Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

NigeWick said:

Solarchaser said:

I liked the post but I have to say I'm not a great fan of Instavolt. 

You are absolutely right they don't need an app, but in my experience are very fussy about card usage. 
I tried to use one a year or so ago and it rejected all 3 of my contact less cards which could have left me stranded, thankfully the wife was with me and it accepted hers.
Then about 5 months ago on a different Instavolt I was alone, again it rejected all three, but as I had no option but to persevere, eventually it did accept one of the cards after several tries. 

Did you let them know about the trouble you had?

Nope, just moaned on this forum, and decided not to use if at all possible 

Might be worth giving them another chance as they do seem to top the non-Tesla charging polls. Polar has been my worst experience.

https://instavolt.co.uk/auto-express-names-instavolt-as-best-chargepoint-network-for-multiple-brands/

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/revealed-uks-top-ranking-electric-vehicle-charging-networks/

JKenH

Effectiveness Of UK Electric Car Grants In Doubt

https://uk.motor1.com/news/491304/report-questions-government-ev-grant/

JKenH

Will EVs Create A Transportation Class Divide?

What surprised me most was the table in the article showing % rates of home ownership with what are generally perceived as richer countries such as Switzerland and Germany having home ownership rates only half those of poor countries like Romania and Hungary. So the countries where residents are most likely to be able to afford EVs are also the ones where people are least likely to want/be prepared to install home chargers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmorris/2021/03/06/will-evs-create-a-transportation-class-divide/

JKenH

Ioniq 5 first edition sells out in 24 hours

https://www.whichev.net/2021/03/05/ioniq-5-first-edition-sells-out-in-24-hours/

JKenH

Hyundai recalls 82,000 EVs for battery fix

https://www.whichev.net/2021/03/04/hyundai-recalls-82000-evs-for-battery-fix/

Martyn1981

I found this huge list interesting ..... well, questionable at first, as it omits Germany, but as the para quoted points out, it will be great to see a before and after (Germany), when I assume the ID3 will really shine. So many makes and models, just had to Google Citroen Jumpy, and was disappointed to see a van, oh well.

Top Electric Models In 8 European Countries In February — 108 Models Ranked

In this article, I’m sharing the stats and rankings of the top selling models across 8 of these countries as well as the top BEV producers. Apparently, Germany takes a while to report its model-specific data (despite reporting some broad vehicle registration data early in the month), so I’ll update this report eventually once Germany reports its numbers. I initially thought I’d wait for Germany to publish its numbers, but then I realized this exercise would be even more interesting if I do it both with and without Germany’s data. We can see how things shift once those data come in.

Superscrooge

..........

silverwhistle

JKenH said:

 As an example was I the only one who could see something patently incorrect with the claim in the article “A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars”?  Did nobody give it a second thought or do people accept that because it is a pro EV comment it is immune to criticism? 

Perhaps they've changed the wording, or you misquoted but the article just came up on one of my feeds and actually says:

A calculation of the resources for each relative to their weight shows internal combustion engines burn material 300 times greater than that lost once an electric car battery is scrapped. The comparison did not include potential emissions if fossil fuels were burned to create the power for recharging of car batteries.

Martyn1981

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

 As an example was I the only one who could see something patently incorrect with the claim in the article “A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars”?  Did nobody give it a second thought or do people accept that because it is a pro EV comment it is immune to criticism? 

Perhaps they've changed the wording, or you misquoted but the article just came up on one of my feeds and actually says:

A calculation of the resources for each relative to their weight shows internal combustion engines burn material 300 times greater than that lost once an electric car battery is scrapped. The comparison did not include potential emissions if fossil fuels were burned to create the power for recharging of car batteries.

Hiya. If I can interject, it looks like there has been a small change to the article. Using my original post we have the first para's stating:

Fossil fuel cars waste hundreds of times more raw material than their battery electric equivalents, according to a study that adds to evidence that the move away from petrol and diesel cars will bring large net environmental benefits.

Only about 30kg of raw material will be lost over the lifecycle of a lithium ion battery used in electric cars once recycling is taken into account, compared with 17,000 litres of oil, according to analysis by Transport & Environment (T&E) seen by the Guardian. A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars.

Whereas the article now states:

Fossil fuel cars waste hundreds of times more raw material than their battery electric equivalents, according to a study that adds to evidence that the move away from petrol and diesel cars will bring large net environmental benefits.

Only about 30kg of raw material will be lost over the lifecycle of a lithium ion battery used in electric cars once recycling is taken into account, compared with 17,000 litres of oil, according to analysis by Transport & Environment (T&E) seen by the Guardian.

A calculation of the resources for each relative to their weight shows internal combustion engines burn material 300 times greater than that lost once an electric car battery is scrapped. The comparison did not include potential emissions if fossil fuels were burned to create the power for recharging of car batteries.

This removes any ambiguity in those para's, which was seized upon on the day I posted the article, however, later that day, in reply to Eric, I did copy in a later para which clarifies the point that fuel consumption is being included (quite rightly I think):

“Over its lifetime, an average fossil-fuel car burns the equivalent of a stack of oil barrels 25 storeys high. If you take into account the recycling of battery materials, only around 30kg of metals would be lost – roughly the size of a football.”

To confirm that the 25 storeys of oil drums is the same as the earlier mentioned 17,000lts, I checked the maths and added:

It would appear that a 'storey' in this example is approx 2.65m.

So the article appears to stack up fine when read through in its original form, and also now if you only read the first few paragraphs in its amended form. However, I suppose, the orginal article does make it possible for someone to misrepresent it as misrepresenting the benefits of BEV v's ICEV, if they really want too, especially if they focus on the 'poor' wording in one paragraph, whilst ignoring all of the other information and clarification contained in the article as a whole.

JKenH

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

 As an example was I the only one who could see something patently incorrect with the claim in the article “A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars”?  Did nobody give it a second thought or do people accept that because it is a pro EV comment it is immune to criticism? 

Perhaps they've changed the wording, or you misquoted but the article just came up on one of my feeds and actually says:

A calculation of the resources for each relative to their weight shows internal combustion engines burn material 300 times greater than that lost once an electric car battery is scrapped. The comparison did not include potential emissions if fossil fuels were burned to create the power for recharging of car batteries.

My quote was verbatim from the original Guardian article - actually cut and pasted. What you are quoting is from a revised version of the article which was updated on 2nd March (and which makes more sense).You presumably read the original article as you responded on 1 March to Mart originally posting the article, concurring, and later replied to me advising that the figures were so far out you assumed it was a typo.

So no, I didn’t misquote the article but I am sure you already knew that.

Edit: your quote 
“ As for the text in bold, the figures were so far out I just assumed it was a typo and referring to life-time cost: unfortunately it's only a few newspapers these days who employ fact checkers or sub-editors. I think I may have tutted, not jumped on the mistake with great relish.”