Death knell for petrol and diesel cars?

BloodBath

Seweryn wrote: »

My point here was about moving massive weights and therefore using huge amount of energy when the result is a person being transported from place to place. This has little to do as to what type of energy we use (more efficient electric motor or IC engine). The thing is we use way, way too much energy.


EVs obviously reduce emissions where they are being used. They are not going to reduce emissions overall (not significantly anyway). They do not grow on trees and need to be manufactured. The car shell is one thing, but making the battery pack for an EV is something of a different scale in terms of emissions. Making a battery for a single EV has equivalent impact on the environment to driving an ICE car for a good few years. This is just the battery, which is going to last forever, sorry, the lifetime of the EV..

I call bull****. Where are you pulling this information from? Like I said some of the "science" is completely flawed on it.

Is it taking into account taking that oil out of the ground, refining it, transporting and storing it and the ecological disasters that result from it. I very much doubt it. Fuel tanker ships are 1 of the planets biggest polluters as well.

Now you can make some arguments about how clean the energy coming from the grid to power these cars is but that's another issue that also needs to be addressed if we are to move forward as a civilisation. Even our primitive methods are still cleaner than having hundreds of millions of combustion engine vehicles on the road and the infrastructure required to transport the fuel for them worldwide. EV fuel can be transported over copper wires. There is no contest.

pwurple

Augeo wrote: »

If there was only 12 charge points and the 60 were in BEVs then maybe ye wouldnt have enough.

You went on about destination charging BTW. Phev don't need to charge BEV do.

Listen, I know fossil fuel drivers don't have the experience, fair enough, but can ye not even start doing some simple sums?

Even in this thread you have people who commute 5km by car to work, and still think an EV isn't suitable for them. They would only need one charge a month. That is not at all uncommon. Electricity really isn't hard to come by, we have been electrified for a long time.

Whoever asked about the company cost, it costs about the same as a cup of coffee. Some companies use installers that have a fob, so they can charge the employee for it.


We live on a TINY island with low temperature variations and where most people driving have a very small commute. We are neither Siberia or Florida. We are ideal for EVs. 80/20 rule guys. Forget about your 20 hard cases for the time being. 80 cases are no brainers.

GreeBo

creedp wrote: »

it about whether EV's provide a decent alternative for as significant number of drivers. I think it's fair to say that as of yet the answer is no.

What percentage are you using to define significant?
Based on the average distance traveled by drivers in Ireland I think an EV decent alternative for the majority.

GreeBo

Wibbs wrote: »

I've a neighbour like this(I think I mentioned the chap here before). He's very well meaning and got into hybrids from way back, but he's upgraded every few years and now is in the latest 2019 Leaf(nice car BTW, much nicer than the hideous looking yoke the previous model was). We've talked about this subject a few times and yes we agree that buying an EV instead of ICE is a step in the right direction, but he can't quite get his head around that buying one every four years is taking a few steps backwards. "But they're getting better and more efficient" etc, but when I point out the tonnage of CO2 pumped out producing a new car, any new car, is far more than keeping any car around four a decade or more he just can't see it. He'd not be alone by any means.

Unless he is burning his old EV out in the back garden, I'm not sure what your point is?

Every new car he buys means another EV driver in his now second hand cast offs.

Wibbs

liamog wrote: »

I have no particular love of the current average vehicle lifespan, I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of claiming one car one owner for 15 years is greener than one car many owners over the same period.

All that matters is the total usable life of the vehicle is extended. To keep it simple let's say Ireland needs 2,000,000 cars. A 15-year lifecycle needs 133,000 replacement cars a year. 30 years need 66,000 replacements per year so of course, it's better to keep all cars on the road for longer. The lifecycle is important here, not the number of owners.

Oh for God's sake, and I'm the one with dyscalculia. The number of owners directly impacts the life cycle. Almost by definition more owners means more cars being produced. How is something so seemingly bloody obvious so seemingly opaque to you? I've already pointed out my case compared to my neighbour(and regardless of the motive force driving his car). I am demonstrably greener, even and mark this; if he never drove any of his cars one single mile. His four cars over the same period of time have produced over 70 tonnes of CO2 before he drove them. My car has produced 30 tonnes from the smelly end, plus whatever the carbon cost of manufacture, which I'd bet is lower than a similar car of today(far fewer add ons for a start, less plastic, far fewer electronic gubbins and only weighs 1080kgs). It certainly didn't use 40 tonnes to make it. Even if it did I'd be on parity with him, again before his cars turned their wheels.

Seweryn

BloodBath wrote: »

I call bull****. Where are you pulling this information from? Like I said some of the "science" is completely flawed on it.

Is it taking into account taking that oil out of the ground, refining it, transporting and storing it and the ecological disasters that result from it. I very much doubt it. Fuel tanker ships are 1 of the planets biggest polluters as well.

