Avoiding Oil stocks in a FTSE tracker

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What's the total cost of having a new battery pack fitted? One assumes that it cannot be cheap given the sums involved. From the off there's a depreciating asset that needs to be taken into account.

Eventually there won't be a choice. Can't afford a new battery pack? Get an electric pushbike.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

With the loss to the Exchequer revenue from the tax on fuel. There'll need to be a corresponding recovery elsewhere.

They could always spend less?

AnotherJoe

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What's the total cost of having a new battery pack fitted? One assumes that it cannot be cheap given the sums involved. From the off there's a depreciating asset that needs to be taken into account. .

Why just teh battery and not the whole car? Thats a depreciating asset for sure !



I think Nissan quoted £5k for a new 30kWh pack a year or two ago when they said they woudl do this on older Leafs but i dont think they ever rolled that out. That sort of equates with tesla prices though they are higher since teslas have larger batteries.

Your question would also be "what would the price of a new pack be in 8 years time" as well, so who knows, but substantially cheaper than what they are today and maybe larger capacity in the same size. Many manufacturers have doubled battery capacity within the same footprint over the past 5 or so years.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

With the loss to the Exchequer revenue from the tax on fuel. There'll need to be a corresponding recovery elsewhere.

Yep. Most likely on miles driven rather than electricity consumption or batteries. I believe this is already done in New Zealand on their equivalent of the MOT. MUch cheaper and simpler than trying to implement some gargantuan programme to monitor miles driven using cameras, GPS,in car gizmos (other than the odometer) and the like.

AnotherJoe

Sailtheworld wrote: »

Prices will keep coming down. Even if they don't they'll still be 'consumer priced' because ICE cars will be legislated or taxed out of existence. There won't be a cheaper alternative.

They'll also get more convenient with quicker charge times and better range. I expect that we'll see lift in / lift out battery packs - you leave one pack at home charging with solar panels whilst using the other.
Not.Gonna.Happen. As you said, "Quicker charge times and better range" and that means that that swaps become unnecessary. In any case . Even now with some cars you can charge up say 200 miles range faster than you ever could swap even if you could manhandle half a ton of battery in and out of a car. There are many Other practical and cost reasons why battery swaps are off the agenda for good..

Obviously HGVs will take longer.
Only a little. There's quite a few coming in the next two years plus the known nature of the routes means range can be better fitted to a particular job than it can with private cars.
The future's electric.

Indeed. I don't think many understand that there's a tipping point coming soon, like most transitions it will happen faster than you expect.

[Deleted User]

The government might not need to find a new "electric car" tax to replace fuel duty as it's likely money will be saved by the NHS due to less air pollution.

AnotherJoe

newbinvestor wrote: »

The government might not need to find a new "electric car" tax to replace fuel duty as it's likely money will be saved by the NHS due to less air pollution.

Even if that was true i can't see them turning down the chance to get some tax in. SO, if you can get an EV now* to make hay whilst teh sun shines.


* not just yet though let me get my replacement order in first, looks like its on a 9 month wait

Brian65

newbinvestor wrote: »

as it's likely money will be saved by the NHS due to less air pollution.

Air pollution and smoking probably saves the Government money because it kills people off earlier before they have claimed much pension and old age care - they still need NHS treatment later in life for non smoking related illness. . They just get their NHS treatment earlier in life, because they die earlier.

Brian65

newbinvestor wrote: »

Brian65, no offence but I'll trust scientists/experts more than you.

Which scientists/experts will you trust when they give conflicting advice?
We know temperatures are rising, but they have done so before.
The Romans grew grapes in York!
Middle Ages was cold enough for the Thames to freeze over for weeks on end.
Now its warming up again.

Thrugelmir

newbinvestor wrote: »

The government might not need to find a new "electric car" tax to replace fuel duty as it's likely money will be saved by the NHS due to less air pollution.

Older people require more specialist and expensive treatments.

Malthusian

newbinvestor wrote: »

That is absolutely nonsense sorry.

How good you feel about renewable energy does not alter the fundamental raison d'etre of an ethical fund.

If all unethical investments disappear overnight there are only two possibilities. One, the multi-billion dollar-ethical investment industry says "hooray, humanity's problems are solved" and goes on the dole. Two, stuff that is currently sitting just above fossil fuels in the "unethical" zone on the ethical spectrum drops down to replace it. Scenario one is not going to happen. Marketing abhors a vaccuum.

newbinvestor wrote: »

The government might not need to find a new "electric car" tax to replace fuel duty as it's likely money will be saved by the NHS due to less air pollution.

And you say I talk absolute nonsense . This is up there with "-2 * - 2 = -4" in the list of Key Stage 1 economics clangers. The longer people live, the more they cost the Government.

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Well, the juries out on that at the moment what with some sort of a vaping health issue in the US it seems?

I'm no "Thank You For Vaping" apologist, but I don't think anyone seriously asserts that vaping is more harmful than smoking tobacco, just that it might be more harmful than the tobacco lobbyists imply it is. Thrugelmir said "less harmful", not "harmless".

I wouldn't be surprised if all the vapers claiming it's no more harmful than a cup of coffee get a nasty shock about what breathing in endless clouds of toxic foul-smelling chemicals does to you, but at least they're not smoking tobacco.

[Deleted User]

Brian65 wrote: »

Which scientists/experts will you trust when they give conflicting advice?
We know temperatures are rising, but they have done so before.
The Romans grew grapes in York!
Middle Ages was cold enough for the Thames to freeze over for weeks on end.
Now its warming up again.

I would be shocked if you were not a Brexiteer.