Advisability of buying electric car at this point in time

Martyn1981

henry24 said:

Goudy said:

I don't think in these two cases it's all about efficiency. 
It's more being able to carry around enough power to be cost effective.

A set of batteries in say a HGV that has to run a reefer might be really efficient over a small range, but less cost effective over larger ranges due to things like weight and down time from charging.

There's only a finite weight a HGV can legally be, the more batteries the less cargo which equals more cost.

Just look at a car transporter, it's much more cost effective to carry an extra car than it loses because it's less efficient due to the extra weight.

Same goes plant or farm vehicles that mostly work off grid, BEV may work efficiently for short periods of time, but will they be efficient for long enough to be cost effective.

Adding more because of shorter work range/hours isn't cost effect or even efficient.

My whole point, back in the very beginning is that the batteries aren't the whole answer and if we only really invest in them, it'll cost us all, dearly.
Yes batteries are getting better as is charging them, I don't doubt that, but we still have the same age old problems with them we had years ago.
The ability to store enough power either by size or weight, for our demands has always been a limitation, otherwise we'd all have been in electric vehicles since the late 1800's.


And I am sorry but these two examples aren't edge cases, far from it.
I take it that was just a mistaken remark rather than something more flippant, but it couldn't be more further from the truth.

Food production, food transport and building are integral to our whole economy.
We all eat, so that needs to be produced and transported and we all shop for that produce.

We all live somewhere that has to be built and most of our wealth is invested in it.
Our the property market is closely linked to our economy in a way nothing else comes close to.
We need hospitals and roads and leisure facilities and on and on and on.

If that's edge, what is main stream?

Sometime towards the end of last year Tesla released a video of their electric truck showing how it could fly past a diesel but when people looked at it it only carried 6 tonnes and when everything was worked out the maximum weight it could carry would be about 22 tonnes against 30 fo a diesel so for 2 diesel trucks you need 3 electric I can't see that happening 

Oops, I suspect your are referring to the trailer with 11 concrete Jersey barriers on it. It was reported, by a critic, that these weigh 1,000lb each. But, Engineering Explained, checked the size of the barriers, confirming the type by checking their size (in the video) against the wheel size (in the video), as the wheel diameter can be confirmed. The Jersey barriers being carried were 10ft models, which weigh in at 4,000lbs. [As all of this info was US based, I stuck with the reported imperial units.]

Unfortunately, some people are still claiming the lower weight, and spreading this information online.


Btw, the 30 tonnes (actually about 28.6tonnes) includes the trailer weight. EE's calcs suggest a weight deficit of 4,000 to 6,000lbs, v's your 17,600lb suggestion. But he also supplies info confirming that the majority of loads are not max weight. I think you'll enjoy the vid, as it also contains some negatives and criticisms.

Herzlos

henry24 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

henry24 said:

How are we told currently I can walk into any garage and buy any car I want but in a few years I can only buy electric where's my choice 

You can walk in to a garage and buy any car they have, it will be the same in the future, you will still be able to walk in and buy any car they have.

But that's taking choice away from me if I want a petrol or diesel 
My current car is 29 months old with 57000 miles I will keep it same again and then buy another diesel that will last me out as my mileage will drop when I retire 

I'd love to buy a family saloon with a big lazy petrol V6. Like an Omega or something.
They don't exist now, because of emissions regulations.

This will be largely the same, but I suspect given the increase in demand for EV's despite all the complaints on here, it'll be incredibly difficult to buy a new ICE before the ban anyway.

Of course there's nothing stopping you buying used; you'll be able to buy parts for ICE cars easily into the 2060's. I hope to have been long retired by then and getting ferried about in autonomous taxis.

Herzlos

Goudy said:

I would hazard a guess it's more than a single digit number.
Is there anything to qualify that?

Millions live in property without access to home charging, so ownership isn't financially viable, most EV owners that have posted to this thread admit that.

About half of drivers don't have off street parking to convert to EV, however that's not the full story. Given appropriate infrastructure, they should be able to charge pretty much anywhere they leave their car for any period of time: car parks, train stations, work car parks, shopping centres, supermarkets, outside cinemas, etc. Or they can even use a fast charger if somehow they never visit anywhere with slow charging.

The average daily driving distance is about 15 miles, with an average EV range of 212 miles, means that the average driver  technically only needs to recharge once every 2 weeks if they are willing to let the range drop to 2 miles. Some drivers will do higher mileage and need to charge every few days, some will need to charge daily, and some will do even lower mileage and barely need to charge at all.