Now you can make some arguments about how clean the energy coming from the grid to power these cars is but that's another issue that also needs to be addressed if we are to move forward as a civilisation. Even our primitive methods are still cleaner than having hundreds of millions of combustion engine vehicles on the road and the infrastructure required to transport the fuel for them worldwide. EV fuel can be transported over copper wires. There is no contest.

Well, as said before we should look at the emission issue overall, not just at what comes out of the tail pipe. What comes out of the pipe is the last step of the whole process.

Taking that oil out of the ground, refining it, transporting and storing it, etc. applies to all types of vehicles and all types of electricity generation systems. There would be no EVs without oil and no windmills without oil that some people believe are the solution going forward. Every single part of EV is made, transported and maintained from oil or thanks to oil. Oil is the blood of our economy. The only difference between the EV and ICE vehicle is that after they are manufactured, the ICE vehicle burns oil products directly vs EV indirectly.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

The number of owners directly impacts the life cycle. Almost by definition more owners means more cars being produced.

OK, to make it simpler: Imagine if half the drivers of Ireland held onto a car for twenty years, while the other half did a they do know, buying selling, old and new cars. Would there be fewer or more cars on Irish roads? Now do you see what I mean?

Seweryn wrote: »

The only difference between the EV and ICE vehicle is that after they are manufactured, the ICE vehicle burns oil products directly vs EV indirectly.

Yes and I'm 100% with you on the manufacture and delivery impacts, but to be fair they produce far less after they're manufactured. Even if they were burning oil to produce the electricity for EV's, it would be more efficient and less wasteful than ICEs.

GreeBo

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh for God's sake, and I'm the one with dyscalculia. The number of owners directly impacts the life cycle. Almost by definition more owners means more cars being produced. How is something so seemingly bloody obvious so seemingly opaque to you? I've already pointed out my case compared to my neighbour(and regardless of the motive force driving his car). I am demonstrably greener, even and mark this; if he never drove any of his cars one single mile. His four cars over the same period of time have produced over 70 tonnes of CO2 before he drove them. My car has produced 30 tonnes from the smelly end, plus whatever the carbon cost of manufacture, which I'd bet is lower than a similar car of today(far fewer add ons for a start, less plastic, far fewer electronic gubbins and only weighs 1080kgs). It certainly didn't use 40 tonnes to make it. Even if it did I'd be on parity with him, again before his cars turned their wheels.

Whether he drives them or somebody else does is irrelevant.

If you have 30 people you need 30 cars.

Now either that's 30 new cars every 15 years or one guy gets a new car and the older cars shuffle down the line with the oldest popping off the end.

Unless you are living in magical utopia land, new cars are always going to be manufactured.
This is simply because there is a used car market. This eventually ends up with crappy cars being taken off the road as the newer cars move through the second, third, fourth etc hand market.

liamog

Wibbs wrote: »

OK, to make it simpler: Imagine if half the drivers of Ireland held onto a car for twenty years, while the other half did a they do know, buying selling, old and new cars. Would there be fewer or more cars on Irish roads? Now do you see what I mean?

There would be literally the same number. Where are these magic extra cars with no owners coming from? Do you think people scrap every car when they purchase a new or used replacement?

GreeBo

Wibbs wrote: »

OK, to make it simpler: Imagine if half the drivers of Ireland held onto a car for twenty years, while the other half did a they do know, buying selling, old and new cars. Would there be fewer or more cars on Irish roads? Now do you see what I mean?

Yes and I'm 100% with you on the manufacture and delivery impacts, but to be fair they produce far less after they're manufactured. Even if they were burning oil to produce the electricity for EV's, it would be more efficient and less wasteful than ICEs.

In twenty years time there would be a need for brand new cars for half the population of Ireland!
So either you do it big bang or bit by bit.
Effectively it's the same number of cars yet with your method older cars are driven for longer and longer rather than gradually being upgraded.

For some reason you are ignoring that someone is buying the second hand car, and someone is buying that third hand car, etc, etc until you get to the car that's reached the end of its life and gets crushed.

Wibbs

pwurple wrote: »

We live on a TINY island with low temperature variations and where most people driving have a very small commute. We are neither Siberia or Florida. We are ideal for EVs. 80/20 rule guys. Forget about your 20 hard cases for the time being. 80 cases are no brainers.

I would wholeheartedly agree with you P. Ireland as far as geography and climate is ideal for EV's for the majority of road users and the vast majority of urbanites. Infrastructure is an issue but that will steadily improve and has already. Again I say I am not anti EV. Not by a long shot and they are the way forward, whether that be battery, hydrogen, capacitor. They may also save the older classic ICE's because they'll render them specialised and somewhat "exclusive" and more weekend fun cars(never mind those classics with crap ICE's that are ripe for an EV transplant. I'd bloody love an original Fiat 500 with a leccy motor in it, even if it "only" had a range of 50k). Just like the horsey set didn't go away when the horseless carriage came along. It became niche, more relaxed and even more profitable for many.

