Key Post Electric Vehicles

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's written almost a year ago. I've since watched a Prime Time special on the subject and it was embarrassing to see the amount of broken down charging points across the country when drivers arrived to charge their vehicles. Not a very nice thing to happen to a sales rep, business person or similar trying to carry out some work. Attempting to force people into buying EV's is a tad silly when the infrastructure and plenty more things are not there. However if you want to buy one by all means go ahead but don't pretend for one second it's the answer to anything.

Don't pretend a sales rep car is the answer to everything either.

Its a wonder mobile phones are that popular considering they don't have a 3 week battery life of the old phones. How do people cope!

Point being different horses for different courses. Personally I don't have an EV and never had owned diesel either. YMMV.
 
Or being just in time for a charge up and finding the thing doesn't work. Fairly common i'm told:(
Two EV family here; have never come across a fast charger not working. Have encountered needing to queue, though not since they began billing for charging last year. It’s not a non-existent issue, but it is not common at all.
 
Last edited:
...and children aren't worked to death in The Congo to mine the minerals used in a petrol car, unlike the battery in an electric car.
There have been and continue to be thousands upon thousands of children killed in the various wars in the Middle East which have been as a direct result of the West’s need for oil/petrol/diesel. Hundreds of thousands more live in dreadful conditions because of oppressive regimes propped up by oil money.

Hundreds of thousands of people in Europe are dying prematurely from inhaling petrol/diesel exhaust fumes. The EPA recommend carrying your children if you’re near roads in Ireland! EVs reduce this localised pollution to virtually zero.

This argument against EVs is one of the more bonkers ones out there. I don’t want to see anybody die unnecessarily, but how somebody can look at this and think they’d prefer the hundreds of thousands of deaths and premature deaths in Europe/Middle East against tens elsewhere is mind boggling.
 
Last edited:
Who's arguing against electric vehicles?
I understood you posing the question "Is there really a strong environmental case for electric vehicles?" followed by a list of issues with EVs as you arguing against them. Maybe I misunderstood.
 
I understood you posing the question "Is there really a strong environmental case for electric vehicles?" followed by a list of issues with EVs as you arguing against them. Maybe I misunderstood.
Just pointing out that there is a difference between marketing and facts and while EV's certainly have no tailpipe emissions they do have a significant carbon footprint and if you own an efficient modern petrol or diesel car and do low mileage the best thing you can do for the environment, globally, is keep it.
 
... Who's arguing against electric vehicles?

I'll put a few thoughts out there, seeing as you've asked:

* There is a cost to the environment in manufactory every new electric vehicle. Materials used have to come from somewhere, while there is associated polution from same. That cost needs to be recouped, before we can all start claiming they make a net positive contribution to current environmental problems caused by Diesel and Petrol cars.

* Given the cost of purchasing a new electric car and the subsequent depreciation rate (keeping in mind the likely life of the battery and cost of replacing same, or more likely scrapping the car), the monetary cost to motorists is prohibitive. The lifespan of a well maintained petrol or diesel car is 3-5 times more than an electric car. So why not maintain and improve your existing car, rather than further negatively impact on the environment by producing lots more new electric cars over the next 15-20 years?

* Electricity to power the vehicles has to come from somewhere. Do we over extend the national grid by bringing more electric vehicles onto the network, requiring regular charges? Do we wait until we have more wind and solar or wave power being generated first and what of the cost of putting same in place (money and impact on the environment from sourcing the required materials)? Do we run more cables under water to source electricity from the UK and France, where Nuclear power is a common feature and by extension, embrace a power source that we've opposed for decades due to risk is major accident etc?

How's that, for a bit of opposition to electric cars? :)
 
I'll put a few thoughts out there, seeing as you've asked:

* There is a cost to the environment in manufactory every new electric vehicle. Materials used have to come from somewhere, while there is associated polution from same. That cost needs to be recouped, before we can all start claiming they make a net positive contribution to current environmental problems caused by Diesel and Petrol cars.

* Given the cost of purchasing a new electric car and the subsequent depreciation rate (keeping in mind the likely life of the battery and cost of replacing same, or more likely scrapping the car), the monetary cost to motorists is prohibitive. The lifespan of a well maintained petrol or diesel car is 3-5 times more than an electric car. So why not maintain and improve your existing car, rather than further negatively impact on the environment by producing lots more new electric cars over the next 15-20 years?

Cost of manufacturing, just an argument for not buying any car. Not specifically EVs.

The depreciation thus has been at worst the same and usually better than the equivalent ICE Car.

Battery degradation...



Not all EVs are the same. So making sweeping generalisation are not useful.

The average decline in energy storage is 2.3% per year. For a 150-mile EV, you’re likely to lose 17 miles of accessible range after five years.


Liquid-cooled batteries decline slower than air-cooled packs. Geotab saw that a 2015 Tesla Model S with liquid cooling had an average annual degradation rate of 2.3%, compared to an air-cooled 2015 Nissan Leaf’s rate of 4.2%.


