Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

JKenH

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

I just don’t understand why there is such a negative reaction to any article highlighting the shortcomings in the charging network and how it needs to improve. Maybe everyone on here is just smug because they have a home charger and rarely need to use the public charging network so have no real idea of the actual problems out there, particularly on English motorways. 

What you and others seem to be suggesting is we dismiss the problems of EV charging (calling it FUD) because it might put some people off making the switch. Surely it is better to get the problems out in the open so our politicians get something done about it.

But I don't see what you claim to see. The enthusiasts are the ones impacted by the deficiencies you rightly point out and they too complain on the various forums. I've never seen any claims, ever, whether on specialist forums or in the general media that the charging network is extensive enough or maintained well enough. We do need our politicians to do something about it, but the current lot seem only good for platitudes, not constructive action.

The objections to articles such as the one you quoted are that they are inaccurate and misleading. Highlight the issues, by all means, but quoting ones where the writer appears either slightly dim or with an agenda is not the way to do it.

EDIT: "Don’t let my comments put you off an EV - I love mine but go in with your eyes open."

Absolutely! :-:smile:

I was comfortable posting the article because it reflected my own experience (other than the Tesla range comment which surprised me but looking at it logically - cold weather, some motorway driving, charging from cold, not visiting the extremes of the battery - I can see how 140 miles might be realistic). 

I would invite you to drive up to Lincolnshire and see for yourself the problems with the Ecotricity network on the M1.

But he said 140 miles per fill, so you think it sounds realistic, if we ignore his own specific claim?
He said how he'd struggle to find a charger in Inverness, ironically picking a city which has a supercharger station in it, rather than between cities. But that didn't bother you?
He said that petrol/diesel vehicles are quieter than a BEV, so you must have agreed with that too?
He said a home charge costs £11, which would mean brimming it from empty, and paying around 18p/kWh, and contradicting your early suggestion that a fill isn't a fill. Sound reasonable?

So what's the truth, the article is a steaming pile of anti-BEV FUD, but presumably, having trawled the interweb for something to stir things up and disrupt yet another G&E thread, you saw the 140 mile claim, and thought, yippee! And if anyone pushes back that's fine, it features a Tesla, so I'll just call them fanbois.

Funny how desperate you are to promote/support this article, under the pretence of informing people, but did the exact opposite a few months back when I posted this honest and correct article:

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

And you ranted and raved, and complained, even posted - 

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? 

Did nobody give it a second thought? -  actually I did, and I suspect many others did too, and could see that it was about the lifetime consumption of the vehicles. I suspect your two weeks of thread disruption where simply down to you having not given it a second thought.
So, any chance you can stop trying to spread misinformation, or promote it under the pretence of 'informing people', and let everyone enjoy the thread(s), after all, everything was lovely and peaceful for 2 weeks, why can't it always be like that.

Calm down, Mart. I don’t have any issues with Teslas as should be obvious from some of my recent posts. I said in an earlier post I was surprised at the 140 miles. @solarchaser mentioned the possibility he was referring to a 20-80% charge. You should know yourself that the kWh from the wall is different to the kWh that ends up in the battery and as I mentioned in an earlier post I thought that Teslas heat up the battery to the correct temperature to charge so that must use some juice. 

I do think you need to stop calling every article that raises the thorny issue of charging FUD. It could be quite genuine reporting of an owner’s experience, just not yours. Owning a Tesla you don’t face the issues us common mortals have to put up with and I doubt that you use Ecotricity chargers, the main source of my frustration, all that frequently. There are genuine problems with charging and constantly referring to reports of them as FUD makes you sound like an EV fanboy/conspiracy theorist. Sometimes you need to accept that there are other experiences and points of view beyond your own and forums are where they are aired. If someone disagrees with you, you make out they are out to disrupt the forum when in fact it’s just another point of view. Living in an echo chamber isn’t healthy. 

Since you tagged me on this I kinda feel obliged to respond. 

I've never at any point said all your posts are FUD, and I appreciate you didn't say that either, just being clear.

However the article you posted with the Glasgow based user is demonstrably false, from the lack of chargers the exaggerated phone time,  the reportedly very poor range (yeah I posed a theory, but nothing in the article said that) the claim of cost I find most egregious because its demonstrably false that the chargeplace Scotland chargers are pay for charge, both in Glasgow, and in Inverness they are still free.

And for back up, charge your car agrees.

So to be totally clear I don't claim you deliberately post FUD, but in this case, you definitely did.
Now you have a valid defence and reason to step away from it, as let's face it, it talks about a different country, how are you to know its false, so stepping away from it is a totally legitimate stance..... but you haven't.

You could align with the reported issues and mirror against your own, which you have, understandably,  but that still requires the correction of stating the article is full of falsehoods in terms of the area its reported in.

