ESB eCars pricing introduction

creedp

Zenith74 wrote: »

I disagree. EVs are at a disadvantage because a diesel/petrol car can cause pollution and not pay the price, so a subsidy levels the playing field. Note that the EV subsidies are available to all who choose to use an EV, in the same way that the ICE pollution subsidy is available to those who choose to use an ICE.

I think the massive duty on road fuel represents a significant contribution towards the true cost of burning the fuel. From that point of view, the burning of igreen diesel, home heating fuel, coal, etc that is much more heavily subsidised for those who choose to use them.

charlieIRL

road_high wrote: »

I’m surprised it’s been free for so long tbh! A regular complaint I hear is selfish idiots parking their EVs in spots for most of the day hogging it on everyone else. Hopefully this might go some way to solving this

They are hogging the slower chargers and I don’t think today’s announcement will change that

creedp

charlieIRL wrote: »

They are hogging the slower chargers and I don’t think today’s announcement will change that

Its increasingly difficult to get access to on street scp's in Dublin at possible due to BMW 530e being abandoned at them for extended periods. Many of the cars I come across are plugged in but not charging. I think many owners think once they plug in they don't have to pay for parking. A bit more aggressive enforcement of parking rules might help with this problem

liamog

kanuseeme wrote: »

For me, it will cost me about 2 euro to charge to 80 % and with that I will save about 3.50,

So for me to move 1 euro will not cut it, I will need 4, I prefer notes, but no change given sorry.

I have modified my outlander already.

I like it, you just have to hook up the coin slot to an auto disconnect!

€2 is 6kWh at the new rapid prices, so does that mean your Outlander can do the same mileage on 6kWh as €5.50 of petrol?

Petrol is about €1.45/l right now so that's about 3.8l. Mitsubishi quote around 50.4 mpg when the battery is depleted, which is 5.6l/100km. The 3.8l of petrol should give you around 67.85km of range. That gives the Outlander an electric only efficiency of 8.85kWh/100km.

Mitsubishi really need to start selling their tech to other manufacturers, with efiicency like that they are putting the most efficent cars Ioniq (13.8kWh/100km) and Model 3 SR+ (14.3kWh/100km) to shame. Imagine if they put such amazing tech into an aerodynamically efficent body. They could probably get that down even further!

unkel

creedp wrote: »

Its increasingly difficult to get access to on street scp's in Dublin at possible due to BMW 530e being abandoned at them for extended periods. Many of the cars I come across are plugged in but not charging. I think many owners think once they plug in they don't have to pay for parking. A bit more aggressive enforcement of parking rules might help with this problem

Forget about it in Dublin. Don't even ever stress yourself out about trying to charge. Odds are heavily stacked against you being able to slow charge and that won't change any time soon.

McGiver

sk8board wrote:

For mass market adoption, there needs to be a financial reason to move. Today’s news moves that point further away.

That's just not true. The incentive is there - charging at home.

Important to point out, something I'm surprised we EV supporters don't educate the populace more about, that no other market in Europe has had a national network of free chargers. Few free chargers here yes, a comprehensive network organised by the state totalling 95%+ of all chargers in the country, absolutely not - forget it. Not even in the Norway!

Electricity costs money. End of story. How can someone expect that it to be be free? Totally unrealistic expectation.

Now, the incentive is a question of policy. Just copy Norway - carrot and stick - and it will work. The policy is relatively simple - no VRT, no VAT on EVs, VAT and pollution based VRT on ICE, no motor tax for EVs, pollution based motor tax for ICE. Plus ancillary policies like free parking etc.

Mike9832

liamog wrote: »

I like it, you just have to hook up the coin slot to an auto disconnect!

€2 is 6kWh at the new rapid prices, so does that mean your Outlander can do the same mileage on 6kWh as €5.50 of petrol?

Petrol is about €1.45/l right now so that's about 3.8l. Mitsubishi quote around 50.4 mpg when the battery is depleted, which is 5.6l/100km. The 3.8l of petrol should give you around 67.85km of range. That gives the Outlander an electric only efficiency of 8.85kWh/100km.