For example, my parents have a petrol car, they drive maybe 2 miles to Asda and back a couple of times a week, spending at least 30 minutes shopping each time. They do the occasional longer trip to neighbouring towns etc, maybe within about 20 miles return. Whilst they are vehemently anti-EV (and anti-recycling, etc), they'd be absolutely fine with an EV with a 40 mile range, and they'd save a fortune in the process. "But what if I want to drive further at a whim?" "Well you haven't in the last 10 years, so it's not a big risk".

For most drivers doing more distance in a day than an EV can handle, it's almost certain they'll need to make a pit stop at some point on their 200+ mile (3.5+ hour) drive. If not then it's likely they've still got some admin work they can do whilst waiting 30 minutes to charge.

For the really heavy stuff it's different, as well as the stuff that needs to be delivered on a schedule that doesn't allow stopping to charge, but that seems fairly niche.

Traffic estimates from the Government are here: https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/summary

Cars & Taxis are about 244 billion vehicle miles.

Light Commercial are about 58 bvm.

HGVs are about 17bvm.

So light vehicles make up about 18x as many miles as haulage. Most of which could comfortable use an EV. That's why I think that less than 10% of vehicles in our current usage pattern couldn't be electric.

I'm not going into the cost because I'm just talking about actual usage. People on lower incomes have always only been able to afford older cars and had to put up with more inconveniences due to that, but it's not as if you need to spend £50k to get an EV with a range that's good enough for most people.

mgfvvc

henry24 said:

How are we told currently I can walk into any garage and buy any car I want but in a few years I can only buy electric where's my choice 

It's gone the same way as your choice to buy cars without seatbelts, airbags and phantom braking systems.
OK, maybe you can still get away with the last one, for now.

henry24

mgfvvc said:

henry24 said:

How are we told currently I can walk into any garage and buy any car I want but in a few years I can only buy electric where's my choice 

It's gone the same way as your choice to buy cars without seatbelts, airbags and phantom braking systems.
OK, maybe you can still get away with the last one, for now.

But they're safety items being told that I have to have an electric car isn't for safety it's government interference 

MacPingu1986

henry24 said:

mgfvvc said:

henry24 said:

How are we told currently I can walk into any garage and buy any car I want but in a few years I can only buy electric where's my choice 

It's gone the same way as your choice to buy cars without seatbelts, airbags and phantom braking systems.
OK, maybe you can still get away with the last one, for now.

But they're safety items being told that I have to have an electric car isn't for safety it's government interference 

Henry, government's legislate and regulate motor vehicles (and indeed all other sorts of products/industries) in various ways, and have so for many years. Prohibiting the sale of new ICE cars from 2030 is an environmental safety measure to reduce transport emissions. Previous environmental measures which are now totally uncontroversial include the phasing out of leaded petrol, fitting of catalytic converters etc... 

Governments manage the wider harm, or benefit, of activities by interfering all the time - eg: the government also "interferes" by building and maintaining motorways and the strategic road network.

To get way way back on topic... Herzlos' post above pretty much says it all. Absolute range and speed of refueling is only one factor of many in vehicle choice, and for most people their journey and usage patterns mean this is  unimportant, and can be accommodated for on the rare and occasional long journey.

henry24

If the government was that bothered about the environment why haven't they stopped flights 

MacPingu1986

henry24 said:

If the government was that bothered about the environment why haven't they stopped flights 

The gov hasn't stopped flights in the same way they haven't stopped driving. They do have a strategy for reducing aviation emissions - Link here if you're interested: 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1095952/jet-zero-strategy.pdf

If your question is why isn't the government doing more to reduce aviation emissions compared to motor vehicle emissions then there's a couple of key points:

• aircraft emissions per passenger are about double that of ICE motor vehicle emissions per passenger, but that's massively offset by the volume of motor vehicle journeys compared to flights - the average brit takes 1 flight per year, but travels in a car just under 400 times. Overall in the UK aircraft emissions are about a quarter of motor vehicle emissions;
• It's also a question of where those emissions are being emitted - motor vehicles produce the pollution at ground level, right next to pavements where people live, work and play, so that pollution has a more direct and worse effect on people.
  
• Finally, it's very difficult to replace an overseas aircraft journey with a practical non-flying alternative to the same destination, whereas it's much, much easier to replace an ICE driven journey with an EV driven journey that's just as quick.

So when it comes to transport emissions the government does have an aviation strategy, but is focusing on the easier wins that have the biggest effects with the least loss of amenity.

henry24

Did the government agree to Heathrow expanding? I still think if they are serious about the planet stop flights and shipping and stop people having babies, we will have to go back to a caveman life and even then nothing will change with the planet 

HillStreetBlues

henry24 said:

Did the government agree to Heathrow expanding? I still think if they are serious about the planet stop flights and shipping and stop people having babies, we will have to go back to a caveman life and even then nothing will change with the planet 

If (when) flights are made using electric would you refuse to fly because they didn't give you the option of using good old jet fuel?