Buy you haven't done this, if anything you have doubled down on it, even after the evidence to counter its ridiculous stance has been presented, and that, I think is an issue, because it makes it look like you are posting for reaction rather than balance, I say this as you state that balance is the reason for your posts. 

I'd ask that you consider the points made proving THAT particular article to be at the very least disingenuous. 

Sorry, but you must have started reading that article already having seen other negative comments and just looked for fault in it rather than giving it a fair reading. It is very easy to do that if you start out with that frame of mind and once you do then it is always going to appear negative. So let me just quote some of what is said about charging and then ask you to read it again with a different hat on. In my view it is not disingenuous.

Most of the public facilities have been free to use for the past few years in Scotland but councils are now bringing in tariffs for plugging into their devices, located mainly on streets and in city car parks.

The move comes on the heels of the UK Government slashing subsidies aimed at encouraging people to buy electric vehicles. 

Environmental and motoring organisations have criticised the shift by councils to introduce fees for their chargers. They are concerned that this will delay more people from transitioning to electric cars – and also make it more difficult to reach government targets of banning the sale of new non-hybrid petrol and diesel cars from 2030.

And, with Scotland set to host the COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow in November, Friends of the Earth said the introduction of fees at charging stations could slow the uptake of electric vehicles.

The organisation’s air pollution campaign boss, Gavin Thomson, said: “Unexpected cost hikes will turn people off electric vehicles very quickly. Councils and governments need to make it cheap and easy for those who need cars to ensure they are electric.”

The RAC said that, while it was ­perhaps inevitable that drivers would have to start paying to use public charge points, the timing of the move was “less than ideal”.

Spokesman Rod Dennis said: “Drivers tell us that cost is the biggest barrier to them opting for a zero emissions car over a petrol or diesel-­powered one – the more incentives there are the quicker the transition.”

Now that all sounds to me like someone who is on the side of the EV driver.

The reference to Glasgow charging (quoted below) was made in passing, explaining a move made by Highland Council. In fact a decision had been made by Glasgow council in April to start the introduction of charging in May. It is still May and probably will take a while to roll out so while you haven’t seen the charges applied yet they are on the way. I will concede it would have been better to use the word “bring” rather than bought. The decision was correctly referred to in the past tense but the implementation is in the future. 

“Last week, Highland Council agreed to start making motorists pay for using electric vehicle charging points after its free facilities ran up an annual bill of more than £50,000.

The decision by Highland Council echoes recent moves by Glasgow City Council, which this month brought in charges for its public network.”

I am not going to go through the whole article line by line, that would pointless, as no matter what I say, you are reading it entirely from the point of view of someone who is looking to find fault with it, not from the point of view of someone who wants to see a better charging experience. Just try looking at it from the point of view that the writer is genuinely pro EV but like me has had a number of frustrating experiences and sees others having the same.

That is my final word on this particular article so you, Mart and whoever can just now discuss it amongst yourselves.

Edit: Final, final word. I don’t know how the Chargeplace Scotland system works but looking at their map it does appear that some chargers in Glasgow already have to be paid for. No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong. 

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

Owning a Tesla you don’t face the issues us common mortals have to put up with and I doubt that you use Ecotricity chargers, the main source of my frustration, all that frequently. There are genuine problems with charging and constantly referring to reports of them as FUD makes you sound like an EV fanboy/conspiracy theorist. 

As someone who does not yet have an EV, but aspires to have as the next car, I find the above comments a problem / challenge.  [If it had not been for lockdown, I would be in an EV by now, but with current near-zero car use buying a new car is on hold.]
It is not the comment, per se, as they reflect a reality, but the facts behind the comment.  It also reflects my casual observations of EV charge points at motorway services:

• TESLA loads of charge points away from the building.  
• Everyone else, two charge points near the building likely with a lazy ICE driver parked.  I am not able to comment on reliability.

I am starting to come to the opinion that there are many companies that make good cars that happen to be electric, some of these offer competitive prices (MG) and some offer good quality (Audi) and some try to blend the two (Kia).  Some of these are possibly better cars than the TESLA, and happen to be electric.  I am keen to see how the Mustang MACH-E fares.  There are some parts of TESLA that I am particularly not fond off, like the single central screen.  Yet, it still seems that TESLA make the best electric car by a fair mile, and it is not fundamentally the car but the support around that:

• Charging network
• I've seen their app and it seems fab - you can pre-book charging for example based upon your travel time, using GPS to meet your arrival
• I have even recently found that TESLA offer an energy tariff for their owners that reduces the operating cost even further.
  

It seems to me that all the car companies that make electric cars will gladly sell you the car, but then consider that a done-deal, much like an ICE car, once your have driven off, the sunset is all yours.  TESLA seems to have a different approach to everything and treat the electric car as a lifestyle and offering a full service package.  It seems to be time that other manufacturers need to start thinking about this "full product" service, not just selling cars out of the door.  Maybe, while demand for EV's is high compared to supply, that is a pipe dream.