Mitsubishi really need to start selling their tech to other manufacturers, with efiicency like that they are putting the most efficent cars Ioniq (13.8kWh/100km) and Model 3 SR+ (14.3kWh/100km) to shame. Imagine if they put such amazing tech into an aerodynamically efficent body. They could probably get that down even further!

Its not just PHEV

On a motorway not many EVs will be cheaper than diesel at 1.30

Yokes like the Leaf are taking 22kWh+

€7.26 with those charges for 100km

Any decent diesel will match that

Tanks like outlander cost like €3.50 to do 30km on those new chargers at motorway speed

A 15 year old petrol Honda could manage similar

Great thing with these charges is people will finally buy correct tools for the job.

No 30kWh Leaf stopping every hour hogging free chargers, that hour cost €6.60 now

liamog

liamog wrote: »

Petrol is about €1.45/l right now so that's about 3.8l. Mitsubishi quote around 50.4 mpg when the battery is depleted, which is 5.6l/100km. The 3.8l of petrol should give you around 67.85km of range. That gives the Outlander an electric only efficiency of 8.85kWh/100km.

Appreciate I'm replying to my own post here, but those numbers just seemed too good to be true. Using the electric-only efficiency from ev-database.uk I figured it was worth calculating the real savings of eCars Fast charging versus petrol for Outlanders. Hope this helps you when making the choice between a wee top of the fuel tank

Circumstance|Wh/mi|kWh/100km|km/€1 (eCars 33c/kWh)|km/€1 (eCars 29c/kWh)|km/€1 (petrol €1.45/l)
City - Mild Weather|365|22.68|13.36|15.2|12.32
Highway - Mild Weather|550|34.18|8.87|10.09|12.32
Combined - Mild Weather|440|27.34|11.08|12.61|12.32
City - Cold Weather|440|27.34|11.08|12.61|12.32
Highway - Cold Weather|685|42.56|7.12|8.1|12.32
Combined - Cold Weather|550|34.18|8.87|10.09|12.32

creedp

McGiver wrote: »

That's just not true. The incentive is there - charging at home.

Important to point out, something I'm surprised we EV supporters don't educate the populace more about, that no other market in Europe has had a national network of free chargers. Few free chargers here yes, a comprehensive network organised by the state totalling 95%+ of all chargers in the country, absolutely not - forget it. Not even in the Norway!

Electricity costs money. End of story. How can someone expect that it to be be free? Totally unrealistic expectation.

Now, the incentive is a question of policy. Just copy Norway - carrot and stick - and it will work. The policy is relatively simple - no VRT, no VAT on EVs, VAT and pollution based VRT on ICE, no motor tax for EVs, pollution based motor tax for ICE. Plus ancillary policies like free parking etc.

In fairness every incentive whether it be free electricity or tolls or VRT or VAT has an opportunity cost.

The State subsidising electricity for EVs is no different to exempting EV's from VRT. All subsidies reduce the States ability to fund other initiatives.

liamog

Mike9832 wrote: »

Its not just PHEV

eCars Fast Charging infrastructure is not intended for regular use. Slow charging at home/work etc 85-90% of the time is expected. Breaking even on the mid-journey fast charger seems fair to me, and matches most other European markets. For any journey, your first x km are done at approx 1/10th the ICE cost where x is the range of your car. Most of your usage is going to be within that x and will have 0 km at the same as the ICE cost.

Imagine how much money you'd save if I gave you a fuel card that allowed you to pay 14.5c/l for the first 10l of fuel per day.

The only market I see suffering here are the ones who cannot charge at home/work. You are correct, they will no longer see any fuel savings compared to a comparative ICE, which means they will not be able to offset the higher purchase price.

kanuseeme

liamog wrote: »

I like it, you just have to hook up the coin slot to an auto disconnect!

€2 is 6kWh at the new rapid prices, so does that mean your Outlander can do the same mileage on 6kWh as €5.50 of petrol?

Petrol is about €1.45/l right now so that's about 3.8l. Mitsubishi quote around 50.4 mpg when the battery is depleted, which is 5.6l/100km. The 3.8l of petrol should give you around 67.85km of range. That gives the Outlander an electric only efficiency of 8.85kWh/100km.

