EV and advice from any users please!

[rockits]

I don’t buy them, but I do buy depreciation free ICE cars.

Also by when in 12 years time the govts will have a fancy new narrative to punt and champion

 

[dickygrace]

Also by when in 12 years time the govts will have a fancy new narrative to punt and champion

Absolutely. I do think a lot of the EV introduction is simply as ICE cars got so good post 1990 that we don’t ‘need’ new ones.

 

[montravia]

Not a climate change denier, but I do see through the stuff we are told is good for the climate. From what I understand the best things you can do for the climate are not to fly, reproduce or eat meat. Making electric cars simply isn’t good for the climate as manufacturing emissions take 12 years give or take to even out.

Well, I'm not selling the PA28-161,Dicky, not until I mess up a few cross wind landings. One of the few pleasures left that keep the synapses exercised.

 

[Tallman]

Not a climate change denier, but I do see through the stuff we are told is good for the climate. From what I understand the best things you can do for the climate are not to fly, reproduce or eat meat. Making electric cars simply isn’t good for the climate as manufacturing emissions take 12 years give or take to even out.

I actually did the calculation myself as there is so much bad info around and so many comparisons that don’t take into account all costs so apples are not compared to apples. Even then it is surprisingly difficult. It is unquestionably true that in nearly all cases EV’s are better for the environment over their life time in comparison with ICE’s. This includes the environmental cost of manufacture as well as use. The only exception is when the electricity generation is predominantly (80%+) by coal. There are very few countries where this is the case - those where this is the case are unfortunately developing countries who don’t have the means to build new power plants (or where for example there are strong vested interests and thus corruption). South Africa is one such example which is sad given the propensity for solar there. As we wean ourselves off fossil fuels for the generation of electricity, the environmental benefit of EV’s obviously increases.

The designers/manufacturers of EV’s do take manufacture into account. The i3 for example is built in a factory which uses 25% wind energy. The carbon used for the body shell is mined in Washington as the electricity there comes mostly from hydro. They used a lot of tech to get weight savings to make up for the weight of the battery (and hence not to take away from the fossil fuel savings). The internal door panels / dashboard are made with hemp for easy recycling. A lot of thought has gone into this by business, it is not just governments coming up with iffy rules and policies. It does not mean we should not be sceptical, but I do feel if you are sceptical you need to back it up with fact, I.e. do your research, otherwise it is just hearsay of hearsay and thus mostly fake news.

 

[dickygrace]

I actually did the calculation myself as there is so much bad info around and so many comparisons that don’t take into account all costs so apples are not compared to apples. Even then it surprisingly difficult. It is unquestionably true that in nearly all cases EV’s are better for the environment over their life time in comparison with ICE’s. This includes the environmental cost of manufacture as well as use. The only exception is when the electricity generation is predominantly (80%+) by coal. There are very few countries where this is the case - those where this is the case are unfortunately developing countries who don’t have the means to build new power plants (or where for example there are strong vested interests and thus corruption). South Africa is one such example which is sad given the propensity for solar there. As we wean ourselves off fossil fuels for the generation of electricity, the environmental benefit of EV’s obviously increases.

The designers/manufacturers of EV’s do take manufacture into account. The i3 for example is built in a factory which uses 25% wind energy. The carbon used for the body shell is mined in Washington as the electricity there comes mostly from hydro. They used a lot of tech to get weight savings to make up for the weight of the battery (and hence not to take away from the fossil fuel savings). The internal door panels / dashboard are made with hemp for easy recycling. A lot of thought has gone into this by business, it is not just governments coming up with iffy rules and policies. It does not mean we should not be sceptical, but I do feel if you are sceptical you need to back it up with fact, I.e. do your research, otherwise it is just hearsay of hearsay and this mostly fake news.

And you live in SA, point made

 

[Tallman]

Some more summarised info that is quite illuminating on the subject:

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

 

[dickygrace]

Made up statistics as the ‘lifecycle’ of EV’s is unknown. I reckon most will be scrapped before they’re 10 years old. And there’s no mention of children mining Lithium and Cobalt.

