EV Discussion thread

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

The likes of @Grumpy_chap and @shinytop and Joe Public might then think twice about ditching their ICEvs. 

I have found the comments around charging infrastructure, current restrictions and rate of improvement invaluable.

It allowed me to identify that any EV has to meet my commute when I do it based on charge at home.  That influenced the type of car choice that could work.

Discussion on charging infrastructure also allows me to understand better (without first hand experience) how a longer journey would be supported.  Given the need for comfort breaks, I can see how that would work for me.

Further discussion around charging and real-world range saved me from an expensive mistake in the Lexus UX.

Contributions that at least attempt to present a balanced position are far more valuable than the contributions that are blind to any drawbacks, or promote EV based upon commercial justification that cannot be readily replicated.

As for me and a decision and thinking twice about moving from ICE to EV, I think I have overcome the charging / range anxiety matters.

Last month I gave my Focus to my Nephew.
My Fiesta is advertised for sale because it is not ULEZ-compliant.
So, in the coming year, a new car has to happen. 
I'd like that new car to be an EV and there are cars to meet my needs.

The challenge is the cost of acquisition and the vast delta in the type of car you get between an ICE and an EV, even if adding £10k (or more) to the budget for an EV.

It's a decision I'll probably make after Christmas.

EricMears

JKenH said:

From one quote you decided it was biased against your prejudices and therefore not worth reading. Should I be surprised?

Not biased against my prejudices - just biased (and if anything biased in line with my own views)

Not sure why it seems relevant to reveal that 35% of their fleet are EVs (but 65% are not) and that they intend to move towards 100% over the next 7 years.  FWIW,  my fleet is 100% electric and has been for some time. but I'm not claiming that makes my views more important.

JKenH

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

From one quote you decided it was biased against your prejudices and therefore not worth reading. Should I be surprised?

Not biased against my prejudices - just biased (and if anything biased in line with my own views)

Not sure why it seems relevant to reveal that 35% of their fleet are EVs (but 65% are not) and that they intend to move towards 100% over the next 7 years.  FWIW,  my fleet is 100% electric and has been for some time. but I'm not claiming that makes my views more important.

Stop digging Eric, you rejected the first report before you read it and had no idea it was biased towards your point of view - if anything it looked looked from the sections I had quoted like it might be a Daily Mail style EV bashing piece. That’s why you piled in without reading it.

You claimed (see your post below) the report suggests the problem is far worse than it really is (wrong, it actually tells it as it is) yet now you are saying if anything it is biased in line with your views.

The reality is as set out in your post below (my bold) - you thought promulgation of this type of report suggesting there was a problem with the charging network would put off EV buyers and that would never do when we want everyone to go electric whether they can charge their car or not. 

As for the relevance of Novuna’s comments relative to yours: they operate a fleet of 98000 vehicles and spoke to 2000 drivers for this survey. 

Edit: replaced Novuna for Nomura’s

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

. . . . why, when I post a lengthy report on charging that suggests the problem is getting worse, is the first reaction to try and find fault with the wording in the report and ignore the substance of it? 

Because any 'report' that suggests the problem is already a complete disaster is so obviously biased that it's not worth reading any further.

I've never said we don't need more charging facilities (indeed the more we can have the better) but publishing something that suggests 'problem' is far worse than it really is cannot help but put off would-be EV buyers.

EricMears

JKenH said:

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

From one quote you decided it was biased against your prejudices and therefore not worth reading. Should I be surprised?

Not biased against my prejudices - just biased (and if anything biased in line with my own views)

Not sure why it seems relevant to reveal that 35% of their fleet are EVs (but 65% are not) and that they intend to move towards 100% over the next 7 years.  FWIW,  my fleet is 100% electric and has been for some time. but I'm not claiming that makes my views more important.

Stop digging Eric, you rejected the first report before you read it and had no idea it was biased towards your point of view - if anything it looked looked from the sections I had quoted like it might be a Daily Mail style EV bashing piece. That’s why you piled in without reading it.

You claimed (see your post below) the report suggests the problem is far worse than it really is (wrong, it actually tells it as it is) yet now you are saying if anything it is biased in line with your views.

The reality is as set out in your post below (my bold) - you thought promulgation of this type of report suggesting there was a problem with the charging network would put off EV buyers and that would never do when we want everyone to go electric whether they can charge their car or not. 

As for the relevance of Novuna’s comments relative to yours: they operate a fleet of 98000 vehicles and spoke to 2000 drivers for this survey. 

Edit: replaced Novuna for Nomura’s

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

. . . . why, when I post a lengthy report on charging that suggests the problem is getting worse, is the first reaction to try and find fault with the wording in the report and ignore the substance of it? 

Because any 'report' that suggests the problem is already a complete disaster is so obviously biased that it's not worth reading any further.