GreeBo wrote: »

Unless he is burning his old EV out in the back garden, I'm not sure what your point is?

Every new car he buys means another EV driver in his now second hand cast offs.

Oh FFS. Read the first paragraph of my last post to understand. It's blindingly bloody obvious to the point of fevered frustration on my part with those who can't see the blindingly bloody obvious. The only advantage is a current(no pun) one, where the consumer churn will get more people crossing over into EV's as the depreciation curve makes them more affordable. However in the Future(tm) when 90% are EV's if we don't tackle that consumer churn we live with and seemingly see as normal today, we'll be still pumping out at least 20 tonnes of CO2 every time we produce a new car. Great for the makers, sh1t for the environment.

Seweryn

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and I'm 100% with you on the manufacture and delivery impacts, but to be fair they produce far less after they're manufactured. Even if they were burning oil to produce the electricity for EV's, it would be more efficient and less wasteful than ICEs.

Agree. But the thing is, you would have to keep using an EV for say about a decade to balance things out and for the EV to start gaining on the emissions front vs ICE car.

Assuming the original battery is going to last, otherwise...

I am a big fan of electric drive actually. The electric motor is a perfect drive train for vehicles. Huge efficiency - over 90% (vs 40 % for ICE), simplicity, no gearbox needed, low weight, compact build, low noise, feck all vibrations, you can go on for ever.
But the main issue from the environmental point of view is still the battery.

Wibbs

liamog wrote: »

There would be literally the same number. Where are these magic extra cars with no owners coming from? Do you think people scrap every car when they purchase a new or used replacement?

Can you count? I'm being bloody serious here. If you think you can I have news for you... It's like ye are completely oblivious to the bigger picture.

OK breaking out the crayons: Take just twenty people. Ten buy a new car and hold onto it for twenty years. The other ten upgrade their car, new or used every five years. The first lot have one car per twenty years, the second have four. 10 cars for the former group, 40 cars for the latter. That's a 50 cars overall.

Now imagine another group of 20. They all keep a car for twenty years. That equates to 20 cars. Imagine yet another group of 20. They upgrade their cars every five years. That equates to 80 cars. Spot the difference yet?

All I can say as I read stuff like this is fcuk me and try not to head my keyboard in frustration. Ye are so wedded to the manufacturers worldview of consumerism and depreciation and obsolesence while ironically and laughably thinking you're "green".

Idbatterim

For the posters saying ev just use fossil fuel but from a power plant , what absolute rubbish! Hydro power in Norway provides nearly all their power. Solar in loads of countries. Nuclear etc !

cnocbui

pwurple wrote: »

Listen, I know fossil fuel drivers don't have the experience, fair enough, but can ye not even start doing some simple sums?

Even in this thread you have people who commute 5km by car to work, and still think an EV isn't suitable for them. They would only need one charge a month. That is not at all uncommon. Electricity really isn't hard to come by, we have been electrified for a long time.

Whoever asked about the company cost, it costs about the same as a cup of coffee. Some companies use installers that have a fob, so they can charge the employee for it.


We live on a TINY island with low temperature variations and where most people driving have a very small commute. We are neither Siberia or Florida. We are ideal for EVs. 80/20 rule guys. Forget about your 20 hard cases for the time being. 80 cases are no brainers.

If the majority people have very small commutes, then they definitely shouldn't be switching to expensive EVs where they will never see a cost saving from reduced running costs matching the capital outlay premium.

Wibbs

Idbatterim wrote: »

For the posters saying ev just use fossil fuel but from a power plant , what absolute rubbish! Hydro power in Norway provides nearly all their power. Solar in loads of countries. Nuclear etc !

Yup and even if they use fossil fuels they do so more efficiently than ICEs. They're defo the future and will make quite a bit of a difference to the carbon footprint. By how much is up for grabs. But in our current consumerism to the max world culture(for the most part) any advantage is needed. They also have instant torque and can overall be faster than the majority of ICE. They've a way to go with handling, though that's more about the weight. Many, if not most current ICE's are also heavy and no great shakes in the handling dept either. Lighter batteries will make a big diff there. They're also potentially far more long lasting as motors, but complexity and built in obsolescence in the other systems will hit that. Like I said the manufacturers need that to be. No diff to ICE there.

Shefwedfan

Wibbs wrote: »

Yup and even if they use fossil fuels they do so more efficiently than ICEs. They're defo the future and will make quite a bit of a difference to the carbon footprint. By how much is up for grabs. But in our current consumerism to the max world culture(for the most part) any advantage is needed. They also have instant torque and can overall be faster than the majority of ICE. They've a way to go with handling, though that's more about the weight. Many, if not most current ICE's are also heavy and no great shakes in the handling dept either. Lighter batteries will make a big diff there. They're also potentially far more long lasting as motors, but complexity and built in obsolescence in the other systems will hit that. Like I said the manufacturers need that to be. No diff to ICE there.