 

[rockits]

Absolutely. I do think a lot of the EV introduction is simply as ICE cars got so good post 1990 that we don’t ‘need’ new ones.

Indeed. Modern ICE cars are pretty good now in the main. Pretty efficient, safe, clean, good to drive and all round decent. Also pretty long lasting with decent maintenance. I've never cared about age, mileage or the number plate but I guess money concern themselves too much about this needlessly IMHO.

You feel the tech laden bias of all new EV's is just readying big tech and.govts to be able to introduce a raft of monitoring or management directives. Easy to introduce road pricing and main other measures.

The MG ZS EV we got before the revised model came out is one of the few EV's with no app or transmitter in the car meaning it can't be so easily be monitored. A Tesla as an example is an easy car to monitor, track and obtain any metric/data required. I'd be very surprised if it isn't already happening with or without the owners knowledge or consent/agreement.

 

[Tallman]

And you live in SA, point made

Yes Dicky , however my i3 still has less emissions on the whole than the car I replaced it with. just not as much as I hoped for…now I do have solar panels and batteries myself so that of course changes the calculation and is specific to my personal situation.

 

[dickygrace]

Yes Dicky , however my i3 still has less emissions on the whole than the car I replaced it with. just not as much as I hoped for…now I do have solar panels and batteries myself so that of course changes the calculation and is specific to my personal situation.

Do you abstain from your country’s amazing steaks? And have no children? If not, it’s a drop in the ocean to drive an EV.

 

[Tallman]

Made up statistics as the ‘lifecycle’ of EV’s is unknown. I reckon most will be scrapped before they’re 10 years old. And there’s no mention of children mining Lithium and Cobalt.

You are a bit of a cynic aren’t you:

320,000 km so far on this i3, that is a bit more factual than “I reckon”. The children issue - do please give the facts on this as well from a reliable source, fair is fair right? I’m sure coal mines aren’t as friendly either.

 

[Tallman]

Do you abstain from your country’s amazing steaks? And have no children? If not, it’s a drop in the ocean to drive an EV.

No, I’m not a saint and it would be a mistake to think or demand that anyone trying to do their bit for the environment would or should be one. You do what you can when you can unless you think it is not important at all. FYI the ocean is many drops put together

 

[rockits]

The simple problem is we don't know and cannot accurately work out or predict comparisons in lifecycle costs/benefits between anything really.
It is best guess finger in the air often. That can often be catastrophically wrong. Time will always tell but it is too late then of course.

When you have large manufacturers and govts creating stats my majority rule is often to take them with a pinch of salt as time has proven they cannot be trusted and lie. So I have to distrust the narrative often as it generally isn't for the great good or the masses. It is often skewed by greed, money, power and politics. So the reality is often so so different.

A 2.5t BEV will wear tyres quicker maybe suspension too also various other aspects that aren't taken into considering. However, brakes wil often wear less on a BEV.
What is the cost of other indirect metrics like emergency services when they have to deal with EV fires and greater cost in time/resources?

I guess none of this is easy and complex to work out with so many moving variables. So I don't see how reasonably accurate predictions or conclusions can be made in reality.

You'd think to convert old ICE cars to EV's could make more sense. However that wouldn't totally fit many of the required narratives!

 

[dickygrace]

You are a bit of a cynic aren’t you:

320,000 km so far on this i3, that is a bit more factual than “I reckon”. The children issue - do please give the facts on this as well from a reliable source, fair is fair right? I’m sure coal mines aren’t as friendly either.
View attachment 100893

I am a cynic yes, I would never deny that. I will always be cynical about things that make no sense. EV’s are marketed as being good for the environment, I don’t believe they are. They may be better than ICE cars, only time will tell, but they are not ‘good’ for the environment. People who buy them usually do so from a cost perspective, or a tax saving. And then go and have a steak for dinner with their 3 kids. Hypocrisy of the highest order. If folk just admitted they bought if for financial reasons I’d be fine with it.