Mitsubishi really need to start selling their tech to other manufacturers, with efiicency like that they are putting the most efficent cars Ioniq (13.8kWh/100km) and Model 3 SR+ (14.3kWh/100km) to shame. Imagine if they put such amazing tech into an aerodynamically efficent body. They could probably get that down even further!

i put a 81% charge at 35km range (charge will stop at 81% 23 minutes, start it again it stops around 94%, 25 minutes)

mpg I used was 42 or 15 km/L so 35/15 = 2.3333 x 1.45 euro = 3.38 euro rounded up to 3,50, since I went to the bother of doing the modification, I want 4 euro minimum but I prefer notes and i said sorry no change given, so I am really hoping for 5 euro.

I do not know how you got 5.50, i only wish for 67 km range on battery.

I know you all get angry with phev's at rapids, but for me 25 minutes that I am doing nothing with, saves me 3.50. in a few weeks it will only be 1.50, but I am not going to complain.
Can you say the same?

As a one car family, I could not take the risk of going BEV, with a limited range and a 30 minute wait every 150km, and that being dependent on a network like ecars.

I feel a rapid charging phev is an ideal car for me, and I do recommend them to others if it suits them.

I see the " phev hate " here sometimes, some never miss a chance to pour scorn on phevs, usually its one liners but it comes from some of the most knowledgeable people on EVs, and your words are like gold a lot of the time.

my 2 previous cars were hybrids and this present one, were bought on what I read about them on boards.ie, i needed to filter the info, but it was real information from real people.

this last month 2 people pm'd me to ask me questions and I tried to help, with that in mind, I would ask to ease off on the snide remarks about a legitimate but fugly non-aerodynamic car

liamog

kanuseeme wrote: »

i put a 81% charge at 35km range (charge will stop at 81% 23 minutes, start it again it stops around 94%, 25 minutes)

mpg I used was 42 or 15 km/L so 35/15 = 2.3333 x 1.45 euro = 3.38 euro rounded up to 3,50, since I went to the bother of doing the modification, I want 4 euro minimum but I prefer notes and i said sorry no change given, so I am really hoping for 5 euro.

I do not know how you got 5.50, i only wish for 67 km range on battery.

When you said spending €2 would save you €3.50, I assumed you meant a saving of €3.50. I.E. would have spent €5.50 now only spending €2, therefore saving €3.50.

What kind of electrical only consumption are you observing? When I modified the calculation to use 42 mpg instead of Mitsubishi's 50.4 mpg you get around 10.3km per €1 with petrol. For your mentioned 67 km and using the combined cycle gives you an actual saving of around €1.20 in mild weather, and you'll spend 14c more during cold weather.

To be honest, I just like calculating things. I believe people should be equipped to make an informed decision.

liamog

Seems like a little bit of madness has descended on everyone.
We have EV drivers insisting they'll sell their car because, they will now only be saving 15% compared to driving an ICE, and PHEV drivers insisting they will still use the network to save between 70c and €1.50 per 60km.
Oh and Thierry with yet another excuse to not buy himself any EV.

kanuseeme

AVE. 20.5 kWh/100 km

kanuseeme

over 2 months 20.5 kWh/100km

McGiver

creedp wrote:

The State subsidising electricity for EVs is no different to exempting EV's from VRT. All subsidies reduce the States ability to fund other initiatives.

In terms of effect on the budget you're right.

Otherwise it is a very different subsidy. Tax incentives are totally common policy tools. Whereas provision of free electricity, water, gas or whatever isn't.

The "free provision of electricity" policy is inherently flawed policy so I'm happy charging for charging is in the place.

As I said, nowhere else it was done this way, it was silly idea today start with anyway and it has failed. Another failed idea is a grant paid to the dealer/manufacturer, should be immediately abolished and replaced with VAT reduction/exemption.

jusmeig

liamog wrote: »

Mitsubishi really need to start selling their tech to other manufacturers, with efiicency like that they are putting the most efficent cars Ioniq (13.8kWh/100km) and Model 3 SR+ (14.3kWh/100km) to shame. Imagine if they put such amazing tech into an aerodynamically efficent body. They could probably get that down even further!