JKenH said

Most of the public facilities have been free to use for the past few years in Scotland but councils are now bringing in tariffs for plugging into their devices, located mainly on streets and in city car parks.

Environmental and motoring organisations have criticised the shift by councils to introduce fees for their chargers. 

The organisation’s air pollution campaign boss, Gavin Thomson, said: “Unexpected cost hikes will turn people off electric vehicles very quickly. Councils and governments need to make it cheap and easy for those who need cars to ensure they are electric.”

The RAC said that, while it was ­perhaps inevitable that drivers would have to start paying to use public charge points, the timing of the move was “less than ideal”

The biggest thing that is "less than ideal" about abandoning free EV charging is that it is too late.  Should have been stopped many years ago.  No reason at all why the general taxpayer should pay for free energy for EV users who are, at present, mostly in more higher income / wealth positions.  It would be entirely absurd to provide free energy for ICE drivers and equally so for EV.

EricMears

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

carbon neutral green fuels “too cheap to meter” energy? 

That was the promise of nuclear power.
We're still waiting.
I suppose solar energy is, indirectly, from nuclear

Agree the 'delay' to  “too cheap to meter” energy is  beyond a joke.

However, solar energy isn't, indirectly, from nuclear.  It's absolutely 100% direct capture of the output of the only reliable nuclear fusion plant we've ever found or likely to see within the next 10 (or 20, 30 . . . ?) years.   Alas, for power generation purposes  it only works around half the time!  All other power sources are indirect use of sunshine whether it's last week's stirring up of wind, last month's rainfall or growth of plants millions of years ago to create fossil fuels.

ABrass

EricMears said:

Grumpy_chap said:

JKenH said:

carbon neutral green fuels “too cheap to meter” energy? 

That was the promise of nuclear power.
We're still waiting.
I suppose solar energy is, indirectly, from nuclear

Agree the 'delay' to  “too cheap to meter” energy is  beyond a joke.

However, solar energy isn't, indirectly, from nuclear.  It's absolutely 100% direct capture of the output of the only reliable nuclear fusion plant we've ever found or likely to see within the next 10 (or 20, 30 . . . ?) years. 

A terrestrial nuclear plant heats up water to make steam which then drives a turbine which generates electricity. if anything it's less direct that way 

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

Thinking out loud, I suppose going bust and building nothing, would make a company carbon neutral!

So, Toyota has announced that 2m of its vehicles sold each year will be BEV's or HFC's by 2030. I'll suggest that the number will be much, much higher, or much much lower (zero).

Toyota's Path to Carbon Neutrality

-- Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) will make up 15% of U.S. sales by 2030
-- Electrified vehicles including BEVs will make up 70% of U.S. sales by 2030
-- Global sales of approximately 8M electrified vehicles by 2030 of which 2M will be BEVs and FCEVs.

At Toyota, we believe giving consumers choices with a portfolio of alternative powertrains can help bridge to an all-electric mobility future. The company's approach seeks steady and substantial carbon reductions every year until the recharging infrastructure and costs of BEVs make them an attractive, affordable choice for all consumers everywhere.

Or perhaps a bridge to a small minority 'all-electric mobility future' in 2030.
But on the plus side, about 4yrs ago Toyota suggested they would be building 5.5m electrified vehicles pa by 2030, so maybe, just maybe, someone is slowly explaining to Mr Toyoda how 'it will be'.

I was interested by this comment as you consider the possibility that Toyota might no longer exist in 2030.

I think there is a greater chance that Tesla will not be making cars in 2040 than Toyota. For all we know Tesla could become another Blackberry. We don’t know what the future holds. 

Japanese companies do, though, have a far better track record of surviving than those from Silicon Valley so my money would be on Toyota. 

I don't think you understand. If Toyota was to stick with that plan, and move steadily towards producing 2m BEV's out of 8-10m vehicles in 2030, then they will go bust.

Hence, what I wrote - "I'll suggest that the number will be much, much higher, or much much lower (zero)."

If you think that only around 20% of Toyota's cars will be BEVs/HFC's in 2030, then fair enough, go for it, and by all means put your money on them, if you think they'll be able to sell 8m vehicles with an ICE. But I'm more than happy to promise you today, that they will be producing far, far more BEV's in % terms than that ...... or it'll be 'bye bye'.

I didn’t predict how many EVs/AFVs Toyota would be selling in 2030 but never rule anything out. A lot can happen in 9 years; just look where we were 9 years ago. Who in 2012 would have predicted Tesla would be topping sales figures in 2021 or that Porsche’s best selling model would be electric? 