 

[rockits]

Would be useful if govts told the truth and were genuinely trying to collectively find the best solutions to many issues. Dare say that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

 

[Tallman]

I am a cynic yes, I would never deny that. I will always be cynical about things that make no sense. EV’s are marketed as being good for the environment, I don’t believe they are. They may be better than ICE cars, only time will tell, but they are not ‘good’ for the environment. People who buy them usually do so from a cost perspective, or a tax saving. And then go and have a steak for dinner with their 3 kids. Hypocrisy of the highest order. If folk just admitted they bought if for financial reasons I’d be fine with it.

This is a good discussion to have, I think it is important that we are all properly informed so that we can make choices that make sense (or go into them at least knowing what the consequences are). There is too much misinformation out there with hidden or even not so hidden agendas.

We can’t go from “bad” to “good” in one step, we first need to be “better”. It’s a process like any other. I don’t think it is fair to label people wanting to be “better” to be hypocrites and certainly not of the highest order just because they aren’t 100% “good”. I’ll stick to my case as I know my own motivations. It’s a mixed bag, isn’t it. We give to charity but we still do things that may go against the pure ethics of that charity. There is no direct personal economic in giving to charity, but we still do it. Motivations can be financial but also feeling better about doing something. I understand some people are mostly motivated by financial motives, that’s why financial incentives exist - but I refuse to believe there are many that are ONLY motivated by financial reasons. But each to their own in the end. Thanks for sparring

 

[rockits]

Seems to make sense to me to keep reasonably open minded about stuff. Which is something I have been doing the last couple of years.

I've become much more tolerant and understanding also much less tolerant and understanding all at the same time. Seems odd but does work.
Stuff/people I've understood more, learned more about I've become more tolerant and open minded to. Also people that are nice, decent and honest I have a lot of time for.
In opposition people I find horrible, closed minded, selfish and lie I have become way less tolerant of and have less than zero time for.

Any steps we can make forward are all great of course and I'm all for. Similarly if people want to do the reverse then no problem but there should be a cost or price to pay/bear.

I start to have issues when people receive benefits for the reverse. The same issues I have with much of today rewarding poor performance. It doesn't work.

Just be honest, mindful others and have open minds and we can all have great discussion without fear of alienation or stuffing free speech. One size doesn't fit all which is fine in my book but peopl can't expect or demand others do the same as you just because you think it is right. We are all different and have different thoughts.

I just despise govts telling us what to do when it isn't always the right thing. Would I ever back Boris or others similar in anything? No.
Not until they are honest and truthful will I be able to even think about trusting their suggestions.

 

[CatmanV2]

Some more summarised info that is quite illuminating on the subject:

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

View attachment 100892

I think the challenge that I still can't get my head around is that this is fine if you have no car and you are deciding to build a new ICE or EV car. Clearly build an EV.

But what if you already have an ICE car. If I go and buy a new EV I'm adding the build and end of life cost to an equation where that may already be 'paid' as it were

C

 

[rockits]

I think the challenge that I still can't get my head around is that this is fine if you have no car and you are deciding to build a new ICE or EV car. Clearly build an EV.

But what if you already have an ICE car. If I go and buy a new EV I'm adding the build and end of life cost to an equation where that may already be 'paid' as it were

C

Yup, totally agree with that. I don't think you can bin the existing ICE assets so quick to replace with EV. As you say when buying new it makes a lot of sense to buy EV in many cases. It would much easier for some if the price premium wasn't so high. If they could narrow it or equalise it then for most it would be a no brainer. For most to do a massive mind shift and often pay a substantial upfront premium to do so is rightly putting them off.

Actually it might work out better this way to stagger the migration to EV over several years to allow the govts and businesses to get the charging infrastructure/tech to where it needs to be. When some people can't even get home chargers due to network capacity issues then making EV's cheaper or better doesn't solve that issue.

My fear is the electric prices go up and any benefits over time are eroded. This shouldn't be the case of course as prices should go down as tech innovation and advances are found. Time will reveal all.

 

[Wack61]

Some more summarised info that is quite illuminating on the subject:

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths

View attachment 100892

Are there any EVs with an actual real world range of 300 miles

Not 300 miles on paper , 300 miles in February with lights ,heater and wipers on and stop start traffic , you know , like it is in the real world.