Really, 8.85kWh/100km? At 10km per hour maybe. The thing is sharped like a bath with a shed on the back, and it's using lithium ion. How is it anywhere close to those figures on electric only?

jusmeig

kanuseeme wrote: »

over 2 months 20.5 kWh/100km

Ya that's more like it, it's a big heavy not aero car!

sk8board

Black_Knight wrote: »

Why does everyone forget that charging at home is almost free (by comparison)!?

I had a similar setup to you. Did 10k km last year in my diesel. Cost me €890 for the year. Moved to electric and charging at home for those 10k km will cost me about €112 + a few times when I need to use public chargers. So I'm doing ~€750 a year on fuel alone. Tax and services are cheaper too, and tolls if I used them.

I didn’t forget that charging at home costs far less - my point was about total cost of car ownership - the fuel cost is the smaller part in both our cases.
Why would I need a €40k kona versus the €23k one, just to save up to €500 pa on fuel! ( and that’s assuming I use no public chargers, and also assumes I buy the €40k car for cash).

My point was simply that anyone doing 10-15,000 km pa has no financial fuel-saving incentive, but still has the Massive EV car cost premium, meaning the total cost of ownership is higher, including any potential reduction in depreciation on the other end.

Mickeroo

sk8board wrote: »

I didn’t forget that charging at home costs far less - my point was about total cost of car ownership - the fuel cost is the smaller part in both our cases.
Why would I need a €40k kona versus the €23k one, just to save up to €500 pa on fuel! ( and that’s assuming I use no public chargers, and also assumes I buy the €40k car for cash).

My point was simply that anyone doing 10-15,000 km pa has no financial fuel-saving incentive, but still has the Massive EV car cost premium, meaning the total cost of ownership is higher, including any potential reduction in depreciation on the other end.

I get what you're saying in terms of the price difference of the Kona models, which is a joke regardless of having to pay for rapid chargers or not but If you can only afford the 23k kona and not the 40k one and only do 10-15000km a year then buy a 2nd hand Ioniq EV and drive it practically for free compared to the diesel Kona that would have cost you the same up font but considerably more over the few years you have the car.

ELM327

sk8board wrote: »

I didn’t forget that charging at home costs far less - my point was about total cost of car ownership - the fuel cost is the smaller part in both our cases.
Why would I need a €40k kona versus the €23k one, just to save up to €500 pa on fuel! ( and that’s assuming I use no public chargers, and also assumes I buy the €40k car for cash).

My point was simply that anyone doing 10-15,000 km pa has no financial fuel-saving incentive, but still has the Massive EV car cost premium, meaning the total cost of ownership is higher, including any potential reduction in depreciation on the other end.

If you were buying a Kona and planning on using public chargers regularly you must do some serious miles. I do 50-60k a year and in a 180km range Ioniq I only used 1-2 a month public charging sessions.


You are correct though, there is no payoff to buy a Kona EV at 40k when the 23k petrol top spec car does the same job cheaper. 17k buys a lot of petrol.

Lumen

ELM327 wrote: »

You are correct though, there is no payoff to buy a Kona EV at 40k when the 23k petrol top spec car does the same job cheaper. 17k buys a lot of petrol.

Actually, 17k is exactly the fuel saving I calculated from switching our main car from diesel to electric, over five years (~200k km).

I'm not sure I would be as quick to buy an EV if the fuelling costs were the same as diesel, but I would certainly consider it. The superior driving experience and lack of tailpipe particulates are compelling. That said, I'd also be content with petrol if it wasn't so expensive, and if EVs weren't available.

I'm never buying another diesel.

Black_Knight

sk8board wrote: »

I didn’t forget that charging at home costs far less - my point was about total cost of car ownership - the fuel cost is the smaller part in both our cases.
Why would I need a €40k kona versus the €23k one, just to save up to €500 pa on fuel! ( and that’s assuming I use no public chargers, and also assumes I buy the €40k car for cash).