Government policies currently drive the roll out of EV/AFVs around the world and you never can tell just what they will be in the future. Look how policy has swung backwards and forwards in the US but even the current legislature has limited the ban on ICEVs to government vehicles. Governments make the right noises but how many countries outside Europe have actually announced a ban on sales of new ICE vehicles by 2030? 

What if we simply can’t make enough batteries to meet world demand? What if popular demand and commercial/political pressure causes governments to backtrack on the ban and allow synthetic carbon neutral green fuels made from “too cheap to meter” solar energy? 

About all we can predict with any certainty is the situation with the motor industry in 2030 will be nothing like we currently expect it to be. 

I made a simple statement, and prediction, Toyota will not be producing 2m BEV's out of 10m. They will be producing far more and a higher percentage, obviously, or they will go bust.
If you think Toyota will be able to build 10m vehicles in 2030, with 8m having an ICE, and sell them, then that's fine, we've both made our predictions, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest a company with 8m/80% of their vehicle left unsold, will go bust.

Can we predict going forward, of course we can, as we already have crucial information:
BEV's are cheaper in terms of TCO than ICEV's today.
PHEV's are more expensive than ICEV's in terms of TCO today.
ICEV's will be outlawed, or massively restricted for new sales by 2030, all over the World. As will HEV's.
Put what we know today, together, and Toyota won't, I promise you, have an ICE in 80% of their sales in 2030.

More than happy to revisit this in 2030, as both our predictions (yours by default of claiming mine is wrong) are now locked in. And we won't have to wait till 2030, we'll see Toyota revise their position steadily, year after year ..... trust me.

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

I just don’t understand why there is such a negative reaction to any article highlighting the shortcomings in the charging network and how it needs to improve. Maybe everyone on here is just smug because they have a home charger and rarely need to use the public charging network so have no real idea of the actual problems out there, particularly on English motorways. 

What you and others seem to be suggesting is we dismiss the problems of EV charging (calling it FUD) because it might put some people off making the switch. Surely it is better to get the problems out in the open so our politicians get something done about it.

But I don't see what you claim to see. The enthusiasts are the ones impacted by the deficiencies you rightly point out and they too complain on the various forums. I've never seen any claims, ever, whether on specialist forums or in the general media that the charging network is extensive enough or maintained well enough. We do need our politicians to do something about it, but the current lot seem only good for platitudes, not constructive action.

The objections to articles such as the one you quoted are that they are inaccurate and misleading. Highlight the issues, by all means, but quoting ones where the writer appears either slightly dim or with an agenda is not the way to do it.

EDIT: "Don’t let my comments put you off an EV - I love mine but go in with your eyes open."

Absolutely! :-:smile:

I was comfortable posting the article because it reflected my own experience (other than the Tesla range comment which surprised me but looking at it logically - cold weather, some motorway driving, charging from cold, not visiting the extremes of the battery - I can see how 140 miles might be realistic). 

I would invite you to drive up to Lincolnshire and see for yourself the problems with the Ecotricity network on the M1.

But he said 140 miles per fill, so you think it sounds realistic, if we ignore his own specific claim?
He said how he'd struggle to find a charger in Inverness, ironically picking a city which has a supercharger station in it, rather than between cities. But that didn't bother you?
He said that petrol/diesel vehicles are quieter than a BEV, so you must have agreed with that too?
He said a home charge costs £11, which would mean brimming it from empty, and paying around 18p/kWh, and contradicting your early suggestion that a fill isn't a fill. Sound reasonable?

So what's the truth, the article is a steaming pile of anti-BEV FUD, but presumably, having trawled the interweb for something to stir things up and disrupt yet another G&E thread, you saw the 140 mile claim, and thought, yippee! And if anyone pushes back that's fine, it features a Tesla, so I'll just call them fanbois.

Funny how desperate you are to promote/support this article, under the pretence of informing people, but did the exact opposite a few months back when I posted this honest and correct article:

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

And you ranted and raved, and complained, even posted - 

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? 

Did nobody give it a second thought? -  actually I did, and I suspect many others did too, and could see that it was about the lifetime consumption of the vehicles. I suspect your two weeks of thread disruption where simply down to you having not given it a second thought.
So, any chance you can stop trying to spread misinformation, or promote it under the pretence of 'informing people', and let everyone enjoy the thread(s), after all, everything was lovely and peaceful for 2 weeks, why can't it always be like that.

Calm down, Mart. I don’t have any issues with Teslas as should be obvious from some of my recent posts. I said in an earlier post I was surprised at the 140 miles. @solarchaser mentioned the possibility he was referring to a 20-80% charge. You should know yourself that the kWh from the wall is different to the kWh that ends up in the battery and as I mentioned in an earlier post I thought that Teslas heat up the battery to the correct temperature to charge so that must use some juice. 

