at the EU-Qatar corruption scandal or the secondary earnings scandal just breaking in the UK. Leader of the LibDems with a private company for additional earnings in order to avoid tax, Labour politicians with huge payments from Trade Unions and Conservatives with inherited wealth or lucrative second jobs. 

The establishment - whether that be the monarchy, the ruling class, a military dictator or junta, big business, organised religion - will always look after itself. It will never change. Even revolution generally ends badly as one ruling class is simply replaced by a new one, eager to profit from power.

I find it easier now just to ignore the news. It’s better for my blood pressure!

You will maybe believe this then: Oil sheik Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber appointed as chairman of the UN's next climate summit