Have you drive any of the current electric cars?

cnocbui

Idbatterim wrote: »

For the posters saying ev just use fossil fuel but from a power plant , what absolute rubbish! Hydro power in Norway provides nearly all their power. Solar in loads of countries. Nuclear etc !

It's not nonsense. Norway, Iceland and New Zealand are fortunate, but in terms of world population and the big picture, they don't count. Ireland doesn't count either but some people think it does. EV's mostly run on fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy is the obvious solution but most people are completely irrational about it so it's a no-go.

liamog

Wibbs wrote: »

Can you count? I'm being bloody serious here. If you think you can I have news for you... It's like ye are completely oblivious to the bigger picture.

OK breaking out the crayons: Take just twenty people. Ten buy a new car and hold onto it for twenty years. The other ten upgrade their car, new or used every five years. The first lot have one car per twenty years, the second have four. 10 cars for the former group, 40 cars for the latter. That's a 50 cars overall.

Now imagine another group of 20. They all keep a car for twenty years. That equates to 20 cars. Imagine yet another group of 20. They upgrade their cars every five years. That equates to 80 cars. Spot the difference yet?

All I can say as I read stuff like this is fcuk me and try not to head my keyboard in frustration. Ye are so wedded to the manufacturers worldview of consumerism and depreciation and obsolesence while ironically and laughably thinking you're "green".

This is the bit your not getting. The people who replace the car every 5 years are not doing so with net new models.

Person A buys a car (A1) in 2020.
Person A buys a car (A2) in 2025.
Person B buys Person A's car (A1) in 2025.
Person A buys a car (A3) in 2030.
Person B buys Person A's car (A2) in 2030.
Person C buys Person B's car (A1) that used to be owned by Person A

How many cars exist?

In your scenario.
Person A buys a car (A1) in 2020.
Person B buys a car (B1) in 2025.
Person C buys a car (C1) in 2030.

In both scenarios, there are still only three cars.

Seweryn

cnocbui wrote: »

It's not nonsense. Norway, Iceland and New Zealand are fortunate, but in terms of world population and the big picture, they don't count. Ireland doesn't count either but some people think it does. EV's mostly run on fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy is the obvious solution but most people are completely irrational about it so it's a no-go.

Geothermal and Hydro are great, but yeah, it is tiny, tiny fraction globally, so they almost do not count.
Nuclear as great as it sounds is not a long term solution. If we replace all coal powered plants with nuclear we suddenly realise that we are running out of nuclear fuel. After all it is a fossil fuel with limited quantity.

To make things worse, all the biggest economies - Japan, China, Germany run mainly on coal and will do so for the foreseeable future, even expanding this trend where possible to meet the demand of ever more consuming consumers...

Wibbs

liamog wrote: »

This is the bit your not getting. The people who replace the car every 5 years are not doing so with net new models.

Person A buys a car (A1) in 2020.
Person A buys a car (A2) in 2025.
Person B buys Person A's car (A1) in 2025.
Person A buys a car (A3) in 2030.
Person B buys Person A's car (A2) in 2030.
Person C buys Person B's car (A1) that used to be owned by Person A

How many cars exist?

In your scenario.
Person A buys a car (A1) in 2020.
Person B buys a car (B1) in 2025.
Person C buys a car (C1) in 2030.

In both scenarios, there are still only three cars.

It's like herding cats...

In the recession after the boom went bust, what happened to the motor industry here? It slumped. Sales of both new and old cars. Why? People held onto their current cars for longer. Ergo if people hold onto a car, any car, ICE or EV, for longer, fewer cars will be sold and required and the environmental impact will be lesser.

Wibbs

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Have you drive any of the current electric cars?

The previous shape Leaf(dunno which particular models), the new Leaf, the BMW i3, a Tesla Model S. A couple of Prius' in the mix if we're including hybrids. Of that lot, for me the BMW was the most fun in the handling dept. It felt the lightest, though I did feel a bit like I was sitting on the rear axle, kinda like in a Smart, dunno how to explain it. That said pretty much any of the "hot hatches" would blow it into the weeds. The Tesla is a nice place to be, if boat like in the twisties. It makes its weight known, even on a short run. The Leaf is what it is, a basic family hatchback and like most of them ICE or not, about as exciting as warm milk with zero feel in the controls and that's fine, it's not trying to be a Golf GTi. The latest model looks far better mind you and if I was in the market for a basic family hatchback I'd pick it over an equivalent ICE.

I would say having read reviews and views in general, that many of the EV early adopters are slightly different to ICE petrolheads. When you read or hear people saying their Leaf handles well, I scratch my head and wonder what the hell have they driven before to make a statement like that.

GreeBo

liamog wrote: »

This is the bit your not getting. The people who replace the car every 5 years are not doing so with net new models.

Person A buys a car (A1) in 2020.
Person A buys a car (A2) in 2025.
Person B buys Person A's car (A1) in 2025.
Person A buys a car (A3) in 2030.
Person B buys Person A's car (A2) in 2030.
Person C buys Person B's car (A1) that used to be owned by Person A

How many cars exist?

