EV owners: question about EV charging

force_ten1

born_again said:

MouldyOldDough said:

It's a real shame that there's not the ability to buy a car that can run on electricity or ICE - To get the best of both worlds ....

Oh there is - called a self charging HYBRID !!

https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/hybrid/best-hybrid-cars/

Having come from a Niro Hybrid to a Niro EV. So like for like.

All I can say is in the 2 months of EV ownership it has cost £20.93 (over 1000 miles) to charge at home (no charging anywhere else) compared to £30 a month in petrol for the HEV & that was getting 50+ mpg.
So I'm Quids in. 
Even a PHEV would get no where near the saving of a full EV.

Our only long trips are once a year on holiday. So more than happy to pay a bit more for charging, as it will only cost the same per mile as HEV did.

Each to their own. EV will not suit everyone. Hybrids are good for many, full ICE for others.

It's all the mistruths that some perpetrate around the issue that is annoying.

Like EV caused the Luton fire, yet the fire was out in hours & only damping down next day. If it had been a EV. As many like to say a EV fire is very hard to put out. So these people really shot themselves in the foot in this case.

you would need to calculate the cost to change from the FHEV to the BEV as well 

l don't know your situation so we will work on new prices and a new Niro FHEV is £30,000 and the Niro BEV is £37,000 so we have a cost difference of £7000.00 between the two cars to start with.

so say we are looking at three years of ownership and eight thousand miles a year the £7000 divided by 24000 miles and the 2 pence per mile to charge give a cost per mile of about 31 pence  

the FHEV doing 50 mpg and fuel costing £7.00 a gallon the cost per mile for fuel is about 14 pence per mile

so you need to do about sixty thousand miles in this car just to break even with the cost of the FHEV 

the above does not take into account the difference in servicing cost and the difference you may see in insurance costs but you are a long way off being quids in   

Tryinghardtosave

It is all about what you want to get out of it. I am lucky enough to have a driveway, so I can charge my EV at home. I also have solar installed, so for most of the year I can charge it for free as well. I am also lucky enough to have EV charge points at my place of work too. Win win for me. 
Also, once you have driven an EV you will not want to go back to petrol or diesel car. 
The ranges of EV's are just getting better and better - my first EV was the 24kwh leaf, now you can get cars with 4x the battery capacity. Perhaps in another 10 years it will be 4x the capacity again?
Your friendly EV convert :-) 

alan_d

£20 versus £60 over 2 months. Looks more than £10 to me.

Looks like the petrol cost was £30/month.
EV cost is £20 over 2 months, therefore £10/month.
Saving £20/month, or £240 a year.
Really not much, once you factor in the additional cost of the EV and it's depreciation vs the HEV car.

MeteredOut

alan_d said:

£20 versus £60 over 2 months. Looks more than £10 to me.

Looks like the petrol cost was £30/month.
EV cost is £20 over 2 months, therefore £10/month.
Saving £20/month, or £240 a year.
Really not much, once you factor in the additional cost of the EV and it's depreciation vs the HEV car.

You realise that's just one data point, yes?

I'm only 1 month into my EV ownership, but looking back, we spent ~ £200/month on petrol previously. So far, in that 1 month, we've spent under £70 on charging, 80% of that at home (SVT 27p/kWh) and 20% at work (14p kWh). Those figures take charging losses into account too, and our average mileages has not changed.

So, £130/month saving.

And that's before moving to a time-of-use tariff which would mean all charging at 7.5p. That would take the equivalent 1st month usage to around £22. So, £178/month saving.

I don't think anyone is saying that an EV is cheaper overall when you taking purchase costs into account, but anyone who believes it cannot be significantly cheaper to run is avoiding the facts. My insurance was not any more expensive, other than due to the increase value of the car. From reading, servicing should be cheaper, but tires wear out faster, but brakes should not (unless you have a really heavy foot).

What i don't understand is why there is so much confirmation bias when people discuss EVs; its getting almost as bad as trying to have an open discussion about politics.

born_again

Like the way folks assume it's a new car.. As well as not understand 2 x 30 = 60
Bought 2nd hand. So difference is minimal. At my age depreciation is not something to worry about. It's a fact of life in all cars. 

Petrol costs were based on £1.30 a ltr as well, not the current value.
Insurance was a extra £46 for the 6 months left on policy.

The savings were a big factor in the change.

force_ten1

born_again said:

Like the way folks assume it's a new car.. As well as not understand 2 x 30 = 60
Bought 2nd hand. So difference is minimal. At my age depreciation is not something to worry about. It's a fact of life in all cars. 

Petrol costs were based on £1.30 a ltr as well, not the current value.
Insurance was a extra £46 for the 6 months left on policy.

The savings were a big factor in the change.

the niro EV was only released late 21 early 22 so it is not an old car and the cheapest 2022 plate Kia Niro 64.8 kWh 2 spec on the Kia website is £25,995 and the cheapest 22 plate Kia Niro 1.6 GDi 2 spec hybrid is £19,900 

so the price difference between the hybrid and the full EV is £6,095 so you have still got to put in a lot of miles before you are quids in 

Goudy

MeteredOut said:

alan_d said:

£20 versus £60 over 2 months. Looks more than £10 to me.

Looks like the petrol cost was £30/month.
EV cost is £20 over 2 months, therefore £10/month.
Saving £20/month, or £240 a year.
Really not much, once you factor in the additional cost of the EV and it's depreciation vs the HEV car.