I've never said we don't need more charging facilities (indeed the more we can have the better) but publishing something that suggests 'problem' is far worse than it really is cannot help but put off would-be EV buyers.

I didn't realise it was compulsory to read all the garbage that gets linked from here !

It was abundantly clear from the first quoted sentence that the author(s) had set out to exaggerate the 'problem(s)' they were describing.  Reading the rest of it was never tempting..

The number of chargers available has increased over the last few years and the number of EVs has increased by a bigger percentage.  However the average size of batteries in a typical EV has also increased leading to extra range and hence less demand for charging en route, so it's really not 'fair' to suggest that the ratio between total number of EVs and total number of chargers needs to be maintained at historic levels.

Just who has suggested that we "want everyone to go electric whether they can charge their car or not" ?  Certainly not me nor do I recall seeing any similar suggestions.  However,  I still feel that anyone considering buying an EV cannot help but be worried by the suggestion that if they ever wanted to use a public charger they'd find 14 others 'vying for its use'. Hopefully they'd do some research of their own and realise that such a situation was unlikely but no doubt a few would be deterred.

JKenH

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

From one quote you decided it was biased against your prejudices and therefore not worth reading. Should I be surprised?

Not biased against my prejudices - just biased (and if anything biased in line with my own views)

Not sure why it seems relevant to reveal that 35% of their fleet are EVs (but 65% are not) and that they intend to move towards 100% over the next 7 years.  FWIW,  my fleet is 100% electric and has been for some time. but I'm not claiming that makes my views more important.

Stop digging Eric, you rejected the first report before you read it and had no idea it was biased towards your point of view - if anything it looked looked from the sections I had quoted like it might be a Daily Mail style EV bashing piece. That’s why you piled in without reading it.

You claimed (see your post below) the report suggests the problem is far worse than it really is (wrong, it actually tells it as it is) yet now you are saying if anything it is biased in line with your views.

The reality is as set out in your post below (my bold) - you thought promulgation of this type of report suggesting there was a problem with the charging network would put off EV buyers and that would never do when we want everyone to go electric whether they can charge their car or not. 

As for the relevance of Novuna’s comments relative to yours: they operate a fleet of 98000 vehicles and spoke to 2000 drivers for this survey. 

Edit: replaced Novuna for Nomura’s

EricMears said:

JKenH said:

. . . . why, when I post a lengthy report on charging that suggests the problem is getting worse, is the first reaction to try and find fault with the wording in the report and ignore the substance of it? 

Because any 'report' that suggests the problem is already a complete disaster is so obviously biased that it's not worth reading any further.

I've never said we don't need more charging facilities (indeed the more we can have the better) but publishing something that suggests 'problem' is far worse than it really is cannot help but put off would-be EV buyers.

I didn't realise it was compulsory to read all the garbage that gets linked from here !

Great, we agree on something at last. I have no interest in tractor factories in California, mining trucks in Arizona or for that matter trikes in Africa. This is a forum about saving money in a green and ethical manner - not saving the world.

JKenH

Batteries got more expensive in 2022 after years of dropping prices — and it could delay access to cheaper electric cars

BloombergNEF expects battery prices to rise slightly in 2023 before continuing their downward trend in 2024 as lithium mining and processing ramps up. Average pack prices should drop below $100/kWh — the group's rough threshold for price parity between electric and gas-powered cars — by 2026, two years later than it previously projected. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/cheap-electric-cars-delayed-ev-battery-prices-lithium-2022-12

I’ve posted the good news quote from the article.

JKenH

Here’s a bit of money saving. 43% off new price for a 3 year old TM3P. Who says EVs aren’t affordable?

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202212022203682

JKenH

Used Electric Car Prices Plummeting!

Video from Electric Vehicle Man who owns a Tesla.

Interesting observation that as prices drop those existing EV owners who ordered a new EV a few months ago are now seeing reduced equity in their EVs and possibly reconsidering their new car purchase, thus freeing up new car supply. As most people buy on PCP there is a floor to the values but recently EV (and ICE) owners had been seeing considerably higher residual values than the balloon payment. 

EVM’s Tesla has fallen in value by around £6k since the summer.

https://youtu.be/81cZ8CSRcH4

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

Here’s a bit of money saving. 43% off new price for a 3 year old TM3P. Who says EVs aren’t affordable?

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202212022203682

I do.

That's £35k for a high mileage 2019 TM3.

The car I linked in another thread recently was a low mileage 2019 XF at £20k.
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202211272045084

Still a £15k difference.  Though, in many respects, comparative options.

Grumpy_chap

In the interest of balance, here's an ICE that makes the Tesla look more of a contender:
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202211171770998

2020 XE AWD at 12k miles, £32k