I do think you need to stop calling every article that raises the thorny issue of charging FUD. It could be quite genuine reporting of an owner’s experience, just not yours. Owning a Tesla you don’t face the issues us common mortals have to put up with and I doubt that you use Ecotricity chargers, the main source of my frustration, all that frequently. There are genuine problems with charging and constantly referring to reports of them as FUD makes you sound like an EV fanboy/conspiracy theorist. Sometimes you need to accept that there are other experiences and points of view beyond your own and forums are where they are aired. If someone disagrees with you, you make out they are out to disrupt the forum when in fact it’s just another point of view. Living in an echo chamber isn’t healthy. 

1. Nice try, but you can't spin your way out of this.
2. Firstly, I'm very calm, I quite enjoy mythbusting anti BEV (or anti-RE) FUD.
3. Yes, you have said you doubt the claim, but given it's an incredibly silly claim, and clearly FUD, one has to wonder why you would pick it (from the bottom of the article) to focus on.
4. Yes Solarchaser did suggest a way to make it truer, that's what we do, we try to find a way to see truth in what is being claimed as we are honest people. I think Solarchaser has a point as to what the claim is based on, but that doesn't make the claim true, does it.
5. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Tesla's warming batts. That's a way to improve performance, and efficiency, and allow higher levels of regen, in very cold temps. So it doesn't make them less efficient. It trades consumption at the start to allow higher efficiency throughout the drive.
6. Bit of a tell there, claiming I call articles that mention charging FUD. As far as I'm aware, I haven't. I've experienced difficulty driving a small range BEV, when a whole series of chargers were down in that locality.
7. No problem with someone reporting they have had issues, I've never denied that they have, have I.
8. On this occassion the person makes a very clear statement that they will have trouble getting a charge in Inverness, but as they have a Tesla, and there's a Supercharger station in Inverness, then clearly I can doubt their claim, as should you, and as you should have before posting the FUD article.
9. Repeating your false claim and now scaling it up to - "There are genuine problems with charging and constantly referring to reports of them as FUD makes you sound like an EV fanboy/conspiracy theorist." only goes to show what you are up to and the lengths you will go too, making up entirely false statements now.
10. The rest of what you say seems to prove everything I have said about you, it's a list of false claims, seeming to explain why you go to such lengths, and have for so long now.

The article I posted about BEV's being cleaner and better is correct, yet you went ballistic about it for nearly two weeks.
The article you have posted is utter FUD, and that would have been clear to you.

This thread is for sharing honest and accurate information, not for you to disrupt because the news is too good, or because you fell hook line and sinker for a FUD filled piece of nonsense, and I'm being generous there, suggesting you fell for it.

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

I just don’t understand why there is such a negative reaction to any article highlighting the shortcomings in the charging network and how it needs to improve. Maybe everyone on here is just smug because they have a home charger and rarely need to use the public charging network so have no real idea of the actual problems out there, particularly on English motorways. 

What you and others seem to be suggesting is we dismiss the problems of EV charging (calling it FUD) because it might put some people off making the switch. Surely it is better to get the problems out in the open so our politicians get something done about it.

But I don't see what you claim to see. The enthusiasts are the ones impacted by the deficiencies you rightly point out and they too complain on the various forums. I've never seen any claims, ever, whether on specialist forums or in the general media that the charging network is extensive enough or maintained well enough. We do need our politicians to do something about it, but the current lot seem only good for platitudes, not constructive action.

The objections to articles such as the one you quoted are that they are inaccurate and misleading. Highlight the issues, by all means, but quoting ones where the writer appears either slightly dim or with an agenda is not the way to do it.

EDIT: "Don’t let my comments put you off an EV - I love mine but go in with your eyes open."

Absolutely! :-:smile:

I was comfortable posting the article because it reflected my own experience (other than the Tesla range comment which surprised me but looking at it logically - cold weather, some motorway driving, charging from cold, not visiting the extremes of the battery - I can see how 140 miles might be realistic). 

I would invite you to drive up to Lincolnshire and see for yourself the problems with the Ecotricity network on the M1.

But he said 140 miles per fill, so you think it sounds realistic, if we ignore his own specific claim?
He said how he'd struggle to find a charger in Inverness, ironically picking a city which has a supercharger station in it, rather than between cities. But that didn't bother you?
He said that petrol/diesel vehicles are quieter than a BEV, so you must have agreed with that too?
He said a home charge costs £11, which would mean brimming it from empty, and paying around 18p/kWh, and contradicting your early suggestion that a fill isn't a fill. Sound reasonable?

So what's the truth, the article is a steaming pile of anti-BEV FUD, but presumably, having trawled the interweb for something to stir things up and disrupt yet another G&E thread, you saw the 140 mile claim, and thought, yippee! And if anyone pushes back that's fine, it features a Tesla, so I'll just call them fanbois.