What i don't understand is why there is so much confirmation bias when people discuss EVs; its getting almost as bad as trying to have an open discussion about politics.

It's because there is inherent bias with these types of cars and it's a very large bias with most EV's.

It's a price bias and unfortunately that doesn't really have anything to do with those that point it out.

There is just no way of getting around the fact that in this case, that is somewhere between £6000 and £7000.
It's not limited to this particular car though, your base ICE Corsa is £19,000 and the electric starts at £32,000.
I think it's safe to say this is pretty much a fact across the the board.

This situation might improve or in might actually get worse.
Some used EV's have had a rough time with values recently which might help some but not others that have lost excessively on deprecation in you factor in that cost.

Some think those biases require a hell of a lot of cheap fuelling and cheap servicing to get back before they become quids in.

To help an owner become quids in, it's probably safe to assume it's vital to have some sort of cheap electricity tariff and a home charger. That does seem to be consensus with EV users on these threads.

There are obviously costs associated with a home charger if you haven't got one already.
If you haven't, you'd need to factor in it's cost fully.

Yes you might have paid for one for a previous EV and got a grant to do that, but has that yet paid for itself yet?
Maybe, maybe not.
If that initial cost bias of your previous EV hasn't yet recouped the difference in price plus the charger, it's a maybe not and the quids in goal is still further away than just the price difference bias.

You might have a property with a charger already fitted and that would certainly help you get there, if you haven't paid extra just to buy a property with one.

Without access to the low cost charging, I think even the most ardent EV fans will tell the average driver there's a snowball in hells chance of you becoming quids in in your own lifetime without some sort of change to the charging system.

I don't think it's bias to that point out, I think it's bias not to and some of this is actually pointed out repeatedly by EV owners.
Some might not like the fact it is pointed out, that is something most understand but I don't think labelling those as anti EV really helps their cause or argument.

The possibility to become quids is a very very long way off for some.
As things currently stand it's likely impossible for others that can't charge cheaply at home or for free.

Yes there are some that might get to that quids in point and get there reasonable quickly if they have access to free or cheap charging and do a lot of miles on that.
There does seem to be a need for cheap and convenient charging rather than expensive rapid charging, judging by other threads.
 
Or it just doesn't matter as they haven't had to buy the EV themselves in the first place.
I am certainly not denying that, but sadly that isn't the case for the majority of drivers yet.

Herzlos

If EV's are so bad, why do battery vehicles in some form make up about 56% of new car sales? 15% BEVs with the rest being hybrid:

https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/

That certainly implies a lot of car buyers feel they are worth it, given there are very few cars available in EV only.

I'm not sure the Corsa comparison is entirely accurate, because the EV will be top spec and you're comparing price with the base model so it's not like-for-like. You're also looking at purchase price alone and not total cost of ownership. There's no indication that an EV will depreciate more than the petrol equivalent by any real margin.

Of course there will be a mileage/price point at which EV's make more sense. They absolutely don't make financial sense for someone doing 2k miles a year even though they make more practical sense.

MouldyOldDough

Herzlos said:

If EV's are so bad, why do battery vehicles in some form make up about 56% of new car sales? 15% BEVs with the rest being hybrid:

https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/

That certainly implies a lot of car buyers feel they are worth it, given there are very few cars available in EV only.

Possibly partly because some people believe the hype about EV's and partly because the government told them that from 2030 NO MORE ICE engined cars would be sold - and then moved the goalposts !!

Goudy

I don't think I have ever written EV's are bad.
That has been presumed which is a mistake.

Another false presumption is I don't feel like a lot of car buyers feel they are worth it. If they actually are or not for most people is the debate.
I am certain many do feel that by the posts on this forum, the evidence is there and I have never written anything to suggest some owners feel otherwise, though I guess there will be some somewhere.

Points were made regarding some cost factors and used couple of different models as examples.
I am sorry you don't think one of those is suitable. There are others and there is still the example of the two Kia Niros, both new and used.

Even basing the costs on that one model example, we are seeing difference of 20% to 30% in purchase price.
That is no small change to a lot of people, though there are some that it might be small fry.

Because of that I think it is worth considering in the overall running costs and cost of ownership as to run a car the majority of people must buy it so including the purchase price is likely to be the biggest factor for the majority of people.
You are of course all free to disagree with that, but it is the major factor never the less.

There has been another mistake if it's thought I am looking at purchase price alone.
Did I not mention the cost associated with home chargers, the ability for some to charge cheaply or even freely and the costs associated with some rapid chargers, these are not included in the majority of EV's purchase prices.
It also mentioned some may not even have to pay for their EV.
I thought that was clear in my post so wasn't a totally negative EV post. If it was taken that way perhaps it says something about one's self rather than the author.

There has been indications that EV's have depreciated faster in some cases, as any evidence of this could and probably would be disputed as bad press, I didn't bother including it and won't now, but the point was made "some" will benefit and some will not on this point.

I also made the case that this may or may not improve, I don't know the future and never pretended to.

I thought I made the point that some will find an EV cost effective clear enough but I am unsure how "practical" would be defined in the case of EV?
I am sure that could mean almost anything and cases made on both sides but I see the Niro EV does have a bigger boot than the Hybrid version, though the EV has less space with the rear seats folded for some reason. Practical when related to cars tend to mean things like this.

Maybe the answer is that the BEV sales are only 15% because of the 20% to 30% price difference.
If the purchase price was actually closure to the alternatives that figure would be much higher and the true cost of ownership would actually be cheaper for all owners rather than the few that can charge cheaply/free.