In your scenario.
Person A buys a car (A1) in 2020.
Person B buys a car (B1) in 2025.
Person C buys a car (C1) in 2030.

In both scenarios, there are still only three cars.

I think the fever is impacting his cognitive abilities tbh.

Seweryn

Wibbs wrote: »

It's like herding cats...

In the recession after the boom went bust, what happened to the motor industry here? It slumped. Sales of both new and old cars. Why? People held onto their current cars for longer. Ergo if people hold onto a car, any car, ICE or EV, for longer, fewer cars will be sold and required and the environmental impact will be lesser.

Yeah, or simply - when you buy a new car and sell your old one there is one car (quite often still in good, serviceable condition) somewhere being disposed.

There is only need for x amount of cars in the country, I guess about two million, which we currently have on the road and do not necessary need any more of them new. Sure, at some point we are going to scrap one or another, but the rate we go through them is crazy.

GreeBo

Wibbs wrote: »

The previous shape Leaf(dunno which particular models), the new Leaf, the BMW i3, a Tesla Model S. A couple of Prius' in the mix if we're including hybrids. Of that lot, for me the BMW was the most fun in the handling dept. It felt the lightest, though I did feel a bit like I was sitting on the rear axle, kinda like in a Smart, dunno how to explain it. That said pretty much any of the "hot hatches" would blow it into the weeds. The Tesla is a nice place to be, if boat like in the twisties. It makes its weight known, even on a short run. The Leaf is what it is, a basic family hatchback and like most of them ICE or not, about as exciting as warm milk with zero feel in the controls and that's fine, it's not trying to be a Golf GTi. The latest model looks far better mind you and if I was in the market for a basic family hatchback I'd pick it over an equivalent ICE.

I would say having read reviews and views in general, that many of the EV early adopters are slightly different to ICE petrolheads. When you read or hear people saying their Leaf handles well, I scratch my head and wonder what the hell have they driven before to make a statement like that.

On one hand you talk about the environment, renewable energies and how Ireland is perfect for EVs and then on the other its all about GTIs and hot hatches and how a car handles in the corners?

I get that you are sure that you want to argue, but are you sure what it is you are arguing?

GreeBo

Seweryn wrote: »

Yeah, or simply - when you buy a new car and sell your old one there is one car (quite often still in good, serviceable condition) somewhere being disposed.

Versus 30 people buy a car on the same day, keep it for 15 years and then dispose of it. You now have 30 serviceable cars being disposed.

This is better how?

Mike9832

cnocbui wrote: »

If the majority people have very small commutes, then they definitely shouldn't be switching to expensive EVs where they will never see a cost saving from reduced running costs matching the capital outlay premium.

Thats the biggest problem I can see too

They make no sense to the majority of the population and your paying thousands more, tens of thousands even

Nissan epower type tech is something I would love to see take off

Electric motor, powered by petrol, its cheap to manufacture, drops emissions alot, great tech

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.autocarindia.com/car-reviews-amp/nissan-note-e-power-review-test-drive-412630

liamog

Wibbs wrote: »

It's like herding cats...

In the recession after the boom went bust, what happened to the motor industry here? It slumped. Sales of both new and old cars. Why? People held onto their current cars for longer. Ergo if people hold onto a car, any car, ICE or EV, for longer, fewer cars will be sold and required and the environmental impact will be lesser.

OK maybe you are beginning to get it. Can you see now that it doesn't matter how many times the car changes hands. Whether the car last 15 years with one owner or 15 years with 5 owners, makes absolutely no difference to the number of cars that need to be manufactured per year. However, if the car lasts 30 years with one owner or 30 years with 10 owners, we can reduce the demand for new cars by 50%.

The crux of the matter being, that your neighbour who replaces his car every 4 years, reselling his old car, has the same environmental impact as the person who buys a new car and keeps it for its entire life cycle.

GreeBo

Mike9832 wrote: »

Thats the biggest problem I can see too

They make no sense to the majority of the population and your paying thousands more, tens of thousands even

Nissan epower type tech is something I would love to see take off

Electric motor, powered by petrol, its cheap to manufacture, drops emissions alot, great tech

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.autocarindia.com/car-reviews-amp/nissan-note-e-power-review-test-drive-412630

I think you need to differentiate between whether they make sense financially or environmentally.

If you are buying a new car and have a 10KM daily commute then it totally makes sense to buy an EV, it will cost you almost nothing to run. Especially if you are doing city driving where most of the time you aren't moving.

Noone is saying that you have to go out and buy a brand new one, but if you are in the market to change your car an EV suits the vast, vast majority of Irish drivers. Some might have to buy a brand new one for the range they actually need, most wont.

Wibbs

GreeBo wrote: »

On one hand you talk about the environment, renewable energies and how Ireland is perfect for EVs and then on the other its all about GTIs and hot hatches and how a car handles in the corners?