* Electricity to power the vehicles has to come from somewhere. Do we over extend the national grid by bringing more electric vehicles onto the network, requiring regular charges? Do we wait until we have more wind and solar or wave power being generated first and what of the cost of putting same in place (money and impact on the environment from sourcing the required materials)? Do we run more cables under water to source electricity from the UK and France, where Nuclear power is a common feature and by extension, embrace a power source that we've opposed for decades due to risk is major accident etc?

Lot of information about our energy consumption and demand here...

 
The lifespan of a well maintained petrol or diesel car is 3-5 times more than an electric car.
There are far fewer moving parts on an EV and no explosions propelling them forward. Also less wear and tear on brakes.

How could the lifespan be longer on the more complex combustion engines? Nevermind 3 to 5 times longer?

Baffling.
 
... How could the lifespan be longer on the more complex combustion engines? Nevermind 3 to 5 times longer?

Baffling.

There are lots of old cars still being driven regularly today, that are 20-30 years old and run on petrol or diesel engines. You won't see the current fleet of electric cars still in day to day use in 20-30 year time, or more. Batteries will have died, too many electronics will have given up etc.
 
Cost of manufacturing, just an argument for not buying any car. Not specifically EVs.

Incorrect, sorry - lots of petrol or diesel engine cars are being produced far cheaper than electric cars. If they weren't, then the government wouldn't have to try and subsidise the electric cars to try and get people to buy them, they'd sell more if they were cheaper.

The depreciation thus has been at worst the same and usually better than the equivalent ICE Car.

ICE Car?


Battery degradation...



Not all EVs are the same. So making sweeping generalisation are not useful.

Not all petrol or diesel cars are the same either, but there is very little concern about the ability to sell them secondhand in the years to come (price is a different issue obviously). There is endless concern about the lifespan of electric cars and what secondhand market might exist for the current crop of electric cars, with potential for technology to progress or change completely, batteries to need to be replaced but be too expensive to justify replacing, electronics failing, software not being updated etc. Do a little research to check, don't just search for something to suit your own point of view :)








Lot of information about our energy consumption and demand here...

 
There are lots of old cars still being driven regularly today, that are 20-30 years old and run on petrol or diesel engines. You won't see the current fleet of electric cars still in day to day use in 20-30 year time, or more. Batteries will have died, too many electronics will have given up etc.
The electronics aren't EV specific. They are shared with their ICE counterparts so that's not an EV concern. I don't see why a Kona with 450km range couldn't be useful in 20 years time. Yet more FUD.
 
It's a tragedy some tree huggers are buying into and totally false economy. However it is suiting politicians and others in order to show they're doing something about something, but we, who know better, are being forced to buy them. Today's batteries will be seen to be so silly in a couple of years and at what cost to replace and then find out they can't be replaced with better one's as the car won't be able to take them. I genuinely feel today's buyers are going to get totally screwed and it will lose them multibles of thousands of Euro's. I make no apology for my vehement anti ev opinion and nothing seen on here would convince any half intelligent human being into buying an ev today that will have no resale value tomorrow.
 
..
Incorrect, sorry - lots of petrol or diesel engine cars are being produced far cheaper than electric cars. If they weren't, then the government wouldn't have to try and subsidise the electric cars to try and get people to buy them, they'd sell more if they were cheaper.

ICE Car?

Ice. Internal combustion engine.

The point was that it's environmentally unfriendly to replace your car instead of running the one you own into the ground.
I was saying that applies the same to an ICE as it does an EV. We weren't talking about economic cost.

If you want to change subject and talk about economic cost, the reason an EV is dearer is cost of the battery, and its new tech so the economy of scale to pay back the R&D isn't there ....yet.


Not all petrol or diesel cars are the same either, but there is very little concern about the ability to sell them secondhand in the years to come (price is a different issue obviously). There is endless concern about the lifespan of electric cars and what secondhand market might exist for the current crop of electric cars, with potential for technology to progress or change completely, batteries to need to be replaced but be too expensive to justify replacing, electronics failing, software not being updated etc. Do a little research to check, don't just search for something to suit your own point of view :)

Considering the fall in diesel sales, and the dump of used diesels from the UK to Ireland its farcical to say there in no concern about the ability to sell them in years to come.

I like the irony of someone posting FUD as a argument against links to research and studies, then saying go do some research when you've done none.

Hoovie replaced the battery in his Prius a few years back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSwUEVx5G3
Of course then after fixing it he put nitrous oxide on it and blew the piston through the block.
 
It's a tragedy some tree huggers are buying into and totally false economy. However it is suiting politicians and others in order to show they're doing something about something, but we, who know better, are being forced to buy them. Today's batteries will be seen to be so silly in a couple of years and at what cost to replace and then find out they can't be replaced with better one's as the car won't be able to take them. I genuinely feel today's buyers are going to get totally screwed and it will lose them multibles of thousands of Euro's. I make no apology for my vehement anti ev opinion and nothing seen on here would convince any half intelligent human being into buying an ev today that will have no resale value tomorrow.