Funny how desperate you are to promote/support this article, under the pretence of informing people, but did the exact opposite a few months back when I posted this honest and correct article:

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

And you ranted and raved, and complained, even posted - 

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? 

Did nobody give it a second thought? -  actually I did, and I suspect many others did too, and could see that it was about the lifetime consumption of the vehicles. I suspect your two weeks of thread disruption where simply down to you having not given it a second thought.
So, any chance you can stop trying to spread misinformation, or promote it under the pretence of 'informing people', and let everyone enjoy the thread(s), after all, everything was lovely and peaceful for 2 weeks, why can't it always be like that.

I should point out that the link you have provided is not to the original article I criticised but the revised version which corrected the glaring error I had pointed out. So yes as amended it does make sense but the original claim did not. If my comments on the said article  (which you posted above) constituted ranting and raving then how would you describe your most recent post?  

Reading the original article it was clear what was meant, I had no problems with it.
When you wouldn't drop it you stated:

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? 

The response you got said:

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.

So it seems that it was you that didn't give it a second thought, or even read and think about the rest of the article which 'even' in its original form stated:

“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.”

As I posted only 5hrs after the original article post:

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

So it likes like one of us gave it a second thought, and hint - it wasn't you.

Martyn1981

I've been following these for a while, so it'll be nice to see them launch and proving themselves (hopefully):

Autonomous Electric Tractors From ZTractor Launching In 2021

Electric tractors are in the first phase of commercial development: one might say the most exciting stage because of all the technological and environmental possibilities. Bakur Kvezereli, Ztractor‘s founder, agreed to answer some questions about their new models for CleanTechnica.

Solarchaser

JKenH said:

Solarchaser said:

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

I just don’t understand why there is such a negative reaction to any article highlighting the shortcomings in the charging network and how it needs to improve. Maybe everyone on here is just smug because they have a home charger and rarely need to use the public charging network so have no real idea of the actual problems out there, particularly on English motorways. 

What you and others seem to be suggesting is we dismiss the problems of EV charging (calling it FUD) because it might put some people off making the switch. Surely it is better to get the problems out in the open so our politicians get something done about it.

But I don't see what you claim to see. The enthusiasts are the ones impacted by the deficiencies you rightly point out and they too complain on the various forums. I've never seen any claims, ever, whether on specialist forums or in the general media that the charging network is extensive enough or maintained well enough. We do need our politicians to do something about it, but the current lot seem only good for platitudes, not constructive action.

The objections to articles such as the one you quoted are that they are inaccurate and misleading. Highlight the issues, by all means, but quoting ones where the writer appears either slightly dim or with an agenda is not the way to do it.

EDIT: "Don’t let my comments put you off an EV - I love mine but go in with your eyes open."

Absolutely! :-:smile:

I was comfortable posting the article because it reflected my own experience (other than the Tesla range comment which surprised me but looking at it logically - cold weather, some motorway driving, charging from cold, not visiting the extremes of the battery - I can see how 140 miles might be realistic). 

I would invite you to drive up to Lincolnshire and see for yourself the problems with the Ecotricity network on the M1.

But he said 140 miles per fill, so you think it sounds realistic, if we ignore his own specific claim?
He said how he'd struggle to find a charger in Inverness, ironically picking a city which has a supercharger station in it, rather than between cities. But that didn't bother you?
He said that petrol/diesel vehicles are quieter than a BEV, so you must have agreed with that too?
He said a home charge costs £11, which would mean brimming it from empty, and paying around 18p/kWh, and contradicting your early suggestion that a fill isn't a fill. Sound reasonable?

So what's the truth, the article is a steaming pile of anti-BEV FUD, but presumably, having trawled the interweb for something to stir things up and disrupt yet another G&E thread, you saw the 140 mile claim, and thought, yippee! And if anyone pushes back that's fine, it features a Tesla, so I'll just call them fanbois.

Funny how desperate you are to promote/support this article, under the pretence of informing people, but did the exact opposite a few months back when I posted this honest and correct article:

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

And you ranted and raved, and complained, even posted - 

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? 

Did nobody give it a second thought? -  actually I did, and I suspect many others did too, and could see that it was about the lifetime consumption of the vehicles. I suspect your two weeks of thread disruption where simply down to you having not given it a second thought.
So, any chance you can stop trying to spread misinformation, or promote it under the pretence of 'informing people', and let everyone enjoy the thread(s), after all, everything was lovely and peaceful for 2 weeks, why can't it always be like that.

Calm down, Mart. I don’t have any issues with Teslas as should be obvious from some of my recent posts. I said in an earlier post I was surprised at the 140 miles. @solarchaser mentioned the possibility he was referring to a 20-80% charge. You should know yourself that the kWh from the wall is different to the kWh that ends up in the battery and as I mentioned in an earlier post I thought that Teslas heat up the battery to the correct temperature to charge so that must use some juice. 