My point was simply that anyone doing 10-15,000 km pa has no financial fuel-saving incentive, but still has the Massive EV car cost premium, meaning the total cost of ownership is higher, including any potential reduction in depreciation on the other end.

You're 100% right. The konas price is a complete joke. Same with the eNiro, though at least it's a bigger more practical car. Tbh, they're all a bit of a joke price wise. Savings are in the 2nd hand market. I do 10-15,000km pa, that's why I bought a 2nd hand Ioniq for the same money I would of spent on an ICE car.

Mike9832

Lumen wrote: »

Actually, 17k is exactly the fuel saving I calculated from switching our main car from diesel to electric, over five years (~200k km).

I'm not sure I would be as quick to buy an EV if the fuelling costs were the same as diesel, but I would certainly consider it. The superior driving experience and lack of tailpipe particulates are compelling. That said, I'd also be content with petrol if it wasn't so expensive, and if EVs weren't available.

I'm never buying another diesel.

For crazy commuters it pays alright, 40k per annum is that territory imo

For your average driver like myself, it would take me 10 years to do 200k km

Price would have to be near parity for it to make sense

Getting there though

e208 at €30,000 is only €12,000 more than petrol one

McGiver

Lumen wrote:

I'm not sure I would be as quick to buy an EV if the fuelling costs were the same as diesel, but I would certainly consider it. The superior driving experience and lack of tailpipe particulates are compelling. That said, I'd also be content with petrol if it wasn't so expensive, and if EVs weren't available.

Thumb up. Diesel is a poison and it's literally criminal of governments letting diesel powered machinery operate near settlements.

Massive externalities of diesel machinery due to cancer, lost opportunity costs of sick/dead people etc not reflected in overall costs of diesel. Highly subsidised fuel despite the duty on it.

Petrol emissions are much less toxic. I'm OK if people want to or have to use petrol due to circumstances, financial or otherwise. But there's no excuse for diesel.

We really need to expose the diesel for what it is and keep doing that until it's gone as a fuel used in personal transport.

Sorry for a slight OT.

McGiver

Mike9832 wrote:

e208 at €30,000 is only €12,000 more than petrol one

Peagot 308 starts at €20,500. So hardly a 12k difference.

Mike9832

McGiver wrote: »

Peagot 308 starts at €20,500. So hardly a 12k difference.

208

Black_Knight

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Newstalk now. It's not really inspiring stuff.

Ugh. Listening back now. Lots of idiotic views, and Ciara provoking negative answers.

Even a positive text in about how cheap running his leaf40 is when he charges at home and uses PV too, she spins into "they'll come after ya for more money and increase costs at some point!". Christ, spinning up any bit of fear she can.

Mickeroo

Black_Knight wrote: »

Ugh. Listening back now. Lots of idiotic views, and Ciara provoking negative answers.

Even a positive text in about how cheap running his leaf40 is when he charges at home and uses PV too, she spins into "they'll come after ya for more money and increase costs at some point!". Christ, spinning up any bit of fear she can.

Nothing new for that show, happens every time they've talked about them. Kelly is very anti Ev based purely off her own notions rather than even the most cursory of research. Sure last time they had one of the Healy Raes on saying the batteries only have 2 year warranties...this was only 3 or 4 months ago.

Black_Knight

Mickeroo wrote: »

Nothing new for that show, happens every time they've talked about them. Kelly is very anti Ev based purely off her own notions rather than even the most cursory of research. Sure last time they had one of the Healy Raes on saying the batteries only have 2 year warranties...this was only 3 or 4 months ago.

It's as high as they can count

drunkmonkey

McGiver wrote: »

Thumb up. Diesel is a poison and it's literally criminal of governments letting diesel powered machinery operate near settlements.

Massive externalities of diesel machinery due to cancer, lost opportunity costs of sick/dead people etc not reflected in overall costs of diesel. Highly subsidised fuel despite the duty on it.

Petrol emissions are much less toxic. I'm OK if people want to or have to use petrol due to circumstances, financial or otherwise. But there's no excuse for diesel.