Yet on another forum people were importing EVs from the UK, and selling them after a couple of years for the same price as they bought them for. Almost 0% depreciation. A fraction of the running cost etc. That was a bit of bubble.

What is killing older cars is not things like batteries. Its insurance and tax and legislation. No point running a 2007 car when you can have a 2008 one on a quarter of the tax and you can't get insurance anyway. I've always run older cars. My previous car was 19 yrs old. In the family from new, though I only had it 16 yrs. I got rid of it because apart from having no ABS and only one airbag and a marginal safety rating when new. It wasn't easily able to keep up with fast motorway traffic and it would a death trap in accident with a 2 tonne SUV.

And in a ICE car worth 500~1000 very little makes it uneconomical to repair. Bangeromics.
 
Last edited:
I'll put a few thoughts out there, seeing as you've asked:

* There is a cost to the environment in manufactory every new electric vehicle. Materials used have to come from somewhere, while there is associated polution from same. That cost needs to be recouped, before we can all start claiming they make a net positive contribution to current environmental problems caused by Diesel and Petrol cars.

There is an environmental cost to producing everything and that should be factored into cost. The question to ask in my opinion, is the life emissions of the electric vehicle more or less than the equivalent ICE? And is it the case at the same scale of production of the equivalent ICE?

EVs dont have to have a net positive impact either, a lesser negative impact would be fine too.

* Given the cost of purchasing a new electric car and the subsequent depreciation rate (keeping in mind the likely life of the battery and cost of replacing same, or more likely scrapping the car), the monetary cost to motorists is prohibitive. The lifespan of a well maintained petrol or diesel car is 3-5 times more than an electric car. So why not maintain and improve your existing car, rather than further negatively impact on the environment by producing lots more new electric cars over the next 15-20 years?

Random, fantastical statement. 3-5 times? So an ICE car lasting 30 years implies the lifespan of an EV of 6-10 years? EV batteries are normally warrantied for 5-8 years.

The existing car IS being improved! Performance, handling, environmental impact, consumables, maintenance requirements, functionality, cost of ownership (depending on type of use) all improved as a result of changing the power train traded off with the obvious negatives but still.

* Electricity to power the vehicles has to come from somewhere. Do we over extend the national grid by bringing more electric vehicles onto the network, requiring regular charges? Do we wait until we have more wind and solar or wave power being generated first and what of the cost of putting same in place (money and impact on the environment from sourcing the required materials)? Do we run more cables under water to source electricity from the UK and France, where Nuclear power is a common feature and by extension, embrace a power source that we've opposed for decades due to risk is major accident etc?

How's that, for a bit of opposition to electric cars? :)

Valid questions, though we are a net exporter of electricity through those undersea cables. Also, part of the reason for running those cables is to ensure our energy security, of which we are completely and utterly externally dependent.

I cant get over the idea that we export a significant portion of national income, in such volumes, that producers can extract (by drilling or fracking) from the earth, refine it and ship it to Ireland and then sell it for less than the cost of buying a bottle of water? Conceptually I think thats mad!

Of all energy inputs in Ireland, the losses for producing and transporting that electricity are 42%. So we actually use 58% of all electricity produced. We actually use 81% of wind,hydro and waste energy that is produced.

"Generating electricity in traditional thermal power plants using coal, peat or biomass has low efficiency. Electricity generated from wind and hydro is 100% efficient. "

 
It's a tragedy some tree huggers are buying into and totally false economy. However it is suiting politicians and others in order to show they're doing something about something, but we, who know better, are being forced to buy them. Today's batteries will be seen to be so silly in a couple of years and at what cost to replace and then find out they can't be replaced with better one's as the car won't be able to take them. I genuinely feel today's buyers are going to get totally screwed and it will lose them multibles of thousands of Euro's. I make no apology for my vehement anti ev opinion and nothing seen on here would convince any half intelligent human being into buying an ev today that will have no resale value tomorrow.
I make no apology for my vehement anti diesel opinion and nothing seen on here would convince any half intelligent human being into buying an out dated technology such as the diesel engine today that will have no resale value tomorrow.
 
There are still a lot of situations where a diesel or petrol is needed as there is no reasonable alternative.
 
There are still a lot of situations where a diesel or petrol is needed as there is no reasonable alternative.
Agreed. I was not being serious.

Disappointing that facts are being ignored. BMW sales have been hit in America as owners switch to the Tesla model 3 in large numbers. I think it's fair to say that American BMW owners could hardly be described as 'tree huggers'. So either they are 'not half intelligent human beings' or else maybe the Tesla is a decent product. And maybe that's why people on here are interested in EVs, not because they are tree huggers but because they see something that might be better to drive, can be more economical, requires less maintenance etc.

At the end of the day they are just consumer products or tools. No need to have an undying love for one or the other. Just pick whatever suits your needs best.
 
Harry's garage (ex Evo mag) one of the best car enthusiasts channels on you tube has been running an ev.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top