I do think you need to stop calling every article that raises the thorny issue of charging FUD. It could be quite genuine reporting of an owner’s experience, just not yours. Owning a Tesla you don’t face the issues us common mortals have to put up with and I doubt that you use Ecotricity chargers, the main source of my frustration, all that frequently. There are genuine problems with charging and constantly referring to reports of them as FUD makes you sound like an EV fanboy/conspiracy theorist. Sometimes you need to accept that there are other experiences and points of view beyond your own and forums are where they are aired. If someone disagrees with you, you make out they are out to disrupt the forum when in fact it’s just another point of view. Living in an echo chamber isn’t healthy. 

Since you tagged me on this I kinda feel obliged to respond. 

I've never at any point said all your posts are FUD, and I appreciate you didn't say that either, just being clear.

However the article you posted with the Glasgow based user is demonstrably false, from the lack of chargers the exaggerated phone time,  the reportedly very poor range (yeah I posed a theory, but nothing in the article said that) the claim of cost I find most egregious because its demonstrably false that the chargeplace Scotland chargers are pay for charge, both in Glasgow, and in Inverness they are still free.

And for back up, charge your car agrees.

So to be totally clear I don't claim you deliberately post FUD, but in this case, you definitely did.
Now you have a valid defence and reason to step away from it, as let's face it, it talks about a different country, how are you to know its false, so stepping away from it is a totally legitimate stance..... but you haven't.

You could align with the reported issues and mirror against your own, which you have, understandably,  but that still requires the correction of stating the article is full of falsehoods in terms of the area its reported in.

Buy you haven't done this, if anything you have doubled down on it, even after the evidence to counter its ridiculous stance has been presented, and that, I think is an issue, because it makes it look like you are posting for reaction rather than balance, I say this as you state that balance is the reason for your posts. 

I'd ask that you consider the points made proving THAT particular article to be at the very least disingenuous. 

Sorry, but you must have started reading that article already having seen other negative comments and just looked for fault in it rather than giving it a fair reading. It is very easy to do that if you start out with that frame of mind and once you do then it is always going to appear negative. So let me just quote some of what is said about charging and then ask you to read it again with a different hat on. In my view it is not disingenuous.

Most of the public facilities have been free to use for the past few years in Scotland but councils are now bringing in tariffs for plugging into their devices, located mainly on streets and in city car parks.

The move comes on the heels of the UK Government slashing subsidies aimed at encouraging people to buy electric vehicles. 

Environmental and motoring organisations have criticised the shift by councils to introduce fees for their chargers. They are concerned that this will delay more people from transitioning to electric cars – and also make it more difficult to reach government targets of banning the sale of new non-hybrid petrol and diesel cars from 2030.

And, with Scotland set to host the COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow in November, Friends of the Earth said the introduction of fees at charging stations could slow the uptake of electric vehicles.

The organisation’s air pollution campaign boss, Gavin Thomson, said: “Unexpected cost hikes will turn people off electric vehicles very quickly. Councils and governments need to make it cheap and easy for those who need cars to ensure they are electric.”

The RAC said that, while it was ­perhaps inevitable that drivers would have to start paying to use public charge points, the timing of the move was “less than ideal”.

Spokesman Rod Dennis said: “Drivers tell us that cost is the biggest barrier to them opting for a zero emissions car over a petrol or diesel-­powered one – the more incentives there are the quicker the transition.”

Now that all sounds to me like someone who is on the side of the EV driver.

The reference to Glasgow charging (quoted below) was made in passing, explaining a move made by Highland Council. In fact a decision had been made by Glasgow council in April to start the introduction of charging in May. It is still May and probably will take a while to roll out so while you haven’t seen the charges applied yet they are on the way. I will concede it would have been better to use the word “bring” rather than bought. The decision was correctly referred to in the past tense but the implementation is in the future. 

“Last week, Highland Council agreed to start making motorists pay for using electric vehicle charging points after its free facilities ran up an annual bill of more than £50,000.

The decision by Highland Council echoes recent moves by Glasgow City Council, which this month brought in charges for its public network.”

I am not going to go through the whole article line by line, that would pointless, as no matter what I say, you are reading it entirely from the point of view of someone who is looking to find fault with it, not from the point of view of someone who wants to see a better charging experience. Just try looking at it from the point of view that the writer is genuinely pro EV but like me has had a number of frustrating experiences and sees others having the same.

That is my final word on this particular article so you, Mart and whoever can just now discuss it amongst yourselves.

Edit: Final, final word. I don’t know how the Chargeplace Scotland system works but looking at their map it does appear that some chargers in Glasgow already have to be paid for. No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong. 