We really need to expose the diesel for what it is and keep doing that until it's gone as a fuel used in personal transport.

Sorry for a slight OT.

New diesels depending on brand have no pollution. There's absolutely a case for diesel in the future. New petrols are worse than diesels.
Diesel will be used for consumer transport for a long time to come. I've still to meet someone who knows anybody who died from a dose of diesel.

The government incentives EV's for environmental reasons, that's a bad strategy as there not the only game in town anymore. Diesels back Baby!

ELM327

I think that negativity is due to the arch feminazi that is ciara kelly.
She is both clueless and arrogant, a dangerous mix

KCross

drunkmonkey wrote: »

New diesels depending on brand have no pollution.

Dont believe everything VW tell you! Havent you learned that yet!?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Diesel will be used for consumer transport for a long time to come.

Thats for sure. The demise of ICE is way over-stated.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I've still to meet someone who knows anybody who died from a dose of diesel.

Thats like saying you dont know anyone that died from smoking. Sure it wasnt the fags, it was the cancer got them!

Sabre Man

Does anyone have any consumption figures we can use in an upcoming episode of EV TV Ireland on YouTube about the cost of driving an EV?

We're looking for figures for BEVs, PHEVs and petrol and diesel cars, ideally lifetime figures but any long trips will do.

JohnC.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

New diesels depending on brand have no pollution.

Isn't this claim for just one particular element of the pollution and they just don't talk about the rest?

unkel

drunkmonkey wrote: »

New diesels depending on brand have no pollution.

Don't believe everything some manufacturers tell you. On paper they are supposed to be a lot cleaner than they used to be. Until you actually go measure them in real life.

Over 1,000 people in Ireland die every year from air pollution. I'd say diesel vehicles are a significant contributor here.

unkel

unkel wrote: »

Don't believe everything some manufacturers tell you. On paper they are supposed to be a lot cleaner than they used to be. Until you actually go measure them in real life.

Over 1,000 people in Ireland die every year from air pollution. I'd say diesel vehicles are a significant contributor here.

I suppose it depends your definition significant

In Ireland the premature deaths attributable to air pollution are estimated at 1,200 people. The most significant air emissions are PM10 and PM2.5 which mainly arise from domestic solid fuel burning.

EPA

unkel

PM10 gives trouble breathing, not great for asthmatics and other people having trouble breathing in the first place

PM2.5 gives you cancer. A lot of PM2.5 comes from diesel engines

But yeah the number of people in Ireland using coal / peat / wood to heat their homes is plain ridiculous. Is it 2019 or 1849? Are we a first world or a third world country?

McGiver

drunkmonkey wrote: »

New diesels depending on brand have no pollution.

Blatantly untrue.

And anyway how many % of the total car fleet are 191- diesels?

Few % at most. Vast majority are highly polluting older diesels and they are going to stay for years. The issue is especially with the older ones, but even new diesels still produce PM. There is no safe limit for PM, I repeat no safe limit.

There's absolutely a case for diesel in the future.

Not for personal transport. Not even sure shot for heavy haulage.

New petrols are worse than diesels.

Provide evidence based on research. Petrols produce almost no PM, diesels produce PM. PM is toxic and carcinogenic. See below from WHO etc.

Diesel will be used for consumer transport for a long time to come.

Speculative, and IMHO unlikely, see above.

I've still to meet someone who knows anybody who died from a dose of diesel.

This is untrue.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/189051/Health-effects-of-particulate-matter-final-Eng.pdf

"The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Its major goal is to identify causes of cancer. IARC classifies diesel engine exhaust as “carcinogenic to humans,” based on sufficient evidence that it is linked to an increased risk of lung cancer. IARC also notes that there is “some evidence of a positive association” between diesel exhaust and bladder cancer."

Diesel exhaust is a Group 1 carcinogen, which causes lung cancer and has a positive association with bladder cancer. It contains several substances that are also listed individually as human carcinogens by the IARC.

The health effects of PM10 and PM2.5 are well documented. There is no evidence of a safe level of exposure or a threshold below which no adverse health effects occur.