I get that you are sure that you want to argue, but are you sure what it is you are arguing?

You asked me had I driven any of the current EV's and by your question I assume because I questioned handling characteristics (though lauded their other pluses). I did so. You seem to be under the impression that one can't have both a good handling car and a more environmentally friendly one. EV faithful not being into, nor understanding cars stereotype box ticked.

liamog wrote: »

The crux of the matter being, that your neighbour who replaces his car every 4 years, reselling his old car, has the same environmental impact as the person who buys a new car and keeps it for its entire life cycle.

That you read my post pointing out the difference in consumption between a boom and a bust and still actually believe something so obviously mindbogglingly stupid a statement, I truly don't know what to say to you. Though it does reinforce another of my stereotypes of the early adopter EV faithful.

Wibbs

GreeBo wrote: »

I think you need to differentiate between whether they make sense financially or environmentally.

If you are buying a new car and have a 10KM daily commute then it totally makes sense to buy an EV, it will cost you almost nothing to run. Especially if you are doing city driving where most of the time you aren't moving.

While second hand makes more sense, when considering a new EV, it doesn't make sense financially. As Cnoc illustrated earlier talking about the new Leaf.

cnocbui wrote: »

Yeah, it's about the same straight line performance as my Civic. In the UK it's £9,000 more than the current FK8 Civic Type R and a lot, lot slower. The price difference would let you buy enough petrol to drive the Civic about 90,000 km before breaking even on price.

GreeBo

Wibbs wrote: »

You asked me had I driven any of the current EV's and by your question I assume because I questioned handling characteristics (though lauded their other pluses). I did so. You seem to be under the impression that one can't have both a good handling car and a more environmentally friendly one. EV faithful not being into, nor understanding cars stereotype box ticked.

*I* didn't ask you anything my good man.

- Inability to actually reads posts through all the bluster box ticked.

Who are these mysterious "EV Faithful" that you speak of? Do they keep you up at night with their nefarious schemes?

Or, more likely, are there some people who actually have an EV in their household and call out the immature bollocks that gets spouted be people who should really know better?

Your posts come across like a spotty teenager who furiously posts away from his bedroom in his parents house, surrounded by spent tissues and car magazines, anxiously waiting for the postman to deliver his new, stylish 6 foot spoiler to go on his mommys '95 Glanza so that finally the pink titanium exhaust extension that he got for chrimbo last year will have a match and he can go spinning up in the Dublin mountains with all the other cool kids and laugh at all the saps in their electric cars who just dont "get" cars like he does.

Enjoy your continued internet "research" and try not to get any more on your keyboard.

Wibbs

GreeBo wrote: »

Who are these mysterious "EV Faithful" that you speak of? Do they keep you up at night with their nefarious schemes?

You're one and nope. Though while early adopters of any new tech tend to be outliers, even oddballs and that's fine, the level of ignorance on view with too many EV acolytes is scary and amusing in about equal measure. In this thread we've had one believe cars have been getting lighter, while seeming to think EV's magically change the laws of physics, another typed "Anthropocentric climate change is the greatest load of bullsh1t anyway"(yep that was a beaut alright, especially given the source) and thinks that the lithium on our phones is more worrying in origin than in our cars, another reckoned a Leaf handles well and is "sporty", another can't seem to wrap their brains around the bloody obvious that the more people hold onto their cars for longer the fewer cars will be required and most seem to be more of the nerdy mobile white good fans rather than car(of any type) fans.

I suppose I really should have left it where it was in a post from much earlier in this thread:

Me. Ages ago wrote: »

Debating with your kind of mindset is like herding cats; frustrating and unproductive, because they'll just meow and wander where they want to wander.

PS I don't have a "mommy" because I'm not a Yank.

Gumbo

Wibbs wrote: »

While second hand makes more sense, when considering a new EV, it doesn't make sense financially. As Cnoc illustrated earlier talking about the new Leaf.

Which the same poster then confirmed that those figures for the UK are irrelevant here. The cat swings in the other direction when talking about here, Ireland.

cnocbui wrote: »

Ha, ha - in the Uk the civic costs €35,890, here it's €51,750, so The Irish government has of course managed to pretty much flip the difference the other way.

Gumbo

Wibbs wrote: »

You asked me had I driven any of the current EV's and by your question I assume because I questioned handling characteristics (though lauded their other pluses). I did so. You seem to be under the impression that one can't have both a good handling car and a more environmentally friendly one. EV faithful not being into, nor understanding cars stereotype box ticked.

You can talk about handling and fine tuning until the cows comes home, but out there on the roads in city commuting, it makes no difference whatsoever to the average car owner.