Erm, no.
I started reading the article thinking most of it seemed accurate,  and feeling a bit of disappointment that my local network was going to start charging, then further disappointment that it apparently already had.
I didn't check charge your car, nor zap map at that point as it made a statement, why would I assume it was false.

It was when I got to this part I knew it was talking tosh
"On a Friday night recently with a longish drive ahead the next day, I headed out to find an electric car charger in Glasgow.

Not working, not working, full, full, full. Nothing unusual about that but for the first time I noticed loads of other electric car drivers eerily gliding about doing exactly the same thing. Tesla Model 3s, Nissan Leafs and now suddenly lots of Volkswagens.

Uh-oh. I gave up and, not having an electric charger at home, got up very early the next morning to start the search again.

Literally seconds after I found one and plugged in a man in an electric Renault pulled in behind me. Now, the fastest chargers – the only ones that are practical to use unless you are happy to take hours – may look like they take two cars at a time, but they don’t. So he had to wait for an hour until I had filled up. That’s life with an EV or, more formally, an All Electric Vehicle.

I do this charger jig three or four times a week, putting up with the other things they don’t tell you on the EV tin, like dragging heavy, often wet, cables about, going through the hopeless RFID swipe card dance where it’s a lottery whether the charger will even accept my ChargePlace Scotland card and then it’s been 16 minutes recently for a helpdesk somewhere in England to answer a call and, er, they’re nice enough.

Everybody knows the cars don’t do a fraction of the distance the manufacturers claim but neither do petrol or diesels, but did you know you’re not supposed to charge your battery regularly to its max or you will damage it? The real range on my Tesla Model 3 with some motorway driving? Probably nearer 140 miles a fill. Yes I got to Inverness once, very slowly, then spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to find a vacant, working charger to get back home."

The not working, not working, full full full, nah, not in Glasgow.  Its pretty unusual to see another EV at a charge point,  it's also pretty unusual to find one, nevermind two of them not working. 

See if this was set in Lincolnshire,  id have thought, hey this is what Ken talks about, their network must be garbage... because I don't live there, and have no direct experience that counters the claims.

However this is Glasgow, my city and where a large part of my charging has taken place, so my own actual experience trumps the writers exaggerated garbage.

As it was said in the kids movie "American tale"

"Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"... I believe my own eyes!!

The article then goes on about £11 per charge, even with a pancaked battery to completely full, you are talking 17ppkwh, when the average price in Scotland is more like 15p, and the big problem with this, is it wipes out the 20-80% argument, because if that's the argument then he is paying over 28ppkwh to charge it.

You know Ken, it's funny, you accuse me of being blinded to anything except confirmation bias, id suggest you take a good look in the mirror there.

You will note I did not pull the early part of the article and complain about it, what I did was pull the parts that were demonstrably false, and countered those with my actual EXPERIENCE not bias, not thoughts, what I've actually experienced in the same part of the country as the author.

You jumped on it as it affirmed your confirmation bias with what you see on your travels, I railed against it because it goes against my actual experience. 

Regarding the screenshot of the paid chargers, those are 100% true, they are paid chargers, sited in hotel car parks and industrial estates, id certainly be expecting to pay in a hotel car park.

I'd be interested to see the catchment on same area for the free ones.... for balance you understand 

As this is the zap map screenshot 

shinytop

Isn’t this thread meant to be a discussion and debate about BEV developments; hopefully an intelligent and friendly one?  Personal differences aside (and there seem to be some) it is drifting towards being a bit…. dictatorial, with no criticism of BEVs, and especially Teslas, tolerated.  Any such adverse views are dismissed as FUD (is that the same as Fake News?).

My view is that Tesla has done a fantastic job at creating a new market and forcing other manufacturers to step up.  Their cars are, for now, technically better than the competition, but they are not perfect and they are very expensive and high-end .  They are, as someone else said, a lifestyle choice. Perhaps a bit like Apple?  I want a car as personal transport, not a lifestyle.  

The public infrastructure for EVs is clearly inadequate; surely nobody could objectively argue otherwise.  Unless you have a home charging, EV ownership is currently impractical for most and even if you do have it, long journeys are not straightforward.

And why so much discussion and angst about a Sunday Post article?  The Sunday Post’s readership is 80% CDE demographic and 90% aged 45+.  It’s very good at what it does but you are not going to find an article in it wholeheartedly praising a £50k electric car.  You are going to find an article in it complaining about the decline in public infrastructure whilst having a slight dig at £50k electric cars.  It’s not FUD/Fake News, it’s just appealing to its demographic, most of whom will never own any EV, never mind a Tesla.  

My next car may be an EV and the one after that probably will be.  But I want to go into it with my eyes open and some constructive debate covering a range of views - positives and negatives -  would help me a lot. I hope I can get that from this forum.