You can start getting educated here and then read more detailed research on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust

But this is OT...anyway the word is out. Diesel exhaust is a poison. Everyone who uses it to save few quid is complicit.

September1

With such a dramatic raise of charging costs, I expect car market to be flooded with EVs sold by people switching back to ICE. On 19th October you should be able to get any EV below 1-2k, perhaps Teslas would fetch up to 4k.

n97 mini

liamog wrote: »

Appreciate I'm replying to my own post here, but those numbers just seemed too good to be true. Using the electric-only efficiency from ev-database.uk I figured it was worth calculating the real savings of eCars Fast charging versus petrol for Outlanders. Hope this helps you when making the choice between a wee top of the fuel tank

Circumstance|Wh/mi|kWh/100km|km/€1 (eCars 33c/kWh)|km/€1 (eCars 29c/kWh)|km/€1 (petrol €1.45/l)
City - Mild Weather|365|22.68|13.36|15.2|12.32
Highway - Mild Weather|550|34.18|8.87|10.09|12.32
Combined - Mild Weather|440|27.34|11.08|12.61|12.32
City - Cold Weather|440|27.34|11.08|12.61|12.32
Highway - Cold Weather|685|42.56|7.12|8.1|12.32
Combined - Cold Weather|550|34.18|8.87|10.09|12.32

To be fair, the same website says petrol efficiency is nowhere near claimed. 35 mpg is mentioned. That puts your rightmost column at about 8.6km per €1.

charlieIRL

I was queuing for the charger in Navan and got taking to an elderly gentleman in an ionic, who was also waiting, and he had no idea paid charging was coming. Was shocked to hear it.

unkel

September1 wrote: »

With such a dramatic raise of charging costs, I expect car market to be flooded with EVs sold by people switching back to ICE. On 19th October you should be able to get any EV below 1-2k, perhaps Teslas would fetch up to 4k.

I'd buy all of them at those prices

liamog

n97 mini wrote: »

To be fair, the same website says petrol efficiency is nowhere near claimed. 35 mpg is mentioned. That puts your rightmost column at about 8.6km per €1.

Does kind of put into perspective, if the Outlander which is a pretty inefficient EV can get 40% more km per Euro than putting petrol into the same vehicle, then all the naysayers who will abandon their EVs may not have really done the math.

Black_Knight

September1 wrote: »

With such a dramatic raise of charging costs, I expect car market to be flooded with EVs sold by people switching back to ICE. On 19th October you should be able to get any EV below 1-2k, perhaps Teslas would fetch up to 4k.

Probably. Buying an EV is about buying the right tool for the job (commute), an I'd imagine plenty held onto the wrong tool because fuel was free. Now that it's not free, and charging at home is the cheap fuel they'll either switch to Ice because the Ice car is affordable, or upgrade their tool (EV) to suit their job (commute).

Seems like good news for those who want a cheap runabout to cover their short commutes.

Sabre Man

BEVs also require less maintenance. It isn't just about the fuel/electricity.

Calahonda52

September1 wrote: »

With such a dramatic raise of charging costs, I expect car market to be flooded with EVs sold by people switching back to ICE. On 19th October you should be able to get any EV below 1-2k, perhaps Teslas would fetch up to 4k.

19th October what year?
2019 is gone, so maybe 2029

n97 mini

liamog wrote: »

Does kind of put into perspective, if the Outlander which is a pretty inefficient EV can get 40% more km per Euro than putting petrol into the same vehicle, then all the naysayers who will abandon their EVs may not have really done the math.

Yeah.

When we had a Leaf we were doing about 14kwh/100km. At ecars pricing that's €4.62 per 100km. A litre of petrol is €1.45, so it's close to 3.2l/100km. No petrol or diesel can come close to that.

And that's assuming all charging is done exclusively at FCPs, which just doesn't happen.

kanuseeme

A litre of petrol is €1.45 ATM, what will further increases in carbon tax make it?

unkel

kanuseeme wrote: »

A litre of petrol is €1.45 ATM, what will further increases in carbon tax make it?

About €3 in about 10 years time? Diesel about €5?