You can sit there in your Integra Type R, with full Spoon exhaust, drop in filter, Cold Air Induction, vtec controller with vtec/fuel/air controlled remap, Eibach springs and performance tyres......but when little Mary leaves you sitting a the line in her Leaf Electric your laughed at

* You will catch her up north of 50-60 though, but then you both have to stop for the next red light.

creedp

GreeBo wrote: »

What percentage are you using to define significant?
Based on the average distance traveled by drivers in Ireland I think an EV decent alternative for the majority.

That's fine then. Many don't agree EV's meet their needs and I think that's OK also. Personally I have an EV but without also having an ICE I would be replacing the EV with an ICE end of. Despite the fact that no matter if EVs suited everybody's needs all of the time they couldn't be sourced in sufficient numbers at affordable prices, it has to be accepted that they don't meet many people's needs at present but I've no doubt that is something that will change over time.

ELM327

Wibbs wrote: »

It's like herding cats...

In the recession after the boom went bust, what happened to the motor industry here? It slumped. Sales of both new and old cars. Why? People held onto their current cars for longer. Ergo if people hold onto a car, any car, ICE or EV, for longer, fewer cars will be sold and required and the environmental impact will be lesser.

Yes but that's not realistic
People change cars regardless.



The point being made (I think, and at least for me) is that when people are changing anyway, it is better to change to an EV than not an EV.


I know of older people who buy the newest micra/focus/i20 every 2-3 years to do literally 10k km per year. If these people bought an EV it would be better for everyone.



Very naieve to assume that people won't change car!

ELM327

creedp wrote: »

That's fine then. Many don't agree EV's meet their needs and I think that's OK also. Personally I have an EV but without also having an ICE I would be replacing the EV with an ICE end of. Despite the fact that no matter if EVs suited everybody's needs all of the time they couldn't be sourced in sufficient numbers at affordable prices, it has to be accepted that they don't meet many people's needs at present but I've no doubt that is something that will change over time.

Theres very few people out there who have needs that are not met by the current crop of 350-500km range EVs
Heck, the newest model S range is above 600km.



The argument that it doesnt meet people's needs is not a realistic one, it's not 2012 now. EV range has come on exponentially. If you have a home charger you can have an EV. When you can do that one off 1000km - a full day's driving - with only 2 30 minute stops to recharge, I think the range argument is bull. An excuse from doddery old nincompoops who are too stuck in their ways of burning fossil fuels and suffocating us in our cities to care.

creedp

ELM327 wrote: »

Theres very few people out there who have needs that are not met by the current crop of 350-500km range EVs
Heck, the newest model S range is above 600km.



The argument that it doesnt meet people's needs is not a realistic one, it's not 2012 now. EV range has come on exponentially. If you have a home charger you can have an EV. When you can do that one off 1000km - a full day's driving - with only 2 30 minute stops to recharge, I think the range argument is bull. An excuse from doddery old nincompoops who are too stuck in their ways of burning fossil fuels and suffocating us in our cities to care.

I have never spent more than €20k on a car ..

ELM327

creedp wrote: »

I have never spent more than €20k on a car ..

Then you could take your pick of an early Ioniq, a leaf 30kWh with some change, or an early leaf 40


Whats your point?

Mike9832

GreeBo wrote: »

I think you need to differentiate between whether they make sense financially or environmentally.

If you are buying a new car and have a 10KM daily commute then it totally makes sense to buy an EV, it will cost you almost nothing to run. Especially if you are doing city driving where most of the time you aren't moving.

Noone is saying that you have to go out and buy a brand new one, but if you are in the market to change your car an EV suits the vast, vast majority of Irish drivers. Some might have to buy a brand new one for the range they actually need, most wont.

Agree totally

If I could get a 400km range small car like Hyundai Kona for €20,000 like I can get a diesel Kona I would go EV of course, but that's impossible and it's going to be impossible for years

That Kona costs, €50,000 ( before €10,000 grants/vrt)

Battery alone in that Kona costs them about €10,000 and all the other bits like PM motor, inverter etc another €10,000

Thats €20,000 to replace an engine and fuel tank, its ridiculous

Small car scenario you gave is ideal and makes total sense, but it cant be done

Take a tiny city car like a VW up for example

People bought them for €11,000 brand new, electric version will go on sale next year for €23,000 and thats after €10,000 grant for Government

€11,000 vs €33,000 without government intervention

Battery alone in that VW up costs about €7,000

EVs only make sense financially for people that buy Mercedes etc brand new or do crazy miles

Teslas are great value imo, they can absorb €20,000 cost of battery and drivetrain at its €60,000 price point

I'd take a Tesla anyday over an equivalent Mercedes diesel/petrol

GreeBo

creedp wrote: »

That's fine then. Many don't agree EV's meet their needs and I think that's OK also. Personally I have an EV but without also having an ICE I would be replacing the EV with an ICE end of. Despite the fact that no matter if EVs suited everybody's needs all of the time they couldn't be sourced in sufficient numbers at affordable prices, it has to be accepted that they don't meet many people's needs at present but I've no doubt that is something that will change over time.

and its the highlighted bit in your post that is the issue.
They dont *agree* that an EV meets their needs, but there is no basis for that.
I think its an assumption based on the types of scaremongering you read on threads like this very one.
People being terrified about getting stranded miles from home with a suddenly empty battery.

The SEI figures from 2010 show an average of ~200Miles per week by Irish drivers, remove the outliers who are likley skewing the data (people who drive thousands of miles a week) and the average need is probably closer to 150KM a week.
so you can get any EV and charge it once a week without any inconvenience, yep people will still say that they *need* more range.

Its nonsense for 95%+ of Irish drivers, even if we like in a townhouse and dont have charging at work, there is at least 45 minutes every week where you can park somewhere with a charger.

Mike9832

ELM327 wrote: »

Theres very few people out there who have needs that are not met by the current crop of 350-500km range EVs
Heck, the newest model S range is above 600km.



The argument that it doesnt meet people's needs is not a realistic one, it's not 2012 now. EV range has come on exponentially. If you have a home charger you can have an EV. When you can do that one off 1000km - a full day's driving - with only 2 30 minute stops to recharge, I think the range argument is bull. An excuse from doddery old nincompoops who are too stuck in their ways of burning fossil fuels and suffocating us in our cities to care.

True

Only cars that can do 2 30 min stops over 1000km are €60,000+ Teslas

A Nissan Leaf would go on fire if it tried that .

You'd do the 1000km quicker on Bus Éireann than what a €40,000 Nissan Leaf could do it, that's how **** they are and the new Ioniq ( which was a great car) is no better

Ridiculous actually how **** some EVs are compared to Tesla etc

GreeBo

Mike9832 wrote: »

Agree totally

If I could get a 400km range small car like Hyundai Kona for €20,000 like I can get a diesel Kona I would go EV of course, but that's impossible and it's going to be impossible for years

That Kona costs, €50,000 ( before €10,000 grants/vrt)

Battery alone in that Kona costs them about €10,000 and all the other bits like PM motor, inverter etc another €10,000

Thats €20,000 to replace an engine and fuel tank, its ridiculous

Small car scenario you gave is ideal and makes total sense, but it cant be done

Take a tiny city car like a VW up for example

People bought them for €11,000 brand new, electric version will go on sale next year for €23,000 and thats after €10,000 grant for Government

€11,000 vs €33,000 without government intervention

Battery alone in that VW up costs about €7,000

EVs only make sense financially for people that buy Mercedes etc brand new or do crazy miles

Teslas are great value imo, they can absorb €20,000 cost of battery and drivetrain at its €60,000 price point

I'd take a Tesla anyday over an equivalent Mercedes diesel/petrol

so why not buy a 2016 leaf for under 15K?
https://www.carbuyersguide.net/nissan/leaf/2016-electric-red-hatchback-dublin-5dbfb46717590

You dont have to spend €33K on a brand new car to get an EV.

Also, manufacturers are clawing back some of the investment dollars they spent, its a relatively new tech, prices will plummet inthe next few years as they do for everything thats new....phones, tvs, computers, everything.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Theres very few people out there who have needs that are not met by the current crop of 350-500km range EVs
Heck, the newest model S range is above 600km.



The argument that it doesnt meet people's needs is not a realistic one, it's not 2012 now. EV range has come on exponentially. If you have a home charger you can have an EV. When you can do that one off 1000km - a full day's driving - with only 2 30 minute stops to recharge, I think the range argument is bull. An excuse from doddery old nincompoops who are too stuck in their ways of burning fossil fuels and suffocating us in our cities to care.

If they have 40-50,000 to drop on a car, which 90% of people don't

creedp

ELM327 wrote: »

Then you could take your pick of an early Ioniq, a leaf 30kWh with some change, or an early leaf 40


Whats your point?

I have an L30 and that's the point. While it meets many on my motoring needs I would have to get rid of it in the morning if it was my only car.

GreeBo

Mike9832 wrote: »

True

Only cars that can do 2 30 min stops over 1000km are €60,000+ Teslas

A Nissan Leaf would go on fire if it tried that .

You'd do the 1000km quicker on Bus Éireann than what a €40,000 Nissan Leaf could do it, that's how **** they are and the new Ioniq ( which was a great car) is no better

Ridiculous actually how **** some EVs are compared to Tesla etc

How many people are ever doing a 1,000KM journey in Ireland?

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Then you could take your pick of an early Ioniq, a leaf 30kWh with some change, or an early leaf 40


Whats your point?

I think the point is, if you want practicality you have to spend 40k+.

If you buy a 30kwh Leaf you will have a range of 60km and spend all your life at chargers.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

If they have 40-50,000 to drop on a car, which 90% of people don't

Ok, so lets discount them so....you can get ~120KM range for under €15K, what percentage of the population cant make do with that daily range?

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

How many people are ever doing a 1,000KM journey in Ireland?

You need to read the post he replied to, not take the phrase in isolation